# Production Boats and the Limits



## smackdaddy

We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing. Furthermore, in my blissful ignorance, I'd say that quite a few sailors inhabit this aether plain.

Sure you can buy a Hinckley or a Brewer or a Tayana or Cheoy Lee and take them wherever the hell you wanna. But where exactly can you take a Catalina, a Hunter, an Irwin, a Beneteau, a Jenneau, even.....yes....even.....a MacGregor (dum-dum-duuuuum).

Do you make sure you never leave sight of land in these boats? Do you keep land 50 miles away? 100 miles? Do you run from a 40 knot squall? Do you live in morbid fear of encountering a freak 50 knot storm - where you're cool with it in an S&S design from 1927? Can you "outrun" such storms in these "new fangled keel" boats - where in a full-keel Formasa you just heave to and ride it out with a Dark-n-Stormy and a tiparillo in your hand?

Giu had a good write up comparing Beneteaus/Catalinas/Hunters from a "sailability" standpoint. And CD has had some great input regarding the capabilities of various production boats. And we've seen the exhaustive list of blue water boats with great input from Cam and Jeff_H.

Furthermore, Val and others have pointed out the critical elements in any heavy weather situation is actually the skipper and crew. And this makes a heap of sense too.

So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?


----------



## sailingdog

Smackdaddy—

You can take any boat hundreds of miles from land, given the right weather conditions. Most storms move fast enough that unless you have sufficient warning, out running them isn't a real possibility. 

Most boats, even production ones, are tougher than the deck monkeys crewing on them. Older, heavier, more seakindly designs are going to be easier on the deck monkeys than some of the newer, beamier designs. 

As for what is the best production boat... it depends... What are you planning on using the boat for, and where?


----------



## wescarroll

Take a good look at what the sailing purists call an offshore capable boat, then look at any modern catamaran or tri. I think you make an excellent point, many production costal sailors are much more capable than the sailors sailing them, regardless as to how far off shore they are. That said, many of those so called production costal cruisers have no business being away from the dock, let alone off shore,imho,


----------



## artbyjody

That is a post to open up a smack of worms...

I'd venture to say it not so much the boat in a majority of the cases, it is the experience of the crew that handles going through it.

I know you read up on SA and the Volvo Races etc - serious fricking money on supposedly fast - ocean rated vessels. Look at the carnage they experience. One could argue that well - they are race boats but the crew onboard are 10X more experienced than the casual off-shore sailor. The combo is killer and they purposely go the margin...

It has been annotated time and time again - its not actually the boat in most cases it is the preparedness of the crew, and knowing when to back down. Your C-27 actually can make it across the gulf with no issue - as long as you pay attention to the weather windows etc. When snuff blows up behind you - its the crew / skipper - knowing what the behavior of your boat is and how she should be handled.

No such thing as a boat rated for the X versions of what mother nature throws out. When you have a scenario they waves and wind conditions promote scenarios where the wave height factor alone is 4 times your waterline length..it becomes a man over mother nature as that is all you can do..

I know you are kinda asking as you are looking to upgrade. There is no real formula to it - the only two constants are:

1: How well do you know the boat (not just handling either, where is everything, how much can she pump out if breaking waves etc.)

2: Your perseverance. A good majority of lost boats in distressful scenarios is the giving up aspect. 

Sure some boats don't add up but you'll know because they are not worth sailing in 20 kt wind conditions before you set the first triple reef... all the rest - well.... you'll come to your conclusions


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah Jody - the whole "can of worms" thing? Kind of my schtick. But I do think it's a good discussion. Great perspective by the way...oh, and you nailed me on the motivation BTW!

Wes - you got the point...it's really riffing off the "purist" ideal. We've talked a ton about that. But, seriously, who's a purist? I'll wager most sailors are not. They're in the middle trying to figure out where that edge is. And I'm sure there's a wealth of experience on this forum of those that have been there in a production boat.

Dog, I get your point...but rate boats, dude. That's the game.


----------



## CrazyRu

My boat, Freedom 28 is certainly “production”, however is not as mass production, as others, mentioned here.
They have proven offshore record, and I, with my limited experience, feel quite confident that boat can take more than I can so far. However, my boat designed with long travel in mind. On another side yearly Freedom 32, which have all attributes of modern boat – fin keel, spade rudder, fun to sail, big interior, did quite a few long, cross ocean trips.
There was Catalina 27 which went around a globe, staying south of Africa. I run across an article somewhere on internet where owner described all modifications he did to the boat. List was extensive, however all things were typical – adding handholds, reinforcing here and there, etc…


----------



## OsmundL

smackdaddy said:


> We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing. Furthermore, in my blissful ignorance, I'd say that quite a few sailors inhabit this aether plain.


SM, I like  
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the vast majority of wreckages and carnage happen on the coast - not even _along_ the coast but virtually _on_ it. The boat may have played a part, but I doubt that "blue water" was the deciding factor. Crew, maybe? Maintenance, maybe? Alcohol?

The statistic that makes me smile is from this year's Vendée Globe; folks sailing single-handed around the world at infernal speeds. Some 32 skippers started, 11 finished. Along the route one found them capsized, hauled into remote islands for safety or repair, rudderless, keel-less, demasted, and with torn sails. What joy it must be!
Vendée Globe Ranking

I mention it only because it is often said that racing - as in "motor racing" - advances technology for ordinary cars. I don't see many trends in these ocean races advancing the game for the rest of us. In areas perhaps, such as electronics, but as a general direction?

This is a little sad because meanwhile, the original field of blue water _cruising_ has been left behind. There has been so little development that you can fully understand the "old school" swearing by the old shoes - it isn't as if newer boats have made a great advance on blue water.

In fact, it is the "coastal" cruiser that has taken the greater strides: roomier, much more reliable both structurally and in equipment; easier to handle, more nimble to maneuver. It is not surprising that some want to bring those advantages with them and travel further afield - and to be honest, it works most of the time, doesn't it?


----------



## Valiente

^ ^ ^

Good points. The fact is that very few people do blue water sailing...it's the equivalent of crossing the Sahara on motorbike. Most (and I mean 95-99% of all recreational sailors) do coastal, and a lot of them do daysails or gunkholing. It's no wonder I bought a custom steel boat: when there's no market for ANY "bluewater capable boat", the arguments about full keels, skegs and Solent rigs becomes largely academic.

There is no upside in creating oceanic boats for daysailers, because they will inevitably be heavier (because of necessary tankage), narrower (because of outboard stowage areas and the need to have handholds within arms' reach), and will have fewer or more conservative amenities (due to repair issues, energy draws, etc.). You can make any production cruiser into a both with these attributes, but at the risk of loading it down and still having the wrong hull.

It's no wonder people are still buying 1970s plastic cruisers, Island Packets and other "old shoes", because there are very few "new shoes" that can meet that "falling off a 25 foot wave without snapping a bulkhead or killing the crew" requirement. Nor are there cruisers who expect a regular diet of that sort of weather.

Look through the pages of National Geographic and Ocean Navigator and see what the high-latitude, truly "independent of the shore" boats look like. They have different shapes, skegs, workshops, padeyes, unfashionably high lifelines or pipes, welded or through-bolted lash-down points, massive arches holding mounted reels of stern anchor rode, and down in the boat, massive tanks cross-connected with manual pumps.

None of which your average Beneteau owner wants, needs or frankly, would understand or recognize, because they are never more than a hundred miles from a marina or a SAR service.

Which is fine.

So, unless you can buy one of the semi-custom production boats that are inherently this way, like a Shannon, some Moodys, the Swans, etc., I would say that there is NO current production boat that meets bluewater capable requirements. Not among the advertisers in the sailing magazine, anyway!

That should rile a few folks...

Having said that, the closest bets probably come from small yards in South Africa and New Zealand and even in France and Germany (although not as much as even 15 years ago), where "local conditions" are frequently so rough that the boats there have to be built to resist them in a fashion not necessary in North America.


----------



## danielgoldberg

OsmundL said:


> SM, I like
> I don't see many trends in these ocean races advancing the game for the rest of us. In areas perhaps, such as electronics, but as a general direction?


I don't think this is right. Roller furling and self steering certainly have made great strides, and these offshore races have had a large impact on that.

Likewise, I think hull shape has been impacted as well. I know you were talking about so-called "blue water," and not coastal, and arguably the changes in hull shape have impacted production boats more directly. But that said, far far more sailors sail coastal than blue water, and modern production boats are starting to look a lot like the Vendee Globe boats, or at least a lot more like them than they are more traditional and older designs.

I suspect building materials and methods have been impacted too, but I don't really have specific knowledge on that.

And Smacky, if you're planning on sailing the coasts, I think any of the recent vintage production boats will do ya. Having had both, I think a big difference between the two "types" (mass produced and more limited production/semi-custom) are how they are outfitted coming from the factory. Mass produced boats are not as well equipped coming from the dealer, and I don't mean just in terms of goodies. Handholds, extra tankage, serious equipment, better materials on ancillary items, and stuff like that. But as you've noted, plenty of mass produced boats have gone far afield. But even aside from trans-oceanics, many many of these boats have cruised the Bahamas and gone to Bermuda and back. Tons of them actually. If that's your expected use or something comparable, they're fine (properly equipped and maintained of course).


----------



## OsmundL

danielgoldberg said:


> I don't think this is right. Roller furling and self steering certainly have made great strides, and these offshore races have had a large impact on that.
> 
> Likewise, I think hull shape has been impacted as well.


You are right, of course, I should have been more specific. Almost every technical aspect of sailing has improved and often through testing in offshore racing. The new rigs with Spectra and Dyneema, rope shackles, the list is near endless. Sail materials are unrecognizable from 30 years ago.

Still, what I had in mind was primarily boat shape, and perhaps sail systems. The Open 60 shape is efficient and has influenced coastal sailing - but not many choose it for comfort on blue water. I am sure some ocean sailors would also like to see more of the good ol' ketch sails, with small manageable sails and quite efficient - but not for racing. And if you're looking at the real hot rods, the record-beating trimarans, they rely so much on size that if you and I bought one each, we'd pretty much congest New York Harbour. We'd spend most of our time there, because storage is so scarce that we'd be running ashore every day to buy coffee and sugar


----------



## NCC320

Bluewater boats...always, heavy, narrow, with handholds everywhere. Handholds everywhere...really? So let's look at some really nice boats, some of the "flagships" shown in the magazines....not some little dinky 30-40 footer.
Maybe 70 ft ...the interiors never show handholds...on most you can't reach the overhead. These are not blue water boats?


----------



## OsmundL

NCC320 said:


> Bluewater boats...always, heavy, narrow, with handholds everywhere. Handholds everywhere...really? So let's look at some really nice boats, some of the "flagships" shown in the magazines....not some little dinky 30-40 footer.
> Maybe 70 ft ...the interiors never show handholds...on most you can't reach the overhead. These are not blue water boats?


Believe it or not, mate - they are *not! *
Or, they are not, until they have the necessary grips fitted. I checked out a few and rejected them when it was obvious that I'd be thrown from wall to wall.
A friend of mine did better: at the boat show, he asked about the strength of the table base; he made sure to ask again, to really commit the salesmen, then "ooops!" he pretended that a violent sea sent him flying, and the table ended up in the corner. After that, the salesman was more timid about his claims.


----------



## NCC320

So how about one a little bigger...may be 100 ft? The boat is wider, overhead higher, and nothing to hang on to. (Personally, I would like something to hang onto, but what I'm trying to point out is that sometimes our general concept of what is a bluewater boat is a bit limited. Surely, these multimillion dollar boats are more than coastal boats.


----------



## OsmundL

NCC320 said:


> So how about one a little bigger...may be 100 ft? The boat is wider, overhead higher, and nothing to hang on to. (Personally, I would like something to hang onto, but what I'm trying to point out is that sometimes our general concept of what is a bluewater boat is a bit limited. Surely, these multimillion dollar boats are more than coastal boats.


Yes, I know what you're driving at; one can be too bombastic. Still, even 100 ft is nothing in a real ocean, you will not be taking leisurely strolls about without holding something - and that is before a real storm arrives. I almost broke a guy's knee last year, being stupid: he was sitting on the step to the cockpit and instead of asking him to move I thought I could sneak past. A freak wave bounced me on top of him - I still recall his screams. The wind might have been, well, just beyond a strong breeze?

Somewhere, there is a video online of a tourist ship, many hundred tons, hundreds of passengers, caught in bad weather along the coast. The bar is smashed, the lounges are cleared and all passengers are sent to their cabins because they cannot keep still in the open areas. Crew are leaping from the one fixed point to the next.

I think you'll find that the multimillion dollar yachts you mention are in fact crewed from one cruise area to the next, with the actual owners rarely boarding except when in port or cruising in nice, smooth waters.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so we've seemingly settled back into the "blue water" debate...hull design, hand holds, spade rudders, hoping for a "freak" wave to "throw" you onto a nice looking crew wench, having to throw down $7.5M for a 100' yacht at a boat show because you broke the table pretending to be in a storm....that kind of thing.

But the focus here is the question of how far would you guys push a production boat - and which of those will handle it well. For example, Daniel mentions that scads of sailors take production boats down to Bermuda/Bahamas/etc.

So maybe another way to frame this question is...where does "blue water" start? Is it 10 miles off shore? 100 miles? Is it being farther than a half-day sail from land? What if your route requires a 4+ day passage in open water? And which production boats start falling out of favor as these numbers go up?

Daniel - how far would you push your Bene? What's the edge for you? Os?

(PS - Os, what do you sail? I can't tell from the pic. BTW - sweet avatar dude. Looks like Kermit has just spotted a waterfall.)


----------



## OsmundL

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so we've seemingly settled back into the "blue water" debate...
> Daniel - how far would you push your Bene? What's the edge for you? Os?
> 
> (PS - Os, what do you sail? I can't tell from the pic. BTW - sweet avatar dude. Looks like Kermit has just spotted a waterfall.)


Apologies, Smack! I am on the same tack as you; production boats can be stretched. It was just the handholds that got me, not the narrow boat etc.

Uhmmm, my boat.. can't you see from the avatar it is a 3x3 raft?
I am a little embarassed to say otherwise, especially after the debate above.


----------



## danielgoldberg

smackdaddy said:


> Daniel - how far would you push your Bene? What's the edge for you?


I'll answer it this way, and I'm not sure what else to say. Our intended use for the boat is: (1) mostly coastal cruising/weekending/summer vacations; (2) limited racing; (3) cruising the Bahamas and similar at some point (possibly the Carib); and (4) trips to Bermuda every few years with our rally.

If I did not believe it could handle that billet, we would not have bought the boat. Now, whether it will ACTUALLY handle that billet is yet to be determined. 

Also, note that a friend, Franc Carreras of SeaKnots, has a 2008 Beneteau 43. He sailed it from NY to Florida in January (that's right, JANUARY!), then over to the Bahamas, through the chain, down to the Caribbean, and he's hooking up with ARC Europe to do a trans-Atlantic to Spain. He has done just about the entirety of the trip from Florida with only he and his wife as crew. He hasn't made it across the Atlantic yet, but he certainly made it down the Thorny Path to the Caribbean, and the boat's still floating. Note also that usually the single largest brand to participate in the ARC (Atlantic Rally for Cruisers) is Beneteau. Not that many Hunters or Catalinas, but I suspect that's mostly becaue the ARC starts in Europe and comes to the Carib, and there just are not as many Hunters/Catalinas in Europe as there are on this side of the Pond. I raise this not to "brag" about Beneteaus or anything like that, but to show that the boats can do more than what most people will ask of them.

In sum, if you are like 95% of the sailors out there, the production boats will handle what you plan to do, IMHO. That's not to say they are for everyone. There certainly are nicer boats out there, that have more character, different sailing qualities, better build construction, better at weathering long-term use and abuse, and the list goes on and on. But your question is how far can you push a production boat, and I believe the answer is: A fair bit farther than the actual use 95% of the sailors will put them to.

If you are looking to buy one, you like it, it's in your price range, and it's in good shape, then buy it. On the flip side, if you just can't get past having to tell people you have a BeneHuntaLina, then don't buy it. This activity is for fun, and if you find that you need to apologize for what you sail, then it's a whole lot less fun, and you should sail a different boat. No point in spending a ton of money on a toy that for which you feel you need to apologize right from the start.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now THAT'S a good summation! Thanks Daniel! And I totally agree on the whole "apologizing for your boat" thing. It's a crock. This is one of the main reasons I'm exploring this question. Personally, I like the production boats. And I think they've been maligned beyond what really makes sense. Sure, there's a level of truth in the criticism - but it's not an all-or-nothing debate. 

Me? There's no way in hell I'd follow Childress' lead and take my C27 around the world. No freakin' way. I don't think I'd feel too comfortable taking it beyond a day's sail out to be honest (it's age notwithstanding, but just its size and configuration). But I'm not too interested either in buying a full-keel tank and continually putting up with slow, cumbersome sailing for that very small chance of getting caught in a nasty storm*. All that for being able to simply say I have a "blue water boat"? No thanks.

I appreciate you taking the time to expound a bit. It's definitely helpful.

So - with the feedback from Daniel and Giu - the Benes seem to be the leading contender in the production boat smackdown. Fast and tough and reliable enough for hops across the pond. That's sayin' something.

Any Irwin/Hunter/Catalina/O'Day/etc. owners out there with similar viewpoints?

(*Disclaimer - this is the opinion of a loud-mouthed newbie that has only sailed 3 boats in his celebrated 10 month sailing career on a lake, Catalina, Hunter and O'day. So this is all purely based on what said sailor has read and heard from other sailors. At the same time, said sailor is fully confident in his capabilities as a sailor to sink ANY boat out there - blue water or no.)


----------



## OsmundL

smackdaddy said:


> Now THAT'S a good summation! Thanks Daniel! And I totally agree on the whole "apologizing for your boat" thing.


Smack, I saw this and wondered if "apologise" was a misinterpretation of my "embarassed to say" - so just in case: after arguing how well almost any boat could do, I wasn't going to fezz up and admit that mine is "blue water", only three years old and hardly inexpensive. That was what I was shy about, in case someone thought rambling about handholds was snobbery  

So OK, mine is an Ovni 395, with a lot of go-anywhere gear. Also, I go anywhere, have lived in it for a year traveling around (not just now), will cross north past the Polar Circle this summer, then straight south through Europe, and hopefully around New Year my address should be the Americas. The longest/furthest I have been without dropping anchor so far is 10 days at sea. It is not a snobbish boat, but much thought went into safety, self-sufficiency and such. There is a distant photo in my profile.
And, to be sure, it wouldn't worry me to try in a much less dedicated boat. In any case, Smackdaddy, I am as capable as you at sinking any boat, anywhere - guaranteed.


----------



## Cruisingdad

The bene is no better than a Catalina - the Catalina no better than the Bene. I think there are some models of both that are distasteful. I like the older Catalinas and Benes better than some of the new ones - but that is just my personal opinion. But for anyone that has not seen some pics of Dan's boat... you cannot tell me that is not a sweet ride (even without the BBQ's). Why wouldn't you take that boat anywhere within reason?? Same can be said of many/most production boats over 38 feet or so. I would feel comfortable taking my boat to most distant locations... but again I have been making and have made many modifications. From solar panels and arch to revamped electricl system, and many other changes, this ain't your typical out of the box C400!










That being said, you can take most production boats anywhere. I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, but it would take more seamanship and more luck than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills, you can start making changes to the boat like better portholes, handholds, lifelines, tankage, cabinets, tankage, cabinets for storage, positive latching floorboards, tankage, tabbed bulkheads or reinforced bulkheads, cabinets, etc (and not to forget to add tankage). By the time you have made all these changes, it might have been cheaper to just buy a traditional bluewater boat! Maybe not. But there are also many positives of production boats... cost not necessarily one of them.

However, if I was certain of making far destinations beyond a 5 day weather window, I really would start looking at boats outside of the typical production line. I personally draw the line at 5 days because beyond that, it is very difficult (if not alltogether impossible) to guess the weather. At 5 days, you also start really pushing into the tankage limit on most production boats without modification (again, my personal limit WITHOUT modification). But I stress that unless you are certain to make those jumps, I probably would not do it. I would buy the boat that is comfortable on the hook (as a live aboard) first and foremost. That is where 99% of your time is spent.

I believe that most production boats of a reasonable size will, with some amount of luck and good seamanship, go to distant ports. The questin typically is not whether the boat can get you there, it is whether the captain can. It is hard to appreciate this statement until you have weathered your first good blow beyond the reach of a VHF and you really are on your own.

- CD


----------



## artbyjody

It is more than just can it make there and back - although it should be the overall deciding factor.

You also have to consider the fact you'll actually be living on it for some extended period of time (most of the time). Finding the perfect blend for you will not be easy...Kinda like RVs and SUVs. Some have the looks, the capability, and livability (function as for example = when not sailing)...Storage and how you'll use it and what you have to compensate for coupled with lifestyle habits.


Bigger is not always better it is how space is used and how functional it is.
Seaworthiness is defined by understanding the worst qualities of what you sail and adjusting thereof.
Popularity of a item is determined by either fad or it works as advertised and to the customers expectations.
Bennies are actually nice boats, have helmed one and the amenities are nice and for coastal cruising I could see myself owning one. First appearances can be deceiving however. Sometimes simplicity is the order of the day, but when you are distant from a dealer, yard etc, you do have to think about what it is you are capable of handling on your own when the crap hits the fan.

Been many discussions like this on Sailnet over the years - in my reading of it all - it is up to the individual to determine if a production boat brand lives up to it - everyone's sailing style and habits are different. There is no one all answer - and like all these threads of related topics - really determined on the combination of concerns I listed above.

Personally, I went for a European designed boat - as it mimicked alot of features I have with an Airstream. But, that decision was made due to my selective process and certainly wouldn't work for many others. Production boats have the semblance of customer confidence that when it goes wrong you have someone to call. Once you are out 100 miles out or outside the United States - the rules change quick...


----------



## Cruisingdad

By the way, even on the production lines over 38 feet, if I did not have good access to major systems, could not easily examine things like Tie Rods/chain plates, could not add various tankage/cabinets without it looking "odd", did not have a good sea berth or the potential of one, and did not have a decent Lazarette, I would not include it in this category. There are just flat some sow's ears that can never be a silk purse... even with my imagination. I also believe a nice Nav Station should be added into this category, but this is more personal preference.

- CD


----------



## smackdaddy

OsmundL said:


> Smack, I saw this and wondered if "apologise" was a misinterpretation of my "embarassed to say" - so just in case: after arguing how well almost any boat could do, I wasn't going to fezz up and admit that mine is "blue water", only three years old and hardly inexpensive. That was what I was shy about, in case someone thought rambling about handholds was snobbery
> 
> So OK, mine is an Ovni 395, with a lot of go-anywhere gear. Also, I go anywhere, have lived in it for a year traveling around (not just now), will cross north past the Polar Circle this summer, then straight south through Europe, and hopefully around New Year my address should be the Americas. The longest/furthest I have been without dropping anchor so far is 10 days at sea. It is not a snobbish boat, but much thought went into safety, self-sufficiency and such. There is a distant photo in my profile.
> And, to be sure, it wouldn't worry me to try in a much less dedicated boat. In any case, Smackdaddy, I am as capable as you at sinking any boat, anywhere - guaranteed.


Os - you are the MAN! No I wasn't referring to your post about the "boat apologizing" - Daniel mentioned it in his post regarding people that have production boats perhaps being apologists that they are not "blue water". And I don't think that needs to be the case.

Actually, I now appreciate the fact that even though you have an SFB (Sweet Freakin' Boat) - you're still cool with the production boats. You're hardly snobbish, dude.

And MAN you sound like you are having a blast and seeing some beautiful places! BTW, I'll buy you the first beer when hit the Americas - and even epoxy some handholds on the pint glass if you need 'em.

Cheers!


----------



## smackdaddy

Cruisingdad said:


> The bene is no better than a Catalina - the Catalina no better than the Bene. I think there are some models of both that are distasteful. I like the older Catalinas and Benes better than some of the new ones - but that is just my personal opinion. But for anyone that has not seen some pics of Dan's boat... you cannot tell me that is not a sweet ride (even without the BBQ's). Why wouldn't you take that boat anywhere within reason?? Same can be said of many/most production boats over 38 feet or so. I would feel comfortable taking my boat to most distant locations... but again I have been making and have made many modifications. From solar panels and arch to revamped electricl system, and many other changes, this ain't your typical out of the box C400!
> 
> That being said, you can take most production boats anywhere. I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, but it would take more seamanship and more luck than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills, you can start making changes to the boat like better portholes, handholds, lifelines, tankage, cabinets, tankage, cabinets for storage, positive latching floorboards, tankage, tabbed bulkheads or reinforced bulkheads, cabinets, etc (and not to forget to add tankage). By the time you have made all these changes, it might have been cheaper to just buy a traditional bluewater boat! Maybe not. But there are also many positives of production boats... cost not necessarily one of them.
> 
> However, if I was certain of making far destinations beyond a 5 day weather window, I really would start looking at boats outside of the typical production line. I personally draw the line at 5 days because beyond that, it is very difficult (if not alltogether impossible) to guess the weather. At 5 days, you also start really pushing into the tankage limit on most production boats without modification (again, my personal limit WITHOUT modification). But I stress that unless you are certain to make those jumps, I probably would not do it. I would buy the boat that is comfortable on the hook (as a live aboard) first and foremost. That is where 99% of your time is spent.
> 
> I believe that most production boats of a reasonable size will, with some amount of luck and good seamanship, go to distant ports. The questin typically is not whether the boat can get you there, it is whether the captain can. It is hard to appreciate this statement until you have weathered your first good blow beyond the reach of a VHF and you really are on your own.
> 
> - CD


CD - awesome post. This is good stuff. Here are some of the interesting take-aways:

1. Though I know you didn't mean it as such - I think a feeder of the production/blue debate is this statement/perception:

"I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, *but it would take more seamanship and more luck* than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. *In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills*, you can start making changes to the boat..."

This is really an interesting paradox, one that possibly drives a lot of people to buy a blu - then perhaps be too relaxed about the weather and seamanship - i.e. - "the boat can handle it". It makes you wonder. Does perceived fragility increase skill/attention? Does perceived strength decrease them?

2. The 5 day window is a great rule of thumb as far as I'm concerned. I'd not thought about it in those terms. I was thinking more distance - which is wrong. It's about the weather...always.

3. The realistic limitations of tankage is another important consideration - and one I'm just beginning to understand since I mostly pee off the stern into the lake.

4. Finally, I've always agreed with your 99% on-the-hook maxim, although you might get some blowback on that one due to your notorious (and I'm sure errant) reputation as a dock-dweller.

So - the Benes and Catalinas seem well-suited to pushing the blue edge a bit with what we'll call "minor" modification. Yes?

Other productions that have hammered away successfully?


----------



## smackdaddy

artbyjody said:


> *Seaworthiness is defined by understanding the worst qualities of what you sail and adjusting thereof.*
> 
> There is no one all answer...


Yeah - I know there's not a single answer. But, hey, what else do we have to do other than debate this until the second coming?

Anyway, I think your statement above really nails it. And most of the debates I've seen center around the "what do I need to go blue" question. But when you think about it, that question typically comes from newbies like me that don't have a clue what "blue" means.

CD's (and others) point that almost ALL sailing is coastal and island hopping puts that very starting point into question. It's really the wrong question to ask for the vast majority of sailors.

Maybe I'm trying to vein a line that's not there - but it does seem to have a distinction from the debates I've seen. The question should be what are the best production boats (fast, comfortable, strong) for cruising sailors that can stand up to stink when you get caught 2 days out?


----------



## artbyjody

smackdaddy said:


> But, hey, what else do we have to do other than debate this until the second coming?


You have until 2012 by most historical advocates :laugher:laugher Thanks


----------



## danielgoldberg

Cruisingdad said:


> I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, but it would take more seamanship and more luck than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills, you can start making changes to the boat like better portholes, handholds, lifelines, tankage, cabinets, tankage, cabinets for storage, positive latching floorboards, tankage, tabbed bulkheads or reinforced bulkheads, cabinets, etc.


This is one of the better summations of the issue, in my view. Nice going CD.


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> CD - awesome post. This is good stuff. Here are some of the interesting take-aways:
> 
> 1. Though I know you didn't mean it as such - I think a feeder of the production/blue debate is this statement/perception:
> 
> "I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, *but it would take more seamanship and more luck* than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. *In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills*, you can start making changes to the boat..."
> 
> This is really an interesting paradox, one that possibly drives a lot of people to buy a blu - then perhaps be too relaxed about the weather and seamanship - i.e. - "the boat can handle it". It makes you wonder. Does perceived fragility increase skill/attention? Does perceived strength decrease them?
> 
> 2. The 5 day window is a great rule of thumb as far as I'm concerned. I'd not thought about it in those terms. I was thinking more distance - which is wrong. It's about the weather...always.
> 
> 3. The realistic limitations of tankage is another important consideration - and one I'm just beginning to understand since I mostly pee off the stern into the lake.
> 
> 4. Finally, I've always agreed with your 99% on-the-hook maxim, although you might get some blowback on that one due to your notorious (and I'm sure errant) reputation as a dock-dweller.
> 
> So - the Benes and Catalinas seem well-suited to pushing the blue edge a bit with what we'll call "minor" modification. Yes?
> 
> Other productions that have hammered away successfully?


1. I don't know the answer to that question. I find many people relying too much on electronics and gadgets versus seamanship, but I cannot comment on the other. I have seen both very knowledgeable and not knowledgeable that buy those boats.

In the right hands (and luck), a Bene and Catalina could probably go anywhere. Understand too that there are some basic things that are difficult to change. FOr example, the cockpit is large on these boats. A pooper would not be pretty. Luckily, it would also run off quickly, but it would seriuosly add a lot of weight while there. I honestly do not know what the effect of it would be. Also, the rudder is not protected. You might want to consider some type of alternate means to steer - maybe a pre-fabbed jerry-rigged rudder?? The thought has seriously crossed my mind. Also, most production boats have lots of hatches. These are a plus when anchored and a negative when at sea. Most of the other things can be modified I guess??

I am curious what others think.

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

danielgoldberg said:


> This is one of the better summations of the issue, in my view. Nice going CD.


Thank you DG. Curious how that B49 is going to do Bermuda. I bet quite well.

- CD


----------



## danielgoldberg

Cruisingdad said:


> Thank you DG. Curious how that B49 is going to do Bermuda. I bet quite well.
> 
> - CD


I'll let you know next year! I'm not sailing her to Bermuda this year. Just don't have the time to devote to that this year, and besides, I really don't know her well enough yet. We took delivery in mid-August last year, so taking her to Bermuda this June would be quite close to taking her out of the box and heading offshore. And even though I like the boat quite a bit and have been impressed so far, we're still teething a little, as is the case with all new boats, and I want to work all that stuff out before going off soundings.

I'll not hijack the thread, but I note your arch. I'm starting to wonder if we made a mistake not going with one. Too soon to tell, and we'll see I guess.


----------



## smackdaddy

danielgoldberg said:


> I'll not hijack the thread, but I note your arch. I'm starting to wonder if we made a mistake not going with one. Too soon to tell, and we'll see I guess.


That's definitely not a hijack - Dan. I'd be interested in your thoughts. It helps a lot hearing these kinds of objective discussions between actual owners than your typical hype.

Thanks for the input guys.


----------



## GeorgeB

These "what makes the best&#8230;" discussions are better than the Rorschach ink block tests for revealing the psyche of the responders. "Blue", "coastal", "mill pond" water definitions are in the eye of the beholder and the chances of getting two people (let alone three) to agree is nigh impossible.

Reading this thread, you'd think sailing a Catalina in anything other than a Texas cattle pond would be suicidal. I've been in two ISAF Ocean Category 2 races (both were double handed!) so far this year. The Coast Guard had to perform rescues in each, but oddly enough, neither involved a Catalina. I've even taken Mrs. B out in 40kts back in March (both of us had to be back at work the next day) with no ill effect. A prudent sailor must be able to know what conditions he can or cannot safely sail in and perhaps my experience gives me an added advantage in sailing in heavier weather whereas a less experienced skipper would feel more comfortable in a bigger boat.

Weather forecasting is apparently easier for the Pacific region than the Atlantic. My experience is the five day GRIB is pretty accurate, seven day is O.K. and 14 day is so so. Heck, the five day NWS and NOAA forecasts are pretty much right on too. So if you define "coastal" as being no more than three to five days away from safe harbor then you ought to be able to pick your window and a Catalina (or even a Bene) should be up to the task. My little 34 has fuel tankage for forty hours and sufficient water for over a week (depending upon crew size) which puts it in that "costal" range.

Would I sail my C34 down to Cabo or PV? You bet! I have friends who have spent the past year in the SOC with their C34 and enjoying every moment. Would I go across the Gulf of Mexico? Why not? Sail to Bermuda? That's like going from SF to LA out here.

To find the perfect boat you need to turn inwards and make an honest assessment of what your goals and plans really are. Folks talk about the Southern Ocean all the time but 99.99% of them never venture off the continental shelf. Nothing wrong with that at all. Land, with all of its ports of call is infinitely more exciting than endless ocean. If you don't believe me, read the blog of the nut job who's goal is to float around the world's oceans for 1,000 days. If your (realistic) plan is to do the Intercoastal, Bahamas, Carib, or Mexico and you buy a boat capable for the Southern Ocean, chances are you will have overspent. You also need to be honest about your personal capabilities and risk tolerance. For example, companies like Island Packet have a profitable niche selling to first time cruisers (or wanabes) who are a bit unsure of themselves and have a very low risk tolerance.

Now, for my own ink blot test. I am perfectly happy in my Catalina. And unless the stock market rebounds in a very big way, Freya will be my retirement boat. I dream of the isles of the South Pacific, but, knowing Mrs.B, Mexico is in my realistic future. I see my boat as being on (roughly) even par with Beneteau's First Series. Their Oceanus Series is pretty, but I think pretty pedestrian performance. I like the Farr designed Beneteau 40.7 but can't stand the interior. If only they would come out with a 40.7 with an Oceanus inspired cabin. I thought that the Sabre 40 we raced against in the Pacific Cup had pretty good performance but was very disappointed in the workmanship on the one we looked at last winter. Quarter million was way too much for a boat that was a mass of spider web cracks topsides and the stress cracks emanating from about a quarter of the T-track bolts. Mrs. B actually liked the C400 better, but I cannot warm up to the cockpit or aft stateroom layout. The C42 is also on my short list and is pretty fast, considering that it is as dainty as a Mack truck.

<OI actually do sail in heavy weather conditions from time to time (and so does my camera boat!)<O


----------



## OsmundL

I have a concrete and possibly useful suggestion: keep an eye on the organizer's site for the Sydney to Hobart Race. This is an ocean race of sensible length, taking only a few days for the mega-yachts but over a week for the cruising class, depending on weather.

The Tasman Sea is a horrific stretch of water, calm one day and furious the next; it covers a fair range of cruising conditions. The interesting part is that so many classes enter, with boats all the way from last year's racer to cruising boats 30 yrs old. Also interesting is the limit they set - don't take my word for it, but I believe the smallest boat they allow is 33 ft? Sure they carry safety gear, but a model allowed there cannot be useless at sea.


----------



## OsmundL

GeorgeB said:


> These "what makes the best&#8230;" discussions are better than the Rorschach ink block tests for revealing the psyche of the responders. "Blue", "coastal", "mill pond" water definitions are in the eye of the beholder and the chances of getting two people (let alone three) to agree is nigh impossible.


I passed these in Northern Norway last summer. Ships like these found Greenland and later America, but I'm told it wouldn't work. My local dealer recommends upgrading with:
200L diesel, 400L water. Radar, GPS, VHF, SSB, Autopilot, fridge, Dyneema halyards, watermaker, furling sail, el winches. stove, BBQ. Hot water, shower - how about a toilet?

Should I try with a little less? The boats look really gracious.


----------



## AdamLein

The problem seems to always be the "what do you mean by blue-water" and "crew experience vs. boat hardiness" and "comfort vs. safety" responses. May I suggest a direction for this thread that doesn't involve so many apples-oranges comparisons:

For those of you who, like me, currently have a boat that you consider not quite prepared for at least some of the trips you realistically would like to take in the next few years, what do you think you need to upgrade on your boat so that she can handle what you have planned for her? Let's talk just about what the boat needs, and assume that a more experienced crew is always a good thing.

So just: type of boat you've got, what sort of cruise you want to take her on, and what you need to do to get her ready.

I'll start.

My '72 Catalina 27 was very much a racer-in-protected-waters when she came into my life. Currently she's got tankage enough for at least twelve man-days of winter cruising without resupplying (we've been on a three-day trip with four people). My planned milestones are Desolation Sound (no ocean exposure), a Vancouver Island circumnavigation (some ocean exposure), and possibly a trip down the Pacific coast.

For the Desolation Sound trip, all that she's missing is better ground tackle. She's got 90' of nylon rode shackled to 30' of chain, and a smallish Danforth. I consider that not enough for a trip where I expect to be anchoring most of the time. I don't think she can comfortably carry all chain, but I'd like at least a 200' rode and a heavier main anchor.

For the Van.Isle circumnavigation, which I would consider blue-water:
- I would like more serious gaskets on all hatches, as well as latches on all cabinets and cockpit lockers.
- There is currently no good way to secure the dinette table, so that would need to be dealt with.
- The batteries are not in proper boxes yet (we've tried, no space with present layout), and that needs to be done.
- She also needs at least a storm jib, and if there's a way I can add a third reef point to the main, that would also be ideal.
- We also need a better way of emptying the bilge than the current portable hand pump we've got.
- It would be nice to have some way of replenishing our batteries aside from the portable charger and the 3 amp alternator on the outboard.
- Finally, I don't know how strong the stern attachment points are; I would like them to be strong enough to handle a drogue.

If we actually plan to do a Pacific coast cruise:
- To really hardy up the boat, I would want her to have completely tabbed bulkheads. Some are tabbed, some at most partially -- difficult to determine because of the liner -- and in some places I can see 1/2" inch of space between the hull and the bulkhead. However I've felt her shudder after crashing down a six-foot wave, and I don't know how much of that she can take.
- I also don't know how strong the rig itself is. Would want a survey and probably upgrade some of the rigging.
- There's no self-steering other than an electric tiller pilot, and with the outboard I don't think a wind vane is in the cards.
- A weatherfax would be awesome.
- Stronger pad-eyes for jacklines.
- The cockpit drains through two small (~1" diameter) holes aft, into the engine well. Doesn't seem like the best design. I'd like to modify it to drain faster and more reliably.
- Hull is fin keel with attached ballast. Can't do much about this, but I can have the attachments (J-shaped keel bolts) inspected and reinforced.

So, there's what I think is needed for a boat that is at least somewhat more blue-water-capable than what I've got now, except described in terms not conflated by lack of specificity as to what "blue-water" means. Also this is a discussion of features independent of the brand of boat, and so the analysis can be applied to any brand (i.e. does your Benny have this stuff? If so, have a blast).

Next?


----------



## CharlieCobra

Smack, as far as MacGregor's go, all ya have to do each do a yachtworld search on M65's. Almost all of them are in the Med or Europe. These were built in Cali and sailed from there via various routes so yes, Mac's are bluewater boats as well. The big ones anyways. I wouldn't try to sail my V-21 to Hawaii or anything like that...


----------



## GeorgeB

So Osmund, in keeping with the Rorschach theme of my note; Does this mean deep down inside you yearn to be a Viking? Have had much experience in sailing these boats? If so, I’d love hear your stories. What do these boats rate in PHRF? If I was to get another boat, it would have to rate below one hundred (Freya currently is 147). Mrs. B and I honeymooned in Norway and have fond memories of the country. We boated on the Oslo Fjord and traveled on the mail packets on Sogne and Hardanger Fjords as well as up the coast. Those photos look like the Lofoten islands? As you might have guessed we named our boat in honor of my wife’s heritage and proudly fly the vimple as our house pendant.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

"Why not? Sail to Bermuda? That’s like going from SF to LA out here." 
George are you serious with that statement? Try that trip some time with wind blowing 20-25 against the Gulfstream.

"Weather forecasting is apparently easier for the Pacific region than the Atlantic. My experience is the five day GRIB is pretty accurate, seven day is O.K. and 14 day is so so. Heck, the five day NWS and NOAA forecasts are pretty much right on too."

Try the East Coast, Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes where NOAA is notoriously inaccurate. A good east coast forecast in the summer is 3-4 days. Great Lakes good forecasts are measured in hours with numerous local variations. You've been California dreamin' too long if you thing the Pacific weather is what we get elsewhere. Look at any major offshore race on the East Cosat or Great Lakes. Commanders weather has made a business out of providing more accurate forecasts than NOAA>

"I thought that the Sabre 40 we raced against in the Pacific Cup had pretty good performance but was very disappointed in the workmanship on the one we looked at last winter. Quarter million was way too much for a boat that was a mass of spider web cracks topsides and the stress cracks emanating from about a quarter of the T-track bolts"

There a lot of Sabre owners that would beg to differ. I wouldn't judge the quality on one boat. What year was that Sabre and what maintenance and who did the track installation? Give me a Sabre anyday on a rough day. They are less cushy than Catalinas but they sail a hell of a lot better in rough weather. Somebody better tell the folks at Hinckley that Sabre is a crap builder because that is where the Hinckley molds are made.


----------



## blt2ski

If a Jeanneau 49iP can get from the NW US to Australia and back, I would think, no, make that expect with NO issues that Daniels B49 could go from NY to burmuda etc and back with no real issues too! 

I am sure my older 30' Jeanneau could do pretty well ofshore, with the way it is designed etc too. It has some better options for keeping water out of the cabin from a rear swell/wave than some do!

In the end tho, a lot does depend upon the crew, the boat will do fine, I seem to recall a group getting hauled off of a Jeanneau in a storm a year or so ago, only to have a freighter find it a week or so later, and got hauled back to Europe at 17 knots behind the frieghter!

While some will say the European ratings of A, B and C are worthless, they are better than anything the US/NAmerica has. At least you know what said boats have to have to meet said requirements etc. 

With that, I am sure smack could get his C27 to Bermuda. Alan will have no issues circumnavigating Vancouver Island, he will not be the first either! along witha few Kayaks when he does it. A race this summer ie the Van-Isle will be going on, 2 weeks racing around the island with ports of call ea evening etc.

Anyway, enough of my input, I do agree with George, next boat will be at or bellow 100PHRF or there abouts, mine at 190-200 can be a bit slow at times!

marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey Adam, I see your point. And it is indeed somewhat ambassadorial - but I definitely prefer the snot fight of "my boat is bluer than yours". Waayyyyy more fun.

BTW - your C27 is bluer than mine. But mine's uglier and meaner!

And good lord, the freeboard on those Norse boats????? Shameful. No one would EVER take something like that into the open ocean. The dinghy though - sweet.


----------



## AdamLein

smackdaddy said:


> BTW - your C27 is bluer than mine. But mine's uglier and meaner!


Dude don't make me challenge you to an ugly contest. Let's just say that just because I didn't include beautification in my post, doesn't mean I don't have plans for a makeover.

Besides, you shouldn't say things like that about your dear. She might hear you and get offended.


----------



## OsmundL

GeorgeB said:


> So Osmund, in keeping with the Rorschach theme of my note; Does this mean deep down inside you yearn to be a Viking?


I wish! I'm afraid the Viking lives mostly in my head. They do exist, though! Jarle Andhøy, who names all his boats "*Berserk*", first sailed around Cape Horn in an Albin Vega 27ft, then in another around from Norway to Siberia and back down the Russian rivers to the Black Sea, following a known Viking route. His latest adventure, a little over a year ago, was to sail the first sailboat in a century through the Northwest Passage with a gang of genuine nutcases, retracing the route of Roald Amundsen. All the more difficult when one of them was a Hells Angel and wanted by Canadian Police, so he had to hide in the hull when coast guards passed, and on a few occasions be put ashore on islands to hide. If you can cope with a mix of English and Norwegian dialogue, the following footage gives you an idea and has some vistas, especially in the second half. I hope you don't mind watching them crap over the side  

Jarle did not have sponsorships, by the way, and this latest is a steelboat found abandoned on land in the Caribbean, where he bought it for near nothing and restored it, though hardly to the neat specs we have recommended in this thread. I guess this also gives you an angle into what is possible.

*NRK Nett-TV - hastighetsmÃ¥ling
*
As for me, I'm less adventurous. Yes, the pics were from Lofoten last summer, and I hope to be there again in two months.


----------



## smackdaddy

I LOVE those Berserk guys. Serious BFSers - and criminally insane to boot.


----------



## Sequitur

Cruisingdad said:


> That being said, you can take most production boats anywhere. I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, but it would take more seamanship and more luck than you might need for a Valiant of similar size.


I agree with you on this. In fact, someone did just that with a Hunter 49 a couple of years ago. Mike took his factory fresh in February '07 and headed from Miami through the Panama, across the Pacific to Sydney, across the Indian Ocean to Cape Town and back to Miami in January '08. He logged over 26,000 miles in eleven months and spent nearly six of those months in various ports along the way. Not a bad feat for a capable crew, but Mike did 90% of the distance solo, and he is a paraplegic.

Oh, and I don't think a Valiant would have been as capable of the task for him. 



Cruisingdad said:


> In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills, you can start making changes to the boat like better portholes, handholds, lifelines, tankage, cabinets, tankage, cabinets for storage, positive latching floorboards, tankage, tabbed bulkheads or reinforced bulkheads, cabinets, etc (and not to forget to add tankage). By the time you have made all these changes, it might have been cheaper to just buy a traditional bluewater boat! Maybe not. But there are also many positives of production boats... cost not necessarily one of them.


Not all of the high-volume production boats lack these things. Nowhere in my Hunter 49 is there a place without a choice of at least two solid handholds, I really can't see a need to improve on the 840 litres of fuel tankage, granted the 486 litres of water storage is a tad small if we wanted to do a 30-day passage and the watermaker toppled, but then we simply revert to shorter showers. The reinforced, watertight bulkhead forward and the fully tabbed other bulkheads need no changes as far as I can see.

With all of the machinery, tankage and batteries beneath the cabin sole, leaving the above sole spaces beneath the settees and berths empty, and with all of the built-in cabinets and drawers, after two years we still have not managed to even half fill the convenient storage space, and haven't even started on all the remaining space beneath the soles.

With the way most boaters use their boats, it is no wonder so few builders supply positive latching floorboards. However, because of my intended itinerary with Sequitur, one of the projects I have reserved for some quiet time at anchor in the coming weeks is to install latches in the access panels in the cabin soles. For less than $250 I have bought a dozen-and-a-half of these 450kg breaking load anchors and an installation kit:








PYI Inc. Max-Prop PSS Shaft Seal Seaview Radar Mounts R&D



AdamLein said:


> The problem seems to always be the "what do you mean by blue-water" and "crew experience vs. boat hardiness" and "comfort vs. safety" responses. May I suggest a direction for this thread that doesn't involve so many apples-oranges comparisons:
> 
> For those of you who, like me, currently have a boat that you consider not quite prepared for at least some of the trips you realistically would like to take in the next few years, what do you think you need to upgrade on your boat so that she can handle what you have planned for her? Let's talk just about what the boat needs, and assume that a more experienced crew is always a good thing.
> 
> So just: type of boat you've got, what sort of cruise you want to take her on, and what you need to do to get her ready.


OK,
*type of boat you've got* - 2007 Hunter 49.
*what sort of cruise you want to take her on* - A slow, multi-year circumnavigation.
*what you need to do to get her ready* - Finish the installation of latches in the access panels in the cabin soles. Do a couple of months of final shakedown and fine tuning.


----------



## Valiente

OsmundL said:


> So OK, mine is an Ovni 395, with a lot of go-anywhere gear.


Properly equipped, I actually consider most of the OVNI line to be in the relatively rare class of "bluewater capable performance cruiser". Certainly the swing keels and go-fast hull give a great deal of flexibility. Storage isn't wonderful, but you get there quicker, so I think it works out.

I have the writing of Jimmy Cornell to thank for my introduction to these great French boats.


----------



## GeorgeB

Osmund, you lucky dog. Have fun in Norway! Some day we’re going back and do the North Cape and Samvard. So Skoll! And down a lineas aquivit for me!


----------



## GeorgeB

Sandusky don’t hold back… tell me what you really think. But seriously, I stand by my thesis that Smack’s original question was really a Rorschach test that reveals more about the writer than just a strict answering of the question. Also, I think that President Obama is right, college football should go to a playoff system. That’s our problem here. A lot of regional bias here (and I’ll freely admit mine) and I guess until we all sail on each other’s boats and in our local waters, we won’t appreciate where the other guy is coming from. Any time you’re out here, I’d be happy to take you sailing.

I’ve raced in the Coastal Cup where it built to gale conditions a little north of Monterey and blew in the mid thirties to mid forties until after we rounded Pts. Conception/Arguello. I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it is like to spend three days in 15-20 foot seas. Forgive me if I sound a bit jaded but 20-25 kts is considered a pretty average day for us in the summer, but our current only runs to 5-51/2. Around here, the bar talk starts at over thirty knots. I even know a fellow who did the Bermuda 1 – 2 in his C36 so I’m pretty sure it can be done. Besides, it’s rated in the same class of ocean racing as I’m doing now in Freya.

<OI don’t know how you guys on the east coast deal with that weather of yours, not knowing on Wednesday if you should bring the #4 or the light air #1 and the dental floss for Saturday. I am so glad that the Eastern Pacific follows a monsoonal pattern. Systems blow through here about every four to seven days and the forecasts are pretty good. Granted, the 5 to 25 knot forecast for the DH Farallones was a bit hard to decipher, but it was still pretty close to the 30 kts that blew that night.

<OIn regards to the Sabre, I really really wanted one. There is one up for sale in LA that really spoke to me, Transpac vet, race ready, all (or at least most of the goodies) on my list. Downloaded various brochures and reviews and even got MrsB excited. Well, it so happened that Sail California got one in that was the same vintage albeit a pretty much “plain Jane” boat. The obviously hadn’t been sailed much and the owner used it pretty much as a waterside condo. The broker, a family friend, even had to deliver the boat from Moss Landing to Alameda. I know that spider web cracks are cosmetic, but I expected more for a used boat priced at a quarter million dollars. The disturbing thing was the stress cracks in the glass emanating from the t-tack bolt holes. Those have the potential of going down to the core giving you rot. And the weird thing about it is that they were completely random some on port, some on starboard and randomly up and down the track area. If you like I can take some pictures and show you. I have no idea how long they have been there or if it is a one boat thing. But like J-80s that lost their keels were all built within a year or two, it makes you wonder. $250,000 for a ten year old boat with gel coat cracking, not very interested. Perhaps if the LA boat drops to $200k, we’ll make the trip down there, but unfortunately, the bloom is off that rose. The Jack London boat show is next week and perhaps it will re-kindle the love affair.

<OOh, by the way, that previous photo was from the DH Lightship race, winds in the mid twenties and a moderate swell of 7 – 10 feet. <O


----------



## Omatako

Smack, I've never owned one of the "Tupperware" variety of European boats so I can't really make real-life comments on their ability. But here's an observation.

Our marina in Auckland fills up every October/November with cruising boats that have just crossed the Pacific. Most of them are Benes, Jenneaus and Bavarias. They all come in, do a little routine repair/maintenance and in April they *all* leave again. So they have successfully passed the blue-water test and their owners are confident enough to continue the dream. And there have over the years I've been here, been hundreds of them. So no statement will convince me that they're specifically coastal boats.

My own boat was described here on this forum, amongst other equally derogatory things, as a Carribean Party Boat and some said that they would never do an ocean crossing in one. Well, I did. After a whole two weeks of preparation from stepping onto the boat as a new owner. Now after nearly two years of ownership, I now have absolute confidence in doing a 5-year circumnav in the same boat. So much so that I am busy talking a life-long friend into buying an identical boat for the same circumnav.

On the other hand, there are boats around that are clearly not intended for ocean crossings but to be fair, that fact is patently obvious to even an uninformed observer.


----------



## chall03

Smack, Great all time classic thread, but I like the 'all new' and very useful perspective 

The first mate and I have been pondering this question a great deal of late, we have been looking at beat up production boats alongside aussie old shoes and really are trying to figure out what we want....

I would very much recommend to you to read, or at least become familiar with the story of Liza Copeland's book "Just Cruising" and also the sequel "Still Cruising".

Why?Liza and her husband were very experienced sailors who *CHOSE* to circumnavigate on a Beneteau First 38 with three kids. At the end of both books they have some great advice on their boat selection and equipping.

They specifically make the point, that a fast production boat like their First that can actually sail and point, has the ability to both avoid and overrun weather, whereas an 'old shoe' is left only with the option of sitting there and riding it out. Also it's a simple equation, less time on passage = less chance of running into the 'perfect storm'.

It's worth noting alot of old shoes have also have been 'modified' in reality. Many are offshore racers of bygone eras, and the old cruising stock horses would have accomodation that would be considered unacceptable by modern standards without changes. If you don't want to ever modify a boat then cruising is probably not for you.

I am unsure of your budget Smack, have you considered or looked at the likes of Hallberg-Rassy or Swan?? They are boats that sail fast and well but are also built to go places. You might find by the time you buy a Bene and spend money modifying you could of just bought a Hallberg-Rassy....



OsmundL said:


> I have a concrete and possibly useful suggestion: keep an eye on the organizer's site for the Sydney to Hobart Race. This is an ocean race of sensible length, taking only a few days for the mega-yachts but over a week for the cruising class, depending on weather.
> 
> The Tasman Sea is a horrific stretch of water, calm one day and furious the next; it covers a fair range of cruising conditions. The interesting part is that so many classes enter, with boats all the way from last year's racer to cruising boats 30 yrs old. Also interesting is the limit they set - don't take my word for it, but I believe the smallest boat they allow is 33 ft? Sure they carry safety gear, but a model allowed there cannot be useless at sea.


Your right OsmundL however alot of the designs that do Hobart will be Aussie Old Shoes or Aussie/NZ build offshore racers. Last year I think there were maybe 7 Bene's that went to Hobart and a Bavaria.


----------



## OsmundL

chall03 said:


> Your right OsmundL however alot of the designs that do Hobart will be Aussie Old Shoes or Aussie/NZ build offshore racers. Last year I think there were maybe 7 Bene's that went to Hobart and a Bavaria.


Absolutely, and the drift of my suggestion was meant to be: look for the small end of the competing classes - see what one can get away with. It is finding 7 Benes and a Bavaria there that should be noted. That seems to be the useful angle of this thread: not to seek out the "ideal" boat, but to find an acceptable, affordable compromise.

BTW, you are right on stating that many good ol' boats are in fact modified - it is not as if many yards of any kind produce ocean-ready boats as standard. I said in another thread that the Vega 27, found on the blue water list, needs careful attention to the strengthening of keel, hatches, etc., according to its Swedish user site. So, just like a Bene, it is not "ready" as such, unless you speak of a modified version. Then, where are we?


----------



## sailingdog

This is much the same argument in favor of multihulls... as the well-designed ones can generally go a bit faster than monohulls...


> They specifically make the point, that a fast production boat like their First that can actually sail and point, has the ability to both avoid and overrun weather, whereas an 'old shoe' is left only with the option of sitting there and riding it out. Also it's a simple equation, less time on passage = less chance of running into the 'perfect storm'.


----------



## OsmundL

sailingdog said:


> This is much the same argument in favor of multihulls... as the well-designed ones can generally go a bit faster than monohulls...


Yes, and it has some merit. Even so, it is yet another of those hands that must not be overplayed. "Shorter passage time" is valid, but the second part often heard, about "running before the storm" sounds too good to be true. For a start, if relative speeds differ by 1-3 knots which is often the case, that helps travel time but isn't mind-blowing relative to storm speeds. Then, storm conditions vary, and the expression "calm before the storm" wasn't for nothing. If you really were unprepared in terms of weather forecast and such, then the go-fast boat isn't much comfort as you lie _becalmed_ before the storm  

A slightly different issue are some of of the modern designs - and multihulls - that have the shapes and speeds to _enjoy_ running with the wind, as opposed to some that wallow, bury themselves and plainly dislike being pushed.


----------



## sailingdog

OsmundL said:


> Yes, and it has some merit. Even so, it is yet another of those hands that must not be overplayed. "Shorter passage time" is valid, but the second part often heard, about "running before the storm" sounds too good to be true.


yes, you do have to be reasonable in your expectations.



> For a start, if relative speeds differ by 1-3 knots which is often the case, that helps travel time but isn't mind-blowing relative to storm speeds. Then, storm conditions vary, and the expression "calm before the storm" wasn't for nothing. If you really were unprepared in terms of weather forecast and such, then the go-fast boat isn't much comfort as you lie _becalmed_ before the storm


Regardless of what boat you're in, you do have to keep an eye and ear out for the weather and the changing forecasts.



> A slightly different issue are some of of the modern designs - and multihulls - that have the shapes and speeds to _enjoy_ running with the wind, as opposed to some that wallow, bury themselves and plainly dislike being pushed.


The main issue with multihulls is that they can be pushed too easily. That's one good reason to have a JSD aboard.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sequitur - great angle on the Hunter! A paraplegic doing the circle????? Man, that's ballsy! Respect.

The perception I had prior to your post was that the Hunters were kind of at the low end of the spectrum on toughed-out production boats. So now it seems that Benes and Hunters have it going on...with Catalinas needing a serious nose job and some 34D silicone implants before going to the prom.

What about Irwins? From what I've seen - they are comparatively "spartan" in terms of features....but are they eggshells?


----------



## Mimsy

I don't think its really possible to say that any production boats are superior. So much depends on what model, what size, what design, etc. This can vary widely within a parituclar maker.

While the story about the Hunter making the circle is impressive, I was put off of Hunters by an incident that happened at a local regatta. 
Chain Plate Failure [Archive] - SailboatOwners.com

I think you can find incidents for just about any make both positive and negative.


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> Sequitur - great angle on the Hunter! A paraplegic doing the circle????? Man, that's ballsy! Respect.
> 
> The perception I had prior to your post was that the Hunters were kind of at the low end of the spectrum on toughed-out production boats. So now it seems that Benes and Hunters have it going on...with Catalinas needing a serious nose job and some 34D silicone implants before going to the prom.
> 
> What about Irwins? From what I've seen - they are comparatively "spartan" in terms of features....but are they eggshells?


I am not sure wher eyou got out of this discussion that Catalinas are not as well built as Benes. That is far from the truth. I will tell you that Bene's are as well built as Catalinas (in general) and I bet that Dan would tell you that Catalinas are as well built as Benes.

My preference has always been Catalinas which may be more to the interior design than other things. I like the older benes a lot too. I would have no issue purchasing one. There were many changes in teh new Jeauneaus that I did not like. In fact, with a few exceptions, I am partial to the "older" designs of all the major builders over the newer ones.

The exception is the new Hunters, which I feel are far and away better than many of the olders, and I believe that Dan's boat is beautiful.

- CD


----------



## smackdaddy

CD - what do you mean by "older"? What's the sweet spot?

As for build quality - I was joking. Your list of fix-ups was pretty long. So naturally I assumed Catalinas are crap. Heh-heh.


----------



## danielgoldberg

Cruisingdad said:


> I will tell you that Bene's are as well built as Catalinas (in general) and I bet that Dan would tell you that Catalinas are as well built as Benes. ...
> 
> The exception is the new Hunters, which I feel are far and away better than many of the olders, and I believe that Dan's boat is beautiful.
> 
> - CD


I agree whole-heartedly. The mass produced boats, in my opinion, all are of comparable quality. Some models better than others, some years one manufacturer will pull ahead, or fall behind. But in the main, they are of very comparable quality. There are demarcation lines, I think, but not the way some say. That is, Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, Jeanneau, J, Hanse, etc., pretty much the same quality these days. Some do some things a little better than the others, but overall, same stuff, IMHO.

There are lower production brands that do jump up a touch, such as Sabre, Tartan (dare I say), Island Packet, and others. But the differences, largely, are in the fit-out and finish. That counts for sure, but people, in my view, confuse that with whether the boat is safe or suitable to sail, and that's just not the case, again IMHO.

I will say that Hunter seems to have made a huge leap in recent years, and the others probably ought to take notice (and I'm sure they will). Things like watertight bulkheads, larger and higher quality fittings. Plus, and no offense here, they are starting to look like sailboats, which was not always the case and likely a detraction from the brand, or at least a lightening rod for criticism.


----------



## Valiente

_Plus, and no offense here, they are starting to look like sailboats, which was not always the case and likely a detraction from the brand, or at least a lightening rod for criticism._

Well, indeed. There does seem to have been an attitudinal change there, and I recall seeing a bit of boat magazine propaganda a few years back that gave an extensive pictorial tour of the Hunter factory showing the grid support system, quality control. While it was a charm offense, the pictures that made the cut were convincing. The 1990-99 Hunters weren't good looking in general at all, however...maybe my problem these days is that I don't realize I'm looking at a newer Hunter because it doesn't resemble its older siblings in that "oh, god, that's a Hunter..." way I associated with their run of very wedge-shaped, very high freeboard designs.

Again, the point has to be made that unsuitable boats can make any passage in suitable conditions, and that simply using the full array of weather nets, cruising nets, custom routing and what have you is a good way to do this. All of us should be happy when we see more people sailing across oceans safely and arriving in one piece: it's good for the lifestyle of cruising.

I do have some concerns about many designs, simply due to internal layout and the tendency of the hulls to pound, to safely get a crew uninjuried if the forecast is wrong or the conditions are marginal. There's a very good "go or no go" article in the latest Ocean Navigator Annual "Ocean Voyager" issue, in which conditions are ranked from "ideal" to "perilous". The idea is to have a sliding scale that includes short, brutal 24-hour haul to sheltered port as "marginal" versus the same conditions that have you arriving at, say, an unlit lagoon at 0200h after five days of 35 knots and 15 foot seas.

It's all relative, as they say.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Dear George:
I've sailed in the Pacific and raced in the Cabo race. As I said before it is not the wind velocity it is the wave action. A Catalina 36 will be fine in the Newport Bermuda race 5 out 10 races. In the other 5 races it will be miserable if not downright dangerous. My friends in a Little Harbor 53 found that out a couple of years back. The Gulfstream is very unpredictable and has an effect on weather systems. The reason, I guess, East Coast weather is more unpredictable is that the fronts are coming off land.

It is unfortunate the Sabre you saw had those problems. Sabres are pretty rare on the west coast and probably accounts for the high price. I wouldn't buy one for that either. A quick look at Yacht World shows a nice 1997 in RI for $195K and probably could be bought for a bit less. These are seriously nice boats designed by Jim Taylor who is a very successful NA. The quality is really topnotch. The real thing about them is how they sail which is best described as sweet. I've owned a Sabre and loved it. My next boat will probably be a Sabre 34-II which is an older design but a particularly sweet sailor.

Sorry if I was a little brusque, you just struck a nerve.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sanduskysailor said:


> ...it is not the wind velocity it is the wave action.


That line scored me more hook-ups in college than you'd ever believe.


----------



## chall03

LOL.

So Smacky what conclusion have you now come to on these big pretty fanciful plastic boats??

To Grill or not to Grill?


----------



## Greenflash35

Our boats blue water cause its fun. So there.


----------



## smackdaddy

Green - whatever you do - don't...turn...to your left. And I've always like the "So there" technique....that age-old debate ender. Welcome to SN dude!

Chall - I actually feel more confident about production boats because of this conversation. And it's fun comparing the relative toughness of them - as well as defining a bit better the boundaries of coastal vs. blue.

Personally, I would still like to hear from any Irwin/O'Day/etc. owners on how their boats perform - and where the limit is for them.


----------



## imagine2frolic

Smack,

My first boat was a 30ft. Columbia. I single-handed it to Cabo, and back from S.F. Ca. after sailing only 18 months. I was in 50+ mph winds with 20ft.+ seas racing at 8 1/2 knots down the face of the waves. She did well, and also did well returning to Cabo From Puerto Vallarta dropping off walls of water 15ft. tall for nearly 18 hours. All this, and she was over 20 years old with the original standing rigging. She cracked the floor on the liner on the P.V. Cabo trip, but she held up well. A little expoxy, and some plywood, and she was better than new.

If you read Webb Chiles you will find nearly anything can be sailed nearly anywhere. A prudent saolor will get his boat to it's destination safely. You'll have a wonderful time getting to, and from the Bahamas by being prudent.....i2f

P.S.,
That's Frolic on Bahia de Banderas in P.V. Mexico.......


----------



## Valiente

That Columbia is both a slower and a better boat than many built today, although I doubt you'd find many takers for that point of view.

The only problem with the theory of "a good sailor can sail anything, anywhere" is that it is difficult to _become _a good sailor in today's boats, designed as they are for dockside comfort and speed. If I thought transiting the saloon might involve a 13-foot fall, or if the go-fast flat aft sections so common today would rattle my molars loose in a three-day storm, I would stay strictly coastal and enjoy boats so admirably designed for exciting, fair weather sailing.

While they are not *all* like that, I spend time every year at boat shows, and a lot of them are like that: fast, light, spacious and possibly awful in a blow.


----------



## sailingdog

Webb is probably a better sailor than 99.99% of those with boats... But sailing an 18' open Drascombe Lugger _(technically two, since the first was confiscated by the Egyptian government)_ 7/8's the way around the world takes more than just seamanship...it takes incredible courage and a touch of insanity IMHO.  Nice guy though. I had a chance to meet him just before he left the Boston area...



imagine2frolic said:


> If you read Webb Chiles you will find nearly anything can be sailed nearly anywhere. A prudent saolor will get his boat to it's destination safely. You'll have a wonderful time getting to, and from the Bahamas by being prudent.....i2f
> 
> P.S.,
> That's Frolic on Bahia de Banderas in P.V. Mexico.......


----------



## imagine2frolic

TOUCH OF INSANITY?

The man is a loon, but I like him, his writing, and his tenacity anyway....INTESTINAL FORTITUDE+.......i2f


----------



## sailingdog

He is not a loon... he is a gentleman and a very nice person. Very down to earth and modest. 



imagine2frolic said:


> TOUCH OF INSANITY?
> 
> The man is a loon, but I like him, his writing, and his tenacity anyway....INTESTINAL FORTITUDE+.......i2f


----------



## imagine2frolic

I should've put in a smiley  at loon. Believe me the man gets tons of admiration from me. His attempt at the horn was the first sailing book that I read. Before that I had only read Latitude38 while living in S.F. This was after returning to S.F. from single-handing to & from Cabo. 

I reread his books, and it is the only book I loan to people. In my mind he is MUST READ! The Last Wave sits inches from my ear while I sleep. He is an artist with more than just the wind. Look at what sits on his shelves. His writing style to me is captivating. LOON was not meant in a derogatory way. It was more endearing than anything. He puts his whole soul down for us to read. There is no shame, no bravado, and he laughs at himself first. This here shows me his modesty....YEP, I should've put a smiley there for sure  .....i2f


----------



## sailingdog

Damn... I guess I have to cancel the beating I was going to give you...  :laugher:laugher:laugher


imagine2frolic said:


> I should've put in a smiley  at loon. Believe me the man gets tons of admiration from me. His attempt at the horn was the first sailing book that I read. Before that I had only read Latitude38 while living in S.F. This was after returning to S.F. from single-handing to & from Cabo.
> 
> I reread his books, and it is the only book I loan to people. In my mind he is MUST READ! The Last Wave sits inches from my ear while I sleep. He is an artist with more than just the wind. Look at what sits on his shelves. His writing style to me is captivating. LOON was not meant in a derogatory way. It was more endearing than anything. He puts his whole soul down for us to read. There is no shame, no bravado, and he laughs at himself first. This here shows me his modesty....YEP, I should've put a smiley there for sure  .....i2f


----------



## chall03

Ok, I have heard of him, but I must confess I have never read anything he's written, you guys have convinced me, maybe it is about time.


----------



## sailingdog

Some of his books are out of print, but some of them are available on-line from his *website*.


chall03 said:


> Ok, I have heard of him, but I must confess I have never read anything he's written, you guys have convinced me, maybe it is about time.


----------



## Valiente

If you read his account of sinking off Florida and the night he spent treading water, you won't forget it.

Or you can listen: FurledSails.com Podcast #117 Webb Chiles 2


----------



## sailingdog

IIRC, it was more than a single night... more like 26 hours or so between scuttling Resurgam and being picked up by the fishing boat. He's pretty tough...


Valiente said:


> If you read his account of sinking off Florida and the night he spent treading water, you won't forget it.
> 
> Or you can listen: FurledSails.com Podcast #117 Webb Chiles 2


----------



## smackdaddy

sailingdog said:


> Damn... I guess I have to cancel the beating I was going to give you...  :laugher:laugher:laugher


That wasn't going to be with a baseball bat was it? My goodness - all these threats of bodily harm! You boys should take it to FC.


----------



## chall03

Thanks alot guys I will check it out.


----------



## sailingdog

I prefer a good old piece of radiator hose filled with wet sand.  Only primitive thugs use baseball bats.. 



smackdaddy said:


> That wasn't going to be with a baseball bat was it? My goodness - all these threats of bodily harm! You boys should take it to FC.


----------



## imagine2frolic

SD,

Give a man a break. I am just not the same without my daily beating....just ask my wife:laugher :laugher :laugher 

Webb *Tenacity* Chiles should be his real name. His writings are a great read. He will give you a whole new meaning to ONE HAND FOR THE BOAT, AND ONE HAND FOR YOURSELF.... ...i2f


----------



## Keldee

I dont think you need a blue water boat to cruise the Bahamas.


----------



## Valiente

I would agree with that. The Bahamas seems to favour centerboarders that can make good use of the frequently decent winds. Also, it's not like you're 800 miles offshore. All you need is money.


----------



## billyruffn

Valiente said:


> ^ ^ ^
> 
> None of which your average Beneteau owner wants, needs or frankly, would understand or recognize, because they are never more than a hundred miles from a marina or a SAR service.


I'm usually one of the first to bash Bendy-toys, but I have friends in the UK that have sailed a First 345 for over twenty years. They've crossed the Atlantic twice, sailed the east and west coasts of Greenland, visited Jan Mayen land, circumnavigated Iceland, spent several summers above the Arctic circle in Norway and Russia, and sailed to Svalbard twice (I was with them when we crossed 80N), in addition to many thousands of miles of coastal crusing. The boat is in good shape and still going strong.

To SmackDaddy's OP -- you can probably take almost any boat anywhere...IF you know what you're doing and do it at the right time of year, are properly equipped, etc., etc. Taking light production day sailers to the Arctic (or other exteme places) obviously carries increased risks, but it can be done.


----------



## Keldee

Hi Valiente
How much money you need is relavent to how much you are prepared to do without or not.We spent 2 years on a boat and yearly cost(everything was included as account was made of each cent spent) was $17,000 Can(this was when $500US cost us $750 Can.Of course we very rarely used a marina,our only meals out were 3 times bought lunch,a treat was an ice-cream EACH no cell phone and we very often shared a beer.We enjoyed ourselves very much and are glad we didn't wait until we had more money,bigger boat more stuff etc.


----------



## twinsdad

*Any boat anywhere?*

I think you have to be careful about suggesting any boat anywhere. Yes, there are folks who have done it. But you have to consider what your own skill level is, how much risk you are willing to take, and how much creature comforts you want.

I have enjoyed a lot of great coastal cruising from Annapolis through Nantucket on a relatively light boat - an Express '34. I am always cognizant of what I think my abilities are relative to the boat and where I am sailing. One of the major considerations is who is my crew. Here in the Northeast, if you are staying close to shore, with reasonable access to ports, then you can cruise in lighter boats.

Part of that is because our weather is a little more predictable than other spots. We usually know when we run the risk of storms, etc. In other parts of the country, I might feel the need for a more blue water capable boat for longer cruises.

I think we have to be careful about saying any boat anytime without knowing the abilities of the sailor and the planned itinerary. Better safe than sorry.


----------



## Valiente

billyruffn said:


> I'm usually one of the first to bash Bendy-toys, but I have friends in the UK that have sailed a First 345 for over twenty years. They've crossed the Atlantic twice, sailed the east and west coasts of Greenland, visited Jan Mayen land, circumnavigated Iceland, spent several summers above the Arctic circle in Norway and Russia, and sailed to Svalbard twice (I was with them when we crossed 80N), in addition to many thousands of miles of coastal crusing. The boat is in good shape and still going strong..


The Bene First line is pretty good, and in the right hands is suitable, in my view. The Oceanis line and the current stuff, less so, again in my view. There are crack sailors cruising in old J-Boats...and I'm not going to criticize a crack sailor. I think that the opportunity to become a crack sailor, outside of crew racing, is less common on current production boats because I think they are harder to handle in heavy conditions than more deliberately seakindly designs.

Also, tankage is a huge factor...modern performance cruisers don't always have it. I would be curious how the Bene First folks dealt with this as the Arctic travel would require diesel burning for heat as well as for the frequent calm conditions that required motoring.


----------



## Valiente

Keldee said:


> Hi Valiente
> How much money you need is relavent to how much you are prepared to do without or not.We spent 2 years on a boat and yearly cost(everything was included as account was made of each cent spent) was $17,000 Can(this was when $500US cost us $750 Can.Of course we very rarely used a marina,our only meals out were 3 times bought lunch,a treat was an ice-cream EACH no cell phone and we very often shared a beer.We enjoyed ourselves very much and are glad we didn't wait until we had more money,bigger boat more stuff etc.


Our budget will be about $25,000K Cdn./year for our circ., and we base this on avoiding marinas and shoreside dinners also. Keeping a strict account of "kitty drain" is the way to go.


----------



## Keldee

Good for you!!! Just don't wait too long or the stuff you got ready at the beginning will need repairing or replacing again!!!!Will you be taking out supplementary health insurance and insuring the boat?


----------



## Valiente

Yes to the extended health insurance, no for the boat insurance (likely, anyway). As people proposing a circ., there aren't a lot of options that aren't going to boost our yearly expenses by 40%-50%, so as the boat is steel and is not our only residence, it's its own insurance. Our thinking isn't fixed on this, however; this is today's opinion only.

We aren't bringing priceless heirlooms with us, anyway. The whole cruising philosophy isn't geared to that...it's more "expedition-grade", not fine china!


----------



## Keldee

Anyway it gets really complicated with insurance and hurricane and cyclone seasons!
Try not to be too expedition-grade minded,a few fine things dont take up to much room and space and makes it feel more like home!For example ,we had cloth napkins and stainles wine goblets(cant stand those plastic things)


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so maybe there really isn't a distinct vein here. It appears that, as always, it comes down more to the sailor and his/her seamanship than it does the boat. And - if this is really the case, it would hold that (as said above) virtually any reputable production boat can (with logical care and preparation) indeed be sailed virtually anywhere in the world if one does not feel the need to drive it through repeated Force 9+ storms.

The Bene's still seem to have the best reputations - with Catalinas and newer Hunters right in the mix. And no one has mentioned a specific production boat that DEFINITELY WOULDN'T make the cut to prudent off-shore sailing (Irwin, O'Day, etc.). So maybe we take that angle.

Which boat(s) would you NOT trust - and why?


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

Now you are into the what and how you want somethng built. Example, i probably would not take a tartan offshore, altho the older fiberglass ones are held in high regard. One of the things I do not like about them, is the door way into the cabin, goes all the way down to the cockpit floor, vs some designs have the door stopping at the seat top. Yes you have to climb up and over, BUT, if the doors break, you have less water getting into the cabin per wave that poops over you. Now, in a really bad storm, you're probably screwed either way. But with a smaller opening, I have a slightly better chance at stopping the inflow when the time comes. Hense why this is on some folks prefered design want for a blue water boat. 

I am not saying a Tartan is a bad boat either, it is a good fast design, just this part of the design does not thrill me if I was going off shore etc. 

marty


----------



## Sequitur

Keldee said:


> Anyway it gets really complicated with insurance and hurricane and cyclone seasons!


We will be fully insured for our entire voyage, but with my professional marine qualifications, this is not very expensive. The hurricane and cyclone seasons are simply a part of any prudent sailor's planning.



Keldee said:


> Try not to be too expedition-grade minded,a few fine things dont take up to much room and space and makes it feel more like home!For example ,we had cloth napkins and stainles wine goblets(cant stand those plastic things)


I wholeheartedly agree on the nice stuff. My decades of expeditionary mountaineering taught me that, even though it is sometimes necessary to rough it, that does not mean you should deny yourself all comforts. I learned the fine art of camping in style, and I apply that to my boating.

Sequitur will be our home for the next ten years or so as we slowly explore the planet, so we have such things as Irish linen napkins, Henkels cookware and knives, Riedel stemware and fine china all securely stowed for sea. These are readily accessible for the quiet anchorages, which will be the vast majority of the time, so why not be comfortable?


----------



## smackdaddy

blt2ski said:


> Smack,
> 
> Now you are into the what and how you want somethng built. Example, i probably would not take a tartan offshore, altho the older fiberglass ones are held in high regard. One of the things I do not like about them, is the door way into the cabin, goes all the way down to the cockpit floor, vs some designs have the door stopping at the seat top. Yes you have to climb up and over, BUT, if the doors break, you have less water getting into the cabin per wave that poops over you. Now, in a really bad storm, you're probably screwed either way. But with a smaller opening, I have a slightly better chance at stopping the inflow when the time comes. Hense why this is on some folks prefered design want for a blue water boat.
> 
> I am not saying a Tartan is a bad boat either, it is a good fast design, just this part of the design does not thrill me if I was going off shore etc.
> 
> marty


Now THAT'S a good comparison, Bluto. Makes perfect sense - and gives some perspective on the kind of thing to look for in a BAPB.

PS - Get over to the Sacrilege thread in Racing and let's figure out how to make sailing cool again, dude.


----------



## Valiente

Keldee said:


> Anyway it gets really complicated with insurance and hurricane and cyclone seasons!
> Try not to be too expedition-grade minded,a few fine things dont take up to much room and space and makes it feel more like home!For example ,we had cloth napkins and stainles wine goblets(cant stand those plastic things)


I like the idea of SS goblets...We're not going to be uncivilized, but we are keeping the tech manageable, installing foot pumps, that sort of thing. I always want to be on the high side of producing and storing electricity for refrigeration and lighting and nav over pumps and DVD players and water heating.

As for the insurance, I'm hoping seamanship will keep me off the reef and reefing early will keep me out of the loft.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sequitur - dude, I like your style. I took a look at your website. Nice work. It'll be great to follow your voyages.


----------



## Keldee

Stainless goblets can be bought at West Marine


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

Thinking about my comparison comments above. I wish I could remember where I saw the plus's/minus comments about the two doorway's. It may have been in the European "Ocean A" ratings, and how and what allows a boat to meet those specs, vs B or C rated boats. 

I went to the mahina site, and all I could find there are what boats they recommend etc. Altho I was perusing rather quickly. But I did not see what "I" would call "What to look for in a BW capable boat"

While as mentioned, some cookie cutter production boats will go off shore, some have a better design intent that others. What you and others, myself if I ever figure out how to go offshore, need to look for, are these design features that make better off shore boats. 

Like a post in the boat buying the other day, a fellow was worried that a 6'4" draft boat was too deep. Hell, if you ground in the ICW at 6'4", I'd bet he'd ground in the 6' boat too! My thought is, one needs to plus/minus certain issues as to where they are going to go. If you're really going off shore for a 2-3 week passage, you had better have plenty of tankage, or a water maker on boat to suppliment lack of tankage if you will in water. Or have some sort of rain collector. Mean while, someone like myself in puget sound, you in your BIG texas lake, if you go cruising, you're out for a day or to or three, maybe a week. BUT, you have marina's, at least I do every 2-4 hrs max along the way! so while I only have 7 gals, or about 6-8 hrs of fuel at 3/4 throttle, it is not a big deal. Meanwhile, the person that wants to be able to motor for 24-28 hrs, better have a 50'ish gal fuel tank, or some way to store that much, using .75-1 gal per hr usage like my motor does. OR if you do do a 12 hr run like I have a couple of time, one takes a 5 gal container of diesel and a no spill nozzle, and fill while motoring!

I really do not feel there are rights and wrongs to what and how a boat should be built, designed etc. but, there are certainly some design issues that one should make sure that your boat meets what you feel is important to you! Myself, tankage is not a big deal, the door is, even for local cruising. A cockpit mounted main traveller, so I can release it from the helm, jib sheets to steer position, reasonable tankage for ones useage, this may vary. 

Enjoy the hunt for your new boat. Meanwhile, If I could afford one, a Jeanneau Sunfast 3200 or equal would be in my slip for my usage. Saw some specs on a Beneteau Figaro a bit ago, be still my beating heart! Looks like as some one said, had not thought about it before, a mini transat about 33' long! hubba hubba!


----------



## imagine2frolic

I would pretty much bet everybody has touched bottom. It's just the way it is. Now making a habit of it is not good:laugher :laugher .....i2f


----------



## christyleigh

blt2ski said:


> I wish I could remember where I saw the plus's/minus comments about the two doorway's. It may have been in the European "Ocean A" ratings, and how and what allows a boat to meet those specs, vs B or C rated boats.


 I know I have mentioned the "doors" issue about my Nauticat before so it's possible that it is back there some where. My Nauticat is only rated "B" because it has the sliding doors on the side as all the NC "Traditional Motorsailer" are. The other Nauticat line "Pilot House" sailboats are rated "A" as they have the traditional sailboat companionway in the cockpit. 
The '99 Catalina 320 I traded in for my '99 Nauticat 331 was rated "Ocean A" ......but which one do you think I'd rather be in while experiencing a Perfect Storm in the North Atlantic  While I agree that the sliding side doors are an issue to be remidied I know there are lot more NC 33's out cruising the worlds oceans than C320's


----------



## smackdaddy

Well, here's one I would feel very comfortable putting on my FAIL list.

*FAIL*


----------



## blt2ski

Stan,

I'm not positive I read it here, but more than likely elsewhere re the door issue. But I do recall you or someone mentioning the sliders on NC, now that you mention it in relation to the cat B vs A. 

All of these things that someone says we need or not, I feel need to be weighed as to what and where we will go. Trying to cross oceans in the non hurricane season you can get away with things vs if you try to sail/cross an ocean during hurricane season or if you go to the roaring 40's/50's either north or south towards the poles. Or extreme cold like the couple with the Oyster 72 article in this months CW that came to my door about a week ago. 

Anyway, as long as folks realize, there is good and bad in ALL boats, that is a good thing.

I2f,
I am sure we've all touched, or if we have not, it is when, not if! heck, I've even touched in my canoe and old kayak accidently, and on purpose on a few occasions! what do those draw? 4-6" Hence my comments that these draft needs do not always hold water. Air draft would worry me more in the ICW than staying under 6' as an example! But, I am probably now showing either my ignorance of the area, not having been there, or what really worry's me vs what does not, which I am sure what worry's me, does not make someone else worry!

Marty


----------



## PCP777

Keldee said:


> Stainless goblets can be bought at West Marine


I'm so in, getting some today, I hate the plastic as well.


----------



## NCC320

ICW depth...perhaps others are more qualified to answer whether 6'4" is suitable. I read in the past year, in magazines and newspapers ,that certain parts of the ICW in the Carolinas are shoaling up, and in some spots, finding 5' is difficult...one report had charter fishing boats running miles out of their way to get to the ocean because of shoaling. If you are going to be in NC waters much (outside the ICW), then even 5 ft. draft is going to limit some of your movements...at 4'11", I plowed the marina fairway and creek to get to open water two weeks ago, because a west wind had dropped the normal water level about 1 ft. below normal. (Fortunately the bottom on the creek is soft).

While I agree with Stan regarding preferring the NC331 over a C320 for storms in the north Atlantic (if for no other reason, it'll be warmer and dry with the inside steering station over the C320 open cockpit), the people who determine what makes a Cat A, B, C rating probably have it right. Sliding doors, unless heavily constructed to guard against it, are more likely to get ripped off than smaller hatches with drop boards, and then, no matter how well the boat is built, it is subject to flooding in a storm with breaking waves.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

give me a jenneau 40, 45, or 56 and i'll go to windward in 50 kts. By far the best production boat around. In fact, if i were to go single handed around the world, i'd choose none other than a sun oddysey 45


----------



## twinsdad

Speaking of boats. Any suggestions as to websites to list my boat for sale?


----------



## sailingdog

Someone drank the French Kool-Aid....



MovementSailing said:


> give me a jenneau 40, 45, or 56 and i'll go to windward in 50 kts. By far the best production boat around. In fact, if i were to go single handed around the world, i'd choose none other than a sun oddysey 45


----------



## blt2ski

So SD,
WHAT IS wrong with a Jeanneau? I know of one locally that spent 2 yrs wondering around the pacific, with a couple and there two daughters. ANother about 2 yrs ago did a non stop circumnavigation! IIRC that one was 20 yrs old or there abouts. The new SF3200 was designed as an ocean going single/double hander, and there were 16 or there about at last years transquandra race. The designer has one for his own. FIRST boat he has designed as a production model that he bought for him self!

They make good boats for there use! On par with ANY of the newer production built boats frankly.


----------



## Danny33

Doooh !!!


----------



## sailingdog

I think there are better production boats, like Hallberg Rassy, for a bluewater trip... Better build quality IMHO too.


----------



## sailingmum

*Twice the price ?*

aren't Halberg Rassy twice the price ? unfortunately, this is not a issue with me as i'm in lower budget arena, but definitely interesting chat, just in case I get lucky ....lol...


----------



## blt2ski

Mum,

At least twice the price for an equal sized boat! There is something to be said for the base boats, ie catalina, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Hunter, Bavaria among others, Affordible and they will go offshore. Now they may not like going around the Horn on a bad day, a good day maybe..........But they are well built for what they are! 

On the other hand, if HR's are so good, Why is Dog sailing a boat with training hulls? I would bet that boat is not as well built as an HR either? granted it is faster, but still. Probably built on par with Jeanneaus too!


----------



## sailingdog

If I were going to spend that kind of money on a boat, I'd get a custom Chris White design more likely than not.


----------



## Valiente

Guys, guys...what have we already established? A great sailor can (and has in the past) taken a freakin' raft made out of pop bottles across the Pacific, so it's not so much the boat as the sailor.

I personally will 'fess up that I got a steel cutter for world cruising because I KNOW my level of experience won't support either a well-equipped but "light-ish" production cruiser, and my budget won't support a true performance cruiser of the Swan/Moody/OVNI class.

In other words, I got a tough steel boot to compensate for the fact I haven't done more than 10 years' of sailing.

If I make one bad-incident-free circ, maybe I'd make another in a faster, or even a production boat. Presumably, my level of experience (and not the inherent qualities of the boats involved) would merit a review of the appropriate vessel. 

But if I hit the first reef I see off the Marquesas, steel and a big prop will give me a better chance of survival than a plastic boat designed to reel off 240 NM days.

Thank goodness I don't plan on being in a rush.

To sum: an ocean-rated 40-50 footer is going to be less boat in some respects than mine, and more boat in others. My advantages lie primarily in "forgiveness", which is a hint to the whole thread.


----------



## sailingmum

*Just about died !*

I don't know whether to thank you or curse you, turning me on to Chris White. 
I'd love just to see one on the docks and especially under sail. 
I never knew about these vessels.



sailingdog said:


> If I were going to spend that kind of money on a boat, I'd get a custom Chris White design more likely than not.


----------



## sailingdog

LOL... he's a local to my sailing area...  And you're very welcome... the dark side of the force is very seductive... 

Here's a photo of one of his Hammerhead 54 trimarans under sail.










What do you think of her??



sailingmum said:


> I don't know whether to thank you or curse you, turning me on to Chris White.
> I'd love just to see one on the docks and especially under sail.
> I never knew about these vessels.


----------



## Valiente

Who wouldn't like that?

Boat taste is like car taste. Someone told me that the Pontiac marque was being dropped by GM in the latest attempts to bail faster, and my reply was "Good. They aborted the Pontiac Aztek upon the face of the earth, and someone must pay. Let there be a heap of skulls before the Detroit headquarters!"

I have actually seen people in the street spot an Aztek and mutter "what the hell is wrong with that car? Wait, _is _it a car...why is it yellow...eeeewwww..."

That's the feeling I get from terrible boat design. The tri above is the opposite of that.


----------



## sailingdog

The Aztek was one of the most hideous production vehicles I've ever seen...


Valiente said:


> Who wouldn't like that?
> 
> Boat taste is like car taste. Someone told me that the Pontiac marque was being dropped by GM in the latest attempts to bail faster, and my reply was *"Good. They aborted the Pontiac Aztek upon the face of the earth, and someone must pay. Let there be a heap of skulls before the Detroit headquarters!"*
> 
> I have actually seen people in the street spot an Aztek and mutter "what the hell is wrong with that car? Wait, _is _it a car...why is it yellow...eeeewwww..."
> 
> That's the feeling I get from terrible boat design. The tri above is the opposite of that.


----------



## graemefromdownunder

I am a definite newby to this forum and this question is right where my thoughts are right now. We are planning to sail to Australia via the Panama Canal (from the Med). Once we reach the Whitsundays we will be settling down and our boat will then double up as a skippered charter. I have been looking at the Beneteau 50 but am getting lots of mixed messages. I notice that the Beneteau boats have regularly done well on the ARC and when I look at boats for sale in Aus quite a number have been circumnavigated with the boats and owners still in one piece. Yet none of the "production" boats are in this years list of recommended cruisers. Can someone tell me the downsides of this boat? We will be travelling myself, my wife and one child. Thanks for any comments.


----------



## St Anna

Gooday Graeme,
I am very biased but; have a look at the hull design - bolt on keel, chassis with hull glued on perhaps...Does the rig need regular tightening??

Then look at the hull shape - greater beam aft of the CLR as well as CE behind or about the CLR. Therefore downwind she might wish for her rear to race past her bow.

Then again, there are thousands of these _bendy toys _around. Cant be all bad. Will be great for the Whitsunday market.


----------



## sailingdog

Umm... A 50' boat might be a bit of a handful for a couple with child...depending on the age of the child and such. When you're cruising as a couple-with or without child-you're generally two people singlehanding the same boat at different times. If the child is older, say 12+ YO, then that changes the equation slightly.

However, I strongly feel that any boat you get has to be capable of being handled singlehandedly by the weakest adult crew member that will normally be aboard her. There will be times, especially if you have a younger child, that the other person will not be available to help do things like reef the sails when it needs to be done.



graemefromdownunder said:


> I am a definite newby to this forum and this question is right where my thoughts are right now. We are planning to sail to Australia via the Panama Canal (from the Med). Once we reach the Whitsundays we will be settling down and our boat will then double up as a skippered charter. I have been looking at the Beneteau 50 but am getting lots of mixed messages. I notice that the Beneteau boats have regularly done well on the ARC and when I look at boats for sale in Aus quite a number have been circumnavigated with the boats and owners still in one piece. Yet none of the "production" boats are in this years list of recommended cruisers. Can someone tell me the downsides of this boat? We will be travelling myself, my wife and one child. Thanks for any comments.


----------



## St Anna

SD,
How are you today?
I agree wholeheartedly. Our boy from age about 6 could take a day watch and could transfer pos to chart etc. He could use the radio properly, steer, understand the echo sounder and many other things. 

So, I think its all good for Mr G and his gang. A bendytoy most likely will have an in mast furler so to minimise muscle needed. He should know all about it by the time he gets here. I see what you are saying about many people jumping into the Queen Mary size yacht first. Mind you, you havent enough room to swing a cat. ( I know - try harder)


----------



## sailingmum

*What do I think of her ?*

I'm taking her home to meet my mother.



sailingdog said:


> LOL... he's a local to my sailing area...  And you're very welcome... the dark side of the force is very seductive...
> 
> Here's a photo of one of his Hammerhead 54 trimarans under sail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of her??


----------



## sailingdog

I'm good... Boat's in the water... will be going down to the marina tomorrow for a couple of days on the boat to commission her for the season.


----------



## sailingdog

Congratulations... and if you come by to meet her designer, let me know... his office is about 15 minutes from my boat. 


sailingmum said:


> I'm taking her home to meet my mother.


----------



## St Anna

SD - have a great time


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so a quick summary of the wildly varying sentiment of the past pages, which is now close to becoming the definitive gospel on BAPDs for all time...

General Rules:
1. "Blue water" and/or "offshore" can be defined for our purposes as a 5 day passage from anchorage to anchorage (due to the modern weather window). It's beyond what most think of as "coastal" cruising, but it's not a pull across the Pacific either. (That said - these boats CAN also do a longer hop without major issues. See Givens below).
2. The unforeseen weather limit we seem to have set is a strong gale/"weak" storm (e.g. Force 9-10). This means that if you were unlucky enough to get caught in one, you'd still feel relatively safe in your production boat with appropriate heavy weather precautions (e.g. - storm sails, drogues, etc.). In other words, it's not going to fall apart around you.

General Givens:
1. It is understood that the vast majority of modern production boats can and have indeed circumnavigated - some with major modifications and strengthening, others without. Virtually any boat can indeed be sailed virtually anywhere in the right conditions. But this particular conversation is centered around the rules above as this is where most sailors will play.
2. It is understood that the boat typically outlasts the sailor's will/ability even in the worst of conditions.
3. It is understood that there are a million variables in all these estimations from tankage, to crew size, to boat size, to gear, etc. But this discussion is a wildly irresponsible rule of thumb exercise - so there you go.
4. When it comes to separating the first and second tiers - it probably comes down more to comfort than toughness. But, few will argue that comfort ain't a good thing in the long run. So there you go.

The True Contenders:
1. Beneteau: seems to get high marks all-round as a boat that is well-built, fast, serviceable, comfortable, and sturdy. All-round winner.
2. Catalina: seems to be the next in line in the above areas - though CD will protest wildly that "Bene's got nothin'. Jeff likes my boat best."
3. Jenneau: Right in the hunt - but arguable as to where it finally falls. Serviceability? Better than newer Hunters?
4. Hunter: seems to still be suffering from "poor design" during previous runs - yet has seemingly improved in the last few years. It seems the jury is still out on this one.

The Second Tier:
1. Tartan: older ones at least (say pre '90?). problems with hatch design, etc. discussed, but still liked.
2. Sabre: tough boats - but some problems listed.
3. Hallberg Rassy: starts to move out of typical "production boat" world and into high-priced "elite" boats (same with OVNI, etc.) that are more "blue" than "production".
4. From here we probably pass into the realm of "lesser" blue water boats. So I'll stop here.

Fugedaboudit?:
1. Irwin: still personally not convinced of that this one fails the test. built lighter and for a lower cost point - but does that completely move it out of the contender category?
2. O'Day: a lot of them around, but no one willing to go to bat for it.
3. McGregor: the big ones rock - but anything less than 45'+ gets a nose thumb and a good heckling.
4. Any multi-hull. Those things are just abominations to sailing. Heh-heh.

What have we left out?


----------



## St Anna

Hiya Smack,
I think you nailed it.


----------



## Valiente

sailingdog said:


> However, I strongly feel that any boat you get has to be capable of being handled singlehandedly by the weakest adult crew member that will normally be aboard her. There will be times, especially if you have a younger child, that the other person will not be available to help do things like reef the sails when it needs to be done.


Graeme, this is precisely the reason I didn't get the 50 footer I could afford, and instead got the 41-footer my wife could handle solo. Distance sailing is essentially watch-keeping, and the watch-keeper is the skipper. The skipper, besides the fairly obvious aspects of looking around for shipping, awash containers, sleeping whales, interesting flotsam, slicks and derelict Beneteaus, is also busy inspecting for chafe, noting the position, checking the sail set, looking for loose or squeaky bolts on mounts, vanes, lifelines, loose pins on shackles, turnbuckles, retying lashings, checking oil and temps on engines, checking amps on batteries, checking water levels, sea state, albatrosses and making sure the cat eats ALL the ex-flying fish on the foredeck.

You, off-watch, are likely making dinner, cleaning the head, teaching your kid what she isn't learning in school (no school) or repairing, painting, sealing, varnishing, oiling or straightening or bending something. You aren't looking out the porthole...that's the skip's job.

After four hours, you're the skip.

Running the boat is therefore sequential solo gigs. If your wife isn't bigger than you, get the biggest boat SHE can handle, not you.


----------



## twinsdad

Another vote for the smaller boat. While I get the desire for more room with a child on board, the ease of sailing a smaller boat makes a lot of sense. You can still have nice comfort on a 40 footer.

Have to disagree about forgetting multi-hulls. I think you should really look in to the pros and cons of monos and multis - talking to people who are partial to each side. The flatter ride of the multi may be a big advantage with a child on board -- easier for them to do other stuff when they are bored of sailing.


----------



## Valiente

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so a quick summary of the wildly varying sentiment of the past pages, which is now close to becoming the definitive gospel on BAPDs for all time...


I think I would call this "a good start", but it neglects major makers like Dufour, Hanse, Farr, Saga and J-Boat, and ignores that Tartan are making boats equal in seaworthiness to Beneteau (some models, anyway), and ignores a huge swath of production boats made in the thousands, but no longer being produced, like the C&C Landfall series, CS 36 and 42, Niagara 35 and 42, the bigger Pearsons, Gulfstar, Southerly, Peterson...yadda yadda.

We haven't even gotten to the "old shoe" class, like Westsail, Bristol, the various Taiwan-built cutters and schooners and clippers. The Island Packets, the Passports, the Shannons. Basically, anything Alex finds amusing. 

And then there's the 10,000 steel or ferrocement Roberts designs out there, and the odd fibreglass replica of "Spray" with authentic teak and brass below, some in the cook's peg leg and parts of the parrot.

Ye be only wetting yer buckles, matey. Dive a little deeper 'til there be the devil to pay! Y'arrrrrrrr.....


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Smack Daddy. I respectfully disagree with some of your choices. The summation of your reasoning is somewhat ok. I do have a problem with your blanket statement about 5 day forecasts. Maybe in the Pacific where the storms are moving from a long way but in the Atlantic not so accurate. Beneteau would generally be off my list for the following reasons: check out the cockpit drains, they go to a standpipe not a thru-hull. Not a good idea. The all glass hull flexes quite a bit. Nice in that it doesn't have core problems but not very reassuring in a seaway when the hull is flexing a half a foot like the Beneteau 42 I've sailed on a lot. Some of the Catalinas mentioned have an issue with cockpit volume. Nice at the dock but can be a serious problem if you poop one. Hunters- uh I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with a top heavy boat in a blow. Hunter has made vast design improvements but come on, the ports/deadlights are too big, that nice roller furling main has a very high center of effort which is not good if the wind unexpectedly pipes up. Look at the Hunter deck/hull joint. The external flange and fastening is susceptible to docking damage which cause some pretty bad leaks. One bump and you have a leak. Also take a look at the fasteners on the underside of the Hunter rail. They are corroding within 2 years in a saltwater environment.

Give me a Tartan 37, Sabre 38-II, or even the IP 38 before these boats. A few modifications like additional tankage and maybe a staysail cutter with check stays retrofit on the Tartan and Sabre and you have a pretty good compromise near offshore boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

Valiente said:


> I think I would call this "a good start", but it neglects major makers like Dufour, Hanse, Farr, Saga and J-Boat, and ignores that Tartan are making boats equal in seaworthiness to Beneteau (some models, anyway), and ignores a huge swath of production boats made in the thousands, but no longer being produced, like the C&C Landfall series, CS 36 and 42, Niagara 35 and 42, the bigger Pearsons, Gulfstar, Southerly, Peterson...yadda yadda.
> 
> We haven't even gotten to the "old shoe" class, like Westsail, Bristol, the various Taiwan-built cutters and schooners and clippers. The Island Packets, the Passports, the Shannons. Basically, anything Alex finds amusing.
> 
> And then there's the 10,000 steel or ferrocement Roberts designs out there, and the odd fibreglass replica of "Spray" with authentic teak and brass below, some in the cook's peg leg and parts of the parrot.
> 
> Ye be only wetting yer buckles, matey. Dive a little deeper 'til there be the devil to pay! Y'arrrrrrrr.....


Awww crap Cap'n Val - I thought I was DONE! You guys are just too freakin' hard to please!

As to other boats you list - I'm trying to keep us focused on true production boats - and those that are still in production (as much as possible). So that nukes the no-longers. Of course - that can be stretched but that means YOU have to do the rundown of all those, pal. I'm too damn lazy.

As for the Hanse, Dufor, etc. in my mind those boats are above the level of the "production boat" line we're discussing. It seems that the Tartan/C&C lines are still on the lower end of that scale, and probably slide into the PB camp. But I don't really know for sure.

The other ones you list are definitely in the blue water family I would say. So fugedaboudit. And don't even get me started on steel pal!


----------



## smackdaddy

Sanduskysailor said:


> Smack Daddy. I respectfully disagree with some of your choices. The summation of your reasoning is somewhat ok. I do have a problem with your blanket statement about 5 day forecasts. Maybe in the Pacific where the storms are moving from a long way but in the Atlantic not so accurate. Beneteau would generally be off my list for the following reasons: check out the cockpit drains, they go to a standpipe not a thru-hull. Not a good idea. The all glass hull flexes quite a bit. Nice in that it doesn't have core problems but not very reassuring in a seaway when the hull is flexing a half a foot like the Beneteau 42 I've sailed on a lot. Some of the Catalinas mentioned have an issue with cockpit volume. Nice at the dock but can be a serious problem if you poop one. Hunters- uh I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with a top heavy boat in a blow. Hunter has made vast design improvements but come on, the ports/deadlights are too big, that nice roller furling main has a very high center of effort which is not good if the wind unexpectedly pipes up. Look at the Hunter deck/hull joint. The external flange and fastening is susceptible to docking damage which cause some pretty bad leaks. One bump and you have a leak. Also take a look at the fasteners on the underside of the Hunter rail. They are corroding within 2 years in a saltwater environment.
> 
> Give me a Tartan 37, Sabre 38-II, or even the IP 38 before these boats. A few modifications like additional tankage and maybe a staysail cutter with check stays retrofit on the Tartan and Sabre and you have a pretty good compromise near offshore boat.


Sandy - respect is absolutely unnecessary. Feel free to call me a flaming idiot. That's cool. I got no pride.

As for the 5 day forecast limitation - as I said I know it's wildly variable, but let's try to dial it in a bit to keep it harder for people to hind behind uncertainty. As Tom Cruise said, "I WANT THE TRUTH!".

Your run down on the contenders is very good. That's the kind of info we need around here.

As for the Tartan - what's the cut-off year before all the problems? I actually like those boats personally - but there is the hubbub that can't be named.

Do me a favor and quote my run-down and tweak it where you think it needs to be tweaked. Then we'll go from there.

(You too Val)


----------



## graemefromdownunder

*Illumination please?*

"Then look at the hull shape - greater beam aft of the CLR as well as CE behind or about the CLR. Therefore downwind she might wish for her rear to race past her bow."

I have looked through the various posts and my notes on boat design but would be grateful if you could tell me what CLR and CE stand for? I think I understand what you are getting at however.

Regards

Graeme


----------



## sailingmum

*Price categories and a couple of other boats*

Price and rig are a consideration for me. 
When I worked in marina, Beneteaus, new and older ones, had many issues. They seem so light for crossing the ocean as well, but that said I know many do. 
My budget is no more than 20 to 25K, which leaves me in this market, looking at Allied Seawind, Pearson Triton 28, Ericson 28 and in a stretch maybe the Telstar 28. I won't be crossing oceans but I want to do long cruises down the coast of US, Caribean and Central America. 
I prefer a fractional rig and a tiller. That's not set in stone but as single hander, seems like way to go and I just love the feel of a tiller, and that you can tuck it out of the way, when you're not sailing. A wheel is like another guest when you're at anchor. But a guest who just won't get out of the way.

Also, I'm one of the few sailors I know that wears a life jacket anytime I leave the mooring or dock. It's a pain but I don't care. If the boat sinks, I don't want to sink too. Sadly as a marine professional for a few years, I witnessed many freak accidents that lead to injury and death. 
I mention only because it often makes me think about monohulls opposed to catamarans or trimarans. One sinks, the other doesn't. 
I often ask myself, why am I considering long cruises.... on a boat that could sink and sink quickly. At least the catamarans and tris, have floatation.

Lots to think about...



Valiente said:


> I think I would call this "a good start", but it neglects major makers like Dufour, Hanse, Farr, Saga and J-Boat, and ignores that Tartan are making boats equal in seaworthiness to Beneteau (some models, anyway), and ignores a huge swath of production boats made in the thousands, but no longer being produced, like the C&C Landfall series, CS 36 and 42, Niagara 35 and 42, the bigger Pearsons, Gulfstar, Southerly, Peterson...yadda yadda.
> 
> We haven't even gotten to the "old shoe" class, like Westsail, Bristol, the various Taiwan-built cutters and schooners and clippers. The Island Packets, the Passports, the Shannons. Basically, anything Alex finds amusing.
> 
> And then there's the 10,000 steel or ferrocement Roberts designs out there, and the odd fibreglass replica of "Spray" with authentic teak and brass below, some in the cook's peg leg and parts of the parrot.
> 
> Ye be only wetting yer buckles, matey. Dive a little deeper 'til there be the devil to pay! Y'arrrrrrrr.....


----------



## St Anna

Graeme,
Ilumination via KISS principle. This will cause some conjecture and correction from those who really know what they are talking about, but here it is;

CE is the centre of effort of the sails. Some yachts (esp racing) have the mast quite back and either raked or tensioned to curve the top back. This brings the power of the sails back (aft) --> great for windward sailing. For downwind sailing, you want that power of the sails concentrated further forward. Average boat - CE is found 3-4' above the goosneck and 3' behind

CLR is the centre of lateral resistance of the boat. Its the pivot point forward/aft and sideways. Average mono - bottom of the round part of the bilges and close to the widest part of the beam.

If the CE is in front of the CLR, downwind performance is better. CE behind CLR windward better. Also ballast, level of weather helm and a thousand other factors are involved.

Modern yachts have the beam well aft and small dense bolt on keels, with flat hull sections aft. Their CE is fairly aft so they go to windward and are fast and stable. However when going downwind (and more particular - with following sea) and relying on an autopilot, not an experienced (racing) helmsman, there is a chance you will broach. 

Cruising from the USA to OZ is a lot of downwind stuff (thats how those yanks get here - and then they use {need}a ship to bring the boat back uphill!!! just kidding guys) Dats wot I say.


----------



## Valiente

smackdaddy said:


> Do me a favor and quote my run-down and tweak it where you think it needs to be tweaked. Then we'll go from there.
> 
> (You too Val)


Well, we have to get real about your goals, then, Smack.

Are you looking to eventually purchase a coastal cruiser capable of hopping from Florida to the Bahamas and then running the chain down to Trinidad and back?

In that case, pretty well any of the production boats you listed will do. They can all carry five days' worth of water, fuel and electricity in relatively comfort, and could handle a reasonable blow of reasonable duration, say, 35-40 knots, 15 foot seas, for 36 hours in the open ocean.

But if you are wanting to go off the continental shelf and to spend two to three weeks crossing the Atlantic from Boston to Bristol in June, or from Portugal via the Azores to Guadaloupe in March, you may wish to rethink certain aspects of your boat. If you are planning to go from Panama to the Marquesas (which can take a full month at 105 NM per day, or just over 5 knots SOG every hour out of 24), you are going to need solar, wind, a genset and loads of fuel and water, or a watermaker and loads of power to run it...and so on.

A lot of production boats have a finite amount of space and reserve buoyancy with which to play in terms of adding extended tankage, batteries or other heavy objects. It's like putting a production car like a Toyota or Volkswagen sedan in an "across the Sahara" rally: Extensive modifications are required to do the trip at all, and you can toss the car in the garbage when you're finished.

Of course, "boat show cruisers" can and do make long passages. People live on them for years. You don't need an "old shoe". But I think you'll find that the compromises and changes needed to go from a "mostly coastal, with occasional point-to-point oceanic" capabilities to "trans-Pacific, multi-point randomness, with occasional month-long, shore-autonomous stints on the hook in some distant lagoon where the 200 locals turn off the three lightbulbs at 8 PM, because they only get 55 gallons of diesel a month for the whole village".

I don't even consider that hypothetical boat _extreme_. Extreme is someone who goes to the fjords of Patagonia for laughs, and who crosses from Cape Horn to the west side of the Antarctica Peninsula as a challenge or because they finally received the DVD of "March of the Penguins" by _poste restante._

So there are production cruisers out there, but the runs are small and the models are invariably more expensive, but less so in most cases than modifying an existing fast cruiser happy with 25 knots between Rum Reef and Cola Cay.

I haven't seen a boat show production boat for years that I would deem suitable for ocean crossings just on the basis of beam and too large open space in the interior, too big portlights, and too weak hatches and dropboards, and too large cockpits with too small scuppers. Don't get me started on backing plates, lack of handholds or a hundred other details.

I've seen most of these points addressed on Island Packets and J-Boats, even though they are quite different beasts. So I know that the builders know what is needed for oceanic work.

But the fact is that there's no point spending the money for this when the target audience are modestly skilled sailors planning modestly distant passages in fair weather. There's no shame in wanting a safe, untroubled three-day sail to Bermuda in a gold-plated weather window, or the same trip from Bermuda to Bahamas.

So either look at European boats from places where crappy weather is inevitable, but holidays are limited...or look at buying someone else's offshore boat where the stuff that didn't break the first time around is probably still good for another few thousand miles.


----------



## sailingmum

Please more of this no-nonsense sharing. This is the best post I've read anywhere on the subject.
Thanks


----------



## smackdaddy

Great write up Val! Again! Honestly, I'm not wanting to make this about my personal purchase. I will most likely end up with a 10-12 year old center-cockpit production boat due to comfort factors for the family and my budget. I think it will be fine for us cruising around the Gulf and Carib which will be our thang for the foreseeable future. That is to say; I promise to stay on the shelf. If per chance I do get a wild hair and decide to take in the "Patagonia Penguin Run" - I'll trade in for a suitable boat.

So, for this thread, I'm really just trying to do a thorough run-down of these non-blue boats because in researching it, I hadn't found much in-depth comparisons between production boat models as regards heavier sailing. Just the comparisons of them to blues - which doesn't make sense to me. As you say, they're very different animals.

Which are the badass production boats (BAPBs) and why? St's write up is also extremely informative in this regard as I now understand the CE/CLR coefficient to mean fatass production boat (FAPB).

Great stuff.


----------



## St Anna

Hiya Smacker, 
Keeping out of trouble??
Here is another factor. Most offshore trips will be less than 7 days max and usually less than 5. In W Pacific, I could expect to get from Oz to Am Samoa with most legs 4 days, maybe one leg 5 days. @$#@^%$ etc dependant. 

A friend (75yr old solo sailor) brought a Halberg Rassy from Hawaii to Brisbane and averaged 175nm/d. (Downwind stuff) We use the HF daily on an informal net and give our position and tell a few lies etc.{Security Blanket}


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh, St I wouldn't know how to behave if I tried, mate! 

So it sounds like CD's 5 day window limit is a pretty accurate threshold. 

I do love your part of the world. I lived on Guadalcanal for a couple of years and visited Fiji, Auckland, etc. And I've done some business in Melbourne. One of these days I hope to make it down again to sail with some of you guys. It would be a complete honor.


----------



## St Anna

Smackd. We are aiming to sail through the Caribbean (one day), so right back at ya! 

You guys have so much more traffic than us, I'd be a huge embarrassment ( picture the 3 stooges anchoring in a crowded place)


----------



## chall03

Smack, give us some notice please before you come so I can tidy this place up a bit, put out some Koala's and Kangaroos( oh and some wonbats of course). I also need to make sure the Coastguard, Australian Navy, Coastal Patrol, the Federal Police and Customs are all ready for Smackdownunder........

TDW also might need a couple of days to plan his going-into-hiding in that hippie hideaway in the mountains


----------



## graemefromdownunder

Thanks for all the comments and views, it has been really invaluable. We have started to look at the Hanse yachts, specifically the 470 and 531. Both seem much stronger and more suited to blue water. I particularly like the 470, would seem more manageable but still suited to our end use in the Whitsundays. Rather than adding more water capacity how do you rate watermakers, I am thinking of the Spectra 12V unit? I have turned against in-mast furling but looking for ball-bearing cars and lazy jacks they seem reliable and quick to manage. I saw a comment somewhere about "aluminium rudder" does anyone know anything I should be wary of? Does anyone have any comments about the use of the Parasail for long haul use? Also on the 470 there is a large glassed roof section, would you recommend fitting storm covers over this? Thanks to all.


----------



## Mimsy

Graeme, you'll probably get more help with your questions if you start a new thread.


----------



## johnshasteen

I've sailed offshore and in some pretty bad weather for over 40-years. While young, crewing aboard a Hinckley B40 in the Atlantic, including several Marion to Hamilton races, later on in the Gulf of Mexio on my sailing buddies' old Cal 40, a Pearson 365 and for many years, Paloma (from Bristol RI, around the bottom of FL and on to Galveston; Galveston to Vera Cruz, Galveston to Isla Mujeres, Galveston to Port Isabel and many criss-crosses of the Gulf). What I know from hard-learned experience, is that when you are out there on your own, where there's no Coast Guard to come pluck you out of the sh-t and BoatTowUS isn't going to come out to rescue you, you have to rely 75% on your own sailing know how and 25% on your boat - but your boat better be strong enough to carry it's 25% of the task - you can screw up and not deliver your 75%, but if your boat doesn't deliver all 25% of it's obligation, you've got serious problems. Most production boats are really nice, great in the slip, up to doing everything that most people buy them for and are even ideal for a rough day on the bay - but not what I need and not up to delivering the 25% you have to have in heavy weather far from a safe harbor.


----------



## Omatako

johnshasteen said:


> - you can screw up and not deliver your 75%, but if your boat doesn't deliver all 25% of it's obligation, you've got serious problems.


I think that this total needs always to be 100%. If you can't live up to you 75% then best be sure that your boat has the ability to make it back up to 100.


----------



## Omatako

St Anna said:


> Most offshore trips will be less than 7 days max and usually less than 5. In W Pacific, I could expect to get from Oz to Am Samoa with most legs 4 days, maybe one leg 5 days. @$#@^%$ etc dependant.


If you're going to do do any serious passage making, you will have much longer trips than 5 days to contend with. Africa to Australia for example (even on the northerly (UGHH) route). And from the US/Panama/Mexico to the South Pacific. Or from Africa to the Americas. In fact, any ocean crossing. 

One thing is for sure. If Smack is coming down-under under sail, he will have to do at least one of these.

It's only really in the West Pacific that 5 days is a routine crossing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh great. So this means that, taking my sailing prowess into account, I need to find a boat that will do 99% of the work? Maybe something in the Carnival Cruise line?


----------



## Valiente

What was the old saying about bold, old sailors?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Might be worth listing what things you want in a boat and then listing and ranking as many boats that match your criteria. I did this and decided I like what I have already and would only want something similar but longer.

Someone said 3kts faster is not much. I disagree.
For example say 6kts vs 9kts that's a 50% increase. 
Which is 144nm vs 216nm in 24 hours and 288nm vs 432nm in 48 hours, pretty significant.

Anyway here a list of boats that I like the look of and satisfied some of my initial criteria. I would be really interested how people would rank these based on quality and blue water "ability" ease of maintenance. Any in the list that could be ruled out?

Halberg-Rassy 43 MkII or Hallberg-Rassy 42 F Mk II (nice but expensive)
45' Passport 456 Center Cockpit (nice but expensive)
Catalina 42 MK2, Catalina Morgan 44 CC 
Beneteau Oceanis 44 CC
44' Brewer Center Cockpit Sloop
Contest 44
Bavaria 44 OCEAN Center Cockpit (but unprotected rudder, small bowsprit, nice interior, but only need two cabins and sea berth)
Bristol 45.5
Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 45
45' Cavalier CC
Island Packet 44 CC
44' Kelly Peterson 44 cutter (older, no reverse transom)
Morgan 46 (older, no reverse transom)
Irwin 43 MkII (older, transom only partial step)
Freedom 45 CC (don't like rig)
Pan Oceanic 46 a Ted Brewer designed pilothouse cutter
Swan 46
Norseman 447


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey Matt - welcome to the fray dude. That list of yours is pretty wide-ranging. From what I know at this point (which ain't a whole lot) it includes productions (Beneteau, Jenneau, Catalina, Irwin, etc.) and traditional blues (HR, Bristol, Bavaria, etc.). I'm not real sure where Swans fall. Crazy expensive production boat? Or killer blue? Or both?

Also, I'm with you on the speed issue. I'd rather tend a bit more toward a fast boat that will still stand up pretty well in a moderate storm than ALWAYS sail slow for the 2% chance I'll get hit by an F10. And I like the CC as well.

Good post.

As for the criteria - *HERE'S* what we've laid down thus far


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Yes the list is pretty wide ranging (focused on CCs, 42-45 foot range with reverse transom, blue water capable). The first two are I think excellent and then the list is roughly sorted down to the 44 Peterson.

As you probably realize there is no perfect boat, one attractive feature can compromise another desirable feature. For example full prop protection is desirable, but this means more wetted surface area (WSA) and so is (generally) a bit slower than a similar length boat with less WSA. e.g IP 44C vs HR43.

However I reckon a skeg hung rudder instead of a balanced rudder should be a serious consideration.

Another consideration is to get a standard, at least reasonably popular design from a strong company that will be in business in 10 years time. A successful company with a good rep will have ironed out a lot of problems. This will mean you can order a sail over the phone, order parts over the phone etc. The time savings should not be underestimated. 

If I was you I would make a rough list and then go and look at examples of the boats at the top of the list. Then check your criteria against the list etc.


----------



## smackdaddy

I actually did that last weekend. I was on the coast and hit a few marinas - looking at some Benes, Irwins, Morgans, Tayanas, etc.

Man, after sailing a C27, seeing these 40-50 footers was SWEEEEET. I couldn't convince anyone to let me take their boat out into the bay - so I'll just have to keep trying!

BTW - the Morgan was actually not as ugly in real life as it is in pictures.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*What didya like the look of?*



smackdaddy said:


> I actually did that last weekend. I was on the coast and hit a few marinas - looking at some Benes, Irwins, Morgans, Tayanas, etc.


Some nice boats no doubt.

When you see the design you like, you will probably know straight away.

It would be interesting to know how you would rank what you've seen!


----------



## jorgenl

smackdaddy said:


> includes productions (Beneteau, Jenneau, Catalina, Irwin, etc.) and traditional blues (HR, Bristol, *Bavaria*, etc.).


Smacker,

I probably would not put Bavaria in the blue category. I think it belongs in the production variety.

$0.02


----------



## smackdaddy

Cool. Thanks Jorgen. Bavaria is IN DA HOUSE!

Where would you put Swan (and some of the others)?


----------



## ctl411

Most production boats will take more than 99% of sailors will give,I have abused old Hunters for years.


----------



## jorgenl

I would put Swan on the top of my list if I had a lot more money  

Seriously, in my not so experienced mind a Swan is a bullet proof, bluewater, offshore racer (some of them might be semi suitable for cruising).

I love Swans and Baltics but had to rule even the older, more affordable ones out due to the deep drafts being a show stopper in the Chessie.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Yes Sure*



jorgenl said:


> I would put Swan on the top of my list if I had a lot more money
> 
> Seriously, in my not so experienced mind a Swan is a bullet proof, bluewater, offshore racer (some of them might be semi suitable for cruising).


Yes for sure, I have not sorted them below the Peterson and really only roughly above that. So the Swan yes in quality terms it could be higher, but it did not fit my criteria.

Also I stopped sorting these boats once I had one or two at the top.


----------



## Valiente

ctl411 said:


> Most production boats will take more than 99% of sailors will give,I have abused old Hunters for years.


This is true, but I would put offshore sailing smack in that 1%.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's a great story regarding a '84 Catalina 36 trying for a TransPac - stolen from another thread of course. Lots to think about...



sailingfool said:


> How about upgrade everything? Here's a story about a coastal cruiser going bluewater, does it sound like fun? They got about 200 miles.
> 
> EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Sailing to Hawaii...The First Attempt by Arnold Rowe


----------



## graemefromdownunder

*Production Boats - our own answer*

It seems ages ago since I posted the question and a lot of water has since gone under the keel!

I saw the comment by someone that the list should include Hanse and Dufour. I knew nothing about these at the time so read all I could on both. The final result was we bought a 2005 Hanse 461 in July. The original owner had bought it in the UK and with help sailed it out to Spain. He had it fitted out for long distance sailing; watermaker, 6kw generator, third reef, duplicated instruments, autopilot with Mamba drive, extra sails and spinnaker, spare anchors, 100m chain plus lots of other useful additions incl air-conditioning. We were lucky, it was within our budget as the credit crunch has really devastated prices.

I had a number of reasons for choosing the Hanse 461 and some of these may help others also trying to make a decision. Firstly she is a very strong boat. There is a rigid galvanised steel frame within the hull giving great structural support. The hull is epoxy with the bulkheads bonded to hull and deck. The keel is 2.4m deep with a lead bulb. The mast is over 20m high giving her the ability to sail even in light airs. The jib is self tacking and all the lines come back to the cockpit and two powered winches. My concern over the draining qualities of the Beneteau designs has no comparison in the Hanse, the cockpit is open to the seas so a wave in is also a wave out. The portholes are of a traditional design,not overly large and not glued in as is becoming popular. Only a few of them open, the rest are fixed.

There are some negatives; the freeboard is high (almost 2m) so trying to moor her stern-on in any wind over 10 knts is a nightmare if the wind is off the bow. She is pushed around a little by heavy seas on the stern, but not as badly as I had anticipated. The stability curve is not as good as a Swan or Halberg, but not far off it.

I am certainly glad we bought second hand. Talking to the previous owner, he had the usual run of production faults, equipment failures and meetings with Sods Law. We have inherited the fruits of his endeavours and she feels a lovely solid boat to sail. 2m waves seem to glide by with no effort and steering is precise.

We are still moored in Spain but getting experience bit ny bit. Finance willing next year will see us doing 3-4months sailing Spain - Italy - Greece and back. The following year - hopefully the Atlantic and Aus. However one vital decision we have made is to take extra qualified crew with us for the long hauls, we have 2 spare double bedrooms and plan to fill them!


----------



## chall03

Thanks for the thoughts on this Graeme. I haven't ever thought much about the Hanse's I must admit. Best of luck in the Med, I am sure you will have a ball.


----------



## twinsdad

Smack, I just got to reading your posting of 2 weeks ago. That is an amazing story, with many lessons for all of us. Highly recommended reading for anyone looking to do anything beyond daysailing. You might want to also post it on the BFS thread.


----------



## bb74

The argument around blue water boats and production cruisers sure seems to hinge on two major themes. First of all, boat design and the concept that "old" world design is still better than "new" world design and production with modern materials and techniques. I think that's a moot argument at this point as it's about preference for comfort (which is important) vs. performance. There is a major, major, disconnect between the US and the rest of the world on what makes a nice, safe, sturdy boat. The second theme seems to be one that doesn't get it's due as it should for in my humble opinion it's 99% of what makes a "blue water" cruise successful - and that's a competent crew.

Sailing is like any other strenuous physical and mental activity - up to 7/10ths the body and mind cope pretty well. Getting into that last 3/10th range causes significant duress on the system and this is where things go wrong. I'd suggest within that last 3/10th range a seasoned crew on an under-equiped, 25 foot Benny would have MUCH, MUCH higher chances of surviving a major storm than a green crew on the latest, greatest 50 foot "blue water yacht". Being able to act rationally under that sever duress and manage situations as they come while addressing others before they occur is much more important than having that 2nd set of systems, furling main, Iridium telephone and the ice cooler... 

Having said all that, some design will inherently be less taxing physically in some conditions and this will provide some leeway to the crew in regards to fatigue, stress and ultimately fear and that is a positive but certainly not an end game.

Not all that many boats sink with crews aboard these days, many are simply abandoned because the crews no longer are capable of dealing with their surroundings and find it easier mentally to bail where in reality their safest place was in the boat trying to maintain it's buoyancy integrity. Same reason some people that are really seasick sometime will literally let themselves fall into the water to simply "stop the moving".

You can go about anywhere with just about any modern production boat in relative safety ASSUMING you take the necessary precautions to remain within that 7/10ths range of the crews capability.


----------



## twinsdad

Agreed.


----------



## night0wl

I posted this on another thread...

Did anyone notice the Caribbean 1500 rally participant list for 2009? Only 2 boats under 40 feet...a Cal and an Island Packet.

But lots of *LARGE* Beneteaus, Catalinas, & Jeanneuas. Not a single Hunter.

I wonder why no mid-size production cruisers from the big builders (34-40)...they allow exception to the 38 foot rule.


----------



## Sequitur

night0wl said:


> I posted this on another thread...
> 
> Did anyone notice the Caribbean 1500 rally participant list for 2009? Only 2 boats under 40 feet...a Cal and an Island Packet.
> 
> But lots of *LARGE* Beneteaus, Catalinas, & Jeanneuas. Not a single Hunter.
> 
> I wonder why no mid-size production cruisers from the big builders (34-40)...they allow exception to the 38 foot rule.


Maybe they wouldn't let another Hunter in, considering the thrashing that a Hunter 49 did to the fleet in last year's 1500.  To quote from Mike's Harker's write-up after the rally last year:


> So how did we do? We finished in eight days and one hour, and we were the seventh boat to cross the finish line. Four of the seven boats had left early, however, one of them a whole day early. All the boats that finished ahead of us were in the Racing Fleet and were all over 50 feet in length. We were the first cruising boat to finish.
> 
> The four racing boats that started on time and finished ahead of us were a Santa Cruz 52, a Hallberg-Rassy 62, a Hallberg-Rassy 49 ketch, and a Swan 58. Some of the race boats that finished the course after us were a MacGregor 65, Catana 50 catamaran, Beneteau 57, Jeanneau 57, Farr 50, Tayana 58, Taswell 58, and a Hinckley 51. The Cruising Fleet didn't record official times because, for insurance purposes, these boats aren't racing. But we also finished ahead of a Hylas 54, two Amel 54s, a Tayana 55, a Passport 515, a Jeanneau 54 DS, and many others.


----------



## danielgoldberg

bb74 said:


> There is a major, major, disconnect between the US and the rest of the world on what makes a nice, safe, sturdy boat.


In what way? Not picking a fight at all, just curious about your perspective.


----------



## Cruisingdad

danielgoldberg said:


> In what way? Not picking a fight at all, just curious about your perspective.


I was wondering the same thing Dan.

Brian


----------



## blt2ski

Not that I will answer for bb74, but here in my take, and it is similar......

When reading the Jeanneau owners forum, there seem to be more folks willing to take/sail this brand of boat in the 30-35' range across a smaller sea/bay etc, we are talking 100-200 miles mind you, ie bay of biscay off of france from england than you will see NAmerica folks would generally speaking, not recomend a production boat like a JEanneau, beneteau, hunter, Dufour, hanse etc to do so. Even tho many of these boats in this size range have the "Cat A" ie open ocean cert that the European government has for boats to do this. Cat B and C are smaller bodies of water etc. 

Not sure if this is because if they want to sail, they have to sail in places like that, or if we NA folks are just plain too chicken or plan too much or what it is. Like my 29' 1985 Jeanneau has a then equal to a cat A cert, I would not have issues taking it off shore a bit. I know of some larger heavier built boats I would not, as they do not have what I would call some of the safety features mine has. Again, this is a personal issue, as much as anything. Please not, I have not been what I would call offshore either, so take these comments for what they are worth, probably .02!

If brian gets mean........i'll have to sick Winston and his ferocious tongue on him!:B:B:B:B:B

marty


----------



## TQA

> NO current production boat that meets bluewater capable requirements.


Amel a French manufacturer build proper cruising boats. Absolutely no concessions to the racing boys and girls or those wishing to be the queen of the marina. It has big tanks, watertight bulkheads, ketch rig etc.

Here is a review.



> Like its predecessor, the Super Maramu, the Amel 54 has a conservative sail plan and hull shape designed for comfortable sailing. On a CW test sail last year, in 16 knots on the beam with choppy cross seas off Florida, the 54 logged an effortless 9 knots. Old-school cruisers will appreciate the full-skeg rudder and twin reaching poles for downwind work. Because safety is Amel's paramount concern, the boat has four watertight bulkheads. The 54's solid hull is laminated to the deck, which has high bulwarks and full-length stainless-steel railings for added security.
> 
> Many Amel customers are older cruising couples, so easy operation is key. "If you can lift 50 pounds, you can do everything on this boat yourself," says U.S. agent Joel Potter. The electric furling main and genoa, electric winches, a bow thruster, and hydraulic pistons to help lift berths to access storage all support his claim
> Related Resources
> 2007 CW Sailboat Show: Boat Reviews and Photo Gallery Directory
> 
> Amel's characteristic steering station, behind the hard windshield/dodger, has push-button controls and readouts for almost all systems, although visibility from the chair is limited.
> 
> Built-in lee cloths and ample tankage indicate a boat designed for passagemaking. In port, the sumptuous leather-and-mahogany interior makes the 54 a queen on any quay that the built-in passerelle touches. The seaworthy galley has a dishwasher and a deep freeze; a washer/dryer is standard. Ample storage for cruising gear includes a cavernous lazarette fit for an RIB.


Henri Amel knew that cruisers don't hand steer standing up.

Henri Amel knew that a ketch rig made a more flexible rig.

I am not sure that I need two anchor winches but Henri could propably convince me.

This a production boat that can be circumnavigated with confidence, it comes with lee cloths, a hard dodger, big tanks and it is bullet proof. The chain plates, rudder, bulkheads and hatches will all remain where they are supposed to be. It even has a lazerette locker that can swallow a rib! No davits or dinghy on deck. [ Yes all proper cruisers have a rib. ]

The only thing I would worry about long term say 10 years plus is the number of electric motors involved in sailing it. But for a boat to sailaway from the factory this is it.

Mind you it is not cheap! I certainly can not afford one, but if I find a couple of million down the back of the couch then it is no 1 on the list.

There is a nice video on the factory site, switch to English and enjoy.
http://www.amel.fr/


----------



## Cruisingdad

TQA said:


> Amel a French manufacturer build proper cruising boats. Absolutely no concessions to the racing boys and girls or those wishing to be the queen of the marina. It has big tanks, watertight bulkheads, ketch rig etc.
> 
> Here is a review.
> 
> Henri Amel knew that cruisers don't hand steer standing up.
> 
> Henri Amel knew that a ketch rig made a more flexible rig.
> 
> I am not sure that I need two anchor winches but Henri could propably convince me.
> 
> This a production boat that can be circumnavigated with confidence, it comes with lee cloths, a hard dodger, big tanks and it is bullet proof. The chain plates, rudder, bulkheads and hatches will all remain where they are supposed to be. It even has a lazerette locker that can swallow a rib! No davits or dinghy on deck. [ Yes all proper cruisers have a rib. ]
> 
> The only thing I would worry about long term say 10 years plus is the number of electric motors involved in sailing it. But for a boat to sailaway from the factory this is it.
> 
> Mind you it is not cheap! I certainly can not afford one, but if I find a couple of million down the back of the couch then it is no 1 on the list.
> 
> There is a nice video on the factory site, switch to English and enjoy.
> http://www.amel.fr/


Funny thing about those boats... you either love them or you hate them. I personally do not care for them. Have you seen how much electrical gadgets that boat has? Even the jib has an electric roller on it. And what is up with that blue, plastic, non-skid stuff everywhere?

I actually went to the boat show one year (Ft. Luderdale I believe) to take a serious look at one versus a trawler. It simply did not appeal to me, at all. The Hylas 54, on the other hand, was awesome. They also had a Mason 54 (used IIRC) that was beautiful. That was when I fell in love with about anything PAE has been involved with - from Sailboat to trawler. But an Amel takes a particular person.

I realize they have gond all of the place. I am not doubting their sea qualities. I am questioning whether I would want that many gadgets on my boat... and that is coming from the gadget king.

Just my opinions. I am not trying to diss you boat, I was simply not impressed by it. Others love them and hate Catalinas and Masons and Hylas, so each to their own.

Just curious if you have spent any time on the boats I mentioned and how you would compare them to the Amel SM?

Brian


----------



## bb74

danielgoldberg said:


> In what way? Not picking a fight at all, just curious about your perspective.


OK, so here's my take and I admit it is perhaps tainted by all the blue water boat babbling on these forums. It's a condensed view/summary.

In the US and UK you still have a significant design trend for moderate LWL vs. LOA, narrower beam/LOA/LWL ratios, and only moderate transom width. You find few if any true "planing designs". Big premium on the creature comforts under deck leading to higher displacement ratios. That doesn't even include the likes of an IP that is really a design of another age. I'm not suggesting these boats don't work, and I do like the Rustler 42 as an example, but the sailing qualities are overrated for the vast majority of sailing in these parts (and I think on the East coast US as well)

Over here you have a much broader and generally available set of designs where planing hulls, whether aggressive like the Pogo, JPK, Bongo, etc, or the more moderate designs like the First classes, X, Dehler, Comets, ets. The boats typically have a near even LOA/LWL ratio, larger beam/LOA ratio and larger transoms. Displacement is lower but the Keel/ overall Displacement ratio is pretty good. Even the more recent HR's, Najad, etc are following this trend. I won't get into the sail plans and rigging as it really depends on who you buy from but you don't see those big 135% foresails anymore over here.

I tend to find that the argument (at least on these boards) for what's a safe, sturdy well found boat always comes back to some roundabout justification of why the narrower, non-planing, heavy, and non fin-keeled boats are better than the lighter, faster, wider and high keel/disp ratio boats. With todays manufacturing methods and materials there is really no reason to state one is better than another as a fact, just take a look at a Pogo 6.50 on the transat or almost any of the Transquadra boats. Any well manufactured design these days is capable of taking you from A to B in safety. Some may prefer to take longer to get there and there may be greater comfort depending upon the seas and wind, but I do not think one can state that those are the "safer" designs.

And no worries, all boats... well almost, are beautiful so no reason to fight over'em!


----------



## Cruisingdad

bb74 said:


> OK, so here's my take and I admit it is perhaps tainted by all the blue water boat babbling on these forums. It's a condensed view/summary.
> 
> In the US and UK you still have a significant design trend for moderate LWL vs. LOA, narrower beam/LOA/LWL ratios, and only moderate transom width. You find few if any true "planing designs". Big premium on the creature comforts under deck leading to higher displacement ratios. That doesn't even include the likes of an IP that is really a design of another age. I'm not suggesting these boats don't work, and I do like the Rustler 42 as an example, but the sailing qualities are overrated for the vast majority of sailing in these parts (and I think on the East coast US as well)
> 
> Over here you have a much broader and generally available set of designs where planing hulls, whether aggressive like the Pogo, JPK, Bongo, etc, or the more moderate designs like the First classes, X, Dehler, Comets, ets. The boats typically have a near even LOA/LWL ratio, larger beam/LOA ratio and larger transoms. Displacement is lower but the Keel/ overall Displacement ratio is pretty good. Even the more recent HR's, Najad, etc are following this trend. I won't get into the sail plans and rigging as it really depends on who you buy from but you don't see those big 135% foresails anymore over here.
> 
> I tend to find that the argument (at least on these boards) for what's a safe, sturdy well found boat always comes back to some roundabout justification of why the narrower, non-planing, heavy, and non fin-keeled boats are better than the lighter, faster, wider and high keel/disp ratio boats. With todays manufacturing methods and materials there is really no reason to state one is better than another as a fact, just take a look at a Pogo 6.50 on the transat or almost any of the Transquadra boats. Any well manufactured design these days is capable of taking you from A to B in safety. Some may prefer to take longer to get there and there may be greater comfort depending upon the seas and wind, but I do not think one can state that those are the "safer" designs.
> 
> And no worries, all boats... well almost, are beautiful so no reason to fight over'em!


What is the typical draft of one of yrou boats compared to ours?

Brian


----------



## TQA

> Funny thing about those boats... you either love them or you hate them. I personally do not care for them. Have you seen how much electrical gadgets that boat has? Even the jib has an electric roller on it. And what is up with that blue, plastic, non-skid stuff everywhere?


I agree that it has too much electrification. I would prefer manual roller furling on the headsail and a 2 line reefing system plus a dutchmen stackpak on the main. But I keep seeing them where the cruisers gather on there way to do serious miles. The original poster wanted a factory ready blue water boat. This may be as good as it gets. An Oyster 54 is a prettier boat but the salon is enormous, you need to rig ropes to cross in safety when rolling down the trades.

Did you mean "brown plastic non-skid" IE the fake teak decks. It needs zero maintenance and Ambre Soleil wipes off. Grown men cry over spills on teak decks then comes the worry over what to do when they age. The decks that is.

There are lots of prettier boats around but Amel build practical boats.


----------



## bb74

Cruisingdad said:


> What is the typical draft of one of your boats compared to ours?
> 
> Brian


Typical draft on a 30-40 foot range is from 6 1/2 to 8 feet on the boats I've mentioned here.


----------



## sck5

Pacific Seacraft? I also think my Caliber is pretty stout though some of the more purist would argue.


----------



## blt2ski

bb74 said:


> Typical draft on a 30-40 foot range is from 6 1/2 to 8 feet on the boats I've mentioned here.


It should also be pointed out, many of the manufactures will have at least 2, if not 3 keel depth options, a std say around 6', a deep at 7' and a shoal at 4.5'. Please note, examples only, some depths will be deeper or shallower too!

In the US, Tartan does the same.

marty


----------



## bb74

blt2ski said:


> It should also be pointed out, many of the manufactures will have at least 2, if not 3 keel depth options, a std say around 6', a deep at 7' and a shoal at 4.5'. Please note, examples only, some depths will be deeper or shallower too!
> 
> In the US, Tartan does the same.
> 
> marty


Yep. There are no absolute truths regarding boats. My post was in response to a question about the general design differences and I think that holds pretty well without getting into a statistical demonstration (that I don't have and don't have the time to work out).


----------



## danielgoldberg

bb74 said:


> In the US and UK you still have a significant design trend for moderate LWL vs. LOA, narrower beam/LOA/LWL ratios, and only moderate transom width. You find few if any true "planing designs". Big premium on the creature comforts under deck leading to higher displacement ratios. That doesn't even include the likes of an IP that is really a design of another age. I'm not suggesting these boats don't work, and I do like the Rustler 42 as an example, but the sailing qualities are overrated for the vast majority of sailing in these parts (and I think on the East coast US as well)
> 
> Over here you have a much broader and generally available set of designs where planing hulls, whether aggressive like the Pogo, JPK, Bongo, etc, or the more moderate designs like the First classes, X, Dehler, Comets, ets. The boats typically have a near even LOA/LWL ratio, larger beam/LOA ratio and larger transoms. Displacement is lower but the Keel/ overall Displacement ratio is pretty good. Even the more recent HR's, Najad, etc are following this trend. I won't get into the sail plans and rigging as it really depends on who you buy from but you don't see those big 135% foresails anymore over here.
> 
> I tend to find that the argument (at least on these boards) for what's a safe, sturdy well found boat always comes back to some roundabout justification of why the narrower, non-planing, heavy, and non fin-keeled boats are better than the lighter, faster, wider and high keel/disp ratio boats. With todays manufacturing methods and materials there is really no reason to state one is better than another as a fact, just take a look at a Pogo 6.50 on the transat or almost any of the Transquadra boats. Any well manufactured design these days is capable of taking you from A to B in safety. Some may prefer to take longer to get there and there may be greater comfort depending upon the seas and wind, but I do not think one can state that those are the "safer" designs.
> 
> And no worries, all boats... well almost, are beautiful so no reason to fight over'em!


Not sure I understand this, and I believe some of your statements are not really right. Like designs that favor creature comforts have higher DL ratios, and US and UK boats make narrower boats that don't carry beam aft (have you seen any recent Hunters, Catalinas, Southerly, Tartan, Moody, etc.?).

That said, is the upshot of your point that you perceive Americans as insisting that only full keel, full skeg, heavy displacement boats are suitable for offshore work? If so, I agree there is a contingent of sailors who hold that opinion, but I don't think it's accurate to say it's limited to Americans. Not by any stretch. If that were true, most of the modern designs wouldn't sell in the U.S., when in fact the opposite is true.

And for what it's worth, in my opinion (which is worth exactly what you've paid for it), the "heavier" boats (for lack of a better characterization) are likely to have a more comfortable motion in sporty seas, but more importantly, they will last a longer time under that level of abuse with far less wear. Once you're into the coastal sailing, live aboard full time cruising use, that distinction becomes less significant (not totally irrelevant, but less significant) simply because you are not putting that type of constant load on the boat the way you are when you are at sea for days on end. And this is not to say that modern production boats can't go to sea, as they certainly can and have. But that doesn't mean you won't be beating the snot out of them. Maybe the best way to describe this is that if you take a Beneteau and a Valiant and sail them offshore regularly, the Beneteau will need a refit and more serious repairs far sooner than will the Valiant, and you may find yourself dealing with breakages underway in the Bene that you might not experience in the Valiant. Now, once you get into the anchorage, the crew on that Valiant will be drooling over the Bene and be begging for an invite.


----------



## smackdaddy

CrazyRu said:


> And, I guess, any potential buyer needs to read this:
> 
> Report of the
> Marine Accident Investigation Branch
> Investigation into the capsize of the Yacht
> OCEAN MADAM
> with the loss of one life
> in the Bay of Biscay
> 8 October 1997
> 
> http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Ocean Madam.pdf


The linked incident report was interesting to me. I don't necessarily think it's an indictment of Benes - but more an evaluation of boat type, vanishing stability, and weather conditions, which is what we're discussing in this thread. The most intriguing part to me is the same question we've gone over before...that is "what constitutes 'blue water' vs. 'extended coastal'". These guys' route was arguably the latter, but you have this paragraph from the report that makes you stop and think...

_"2.1 TheYacht

Ocean Madam was a production Beneteau Oceanis 390 yacht. The class is typical
of its type with a high volume, low ballast ratio, light displacement and shallow
hull form. It is highly suitable for most activities including charter work and has a
good safety record. It is not a suitable craft for crossing oceans in bad weather.

Such craft are more susceptible to the effects of oceanic weather conditions and
especially to heavy seas. No stability information about the yacht was held in
board. Indeed at the time of purchase such information was only made available by
the builders to owners on request. There is no evidence to suggest the craft was
unsuitable for moderately rough weather conditions nor is it suggested there should
be any restrictions imposed. The lack of this information about the yacht's
stability, including a GZ curve, denied the skipper any opportunity to scrutinise the
possible implications of handling such a yacht in a very high sea state. The
limitations of this type of light displacement craft are, however, well known to
experienced blue water sailors."_

And this...

_"There is no evidence to indicate the skipper considered the alternative voyage plan
which was to disregard the rhumb line track to the English Channel but to head
seaward with shortened sail on a reach and keep well clear of the potential dangers
of sailing close to the continental shelf rise and associated rough seas."_

And this...

_"Mr Beggs was not only familiar with Ocean Madam, having sailed in her before,
but he had extensive experience sailing a variety of craft in high sea states. He was
totally confident of his ability, and that of the yacht, to survive the anticipated sea
conditions. Before sailing from La he had calculated there was at least a
possibility they might be knocked down and had briefed his crew on the actions
they should take should this unlikely event occur. 'They were told to remain
clipped on in the confident expectation that the yacht would right itself almost
immediately. Such confidence was misplaced."_

Good find Crazy.


----------



## Jeff_H

It is important to understand that the Beneteau 390 is a pretty out dated design whose hull form and rig was based on the IOR designs of that era. Most of the newer designs are based at least in part on IMS (or IRC) typeforms or else Open Class typeforms. As a broad generality, for any given displacement, these IMS and IRC typeforms have an enormous range of stability and much better motion comfort than either the IOR typeform or the heavier displacement typeforms that they replace. 

Jeff


----------



## bb74

Jeff_H said:


> It is important to understand that the Beneteau 390 is a pretty out dated design whose hull form and rig was based on the IOR designs of that era. Most of the newer designs are based at least in part on IMS (or IRC) typeforms or else Open Class typeforms. As a broad generality, for any given displacement, these IMS and IRC typeforms have an enormous range of stability and much better motion comfort than either the IOR typeform or the heavier displacement typeforms that they replace.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks Jeff - apples to oranges once again - that design is nearly 2 decades old now, if not more. Things have changed, mindsets apparently have not.


----------



## smackdaddy

I guess the application here is that there are still a lot of these boats on the market and on the water. I like Benes and probably will end up getting one eventually. And it will probably be a used one.

So, as I said, I don't think it's at all an indictment of a brand - but it is great info to have precisely because of a very strong used boat market. You need to know what you're getting.


----------



## whigmaleerie

I recon the old jeanneaus are a great crompromise, tough strong but very roomy and quick boats. I would go offshore in one but I wouldnt it one of the new ones


----------



## Jeff_H

In my experience, the Jeanneaus were generally not as well constructed as the First Series Beneteaus of the same era. 

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff - what about the First series with shoal keels? Are those pigs or do they still point well?


----------



## whigmaleerie

Ive seen a few very bad firsts Ive seen a bulkhead pushing against the hull and you can see the bulkhead very visable on the outside of the hull I wouldnt buy one it looks like a nightmare!


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, I guess the problem with the older Firsts is that they been raced to hell and back.


----------



## whigmaleerie

westerlys especialy typhoon thats a good boat


----------



## blt2ski

Jeff,

I have not been on a Ben from the 80's, but do own an 85 J Arcadia, and frankly, few if any here in the puget sound area will bash the design/build quality of "my" boat, or the Attalia's, sunshine's of the same era. I will not say they are perfect, I and most others have had to deal with the foam backed hull liner falling off, I believe you have said something to this effect i the past too. Altho some of the US manufactures have had the same issue from that era too. Not sure I would say it was a "French" built boat issue. 

The only new boat from jeanneau in the last 3-5 yrs "I" really like is the sunfast 3200. Altho a first 36.7 would fit my needs quite well, or an older Sun Fast 35.......but we digress?!?!?!? a mid 30'ish foot boat with those design spec type perameters. Dehler 34R, X34 or 35, summit 35 to name a few that would work for "MY" needs etc. Granted there are some build quality differences.......if money were there, an SC37...............


----------



## whigmaleerie

Dehler 34R that a good boat, What about a starlight 35??


----------



## Hillster

I noticed that nobody is mentioning the Calibers such as the 40LRC. Watertight colision bulkheads, stringer built rather than pan liners, and great tankage. Is there a flaw in these boats that rank them below Valiants and Pacific Seacraft?

I do own an O'day 322 and although I beleive her to be designed as a coastal boat (shallow bilge, small fuel tankage), she is easily as strong as a Jeaunneau of the same era. The bulkheads are tabbed to the hull sides and screwed to the grooves in the deck and pan liner (only 1/2" thick ply though). The hull deck joint is thru bolted on 6" centers shoebox style downward flange. Cockpit drains are big (1 1/2" dia.). Water tankage is 60 gal in two tanks, which is pretty good for this size fin keel boat.


----------



## blt2ski

whigmaleerie said:


> Dehler 34R that a good boat, What about a starlight 35??


I personally do not know anything, nor heard of a starlight 35. If it is more of a cruiser, then I do not personally look at specs. Like the caliber mentioned. The Caliber's from what I know are great boats for there style, but I look more at race/cruise to fast cruise/race style boats. I'll also look at a slower race boat, if it has some sort of interior. Mumms/melges type sleds are not in my cards.

Dehler generally speaking has built good boats. But did the equal to a German BK here awhile back, Hanse has taken over. So I would not personally want to quote the how good etc some of the newest dehlers would be built.

O'days, Jeannea, Ranger, Cal to name a few were all part of Bangor Punta back in the 80's, Oday built a few Jeanneau designs, as did Cal. They should all generally speaking be of similar quality, Altho from what I understand, Jeanneau of the bunch I mentioned, was the upper priced boat, have assumed to be the nicer of them. This is not to say that all 4 brands were bad boats, look at GM of old, Chevy, ponitac, olds, Cadallac all different price point vehicles. Similar to Beneteau, Jeanneau and up to a few yrs ago Waiquiez. Same owner, different price points and designs.

Marty


----------



## sck5

I have a caliber 33 which is basically a scaled down version of the 40 in terms of hull form, keel, skeg, etc. A great boat to cruise in. Not a race boat but no pig either. I have sailed in IP's of the same approximate size and there is no comparison - calibers are faster and far more maneuverable. Build quality is excellent. They are production boats but are not built with liners. Everything is well tabbed and mechanically fastened. I would take this boat anywhere.


----------



## mintcakekeith

im not realy qualified to comment on this topic but I was moored in Palma a few years ago in my old tired seawolf and the owner of a new 44ft benetau alongside commented that his boat was for show ,mine was a proper little ship. K


----------



## mitiempo

Marty
Here's a link to the Starlight 35. Starlight 35 archive details - Yachtsnet Ltd. online UK yacht brokers - yacht brokerage and boat sales
Complete descripton - British boat designed by Stephen Jones.
Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

So how would you guys divide production boats into general "quality/capability tiers"?

Would it be something like this:

1. Lake/Bay Boats
-O'day
-Macgregor
-Lancer
-Yorktown

2. Coastal Boats
-Catalina
-Hunter
-Beneteau
-Jenneau
-Irwin
-Cal

3. Premium Coastal (Light Blue Water Capable)
-IP
-Caliber
-Ericson
-C&C
-Tartan
-Dehler
-Endeavour
-Gulfstar
-Morgan
-Cheoy Lee
-Pearson

4. Non-Production/High End Blue Water
-Tayana
-Hinckley
-Cabo Rico
-Oyster
-etc.


----------



## blt2ski

Brian,

Thanks for the link. Looks like a nice boat for its design intent. A couple of thousand lbs more disp/weight than I would like, a little too little draft by 1-2'......... 

BUT, now I am talking about my needs and wants vs someone elses. If this was a style of boat I wanted, it appears to be one that I would want to look at, and probably have on a short list of boats to purchase.

marty


----------



## blt2ski

smack,

You posted while I was typing!

O'day built MANY designs. ranging from Optis or an equal, all the way to a 39 and 40' boat that was a jeanneau design that "WAS" ocean going oriented! Catalina also has designs that are lake, ie an 8' Sabot?!?! that produce/ed all the way up to mid 40 something foot boats that have the ability to go offshore etc. Beneteau and Jeanneau also in france build 20-30' boats that would fall into the lake/bay catagory. Along with both having boats in the 40-almost 60' range that would go offshore. 

It is probably better to go by price point than actual size/design or build quality. I think we all know a $100K boat at 25' is going to/should be a better built/designed boat than a $100K 32'ish boat. 

Heck, there are mini-transats that are 22'ish feet long that are ment to "race" across oceans in a single handed mode! 

I could probably keep going, but am at spouses office, need to go home and let winston out of his cage to do his duties...... Hopefully this makes some semblence of sense in this whole thing.

Marty


----------



## mitiempo

smack
I think it's not that clear cut. The smaller O'day, Catalina, and maybe a few others are nowhere as capable as larger designs from the same builders. I think an O'day 35 would be a good coastal cruiser but not necessarily their smaller boats. By the same token I think a smaller Hunter should maybe not be considered for coastal work while the larger ones are fine. I think a few builders produce smaller boats with the thought that nobody would want to take them offshore so build accordingly, but they know somebody will want to take a Catalina 42 farther so build it differently. The Macgregor is in the right category though, and CS ( Maine Sail has a 36T and I have a 27) are not listed 
Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

Sorry about missing stuff - I'm winging it. There's also Newport, Capitol, Dufor, Gibsea, Peterson, Farr, J-Boats, even Bruce Roberts, etc. but I have no idea where these all fall.

Okay, so continuing to narrow it down, let's keep length in the 35'-45' range (roughly). Keep in mind that we're talking about limits in this thread. That is, which of these brands in this length start to fail in the above categories? And which should we add?

Make your changes to the list and let's see where we end up. What the hell?


----------



## Hillster

The O'day 28, 30, 31, 32CC, 302, 322, 34 and 35 are all great coastal cruisers. easily as good or better than the Hunters and Catalinas of the same period. Some of these models regularly do gulf crossings and bermuda runs each year.


----------



## mitiempo

I don't think too many can call a Bruce Roberts a production boat.
Brian


----------



## blt2ski

Looks like Brian and I were typing similar answers at the same time too! 

Also, do not quote me on this, as I recall, smacky, didn't you want this to include "current" produce boats vs non current or out of production, closed shop boats. Hence an O'day would NOT be listed, nor a cal, ranger, and maybe for that matter, even my 25yr old Jeanneau?!?!?! that was built two bk's ago, ie bangor punta to someone in france to IIRC when group Beneteau bought them. Logo changed between BP owner ship and the french group too, starting the "Sun _______" named boats, be them sun shine, sun fiz, odysess etc.

then 3-5 more posts while I am typing, i'm either way slow, or you guys are faster!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> I don't think too many can call a Bruce Roberts a production boat.
> Brian


Tell that to the dude who built it in his back yard! Heh-heh.


----------



## smackdaddy

blt2ski said:


> Looks like Brian and I were typing similar answers at the same time too!
> 
> Also, do not quote me on this, as I recall, smacky, didn't you want this to include "current" produce boats vs non current or out of production, closed shop boats. Hence an O'day would NOT be listed, nor a cal, ranger, and maybe for that matter, even my 25yr old Jeanneau?!?!?! that was built two bk's ago, ie bangor punta to someone in france to IIRC when group Beneteau bought them. Logo changed between BP owner ship and the french group too, starting the "Sun _______" named boats, be them sun shine, sun fiz, odysess etc.
> 
> Marty


Okay...ground rules...how about this...

Go to Yachtworld and search for boats 1984 and newer between $25K and $120K, 35'-45'...all over the world. Let's keep it in a 25 year range and this price limit.**

Rate these boats that turn up.

The reason I say this is my hunch is that most of us average schmos will be looking at boats in that range. The issue is that there is so little good info out there on how to judge them.

So - it would be cool to have some kind of general ranking...still in production or not. We're not talking new boats here. We're talking used - which is the majority of the market. Even so, the reasons behind the ratings will give everyone a better idea on how to judge even the newer boats.

For example, the Bene O38 story gave me a new insight on how to think about production boats in light of their angle of vanishing stability, etc.

**PS - I'm not shopping personally. I am into the charter thing. But I was looking last year and had a hard time figuring out what was a "good boat" for robust coastal cruising and what was not.


----------



## Hillster

I would like to hear from folks that have direct experience offshore in a storm with a current model Catalina, Hunter, Bene or Jeaunneau sailboat in the 35'+ range. I looked at all these brands at the last boat show and following what I've learned here on this sight regarding bluewater building techniques, I cannot tell if they are up to snuff. The boats have full liners with no way to tell ,without damage, if the bulkheads are tabbed or are bonded to the liner with equal strength. It not like it used to be, where you could grab a flashlight and look in a lazaret or behind a cupboard to find raw fiberglass and tabbed wood etc. The pamplets and websites of these boatbuilders don't hint on much in their construction.

CruisingDad,

What has been your experience in the rough stuff with your catalina 400? Did you have any oilcaning or movment of cabnetry take place?

I have looked at a Catalina 387 and it felt like a tank. It seemed to be built very well. Had a huge bilge and lots of storage.


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

Now in reality your are talking design imputs. IE a prefastnet IOR or a post fastnet IOR as I have. vs one that is more recent IMS/IRC design, or even further back to the CCA designs. 

Then you have to look at other items, ie handholds, do they come standard, or do I add them where "I" would like them........Where is teh cabin entry set up like, ie down the the cockpit floor, or up at seat hight such that waves from the rear will not put as much water inside! 

AO now you need to start includeing the european cat A, B, C design specs, along with predesessor rules after fastent to current........

Then of course, you have the deeper is better keel, to shallow longer is better, or even go back to the Atkins double ended westsnail designs.........

take you rpick, throw the dice, hope for double 7's..........

Time to go get winston, last of sheryls clients are here, anyway, I amsure he will be happpy out of his crate, and going for a walk in the drizzle.

Please note, other may be typing as I am, my answer is worth what you paid for it!

Have a good one, along with a tall frosty one!

marty


----------



## blt2ski

Hillster,

There is a Jeanneau 49iP in Seattle at local dealer, Ruby Slippers, that went from here in seattle, by an owner of the dealership no less, with wife and twin daughter to Oz and back over 2 yrs. Not sure what winds etc they met. But they had a choice of Jeanneau, X, Tartan, C&C, deahler to name a few of the "NEW" boats they sell.

They have/had a blog you can look up probably via google, or go to the MarineServicenter.com site, and a link is there. ALong with www.jeanneau-owners.com has a link somewhere too. IIRC go to boat info and there is a link to blogs etc.

Marty

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

Hillster,

There is a Jeanneau 49iP in Seattle at local dealer, Ruby Slippers, that went from here in seattle, by an owner of the dealership no less, with wife and twin daughter to Oz and back over 2 yrs. Not sure what winds etc they met. But they had a choice of Jeanneau, X, Tartan, C&C, deahler to name a few of the "NEW" boats they sell.

They have/had a blog you can look up probably via google, or go to the MarineServicenter.com site, and a link is there. ALong with www.jeanneau-owners.com has a link somewhere too. IIRC go to boat info and there is a link to blogs etc.

Marty

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Holy crap. It's just all too complicated.

I'm buying a Mac. 

PS - So let's nail down a respectable age range. Jeff mentioned the 20 year limit of the 038. Should we say 15 years? 10?

PSS - Winston - I wasn't talking to you. Stop barking and go pee.


----------



## blt2ski

GRRRRRRRRRRUUFFFFF!


----------



## mitiempo

There are a lot of good boats out there that fit the criteria older than 15 or 20 years in my opinion.
Here's a list: Rival 32 to 45
Rustler 36 and not sure what other sizes
Contessa 32 and larger
Sadler 32 and larger
Etap
Feeling (Elite) by Kirie
Westerly over 30
Hallberg-Rassy
Hustler 30
Sweden Yachts
Sigma
Moody
Nicholson 31,35 (Camper & Nicholson)
X-Yachts
Swan 
Bavaria
Contest
Wauquiez
Amel (Sharki)
S & S 34 (by several builders - how many have 
circumnavigated?)
Oyster
Standfast
Hanse
Kalik (40)
Saga 40
Somebody has to stand up for europe since Giu left. 
And additions from North America
Columbia
Bristol
Whitby 42
CS 30,33,36T,36 Merlin, and 40
I stayed away from the obscure makes  
Brian


----------



## blt2ski

Brian, 

If you are going to include Bavaria in the European brands, better include Jeanneau and Beneteau also. As bavaria is generally speaking a bit cheaper build quality than J, B and Catalina, more in line with Hunter or a bit better.

Boat types I would not include in the lets cross an ocean, the older IOR pinched stern designs, well maybe a few...........the Morris Yachts "M series" or equal designs like the Alerion..........

Some of the J-boat designs would fit and work well too. 

IIRC the most popular boat in the world ARC, was a Jeanneau SO 49i. Ea of the last 2 or 3 ARC's, the most popular brand boat was also a Jeanneau, with Beneteau right behind. One year the most popular model IIRC was the Jeanneau SO37, with 4 or 5 of them. Not sure how many were going into charter after wards.........that is another story. From what I understand tho, the boats being counted have to be sailed by individual owners, not chartered owners! ie sunsail/moorings or equal. Don't quote me on this tho.

A jeanneau Sun Rise, did a solo nonstop circumnavigate 3'ish yrs ago. Including going around Cape Horn! 

Obviously typical production boats will do more than we expect!

marty


----------



## mitiempo

I was trying to include the European brands nobody had yet mentioned.
Another thought - does anyone regularly read British magazines - Yachting World, Yachting Monthly, or Practical Boat Owner? I don't have any around to quote from but when they test an American style boat (imported) their take is interesting - rougher areas they sail in being great for boat evolution. I would guess the Aussies are the same. I don't think they have many of the "flimsy production boats" that we bash regularly (nameless brands ).
Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

miti - most of those boats you mention above are "blue water" - and not really "production boats". There's already a million lists of blue water boats. So they don't count...even though they are in fact "produced".


----------



## CrazyRu

Practical sailor in April 2009 issue had an article
"Bargain Voyagers
PS picks a few recession-proof
cruisers worthy of sweat equity."

Here is a list:
ALLIED PRINCESS 36
BRISTOL 35.5C
ENDEAVOUR 37
FREEDOM 36
O’DAY 37
S2 11.0
C&C LANDFALL 38
NIAGARA 35
Tartan 37 (CB)

All of them are production boats of the past...


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> miti - most of those boats you mention above are "blue water" - and not really "production boats". There's already a million lists of blue water boats. So they don't count...even though they are in fact "produced".


Sorry, smack... gotta disagree with you there. I'd say the only boats on Brian's list that would be on nearly everyone's "bluewater list" would be the Whitby and the Amel.

The rest (except for Oyster) look to me like boats that have had significant production runs at some point -


----------



## Bene505

Just though I'd add that my buddy Dave is now 3/4 of the way to BVI from New York, in a Cataline 38, IIRC. It's an older one, with the tumble-home hull. (The hull is wider at the water line than at the deck, by quite a few inches.) He stopped in Bermuda for a few days along the way, I believe he was fixing a few things while there, not sure if it was electrical or what.

Here's the SPOT on where he was this morning. (Zoom out to see where.)
27.5408,-63.61193 - Google Maps

Regards,
Brad

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

Really Faster? Wow. I honestly figured the Moodys, Swans, HR, etc. were on bw lists for sure.

To be clear, the division in the typical "production boat" discussion is that it is centered around boats that one WOULDN'T qualify as bw capable. I just want to make sure we're not conflating the idea of "production" with the idea of "blue water capable".

Okay - my bad. So then where do these fit into the list? And should we change "Non-Production/High End Blue Water" to "High End Coastal/Light Blue Water"?

1. Lake/Bay Boats
-O'day
-Macgregor
-Lancer
-Yorktown

2. Coastal Boats
-Catalina
-Hunter
-Beneteau
-Jenneau
-Irwin
-Cal

3. Premium Coastal (Light Blue Water Capable)
-IP
-Caliber
-Ericson
-C&C
-Tartan
-Dehler
-Endeavour
-Gulfstar
-Morgan
-Cheoy Lee
-Pearson

4. Non-Production/High End Blue Water
-Tayana
-Hinckley
-Cabo Rico
-Oyster
-etc.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bene505 said:


> Just though I'd add that my buddy Dave is now 3/4 of the way to BVI from New York, in a Cataline 38, IIRC. It's an older one, with the tumble-home hull. (The hull is wider at the water line than at the deck, by quite a few inches.) He stopped in Bermuda for a few days along the way, I believe he was fixing a few things while there, not sure if it was electrical or what.
> 
> Here's the SPOT on where he was this morning. (Zoom out to see where.)
> 27.5408,-63.61193 - Google Maps
> 
> Regards,
> Brad
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


Bene - is the "tumble home" hull design what it implies? That it rights more easily?


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> Really Faster? Wow. I honestly figured the Moodys, Swans, HR, etc. were on bw lists for sure.


Oops.... you got me there..... 

but still there are several on the list that certainly qualify as production boats, that wouldn't necessarily be "on the list" but many examples of which have done significant passages.


----------



## Bene505

Smack,

Not sure I'm qualified to answer that. I think it was done to "game" some of the racing rules.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## GreatWhite

smackdaddy said:


> Really Faster? Wow. I honestly figured the Moodys, Swans, HR, etc. were on bw lists for sure.
> 
> To be clear, the division in the typical "production boat" discussion is that it is centered around boats that one WOULDN'T qualify as bw capable. I just want to make sure we're not conflating the idea of "production" with the idea of "blue water capable".
> 
> Okay - my bad. So then where do these fit into the list? And should we change "Non-Production/High End Blue Water" to "High End Coastal/Light Blue Water"?
> 
> 1. Lake/Bay Boats
> -O'day
> -Macgregor
> -Lancer
> -Yorktown
> 
> 2. Coastal Boats
> -Catalina
> -Hunter
> -Beneteau
> -Jenneau
> -Irwin
> -Cal
> 
> 3. Premium Coastal (Light Blue Water Capable)
> -IP
> -Caliber
> -Ericson
> -C&C
> -Tartan
> -Dehler
> -Endeavour
> -Gulfstar
> -Morgan
> -Cheoy Lee
> -Pearson
> 
> 4. Non-Production/High End Blue Water
> -Tayana
> -Hinckley
> -Cabo Rico
> -Oyster
> -etc.


Smack...please excue me if I missed something...I haven't followed this thread all the way!
Your list is confusing me and it might mislead others!!
...
People come to Sailnet to get advice on choosing blue water boats ...I would suggest that you research your information before posting a list like this as I would hate to see someone get lead off track-

firstly
the last category 
4. Non-Production/High End Blue Water
why are any of these boats more or less 'production' than any other boats listed

secondly why is cal put in Coastal?
The Cal 40 and 46 are ultra strong and proven blue water boats

thirdly
Why are Gulfstar and Endeavour put in the bluewater category?? These are coast cruisers.


----------



## PCP777

What about westsail?


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey great - no worries. This is NOT a blue water list. Actually it is the opposite.

Take a look at the first post.

The bottom line is that SOME people do indeed come here looking for advice on BW boats - and there's PLENTY of info and opinions on that. But, it seems, MOST people BUY and/or OWN "standard" production boats.

So the question of this thread is..what are the limits of those production boats? How do you categorize them in terms of safety, capability, etc.? Where and why do they fail the "BW test"?

Personally, my main interest lies in categories 1 and 2, and maybe a few boats in 3 - as those are the most prominent boats on the used market, which, of course, makes up the vast majority of the boat buying market.

So, because of the dearth of info on how to judge/compare these boats and their limits, I thought it was worth a chat.

In this regard, how would you organize the list?


----------



## mitiempo

Moody built a great number of cruiser/racer type boats not uniquely "bluewater" in style. They were one of Britain's largest volume builders, as was Westerly. While the Contessa 32 has proven to be a great boat in rough weather it was not conceived to be bluewater but a racer/cruiser. The larger Contessas were as well. The Nicholson 31 was a long keel boat but the 35 was fin and skeg. Westerly built boats to 48 feet (I think the UK's largest volume builder) and none were conceived as bluewater really. The Swans I was thinking of were the early S&S designs which were production cruiser/racers and in my opinion (regardless of what Jeff might say ) much nicer than the newer breed designed by Ron Holland with the angular decks. The Hustler 30, Sigma, and Sadlers were all production racer/cruisers (David Sadler designed the Contessa 32), Kirie's boats (Elite, Feeling) were all cruiser/racers, the Oysters I was thinking of were the smaller older ones (the price range we're looking at wouldn't allow the newer ones), Sweden Yachts were cruiser/racers, and the S&S 34 was produced in both UK and Australia I believe in fair numbers - several have circumnavigated including a few records for youngest and one non-stop but the boat wasn't designed for this.
Brian


----------



## GreatWhite

Here is a slight revision. Regarding 1 and 2, these lists are massive, many more options than proven blue water capable boats

1. Lake/Bay Boats
-O'day
-Macgregor
-Lancer
-Yorktown

2. Coastal Boats
-Catalina
-Hunter
-Beneteau
-Jenneau
-Irwin
-Endeavour
-Gulfstar

3. Premium Coastal (Light Blue Water Capable)
-Caliber
-Ericson
-C&C
-Tartan
-Dehler
-Morgan
-Cheoy Lee
-Pearson

4. Blue Water Capable
-Cal (32-40-46-48)
-CSY
-Westsail
-Flika
-IP
-Tayana
-Hinckley
-Cabo Rico
-Oyster
-Hylas
-many of the J boats

Many others - see Mahina.com list


----------



## smackdaddy

GreatWhite said:


> Here is a slight revision. Regarding 1 and 2, these lists are massive, many more options than proven blue water capable boats
> 
> 1. Lake/Bay Boats
> -O'day
> -Macgregor
> -Lancer
> -Yorktown
> 
> 2. Coastal Boats
> -Catalina
> -Hunter
> -Beneteau
> -Jenneau
> -Irwin
> -Endeavour
> -Gulfstar
> 
> 3. Premium Coastal (Light Blue Water Capable)
> -Caliber
> -Ericson
> -C&C
> -Tartan
> -Dehler
> -Morgan
> -Cheoy Lee
> -Pearson


Very cool - great. So since this is not a BW thread - let's just nuke 4 and continue to populate 1-3.

Next?

PS - though I like them in general, I've heard that Cheoy Lee's are really spotty. Is that true?


----------



## mitiempo

Production as I see it is a boat that was built in a non-custom way in reasonably large numbers. Home built really shouldn't apply. 
As far as Cal 40 and 46, the 46 is definitely a cruiser designed for offshore, but I don't believe the Cal 40 was designed for offshore cruising. In it's day (old shoe times) it was quite radical and has gone on travel far and wide but was really a racer/cruiser at first.
Gulfstar and Endeavour probably should be coastal, at least depending on model for Gulfstar.
I question the "lake" designation for most boats 30' or over. (Macgregors are under this length). O'day 30+ should be coastal, Lancer and Yorktown as well. I really don't know of any boats mentioned over 30' not designed for coastal cruising watching the weather.
Westsail was designed for offshore and marketed as such much like the Bristol Channel Cutter was more recently.
Brian


----------



## GreatWhite

Smack,

I appreciate you are wanting to focus on the 1-3 categories as that has been less focused on in general on SN. 

I think you will find a gravitation to the BW side as that seems to capture the imagination of the arm chair sailors more than buying a boat to cross a small lake. Not to say that isn't what 99% of people end up doing! (although we are making it off the couch as it were and have a BW boat and we are taking to the Marquesas ... we also sail on a lake but on the lake I like boats that go fast for the Regattas....so that is my focus...) all that said

Production boats can be broken in style Cruise or Race
age older or newer
older can further be broken into cca or ior

the lake boats and models vary from area to area

In the plus 20 year old boats In the PNW there are a tonne of San Juans which are a great production boat mostly in the IOR style.

In the west there are many Santanas to...a little less 'pinched' but a great light fast boat

Other general (older) production boats Catalina, US boats, Ericson, Bayfield, J, Mac, PS, O Day, Tanzer

Newer (some of these have been around a while) C&C Bene, Catalina, Jenneau, Dufour ...


----------



## mitiempo

GreatWhite
What design is shown in your profile? Quite often when I am in a thread I will look up a profile to see what boat a poster has and I wish all were listed.
I agree about the San Juans etc in the PNW. As well there are Canadian boats like Fraser 36 and 41 I think, Spencer 35,42,44,1330,and 46, Cooper built Seabird 37 and Maple Leaf 42, and the Sceptre 36.
Brian


----------



## Hillster

O'day should be in list 2 and the Caliber and Tartan *ARE* fully bluewater capable and should not be on list 3


----------



## casioqv

Does grouping boat brands and models by seaworthiness really make any sense?

I could imagine a Macgregor 21 handling a light ocean storm just fine with everything in perfect shape, proper storm sails and a drogue, some rigging upgrades, and well sealed hatches. An old Westsail 32 with the original standing rigging and some crevice corrosion on the chainplates could easily become demasted, while the Macgregor is undamaged, right? Or it could loose a shoddy through-hull and sink.

Is the design and construction of the boat itself really that relevant compared to the variables of equipment condition, and skipper experience? I doubt it!

I suspect that most boat sinking in rough weather isn't due to the overall quality of the boat, but due to overlooking some minor maintenance issue like a corroded hose clamp, or a low grade bolt fitted where a high grade was needed. Even the lightest lake cruiser is built with huge margins of safety in design and construction, assuming everything is maintained in tip top shape.

Which boat will be more comfortable and sail-able in a storm seems pretty clear cut, but which will be more likely to survive probably can't be predicted from generalizations about entire brands or models.


----------



## mitiempo

casioqv
While I agree that more boats probably sink from maintenance/handling than from original quality I don't believe the measure of an offshore capable boat is strictly whether it sinks or not. Design features like companionway openings that are severely tapered and go to the cockpit sole would tell me immediately that the boat wasn't designed with offshore use in mind. A lot of boats need additional handholds for example this is an easy owner addition. Some features really have to be there from original design and manufacture as they're too hard/expensive to do later. While it's not too hard to install additional tankage for example, when all the cabinetry is only held in with a few screws and the bulkheads aren't glassed to the hull it's too much to change in my opinion. 
Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

casioqv said:


> Does grouping boat brands and models by seaworthiness really make any sense?
> 
> I could imagine a Macgregor 21 handling a light ocean storm just fine with everything in perfect shape, proper storm sails and a drogue, some rigging upgrades, and well sealed hatches. An old Westsail 32 with the original standing rigging and some crevice corrosion on the chainplates could easily become demasted, while the Macgregor is undamaged, right? Or it could loose a shoddy through-hull and sink.
> 
> Is the design and construction of the boat itself really that relevant compared to the variables of equipment condition, and skipper experience? I doubt it!
> 
> I suspect that most boat sinking in rough weather isn't due to the overall quality of the boat, but due to overlooking some minor maintenance issue like a corroded hose clamp, or a low grade bolt fitted where a high grade was needed. Even the lightest lake cruiser is built with huge margins of safety in design and construction, assuming everything is maintained in tip top shape.
> 
> Which boat will be more comfortable and sail-able in a storm seems pretty clear cut, but which will be more likely to survive probably can't be predicted from generalizations about entire brands or models.


Does it make any sense? Heck no! But it's fun!

Seriously, all I know as an average schmo that has done a lot of reading about these boats - here and elsewhere - is that you always run into comments like "I would never take an XX out of sight of land. The build quality is too spotty and the equipment too light." etc.

So in that regard, people DO put these "production boats" into these categories and as a potential buyer it gets overwhelmingly confusing. I guess I'm just trying to find some very general consensus on what's what.

Yes, these kinds of lists are pretty arbitrary. But that's better than nothing. Think of it as the little brother to _"Twenty Small Sailboats to Take You Anywhere"_ - maybe like _"Twenty Production Boats To Take You Just Far Enough Out To Get You Killed Because You Didn't Buy a Swan"_.

PS - Where do Sabre's fit? #3?


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, things a little bit boring out there on the prairie lately? I thought this was all talked out months ago. There is no absolute ranking of boat builders - it is all too subjective. You are going to have to get a little experience to know what YOU want in a boat and go from there. To clear up some of the (minor) misconceptions: Tumblehome is a hull design where the max beam is greater than the beam at the deck. It was popularized during the IOR days where that formula had restrictions on certain dimensions. By going to a tumblehome shape, designers could lengthen the effective water line (and greater hull speed) for a given beam width. The venerable Cal 40 was designed by Lapworth to race the Transpac wherein it dominated that race for years after that. The Cal 40 went on to be selected as the boat used in the Congressional Cup. (Incidentally, it was later replaced by the Catalina 38.) The Cal 40 is a blue water boat. So how strong, stiff, heavily built is it? Starting at 2,000 lbs of backstay tension, you are no longer tightening the rigging, you are warping the hull. You can bend the hull by pulling the backstay tensioner on the Islander 36 too. Measured in square inches, the companionway opening on the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







<ST1Newport </ST1</st1:City>30 is greater than the Catalina 30. So what is the difference between "premium coastal" and "regular coastal"? Does the one come with the upgraded radio, A/C, leather seats and wheel covers? Some day, if you ever come out to SF, I will take you to some broker friends of mine (J, Sabre, Beneteau and Catalina) who would be more than happy to discuss boat design with you. Oh, and one more thing, you are in serious need of some saltwater, dude! You need to spend less time keyboarding and more time trimming!


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. Yeah George - prairie sailing SUCKS!

I'm going with GreatWhite's list. A man's gotta take a stand don't he?


----------



## GeorgeB

I'm probably a bit jaded, having either raced on or raced against a large number of the boats on the list so my judgment is a bit clouded by my experience. There is so much overlap in the two coastal groups as to make the differential to be more subjective than empirical. I know a couple who had a terrible time on their Swan during this year's Ha Ha and in fact, are now reconsidering their plans for further cruising. Yet, another guy I know, said he had a wonderful time sailing his Cat 34 through the same storm and gale. Go figure. One of your problems is you make this a beauty contest based on builders and you are not cataloging your target boats. List your criteria and go from there. Any boat in the middle two groups will fulfill your reasonable expectations. Besides, how do you know you will like sailing in the ocean. You could be one of those guys prone to seasickness (or worse - your wife!). One of the more common boats all my broker friends sell is one where the former owner, new to sailing, over buys (either size or brand)a boat, finds out it isn't his cup of tea, then sells. It is amazing the number of owners a particular boat can run through.


----------



## firehoser75

*Production Boats Offshore*

Hi Smack,
Sorry but I just discovered and read (took quite some time) this thread. I agree with the basic premise of your thread, and that is that a lot of people are successfully taking "basic production" boats on trips that in the past might have been considered "blue water boats only. I own a 37 foot Bavaria (2005 vintage) that I am quite happy with for what I ask her to do, and that is basically coastal cruising, although some trips have been over 100 miles one way (but always able to find a safe harbour/anchorage within a few hours if needed). 
I went to a talk at the Maritime Museum by a Bavaria owner (same size as mine but a few years older) who took his boat from Dubai to the Philipines. During this trip, he encountered the same Cyclone (hurricane) twice, and the boat was knocked down twice. Wind speeds were in the range of 80 knots or more (if I remember his talk correctly). He and his wife (the only 2 on board) both faired OK, and the boat suffered no real damage. He was originally planning on sailing the boat all the way back to Vancouver, but his wife suffered a heart attack just before reaching the Philipines and they ended up having to sell the boat there due to her health. They bought the boat new, took delivery of it in Dubai, and only did minor modifications (like better latches and seals on the lazerettes, installing anchor points in the cockpit for tethers, etc.) prior to the trip. Based on his experience, and the fact that many people cross the Atlantic in the ARC every year in a Bavaria, these boats appear to be "offshore capable". By the way, Bavaria is the 2nd largest sailboat manufacturer in Europe producing about 3000 boats annually. 
Now, with that said, if I was planning a longer blue water trip such as crossing an ocean, and I was starting from scratch as far as a boat was concerned, I would not likely have Bavaria as my first pick (for that purpose, although the Bavaria Ocean series 40 or 44 which are heavier centre cockpit models (no longer in production) might be a better choice for that use than some other production boats). I think a person would do better with a Hallberg Rassy or some other semi production boat that is not "old style blue water" but more suited for that purpose than most "regular" production boats. In my opinion, Bavaria are every bit as well built (or better) as Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina, or Dufour, and definitely better built than (most) Hunter. They are more than capable (with some modification) of the shorter offshore trips that you are contemplating (5 days or less) in this thread. 
Anyway, interesting discussion Smack (and everyone else), and I added this as no one had yet discussed Bavaria except one person who gave them a (small) slam that I don't feel is deserved (and wonder on what experience or knowledge it was based) but each to their own opinion. 
Regards,
Tom


----------



## Faster

mitiempo said:


> GreatWhite
> What design is shown in your profile? .


Isn't that a Cruising Cal 46 Brian?...


----------



## mitiempo

Faster
It is now - I gave him a profile drawing so he could correct it. 
Brian


----------



## mitiempo

firehoser75
Earlier this year there was a Bavaria 36 moored in my home marina in Victoria. I know the owner bought it and chartered it for a few years so it was probably the same year as yours or close. I'd take it offshore. I think it is a good example of a well made modern quite quick cruiser. Better made than many as far as I know. I read a profile in Britain's Yachting Monthly a while ago showing how they are produced - quite a factory and very mechanised. But what I saw and read didn't describe or lead me to believe Bavaria took shortcuts, but rather through mechanisation were able to, for example computer cut all bulkheads and varnish them in what amounted to 1/2 an hour or less (special dryers so multiple coats could be put on almost one right after the other). The heading for the article was "Why is a Bavaria the least expensive in her class?" (in the UK anyway) and the conclusion was efficiency, not cheap building. I would however happily do without the in-mast main furling. The heavier Bavarias you describe are no doubt good ocean cruisers but I think the 36 is a good choice as well. 
Have we yet established exactly what makes a good ocean cruiser - besides ultimate stability, good construction, and things like tankage which can be added to anyway? While not everyone would pick a J boat, they're doing it and from what I've heard quite well. I've often thought it would be cool to take a Santa Cruz 40 offshore and as long as it wasn't loaded too much I think it would do well. When you tjhink about it Westsail 32s, Tayanas, and many others are considered "old shoes" currently by many. Maybe the next wave of "old shoes" will include many of the current "best offshore choices" as lighter, faster, more efficient (if that is the right word) boats come along.
After all why should a 40' boat have to weigh more than 10,500 lbs?
Brian


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

If you are going to go with more coastal crusing, short BW hops.....ANY boat with a current "A" rating per the european rules will do what you want. This is built to specs to handle IIRC a force 8 or 10 winds and 10M or about 33' waves. A place to store a life raft at aft end of cockpit. There area few other specs that I do not recall off the top of my head. 

Meanwhile a "B" rated boat is something like 6-8M waves, and winds force 6-8, usually 1-2 more people on board, I'm recalling this being bays semi protected waters etc.

A "C" raitng is lakes. You C27 IIRC has a B rating. Most of the Current Jeanneaus have B and A ratings. Altho the Sun 2100 may have a C, I would have to look it up, the Sun2500 and SO 30 have B ratings, and the SO33i on up ALL have A raings. IE "open water".

So again, now comes the price point, design etc that you like, suits you etc. for coastal cruising. How much water/fuel do you need etc.

If need be, I can find the link to the European ratings, I pretty sure I have it saved in bookmarks somewhere. That will give you a good start. 

Marty


----------



## danielgoldberg

*Caribbean 1500*

Not sure how much this plays into this discussion, but check out the fleet for this year's Caribbean 1500 (wwww.carib1500.com). Of the 54 boat fleet (congrats to Steve Black for having that success by the way), there were 15 production boats of the type being discussed in this thread -- Beneteau, Catalina, Jeanneau, J, Gulfstar and Dufour.

A 7 to 10 day, 1300 mile run from the U.S. east coast to the BVI, in November. That's a serious trip no matter how you slice it.


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks DG. I took a look at the list and it is a nice cross section. I especially love that the Gulfstar took first in its class. That's some good sailing.

Did any of the aforementioned boats run into problems that would shape this dicussion? How were the conditions?

Judging by this pic - things weren't exactly tame...


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, Where was that photo taken? Those conditions are pretty typical for here in NorCal. The following is from the start of the Windjammer race to Santa Cruz.
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







<ST1







</st1:City>
<st1:City w:st="on"></ST1</st1:City>


----------



## micksbuddy

IIRC, that pic was taken near the start of the rally, which would be near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. They supposedly had very good conditions this year almost a record low (if not record) number of engine hours in the cruising class, wind speeds mostly 20-30 kts. Most if not all boats did the run completely on port tack.


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow - this debate has been going on a LONG time. Here's a post from 9 years ago that has some interesting points that still might apply today:



Gene66 said:


> Paul,
> 
> I just do not understand why you and a few others on this message board continue to bash/bad mouth hunters and other production boats as not viable bluewater cruisers.
> 
> To answer one of your questions; Hunter marine, according to Greg Emerson at Hunter, has stated "My background before customer service was actually building the boats as I was the lamination manager for over 10 years after having started working for Hunter Marine in 1978. I am very familiar with lamination schedules and the extensive research that we put into deciding how a boat will be built. I am very familiar with the effort that is put in to have proper overlaps in place as well as extra reinforcing for specific areas of the hull and deck.
> Over the years we have continued to build boats using the same building techniques with the only changes being in materials that technology and testing prove to be the best. When recently required to have our boats meet CE Certification to sell in the European market, which by the way is the only rating system to date that screens ocean sailing capabilities, we were pleased to find that our boats rated very well. The certification encompasses the boats stability and construction. Although the boats we built in previous years did not have to be CE certified we found that we had to make no changes to our laminates to meet their requirements therefore showing that previous boats would have been certified as well since we made no changes. The only changes we had to make was in equipment. All our boats from 34 foot and above received the highest rating which was "class A" which indicates ocean sailing ability."
> 
> Have you seen Hunter boats upside down because of a wave? I imagine any wave large enough to do that (and I have seen waves in the north Atlantic big enough to roll ANY 50 foot or less sailboat easily)
> 
> Have you roll a sailboat while crossing the ocean? and continued on? I''d be happy to survive but would expect possibly a broken mast.
> 
> I expect any 20,000 Lb boat to right itself if 50% of the mass is buried 6 feet or more below the waterline, cause any seas mean and rough enough to capsize it would not be calm enough to allow it to stay balanced in such an unstable position, EVEN if the beam were 20 or even 25 feet wide she would self-right herself. The problem with what you imply, to get caught in the kind of sea state needed to roll a 10 ton displacement boat, is one would NOT roll just once, BUT again and again, unless it was a rare tsunami wave or some other rare sea condition. The situation altogether must be avoided. I have been on 1000 foot carriers in the north Atlantic in the winter, and people died. The carrier lost aircraft off its flight deck to the sea, planes crashed on landings, some spilling fuel but not igniting simply because the air temp was cold enough not to support enough JP-5 vapors to catch.
> 
> Now Paul, I would give you some credibility in my eyes if you could provide some factual data, historical data on why the hunter''s or other modern production boats are not contenders for ocean crossings?
> 
> According to Hunter there have been many ocean crossings and I''m told I will hear from some of their customers who have made ocean crossings.
> 
> I am not bashing you if you have some useful data on modern production boats but I have not read anything from you or Jeff on these message boards other than well known boat design considerations used as speculation to try to discredit modern production sailboats.
> 
> Try using facts and not speculation mixed with well known design priniples. you begin to sound like someone who thinks they know what they are saying, but really has not a clue.
> 
> I am aware that companies like Hunter have professional sailors in their employ as well as many engineers, who are also avid sailors, so either put up or ---- --.
> 
> I am still not convinced one way or another about hunters or other production boats, but I plan to continue to research the facts, historical facts, proven facts to find out.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gene


And Jeff_H's response...(see bolded text)



Jeff_H said:


> With regard to the certification process, as the European Union has been coming together they have tried to develop uniform standards that would apply to inter-country commerce. These standards have been applied to everything from butter to boats. The process of developing acceptable standards for boats has been ongoing for the better part of a decade that I know of.
> 
> The original standard dealt solely with stability and downflooding at sea. The process was very interesting in that yacht designers from all over the world were consulted as well as research teams. Data was collected from a wide variety of events (knockdowns and roll overs) as well as from actual disasters. The events were plotted against the known information on the vessels that had been through dramatic occurances. Certain patterns were noted and a set of formulas were written that attempted to create an empirical rating regarding a boats safety at sea only as pertained to knockdowns and roll overs. The grade that resulted would have placed vessels in one of four categories, with the most stringent being ''Open Ocean''.
> 
> These formulas were submitted to member nations for review, comment and approval. As a result of this multi-European nation over view the formulas were changed so that they required simplier information to obtain essentually developing surogate approximations (For example instead of requiring manufacturers to calculate the vertical center of gravity of the boat, a computation of draft, ballast, mast length and displacement was used roughly estimate the vertical center of gravity- a poor substitute but easier to obtain.) The requirements were also reduced in severity as well.
> 
> Shortly after the stability standards came a set of equipmentand systems standards. These do have some minor scantling requirements.
> 
> Hunters larger boats were some of the first to be certified for an "Open Ocean" rating. You can argue with the stringency of the rating (which I do) but you can''t argue with that they did not obtain it. Hunter''s current crop of larger boats have CE Open Ocean certifications.
> 
> Now to correct one point above, these certified designs have been altered to obtain the necessary certifications. One reason that Hunter went to cored topsides was to reduce weight to allow them to have additional ballast and thereby do better. They also raised to cabins to reduce inverted stability (a major category in the standards) albeit hurting real usable stability by raising the center of gravity and adding windage.
> 
> *In any event, the standards do not really cover the characteristics that determine whether a boat''s capability really is as a blue water boat. It does not look at seaberths, handholds, size of portlights and thickness of large plexiglass elements. It does look at hold downs and system installations. It does not consider comfort of motion. *
> 
> In conversations with Hunter owners who have weather storms at sea you get all kinds of mixed messages. The boats, by and large have survived but they have flexed terribly. I have read accounts of dislodged bulkheads and casework. I have experienced failed fitting attachments. I have experienced blown up or damaged undersized hardware. (We have had two Hunters in my family.) Hunters are a mixed bag but in my mind most of the newer boats are not a boat that I would choose to cross an ocean on.
> Respectfully,
> Jeff
> Jeff


And a good reply with some additional info...



Gene66 said:


> Thank you both Paul and Jeff for updating your opinions about hunters and other modern production boats. I apologize for the vigorousness of my assault upon your opinions, I do dislike when people use concepts combined with speulation, to me that is more a recipe for hypothesis and not a valid convincing arguement, yet many novices can influenced all the same with this technique all the same.
> 
> I recieved the letters from Hunter from other Hunter owners from various sources. And several accounts of ocean crossings and one complete circumnavigation in a Hunter 43.
> 
> Some common threads I noticed, all were very pleased with Hunters light air performance, no surprise here. It appears none were stock boats, meaning nearly all were modified somehow, be it additionl fuel reserves, to mfg installed smaller stays enabling it to be rigged with two head sails, but primarily to use a storm jib on the aft smaller stay to move the CE (Center of Effort) aft to bring balance to a fully reefed main close hauled in 20 foot seas and 25+ 35+ knots of wind and one account of greater than 20 foot seas with gusts exceeding 65 knots ! wow, I''m even a bit skeptical about this account, but I take it with a grain of salt. One had a pair of adjustable backstays added "For insurance" they wrote. Most had some minor gripe usually to do with something like the halyard line holder drained onto the cockpit seats, or the anchor had to be replaced because they thought it too small. No major damages reported, yet they all acknowledged that the light air performance comes at a cost, I use my own words to summarize the observation, tall mast, large area maximum sail plan, requires proper sail plan set for any given conditions.
> 
> I also realize this is Hunter filtering what Hunter wants me to read. And still remain a bit of a skeptic. However, I am attracted to Hunter boats for several reasons, not all sounds ones either: Strong light air performance, by far and large my own sailing experience has consisted of more light air sailing than gale force winds, so I assume, maybe incorrectly that more sailing is done in light wind than strong, even though inshore this is largely determined by the choice of when to slip the dock lines, during an ocean crossing, one only choose their first few days, maybe. Also I like the roomy interiors of the hunter boats, if lee cloths are used, then their are readily available sea berths on every hunter(another common modification). I like the looks, hunters are just plain sexy to me. I''m a skeptic, I like things to be proven, and I think more often than not, as Jeff acknowledges, there have been many ocean crossings. This tends to be proof for me. There are many other very capable passage makers out there, some better in some ways, worse in others, but it is my opinion to date(not written in stone) that some hunters make great Bluewater boats. Thus I give Jeff credit again in stating hunters being a "Mixed Bag" I think the real challenge with Hunter is determining which boat you wish to bet your life on.
> 
> That said I think I will look into their new HC50 as this boat appears to make the most of hunters lessons learned. Many ppl thumb down a Mac 26x as a small weekend inshore cruiser, myself included until I used one. Now for what I use it for, I think it is perfect. I was even taught that sailboats do not plane under motor power, I guess I am simply saying things change. There will always be trade offs, and the more versatile a boat is, the more her configuration will need to change with the continuously changing current conditions and the desired effect from her master....hmmm, I wonder what a 2001-2003 model HC50 would sell for in 2006-2009 timeframe? (I think this will require speculation and patience!
> 
> Good Luck All!
> Gene


Cheers to old threads! Keep diggin' them up!


----------



## CharlieCobra

Nice thread. One quick post about Nauticats. One was lost two years ago off the OR coast when a rogue wave caved in and shattered the cabin side ports, tearing the fiberglass dividers up when it did so. This caused down flooding shortly thereafter. The couple was rescued but the boat lost. Boats with BIG ports make me nervous and would instantly be disqualified from MY list. I like the heavy bronze ports on my boat. The cabin sides would fail before a port would. I also like a real bridgedeck between the cockpit and cabin. It keeps a pooping wave out as well as provides somewhere for passengers to sit under the dodger. After being tossed around in a sea way, I'll keep my boat with handholds to Port and Starboard close enough that I can switch sides without losing contact. You'd be amazed how fast and hard you can get thrown in the crap.


----------



## blt2ski

Charlie,

Is the Nauticat you are refering to, was this in an article in 48North? As I recall that was more of the coast of Ca in the SF area IIRC. As I know one of the two onboard and whom wrote the article. Then again, there could be two NC's that have gone down off the west coast here too!

With that in mind, I would agree that bigger "windows" for a general term, would not be my first choice for off shore, as they will let a lot more water in if they break somehow vs smaller one. 

Marty


----------



## CharlieCobra

It may have been off CA. It was in 48 North I believe...


----------



## mitiempo

I think one of the problems with production boats being "offshore ready" has a lot to do with the market and pricing. If 99% of the market will not go offshore, and the boat is not sold as an "offshore ready ocean crossing boat" why would the builder, whether Hunter, Catalina, or any other company spend the money to make it so. It would price the boat out of its intended market. Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions. Things like handholds added, minor rig changes, extra tankage and other changes/additions as required for the individual boat. On the other hand if the bulkheads are not tabbed, furniture is only held in with a few screws, and the companionway opens to the cockpit floor and is a lot wider at the top than the bottom I'd suggest another boat be chosen. A boat like this would require way too much in both dollars and time to make it "offshore ready". Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I can't think of any mainstream boat in the mid price range that is specifically advertised as an ocean crosser. The basic design has to be compatible with the idea of offshore use, the small non structural things can be modified.


----------



## danielgoldberg

micksbuddy said:


> IIRC, that pic was taken near the start of the rally, which would be near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. They supposedly had very good conditions this year almost a record low (if not record) number of engine hours in the cruising class, wind speeds mostly 20-30 kts. Most if not all boats did the run completely on port tack.


Yup, this thread simply won't die, and I'll now add to keeping it from doing so. 

That the boats had to endure 7 to 10 days of mostly 20+ knots of winds made for a good test of the boats. Great sailing conditions, but also put some stresses on the boats.


----------



## Kiskadee

Old but good thread. Many boats will withstand more than the crew. Any boat with an offshore rating should be seaworthy, which doesn't have to mean it's sea-kindly. And "offshore" doesn't mean a coastal run 50 miles out. It means a transit longer than a known weather forecast, with fetch of +200 miles, and no option of safe-harbour. The storm/calm percentage in the Pilot Charts doesn't mean chance of an occurance, it means percentage of the transit that will be in a storm or calm. Prepare for part of every offshore transit as being in a storm. 

A narrow-blade type keeled boat has a flatter bottom and lands hard after jumping off a wave. A full keel usually dives in deeper, decelerating as it lands. Full keels will usually be more stable when hove-to. 

It may take over a day and a half for a large Low to pass, then another day for the sea to lay down. That's two to three days in very stormy seas, with another +4 metre wave every 15 seconds. For three-days my calc says 17,000 waves... Yup, seaworthy is important but sea-kindly counts. If the boat is not sea-kindly the crew will be reaching for the EPIRB after only 5,000 big waves.


----------



## tdw

Charlie Cobra comes up with a point that is a favorite of mine....you never want to be further away than you can reach from a handhold.

otoh when it comes to PH windows I'm of the opinion that modern materials could in fact make the windows in a PH stronger than the timber/glass whatever surrounding them.

I'm not suggesting that windows as fitted are of adequate strength, more that they can be adequately beefed up. Mind you if I was taking a PH offshore I'd want to have storm boards.

Now further to the question of overall strength I'd point you to doing a Google of "Queen's Birthday Storm" or

Storm Tactics Handbooks: Modern ... - Google Books

In that event , and it was a particularly nasty one, on par with the '79 Fastnet and the '98 Sydney-Hobart a Bob Perry designed Norseman 447 (surely something of a brick outhouse) went down without a trace.

There are some events you simply cannot hide from but its interesting to note that while the Norseman was beaten other lighter boats (including a number of multihulls) survived.

I reckon we keep coming back to the crew and how they prepared for the worst.

Jeff_H's remarks re flexing (quoted by Smack) are worth re reading, as are most things the old curmudgeon writes.


----------



## sailingdog

TDW—

I'd point out that the scantlings for multihull construction are different than that for monohull construction. One reason is that multihulls do not have to support the loads generated by the large mass of a keel or ballast system that monohulls have to deal with. 

Also, the forces a storm can apply to a monohull are often higher than they could with a multihull, since a multihull can rise with the waves and follows the surface, rather than being in held in place by the keel and getting pounded as a result.


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> I think one of the problems with production boats being "offshore ready" has a lot to do with the market and pricing. If 99% of the market will not go offshore, and the boat is not sold as an "offshore ready ocean crossing boat" why would the builder... spend the money to make it so. It would price the boat out of its intended market.
> 
> Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions.


Let me be a little more specific:

Yes, I agree but one thing is a boat having an offshore capability, another is a boat designed primarily for it.

As you have said, 99% of the boats are never used offshore and even the ones that are used sometimes for that, are used most of the time onshore. Between the optimization for the two uses, there are some design criteria that are contradictory (sailing and living aboard in bad weather or sailing with weak winds and living aboard anchored or in a marina). That means that a production boat will be always a sort of compromise because simply there is not a market big enough for sailing boats designed with the sole purpose of offshore work.

Of course you can have one made; it will be probably a steel one, cutter rigged, heavy (with almost half of its weight in ballast), slow, with few openings, with a relatively small and dark interior, and of course, the bigger the better.



mitiempo said:


> Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions.
> 
> Things like handholds added, minor rig changes, extra tankage and other changes/additions as required for the individual boat. On the other hand if the bulkheads are not tabbed, furniture is only held in with a few screws, and the companionway opens to the cockpit floor and is a lot wider at the top than the bottom I'd suggest another boat be chosen. A boat like this would require way too much in both dollars and time to make it "offshore ready". Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I can't think of any mainstream boat in the mid price range that is specifically advertised as an ocean crosser. The basic design has to be compatible with the idea of offshore use, the small non structural things can be modified.


Yes, I agree, but even in what regards compromises on the boats available on the market there is a big difference between several categories of sailboats, regarding seaworthiness and stability. Unfortunately those categories have a close correspondence in price levels.

Seaworthy boats, the ones that are generally called oceangoing boats are more expensive for a number of reasons: They have a Weight/ballast ratio bigger (more final stability) than the ones normally considered as coastal, they are stronger and heavy (they have to be because the extra weight on the ballast generates bigger forces to be distributed on the hull that has to be stronger). Because they are heavier they need to carry more sail and therefore they need bigger winches. They also have hatches and portlights stronger and more expensive.

Because these boats are more expensive and most of the people don't need what they offer, the demand is limited and they are built in small numbers. Those numbers don't justify expensive robots on the production line. Most of the work is manual and that contributes heavily to the final cost. As the boats are expensive anyway and only wealthy people can buy them, these manufacturers finish the boats with the level of interior sophistication that appeal to their buyers and, of course, all this costs even more money.

That's why Najads, Malos, Halberg-Rassys, Moody's, Southerlies and the like are more expensive. Much more, sometimes more than 2x a similar size mass production boat.

They are 2x more seaworthy? I don´t think so. If you pick a less expensive bigger good mass production boat, properly equipped for the job and compare it with a smaller "called" oceangoing boat, you can end up with a more seaworthy boat.

What's that difference in size? I would say that the stability of a Malo 37 roughly corresponds to the one of a mass production modern 42ft, as for instance, a Dufour 425. The 42ft will cost about 1/3 less than the 37ft. We are talking about 60 or 70 000 euros and that's a lot of money, at least for me and the Dufour will be a lot faster.

Sorry about the long post but I would like to say one more thing about what Jeff calls the"performance way" to have an offshore boat.

Most cruiser-racers have better overall stability, better final stability a better weight/Ballast ratio and are stronger than the correspondent cruiser boats from the same brand. I mean, a First against an Oceanis, a Performance line Dufour against a Grand Large Dufour.

As modern boats are very easy to reef (and anyway, if you want you don't need to carry all the sail) the cruiser-racers are generally more seaworthy than the correspondent boats from the cruiser line. They offer also a much better control of the mainsail (nearer the wheel) and that is important for a solo sailor. If you are a relatively experienced sailor, they are a better choice to go offshore, comparing with the sibling cruisers ( even considering that if you sail them on the limit, they tend to be a lot more nervous than a cruising boat).

]Unfortunately and for the reasons I had explained these boats are more expensive than the cruisers even if the interiors are poorer.

That is ridiculous? Yes, as the name of the lines "Oceanis" and "Grand Large". Those names imply boats designed primarily for offshore work and certainly that is misguiding, to say the least. Of course, by definition a purely cruising boat should be safer than a cruiser-racer that supposedly is meant to be sailed with a full crew.

That's a distortion of the market that has to do with all that has been said and has to do with the use the vast majority of buyers give to their boats, and with PRICE, not to mention marketing.

But not all the boat manufacturers misguide their clients. If you have a look at the line of x-yachts you are going to see that their cruisers, compared with their cruiser-racers have a bigger Weight/Ballast ratio, a better overall and final stability. In a word they are more seaworthy, but also a lot more expensive than their cruiser-racers (that are already among the more seaworthy).

I have seen last weekend at the Dussoldorf Messe the new Xc-42. What a boat!!! If I had the money I would not hesitate. But I don't and I believe not many would have the 450 or 500 000 euros that are needed to have that boat. But if you dream higher than me, you can pic the Xc-45. That one is more seaworthy

[URL="http://www.x-yachts.com/seeems/40086.asp[/URL]

X-yachts is a Danish medium production boat builder, the boats are very well made but not with the luxury touch you find on the Najads or Rassys. I believe that price is the price that you have to pay for an almost perfect fast bluewater cruiser and that´s why there are so few on the market and that's why me and the other less fortunate sailors have to look to mass production boats and to their compromises to afford a boat with offshore capability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo

Paulo

I think first you have to define offshore. Offshore from Newport to Bermuda or Miami to the Caribbean. Or offshore from Newport to the UK or from Los Angeles to the the Tahiti. Or around the three Capes. I don't believe any but custom boats and the most expensive semi-custom would be said by their builders to be built for the three Capes.

All boats are a compromise unless built for a specific voyage. All cruisers spend more time in port or alongshore than truly offshore so living space is needed by all. So in this respect all designs have to compromise between offshore use and acommodation. The sole design criteria of offshore use really doesn't exist I don't think.

Your mention of a steel boat with 50% ballast/disp ratio won't exist unless it's pretty large.

Ballast is rarely 50% of the displacement except on a racing boat with a stripped out interior. Form stability is a good portion of the righting ability on any but the very narrow UK designs of 50 years ago. Most wholesome cruisers, for offshore or not, have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40%. Here's a link to a custom aluminum offshore cruiser with a ratio of about 37%.
infidien'sspecifications,equipmentandinf (infidien)
Steve Dashew's Sundeer 60 design has a ballast/disp ratio of only 30% and was definitely designed for offshore use. And it is not a beamy boat either.

Most boats designed for offshore or inshore use have a point of vanishing stability of about 115 to 120 degrees unless an extreme design.
I think most non extreme boats in Europe would be in this category. I think they would have to be to receive the EU offshore approval.

I think it comes down to build quality and equipment unless the boat is designed to be a dock queen primarily.

As far as mainsail control near the wheel, ease of reefing, setting of storm sails, anchoring etc these are the kind of things many owners change or modify before sailing offshore.

But no the teak decks and luxury of the Scandinavian boats (HR, Malo et all) and others is certainly not a necessary part of "offshore ready" but it certainly adds to the price.


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> Paulo
> Your mention of a steel boat with 50% ballast/disp ratio won't exist unless it's pretty large. Ballast is rarely 50% of the displacement except on a racing boat with a stripped out interior. Form stability is a good portion of the righting ability on any but the very narrow UK designs of 50 years ago.


Brian,
Not exactly. What I have said was: "..heavy (with almost half of its weight in ballast)..". 
When I said almost half I meant over 40% and less than 50%, but there are some small steel bluewater boats with more than 50% Ballast and certainly a lot of them with more than 40%.

Take a look at the picture. It's a design from Dick Koopmans, one of the most prominent Dutch naval architects, specialized in very seaworthy bluewater boats, normally in steel or aluminum. This one has a 11.4 T displacement and has a 6T ballast.

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy322/Paulo_Carvalho/240.jpg



mitiempo said:


> Form stability is a good portion of the righting ability on any but the very narrow UK designs of 50 years ago.


Yes, but form stability gives mainly initial stability and serves nothing in what regards final stability (also called reserve stability). That is, if you have your boat heeled at 90 or 100 degrees, form stability doesn't exist anymore. The only righting force is provided by the ballast.

Bluewater boats can be heeled by breaking waves in storms and therefore, for safety measure, they should have more reserve stability and that means also, more ballast or a deeper one.

Form stability gives you power to carry sail, but unfortunately that same form stability will translate itself in inverted stability, if the boat is capsized. That inverted stability will make it difficult to right up the boat again. The only way to diminish that inverted stability is (again) with a low center of gravity and that is obtained with ballast or with a deep keel. In what regards cruising, the depth of the keel is limited by cruising needs, so it will have to be ballast.



mitiempo said:


> Most wholesome cruisers, for offshore or not, have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40%.&#8230;&#8230;Most boats designed for offshore &#8230;. use have a point of vanishing stability of about 115 to 120 degrees unless an extreme design. I think most non extreme boats in Europe would be in this category.


Here I don´t follow you. 
I certainly agree that a good bluewater boat (I am talking of a relatively small boat, mainstream design) should have at least a Ballast/displ. ratio of 30%. I would say that in my opinion 33% instead of 30% is a more adequate number for a lower limit. And if we are really talking about an ideal passage maker, closer to 40% would be better. 
But a mainstream sail boat with 35% ballast (about 2m draft) will have an AVS of around 130. You say that such a boat is an extreme boat and I don't agree.

All boats that I have considered (in the previous post) as generally addressed as oceangoing sailboats (Malos, Najad, Moody, Southerlies) have an AVS around 130 degrees (or bigger).

Many mainstream cruiser-racers (with a displ/ Ballast ratio of around 33% and around 2 M draft) have an AVS between 120 and 135 and they are not certainly extreme boats.

Between 110 to 120 degrees of AVS, ( with 26 to 30% Disp/Ballast ratio and 2M draft) you will find the so called "cruisers", the Oceanis line, the Bavarias, the Jeanneaus and the Dufour Grand Large line.

By the way, talking about misinformation, "Grand Large" in French means Bluewater, in what regards boats.



mitiempo said:


> But no the teak decks and luxury of the Scandinavian boats (HR, Malo et all) and others is certainly not a necessary part of "offshore ready" but it certainly adds to the price.


Teak decks are extras on those boats. If you don't want them you don't pay them. The very good quality of the interior is however standard and I am afraid you have to pay for that

Finally I would like to say that not mentioning American boats is not any form of depreciation. I would not mind to have a 43ft Tartan or a Morris 45, but simply I don't know American boats as well as European boats...and I prefer not to talk if I don't know enough, and that's the case.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo

Paulo
Either you misunderstood or I didn't explain it properly. What I should have said was that most wholesome cruisers, offshore or not, would have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40% or slightly higher. Most boats designed for offshore have a point of vanishing stability of 115 to 120 degrees or higher. I think all except the more extreme designs will have numbers like the above. I don't think you will find many boats with a cruising interior and gear that have a 50% ballast/disp ratio.
As far as a steel boat having a large ballast/disp ratio there aren't too many I don't think, at least among the more moderate displacement boats. Van De Stadt's Samoa design, which has proven popular with several offshore cruising couples, has a ballast/disp ratio of 37% in aluminum and is the same in fiberglass. But the steel version has a ratio of only 28% and less weight of ballast as the steel hull's weight is such a handicap. Weight is only good if it's in the correct place and the hull is not the place. Most of the Hallberg Rassy and Malo boats I looked at are 37 to 38% with the Morris 38 at 41% and the X 40 at 43%. 
For a custom boat I would certainly look at aluminum for it's strength, ease of maintenance and durability but not steel both for its increased upkeep and weight penalty in most cases.


----------



## smackdaddy

I just want to say that the conversation you guys are having is great. I'm learning a ton. Seriously great stuff.

Now - back to ripping each other's throats out. (I'm joking of course.)


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Now - back to ripping each other's throats out. ...


Fat chance     



mitiempo said:


> Either you misunderstood or I didn't explain it properly. What I should have said was that most wholesome cruisers, offshore or not, would have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40% or slightly higher. Most boats designed for offshore have a point of vanishing stability of 115 to 120 degrees or higher. I think all except the more extreme designs will have numbers like the above. I don't think you will find many boats with a cruising interior and gear that have a 50% ballast/disp ratio.


 Brian,

Probably I have misunderstood you because you have said between 115 and 120, when obviously you wanted to say 115 and 120 or higher, as you have clarified.

Anyway, if a boat is designed for offshore, the 115 AVS seems to me too low. That's true that a boat with a 115 AVS (if the rest of the criteria are met) can be CE certified as a class A boat (Offshore) but if such a boat is capsized by a wave, the probability is that it will take several minutes to be righted by a suitable sized wave.

You have also to consider that if you mount a radar on the mast and have a furling one, that AVS will drop significantly and that will worsen the time needed to re-right the boat and can also lead to a difficult recovery of a simple 90 degree crash.

But I agree with you that, unfortunately (in my opinion), there are a lot of boats certified as Class A with an AVS lower than 115 and many with an AVS of around 115.



mitiempo said:


> As far as a steel boat having a large ballast/disp ratio there aren't too many I don't think, at least among the more moderate displacement boats. Van De Stadt's Samoa design, which has proven popular with several offshore cruising couples, has a ballast/disp ratio of 37% in aluminum and is the same in fiberglass. But the steel version has a ratio of only 28% and less weight of ballast as the steel hull's weight is such a handicap. Weight is only good if it's in the correct place and the hull is not the place. Most of the Hallberg Rassy and Malo boats I looked at are 37 to 38% with the Morris 38 at 41% and the X 40 at 43%.
> For a custom boat I would certainly look at aluminum for it's strength, ease of maintenance and durability but not steel both for its increased upkeep and weight penalty in most cases.


About this, it seems to me that this time it is you that have misunderstood me, or perhaps I was not clear enough.

What you say about the Rassy, Malo and Morris Ballast/Displ confirms what I have said on the previous post.

Regarding the Steel boat versus an Aluminum boat, I was talking about a boat made exclusively for offshore use, maximizing seaworthiness over all other criteria. I agree there are not too many like that.

If you have a custom designed boat (same design) made in steel and Aluminum, both with the same Ballast/displacement ratio you will have two boats with a close GZ curve, a similar AVS but the Steel one will be more seaworthy (more stability) simply because the RM curve will be a lot bigger.

It will be bigger because the steel boat will have a considerable bigger displacement and RM=GZXDispl. As the energy needed to capsize the boat equals the area under the positive part of the RM curve, it will be necessary a lot more energy (bigger wave) to capsize the Steel one.

Of course such a boat will be a heavy and slow one. That's why on Samoa design Van De Stadt has opted by a smaller Ballast/Displ on the steel one. Probably that way the energy required to capsize both versions will be about the same, but in that case the Aluminum version will have a better final stability, because the AVS will be a lot better (better overall GZ curve).

Personally, as speed is an important criterion for me, like you, I would prefer an aluminum one over a steel one. I have posted on other thread a photo of a boat that I have started to design (taking as base a Dick Zall design) to be my next boat. It's an aluminum one:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/59370-your-perfect-boat-4.html

But there are sailors to whom speed is not really important and max seaworthiness and resistance to impact are the decisive criteria and, for those, a steel boat would be the natural choice for the perfect offshore boat (meaning by offshore boat a boat that is designed to be used mostly offshore, a passage maker).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Interesting...Hunters might not suck after all! Seriously, this is a great article I ran across on another forum:

HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A

An excerpt:



> CWBB: It has been pointed out that Hunter has received the highest level of the EU's new seaworthiness ratings. This rating category indicates that the vessel is designed to withstand conditions of approximately 40 knot. winds and 12-foot seas. Hunter's ads, however seem to suggest that the rating implies that the boats are designed to take anything that they might encounter in open ocean cruising. Are Hunters designed for the kind of conditions they might encounter in some of the nastier areas of the world, such as the major Capes or a North Atlantic passage?
> 
> JB: All current Hunter boats 34' and larger built for European delivery are certified by IMCI to be in compliance with the relevant parts of the Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/CE. The CE mark means that the craft meets or exceeds all current standards and directives of the International Organization for Standardization in effect at the time of construction. All Hunters 34' and larger comply with the CE A design category. Those built for US delivery would have to have a serial number change that is not accepted by the US Coast Guard documentation service and lack various safety placards, stove shielding, and VHF radio specs required by the IMCI. Otherwise the construction is identical. The specific language used by the IMCI is: "Category A Ocean: Craft designed for extended voyages where conditions experienced may exceed wind force 8 and include significant wave heights of 4m, for vessels that are largely self sufficient." The key you're missing is the word "exceed." Yes, we believe the boats capable of rounding the major capes and of North Atlantic passage; several have. All our boats delivered over the past 5-6 years to our Cape Town South Africa dealer have been on their own bottoms. The skill of the captain and crew, proper preparation, appropriate safety equipment are of course essential to safe sailing and are not included when the boat leaves our plant but can be added.


Rounding a Horn ain't so bad.


----------



## PCP

Going back to the subject of the thread: *Production boats and the limits*

Name of the boat: *Perithia*, 2002 Bavaria 44

Bought by Katrin and Uwe, two years ago, used and standard in Corfu after 7 years of charter service.

Now, 22 months later they have circumnavigated, made the Northwest passage, explored Greenland and Alaska and are back to Greece after making 38 000nm.

How about that for an old mass production charter boat

Perithia - The story about a world trip with a sailing ship along the Amundsen-Route (north-west)

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Now that's impressive:










Gotta love those super-stout charter boats.


----------



## Jeff_H

*The Hunter interviews.*

That is amazing....The endless lifespan of the Internet never ceases to floor me. I compiled, re-wrote the questions, conducted and edited that series of interviews and discussions almost 12 years ago, and the amazing part is that it still exists on-line.

The one thing that does not appear in your quote and I did not see on the webpage was the discussion about the purpose of Hunters. The jist of that discussion was that Hunter was targeting the budget oriented, coastal cruising marketplace. That should come as no surprise. As a result, where compromises were required they were biased toward that goal rather than offshore capabilities. The compromises are in areas that are not covered by ABYC or the CE ratings such as interior layouts, hand holds and footholds.

Signed,
Shaking my head in Annapolis....



smackdaddy said:


> Interesting...Hunters might not suck after all! Seriously, this is a great article I ran across on another forum:
> 
> HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A
> 
> An excerpt:
> 
> Rounding a Horn ain't so bad.


----------



## Don L

I started a similar thread on another forum. In the end after reading all I could find and disregarding all "I heard this from someone who heard it from ..." I decided the much bad mouthed Hunter's are pretty good boats, period! If you go to their website they even have production videos of the boats, what other manufacturer does? 

So in the end I went from a Hunter non-believed and basher to a believer. I feel my Hunter 410 is constructed as good as anything, and a lot better than lots (better I feel than my old Cal-39 that was considered a "good" boat). Sure it doesn't have all that fancy wood to spend your extra time on, and maybe it is just too comfortable for those on dark crowded boats to accept!

To answer the orginal question I feel my 2001 Hunter 410 is a bluewater boat with a CE A rating! I would take it anywhere I have the courage to do so, knowing it will out perform me any day!


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey Don...yours was actually the thread I was reading. I thought you did a really good job keeping it focused on the question at hand and getting down to the nitty-gritty of it. Thanks for a great thread on Hunters.

At the end of the day, it just seems to always come down to the fact that the sailor will give out before the boat does.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shut up!!! Are you serious????

You did a great job with that interview Jeff. In general, did you come away as a bit more of a believer?



Jeff_H said:


> That is amazing....The endless lifespan of the Internet never ceases to floor me. I compiled, re-wrote the questions, conducted and edited that series of interviews and discussions almost 12 years ago, and the amazing part is that it still exists on-line.
> 
> The one thing that does not appear in your quote and I did not see on the webpage was the discussion about the purpose of Hunters. The jist of that discussion was that Hunter was targeting the budget oriented, coastal cruising marketplace. That should come as no surprise. As a result, where compromises were required they were biased toward that goal rather than offshore capabilities. The compromises are in areas that are not covered by ABYC or the CE ratings such as interior layouts, hand holds and footholds.
> 
> Signed,
> Shaking my head in Annapolis....


I guess from your explanation above, I'd come away thinking I got a hell of a coastal cruiser that is pretty tough. And that's the antithesis of the general mindset on Hunters.


----------



## Markathishome

Hmmm, interesting debate. I am in New Zealand. We see a clear difference between production - a manufactured product and what you call custom - built by a boatbuilder. There is a reason they are cheaper. The boats that do best in round the buoys club racing here are NOT production. The production products lose chainplates, keels, interior liners, rudders, genoa tracks......and the list goes on. And they don't win races. This type of racing here is in any style of boat, mostly cruisers being raced and many of these boats will do regular ocean passages.


----------



## WDS123

Smack,

within the industry we define builders in 3-4 categories:

Production Builders - Macgregor, Catalina, Beneteau, Hunter

Series Builders - WD Schock, Morris, Tartan, Sabre, Hinckley, Alerion Express, Swan

Custom Builders - many small and large shops.

Contract Manufacturers - these are the guys that build boats for the marketing focused sailboat companies (J boats being most well known of the marketering focused )

Within each category one will find a surprisingly narrow range of quality in the build, but a wide range of designs and capabilities. 

High Performance Blue Water racers ( ie the Schock 40 ) are going to be built as light as possible and therefore will be minimally robust, just tough enough to make it safely, but make damn certain you survey every inch of the vessel after every major race. 

Low Performance Blue Water Cruisers - ( Island Packets ) will tend to be overbuilt and require less care than the Schock 40, but are going to be slower and more comfortable. 

Quite honestly, nearly all production boats are more floating condos than sailing vessels. The production builders need to appeal to the checkbook holder in the family (ie Mom ). They also have to battle very tough price points. This means that the production boats builders value engineer many hidde. Items on the boats, but lavish the budget on interior touches ( gimmacks ? ) which will sell the Wives


----------



## WDS123

the above is not to bash any builder, but just to illuminate the various issues.

As for Blue Water sailing - a buddy of mine sailed for 5 days and nights delivering his Santana 20. It was just him in his 20s and a teenager. They left Marblehead MA for NJ, they decided to sail around Cape Cod and outside LI. The winds never dropped below 25 knts, and were mostly 30+. They and the boat did just fine. 

A Santana 20 was built for around the buoy racing


----------



## PCP

Markathishome said:


> Hmmm, interesting debate. I am in New Zealand. We see a clear difference between production - a manufactured product and what you call custom - built by a boatbuilder. There is a reason they are cheaper. The boats that do best in round the buoys club racing here are NOT production. The production products lose chainplates, keels, interior liners, rudders, genoa tracks......and the list goes on. And they don't win races. This type of racing here is in any style of boat, mostly cruisers being raced and many of these boats will do regular ocean passages.


Funny, I had the impression that last year a First 40 had won the Sydney-Hobart and this year again a First 40 and a First 45 had won their classes. I also had the impression that the Sydney-Hobart was a tough race and that this two last years were not among the easiest


----------



## smackdaddy

WDSchock said:


> Smack,
> 
> within the industry we define builders in 3-4 categories:
> 
> Production Builders - Macgregor, Catalina, Beneteau, Hunter
> 
> Series Builders - WD Schock, Morris, Tartan, Sabre, Hinckley, Alerion Express, Swan
> 
> Custom Builders - many small and large shops.
> 
> Contract Manufacturers - these are the guys that build boats for the marketing focused sailboat companies (J boats being most well known of the marketering focused )
> 
> Within each category one will find a surprisingly narrow range of quality in the build, but a wide range of designs and capabilities.
> 
> High Performance Blue Water racers ( ie the Schock 40 ) are going to be built as light as possible and therefore will be minimally robust, just tough enough to make it safely, but make damn certain you survey every inch of the vessel after every major race.
> 
> Low Performance Blue Water Cruisers - ( Island Packets ) will tend to be overbuilt and require less care than the Schock 40, but are going to be slower and more comfortable.
> 
> Quite honestly, nearly all production boats are more floating condos than sailing vessels. The production builders need to appeal to the checkbook holder in the family (ie Mom ). They also have to battle very tough price points. This means that the production boats builders value engineer many hidde. Items on the boats, but lavish the budget on interior touches ( gimmacks ? ) which will sell the Wives


Great explanation WD. It's good to see things broken down like this from someone who really knows. Thanks.


----------



## 224

1


----------



## smackdaddy

224 said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up!!! Are you serious????
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Mr. S. Daddy,
> I previously thought your lack of coherent English important in these threads. I have changed my mind. I believe it now imperative for you to write readable English if you wish to be taken seriously or even read at all.
> No wonder you get smacked. You actively promote it.
Click to expand...

My Dearest 224,

Lest we commit the cardinal transgression of drifting from the hallowed subject of this thread whilst discussing your earnest repine, please allow me to cordially invite you to the vaunted Fight Club thread for some polite discourse...and rhetorical fat lips:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/off-topic/17136-fight-club____for-sailors-794.html#post748237

In the mean time, while I take your sage perspective under advisement, I invite you to earnestly research and practice your use of the Sailnet Quote feature. Yes, it is rather complicated - but its proper use does indeed enhance one's perceived intelligence. I've taken this opportunity to repair the damage for you above. And I'd be more than pleased to teach you how to do the same if you so desire. That's just the kind of good natured and benevolent chap I am.

Sincerely,

Smackdaddy


----------



## Melrna

There are many threads here on Sailnet. Most are just answering questions about this and that. Once in awhile there is the SUPER thread that never dies due to questions most sailors continue to have in there mind. This is one of those. One can re-read this thread over and over again and learn something new each time. As years go by ideas, theory's, and facts either change or are proven. 
My two cents worth is what has been said here and on other forums. There are about 1,500-2,000 bluewater cruisers cruising the world at any given time Very small community. Most of them are in production boats of one sort or another, modified for the owners desire. I would even venture to say those cruisers in what some here would call true bluewater boats are in the vintage of 1980-1990 boat; either for affordability or/both bulewater characteristics. No prudent sailor would go out in seas and wind over 30 knots or 6' seas, in other words most cruisers are fair weather sailors. A descent skipper can sail anything in fair weather. According to stats, most cruisers sailing around the world encounter less than 5 days of true nasty storms during their entire cruise. With the advent of getting weather through SSB, weather routers and prudent planning, fair weather sailing is paramount. 
So what does get important for the average cruiser out there. 90% of the time the cruisers in either at anchor, moored or docked. So comfort down below and above becomes paramount hence the new wide stern, open cockpit designs coming out of most production boats, and new interiors that resemble floating condos. Easy sailplans; roller furling mainsail and jib, German sheeting, power winches, strong autopilots, etc. Appealing to the female gender in features that some sailors cringe about gets more sailboats on the water and keeps the Captain happy. Keeps the sport/lifestyle alive.


----------



## mitiempo

Yes, the SUPER threads...

What anchor should I buy?

Crimping vs soldering.

And the funniest of all

Cruising with bulldogs. (My favorite)

224

This is the internet, not an English class fer chrissake!

But getting back to the topic  the boats that are built are the ones people buy. If these features were that bad they wouldn't sell. 

What I have always found odd is the opinion of many that for a boat to be "offshore capable" it must have a long keel, attached rudder, and if it behaves like a half tide rock so much the better it seems.

On the thread started by Paulo - interesting sailboats - virtually all the boats described could and in some cases have been sailed offshore for a fair distance. Many are what cruisers would call either racers or racer/cruisers with a definite emphasis on the racing part.


----------



## Dean101

*Interesting*

Since I have committed several days to the reading of this thread, I feel compelled to post in order to justify the time spent. And well spent it was! My days were filled with learning, confusion, laughter, and puzzlement, but mostly confusion. As a novice sailor saving and searching for my getaway boat, this thread of boat comparison and capability is what initially drew me to its review. I must say that most of my confusion stems from the fact that it ran rather counter to the majority of advice I have received from experienced sailors on choosing the right boat for me.

The feeling I got from many of the posts was that of justification, and possibly pushing the envelope at times. The theme seemed to say "this boat can go here" and go on to "justify" that capability with real life accounts. Boats and their manufacturers seemed to end up in catagories which were shuffled based on personal experience, manufacturer recommendation, or marketing rhetoric. In the end, it seems that a certain blanket statement made by many experienced and often highly respected sailors remains true; "Boats can, and often do, handle more punishment than the sailors who sail them". (My synopsis and not a direct quote.)

That being said, let me add a disclaimer. I am in no way an expert. My sailing experience is severely limited compared to those of you who have previously posted. I have enjoyed reading the various thoughts, opinions, and facts that have been presented here and only wish to contribute a newbie's point of view.

The advice I have recieved concerning choosing a boat revolves around personal needs. The fact of whether or not I "could" take a Beneteau or a Hunter across an ocean, or even within a 5 day weather window seems a mute point IMHO. The issue of whether or not I "should" seems a lot more applicable. In my opinion, it appears that most production boats are designed to appeal to a targeted, even if rather broad, market. The boat is then produced to a standard that reflects that designed use. Sure, the boat most likely will take harsher use and I believe this is that "safety factor" built into most products to absolve a manufacturer from liability.

This may be a good time in my discourse to state that all credible advice I've received on choice of boat clearly states that I should first decide on how and where I will use the boat. Since the tone of the discussion seems designed to narrow down a list of choices that can handle a given set of parameters, I must say that, in my opinion, neither question has been sufficiently answered. Where I intend to go and what conditions I am likely to encounter is entirely a personal choice and a question that only the individual can answer. That individual needs to purchase a boat that can handle those conditions in safety and comfort. Again, safety and comfort are a personal choice and relative to the individual. As a novice sailor, in all reality, I will probably buy a boat that is much more capable than what I need. But can't that be considered a way for me to build confidence in my own capabilities? The knowledge that my boat is forgiving and will allow me to make mistakes in my learning curve without catastrophic consequences is comforting to me, just as the extensive skills and abilities comfort the sailor who takes a less sturdy boat with less margin for error across an ocean. By the way, this is a sailor who is the exception rather than the norm, IMHO.

It seems that Smackdaddy has endeavored to define the limits of intended use at several points during the discussion. He has even set parameters for boat choice. Smackdaddy, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but without going back over the entire thread I believe the limits of intended use could be summarized thusly;

1.* Distance achievable from land within a 5 day weather window.* Should this be applicable to the individual's area of operation, since I did not see an actual geographical location given? Also, since the boat's speed will affect this distance, should the window be applicable to each boat?

2.* The boat must be '86 or newer, and cost less than $145,000.* I can't remember the actual amounts you stated off hand so please correct me. Also, I'm not clear if staying within the bounds of cost, perceived blue water capability, or with manufacturer is the priority. I have seen some boats that fall within the stated cost and model year that are considered transoceanic capable but do not meet the manufacturer names that are used extensively throughout this thread.

Perhaps a well-defined set of parameters is in order. I just realized that although you did attempt to set limits on the discussion, those same limits are rather open to interpretation. For example, boats that are widely accepted as transoceanic have been discounted but fall within price or year model. It also seems that many of the production companies offer a wide variety of capability in their product lines, depending on boat size, options available, or year produced. Is the discussion focused primarily on certain manufacturers whose boats were built on or after 1986 and can be purchased either new or used within a certain price range and are capable of being safely operated within a 5 day sailing range (does this include return trip) from land by a sailor of average skill?

I am certainly hoping at this point that Smackdaddy will post a specific specific area of use along with boat parameters, especially manufacturers allowed. Even though I did not fully understand much of the technical facts thrown out for our review, I do understand that many manufacturers made design changes over the years to boats in the same product line. These changes often changed the capabilities of these boats so that a boat built in, say 1987 would not be capable of handling the same conditions that a boat in the same line that was built in 2009 is capable of handling. It is also my understanding that most boats, reguardless of their manufacturer, can be modified to handle almost any conditions, if the owner has the $$$ to accomplish it. So I'm assuming we are talking about a stock boat with only minor upgrades rather than a boat that has been completely refitted for heavier use.

As stated earlier, I am a novice and in no way qualified to quote what boats are capable of doing what. I am simply hoping for a well-defined set of conditions the boat will be operated in and the thoughts of sailors much more experienced than me to enlighten the many novices in the background that are probably reading this thread in hopes that they will find usefull information to help them get out on the water. My comments may have pushed the intended scope of this thread beyond its purpose into the realm of "which boat should I choose" and while that was not my purpose, it is a question that many of us have.


----------



## Dean101

mitiempo said:


> Yes, the SUPER threads...
> 
> What anchor should I buy?
> 
> Crimping vs soldering.
> 
> And the funniest of all
> 
> Cruising with bulldogs. (My favorite)
> 
> 224
> 
> This is the internet, not an English class fer chrissake!
> 
> But getting back to the topic  the boats that are built are the ones people buy. If these features were that bad they wouldn't sell.
> 
> What I have always found odd is the opinion of many that for a boat to be "offshore capable" it must have a long keel, attached rudder, and if it behaves like a half tide rock so much the better it seems.
> 
> On the thread started by Paulo - interesting sailboats - virtually all the boats described could and in some cases have been sailed offshore for a fair distance. Many are what cruisers would call either racers or racer/cruisers with a definite emphasis on the racing part.


 During the course of researching boats, I have to agree with your statement about what is considered offshore capable. To go beyond that, however, I have done a fair amount of reading on why these features are desireable and I have to say that I agree with the reasons. I think the "poor performance" factor may hinge on ones point of view.

I have developed a belief that virtually any boat is offshore capable, given the right weather conditions. Since I plan on eventually crossing oceans, I have ditched the statement "*offshore capable*" and confined my search for "*offshore suitable*" boats. I think these two discriptions encompass a state of mind rather than than the actual capability of the boat itself.

I stand behind my belief that almost any boat can go offshore. They could even cross oceans given enough food and water. This is the "offshore capable" mindset. I do NOT believe that just any boat* should * be taken offshore. This forum is full of stories from people who encountered much more in the way of weather and problems than they expected, and those "perfect sailing weather" forecasts have sometimes turned into small craft advisories. I will eat those words on this forum for all to see if I am wrong. Many of these boats can handle heavy weather, but what about equipment failures, ability to careen on a remote beach to repair a hole caused by a collision with floating junk? The ability to carry enough stores and water for truely extensive voyaging? Maybe, maybe not.

The "offshore suitable" mindset is where I think those full keeled, half floating rocks you speak of fall. I believe these boats were designed to handle the worst that mother nature could throw at them. The design features they incorporate are there for good reason. Sure, they affect the performance, such as speed and maneuverability. But I say they are high performance in the role they were cast for. They take a beating. They get you there, not because of fair weather, but no matter the weather. Perhaps speed is not so important to the individual as being able to take punishment and still go. Maybe they want the ability to dry out on the beach to repair damage and not have to terminate their cruise.

What do you think? Could "offshore capable" be confused with "offshore suitable"? My personal opinion is that boats like the Tayana 37 or the Hans Christian 33 are absolutely beautiful in their styling and abilities. Many of the newer boats seem so futuristic to me and while they are attractive boats, they don't hold the appeal I have for the more traditional designs. With my intended use and personal preferences, when I finally make a purchase it will be one of the above mentioned, or one like them. But, that is my own choice and my priorities are likely to be much different than those of you that want to race or prefer a faster, more responsive boat.

I guess it's all in what each individual prefers and what they want to do with their boat. There is nothing wrong with any of them and I think that as long as you are out on the water doing what you want to do and feel that special connection with your boat as you cut through the water, it doesn't matter what kind of keel you have. It's all good!


----------



## mitiempo

In the days before fiberglass most, but not all boats had a long keel with attached rudder. This was to a great extent due to the limits of plank on frame wood construction. A more efficient fin keel wasn't a good match for the construction method. The full keel was shortened over the years to reduce wetted surface, improving light air performance. In the process the rudder was moved farther forward, reducing its effect. The earlier fiberglass boats were for the most part a copy of this design type with a different material. 

As designers and builders became more experienced with the material design improved, leading to easier to handle more nimble boats with rudders aft, making the boats easier to handle. 

I am not suggesting that any fin keel spade rudder boat is the best choice for offshore use, but modern designs can sail well in both light and heavy conditions and can be very suitable for ocean crossing.

Here's an old but fairly successful fiberglass design.


----------



## Dean101

That is a beautiful boat! I agree with you that many modern boat designs are suitable for extended offshore cruising. I think the whole "offshore means full keel, heavy, and slow" thing is an image conjured of days gone by. When someone mentions pirates, I picture Captain Jack Sparrow, or images from the old pirate movies I watched in black and white, not high speed boats with RPG's and automatic weapons. Still, they are both pirates. I'm just glad that no matter what type of boat one finds appealing and no matter where in the whole wide world one wishes to sail, there is a boat to fit the fancy!


----------



## smackdaddy

Dean101 said:


> What do you think? Could "offshore capable" be confused with "offshore suitable"? My personal opinion is that boats like the Tayana 37 or the Hans Christian 33 are absolutely beautiful in their styling and abilities. Many of the newer boats seem so futuristic to me and while they are attractive boats, they don't hold the appeal I have for the more traditional designs. With my intended use and personal preferences, when I finally make a purchase it will be one of the above mentioned, or one like them. But, that is my own choice and my priorities are likely to be much different than those of you that want to race or prefer a faster, more responsive boat.


Dean - I'm still learning all this stuff just like you. But I'm starting to form a more solid opinion on this based on the research I've done and the various boats I've sailed on thus far.

First, the term "bluewater" is fairly specious I think - at least as used in these arguments. As has been said many times, and proven many, many more times in the briney...virtually all modern boats (the ones we typically talk about here anyway) can cross oceans. The line of division in these arguments, therefore, typically comes down to these 3 things:

1. The "comfort" of the boat in seas. And this seems to typically come down to the hull design (deep, heavy and slow versus flat, light and fast).
2. The stoutness of the boat in a storm.
3. The tankage, stowage, and layout of the boat.

So, do you get a Tayana 37 or a Bene First 38? Do you get a Hans Christian 41 or a Hunter 40? A Pacific Seacraft 37 or a Dufour 375?

You really should take a look at PCP's "Interesting Sailboats" thread as mentioned previously. Great stuff in there.

For me the bottom line is that I will purchase a faster, more modern boat that is nice and roomy below. That is because I know we do (and will continue to) spend the majority of our time hanging out on the boat...at anchor in a cove, sleeping on it at a marina while visiting some place, etc. - than doing huge passages. And we want that experience to be comfortable. And we can deal with the other stuff while sailing.

Now, what does this mean in relation to the above parameters?

1. We may very well pound in some conditions. Of course, you can pretty easily remedy this if you change your point of sail - and sail more conservatively. But the beauty is that, when headed downwind, we'll scream along and leave all those heavies in our wake. Then we'll drink all the beer in the anchorage before they get there 3 days later. Occasional pounding? Meh. I'll take the beer.

2. I've been reading the Bumfuzzle's blog. It really is interesting stuff. These people were absolutely clueless when they started a _circumnavigation on a production boat they knew nothing about_ (though they are very smart and resourceful). Bottom line is that they sailed around the world, knowing nothing, and never had to deal with a serious storm. Part of that was luck - but part of it was never having a schedule, and never wanting to chance it too much. If they started out of a harbor and it was blowing 30, they'd turn around and anchor again and wait for a few days/weeks until it lightened up. Add to this all the feedback I've gotten from great books like Hal Roth's, and something becomes clear...big storms at sea are rare. And boats, even production boats, are incredibly resilient. You just have to be prepared and be extremely conservative when a storm hits. The odds are pretty good that the boat will survive it (if you keep the water on the outside) - and so will you (if you can stick it out). Granted, with a newer, more lightly built boat, you may have a whole bunch of stuff that breaks - but it will most likely get you through. To that end, you should look up the posts of WD Schock on this site. He was talking about this very thing in this thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruis...66-production-boats-limits-28.html#post746618

That dude is THE REAL DEAL. I'm not.

3. Tankage, stowage, etc. are problems that can be overcome based on how many you have on the boat and how far you want to go. For example, a water maker can greatly reduce your need for fresh water tankage. And lee cloths/boards can cure many ills as to sleeping in a seaway. Finally, stowage in most modern boats is actually pretty good. So I've always thought this argument was iffy. Other things like handholds, etc. can be remedied pretty cheaply as well.

So, depending on the weather and your idea of comfort - I personally think any of the major production brands are both capable and suitable for sailing virtually anywhere. But I also think you need to be a bit more conservative in relation to what you take them out in (conditions, time of year, region, etc.) - simply because they are built more lightly.

Bottom line, I'm not personally afraid of production boats. At all. They fit how we're going to sail. Others will prefer going slower in a tank that they feel more secure in. That's cool too. There are many of all kinds of boats on the ocean floor...production and otherwise. And there are many, many more of all kinds of boats doing just fine and having a blast sailing...production and otherwise.

(PS - here's another great discussion related to all this: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...686-blue-water-sailer-can-go-light-winds.html)


----------



## mitiempo

Dean101

Yes it is a beautiful boat. But probably not an "offshore" boat as it doesn't have a full keel with rudder attached that many are after.

It is Bob Perry's first successful design, the Valiant 40. Known as the beginning of the performance cruisers. And an awesome boat in every respect. 

Bob also designed the Tayana 37.


----------



## Dean101

smackdaddy said:


> Dean - I'm still learning all this stuff just like you. But I'm starting to form a more solid opinion on this based on the research I've done and the various boats I've sailed on thus far.
> 
> First, the term "bluewater" is fairly specious I think - at least as used in these arguments. As has been said many times, and proven many, many more times in the briney...virtually all modern boats (the ones we typically talk about here anyway) can cross oceans. The line of division in these arguments, therefore, typically comes down to these 3 things:
> 
> 1. The "comfort" of the boat in seas. And this seems to typically come down to the hull design (deep, heavy and slow versus flat, light and fast).
> 2. The stoutness of the boat in a storm.
> 3. The tankage, stowage, and layout of the boat.
> 
> So, do you get a Tayana 37 or a Bene First 38? Do you get a Hans Christian 41 or a Hunter 40? A Pacific Seacraft 37 or a Dufour 375?
> 
> You really should take a look at PCP's "Interesting Sailboats" thread as mentioned previously. Great stuff in there.
> 
> For me the bottom line is that I will purchase a faster, more modern boat that is nice and roomy below. That is because I know we do (and will continue to) spend the majority of our time hanging out on the boat...at anchor in a cove, sleeping on it at a marina while visiting some place, etc. - than doing huge passages. And we want that experience to be comfortable. And we can deal with the other stuff while sailing.
> 
> Now, what does this mean in relation to the above parameters?
> 
> 1. We may very well pound in some conditions. Of course, you can pretty easily remedy this if you change your point of sail - and sail more conservatively. But the beauty is that, when headed downwind, we'll scream along and leave all those heavies in our wake. Then we'll drink all the beer in the anchorage before they get there 3 days later. Occasional pounding? Meh. I'll take the beer.
> 
> 2. I've been reading the Bumfuzzle's blog. It really is interesting stuff. These people were absolutely clueless when they started a _circumnavigation on a production boat they knew nothing about_ (though they are very smart and resourceful). Bottom line is that they sailed around the world, knowing nothing, and never had to deal with a serious storm. Part of that was luck - but part of it was never having a schedule, and never wanting to chance it too much. If they started out of a harbor and it was blowing 30, they'd turn around and anchor again and wait for a few days/weeks until it lightened up. Add to this all the feedback I've gotten from great books like Hal Roth's, and something becomes clear...big storms at sea are rare. And boats, even production boats, are incredibly resilient. You just have to be prepared and be extremely conservative when a storm hits. The odds are pretty good that the boat will survive it (if you keep the water on the outside) - and so will you (if you can stick it out). Granted, with a newer, more lightly built boat, you may have a whole bunch of stuff that breaks - but it will most likely get you through. To that end, you should look up the posts of WD Schock on this site. He was talking about this very thing in this thread:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruis...66-production-boats-limits-28.html#post746618
> 
> That dude is THE REAL DEAL. I'm not.
> 
> 3. Tankage, stowage, etc. are problems that can be overcome based on how many you have on the boat and how far you want to go. For example, a water maker can greatly reduce your need for fresh water tankage. And lee cloths/boards can cure many ills as to sleeping in a seaway. Finally, stowage in most modern boats is actually pretty good. So I've always thought this argument was iffy. Other things like handholds, etc. can be remedied pretty cheaply as well.
> 
> So, depending on the weather and your idea of comfort - I personally think any of the major production brands are both capable and suitable for sailing virtually anywhere. But I also think you need to be a bit more conservative in relation to what you take them out in (conditions, time of year, region, etc.) - simply because they are built more lightly.
> 
> Bottom line, I'm not personally afraid of production boats. At all. They fit how we're going to sail. Others will prefer going slower in a tank that they feel more secure in. That's cool too. There are many of all kinds of boats on the ocean floor...production and otherwise. And there are many, many more of all kinds of boats doing just fine and having a blast sailing...production and otherwise.
> 
> (PS - here's another great discussion related to all this: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...686-blue-water-sailer-can-go-light-winds.html)


Thanks for the response Smackdaddy. I totally agree with your assessment of the 3 arguments for offshore sailing. To be completely honest here, I do read a lot of posts about how the modern designs can outperform the full keeled boats hands down. If you will notice, many people bash these type of boats because of their lack of speed. Sometimes I feel the need to defend the underdog, so to speak. While I can appreciate the fact that most modern hull designs will perform just fine across an ocean and get you there faster, I also see the point proponents of the "tanks" make when they explain why they like the features those same "tanks" have.

Now, here is where the honesty part comes in. I'm tired of the fast pace that society pushes on us. I want to enjoy the ride and not be tied to anyone's schedule. I have often thought that if I could get rid of all my debt, live aboard my boat, and anchor instead of paying to stay in a marina, I could actually cruise where I wanted to without having to worry about being at work on Monday morning. Then I read some of the Pardey's books and found out that people actually do that very same thing already! I'm reading Hal Roth's book as we speak.

As far as my boat choices, yes, I love the looks of the Tayana's, Hans Christians, and even the Westsail's. I also like the Crealock designs and Cape Dories. Some of the boats on my list have fin keels and skeg hung rudders. To be honest, unless you just happen to know what lies underneath it, you can only appreciate the looks of a boat from the waterline up. The canoe sterns and boxy coachroofs really appeal to me. The heavy displacement appeals because I won't have to worry as much about how many boxes of poptarts I load onto her. I'm really not worried about the speed factor.

You are right about the tankage and and stowage for offshore boats. I have noticed that it comes down to specific models on how much of each they have. Some seem to cram more diesel fuel than water while some supposedly offshore boats have very small fresh water tanks. Some of the production boats even look like they have enough stowage room to sink them if were all filled! I think if one were to cruise extensively in remote locations and areas of frequently bad weather, redundant or easily repairable systems, multiple water tanks, spares, good ground tackle, and heavier rigging would be advisable, no matter what type of boat you're using. Experience and preparedness seem to be the key (Good seamanship). I have read several accounts, including one posted in this thread, where the crews were rescued from their boats and the boats were later recovered doing what they were made to do; floating around on the water.

I would be interested to know what type of boats you have on your list and some of the expectations you have of them. I have compiled my own tentative list although I am continuously looking at other designs as well.


----------



## Dean101

mitiempo said:


> Here's an old but fairly successful fiberglass design.


What boat is this? It looks great and reminds me of a Pacific Seacraft...


----------



## mitiempo

The term "production boat" is being used to describe many boats as unsuitable for offshore use. Hal Roth's Whisper was a production boat (Spencer 35) not unlike the Albergs and Cape Dory boats, also production boats. The boat I pictured above (Valiant 40) is also a production boat. I can't think of too many boats being used offshore that aren't production boats. There are a few - the Pardey's current and previous boats among them.


----------



## Dean101

mitiempo said:


> The term "production boat" is being used to describe many boats as unsuitable for offshore use. Hal Roth's Whisper was a production boat (Spencer 35) not unlike the Albergs and Cape Dory boats, also production boats. The boat I pictured above (Valiant 40) is also a production boat. I can't think of too many boats being used offshore that aren't production boats. There are a few - the Pardey's current and previous boats among them.


Thanks, I didn't recognize it. I believe I have the Valiant on my list of preffered boats. I'm reading a book by Hal Roth right now. I have also read some of the Pardey's work and realized that they built their own boats. It's ironic that you mention the Cape Dory as being production boats. It seems the tone of the thread that production boats are fin keeled while the full keeled boats are considered slow going tanks. Aren't at least some of the Cape Dory's full keeled? And out of curiosity, how many boats have to be produced to be considered a production boat? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, I'm actually curious. Aren't most boats, even some of the high dollar premiums built from the same molds and tailored to suit the buyer?


----------



## mitiempo

The Cape Dory boats are all full keel boats. They are also a production boat - I don't think many owner changes were made except to trim and options. The Alberg 30, 35, and 37, Westsail 32, Pearson Triton, Southern Cross 31, Acapulco 40, Allied Luders 33 and 36, Baba 30 and 35, Tayana 35, Many of the earlier Bristols, some Cheoy Lee boats, some of the Cabo Rico's, Hans Christian, Lord Nelson 35 and 41, some Pacific Seacraft boats, were full keel boats. 

The Spencer 35 Hal Roth sailed as well as the Spencer 42 and 44 were full keel boats.

All of the above were what I would call production boats. 

There are not many full keel boats being produced today - Cape George boats are and are semi custom. Robinhood 36 and 40 were semi custom full keel boats that were fairly recent - not sure if they are around now, and the Bristol Channel Cutter is full keel - very close to the Pardey's boat, but semi-custom.

Hunter, Catalina, and Beneteau never produced a full keel boat.


A production boat to my mind is one where all boats are the same with the exception of gear options and possibly a few layout options. 

A boat like a Morris is the same hull, deck, and rig but the buyer can choose most everything else. I would call that semi-custom.

Custom denotes a one of a kind.

As far as numbers produced to be called production, I don't think boatbuilding is quite as structured as the car business so I don't think there is a set number.


----------



## Dean101

This is very interesting information. I actually learned basic sailing from a friend on a Catalina 27 so that brand has a special significance to me. Given the various opinions I've read and heard from others and adding the sailing characteristics of what you are considering production boats, which by the way well describes what I picture as a production boat, I have another question. Why are production boats spoken of like they are at the low end of boats? I have heard some people speak as though they are cheap and somehow inferior. This really doesn't jive with what I've seen and read on this site. My neighbor at the marina where I kept my Endeavour 32 had a Hunter. It was 28' and I cant recall the actual model, but it was in top notch condition. A very nice boat and very well equipped. It did not in anyway appear cheap or inferior. Is there a brand, or even a boat class rivalry similar to the Ford vs. Chevy rivalry in the boating community?


----------



## mitiempo

I would guess anywhere from 90 to 95% of the boats built in the last 30 or so years are "production boats".
It's not hard to see why. Economy of scale. The mold is good for many hulls and decks. Standardization keeps prices low. Even with the same hull and deck used a semi custom boat can easily double in price - see Morris, Hinckley et all.

Before fiberglass there were not many boats that could be called production, they were built one at a time. One of the few that comes to mind is the Concordia yawl built in numbers by Abeking & Rasmussen in Germany and shipped to the US. In those times sailing was for the rich or at least the well to do. Fiberglass boats changed all that. People could buy an affordable boat produced in numbers just like a Chevrolet. I can't see much wrong with that. Boats like the Pearson brothers Triton were there at the beginning - 1959.

There is nothing wrong with a production boat if it is well designed and built properly. Many if not all one-off boats have teething troubles that are soon sorted out when many are built. Over the years fully custom boats have had to have modifications because something didn't work out as planned. 

A production boat if badly built or designed will quickly become common knowledge. That is a good thing too.

The present has other bonuses. Due to several factors sailing has never cost so little. For one, fiberglass boats refuse to die. Everything on them will wear out eventually and need repair or replacing but the basic boat lives. For another the economy has created a buyer's market. There has never been a better time to buy a used boat I don't think.

Both the Endeavour 32 (same hull as the Irwin 32) and any Hunter you can name were production boats. Catalina, Columbia, Cal, Morgan, and dozens of others created the buyer's market we have today by building anywhere from dozens to hundreds of each model. There were about 7000 Catalina 30's built. 

There are many opinions of which boats are good and which were not. A few are based on fact but most not. 

I work on boats daily and get to see the parts many including the owners seldom see. I get to see both good and not so good building/wiring/plumbing practices. Some of the more expensive boats are not necessarily the best built - but I'm not telling tales.

The best way to get a boat suited for your intended purpose, whether daysailing with some overnighting and an annual holiday or crossing an ocean is to educate yourself as much as possible. Read books that cover construction. Go to the library and get a book like Ferenc Mate's "Best Boats to Build or Buy" or "The World's Best Sailboats". Many brands are covered including Beneteau. How they are built is described in detail with many pictures. The more you know the easier it will be to see good or not so good details when boat shopping.

Then there is condition. If you are looking at any older boat the maintenance and care it has received over the years is at least as important as the original build quality. Lots can happen over several decades of owner neglect and some possibly dubious upgrades.

There are many owner's groups on the web as well that can give you a better knowledge base of the manufacturer.


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> Dean101
> 
> Yes it is a beautiful boat. But probably not an "offshore" boat as it doesn't have a full keel with rudder attached that many are after.
> 
> It is Bob Perry's first successful design, the Valiant 40. Known as the beginning of the performance cruisers. And an awesome boat in every respect.
> 
> ..


50 years ago when the Vailant was introduced to the market it was a pretty revolutionary boat, a light and fast boat on those days and a boat that suffered the criticism of traditional sailors.

Today it's stability and seaworthiness have nothing to prove however when sailors compare a Vailant with a modern passage-maker like the Pogo 40 (or a Cigale) tend to look at the Pogo has a less seaworthy boat, some even has a dangerous boat.

Have a look at the stability curves (GZ) of both boats (the one from the Pogo is in m, the one from the Vailant in ft).



















We can see that the Pogo has a bit better AVS (or LPS) and that the max GZ from the Pogo is more than the double of the one from the Vailant. Of course this is the GZ and to find the RM we would have to multiply by the weight of the boat and as the Pogo weights a bit less than half in the end the static overall stability would be pretty much the same.

Off course, static stability is only half of the picture and probably the less important half. In what regards the other half, dynamic stability, the Pogo would have a big advantage.

The Vailant 40 is a good and safe offshore boat, a modern option 50 years ago. I just want to point out that most of the times sailors tend to give an overvaluation to old boats when comparing it with modern boats when seaworthiness and offshore capability is concerned.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo

Paulo

I was showing the Valiant as a "modern" alternative to the full keel "offshore" boats suggested by others. And it didn't exist 50 tears ago.

Maybe Bob will post his thoughts?


----------



## smackdaddy

I have to say that I was definitely impressed with the Pacific Seacraft 37 Crealock we raced recently. We actually hit 9 knots on a surf in 20 knots of wind and 4' seas! And she was a very stable boat. Then, at the finish bonfire, I heard a whole lot of positive comments about the PSCs. I think most would approve of that boat as a "bluewater cruiser".

However, for me, I will most likely end up with a Bene, Jenneau, Hunter, or another Catalina (which I own now) for our cruising boat - in the 40' range. The used price point of these boats is just too good for what you get - and the modern layouts appeal to the family. We'll see.


----------



## mitiempo

Pacific Seacraft boats are all good offshore boats, even the 20' Flicka.


----------



## Dean101

*Change of direction*

I believe my first response has been lost somewhere in the ethernet world so I will respond again. It seems that I have turned Smackdaddy's thread into a discussion of keel designs. Let me change the direction of the discussion to other factors that make a boat safe/safer for extended offshore use. Items such as cockpit size and drainage, portlight size and materials, rigging, access to thru-hulls, etc... Are the major production boat manufacturers consistently producing boats with adequate equipment or are they known for inferior quality or design in areas located above the keel? I'm curious about this. The Catalina I learned in was rented from the Navy recreation center in San Diego and it was what I will refer to as a base model boat. Very sterile interior, no real amenities, just a cabin with nagahide cushions, a tiller, and a compass with heel indicator. I have seen pictures of Catalinas that are quite attractive, stylish, and full of amenities. What production boats seem to be built to higher standards? Since it seems they are marketing primarily to sailors who stay fairly close to land most of the time and use their boats occasionally rather than constantly, do they design and build to what could be considered a median range of quality to satisfy that market, yet offer options for upgrade to a more robust boat?

I'm really getting an education in design standards here so I appreciate you guys keeping this thread alive! I'll check out those books you've mentioned. I'm still building my nautical library so they may end up on the shelf also.


----------



## PCP

Dean101 said:


> ...What production boats seem to be built to higher standards? Since it seems they are marketing primarily to sailors who stay fairly close to land most of the time and use their boats occasionally rather than constantly, do they design and build to what could be considered a median range of quality to satisfy that market, yet offer options for upgrade to a more robust boat?
> 
> ....


There are plenty of production boats aimed to passage making sailors and built with high quality materials.

Of course, the problem is to have the money to buy them

What smackdady was saying is that for most of us the option is to buy a "median" quality boat with good stability characteristics and upgrade it for offshore use. Plenty of boats like those have circumnavigated, some non stop and others sailed in high latitudes without problems.

For others the less expensive option is to buy a good old boat with 25 or 35 years but many would have no idea of the money and time needed to put it in a similar fitness state as a new good mass production boat.

Many just buy an old boat with the original mast, standing rigging and engine and thought they have a seaworthy boat. But that is not much of a problem because they don't go offshore anyway. They just like to say they have a seaworthy boat. Maybe I am exagerating but I know severall that fit in the description

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Dean101

PCP said:


> There are plenty of production boats aimed to passage making sailors and built with high quality materials.
> 
> Of course, the problem is to have the money to buy them
> 
> What smackdady was saying is that for most of us the option is to buy a "median" quality boat with good stability characteristics and upgrade it for offshore use. Plenty of boats like those have circumnavigated, some non stop and others sailed in high latitudes without problems.
> 
> For others the less expensive option is to buy a good old boat with 25 or 35 years but many would have no idea of the money and time needed to put it in a similar fitness state as a new good mass production boat.
> 
> Paulo


Thanks for the input PCP. I was trying to get a general feel for how experienced sailors rate assorted production boats. I really have no idea how the various manufacturers are viewed according to the opinions of the actual owners. To give an example of what I'm looking for, say for instance, are Hunters generally frowned on because of light rigging (an example, not fact). Beneteau's are more highly regarded because of high quality equipment acceptable for heavy use (again, just an example). That sort of thing.

Your statement towards buying a "median" boat and upgrading it leads me to believe that manufacturers in fact do tend to please the market with something that a high percentage of sailors will be happy with while making the design upgradable to appeal to the offshore market.

I do agree with you on price points. I can say with 100% accuracy that no matter what I buy, it will come from a used inventory. No way I can afford a new boat on a carpenters pay!


----------



## mitiempo

Dean

Probably the best idea is to define what you want the boat to have as far as length, rig, accommodation, draft, etc and think of your price range. Then search Yachtworld or any other internet boats for sale site.

Don't be looking for a specific brand but be open to ideas and see what turns up. If nothing else you will get a good understanding of what is available.

Here's a good start. 33' to 36' from 40k to 80k asking on Yachtworld. 528 boats found. (Sail) Boats For Sale


----------



## sidney777

How about a Corbin 39 ?


----------



## mitiempo

The Corbin 39 would be a good choice. I spent a lot of time on one recently that was completely rebuilt - I did all the electrical. The second version with the bowsprit is the better one. Might be above your budget though.


----------



## Dean101

mitiempo said:


> Dean
> 
> Probably the best idea is to define what you want the boat to have as far as length, rig, accommodation, draft, etc and think of your price range. Then search Yachtworld or any other internet boats for sale site.
> 
> Don't be looking for a specific brand but be open to ideas and see what turns up. If nothing else you will get a good understanding of what is available.


Brian, maybe it would help if I share my list of possible choices that I have so far in order to give you an idea of the type of boat I'm attracted to. Here's the list:

Alajuela 38
Baba 30, 35
Bayfield 36
Bristol Channel Cutter
Cabo Rico 36, 38
Cape Dory 36 
Cape George Cutter 38
Gozzard 36
Hans Christian 33, 38
Island Packet
Lord Nelson 35
Morris 38
Pacific Seacraft Crealock 37
Panda 38
Passport 40
Robinhood 36, 40
Shearwater 39
Southern Cross 35, 39
Tashiba 31, 36
Ta Shing
Tayana 37
Valiant 37, 39, 40 
Westsail 32

The only things that I absolutely must have is 6'2" of headroom, sturdy, seaworthy, and stable, with tankage great enough for extended time away from civilization. Speed is not so important to me as being able to handle rough use. Some of the places I want to go include the Aleutian chain, Antarctica, and the Scandinavian countries. I'm not interested in a lot of electronic devices but a windvane, GPS, and a plotter would be nice. A dedicated nav station is close to a must have. My crew will be just myself unless someone else wants to go. I'm not waiting around for them. Tiller steering and cutter rig is preferred. I do realize that I can refit whatever I buy to fit my needs for the most part. I'm saving as we speak and want to pay cash up to $40,000. I may end up financing some of it but want to totally own the boat for less than $70,000. This will take a few years but is totally do-able.

I hope this helps to clarify the type of boat that appeals to me. The looks of these boats are what initially attracted me to them. It just seems that most of the boats with this type of styling also have full keels, but not all. To be honest, I don't really care who makes the boat, so long as it appeals to me and will take the use I plan without needing an extensive refit after only a year of travel.

So, what do you think? I like the classic, traditional looks but it is difficult to get those looks along with a more performance oriented hull it seems. At least I haven't found very many.


----------



## mitiempo

Looks like a good list and any should do what you wish, although for the Antarctic I would want steel or aluminum (preferred) construction.

I think some will be above your 70k budget unless in horrible condition - Morris 38, Pacific Seacraft 37 ,Cape George 38 being 3. I like the Cape George and their construction is solid - a friend has a 36 and having worked on it I was impressed. It is glass with wood decks and house and very well done.


----------



## Dean101

Yeah, some of the boats on my list will probably be out of my reach. I included them anyway though, because you never know when that once in a lifetime deal will come up. 

I feel like we sort of took over Smackdaddy's thread. I hope he didn't mind!  If nothing else, we wrestled the bull to the ground, huh? By the way, relating to my post about converting from wheel to tiller, do you think it's possible for most of the boats on the list? The boats with the rudders set at or near the transom appear to be easily converted. Boats like the Cape Dory with the raised transom I'm not sure about...


----------



## junkrig

Dean101 said:


> Brian, maybe it would help if I share my list of possible choices that I have so far in order to give you an idea of the type of boat I'm attracted to. Here's the list:
> 
> Alajuela 38
> Baba 30, 35
> Bayfield 36
> Bristol Channel Cutter
> Cabo Rico 36, 38
> Cape Dory 36
> Cape George Cutter 38
> Gozzard 36
> Hans Christian 33, 38
> Island Packet
> Lord Nelson 35
> Morris 38
> Pacific Seacraft Crealock 37
> Panda 38
> Passport 40
> Robinhood 36, 40
> Shearwater 39
> Southern Cross 35, 39
> Tashiba 31, 36
> Ta Shing
> Tayana 37
> Valiant 37, 39, 40
> Westsail 32
> 
> The only things that I absolutely must have is 6'2" of headroom, sturdy, seaworthy, and stable, with tankage great enough for extended time away from civilization. Speed is not so important to me as being able to handle rough use. Some of the places I want to go include the Aleutian chain, Antarctica, and the Scandinavian countries. I'm not interested in a lot of electronic devices but a windvane, GPS, and a plotter would be nice. A dedicated nav station is close to a must have. My crew will be just myself unless someone else wants to go. I'm not waiting around for them. Tiller steering and cutter rig is preferred. I do realize that I can refit whatever I buy to fit my needs for the most part. I'm saving as we speak and want to pay cash up to $40,000. I may end up financing some of it but want to totally own the boat for less than $70,000. This will take a few years but is totally do-able.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify the type of boat that appeals to me. The looks of these boats are what initially attracted me to them. It just seems that most of the boats with this type of styling also have full keels, but not all. To be honest, I don't really care who makes the boat, so long as it appeals to me and will take the use I plan without needing an extensive refit after only a year of travel.
> 
> So, what do you think? I like the classic, traditional looks but it is difficult to get those looks along with a more performance oriented hull it seems. At least I haven't found very many.


Have you considered a Nor'Sea 27? It's somewhat shorter than anything you list, but they have a strong reputation as world cruisers, look just salty as hell, have tiller steering, can be had with wind vane steering, and can sometimes be found in the $35,000 to $50,000 range. They are still in production, although a new one at about $140 grand is well outside your stated range.

Long keel, 3'10" draft, cutaway forefoot. At leastt 5 have circumnavigated and over 150 are known to have crossed the Atlantic and/or Pacific.

I don't sell them. I have one, and it may never see long ocean cruises... I'm an inland lake sailor. But it's way cool.

By the way, don't let that weird fat mast put you off. Mine's rigged as a Chinese Junk, but there are to the best of my knowledge only two on earth that are, so you're not likely to run across one. Factory rigging is standard sloop (sorry not a cutter) and set for easy setup and breakdown. As you can see, they're portable.

Oops! I tried to stick some photos in up there, but obviously I don't know how yet. You can see the boat on a trailer at https://picasaweb.google.com/junkrigsailor/TripHome


----------



## Dean101

You're right Junkrig, it is a salty looking boat. Actually quite attractive. It might work for an interim boat but at 6' of headroom, I would be stooping all the time. That is the only thing I don't like about the Bristol Channel Cutter on my list. It just wouldn't be comfortable for me as a livesboard/cruiser. That's why most of the boats on my list are on up in the 30' or better range. How much different is the junk rig from a sloop? Do you use a headsail?


----------



## junkrig

Dean101 said:


> You're right Junkrig, it is a salty looking boat. Actually quite attractive. It might work for an interim boat but at 6' of headroom, I would be stooping all the time. That is the only thing I don't like about the Bristol Channel Cutter on my list. It just wouldn't be comfortable for me as a livesboard/cruiser. That's why most of the boats on my list are on up in the 30' or better range. How much different is the junk rig from a sloop? Do you use a headsail?


That's life as a tall guy, I guess. I could wear a hat in there. 
I don't want to totally hijack this thread for junkrig info... I'll PM you on that.


----------



## Markathishome

Well said Vailente. Another thought is to investigate the types of boats that are specifically sailed from the USA, UK and Europe that end up in New Zealand and how well they fared. Some that get here are what we would call lucky but most have some weather and seas along the way that test the limits and so those are the valuable stories. I guess it would be true to say that older solid glass long keel boats, wooden boats and big custom built multis are what turns up here. Modern colour-coordinated production manufactured fin keel sloops from the northern hemisphere are generally not up to it - those types are not even up to coastal sailing here. 

A tiny number report collisions with containers, whales, mermaids, sunfish and big logs in the open ocean,(one wonders how many boats didn't make it through this type of event) so it is worth checking out their underwater configuration.


----------



## smackdaddy

Honestly, the more research I've done, the more I've come to believe that if you are conservative with your timing, most production boats can get you where you need to be - even in a storm. Yes, if you get caught in some real nastiness, you might reach port with a boat that is a write-off due to lighter construction, but you won't die (if you are smart and prepared).

You should take a look at this series:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship/77853-real-emergencies-fixes-ym-crash-boat.html#post765497

Modern boats are far more resilient than most think. You don't need a full keel to survive.


----------



## aeventyr60

All kinds of boats make it to New Zealand. Mostly well founded crafts with intrepid crews. Seen quite a few that I would not want to be on as well. Good place to shop for an offshore yacht as many give up here after their Pacific passage and the often crappy passage to NZ. The list given in a previous post is a good example of the boats we see out here. However, there are plenty of the lighter BeHuntalina types as well...to each his own. Work on your seamanship skills first....


----------



## peterchech

Two things:

I don't think multihulls, particularly trimarans, have been mentioned enough here. A corsair f-27 can cross the atlantic out of the box. Been done lotsa times. Cali to Hawaii been done plenty too. The ride is just so comfortable and upright, the speeds fairly incredible too. I was on one this summer for a daysail and it just felt so gooooood... Down side is less interior space per length of boat, and these boats are much more expensive used than a monohull. That's why I bought a Hunter 25 instead of a tri, one I got for $3,000 the other would have been $30,000, literally, with the same amount of interior space... 

I won't vouch for production catamarans though. I know the owner of Gemini catamarans took one of his boats across the atlantic, to prove a point, but from what I have read that is really pushing it. One-offs, like Richard Woods' designs, have a great rep, but many production cats have low nacelle clearance, large glass enclosed bridgedecks, etc., and aren't really built for offshore work. Gunboats are another story I guess, but I am assuming most readers of this forum aren't multi millionaires ;-)

The other thing that I don't think has been mentioned much (I only read the first 15 pages of this thread though) is the ballast to displacement ratio. A J-boat may not be as offshore capable because of its low ratio, and this is an important factor in picking between different boats.


----------



## peterchech

If I may ask, how does one tab bulkheads, is that just a matter of laying some glass down, stitch and glue style? Cutting through the liner to do so, I guess?

and how does one make crash compartments, should it be the first x feet forward and up in the bow? Would simply sealing off the locker under the v-berth be sufficient, or does the crash compartment have to run further aft, like back to the keel?


----------



## PCP

peterchech said:


> ...
> The other thing that I don't think has been mentioned much (I only read the first 15 pages of this thread though) is the ballast to displacement ratio. A J-boat may not be as offshore capable because of its low ratio, and this is an important factor in picking between different boats.


Can you explain better what you mean for Jboats having a low B/D ratio?

The Valiant 42 that is a legend in what regards seaworthiness and a favorite among those that like older designs has a B/D ratio of 0,386. The J 133, about the same size, has a B/D ratio of 0,385.

The ratio is very close, however as the draft on the J is a lot more deep and its ballast is in a bulb, actually it is like the B/D ratio of the J was a lot bigger than the one on the Vailant 42.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo

In addition to what Paulo posted ballast ratio doesn't tell the whole story. Form stability of the hull is a factor as well. The superstructure's shape has a lot to do with ultimate stability as well. A boat with low freeboard and a smallish cabin will not be as good as a higher freeboard boat when inverted. 

Steve Dashew's Sundeer 60 comes in at 31.5% ballast/disp ratio and not only was it designed as the ideal 2 person circumnavigator but many of them have made the trip without incident.

As far as tabbing bulkheads they have to be glassed heavily to the hull all around and to be effective they have to be as strong as the hull itself. On the Sundeer 60 the forward 12' of the hull is its own compartment as the engine/machinery room aft is. The only access at the bow is from on deck. A forward crash bulkhead isn't very effective unless it encompasses the underwater area that is likely to be impacted - a fair ways aft of the waterline at the bow.


----------



## peterchech

I guess I was referring to the smaller j boats.

Nobody has taken the multihull bait yet? Tisk Tisk :-D


----------



## PCP

peterchech said:


> I guess I was referring to the smaller j boats.
> 
> Nobody has taken the multihull bait yet? Tisk Tisk :-D


J boats have a relatively high B/D ratio, the bigger and the smaller ones.

Corsairs not only have crossed the pond but they have also circumnavigated but you are wrong in assuming a Trimaram would be more comfortable in a seaway than a similar sized Monohull. It will be more comfortable without waves, assuming you find heeling uncomfortable but with waves the Trimaran would be less comfortable, specially upwind: He would catch the same wave three times, one in each hull (ama). Besides the superior speed and lightness would also make it more jerky and submitted to a lot more sharp small accelerations.

To sail a small trimaran offshore the skypper has also to be a very good and experienced one. The error tolerance is much smaller than in a regular monohull and you can pay for those errors a lot more than you would pay on a monohull.

I like small ocean going trimarans but things are what they are

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapnBilll

Some of the blue water debate centers around the assumtion that you will run into worse conditions "out there". 

I can attest that is not neccessarily so. I have run into some serious sh(*& just 10 miles away from land. I sincerely hope it doesn't get worse further out. 

I have rarely gone out past the continental shelf, and have encountered deep stacked seas, high winds, horizontal hailstones the size of pebbles, etc...

The second assumption is that if it gets bad you can always go back in, that not a safe assumption either. Often in Texas the storms form in a line hugging the coast. If your more than 10 miles out you might as well stay there, because you have to cross the line to get back in, and the size of the breaking waves I have seen at the mouth of the jetties would make any attempt to enter, pure suicide, and docking in high winds is no picnic either even if you did somehow manage to enter the bay.

SO that coastal cruiser had better be able to take at least a moderate storm on short notice. And best be able to ride out a period of bad weather in open water, or it would never be safe to leave the bay.

I have left in the morning with a clear day no clouds in sight, a high pressure system and the last cold front passed over, ...suddenly reversed and came back bringing a line of severe thunderstorms along the coast, a few hours later it is pitch dark, just before noon, and huge rolling waves followed by scattered lightening strikes some less than a boat length away, followed by a deluge of rain, and hailstones the size of pebbles hitting my face propelled by 60+ mile an hour winds, the waves are breaking in sheets, deluging the boat, I don't know what will sink the boat first the pouring waves, or the piles of hailstones on deck. Or if it will simply break into pieces as it is repeatedly picked up, tossed, then a sickening drop, crashing into the face of the next wave followed by another wall of water crashing over the boat.

And that is just 10-20 miles from "safety". a few hours of that, and I seriously thought of moving to Kansas and becoming a farmer. 

Well the boat made it, even though it was only a production coastal cruiser, and I lived through it also, although with a new found heathy respect for the pounding a little thunderstorm can give you only a "stones throw" from land.


----------



## ArcherBowman

Grips are IMPORTANT. Pacific Sun - YouTube



OsmundL said:


> Somewhere, there is a video online of a tourist ship, many hundred tons, hundreds of passengers, caught in bad weather along the coast. The bar is smashed, the lounges are cleared and all passengers are sent to their cabins because they cannot keep still in the open areas. Crew are leaping from the one fixed point to the next.


----------



## RedtheBear

The Bear's cautious two cents worth:

After wadding thru all 16 pages of this very interesting discusion of "Blue water boats" I came to several conclusions.

First: Almost very boat that you would find acceptable is the six figure range or (gasp) and the first numbert isn"t a 1!

Second: Most of the people I sail with who frequently go off shore, over twenty miles, to the islands across the Gulf to Mexico and down south, probablly don't have an entire net worth equal to those amonts.

Three: There are three TRAILERABLE boats that have hundreds of times proven themselves very "blue water worthy" Pacific Seacraft's "Flicia" and "dana" and Nor'Seas 27. These craft have made hundreds of tran Atlantic and Trans Pacific and circumnavagations, safely, comfortabley, and are relatively inexpensive. Any one of thse boats can be found, used, in the mid five figure range.
Four: These are boats that "we" can afford and I submit add these production boats to your list.
IMHO


----------



## killarney_sailor

*Enormous range of boats are blue water*



RedtheBear said:


> The Bear's cautious two cents worth:
> 
> First: Almost very boat that you would find acceptable is the six figure range or (gasp) and the first numbert isn"t a 1!
> 
> ...
> 
> Three: There are three TRAILERABLE boats that have hundreds of times proven themselves very "blue water worthy" Pacific Seacraft's "Flicia" and "dana" and Nor'Seas 27. These craft have made hundreds of tran Atlantic and Trans Pacific and circumnavagations, safely, comfortabley, and are relatively inexpensive. Any one of thse boats can be found, used, in the mid five figure range.
> Four: These are boats that "we" can afford and I submit add these production boats to your list.
> IMHO


Sorry for editing your post but I wanted to focus on a couple of things you said
based on our experience in the Eastern Caribbean and South Pacific.

First of all, the boats you see actually cruising thousands of miles from home vary enormously. In fact, we have seen probably 200 different designs (haven't counted). There is no best way to go - it depends on the individual's (or couple's) predilections and budget.

The median boat (half cheaper/half more expensive) we saw in the Pacific (a very long way from people's homes in North America, Europe, or Oz could probably be had for something like $120,000. In the Eastern Caribbean, probably the figure would be less than 100k. But we saw people having a great old time in Vegas (is that 27?) and we saw one guy with a Bristol 27 in Suwarrow and Pago Pago. His Monitor vane and solar panel were probably worth more than the rest of the boat. You don't need 'mid 5 figures' for boats like these, much less in today's market. (BTW, I don't think these boats have made hundreds of transoceanic passages and circumnavs - but they have made them)

What you get in a bigger pricier boat is not necessarily more safety - it is more comfort and faster passages. If you want to cruise you can do it safely and cheaply. If you want more comfort and speed, the sky is limit up to the mega yachts we saw in St Martin and Tahiti. In the latter category there was a gorgeous 104' (looked like a classic but was quite new) that looked almost tiny next to a couple of other sailboats that were more like 160'. You pay what you can and live with the consequences, but you can be cruising long distances. I was happy cruising on my Niagara 35, but the admiral said she wanted something more comfy if we were heading off - so we got the Bristol and have enjoyed the comfort and speed.

A comment on what a few said about conditions way offshore compared to near shore. They are not the same even if you can get some lousy weather near shore. When you a thousand miles from nowhere, the consequences of something breaking are much worse as are the consequences of illness or accident. There is no Boat US or even Coast Guard to help you.

When we were going from the Galapagos there was a woman singlehanding on an old 37' ketch. She had her forestay break and later the shaft flexible coupling break. The mast stayed up because of a baby-stay but she had to jury-rig and find some way to get to windward a bit because the winds were not the standard trades and she could not lay Easter Island. With the conditions as they the next harbor was Mangareva in the Gambier Islands which was close to 2000 miles downwind. We, along with a three other boats, were in an informal SSB net with her and were able to contact the Chilean navy. They said they could rescue her but could do nothing for her boat (eventually they towed her the last several miles to Easter). When this started we were 600 miles away from her but upwind so went toward her in case she had to abandon. The boat coming behind us (200 miles) took her some water since she was running out and did not have a water maker, nor did it rain much. The wind switched and she was able to get to Easter. For two weeks she probably averaged 2 knots but she made it - a hell of a good effort on her part. That sort of thing happens offshore but not near shore.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Had another thought when I looked again at the title of this thread. It is really quite misleading since the term 'production boats' applies to such a wide range of vessels. It makes a lot more sense to say - what is the limit for this production boat?

For example, with my current boat (Bristol 45.5) I would be quite comfortable doing a circumnav in tropical conditions with occasional forays off the beaten track (we went Galapagos to Easter rather than the standard route to the Marquesas. Also we may decide to go around Africa rather than to the Red Sea. BUT, would I want to do Cape Horn or go to Antarctica? No, for me, in my conservative 60s that seems like pushing the limits of my boat (not to mention of me!) At the same time, we met some young people on a French boat in French Polynesia (~38') that looked like a pretty standard production boat and they had gone from France down the coast of South America and then to Antarctica (72 knots at one anchorage apparently). Their tolerance is obviously different then mine.


----------



## smackdaddy

So have you guys seen this Hunter that is just about to round The Horn?

Sequitur

Water really doesn't get any more "blue" than that. Seems like this ongoing debate might get settled pretty soon.


----------



## chall03

Smack, just because someone has done it once, doesn't mean it is _the_ way to do it!

Killarney makes some good points. He has obviously been there and done it, and is still doing it! I also agree with him that the variety of boats on the 'bluewater circuit' is amazing. We were recently sat in Port Bundaberg here in Australia for a a few weeks waiting out weather as the 80 strong fleet of the Port to Port Rally came in (Port Vila, Vanuatu - Port Bundaberg, Australia). Mostly Circumnavigators on the way round, what surprised me was that there was no stereotypical bluewater cruiser. There were small boats and big boats, pretty boats and ugly boats, new boats and old boats. Boats with Windvanes and without. From what I saw not alot of modern Production boats made it this far from the North America/Europe but there were a few at least.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Smack, just because someone has done it once, doesn't mean it is _the_ way to do it!


True. But there really is no "THE" way to do it as you point out in the rest of your post.

I'm just saying Hunters CAN do it (apparently). Which is far different than the typical chorus you hear most of the time.

How you hangin' mate?


----------



## LandLocked66c

A Hunter rounds the Horn, that'll be the day! LOL :wink:


----------



## Don L

Well I read the first page, and this page. Nothing new going on in this
"discussion". Most who don't believe it is possible to sail safety and well in a production boat aren't going to change their minds no matter how many do so.

If you want to know what production boats are good, don't ask a bunch of old school forum "sailors" ask owners of the various production boats.

As an owner of a crappy production boat, who used to be part of the herd that trash talked about them, I say the only thing different between those one off high end eye candy boats and a modern production boat is; with the eye candy you get a lot of fancy wood to take care of so you use the boat less and reduce it's wear. On the other hand the high end one offs are more "classic" designs, which is code for out of date.


----------



## PCP

killarney_sailor said:


> Had another thought when I looked again at the title of this thread. It is really quite misleading ...


I was thinking that it was misleading when I saw your post, but it seems that it is for other reason, or maybe not.

What is that talk about production boats? I guess that 99% of the boats around are production boats. Very Old production boats, Old production boats, moderately Old production boats, recent production boats, very recent production boats and new production boats. From that 1%, 0,8% are home made boats and 0,2% are custom designed boats.

So, now that this thread is long, my I ask what devil are you talking about?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo

That about sums it up.


----------



## randyrhines

We are considering putting in a bid on an Allied Princess 36 Ketch 1973, Hull and deck like new, 26k for hull and deck work,5 years ago, well cared for, original but very crispy sails hardly used, westerbeke 25 horse runs great, they are asking 35k, new dingy and 8 horse engine, clean boat, nice fibreglass bimi, roller furling 8 sails and a spin all nice shape, no bowsprit, some running rigging needs replaced, standing good, no wet decks or anything we have a survey on it, any thots we want to cruise the North Channel and lake huron, We live in Port Elgin


----------



## teddier1

What do you think of a CAL 46


----------



## peterchech

Cal has gotten good remarks from some experienced blue water sailors.

I was reading "this old boat" and he mentioned that on lower quality "production" boats, the "coastal cruisers", if they are taken offshore the amount of hull flex that is inevitable on such passages can break the tabbing between the interior cabinetry and the hull. I imagine it could do that to bulkheads as well. 

I noticed in my 1981 Hunter 25, that the tabbing between the galley cabinetry and the hull has broken along the hull sides (the hull floor tabbing has held up though). I don't think this boat has ever been taken offshore. The rest of the tabbing on the hull has held up quite well, although I noticed that it has no layer of fillet between the joint and the roving which tabs the bulkheads. This seems very unsound, structurally, to me. That bead of thickened epoxy fillet (or poly or vinylester resin fillet) gives alot of strength to such a joint, and are always used in modern wooden boats. My only guess would be that the somewhat thin hull of a fiberglass boat flexes alot, and so a solid fillet like that would create a hard spot where the hull would basically crease, eventually breaking like a paperclip that is bent back and forth too many times. But... I still think the fillet would be better...

That said, the boat is 30 years old and still very solid so... 

I had an old salt, a snowbird, tell me that the roughest weather he encountered along the entire coast was in long island sound, one of the places this boat gets sailed. I have noticed that the constant heavy chop can be quite rough, bouncing the boat all over the place. You will probably never "fall off a wave" in survival conditions in the LI sound, but even "coastal" boats take a beating, day in and day out, and they seem to last many decades...


----------



## jetboy52

*Here is the answer*

Regarding all these threads about what bluewater boat to buy, just buy an Alberg 37 and be done with it.


----------



## mikieg

it seems to me that all boats from the sunfish to the nimitz class aircraft carrier, have an envelope of operating parameters they can handle. to think that the size of a boat will make it safer than a smaller boat is crazy. thats a pretty big ocean out there. i doubt that extra 5 or 15 feet of boat will make much a difference. 
i really think that any boat can go anywhere as long as it is operated within it's envelope of safety. that envelope can be most utilized by a more experienced crew of course. 
i do believe that it is us that limit a boat's ability. by means of experience, testicular fortitude, or just "popular belief". 
a very real limitation of a boat is it's ability to support human life. for example, my 25 foot little santana 525 could probably island hop and cruise. but because of it's size, i doubt she can carry the amount of supplies and water needed to support life on a crossing. 
with proper route planning, weather planning, and training for storm tactics, there is no doubt that a production boat could safely take it's crew anywhere. 
sven irvind and the many like him are excellent examples of my point. the flicka 20 comes to mind.


----------



## mitiempo

If Manry's Tinkerbelle (13') can carry supplies for a crossing or Guzzwell's Trekka (20'6") can carry supplies anyone can.

I agree it is the seamanship (skill) of the sailor that makes it work or not.


----------



## jzk

killarney_sailor said:


> For example, with my current boat (Bristol 45.5) I would be quite comfortable doing a circumnav in tropical conditions with occasional forays off the beaten track (we went Galapagos to Easter rather than the standard route to the Marquesas. Also we may decide to go around Africa rather than to the Red Sea. BUT, would I want to do Cape Horn or go to Antarctica? No, for me, in my conservative 60s that seems like pushing the limits of my boat (not to mention of me!)


Kilarney,

What about your boat would make it not suitable for the Horn or Antarctica? What design upgrade would you suggest that would make it suitable?

One concern that I have about serious offshore work in modern production boats would be the spade rudder.

For example, I would much prefer a Leopard 47 Catamaran vs. a Bahia 46 as the Leopard 47 has skeg protected rudders. I have seen a video of a Venezia 42 being abandoned because it bent both rudders. Our Beneteau First 47.7 is pretty rock solid when it comes to things like stays, chainplates, the hull grid, etc. But we draw 7'7" and the rudder is almost as deep as the keel. Not sure I would want to be ripping that thing off, but I am told it is extremely flexible and strong.

Same with Outremer vs. Gunboat. I think Creme (Gunboat 46) lost a rudder in the Chesapeake. But at least they had the other one Outremers have skegs before the rudders. I guess with these performance daggerboard catamarans with no keels, a skeg might be even more important, but Peter Johnstone cringes at the thought of messing up sailing performance with a skeg. Maybe a reasonable tradeoff, but then one is higher performance, and the other more suitable for offshore sailing. However, if I had a Gunboat lying around, I would probably give it a go

Your Bristol looks pretty offshore capable to me. I guess more offshore capable would mean steel hull?


----------



## jzk

RedtheBear said:


> First: Almost very boat that you would find acceptable is the six figure range or (gasp) and the first numbert isn"t a 1!


How about an old Morgan 42 of the early seventies vintage? Those can be had in the 20-40k range.


----------



## killarney_sailor

*My boat*



jzk said:


> Kilarney,
> 
> What about your boat would make it not suitable for the Horn or Antarctica? What design upgrade would you suggest that would make it suitable?
> 
> One concern that I have about serious offshore work in modern production boats would be the spade rudder.
> 
> For example, I would much prefer a Leopard 47 Catamaran vs. a Bahia 46 as the Leopard 47 has skeg protected rudders. I have seen a video of a Venezia 42 being abandoned because it bent both rudders. Our Beneteau First 47.7 is pretty rock solid when it comes to things like stays, chainplates, the hull grid, etc. But we draw 7'7" and the rudder is almost as deep as the keel. Not sure I would want to be ripping that thing off, but I am told it is extremely flexible and strong.
> 
> Same with Outremer vs. Gunboat. I think Creme (Gunboat 46) lost a rudder in the Chesapeake. But at least they had the other one Outremers have skegs before the rudders. I guess with these performance daggerboard catamarans with no keels, a skeg might be even more important, but Peter Johnstone cringes at the thought of messing up sailing performance with a skeg. Maybe a reasonable tradeoff, but then one is higher performance, and the other more suitable for offshore sailing. However, if I had a Gunboat lying around, I would probably give it a go
> 
> Your Bristol looks pretty offshore capable to me. I guess more offshore capable would mean steel hull?


Note that I said I would be comfortable/uncomfortable doing certainly things, not that the boat couldn't do it. The Bristols are incredibly strong boats but ours in 30 years old. Basically everything is fine and I don't know what refits I would do. Perhaps new sails and a carbon fiber spinnaker/whisker pole would be nice. If I was poking around rocky anchorages behind Cape Horn I would probably get a really heavy anchor (100+ lbs Manson) and better systems for running long lines astern. In such areas, steel would be attractive I think - not an easy retrofit. The cockpit has 4 - 1 1/2" drains - I wonder if those would be made larger.

I think that lots of boats are offshore capable until the ****e hits the fan.


----------



## sea_hunter

I've seen this post on almost every sailing-cruiser forum in existence. The reality is that you could set yourself adrift on a pallet of Budweiser, and attempt a circumnavigation, no mater what your skill set. The truth of the matter is that your chosen mode of transportation doesn't instantly define it as blue water cruiser because you set your sails 300+ miles from shore. Perhaps there should be a formula, based on all other formulas including your _odds of returning_ that defines a blue water cruiser. SA/D, D/L, ballast displacement ratios, and motion comfort along with stability (the resistance to capsizing) as well as the angle of vanishing stability are more important than the size of your deep freeze. Of all things the length of the boat is most critical. When sailing into a breaking wave, most boats can survive a 55% LOA breaking wave. (IE a 30' boat and a 15' wave) Yet a 35% LOA breaking wave hitting beam-on can easily capsize a boat. Boats tested in these conditions rolled up to 130+ degrees. Further testing shows that no boat, no matter how stable, could resist capsizing when hit, beam-on, with a 55% LOA breaking wave. Personally I would rather give myself a circumcision with a rusty blade than set sail with what some would call a blue water cruiser. Ultimately given the same boat, it's the _skipper_ who defines a blue water cruiser.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

From someone who has been there, these are things that I think are essential if you are *truly* going offshore in the Atlantic and want to be safe as possible. Sat phone, SSB, Weather Fax, Radar, AIS, underdeck autopilot, back up autopilot, storm sails, large anchor with chain rode, back up anchor, liferaft, Solas flare package, electronic barometer, GPS chartplotter, jacklines, harnesses.

Things that are nice but not essential. Crash forward bulkhead and/or water tight bulkhead, storm shutters, storm drogue, generator, electronic charting, HH GPS.

If you have a production boat you might want to look into stiffening the large panel sections in the hull, upgrading hatch to offshore version with reinforced hatch opening, reinforced portlights with lenses upgraded to Lexan, upgraded scuppers to increase drainage, upgraded dodger to larger tube size, upgrade halyards with Kevlar cover in area of masthead sheaves, add additional attachment methods for storing the pole. Replace any hoses that are suspect and make sure all through hulls are operational and double clamped.

I'd also think that you want a fiberglass professional to asses all the tabbing on the boat and reinforce where necessary. A thorough going over of all mechanicals and spares would be prudent. I'd also replace the prop shaft, cutlass bearing and have the engine aligned if they haven't been done in the last couple of years.

Now if you are going to the Bahamas by way of South Florida pretty much everything above is unnecessary.


----------



## mikieg

i agree. to sit and worry about all this is pointless. the seas are bigger than any boat man could build. my boat will self right up to 135 degrees. meaningless if tons of water suddenly crash down on the rail. she WILL roll. 
does this mean this boat is any less capable? not at all. it might mean the skipper is not capable on a couple counts.
count one, why are you in these conditions?
count two, where are your storm tactics and equipment? and lastly, why is your boat abeam to the sea?
none of which is the boats fault. some people are so dumb, they could sink an aircraft carrier! sadly, many times i find myself in this group!
man was confidently sailing these seas long before there were any real engineering and standards to classify "blue water" or "production boat" or any other catch phrases we armchair circumnavigators can come up with.
another thing i notice is, people tend to hide behind equipment. "i could shoot a par round of golf if i only had those clubs". or "my rifle is not up to snuff to go to that sniper school". or "i cant leave the dock because my boat needs....." 
if we waited for everything to be perfect, then we would run out of excuses to not.
if we waited for everything to be perfect, then we would never do anything.


----------



## Faster

We are fortunate to have periodic updates from Sequiter's ambitious cruising itinerary.. they left BC a couple of summers back and are now in southern Chile/Argentina, mere miles from the Horn.

Their exploits pretty much address the topic of this thread, and makes it pretty clear that if a boat is well prepared and reasonably managed that most can go pretty well anywhere (truly BAD boats excepted, of course) and that it hinges mainly on the attitude, skills and fortitude of the crew.

Michael and Edi have taken a quintessential 'production boat', a Hunter 49, indeed well prepared and fully equipped, and are taking it nearly to the ends of the earth. Their blog entries are truly inspiring and their cruising style (and diet ) top class.

In many ways this thread is answered in that venue alone.. If you've not checked in you should.

The latest:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/82892-sequitur-blog-update.html


----------



## killarney_sailor

*Visualizing*



sea_hunter said:


> The reality is that you could set yourself adrift on a pallet of Budweiser, and attempt a circumnavigation, no mater what your skill set.


Bottles or cans? Can you drink the beer to reduce displacement to sail faster in nice conditions and then refill (beer tanker follows) when necessary? Drink the beer on one side only for movable ballast? The mind boggles at the possibilities


----------



## sea_hunter

killarney_sailor said:


> Bottles or cans? Can you drink the beer to reduce displacement to sail faster in nice conditions and then refill (beer tanker follows) when necessary? Drink the beer on one side only for movable ballast? The mind boggles at the possibilities


LOL, It has to be cans of Canadian (bottles sink), and if you drank one can per day, you'd have about 30 days afloat (so to speak). Of course higher alcohol content might last a little longer.


----------



## jzk

killarney_sailor said:


> Bottles or cans? Can you drink the beer to reduce displacement to sail faster in nice conditions and then refill (beer tanker follows) when necessary? Drink the beer on one side only for movable ballast? The mind boggles at the possibilities


Kegs. And, yes, drink in route.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> We are fortunate to have periodic updates from Sequiter's ambitious cruising itinerary.. they left BC a couple of summers back and are now in southern Chile/Argentina, mere miles from the Horn.
> 
> Their exploits pretty much address the topic of this thread, and makes it pretty clear that if a boat is well prepared and reasonably managed that most can go pretty well anywhere (truly BAD boats excepted, of course) and that it hinges mainly on the attitude, skills and fortitude of the crew.
> 
> Michael and Edi have taken a quintessential 'production boat', a Hunter 49, indeed well prepared and fully equipped, and are taking it nearly to the ends of the earth. Their blog entries are truly inspiring and their cruising style (and diet ) top class.
> 
> In many ways this thread is answered in that venue alone.. If you've not checked in you should.
> 
> The latest:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/82892-sequitur-blog-update.html


+1000.

One thing that is very clear, to mikie's point, is that Michael is an extremely good seaman/sailor. The dude know's what he's doing. The boat is secondary to that knowledge, effort and experience.

I honestly think that to make any primary argument about the _capability of the boat_ is really missing the point. Most boats will do just fine in blue water.


----------



## sea_hunter

smackdaddy said:


> I honestly think that to make any primary argument about the _capability of the boat_ is really missing the point. Most boats will do just fine in blue water.


You're way too serious. Of course the boat is important; if not the crew would be swimming from here to there (Or riding a Kegger). Thor Heyerdahl proved a number of times it's the Skipper who makes the difference, but when it comes to the boat; form to function wins the day.


----------



## Brent Swain

One of my 36 footers is cruising down there at the moment. He said most of the working boats down there spend a good part of most tides dried out, so his twin keels are a huge advantage. With a series drogue over the stern, he had no problem with one of the worst storms to hit Valdiva in a while. He was at sea at the time, approaching Valdiva. He said she rolled a bit when the wind eased off. I find running the drogue off the quarter, instead of centred by a bridle ,lets the wind pressure on the rig take some of the roll out of her.


----------



## smackdaddy

sea_hunter said:


> You're way too serious.


Heh-heh. Yeah I get that a lot.


----------



## smackdaddy

Hunters are now officially atop the bluewater boat list. In fact, that list has now been completely redefined to include most modern "production boats". Why?









2007 Hunter 49, _Sequitur,_ rounds Cape Horn skippered by Michael and his lady Edi. Respect.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/83500-sequitur-rounds-cape-horn.html

"Limits"? I don't think so.

'Nuff said.


----------



## sea_hunter

smackdaddy said:


> Hunters are now officially atop the bluewater boat list. In fact, that list has now been completely redefined to include most modern "production boats". Why?
> "Limits"? I don't think so. 'Nuff said.


Hmm, yeah no, Hunter's are not on the top of the list.
Daredevils of Niagara Falls
Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose and Bob's your uncle. But on a different note; great sailing.


----------



## randyrhines

smackdaddy said:


> Hunters are now officially atop the bluewater boat list. In fact, that list has now been completely redefined to include most modern "production boats". Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2007 Hunter 49, _Sequitur,_ rounds Cape Horn skippered by Michael and his lady Edi. Respect.
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/83500-sequitur-rounds-cape-horn.html
> 
> "Limits"? I don't think so.
> 
> 'Nuff said.


Was it the very best day of the year???

Hunter round the Horn, Was it a very very good day, I think my Allied princess 36, would do it but i dont think i have the expirience being a great lakes sailor to do it

Where can i find a copy of the list the Hunters are the top of? My Catalina 27' must be on that list as well........, yes i have 2 boats.......just bought an Allied Princess 36' this year, the fully restored re-powered Catalina 27' is going on the market, as an offshore cruiser to compete with the Hunters, lol just good camaraderie sailors , no offence meant!


----------



## PCP

Well, this guy is approaching the horn on a Delphia 40ft:

Lokalizacja | Around The World Delphia Project

and he is going to make it, on a Polish 40ft, alone on his non stop circumnavigation on a mass production boat.

My Sailing: Tomasz Cichoki approaches Cape Town on solo circumnavigation

With the right weather window any experienced sailor can do it safely on a 40ft boat.

These guys have done that and more in a 3 days sail around the Horn and the Beagle (450nm) on an open 20ft light cat (with 50K winds).

Trois jours autour du Horn en cata de sport !

Ok, these guys are not only experienced by really good sailors


----------



## Donna_F

smackdaddy said:


> Hunters are now officially atop the bluewater boat list. In fact, that list has now been completely redefined to include most modern "production boats". Why?
> 
> "Limits"? I don't think so.
> 
> 'Nuff said.


I read Sequitur's blog as they are sort of in the cruising area we plan to visit. He writes that the Hunter being used was beefed up at the factory before they took delivery and provides the details. So, does that still count if it's not the "standard" off-the-shelf production boat?

Our short list of offshore boats contains five traditional offshore-capable boats and one from the Catalina Ocean Series that keeps blinking on and off the bottom of the list. After this blog post it's back on, but I'm still not 100% sure. On the other hand the factory offers some options that will tip the scales more towards offshore capability.


----------



## neverknow

DRFerron said:


> He writes that the Hunter being used was beefed up at the factory before they took delivery and provides the details. So, does that still count if it's not the "standard" off-the-shelf production boat?


This is not much difference than any older boat that has had a refit. Many, if not all, older boats have the benefit of exp that allows ppl to have identified a weakness in a boat model. So when it's time to upgrade them owners know what needs/should be done.


----------



## smackdaddy

DRFerron said:


> I read Sequitur's blog as they are sort of in the cruising area we plan to visit. He writes that the Hunter being used was beefed up at the factory before they took delivery and provides the details. So, does that still count if it's not the "standard" off-the-shelf production boat?
> 
> Our short list of offshore boats contains five traditional offshore-capable boats and one from the Catalina Ocean Series that keeps blinking on and off the bottom of the list. After this blog post it's back on, but I'm still not 100% sure. On the other hand the factory offers some options that will tip the scales more towards offshore capability.


Here is Michael's very good explanation of "why a Hunter"...



> When I told my brother Peter that I had ordered a new Hunter 49, his first response was "why didn't you buy a real boat?".


Conception

And here's the list of upgrades:

Gestation

From that list, I don't see much in the way of structurally turning the Hunter into a Cabo Rico. Apart from the non-standard cutter rig, it's mostly equipment upgrades and additions.

So, I'd say it's pretty much off-the-shelf in terms of being a Hunter - it's just very, very well equipped...by a very, very good seaman.


----------



## PCP

DRFerron said:


> I read Sequitur's blog as they are sort of in the cruising area we plan to visit. He writes that the Hunter being used was beefed up at the factory before they took delivery and provides the details. So, does that still count if it's not the "standard" off-the-shelf production boat?
> 
> ...


Can you point the link for that factory beef up? I can only see options, not really nothing out of the ordinary:

Conception

Gestation

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Donna_F

PCP said:


> Can you point the link for that factory beef up? I can only see options, not really nothing out of the ordinary:
> 
> Conception
> 
> Gestation
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


The list of options added at the factory (and subsequent upgrades after delivery) are what I'm referring to. After all that it's no longer off the shelf in my mind. I could be splitting hairs. I'm only in the research phase so I may be off the mark. At this time I expect a truly traditional offshore-capable boat to have those options listed as standard.

Perhaps I'm expecting too much for the cost of these boats?


----------



## sea_hunter

This boat is not a "stock" Hunter 49. Therefore does not meet the requirement of being a production boat. While creature comforts can be added to any boat, structural and design modifications make it a one off. Basically a wolf in sheep's clothing. 
The additions to Sequitur are actually worth more than the boat itself. Our boat is rigged pretty much the same way with a few more additions and would _NOT_ consider our boat as production either. It begs the argument though; is there a cutoff to dollars spent over and above available factory options that pushes a boat beyond production? I think I'll create a thread.
http://www.yacht-sequitur.ca/gestation1.htm


----------



## smackdaddy

DRFerron said:


> The list of options added at the factory (and subsequent upgrades after delivery) are what I'm referring to. After all that it's no longer off the shelf in my mind. I could be splitting hairs. I'm only in the research phase so I may be off the mark. At this time I expect a truly traditional offshore-capable boat to have those options listed as standard.
> 
> Perhaps I'm expecting too much for the cost of these boats?


In terms of the original premise of the thread - I'd say you are splitting hairs. And sea_hunter, I'd say the same for your post, though your idea for that thread is a good one.

Most of the debates I've read regarding what is good/bad in terms of "blue water boats" is not about the equipment, but about the design/build/structural elements of the boat. Modern productions boats, _especially the Hunters_, have always been panned as being way too lightly built or having poor features (spade rudder, wide beam/stern, hull thickness, grid? structure, bilges, etc.) to be worthy of "blue water". They are "coastal cruisers" not "passage makers" has been the refrain.

Regardless of the amount of money in equipment added, all the above aspects of this Hunter remained the same as it was off-the-shelf (from what I can see). And despite all those upgrades and additions (even the marine-grade washer and dryer) - none of the "Blue Man Group" would ever have given the nod to a Hunter (despite its open ocean CE rating).

Until now...


----------



## PCP

sea_hunter said:


> This boat is not a "stock" Hunter 49. Therefore does not meet the requirement of being a production boat. While creature comforts can be added to any boat, structural and design modifications make it a one off. Basically a wolf in sheep's clothing.
> The additions to Sequitur are actually worth more than the boat itself. Our boat is rigged pretty much the same way with a few more additions and would _NOT_ consider our boat as production either. It begs the argument though; is there a cutoff to dollars spent over and above available factory options that pushes a boat beyond production? I think I'll create a thread.
> Gestation


What are you talking about? I don't see anything in what regards structural reinforcements, hull or rig beef up or anything that can contribute to a boat superior seaworthiness or strength. Most things added has to do with living aboard and sailing extensively. They would also make sense if they use the boat intensively as a coastal boat and if they want to stay out of marinas.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

DRFerron said:


> The list of options added at the factory (and subsequent upgrades after delivery) are what I'm referring to. After all that it's no longer off the shelf in my mind. I could be splitting hairs. I'm only in the research phase so I may be off the mark. At this time I expect a truly traditional offshore-capable boat to have those options listed as standard.
> 
> Perhaps I'm expecting too much for the cost of these boats?


Ferron, it makes sense that you have a basic sound and seaworthy boat that you can configure for several kinds of sailing. That way everybody win. If a boat would be from the start completely equipped for offshore work the potential buyers would be few and the cost of the boat high.

What production brands do is to make a boat that can be equipped and used for several uses, a basic boat that can have different optional equipment that will make it suitable for each particular use.

That way they make much more boats (different sailors looking for the same basic boat) they can sell them cheaper and the one that will only want the boat for coastal use don't have to pay the expensive equipment that will make it an offshore boat.

As anyone that has done that know the difference in price (between a basic boat to a fully equipped boat) can be huge. Even so a boat equipped for offshore work through equipment added to a basic boat will always be a lot less expensive then to buy one of the few boats that come already equipped with every thing you need offshore.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Just ran across this on Sequitur's blog:



> t is about 4400 miles from Puerto Williams to Cape Town. With following winds and currents for a major portion of the way, we can expect to make an average of better than 150 miles per day, so the passage might take 30 days. Mike Harker in his circumnavigation with his Hunter 49 made many 200-mile days crossing the South Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and he had a 1398-mile week. He averaged 157 miles per day for the complete circuit.


And here's more on Mike Harker and his circ:

Around the world with Mike Harker

This whole production boat butt-kicking thing is becoming very, very interesting!


----------



## PCP

And Tomasz is passing the Horn, solo, in its Delphia 40. Maybe they meet.

It has to be on the sea because Tomasz is circumnavigating non-stop.

Lokalizacja | Around The World Delphia Project

Regards

Paulo


----------



## randyrhines

My eyes are much more opened, there is a difference between security built blue water boats , and what you might get by in.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> And Tomasz is passing the Horn, solo, in its Delphia 40. Maybe they meet.
> 
> It has to be on the sea because Tomasz is circumnavigating non-stop.
> 
> Lokalizacja | Around The World Delphia Project
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Wow! That's awesome. He just now passing Przyladec Horn and just about to turn for home!


----------



## ardoin

Any boat can sail across an ocean in good weather. The real issue is what boats offer the most comfort in sailing through a variety of open ocean conditions. When the wind clock 180deg to the prevailing swell, would you rather be on medium or heavy displacement boat or a light boat. And how much effort will it take you to manage that vessel in cases where the winds and waves do not coincide? Not to say that an experience skipper couldn't sail either type of boat safely under those conditions, but as a cruising retired couple, which would you prefer? A slower Baba or a fast modern Bene?


----------



## smackdaddy

An F10 storm in the Southern Ocean..._in a Hunter_? No problem.











> 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.


*Check out Sequitur.*


----------



## mdi

Could not get the page to load on the Check Out link


----------



## Lou452

I was hoping to see more names or a type of boat in this area I have a lot of years to pick my type of boat and sailing and I need to learn a lot. Good debate with out bashing or trash talking is helpful. but I do have a lot more pages to read so I should do this before I speak....


----------



## nealalex

I raced on a first 42 - the seats made great beds - and you could lash people into them in heavy weather - newer boats have fancier interiors but not purposeful one

I have always been a sloop and bendy rig, but considering ketch - beneteau has some way older ketches. Hope they make one some day, with a dual helm and a beaver tail fin and dual rudder

check out the 8 meter ocean raceres - mini transat


----------



## larrybme

I am now 10yrs into a 5 year plan of land dwelling to acquire the means to sail off forever. I am no better off than 5 years ago. Always something or some distraction. I hope to be at sea cruising the west coast of Mex again. I have spent many hours a week researching boats I can afford. I guess it is, as was from the beginning, a mid to late 80's vintage Catalina 36. As for issues with these, you will not find any sailboat of this vintage without issues and upgrades to contend with, at any price. For resale and ease of single handing, moorage and marina and haulout expense and sailing qualities and comfortable living space, the Catalina 36, IMHO, can not be beat for under 50k. 
Blue water or offshore capabilities? The strongest winds, and roughest seas are encounered near shore. Most boats sink in marinas, so keep out of marinas. My aspirations are the west coast of US and Mex and the south pacific. The northern and southern latitudes are for someone else, not I. I don't want to have to have heaters, mittens and subzero foulies. I hope to remain in 80 80 land. 
I am tired of waiting for the right time, the right amount in the bank, the right mate, or to continue second guessing my vessel choice. If I spend a second summer in Kansas, just take me out and shoot me. I fear drowning or dieing at sea, I fear more being taken out by a auto accident or health problem even more. My doctor told me I was going to die some time between tomorrow and the next forty years, now, choose where and how to live until then. I am 56.
Now you have my 2 cents worth, and I have another post. 
Oh, btw, where do you find the little smiley faces for these posts. ;-)


----------



## mitiempo

Right beside the box you type the post in.:laugher


----------



## s/v AbbeyGale

Good points, but any boat in the middle of an ocean is a bluewater boat............. seen lots of ferro boats in pretty remote places.... just read a blog of a swede in a 27 foot old glass with an outboard went everywhere, due to my incompetence i need to (for example bad drivers should drive super safe cars) My al/ Koopmans is undoubtabley an offshore boat, that being said it is hard to day sail-race cutter rigged, narrow slot is a bugger in light wind, small cockpit not good for socializing, lots of lines, everything has a purpose, priority for me is 1)durability 2)functionality 3) Safety 4)confort 5) appearance (But all koopmans are beautiful). Examples: big cleats, mast pulpit, the interior is tight grab rails every where, companionway is small, you fill the tanks from the interior, in short it is a piece of machinery, massive deck hardware, my stem head fitting has more metal than all the chainplates on a c36, my chain plates which arn't visible are massive 3-4 sq feet of 1/4, there is no shower, big refrigerator/deep freeze heavey big lifts hard its an investment to grab a beer. At the dock it gets allot of attention its really neat, we all dream of going in one direction and coming back in the other, BUT the reality a catalina 36 is far more what U.S. consumers are looking for les commitment to leave the dock,


----------



## s/v AbbeyGale

Good post, bots dont randomly sink, just make sure everything you put on it is durable.


----------



## larrybme

I have tried to post. Both times failed. I am tired and going to bed. Never had this problem at the other site.


----------



## larrybme

Ok, maybe it was the length of the reply.


----------



## larrybme

S/V Abbeygale, not sure what you mean by the last sentence in your last reply.


----------



## larrybme

Staying in line with the subject of the op. IMHO, I have seen and read about many long passages and even a few circumnavigations in stock, well maintained production boats. Most production boats can take more punishment than the crew.
My intention is not to get into a pissing match on boats, or over defend Catalinas or other affordable production boats. I will share with my reasoning on choosing the Cat 36, I am open and thankful for those who disagree and have differing opinions. I am nearly ready to pull the trigger on a Cat 36, so please, feel free to sway my decision before I take the plunge, pardon the pun.
The Cat 36 seems to retains resale value better than the general market. It is still in production and parts and support network is easily found. Any mod you may choose, has already been done and documented so easy to copy. I like afternoon and sunset sails, I like morning coffee putts around the harbor with classical music. I don't like being dependant on crew so simple and easily single handed is important. The hardware on any boat is sized to it's expected max load. Any boat of mid 80's vintage must be carefully surveyed and inspected. Any boat with 10-15 year old rigging should be re-rigged, both standing and running, before any extended cruise or passage. Over building certain hardware, can cause a breakdown elsewhere. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. 
Even the most hardy and purist of cruisers spend over 95% of time at anchor, on mooring or marina, depending on budget, so a boat that is comfortable in condo mode is important. Most cruisers endure the passages to be there, so being comfortable when there is an impartant factor. The most skilled, experienced, and prudent sailors seldom, if ever, have to endure storm conditions beyond what a production boat can handle because they use their superior skills and experience to avoid those situations. 
Tankage?? Very good qualifier. There are many ways to increase both fresh water and fuel capacity either temporarily, ie jerry cans and soft tanks, or convert storage area to tankage area. 
I may only think I am as close as I am to buying another boat, but I can't help but want to save as much for the cruising kitty as I can. Being broke on a big nice boat is probably worse than having the finanaces to cruise on a smaller more modest boat. There is a Cat. 36, bought for 25k in this years PPJ. Patriot circumnavigated, seems to be more of these type production boats in the Ha Ha and actually out there than the high end yachts. Why?? Affordability, plain and simple.
I am sure I have more, don't worry about that, but out of time right now. Gotta call a broker on a Cat 36. Affordable, with money left over to do the upcoming Ha Ha. 
Larry


----------



## smackdaddy

Bring back pics of the HaHa, dude! Sounds like fun!


----------



## s/v AbbeyGale

Sorry meant to say Boats usually don't randomly sink, even in tremendous seas, I can find no objections to a stock-maybe with a few mods off shore, there are many problems with a really expensive boat 1) if its too much of net worth l may be too paranoid to leave the boat (perhaps others share this) 2) The comment on parts for a C35/6 are well placed, for example I have never met a person in the US who has heard of let alone seen a Koopmans, figuring out exactly what it is was hard, still not sure all the words are in dutch...... in the end I look at all the crap that are supposedly blue water.... and look at my and all the stuff the magazines say you need...... and well it seems like a lot of crap. There are some things I think are necessary, but they have lttle to do with the Hull (except substantial backing plates, cleats, ground tackle system, chainplates, most stuff can be changed out.


----------



## smackdaddy

By Production Boat, I mean the kind of boat that most would not label "blue water" capable. It's basically the list in the last sentence of the second paragraph.

At this point, I personally think it's a myth for the most part. Most any boat will be fine if you sail it well.


----------



## mitiempo

I wouldn't call Hinckley a production boat, nor Morris nor Cape George.

Tayana and Cheoy Lee certainly are production boats.

Brewer is a designer, not a builder.


It's not whether it is a production boat or not, but where the design and build quality are focused. And many boats not ever intended for offshore use can be modified to make it work.

I think what is most interesting is many boats thought of as good offshore boats were never designed or built for this. Ones that come to mind are the Pearson Triton, Alberg 30 and Alberg 35 - all designed and intended for coastal use only.


----------



## LandLocked66c




----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so - after studying and discussing this issue for over 4 years now, I have reached a conclusion...

There are virtually no limits on any production cruising boat. You can sail most _any_ boat around the world...as long as the weather is right, and as long as you are a pretty good, pretty conservative sailor.

The whole "bluewater boat" debate is crap. We can go ahead and lock this thread now.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so - after studying and discussing this issue for over 4 years now, I have reached a conclusion...
> 
> There are virtually no limits on any production cruising boat. You can sail most _any_ boat around the world...as long as the weather is right, and as long as you are a pretty good, pretty conservative sailor.
> 
> The whole "bluewater boat" debate is crap. We can go ahead and lock this thread now.


This is the more incredible boat that I know that has successively circumnavigated:






Not only the boat is incredibly small (19ft) as it is a lake boat not intended to sail on the sea. It would be difficult to beat this one. I guess the guy deserves the record for circumnavigation made in the least appropriated boat

"Meet Aron Meder, a 29 year old Hungarian sailor who sets out and sailed alone for the past* 2 and half years*, growing a long beard, looking a bit like Tom Hanks in that Castaway movie.

His beloved yacht is a small and limited capacity called Carina, only 19 feet or 6 meters long. He told us he likes to travel, it is his passion. Therefore, he sailed around the world, starting from Europe to Africa then to the Caribbean, Galapagos, Hawaii and Fiji where he had lived half a year, Papua New Guinea, Australia, and then across the Indian Ocean to Bali, Singapore to Penang, and last but not least, he stopped at Phuket for a one day rest and planned to set off to Sri Lanka and perhaps next to India.

He talked about Carina, his small vessel, which was *built in 1970* in Switzerland, which he rebuilt from the outside and inside in November 2004, stating her strength despite her short length and her character due to her elongated keel which helps keep better direction. Carina also has fewer problems due to her small size such as stability and capsizing problems. But also due to its small size, journeys are longer and *there were many storms he had to face when sailing but he doesn't mind because he likes a challenge.*

Aron told us about some of the dangerous situations he had to face during his long journey. He told us that his small yacht cannot be easily noticed by bigger ships therefore he has to warn them when they come closer to him, otherwise those bigger ships create huge and enormous waves which will make his small vessel capsize. He also told us about big sharks and whales that sometimes followed but do not attack him.

I asked him if he ever gets lonely sailing alone in the ocean. He told me he does not have any problem communicating with other people nor does he get worried when he is alone in the middle of the ocean with nobody to talk to. He sometimes chats with other sailors from other ships via VHF radio and his collection of books and *fixing Carina when she has a leak or when she starts making weird noises, has been keeping him occupied most of the time*.

*Aron find foods by fishing*, cooks his own food and his favorite dish is coconut with fish. He also makes his own jam and gets stock of food when he comes to the shore.

He keeps in-touch with his family via Internet and e-mail on shore visits. Aron told me that he misses his family dearly and especially his younger sister who needs a big brother around, but he still wants to travel and sail to other countries maybe for another year then after that he will come home to Europe.

He knows that his family gives him their best support and understands him. Before he sailed off to Sri Lanka, I asked him what he wants to do in the near future after he satisfies his needs of traveling and sailing. He told me that he might rest Carina at his grandparents backyard in Hungary and he might buy a new race yacht, which he has a major interest in pursuing a career in. But that is just the future, he is more like a man of the present, as he wants to do his best today. He is very happy with what hes doing now. It is an experience that he cannot find elsewhere and he is not willing to trade with anyone".

Quite a character

Carina and me

Földkörüli szóló-vitorlázás Carinával (6 m), Sailing Alone Around the World with Carina (19 ft boat)

Well now he races a miniclass racer






Regards

Paulo


----------



## dave6330

smackdaddy said:


> So how would you guys divide production boats into general "quality/capability tiers"?
> 
> Would it be something like this:
> 
> 1. Lake/Bay Boats
> -O'day
> -Macgregor
> -Lancer
> -Yorktown
> 
> 2. Coastal Boats
> -Catalina
> -Hunter
> -Beneteau
> -Jenneau
> -Irwin
> -Cal
> 
> 3. Premium Coastal (Light Blue Water Capable)
> -IP
> -Caliber
> -Ericson
> -C&C
> -Tartan
> -Dehler
> -Endeavour
> -Gulfstar
> -Morgan
> -Cheoy Lee
> -Pearson
> 
> 4. Non-Production/High End Blue Water
> -Tayana
> -Hinckley
> -Cabo Rico
> -Oyster
> -etc.


I know it's an old thread, but is Smackdaddy's grouping fairly good? I found it interesting that the Endeavour ranked in the same class as the IPs and Calibers.


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think any time you try to make groupings like this you are in for trouble, there are just too many 'yes, buts' to end up with a useful list. To give just a couple:
- the last group are of course production boats. You can buy a Tayana 37 hull number in 3 digits and there have been dozens of various models of Hinckley, Oyster, etc.
- just because a boat is very expensive does not mean that it is a superior boat for blue water.
- some manufacturers have built boats that are very different, Beneteau, Morgan and C&C are good examples, because of this the placements make little sense. We have a friend who was a seasoned Mini-Transat sailor (race your 22 footer from France to Brazil kind of guy) and he chose a Bene Oceanus to go cruising with his wife and two small children. He would not classify it as a coastal boat and neither would I.
- most Hinckleys are gorgeous boats but they are not really designed primarily as passage makers. You could do better with a lot less money.

For what is worth, here are the models of boats that we have seen more than one of who were circumnavigating ( the memory is not perfect so I may have forgotten some - these are in order with most common first. Also i don't know all the European and Down Under models. The remarkable thing is how many different models there are.)
Amel - can't keep all the models around 52 feet straight, but altogether about 8
Beneteau 50 - 3
Vega 27 - 3
Gulfstar 50 - 2 for all the rest
Morgan OI 41
Tayana 37
Tayana 52
Bristol 45.5
Oyster 54/56 
Discovery 55
Pearson 36
Moody 34/35


----------



## PCP

Did you not saw any aluminium boats? OVNI?


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> I think any time you try to make groupings like this you are in for trouble, there are just too many 'yes, buts' to end up with a useful list. To give just a couple:
> - the last group are of course production boats. You can buy a Tayana 37 hull number in 3 digits and there have been dozens of various models of Hinckley, Oyster, etc.
> - just because a boat is very expensive does not mean that it is a superior boat for blue water.
> - some manufacturers have built boats that are very different, Beneteau, Morgan and C&C are good examples, because of this the placements make little sense. We have a friend who was a seasoned Mini-Transat sailor (race your 22 footer from France to Brazil kind of guy) and he chose a Bene Oceanus to go cruising with his wife and two small children. He would not classify it as a coastal boat and neither would I.
> - most Hinckleys are gorgeous boats but they are not really designed primarily as passage makers. You could do better with a lot less money.
> 
> For what is worth, here are the models of boats that we have seen more than one of who were circumnavigating ( the memory is not perfect so I may have forgotten some - these are in order with most common first. Also i don't know all the European and Down Under models. The remarkable thing is how many different models there are.)
> Amel - can't keep all the models around 52 feet straight, but altogether about 8
> Beneteau 50 - 3
> Vega 27 - 3
> Gulfstar 50 - 2 for all the rest
> Morgan OI 41
> Tayana 37
> Tayana 52
> Bristol 45.5
> Oyster 54/56
> Discovery 55
> Pearson 36
> Moody 34/35


It would be fun to get a general list "close" though. I'll give it another go and we can argue some more!


----------



## desert rat

Things i have found on this thread to look at "is it a blue water boat". 
Access to systems, 
Tankage
lazarette
hatch gasgets
cabinet latches
battery boxes
tabbed bulkheads
cockpit drains
companion way (size and water exclusion)
strong stern cleats
Hand holds
sorry that is all I got from this whole thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

I was reading back through this thread. It's really pretty awesome, with some great posts by some great sailors.

So to recap...first, the "rules"...



smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so a quick summary of the wildly varying sentiment of the past pages, which is now close to becoming the definitive gospel on BAPDs for all time...
> 
> General Rules:
> 1. "Blue water" and/or "offshore" can be defined for our purposes as a 5 day passage from anchorage to anchorage (due to the modern weather window). It's beyond what most think of as "coastal" cruising, but it's not a pull across the Pacific either. (That said - these boats CAN also do a longer hop without major issues. See Givens below).
> 2. The unforeseen weather limit we seem to have set is a strong gale/"weak" storm (e.g. Force 9-10). This means that if you were unlucky enough to get caught in one, you'd still feel relatively safe in your production boat with appropriate heavy weather precautions (e.g. - storm sails, drogues, etc.). In other words, it's not going to fall apart around you.
> 
> General Givens:
> 1. It is understood that the vast majority of modern production boats can and have indeed circumnavigated - some with major modifications and strengthening, others without. Virtually any boat can indeed be sailed virtually anywhere in the right conditions. But this particular conversation is centered around the rules above as this is where most sailors will play.
> 2. It is understood that the boat typically outlasts the sailor's will/ability even in the worst of conditions.
> 3. It is understood that there are a million variables in all these estimations from tankage, to crew size, to boat size, to gear, etc. But this discussion is a wildly irresponsible rule of thumb exercise - so there you go.
> 4. When it comes to separating the first and second tiers - it probably comes down more to comfort than toughness. But, few will argue that comfort ain't a good thing in the long run. So there you go.
> 
> The True Contenders:
> 1. Beneteau: seems to get high marks all-round as a boat that is well-built, fast, serviceable, comfortable, and sturdy. All-round winner.
> 2. Catalina: seems to be the next in line in the above areas - though CD will protest wildly that "Bene's got nothin'. Jeff likes my boat best."
> 3. Jenneau: Right in the hunt - but arguable as to where it finally falls. Serviceability? Better than newer Hunters?
> 4. Hunter: seems to still be suffering from "poor design" during previous runs - yet has seemingly improved in the last few years. It seems the jury is still out on this one.
> 
> The Second Tier:
> 1. Tartan: older ones at least (say pre '90?). problems with hatch design, etc. discussed, but still liked.
> 2. Sabre: tough boats - but some problems listed.
> 3. Hallberg Rassy: starts to move out of typical "production boat" world and into high-priced "elite" boats (same with OVNI, etc.) that are more "blue" than "production".
> 4. From here we probably pass into the realm of "lesser" blue water boats. So I'll stop here.
> 
> Fugedaboudit?:
> 1. Irwin: still personally not convinced of that this one fails the test. built lighter and for a lower cost point - but does that completely move it out of the contender category?
> 2. O'Day: a lot of them around, but no one willing to go to bat for it.
> 3. McGregor: the big ones rock - but anything less than 45'+ gets a nose thumb and a good heckling.
> 4. Any multi-hull. Those things are just abominations to sailing. Heh-heh.
> 
> What have we left out?


----------



## smackdaddy

And the "Non-Bluewater-Production-Boat" list (as revised by GreatWhite):

1. Lake/Bay Boats (stay within the sight of land, seriously)
-Macgregor
-Lancer
-Yorktown
-Bayliner Bucaneer (although you can score a lot of babes with that boat...obviously...see attached):
-Chrysler

2. Coastal Boats (that can still go anywhere on earth if you're careful and good)
-Catalina
-Hunter
-Beneteau
-Jenneau
-Irwin
-Endeavour
-Gulfstar
-O'day
-Cal
-J-Boats

3. Premium Coastal/Light Blue Water Capable (arguably perfectly suited for blue water passages, but considered by some as "too light")
-Caliber
-Ericson
-C&C
-Tartan
-Dehler
-Morgan
-Cheoy Lee
-Pearson

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

For this discussion, pretty much everything else is considered blue-water capable by most.

Feel free to froth at the mouth and disagree. That's always fun to watch.


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

THe issue with all of this, I believe the meastro said it the other day. I believe he used his Islander 28 as an example. It was designed for coastal work. BUT, the overall design would allow one to sail anywhere in it! A laser on the other hand, obviously local. Even the Morris M series, while VERY WELL if not in the excellent build quality, is not rated by the european stds as being ocean going! 

THere is not a right or wrong at the endof the day per say. Does it have the strength to sail thru a gail or stronger wind off shore? does it have tankage for your use? plus I am sure many more answers. I would not have an issue taking my 28' jeanneau off shore. it has made off shore passages! I would not be surprised of an I28 has not made an offshore passage or two or three. 

Really, ANY boat on a good day could probably sail an ocean. bad day, probably up to the skipper more than anything. At the end, not really worth arguing over which is a better offshore boat. As said earlier by a few. Swan, Oyster etc very expensive, are still production boats! The only boats that are not production models, come as one off's, if more than 2 or 3 are planned, a mold is made per say, then it is a production boat! car! house! bycycle etc! I really doubt that ANY of us that use this forum are going to truely buy a from scrath, one off boat. At best, we may highly modify some things from a production boat, Morris comes to mind that will do this. The base boat from Morris, is prodiction oriented! pure plain and simple. Higher quality, build materials to a degree, but still a production boat! 

Marty


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> And the "Non-Bluewater-Production-Boat" list (as revised by GreatWhite):
> 
> 1. Lake/Bay Boats (stay within the sight of land, seriously)
> -Macgregor
> -Lancer
> -Yorktown
> -Bayliner Bucaneer (although you can score a lot of babes with that boat...obviously...see attached):
> -Chrysler
> 
> 2. Coastal Boats (that can still go anywhere on earth if you're careful and good)
> -Catalina
> -Hunter
> -Beneteau
> -Jenneau
> -Irwin
> -Endeavour
> -Gulfstar
> -O'day
> -Cal
> -J-Boats
> 
> 3. Premium Coastal/Light Blue Water Capable (arguably perfectly suited for blue water passages, but considered by some as "too light")
> -Caliber
> -Ericson
> -C&C
> -Tartan
> -Dehler
> -Morgan
> -Cheoy Lee
> -Pearson
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> For this discussion, pretty much everything else is considered blue-water capable by most.
> 
> Feel free to froth at the mouth and disagree. That's always fun to watch.


Smack, It all comes to what you call a blue-water boat. If that means a boat designed exclusively for blewater sailing there are ones better than others but none is designed to do that as their main purpose. Such a boat, for instance, would have a 3.00m draft, since that is mot a problem for bluewater sailing and has many advantages in what regards sailing.

All boats are a compromise but assuming you mean by bluewater boat a boat that has a big safety margin sailing on "normal" latitudes at the right season I would say that almost all mass production cruisers of 40ft and over will have that margin. The bigger difference between them is that few come already rigged for that and the others you will have to command the needed options, or have the dealer install them. The reason those options, like a cutter rig, a removable stay or jack lines will not come standard with the boat is because it would make the boat unnecessarily inexpensive for the ones that don't need them.

If you want to increase your safety margin you will just buy a bigger boat. Today 50fts are designed to be sailed by a couple. And there are no small sailboat that can sail safely at the wrong latitudes at the wrong season at least without a much bigger risk factor. Even at the right latitude and wrong season it can be problematic to all small sailing boats.

It makes sense to say that a boat like this one is not a bluewater boat?:






or that it would be less of a bluewater boat than a smaller Caliber an Ericson a C&C a Tartan a Morgan a Cheoy Lee or a Pearson, or watever the boat.

Each case is a case, there are ones better than others, but making that distinction by brands makes mo sense unless that brand has no boats suited for offshore work. But even the MacGregor has a 65ft yacht. Do you mean that was not designed taking offshore sailing in mind, among other concerns? Or that it is not a better blue water boat than a Westsail 32ft?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## randyrhines

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so - after studying and discussing this issue for over 4 years now, I have reached a conclusion...
> 
> There are virtually no limits on any production cruising boat. You can sail most _any_ boat around the world...as long as the weather is right, and as long as you are a pretty good, pretty conservative sailor.
> 
> The whole "bluewater boat" debate is crap. We can go ahead and lock this thread now.


OH NO, not so fast my brother, We shall not paddle another mile , nor spread Dacron to wind, Until we have given Honourable mention to the World Renown Princess of all inter-coastal and Blue water desires.
The Allied Princess 36' Ketch!
now we may conclude the list complete the discussion done......


----------



## desert rat

sorry I"m a little off topic but my viewpoint is different.

I read all these lovely posts on which boat is best in hopes that i will be able to find the boat that will take me over the horizon single handed. 
How long, wide, or deep, and sail plan I begin to understand. Now I am looking for clues to help when I board a boat and inspect her. will i love her enough to take care of her, will she love me enough to keep me dry?


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Smack, It all comes to what you call a blue-water boat. If that means a boat designed exclusively for blewater sailing there are ones better than others but none is designed to do that as their main purpose. Such a boat, for instance, would have a 3.00m draft, since that is mot a problem for bluewater sailing and has many advantages in what regards sailing.
> 
> All boats are a compromise but assuming you mean by bluewater boat a boat that has a big safety margin sailing on "normal" latitudes at the right season I would say that almost all mass production cruisers of 40ft and over will have that margin. The bigger difference between them is that few come already rigged for that and the others you will have to command the needed options, or have the dealer install them. The reason those options, like a cutter rig, a removable stay or jack lines will not come standard with the boat is because it would make the boat unnecessarily inexpensive for the ones that don't need them.
> 
> If you want to increase your safety margin you will just buy a bigger boat. Today 50fts are designed to be sailed by a couple. And there are no small sailboat that can sail safely at the wrong latitudes at the wrong season at least without a much bigger risk factor. Even at the right latitude and wrong season it can be problematic to all small sailing boats.
> 
> It makes sense to say that a boat like this one is not a bluewater boat?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or that it would be less of a bluewater boat than a smaller Caliber an Ericson a C&C a Tartan a Morgan a Cheoy Lee or a Pearson, or watever the boat.
> 
> Each case is a case, there are ones better than others, but making that distinction by brands makes mo sense unless that brand has no boats suited for offshore work. But even the MacGregor has a 65ft yacht. Do you mean that was not designed taking offshore sailing in mind, among other concerns? Or that it is not a better blue water boat than a Westsail 32ft?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


That's kind of the ironic thrust of this whole thread. For ages, across most sailing forums, boats in section 2 of that list were decried as "coastal only"...and painted as almost egg-shell fragile. Saying you were going to buy a "production boat" such as a non-First Bene to circumnavigate, or a Hunter to round the Horn would have earned you a very public lashing from the "blue-water" crowd. You would have been called a fool.

So, this thread is not at all intended to try to define (yet again) what makes a "true blue water boat". It's to collectively decide on the accepted "limits' of production boats.

Think about it from the newb's perspective. Lots of boats out there to buy - and they want to know where those boats fall on a realistic spectrum. More importantly, think about the very real danger of the "seamanship vs. boat" argument:

If I, as a newb boat buyer, purchase a Cabo Rico or Hinckley because those are the real deal for blue water and will keep me out of trouble because everyone says so - do I then put too much trust in the boat and let my own seamanship slide?

Even after all this time - I think thread still asks a very important question in this regard. Obviously, I'm a case study as I'm about to buy a production boat in section 2. And if she's in good shape, I'll have no fear of taking her anywhere except the high lats. But I also know I need to up my seamanship game, and be relatively conservative to do so. Those are good limits to be aware of.

PS - Paulo, where would you put some of the European Brands on this list such as Bavaria, etc.?


----------



## outbound

whole heartly agree with the importance of seamanship and fitness as regards improving chances of survival in an survival storm. But would note boats differ in abilty to "care of you" when you are no longer able or willing to sail the vessel. Issues of how she handles and survives when hove too or fore running or trailing jordan series drogue. Will she survive a knockdown, pooping or g-d forbid pitch poling. Attention to suitable backing plates and chaff free runs is sometimes over looked. That walk through companion way or nature of construction of the lights on the hull may be a weakness. Think it goes beyond just the model of hull or expense of the infill.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> whole heartly agree with the importance of seamanship and fitness as regards improving chances of survival in an survival storm. But would note boats differ in abilty to "care of you" when you are no longer able or willing to sail the vessel. Issues of how she handles and survives when hove too or fore running or trailing jordan series drogue. Will she survive a knockdown, pooping or g-d forbid pitch poling. Attention to suitable backing plates and chaff free runs is sometimes over looked. That walk through companion way or nature of construction of the lights on the hull may be a weakness. Think it goes beyond just the model of hull or expense of the infill.


Out, that's a great point. And it's another wrinkle in this debate. I don't think anyone would argue with the point that a "heavier" boat _should_ theoretically do better in extreme circumstances. But I go back to Sequitur's encounter of the F11 off Cape Horn. That Hunter did very, very well in about as gnarly a storm as one could imagine.

So, in this regard, the survival storm argument comes down to this: how conservatively you will sail (i.e. - avoiding such storms), the chances of encountering such a storm during your entire sailing career (see Hal Roth's equations on that), and whether you want to spend 99% of your sailing career in a boat that _might_ do better in that 1% storm you _might _encounter.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> T...
> Even after all this time - I think thread still asks a very important question in this regard. Obviously, I'm a case study as I'm about to buy a production boat in section 2. And if she's in good shape, I'll have no fear of taking her anywhere except the high lats. But I also know I need to up my seamanship game, and be relatively conservative to do so. Those are good limits to be aware of.
> 
> PS - Paulo, where would you put some of the European Brands on this list such as Bavaria, etc.?


As I said, I don't think it is a question of brands but a question of boats. Bavaria as other European and American mass production boats are well built and price has more to do with finish and quality of materials in the interior than with quality of all things that has to do with safety.

Bavaria has many models and as I said I would fell comfortably going bluewater in any mass production 40ft. Lower than that I would have to see boat by boat but I would say that I would fell safe going bluewater for instance on the Bavaria 36 (now 37) or on the Oceanis 37, if the boats were prepared for that. Just an example those two. As you know I had almost bought a Salona 38 and that one is also clearly a bluewater boat, as the Dehler 38 for instance.

Of course I am not saying this applies to all, it is just my personal criteria that has to do with my experience as sailor and my personal view on the subject that is almost coincident with the general opinion in what regards an European view, as it is expressed for instance in sailing magazines.

I would not have any problem in crossing the pond in one of those but I would have in any of the so called bluewater boats if they had a rig with more than 10 years or if the chain-plates were not replaced in the last 15 years and even so I would feel less safe than in a brand new boat, correctly prepared. You can find my view a bit odd but that view is shared by the insurance companies (that consider than an older boat is less safe) and they are not there to lose money and know well the subject.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Sequitur

smackdaddy said:


> But I go back to Sequitur's encounter of the F11 off Cape Horn. That Hunter did very, very well in about as gnarly a storm as one could imagine.
> 
> So, in this regard, the survival storm argument comes down to this: how conservatively you will sail (i.e. - avoiding such storms), the chances of encountering such a storm during your entire sailing career (see Hal Roth's equations on that), and whether you want to spend 99% of your sailing career in a boat that _might_ do better in that 1% storm you _might _encounter.


To quote from my new book:


> Without doubt, the most important criterion in offshore voyaging is a competent, cooperative and compatible crew. Without this, the best equipped and most seaworthy vessel is likely to have difficulty as conditions change, and one of the constants of life at sea is change. Competent crew can take a minimally equipped and barely capable vessel to the ends of the earth.


I strongly suggest that the boat chosen is much less important than are the crew and their seamanship.


----------



## Bradhamlet

Smack... O man I'm the guy with the Lancer 36, now I find out I can't sail in the ocean (lake boat)or out sight of land. Man I'm bumming. I thought sailing in a gale gave me and the Lancer 36 some street cred. Darn well I guess i will just pull her from the slip and find a lake she might not hit bottom in. (6 ft. draft and all) 
Any way wasn't going to go all the way around but maybe I could be moved down to the light coastal boat list? 

Brad 
Lancer 36


----------



## smackdaddy

Bradhamlet said:


> Smack... O man I'm the guy with the Lancer 36, now I find out I can't sail in the ocean (lake boat)or out sight of land. Man I'm bumming. I thought sailing in a gale gave me and the Lancer 36 some street cred. Darn well I guess i will just pull her from the slip and find a lake she might not hit bottom in. (6 ft. draft and all)
> Any way wasn't going to go all the way around but maybe I could be moved down to the light coastal boat list?
> 
> Brad
> Lancer 36


Okay - where is your story of that BFS in a Lancer? I'm intrigued. Just remember, I have no clue about this stuff. I'm just ranking based on the amount of trash talk I've seen on the forums over the years.

But one can't argue with slammin' through a gale.

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

And the "Non-Bluewater-Production-Boat" list (as revised by GreatWhite and Bradh):

1. Lake/Bay Boats (stay within the sight of land, seriously)
-Macgregor
-Yorktown
-Bayliner Bucaneer (although you can score a lot of babes with that boat...obviously...see attached):
-Chrysler

2. Light Coastal
-Lancer

3. Coastal Boats (that can still go anywhere on earth if you're careful and good)
-Catalina
-Hunter
-Beneteau
-Jenneau
-Irwin
-Endeavour
-Gulfstar
-O'day
-Cal
-J-Boats

4. Premium Coastal/Light Blue Water Capable (arguably perfectly suited for blue water passages, but considered by some as "too light")
-Caliber
-Ericson
-C&C
-Tartan
-Dehler
-Morgan
-Cheoy Lee
-Pearson


----------



## smackdaddy

Sequitur said:


> To quote from my new book:
> 
> To quote from my new book:
> 
> *Without doubt, the most important criterion in offshore voyaging is a competent, cooperative and compatible crew. Without this, the best equipped and most seaworthy vessel is likely to have difficulty as conditions change, and one of the constants of life at sea is change. Competent crew can take a minimally equipped and barely capable vessel to the ends of the earth.*
> 
> I strongly suggest that the boat chosen is much less important than are the crew and their seamanship.


^^^This.


----------



## blt2ski

Another item one should look at to a degree, is the type of materials used in the interior. Boats are a bit like land yachts, ie RV's. they use a weekender, vacation, snow bird and live aboard std for how things are made. The weekender is less well built than a live aboard! A live aboard will be like your home, a weekender, probably the term trailer trash comes to mind.....it shouldnot. like boats, tanks are smaller, the use of press board vs solid wood in places occurs. is this good or bad? depends upon how one is going to use the item at hand!

Marty


----------



## outbound

smack- Have very limited experience c/w other posters but
sailing old pearson424 accross mouth of buzzard bay ( bristol to M.V. Cllear day 15-20SW. boom knockdown by rogue wave
coming back from Bermuda ( good forecast) clear day running with poled genny. boom sail gone boat on side. ?microburst
transport from sw harbor to mass. fair forecast. boom 5d of misery ( caught edge of no name.)
I look at OPC even when I just go to the boat to sit and have a cup of coffee but weather is local. I know folks who have circumnavigated never seeing more than 30kt. but I seem to have a cloud over my head so plan accordingly. The gribs are great but weather is local. Actually think in some regards weather is more of an issue coastal as there are more local events (line squalls, thunderstorms etc.) that can riun your day.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Actually think in some regards weather is more of an issue coastal as there are more local events (line squalls, thunderstorms etc.) that can riun your day.


That's a very good point. Plus the waves can be a lot nastier due to shallowness, and there's lots more hard bits to run into. That's why I loved this thread about the actual statistics of sailing:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...lated/61716-how-afraid-should-we-sailing.html

I've always believed that most of us on the forums have so little true ocean time, that we harbor the "there be dragons" mentality toward off-shore sailing, when it's actually (statistically speaking) more deadly sailing around in a lake or bay.

(PS - The Outbound 46 is an insanely sweet boat dude. You're livin' it! Of course you do realize that it can't be a bluewater boat if it has a centerline bed? Heh-heh.)


----------



## outbound

Amazing numbers and a very good thread to read. Gonna show it to the admiral. Prooves the point. It's the hard edges that's the problem. Out in the wild blue yonder get the rags down. Through something off your stern. Button up and go down below. You may have some reverse peristalsis but you'll be fine. Tx. Smack.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smackdaddy said:


> I've always believed that most of us on the forums have so little true ocean time, that we harbor the "there be dragons" mentality toward off-shore sailing,


Yes, I couldn't agree with you more.

I can't believe the number of people who buy boats based on Internet forum fear campaigns instead of buying one thats obviously more comfortable, better fit out with modern convieniences, and more suitable for an appartment/condominium type life than a camping type life.

There ain't no dragons out there so buy a boat that's comfortable not one that is built to fight North Atlantic storms in winter.

And GO! 

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Yes, I couldn't agree with you more.
> 
> I can't believe the number of people who buy boats based on Internet forum fear campaigns instead of buying one thats obviously more comfortable, better fit out with modern convieniences, and more suitable for an appartment/condominium type life than a camping type life.
> 
> There ain't no dragons out there so buy a boat that's comfortable not one that is built to fight North Atlantic storms in winter.
> 
> And GO!
> 
> Mark


I was hoping you'd chime in Mark. Between you and Michael/Sequitur, I think we have some pretty invaluable insight on this issue.

You guys are still alive! How the hell did that happen?


----------



## Group9

OsmundL said:


> SM, I like
> Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the vast majority of wreckages and carnage happen on the coast - not even _along_ the coast but virtually _on_ it.


That's a good point. Maybe we should be comparing how well different boats take being run up on reefs, jetties, and beaches, since that seems to be the major cause of boat failure when cruising, rather than sinking at sea.


----------



## Sequitur

Group9 said:


> That's a good point. Maybe we should be comparing how well different boats take being run up on reefs, jetties, and beaches, since that seems to be the major cause of boat failure when cruising, rather than sinking at sea.


To quote again from my book regarding the Hunter 49:


> The prototype had been put through abusive sea trial testing by Steve Pettengill, who with his ocean racing records and Around-the-World Race experience is well qualified. He sea-trials all the new Hunter designs, repeatedly crashing the boats into stone jetties, and at full speed and under full sail in strong winds, he sails them up onto sandy beaches. He then spends weeks offshore in the nastiest conditions he can find to assess livability and to try to break things. The thinking is that if the new design can withstand Pettengill's abuse, it will likely handle a loving owner's occasional bumbling and also the odd nasty that Mother Nature can serve-up. If the boat doesn't take kindly to Pettengill's abuse, Henderson and his team go back to their drawing boards.


----------



## CharlieCobra

I see a Bayliner "Buccaneer" on the bad list up there. You guys do realize that every Bayliner sailboat was called a "Buccaneer", right? Some of them like the 295 were very good boats. We've got one that we've stripped out for refit. Nicely laid up, fully tabbed "marine" grade plywood bulkheads, etc.. I'd put it beside most any other production boat such as Beneteau or Catalina. Seriously, it's a very well designed, former world record holding design from Doug Peterson that Bayliner didn't screw up. I'd sail it in a gale and kick your ass on the course while doing it. :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

CharlieCobra said:


> I see a Bayliner "Buccaneer" on the bad list up there. You guys do realize that every Bayliner sailboat was called a "Buccaneer", right? Some of them like the 295 were very good boats. We've got one that we've stripped out for refit. Nicely laid up, fully tabbed "marine" grade plywood bulkheads, etc.. I'd put it beside most any other production boat such as Beneteau or Catalina. Seriously, it's a very well designed, former world record holding design from Doug Peterson that Bayliner didn't screw up. I'd sail it in a gale and kick your ass on the course while doing it. :laugher


Right up until you blew out your jib, pal! Heh-heh.

And could you pull together a crew with bowchicks like these?










Booyah!

(I love the 3 on 2 ratio. Good marketing there.)


----------



## knothead

Smack, I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so this may have already been discussed. But in my experience of sailing a Bavaria 34', (I think it was a 34'), across the Atlantic to Holland. I found that it was a very uncomfortable experience. It seemed to me that the fact that the boat has a pretty much flat bottom caused the boat to pound in all but the lightest sea. I swear, you simply couldn't let go of the boat for a second without being thrown across the cockpit. 
After that experience, I decided that I would never voluntarily take a boat with that kind of shape to sea again. I'll stick with a boat that cuts the water rather than pounds against it. FWIW.


----------



## PCP

knothead;1025165... said:


> After that experience, I decided that I would never voluntarily take a boat with that kind of shape to sea again. I'll stick with a boat that cuts the water rather than pounds against it. FWIW.


There are two ways of looking at it that has also to do with the way the boat is sailed: Pound into the water versus immersed in the water or flying over the water versus digging in the water.

Regarding pounding, not dismissing your experience, Mark circumnavigated with a Benetau Oceanis that has a hull similar to the one of that Bavaria and he did not found pounding a problem. Of course he had done that with a 40ft boat and bigger boats are more comfortable in what regards sea motion.

Personally I agree with you if we are talking into going against the wind, close to the wind in nasty weather. A more sportier boat like a Dehler 36, narrower and with finer entries would do a lot better. That was not by accident that after the Bavaria I looked for a boat with a better performance and more comfortable upwind. But anyway most voyages are made on the trade winds with downwind sailing.

Do you got a lot of upwind sailing on that Transat?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chucklesR

I find it very odd that you have Endeavor's as 'use with caution' and Pearson's as 'premium' blue water. 

Been on both (P 365 and E 42 CC), you've got it backward. 

Then again, you are calling Morgan's 'premium' and Irwin's 'use with caution', sort of throws the entire accuracy of the list out the window.

Smack, you've got to incorporate size and year built - otherwise the whole idea of quantifying and qualifying boats as BW is frankly BS.


----------



## MarioG

I can't speak for all boats but after the beating we took in a gale storm in our Chrysler 26 and what it went thru all night I wouldn't be affaid to sail it off shore. I also know that someone sailed a Chrysler 22 from San diego to Hawaii and back without major upgrades I vote to take Chrysler of the never lose site of land list.


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, you know that all those bow chicks on the buccaneer are in thier sixties and seventies today. Never realized you went for the older, more mature boat bunny&#8230; I know that Smack's list is a beauty contest of sorts and Catalina is universally hated by the East Coast elite, but here is a shot of yours truly surfing down a ten footer, off shore and out of sight from land. Love to see photos of similar action from the other contributors of this thread - especially ones who say I can't do what is depicted in the picture.


----------



## PCP

Big deal My 15 year's old daughter is doing that.


----------



## GeorgeB

Two things. That boat is pretty hard over on it's ear. Not impressed with with the big one footers your are plowing through. If that is the example of your performance cruiser, I'm not impressed. Try again.


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> Two things. That boat is pretty hard over on it's ear. Not impressed with with the big one footers your are plowing through. If that is the example of your performance cruiser, I'm not impressed. Try again.


 on its ear?



well know it is on the other ear

The boat is surfing waves with some lateral component and that introduces a controllable rolling movement. That is not a performance boat and it is doing 9/10K. On your picture the wake of the boat is pretty small. What is the speed?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

Paulo, if you hadn’t noticed, we are carrying a string of crab pots on the boat. Yes, we had a reef tucked in. Kind of hate to lose a couple hundred dollars of crabbing gear just for a photo op. We are all proud of our kids. I have some photos at home of a four and five year old doing the same thing.


----------



## smackdaddy

chucklesR said:


> I find it very odd that you have Endeavor's as 'use with caution' and Pearson's as 'premium' blue water.
> 
> Been on both (P 365 and E 42 CC), you've got it backward.
> 
> Then again, you are calling Morgan's 'premium' and Irwin's 'use with caution', sort of throws the entire accuracy of the list out the window.
> 
> Smack, you've got to incorporate size and year built - otherwise the whole idea of quantifying and qualifying boats as BW is frankly BS.


A couple of things...

1. This is not really "my" list. It's gleaned from the general discussions I've seen on the various forums for these boats.
2. I honestly don't think it has to be as complicated as size/year/etc. This is a very general list of brands broken into categories that I've seen them placed in over the years by such discussions.

For example, I too have sailed a P365 quite a bit actually. And it sure seems like a very solid boat that could handle pretty much anything. And they've been held out as great, tough boats in discussions. And though I've never sailed the E42 - I've seen people talk about the build quality of Endeavors (in general) as on par with Gulfstars, etc. But I don't recall ever seeing them held out as "premium production boats".

Maybe it would make more sense to move the Pearson to that non-premium category?


----------



## Group9

PCP said:


> on its ear?
> 
> 
> 
> well know it is on the other ear
> 
> The boat is surfing waves with some lateral component and that introduces a controllable rolling movement. That is not a performance boat and it is doing 9/10K. On your picture the wake of the boat is pretty small. What is the speed?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


It's hard to take 2D pictures that show waves true size. Two years ago, we were sailing across the toungue of the ocean, from Chub Cay to Nassau and were in some true 15 foot seas, with an occassional 20 foot roller. They crests were really far apart and it was actually a very pleasant sail (and I thought it was fun). The only time I was concerned was entering the west entrance to Nassau with the seas breaking across the entrance. My wife must have taken a hundred pictures of the waves to show people. When we printed them out, they looked like they were about three feet tall. My mother-in-law looked at them and said, I've seen bigger waves than that on the sound.


----------



## chucklesR

Smacky, 
Take ownership dude, you typed it, it's yours 
I've eyeballed Gulfstars, Pearsons, Endeavors, and of course Irwins in my whirlwind tour of mid 80's cruisers before settling on my Irwin as the apex of the price/boat curve (that week, of the samples I saw). 

In my un-informed, un-trained, but well read and very observant mind all of this 'class' of boats they generally are built to the same scantlings, thickness of hull, backing plates - all that stuff.
Year of build matters because all of the yards ran into money troubles and tried to cut corners at one point or another. None of them shut down production at the height of quality. 
My major difference:
The gulfstar and the pearsons both used particle board for the furniture - and open edged particle board at that. 
At the boat show last week I saw IP's with deck pulls in the sole - open edged plywood (not trimmed with teak). Granted you can't see it until you pull the access up. 
My Irwin has even those edges trimmed in. 
If you go there, where else is it fugly?


----------



## smackdaddy

chucklesR said:


> Smacky,
> Take ownership dude, you typed it, it's yours
> I've eyeballed Gulfstars, Pearsons, Endeavors, and of course Irwins in my whirlwind tour of mid 80's cruisers before settling on my Irwin as the apex of the price/boat curve (that week, of the samples I saw).
> 
> In my un-informed, un-trained, but well read and very observant mind all of this 'class' of boats they generally are built to the same scantlings, thickness of hull, backing plates - all that stuff.
> Year of build matters because all of the yards ran into money troubles and tried to cut corners at one point or another. None of them shut down production at the height of quality.
> My major difference:
> The gulfstar and the pearsons both used particle board for the furniture - and open edged particle board at that.
> At the boat show last week I saw IP's with deck pulls in the sole - open edged plywood (not trimmed with teak). Granted you can't see it until you pull the access up.
> My Irwin has even those edges trimmed in.
> *If you go there, where else is it fugly?*


Good point. Now that I own my pimpin' Hunter 40, I'm crawling through every nook and cranny to see what's what. Holy crap do I have a lot to learn about this yacht! But, honestly, thus far it seems to be very well put together in terms of the items you list above.

The only truly crap item I've come across thus far are the counter tops for the shelves in the cabins. Particle board - which has absorbed moisture from condensation on the sidewalls with predictable results. That said, I LOVE the aft cabin. The boys and I just spend the weekend on her and it was seriously awesome! I'm all about the centerline queen.

Yes, we're in love...but I'm in a panic trying to learn everything I can about diesel generators and engines, batteries and electrical components, and instruments.

Sigh.

I'll do a write up soon about "How We Got to Hunter" - detailing everything I read/heard on forums about what to look for in a "real boat" - and why I ignored a lot of it.


----------



## Don L

Pretty late, but welcome to the dark side Smack


----------



## benesailor

> I'll do a write up soon about "How We Got to Hunter" - detailing everything I read/heard on forums about what to look for in a "real boat" - and why I ignored a lot of it.


smackdaddy

I look forward to your story on your pick and why a Hunter.

I have conversations in my marina all the time about why i have Beneteau VS a older "is better" vintage sailboat. I'm a firm believer that french boats are better engineered and better built than most boats of similar vintage. Once people get over the anti-french mentality and i show them the engineering principles involved VS some of the older ideas they start to grasp some things are truly better. The french builders have years and years of experience building boats and the money at there disposal for research.

I'm not saying that the Beneteau is a "best built" voyager. I can think of many newer boats that are better built. (In other countries as well) I am curious though how you came to the conclusion to by a Hunter besides price. 
I have gone over the new Hunter 40 extensively and have found it to be years behind the rest of the production boats currently being fielded. (engineering wise) That being said i don't know how yours was built; good or bad. 
I think most production boats are built fine for their intended use. I don't think i would want to cross an Ocean in a new Hunter.

I would love to read some HONEST opinions from the designer/architects of the sailboat world. I've read many of Bob Perry's articles/reviews of older boats; these are more honest than most. Have you ever noticed that boat reviews are just gushing about a new boat? They never really address all the issues with some of the new boats. I guess when the boat ads and charter companies are paying your bills your not really going to pi$$ on their wheaties.


----------



## Faster

benesailor said:


> .....Have you ever noticed that boat reviews are just gushing about a new boat? They never really address all the issues with some of the new boats. I guess when the boat ads and charter companies are paying your bills your not really going to pi$$ on their wheaties.


Too true.. the dealers who provided the boats get to proof the articles.. negatives are weeded out, even if they aren't serious, or even if they are the writers' opinion/preference.

That's the nice thing about Practical Sailor, no advertisers' pressures.

By the same token most owners' reviews such as those posted here on SN are rarely truly objective.. I think we all rationalize or ignore things about our own boats that we know aren't perfect and well thought out, at least as long as we still own her.


----------



## benesailor

Faster,

well said, ditto


----------



## smackdaddy

bene, here is the link to my write-up on this subject:

TSBY_13_02 : BFSshop.com, is the official home of BFS Gear for Big Freakin Sails!

You'll notice I was very close to buying a mid '80s Bene First 375...but chose the '89 H40 in the end. I'm really happy with the choice.

HOWEVER, if we're talking NEW boats, NO WAY would I buy a Hunter these days. They look seriously goofy, IMUSO.










I would buy a Bene First or Oceanis in the 40-45 range. These new Benes are absolutely awesome boats and look great.



















But, like I said, for the '80s boats, I think I got a great boat in the H40...fast, super comfy, easy to sail, very solid.

Let me know what you think.


----------



## ctl411

Nice write up on your choice of boat. We sold our Hunter 37 last fall and bought a Gulfstar 50 ketch. The sail on the ketch you saw is called a mule sail.


----------



## Don L

benesailor said:


> I look forward to your story on your pick and why a Hunter.


After this part I found the rest of your post just a passive lot of uke designed to praise yourself for you boat choice while insulting others


----------



## Faster

Don0190 said:


> After this part I found the rest of your post just a passive lot of uke designed to praise yourself for you boat choice while insulting others


Jeez, Don... a bit harsh, I'd say.....


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> After this part I found the rest of your post just a passive lot of uke designed to praise yourself for you boat choice while insulting others


Hey, I do a lot of that too. It's fun! (In fact, I just did it above.)

Do you know how difficult it is to be a "Superior Hunter Owner" in today's sailing forums? I LOVE looking down my nose at (and mooning) Wally owners as I pass them. Fools.


----------



## smackdaddy

ctl411 said:


> Nice write up on your choice of boat. We sold our Hunter 37 last fall and bought a Gulfstar 50 ketch. The sail on the ketch you saw is called a mule sail.


Was the docking on your 50 (from the 37) as insane as it was for me on our 40 (from a 27)? Good lord them's big boats!


----------



## ctl411

The 37 had a two blade folder not much reverse and walked to port. I thought the 3 blade fixed on the 50 would be better but getting 35000 moving takes time. It also goes to starboard with the lefthand prop. 
I'm lucky that my slip is a straight in end slip any crosswind and the bow takes off going out. Coming in is easy, keep the speed up to stay lined up hit the brakes and she walks over to the dock. Going out if there is a crosswind I use a spring line to hold her in place with forward gear. After all other lines are clear I shift to neutral and get some "spring" to help get her moving. Then a big hand full of throttle then back off will get me clear. If the wind is on the bow or aft no problem on the bow I will just walk her out. I haven't officially soloed yet but took a couple friends out and just had them stand by. So I can do it but I have to hustle lol.
I still miss my 37c but the wife and kids love the G50. I'm slowly coming around, needs more sail that's why I knew what the "mule" sail was. Talked to Bob P.and my sailmaker about it and will probably be my 
next sail.
Do you miss the quicker more spirited ride of the smaller boat?


----------



## smackdaddy

ctl411 said:


> Do you miss the quicker more spirited ride of the smaller boat?


Honestly, no. I really like the speed and smoothness of the H40. Her sails are freakin' HUGE! She's very responsive - and way easier to sail than the tiller'd C27.

Of course, I've only had her out in 15-20 knots max in Galveston Bay. We'll see how she does in 25-30...but I'm confident in her.


----------



## benesailor

smackd love the winch layout on your h40. The interior looks nice as well. Looks fast. When i move your way we'll have to do a head to head.  Yours a totally different look than the new ones. (i read your blog after posting last time.) I believe you made a good choice. 
If i had to pick a new production boat i think i would go with a new Jeanneau 41DS. But, if i have my way and i bail on my present boat i'd like a Southerly 42RST.
Southerly 42RST - Gallery 
Aaahhh....the smell of wood.

My buddy wants a gulfstar; i told him to look at this boat instead .......Wauquiez Centurion 42
1986 Wauquiez Centurion 42 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

And hmm...
Jonathan Green tackled the Atlantic -- single-handed

Jonathan Green sailing Jeroboam, his Oceanis 351, not only completed the OSTAR, the Original Single-handed Trans-Atlantic Race, but became the official 2013 IRC Winner Overall of this most prestigious race.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now that Southerly is a sweet looking ride. Especially when you start getting over 50'. Yowza! And I agree with you, I'd WAY rather have a Wauquiez than a GS.

Also, I like Jenneau, definitely. I just prefer the less stark interior of the Benes.

These boats can go anywhere as long as you don't sail them stupid.

Now come on down and let's race!

(PS - As for Hunters being able to handle passage-making - _Sequitur_ made a believer out of me.)


----------



## jzk

smackdaddy said:


> Hey, I do a lot of that too. It's fun! (In fact, I just did it above.)
> 
> Do you know how difficult it is to be a "Superior Hunter Owner" in today's sailing forums? I LOVE looking down my nose at (and mooning) Wally owners as I pass them. Fools.


Yes, those Hunter and Morris owners can really be a bunch of snobs.


----------



## jzk

smackdaddy said:


> These boats can go anywhere as long as you don't sail them stupid.


What is there about a Hunter that as long as you don't sail them "stupid," you will be ok vs. a more traditional offshore boat?


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> What is there about a Hunter that as long as you don't sail them "stupid," you will be ok vs. a more traditional offshore boat?


I think virtually any modern production boat (Hunter just being one brand) can be sailed around the world without problem as long as it is sailed prudently and well. There's plenty of evidence that this is the case...just on SN alone.

The problem is the old-school thinking (which doesn't seem to be as widespread as it used to be) that it's stupid to even _try_ to do so unless you are in a "traditional offshore boat".


----------



## jzk

smackdaddy said:


> I think virtually any modern production boat (Hunter just being one brand) can be sailed around the world without problem as long as it is sailed prudently and well. There's plenty of evidence that this is the case...just on SN alone.
> 
> The problem is the old-school thinking (which doesn't seem to be as widespread as it used to be) that it's stupid to even _try_ to do so unless you are in a "traditional offshore boat".


I agree with you, sort of. I suspect that if you took your hunter, closed it up, and just let it bob around in the middle of the Atlantic, you could come back a month later and it would be fine.

But what do you mean by "sailed prudently" that would be required on a modern production boat that wouldn't be required on a traditional offshore vessel?

As far as offshore vessels go, there are differences. People like Jimmy Cornell will argue that he would never go offshore without a protected rudder.

THere are also a host of things like floorboards that don't latch, etc.


----------



## Don L

How long does a builder and a boat "style" have to be around till it is "traditional" design?


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> I agree with you, sort of. I suspect that if you took your hunter, closed it up, and just let it bob around in the middle of the Atlantic, you could come back a month later and it would be fine.
> 
> But what do you mean by "sailed prudently" that would be required on a modern production boat that wouldn't be required on a traditional offshore vessel?
> 
> As far as offshore vessels go, there are differences. People like Jimmy Cornell will argue that he would never go offshore without a protected rudder.
> 
> THere are also a host of things like floorboards that don't latch, etc.


I think you're right about the boat being fine if it was simply closed up and just bobbed around in the Atlantic. There are plenty of stories of just that - boats being found floating months or even years after a rescue (or worse, MOB).

What I mean by "sailed prudently" is basically this:

1. Make sure your boat is dry and secure, then test it with off-shore shakedowns, prior to heading out . I've seen several stories now where wet below-decks, or stuff flying around have caused the crew to crater or fully pack it in and call for rescue. The floorboards you mention is a great example. The Yachting Monthly Crash Boat Youtube series is fantastic for getting a sense of what needs to be considered. Simply addressing leaking hatches, or chainplates, or cockpit drainage, or seacock hose clamps, proper safety equipment, proper tools, etc. and like is a very straightforward way to ensure a safe, dry passage. It's not that hard.

2. Carefully choose your weather windows. Sure, there are stretches which will go far beyond a reliable immediate forecast. But weather information is so good these days that if you pay attention to it, you can avoid most all the nasty stuff (see Hal Roth).

3. Be conservative in your decision-making. Actually one of the best examples of this was the Bumfuzzles. Their RTW blog is replete with examples of them deciding to stay put in an area for weeks on end until the conditions were mellow. This worked very well for their level of (in)experience at the time. But it's the epitome of not sailing to a schedule. You go when things are comfortable.

4. Sail the boat you have. Again, the Bumfuzzles are a good example of this. On their cat, they typically had very little sail flying. They probably over-relied on their engines because of this during their run (I'd rather sail), but they never got into serious trouble either. So it's hard to argue that approach. The point here is that your boat will be able to do certain things very well - and other things not so well. For example, if your boat pounds and you get caught in a blow with your destination upwind - why not drop a JSD and hangout for a day or two instead of relentlessly beating into it and breaking stuff? There's rarely a need to push the boat that hard (see Hal Roth).

Beyond that, everyone has their own idea of what's necessary to go off-shore. And with all due respect to Jimmy C - there are lots and lots of boats out there that successfully traverse the world's oceans with wildly unprotected, yet very strong and capable rudders.

So that's basically what I mean.


----------



## jzk

Again, I tend to agree with you. We have a 2000 First 47.7, and it has been through some pretty rough stuff and she takes it with ease. We were even in the Mac Storm.

However, all of those things suggestions that you made apply to any boat.

Can you inspect the chainplates on your Hunter? I remember this 80s Hunter 34 that had steel chainplates bonded in the hull that you couldn't even inspect. Chainplates rust, rig goes down. Ouch. Anyone with a Hunter 34 better get to inspecting their chainplates.



smackdaddy said:


> I think you're right about the boat being fine if it was simply closed up and just bobbed around in the Atlantic. There are plenty of stories of just that - boats being found floating months or even years after a rescue (or worse, MOB).
> 
> What I mean by "sailed prudently" is basically this:
> 
> 1. Make sure your boat is dry and secure, then test it with off-shore shakedowns, prior to heading out . I've seen several stories now where wet below-decks, or stuff flying around have caused the crew to crater or fully pack it in and call for rescue. The floorboards you mention is a great example. The Yachting Monthly Crash Boat Youtube series is fantastic for getting a sense of what needs to be considered. Simply addressing leaking hatches, or chainplates, or cockpit drainage, or seacock hose clamps, proper safety equipment, proper tools, etc. and like is a very straightforward way to ensure a safe, dry passage. It's not that hard.
> 
> 2. Carefully choose your weather windows. Sure, there are stretches which will go far beyond a reliable immediate forecast. But weather information is so good these days that if you pay attention to it, you can avoid most all the nasty stuff (see Hal Roth).
> 
> 3. Be conservative in your decision-making. Actually one of the best examples of this was the Bumfuzzles. Their RTW blog is replete with examples of them deciding to stay put in an area for weeks on end until the conditions were mellow. This worked very well for their level of (in)experience at the time. But it's the epitome of not sailing to a schedule. You go when things are comfortable.
> 
> 4. Sail the boat you have. Again, the Bumfuzzles are a good example of this. On their cat, they typically had very little sail flying. They probably over-relied on their engines because of this during their run (I'd rather sail), but they never got into serious trouble either. So it's hard to argue that approach. The point here is that your boat will be able to do certain things very well - and other things not so well. For example, if your boat pounds and you get caught in a blow with your destination upwind - why not drop a JSD and hangout for a day or two instead of relentlessly beating into it and breaking stuff? There's rarely a need to push the boat that hard (see Hal Roth).
> 
> Beyond that, everyone has their own idea of what's necessary to go off-shore. And with all due respect to Jimmy C - there are lots and lots of boats out there that successfully traverse the world's oceans with wildly unprotected, yet very strong and capable rudders.
> 
> So that's basically what I mean.


----------



## jorgenl

I think Jimmy C is building a new boat and the rudder does not appear to be skeg hung?


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> Again, I tend to agree with you. We have a 2000 First 47.7, and it has been through some pretty rough stuff and she takes it with ease. We were even in the Mac Storm.
> 
> However, all of those things suggestions that you made apply to any boat.
> 
> Can you inspect the chainplates on your Hunter? I remember this 80s Hunter 34 that had steel chainplates bonded in the hull that you couldn't even inspect. Chainplates rust, rig goes down. Ouch. Anyone with a Hunter 34 better get to inspecting their chainplates.


You were in that Mac storm? The one with the ~100 K burst that took out _Wingnuts_? Holy crap. That thing was nasty. I'd like to hear more about how you guys dealt with it.

You're absolutely right that all these things apply to any boat. And that's kind of my point. The argument that _only_ "traditional 'blue water' boats" belong in blue water is bogus as long as you are prudent and don't sail stupid.

Following that line of logic on out, I believe that even in the rare extreme conditions that finally allow that trad-bw boat to show its perceived merits, you'll likely be just as sick, wet and nervous as you would be on any production boat, or just as calm as you would be on an off-shore tank (e.g. - _Sequitur_ - a Hunter 49 that cruised through an F-10/11 off Cape Horn). It's kind of up to you.


----------



## jzk

We were something like 15 miles north of them when we started hearing the distress calls two missing, etc. We got caught with our full main up and not an easy solution to drop it, so we rode it out. We were hitting 12.6 under main alone, and not surfing down any waves as there were none.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk now Free


----------



## benesailor

> How long does a builder and a boat "style" have to be around till it is "traditional" design?


Good point. What are people going to be sailing in 20 years?


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> We were something like 15 miles north of them when we started hearing the distress calls two missing, etc. We got caught with our full main up and not an easy solution to drop it, so we rode it out. We were hitting 12.6 under main alone, and not surfing down any waves as there were none.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk now Free


That was some scary stuff. I remember seeing a video on YouTube of some guys getting really laid over (lots of lightning and howling wind). I'm glad you guys came out of it okay.

Go the Production Boats!


----------



## DJR351

jorgenl said:


> I think Jimmy C is building a new boat and the rudder does not appear to be skeg hung?


If you are talking about Aventura IV (an Exploration 45), she is a shallow draft design with twin rudders and a centre board, and (OMG!) a bow thruster...


----------



## mad_machine

shallow draft and a thruster? Planning on spinning her like a top?


----------



## jzk

Regarding the Mac Storm. Well I must say, it was probably the scariest sailing experience that I have had. And, it wasn't just one thing. Big winds? That happens often on lake Michigan. You get used to it. The other 2 big ones I have experienced was cruising, and I got the sails down in plenty of time. Then you just ride it out and be sure not to hit anything. These types of storms are not uncommon on Lake Michigan, but this was a pretty severe one. It seems as all hell is breaking loose, but you just ride it out. No problem.

It was probably the lightning that made it so scary. It was not my watch, but I was summoned on deck. I ran up in my bare feet without even realizing it. 5 hours later after standing on the teak grate behind the helm, I noticed that my feet hurt like crazy.

We just thought it was going to rain. We really had no idea that this kind of weather was approaching. We started to see a bunch of lightning, and the wind picked up to 28 knots or so. That is kind of pushing it with the spinnaker we were flying. After a bit of that, we dropped the chute and unrolled the genoa. We were moving along pretty good. 

There were two mistakes we made which were just bad seamanship. First, when we left the dock, the roller furler would not roll all the way up, but rather had a little corner out. We didn't think much of it, and left it. A crew member had rerun the genoa sheets and didn't have enough roller furling line on the drum. The second was that we took our fortress anchor off of the bow roller and put it down below. It was “accessible” but not really.

We were sailing along pretty good with the genoa and main down wind. The lighting was everywhere. There were times when it seemed like there was more lightning than not. Every once in a while it would hit pretty close to us, and that got kind of disconcerting after awhile. The flashing was like some kind of torture continually ruining your night vision. And you never knew when another strike was just going to crash right next to us, or hit us for that matter. This went on for hours, and it was hard to be on top of your game for so long.

When the wind hit us hard, there was zero visibility and it was difficult to talk to the person next to you. My whole mission was basically to keep the boat on the proper heading so that we didn't run up on an island or the coast of Michigan. It was very difficult to keep the boat pointed at a certain heading as all I could see was white, so there was no horizon. I just had the compass with little else as a reference, and we were hauling pretty good. There were times in the worst of it that the headstay started oscillating violently. That little corner of genoa still out wasn't helping things. I didn't do anything about it because we were just trying to “hold on.” I should have tightened up a jib sheet to stop the oscillating, but I didn't think of it, and it would be almost impossible to communicate with the crew. Or I could have tightened the backstay. I had one crew next to me telling me the desired heading, and we had to really shout just to communicate. The wind was blowing lots of rain horizontally. I saw consistent winds in the high 40 knots. When the worst of it was blowing, it was all I could do to keep her on track, so looking at the wind speed did not occur to me. Nor did it occur to me to check the graphs of the wind speeds later that would be on the Nexus instruments. I was more thinking that I didn't want to be there. I mean, I am not afraid of much as it relates to sailing, storms and weather, but the lack of visibility combined with the lightning and just trying not to hit anything wore on me, I must admit. We were just going so fast almost blindfolded. 

It also occurred to me that the anchor was not on the bow roller. Dragging it up from where we had it did not seem very convenient, and I will not be doing that again.

We came pretty close to some other boats which is pretty scary because you only see them at the last minute. I heard there were several collisions and some boats ran up on the beach. Some dismastings, and I remember Painkiller's blown main. 

I remember seeing 12.6 on the speedo. We were going down wind, but not dead down wind with the main pretty much all the way out spilling lots of wind. I thought about dropping the main, but with the ruckus going the way it was, I really didn't want to be sending the crew anywhere. Sure, we can drop it from the cockpit, but then what? Even though we have a dutchman, it would be a cluster. If I had the anchor available, I could have dropped the main, and then just dropped the anchor and waited it out. 

This went on for 5 or so hours to the best of my recollection. I noticed that my feet were killing me and I saw that I had on no shoes and was standing on the teak grate. There were 2 or 3 blasts of extreme wind. I was 100% wet. I couldn't have my foul weather cap on because I couldn't see. I just cupped over where I was looking with my hand. The GPS chart at the helm required seriously leaning down and looking closely that if I did that I lost track of keeping the boat on the right heading. An excellent crew member just kept next to me relaying the heading from the guys down below so I could dispense with dealing with that, but the desire to know “where I am” is overwhelming. 

I remember one of the lightning strikes where one crew member just grabbed onto my brother in a bear hug. 

I recall the constant radio transmissions about wingnuts with the entire crew in the water and 2 missing. That was over and over and over again and made the situation the real deal. This was serious.

I kept on task, kept calm, but had this serious feeling deep down that I wished I was anywhere but there. That has not happened all that often. Usually I am looking for the next monster wave to surf down having the time of my life no matter the weather. 

At the end of the day, no damage and everything was fine. Even when things were settled down, we kept hearing the transmissions. “2 missing.”


----------



## blt2ski

I've noticed a FEW.....errrrr a lot of the booke writers of the past that say you need a "such and such" style type of boat, and one does not want a "yadda yadda" boat, are now buying and using boats of the "yadda yadda" type! Ie fin keel, non skeg attached rudders etc. I would swag that those writers now realize that the "yadda yadda" types are not as bad as one thought. OR that the newer versions vs some of the older funked up IOR styles are actually sailing on par with full keel boats etc. 

With ALL types of hull shapes, one may find "GOOD" models that sail well no matter where or what conditions you are in. Then one will find "BAD" designs that will not sail, hold together etc, not matter what conditions you are in. My step dad built a Bill Garden designed boat. Not sure if it is how it was built, or the design itself, But this full keeled SOB of a boat is a very rotten sailing, does not turn etc style boat. I could not imaging trying to sail this thing anywhere. 

Marty


----------



## AlaskaMC

Don0190 said:


> How long does a builder and a boat "style" have to be around till it is "traditional" design?


I believe the Valiant was considered a radical design when it came out. So that would be about 40 years or so between radical new design and pure legend. Although I guess it didn't really take that long.


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> Regarding the Mac Storm. Well I must say, it was probably the scariest sailing experience that I have had. And, it wasn't just one thing. Big winds? That happens often on lake Michigan. You get used to it. The other 2 big ones I have experienced was cruising, and I got the sails down in plenty of time. Then you just ride it out and be sure not to hit anything. These types of storms are not uncommon on Lake Michigan, but this was a pretty severe one. It seems as all hell is breaking loose, but you just ride it out. No problem.
> 
> It was probably the lightning that made it so scary. It was not my watch, but I was summoned on deck. I ran up in my bare feet without even realizing it. 5 hours later after standing on the teak grate behind the helm, I noticed that my feet hurt like crazy.
> 
> We just thought it was going to rain. We really had no idea that this kind of weather was approaching. We started to see a bunch of lightning, and the wind picked up to 28 knots or so. That is kind of pushing it with the spinnaker we were flying. After a bit of that, we dropped the chute and unrolled the genoa. We were moving along pretty good.
> 
> There were two mistakes we made which were just bad seamanship. First, when we left the dock, the roller furler would not roll all the way up, but rather had a little corner out. We didn't think much of it, and left it. A crew member had rerun the genoa sheets and didn't have enough roller furling line on the drum. The second was that we took our fortress anchor off of the bow roller and put it down below. It was "accessible" but not really.
> 
> We were sailing along pretty good with the genoa and main down wind. The lighting was everywhere. There were times when it seemed like there was more lightning than not. Every once in a while it would hit pretty close to us, and that got kind of disconcerting after awhile. The flashing was like some kind of torture continually ruining your night vision. And you never knew when another strike was just going to crash right next to us, or hit us for that matter. This went on for hours, and it was hard to be on top of your game for so long.
> 
> When the wind hit us hard, there was zero visibility and it was difficult to talk to the person next to you. My whole mission was basically to keep the boat on the proper heading so that we didn't run up on an island or the coast of Michigan. It was very difficult to keep the boat pointed at a certain heading as all I could see was white, so there was no horizon. I just had the compass with little else as a reference, and we were hauling pretty good. There were times in the worst of it that the headstay started oscillating violently. That little corner of genoa still out wasn't helping things. I didn't do anything about it because we were just trying to "hold on." I should have tightened up a jib sheet to stop the oscillating, but I didn't think of it, and it would be almost impossible to communicate with the crew. Or I could have tightened the backstay. I had one crew next to me telling me the desired heading, and we had to really shout just to communicate. The wind was blowing lots of rain horizontally. I saw consistent winds in the high 40 knots. When the worst of it was blowing, it was all I could do to keep her on track, so looking at the wind speed did not occur to me. Nor did it occur to me to check the graphs of the wind speeds later that would be on the Nexus instruments. I was more thinking that I didn't want to be there. I mean, I am not afraid of much as it relates to sailing, storms and weather, but the lack of visibility combined with the lightning and just trying not to hit anything wore on me, I must admit. We were just going so fast almost blindfolded.
> 
> It also occurred to me that the anchor was not on the bow roller. Dragging it up from where we had it did not seem very convenient, and I will not be doing that again.
> 
> We came pretty close to some other boats which is pretty scary because you only see them at the last minute. I heard there were several collisions and some boats ran up on the beach. Some dismastings, and I remember Painkiller's blown main.
> 
> I remember seeing 12.6 on the speedo. We were going down wind, but not dead down wind with the main pretty much all the way out spilling lots of wind. I thought about dropping the main, but with the ruckus going the way it was, I really didn't want to be sending the crew anywhere. Sure, we can drop it from the cockpit, but then what? Even though we have a dutchman, it would be a cluster. If I had the anchor available, I could have dropped the main, and then just dropped the anchor and waited it out.
> 
> This went on for 5 or so hours to the best of my recollection. I noticed that my feet were killing me and I saw that I had on no shoes and was standing on the teak grate. There were 2 or 3 blasts of extreme wind. I was 100% wet. I couldn't have my foul weather cap on because I couldn't see. I just cupped over where I was looking with my hand. The GPS chart at the helm required seriously leaning down and looking closely that if I did that I lost track of keeping the boat on the right heading. An excellent crew member just kept next to me relaying the heading from the guys down below so I could dispense with dealing with that, but the desire to know "where I am" is overwhelming.
> 
> I remember one of the lightning strikes where one crew member just grabbed onto my brother in a bear hug.
> 
> I recall the constant radio transmissions about wingnuts with the entire crew in the water and 2 missing. That was over and over and over again and made the situation the real deal. This was serious.
> 
> I kept on task, kept calm, but had this serious feeling deep down that I wished I was anywhere but there. That has not happened all that often. Usually I am looking for the next monster wave to surf down having the time of my life no matter the weather.
> 
> At the end of the day, no damage and everything was fine. Even when things were settled down, we kept hearing the transmissions. "2 missing."


Thanks for the write-up jz. That sounds pretty sobering. Glad you guys came out okay.


----------



## bobperry

I don't think that new Hunter looks so bad. It's not my style but I don't find it ugly.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> I don't think that new Hunter looks so bad. It's not my style but I don't find it ugly.


I guess to me it looks way too much like a Mac26 in that cabin top. I definitely prefer the sleeker look of the Bene (and my own H40 of course).


----------



## Don L

It is not ALL new Hunters, it is on certain models.

Besides when people say they don't like something on the "new" models they need to say what they mean by new.

My current boat is newer than my last boat, it is only 12 years old.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> It is not ALL new Hunters, it is on certain models.
> 
> Besides when people say they don't like something on the "new" models they need to say what they mean by new.
> 
> My current boat is newer than my last boat, it is only 12 years old.


That's true. But that's only about subjective tastes - so none of that really matters in the context of this thread regarding what production boats "can and can't" do.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> so none of that really matters in the context of this thread regarding what production boats "can and can't" do.


They can do almost anything a non-stupid owner would chose to do on them. They can do 100% of what a stupid owner would/will do, but don't expect the boat to allow you to keep doing it.

Regardless of which owner, the boat is almost certainly going to still be going when 99% of owners are have long been crying for them mommy because in the end they fell into the stupid end of the owner world.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Regardless of which owner, the boat is almost certainly going to still be going when 99% of owners are have long been crying for them mommy...


This is EXACTLY right.

And actually, this puts a much more interesting spin on this thread. The discussion always centers around how "tough" the "blue water boat" is compared to a production boat.

*The REAL question is this: Are YOU tougher than a production boat?*

I would wager that 98% of the dudes discussing the bluewater thing have no idea of the answer to this question because they've never even been close to that edge (I'm one of them). The idea of the "bluewater boat" just gives them a false sense of comfort in that mental exercise.


----------



## smackdaddy

So on this whole "motion comfort" thing - I'm gonna have to call a little BS. On our recent 150-mile offshore delivery...shown here:

The Smackboys' Adventures : 150-Mile Offshore

...we were on a very nicely maintained Pearson 365 Ketch. Our course was ENE at 6-7knots, and the conditions were sporty but not bad (as you can see in the video):

15-20 knots SSE
6'-8' seas with the occasional 12'er rolling through (a bit more south than the wind)
Tight, choppy windwaves atop the swells
Clear and cool

Now I think many would consider the Pearson 365 a fairly respectable "bluewater boat" (some might not and I get that)...one that should offer a fair amount of "motion comfort" with its cutaway keel, skeg-hung rudder, deepish hull, etc. Also, this is my 4th 100+ mile off-shore on this boat, two of them races, so I'm pretty familiar with it.

Well, I puked...for the first time ever.

And the boat did some serious splashing at the bow (you can see it in the video) - some might call it "pounding". She also did a hell of a lot of creaking and groaning in that seaway. And, I want to be clear, she's a great boat.

Now, I'll revisit this issue when we get our Hunter out there this spring...but, my working theory right now is that when we compare the "production" boat to the "bluewater" boat - everything we're comparing is _extremely_ relative and far more subtle than most want to acknowledge.

It doesn't matter what boat you're in - if the conditions are right, you're gonna puke. And eventually, you'll get over it. "Motion comfort", at least as framed in these debates, is a very squishy concept.


----------



## jzk

Nice video - really nice. Great experience with the kids. Let me ask you this. Can you read in the V-Birth in conditions like that? That, I find, is the big test as to whether someone will get sea sick.

I have never gotten sea sick myself. However, I have noticed some changes in the last couple of years. A few times if I go on the tilt-a-whirl too many times in a row, I will start to feel really sick and weird. That has never happened before. On the boat, there have been a couple of times that long, slow waves seem to start making me feel strange. But not the rough stuff - yet. We just took the boat down to Crowleys to put her to bed for the winter in like 6-8 footers and it was easy as pie. Others came in with full foulies on acting like it was rough. Our boat seem to take it pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&ns=1&video_id=Q_WSihrtx78


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> ......
> It doesn't matter what boat you're in - if the conditions are *wrong*, you're gonna puke. And eventually, you'll get over it. "Motion comfort", at least as framed in these debates, is a very squishy concept.


.. fixed it for ya! 

Nice vid, smack.. what were the temps there this time of year? Looks pretty mild from up here in the PNW...


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk - these were the biggest swells I've been in to date. And we were beating into them. NO WAY I'd read in the v-berth! You saw that sprit bouncing around...you'd be tenderized up there far before you started puking. (PS - linky no worky).

Fast, the temps were in the mid '70s. Very nice ride.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> So on this whole "motion comfort" thing - I'm gonna have to call a little BS. On our recent 150-mile offshore delivery...shown here:
> ....
> It doesn't matter what boat you're in - if the conditions are right, you're gonna puke. And eventually, you'll get over it. "Motion comfort", at least as framed in these debates, is a very squishy concept.


I don't know ...maybe. I never puked in a boat. I am not a puke guy but unfortunately I know what make my wife and my kids (not kids anymore) Puke: it is when I am having fun

It is horrible to have a big grin and enjoying the ride and then have to make a sorrow face when I ask to my wife: are you better?

It is not fun also to take some sail and speed out and open the upwind course to give her a softer ride. That's life: we wave to compromise and that's a pity.

Now what are you saying about sea motion comfort? It is the motion of a sailboat when I am not having fun? Give me the fun and have the soft motion to yourself and to all Puke guys and girls

regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

I assume you're driving most of the time in those conditions? Like I said, this was the first time in about 600+ miles in this boat that I've puked. I don't think I would have puked on this one had I been driving. Driving makes a big difference - it's a lot easier to smile. And anyway, I only tossed a couple of times in the first hour or so and was fine after that. The boys had a much harder time.

I did LOVE the 30 knot squall we got hit with there at the end, though. THAT was some BFS'n! Waves blown flat, double reefed main and still doing over 7 knots, rain blowing sideways, yeah baby!


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I assume you're driving most of the time in those conditions? Like I said, this was the first time in about 600+ miles in this boat that I've puked. I don't think I would have puked on this one had I been driving. Driving makes a big difference - it's a lot easier to smile. And anyway, I only tossed a couple of times in the first hour or so and was fine after that. The boys had a much harder time.
> 
> I did LOVE the 30 knot squall we got hit with there at the end, though. THAT was some BFS'n! Waves blown flat, double reefed main and still doing over 7 knots, rain blowing sideways, yeah baby!


Yes, at the wheel, not because I needed too, but because I enjoy to be at the wheel when it is fun to be there. on autopilot I don't have problems either but you are right, given the right (or wrong) conditions I can get seasick.

The only time I felt starting to be seasick was 30 years ago on a 60ft heavy steel boat with a soft motion. A Belgian friend asked me and another friend to give him a help on the boat that he had charted to some "mad" British that wanted to take photos of a rare bird way offshore.

There was big waves but the sea was not particularly bad. Those guys had taken aboard a drum full of incredibly smelly oil fish, to through in the water and attracts the birds. I was cooking in the galley thinking how someone could eat with that smell when I started to fell seasick. I went up and asked to the other guy (a national sailing champion) to go down and finish the job because I was starting to be seasick. He made fun of me and went down...but 10m later was asking me to change for a bit...because he was felling seasick 

So you are right, there are conditions where even the ones that don't normally get seasick can get seasick.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ctl411

smackdaddy said:


> So on this whole "motion comfort" thing - I'm gonna have to call a little BS. On our recent 150-mile offshore delivery...shown here:
> 
> The Smackboys' Adventures : 150-Mile Offshore
> 
> ...we were on a very nicely maintained Pearson 365 Ketch. Our course was ENE at 6-7knots, and the conditions were sporty but not bad (as you can see in the video):
> 
> 15-20 knots SSE
> 6'-8' seas with the occasional 12'er rolling through (a bit more south than the wind)
> Tight, choppy windwaves atop the swells
> Clear and cool
> 
> Now I think many would consider the Pearson 365 a fairly respectable "bluewater boat" (some might not and I get that)...one that should offer a fair amount of "motion comfort" with its cutaway keel, skeg-hung rudder, deepish hull, etc. Also, this is my 4th 100+ mile off-shore on this boat, two of them races, so I'm pretty familiar with it.
> 
> Well, I puked...for the first time ever.
> 
> And the boat did some serious splashing at the bow (you can see it in the video) - some might call it "pounding". She also did a hell of a lot of creaking and groaning in that seaway. And, I want to be clear, she's a great boat.
> 
> Now, I'll revisit this issue when we get our Hunter out there this spring...but, my working theory right now is that when we compare the "production" boat to the "bluewater" boat - everything we're comparing is _extremely_ relative and far more subtle than most want to acknowledge.
> 
> It doesn't matter what boat you're in - if the conditions are right, you're gonna puke. And eventually, you'll get over it. "Motion comfort", at least as framed in these debates, is a very squishy concept.


Do you think you would have gotten sick quicker on a less "comfortable" boat?
I found my wife, kids and I like the slower motion better. Also having our kids on board adds to the uneasy feeling. We haven't gotten sick yet but the closest was when our kids got sick.

Don't totally discount the "comfort" yet. I have found it has its place when comparing similar sized boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

ctl411 said:


> Do you think you would have gotten sick quicker on a less "comfortable" boat?
> I found my wife, kids and I like the slower motion better. Also having our kids on board adds to the uneasy feeling. We haven't gotten sick yet but the closest was when our kids got sick.
> 
> Don't totally discount the "comfort" yet. I have found it has its place when comparing similar sized boats.


I don't mean to discount the argument - I'm just saying it's an issue of degrees. In other words, sickness will come on either boat if you're susceptible and the conditions are right. Then it simply becomes a question of:

1. Do you puke _2 times less_ on the older bluewater boat than on the newer production boat?

2. Does it take you _2 hours longer to start puking_ on the older bluewater boat than on the production boat?

So, I fully acknowledge that it's a factor. There is math involved. And I respect math.

But I certainly wouldn't want to sell my family on the notion that they'll be more "comfortable" (i.e. - not puke) on an older bluewater boat than they will be on our Hunter 40 in the same conditions. I just think the actual differences are marginal.

Again, I'll have to see when take our H40 out this spring.


----------



## ctl411

They might not puke on a higher comfort boat for the same conditions. Oh and I'm not talking old old crab crushers. I'm talking comparable boats and in my case Hunters. Hunter 37.5 vs Hunter 37c same size same builder totally different ride. But this is just one part of many things that should go into choosing a boat. I find the quicker motion wears me out faster but for short 4-6 hour day sails the quicker boats are more fun. It's all about how "you" are going to use the boat and your idea of comfort. Our new ride a old Gulf 50 is pretty lame for excitement. It takes bigger wave and more wind for the same rush. I've been playing around on a Laser to get my speed fix. 
Perfect boat sails like a dinghy on Friday afternoon then turns into a smooth riding cruiser when the family comes out to sail lol.


----------



## smackdaddy

Makes sense to me.


----------



## outbound

Problem is I think on most boats autopilot does almost all the steering. Only go off autopilot for a minute or two to check balance every hour or so. In weather hide under the hard dodger with the remote. Guess as I get older becoming a whimp.


----------



## Ajax_MD

smackdaddy said:


> I don't mean to discount the argument - I'm just saying it's an issue of degrees. In other words, sickness will come on either boat if you're susceptible and the conditions are right. Then it simply becomes a question of:
> 
> 1. Do you puke _2 times less_ on the older bluewater boat than on the newer production boat?
> 
> 2. Does it take you _2 hours longer to start puking_ on the older bluewater boat than on the production boat?
> 
> So, I fully acknowledge that it's a factor. There is math involved. And I respect math.
> 
> But I certainly wouldn't want to sell my family on the notion that they'll be more "comfortable" (i.e. - not puke) on an older bluewater boat than they will be on our Hunter 40 in the same conditions.* I just think the actual differences are marginal.*
> 
> Again, I'll have to see when take our H40 out this spring.


With respect, I think you haven't sailed on a wide enough variety of boats to make that determination yet.

There's been quite a discussion among some friends of mine, about how seakindly a Hinckley SW42 was, during their race to Bermuda. These are guys that have been racing for 30 years on an incredible variety of boats.

Seakindlyness can be very important. Nausea and vomiting bring on fatigue, dehydration, and bad decision making. A ride that avoids or delays the onset of motion sickness, keeps the crew more rested, in better health, and making sound decisions.

I think the difference can be much more than marginal, between some designs and is well worth considering, if ocean sailing is the purpose of the boat.


----------



## ctl411

Smack, check out "Seaworthiness the forgotten factor" by CA Marchaj. Not a production vs blue water argument but a size/design thing. I already loaned the copy I have out or I would loan it to you. 
Bob P. and the Brewer books are good also.


----------



## smackdaddy

No argument there bubble. I've sailed maybe 8-9 boats since I started - only two of them on off-shore distance routes. Those two boats are pretty widely respected boats in the bluewater category: Pacific Seacraft 37 Crealock and Pearson 365 Ketch.

Granted, not Hinckleys, but I'm never going to have a Wally either. In any case, I've paid very close attention to the ride of both of these boats - trying to compare it to my production boat. And though I've not yet had our production boat out there, I'm not seeing a "huge" difference in ride (i.e. - comfort motion). I could absolutely be wrong. And I'll be the first to admit it when it happens on our H40. But, like I said above, I'm just a bit dubious. It's not a real selling point for me yet.


----------



## bobperry

The SW 42 weighs about 25,000 lbs. If you compare it to a 37'er weighing 15,000 lbs of course it will have more comfortable ride.

And just for the record I have sailed a lot of boats.


----------



## Group9

bobperry said:


> And just for the record I have sailed a lot of boats.


I would have imagined so. 

(I used to have one of your boats, an Islander 32, Mk II. I loved that boat and I wish I still had it.)


----------



## PCP

ctl411 said:


> Smack, check out "Seaworthiness the forgotten factor" by CA Marchaj. Not a production vs blue water argument but a size/design thing. I already loaned the copy I have out or I would loan it to you.
> Bob P. and the Brewer books are good also.


It is not necessary, it is an old book, it is free to download, I have posted a link on the interesting boat thread.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

Smack,

As Bob is pointing out, the problem in these kinds of comparasons is the apples to cocoanuts nature of the discussion points. To really assess the motion comfort of your Hunter relative to a purpose built offshore cruiser, you should be comparing the motion of your boat to an offshore cruiser of a similar displacement rather than one of similar length. Similarly, to understand how comfortable a SW 42 is compared to a more modern performance cruising design, you might compare the motion of a SW 42 to a similar displacement boat like a J-160. 

But there are also other pieces of the puzzle beyond simply length or displacement. To a very great extent hull shape (buoyancy distribution above and below the waterline), dampening, and weight distribution are the predominant factors in how a boat will feel. 

And when you talk about a boat like the Pearson 365, from watching them underway, they have always appeared to be relatively rolly designs. That makes sense when you consider their comparatively round bottom design and shallow draft keel. In a classic sense, their motion might be considered 'seakindly' in that there are no sudden starts and stops. 

Studies of motion sickness, have concluded that the reaction to motion varies pretty widely with the individual. One of the larger and more comprehesive study which I had seen, concluded that in near equal proportions, there were people for whom quick changes in motion are unacceptable but they can tolerate large amounts of reciprocating rotational motion. Another group can tolerate quick changes in motion but they cannot tolerate large amounts of reciprocating rotational motion. At third group cannot tolerate either type of motion. And a forth group cannot be made sick under any type of motion. 

The point being that you, like me, may have a problem with slow rolling motion, while you may not have a problem with quick accelerations. I have never been seasick on my boat, even navigating down below on a beat into a chop, but experienced mild discomfort on a trawler yacht in surprisingly calm conditions. 

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

This is why I like being the opinionated fool. You really learn a lot this way! Thanks guys.

The angle I'm taking here is not in any way "informed". It's just observation of a couple of things:

1. When "motion comfort" is discussed in these "bluewater vs. production" debates - it is generally done so with quite a bit of passion toward the idea that the "modern production boats" are less "comfortable" in a seaway and will make you sicker and more tired. At the extremes, I can certainly see how this might be true. But in the much broader context of the kinds of boats most of us will look to buy (older, used boats that aren't Hinckleys or Open 40s) - I just don't see this as a big differentiator. In other words, I don't think you can convince your family that they won't get sick on the bluewater boat because of its "higher motion comfort factor". We got sick on a bluewater boat within the first hour.

2. The way these two bluewater boats that I've sailed on performed, and the conditions under which they so performed, have been nothing that I would have been even remotely concerned about in our Hunter. This last trip had the most sporty conditions I've been in thus far offshore (25-30 knots and 8'-10' seas) - but were nowhere near scary. Both bluewater boats creaked and groaned (like I'd expect with virtually any older boat - but is always a point made about the quality of build of bluewater vs. production) - but held together just fine, with minor issues here and there (e.g. - the linear drive AP broke off its mounts on this trip and we had to hand-steer the second half of the trip.)

When I say that the differences in these typical arguments are negligible - this is what I mean. If the conditions are right, as Jeff has pointed out above, you're gonna get sick/uncomfortable regardless of the hull shape. And even on bluewater boats, stuff is going to flex and break. It's just going to take some very serious conditions, I think, for differences like this to become really apparent (if they do at all). So it just seems to me many of these arguments are about very little difference.

One last point I will make, however, is that of "solidity". This may be the same as motion comfort, I don't know - and may be more to Bob's point about displacement; But on both the Pearson and the PSC, I noticed that the force of dropping off a wave doesn't seem to shudder through the hull - what I assume to be "pounding". Yes, we still "pounded" with a lot of spray - but you don't feel it hammering through the boat. I'll be very interested to see if this is the case with our H40 in similar conditions. If it is, I'll just have to back off and steer a different course. But my hunch is that it won't be appreciably different.

(PS - In terms of displacement on the particular boats I'm comparing, our H40 is around 17,500 pounds, the PSC is around 16,200 pounds, and the Pearson is around 17,700 pounds)


----------



## ctl411

I think you will notice the difference and it will have more to do with hull shape than build quality. Chop that my old 37c cut through would rattle my teeth on the 37.5.


----------



## smackdaddy

ctl411 said:


> I think you will notice the difference and it will have more to do with hull shape than build quality. Chop that my old 37c cut through would rattle my teeth on the 37.5.


Do you happen to know the difference in displacement on those two? I'm lazy.


----------



## ctl411

Oh and not saying your 40 is a bad boat or bad choice for you. The 37.5 is a blast in lighter air and surfing off the wind. My point is has been there is a difference. Pick your best comprises and sail to its strengths mitigate its weakness.


----------



## ctl411

15000 for the 37.5 17900 for the 37c. The 37 usually came in a little heavier.


----------



## Don L

The motion comfort ratio really can only be used between boats of the same size and similar design. Comparing an older 45' boat with lot of overhang and a short LWL to a newer boat with a flatter bottom that carries its' length further back is a waste of time (just like comparing the DLR).

And even if the boats are similar in design the type of keel, where the ballast is and where the tanks are located is going to have a large effect.

Most people probably would be better served by cutting down on alcohol and greasy foods the days prior to a passage than to worry the motion comfort ratio.


----------



## ctl411

I'm not worried about it and I don't think smack is either. Just fun talking boats, lots of things go into each one to make the whole.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Most people probably would be better served by cutting down on alcohol and greasy foods the days prior to a passage than to worry the motion comfort ratio.


WHAT THE HELL???? NO WAY! If I can't have my scotch and hush-puppies before a rough ride - I'm staying in the slip!


----------



## CharlieCobra

It's been my experience that hull shape has a helluva lot to do with comfort. Where Oh Joy would slice through the waves with no noise or pounding to windward, other newer designs would pound and rattle your teeth in the same chop. The best ride I had on a boat was the little Clipper shaped hull of the Mariner 31 we are restoring. It wouldn't back worth a damn but it was a very sweet ride on or off the wind. It only displaces 11,500 but 5,000 of that is lead.


----------



## PCP

I posted this some time ago on the interesting boat thread but it seems to me that it also belongs to this thread:

"Any sailboat able to make the Northwest passage will deserve a better look. If that boat is not a purposely built boat well, it is an interesting one, so just have a look at this one, not only crossed the North Atlantic at high latitudes has they went trough the icy Northwest passage. After that they circumnavigated:

The boat was blocked by ice in Peel Sound and they hesitated to go through. 
Eventually they found a gap and went through. Some wind pushed them through with considerable speed they reported.



















That's true, it is a some year's old Bavaria 44. Basically a standard boat.

It seems that those kevlar protections that the Bavarias have on the front part of the hull come as very handy to break ice

You can read more about that voyage here":

http://www.perithia.de/


----------



## smackdaddy

Doh! That's not a blue water boat!!! What the hell is it doing in blue water that's turning white and hard?

So a Hunter around the Horn in F11, and a Bavaria running the Northwest Passage?

So where are those limits again Los Traditionalists?


----------



## benesailor

smack - you read my mind !


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Doh! That's not a blue water boat!!! What the hell is it doing in blue water that's turning white and hard?
> 
> So a Hunter around the Horn in F11, and a Bavaria running the Northwest Passage?
> 
> So where are those limits again Los Traditionalists?


The story is even more impressive because that Bavaria was not a new one, it was a boat that had made all is useful life has a charter boat (5 -6 years) and than was bought cheap, with new sails. Some equipment was added but nothing special.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

I guess you can add this one. It makes more my style of boat than the Bavaria: A First 40.7

(also posted previously on the interesting boat thread):



PCP said:


> .. ... for any form of cruising and there are almost as ways of cruising as there are different sailors, from the ones that only want to make coastal cruising to the ones that occasionally cross oceans till the ones that are almost always crossing oceans.
> 
> And even among those different categories you will find the ones that like to be surrounded with all comforts, the ones that enjoy simple life and simple things, the ones that need to carry a lot and don't mind having a slower boat and the ones that travel light and want a light and fast boat. For some, cruising with a lot of stuff is indispensable. The emphasis go with cruising and sailing pleasure is not so important, efficiency and comfort is what counts most. For others, cruising and sailing comes in equal parts and from them an enjoyable and fast boat is indispensable for having pleasure, as much as a boat that can carry a good payload is indispensable for the first.
> 
> Well, that is your cruising life style I am quite sure that for crossing the Atlantic I will not need more than 200 liters of water, a watermaker, some 90 liters of fuel and a boat that can really sail well in 6/7K wind. Yes I would need food and personal luggage, but I bet I will carry 1/3 of what you will need. That's just my style and I have found a wife that can live with that.
> 
> And if you think I am mad or that is no way to make a passage, nor a fast and light boat is the right one, take a look at this link:
> 
> giebateau.web-log.nl: 030 Bestemming Antarctica
> 
> I know it is in Dutch, but you can see the pictures (and they are beautiful) if you can not read it. It is about a couple that is travelling extensively:
> 
> They left Holland in the boat the skipper finds more adequate for him, a First 40.7. *They are now exploring Antarctica*. By the way they say that had got 60K winds and that while they were there 6 boats sank (probably true bluewater boats ). They say also that they have not found any particular problem that they could not handle safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are just leaving....for Japan.


http://giebateau.blogspot.pt/p/blog-page.html

http://giebateau.blogspot.pt/


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Doh! That's not a blue water boat!!! What the hell is it doing in blue water that's turning white and hard?
> 
> So a Hunter around the Horn ...
> 
> So where are those limits again Los Traditionalists?


You don't need a big Hunter to do that. You can do it with a much smaller Bavaria 36



Genuino Madruga had circumnavigated solo two times with the same Bavaria 36, one of them by the Horn.



Genuíno Madruga em volta ao Mundo

That's a very interesting character, a fisherman from Azores that started to be envy of the French that passed on the Island on their sailboats. So one day he bought an inexpensive sailboat and went around two times.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

In researching more info to use to mock the FKT (Full-Keel Traditionalists) - I found yet another Hunter out there that's tearing it up beyond the sight of shore. This one did the ARC last year and didn't sink...

Dougi


----------



## smackdaddy

Also a Hunter 38 in 2012. No Catalinas, but lots of Benes, Jenneaus, and Bavarias (obviously). I'm pretty sure most of them didn't sink.

I'm really starting to think Americans are real scaredy-cats.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> In researching more info to use to mock the FKT (Full-Keel Traditionalists) - I found yet another Hunter out there that's tearing it up beyond the sight of shore. This one did the ARC last year and didn't sink...


That's good news - at least a Hunter hasn't been lost in the ARC _recently_, at any rate...



ARC yacht abandoned | Yachting World


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, it can happen...even to Alden 54s, Catana 47s, Hans Christian 38s, Tartan 4600s...


----------



## smackdaddy

And here's a Hunter that made it through last year's ill-fated SDR which saw several FKT boats (see above) beat down:



















And they even had a bunch of crap hanging off the back of it. Tough boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, it can happen...even to Alden 54s, Catana 47s, Hans Christian 38s, Tartan 4600s...


Wow, all those boats were abandoned and sunk, as well? Damn, who knew ?

Hmmm, if you're gonna cite examples from last year's SDR, then why no mention of the Catalina that also lost its rudder, or the two ordinary production boats that actually _DID_ sink?

No way to massage the numbers, dude... Given the comparatively tiny number of Hunters who have left Las Palmas with the ARC over the years, the percentage that made it to the finish line ain't very impressive...


----------



## smackdaddy

What is the percentage? Seriously, I'm curious.

(PS- All the FKT examples I listed were in range of the USCG - basically "coastal". So they had a lot of help. The Hunter you listed wasn't - I think it was 1200 from St. Lucia? And they had already been under a jury-rigged rudder that subsequently failed?)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> What is the percentage? Seriously, I'm curious.


I have no idea... All I know, is whenever I look at the entries in the ARC, Hunters/Legends appear to be 'under-represented', to say the least... Only one shows up among this year's list of entries so far, for instance... Likewise, there was only the one you cited in 2013...

World Cruising Club - ARC Entries



smackdaddy said:


> (PS- All the FKT examples I listed were in range of the USCG - basically "coastal". So they had a lot of help. The Hunter you listed wasn't - I think it was 1200 from St. Lucia? And they had already been under a jury-rigged rudder that subsequently failed?)


Actually, with the exception of the Alden 54, all those boats you listed made it back to port on their own...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I have no idea... All I know, is whenever I look at the entries in the ARC, Hunters/Legends appear to be 'under-represented', to say the least... Only one shows up among this year's list of entries so far, for instance... Likewise, there was only the one you cited in 2013...


Okay. So 100% of last year's ARC Hunters did just fine - and the year before that, 100%, etc. They even rocked the SDR last year - 100%, right?



JonEisberg said:


> Actually, with the exception of the Alden 54, all those boats you listed made it back to port on their own...


Like I said, those boats were relatively close in. The 2002 ARC Hunter you brought into this wasn't.

I guess I'm still not following your point. Hunters seem to be doing pretty well offshore lately.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I guess I'm still not following your point. Hunters seem to be doing pretty well offshore lately.


For the comparative few that seem to make it out there, I can't disagree...

Still, considering their popularity, they remain curiously under-represented among bluewater sailors... For instance, there's not one signed up for this year's 1500 or SDR yet, that I can see...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Still, considering their popularity, they remain curiously under-represented among bluewater sailors...


Totally agree with you there. It's weird. Of course, Catalinas seem to be in the same boat is it were...while Benes, Jenneaus, and Bavarias are all over the place.

Like I said, I think Americans are just scared. It's pity.


----------



## Group9

People laugh at a guy who buys a HUMVEE and only drives it in town.


There is a moral there, that applies to boats, as well, that some will see, and that some won't.


----------



## JonEisberg

Group9 said:


> People laugh at a guy who buys a HUMVEE and only drives it in town.
> 
> There is a moral there, that applies to boats, as well, that some will see, and that some won't.


Well, some won't see that can cut both ways...

Those who venture off road in vehicles unsuited for the task can often provide a similar degree of amusement...


----------



## Ajax_MD

When I look at the photos Smack posted, I feel like there is this point of "diminishing returns".

I have no issue with "production, fin keel, spade rudder boats" crossing oceans. 

What I dislike, is the manner in which they are outfitted.
In the name of "convenience", these boats are equipped more and more with complex systems that seem prone to failure at the worst possible times.
Then, the owners pile more and more "crap" onto them, until their windward ability is something like a haystack or a wedding cake.

I'm not advocating Luddite-ism. I'm saying that there's a point of diminishing returns when piling on complex systems in the name of convenience or simplification.

A RTW friend of mine recently said something to the effect of- "embracing a seaman's life" rather than attempting to "transplant a suburban lifestyle to a boat".

Good "seamen" (and women) can safely sail most kinds of boats anywhere. A suburban couple that treats their boat as a maritime Winnebago, whose primary function is to transport all of their crap from port to port, is a hazard.


----------



## Don L

BubbleheadMd said:


> What I dislike, is the manner in which they are outfitted.
> In the name of "convenience", these boats are equipped more and more with complex systems that seem prone to failure at the worst possible times.
> Then, the owners pile more and more "crap" onto them, until their windward ability is something like a haystack or a wedding cake.
> 
> .


What normally gets lost in this argument against "systems" is that when one does fail (and they don't fail all that much) you just sail the boat the same way you would have if the systems weren't on the boat to start with.


----------



## Ajax_MD

How do you do that when the mainsail roller furler jams partway, and won't budge in either direction?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

BubbleheadMd said:


> How do you do that when the mainsail roller furler jams partway, and won't budge in either direction?


Thas a very common occurrence only on internet forums.


----------



## Don L

BubbleheadMd said:


> How do you do that when the mainsail roller furler jams partway, and won't budge in either direction?


You do the same thing you do with a regular mainsail if the slide gets jammed in the track. You go up the stick to unjam it, or you cut the sail away, or you tie the sail to the mast with lines or you just sail the boat with the mainsail part way out (we call that furled).


----------



## JonEisberg

BubbleheadMd said:


> When I look at the photos Smack posted, I feel like there is this point of "diminishing returns".
> 
> I have no issue with "production, fin keel, spade rudder boats" crossing oceans.
> 
> What I dislike, is the manner in which they are outfitted.
> In the name of "convenience", these boats are equipped more and more with complex systems that seem prone to failure at the worst possible times.
> Then, the owners pile more and more "crap" onto them, until their windward ability is something like a haystack or a wedding cake.
> 
> I'm not advocating Luddite-ism. I'm saying that there's a point of diminishing returns when piling on complex systems in the name of convenience or simplification.
> 
> A RTW friend of mine recently said something to the effect of- "embracing a seaman's life" rather than attempting to "transplant a suburban lifestyle to a boat".
> 
> Good "seamen" (and women) can safely sail most kinds of boats anywhere. A suburban couple that treats their boat as a maritime Winnebago, whose primary function is to transport all of their crap from port to port, is a hazard.


I've already mentioned it elsewhere, but Alvah Simon's piece "Back in the Day" in the current issue of CRUISING WORLD is a very entertaining take related this very subject, and his reflections on the changes he's seen over his 40 years of cruising...

_"Trading paper charts has been replaced with trading DVDs..."_


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> What normally gets lost in this argument against "systems" is that when one does fail *(and they don't fail all that much)*...


Hmmm, I guess the failures of such systems must only occur on deliveries... 



Don0190 said:


> ... you just sail the boat the same way you would have if the systems weren't on the boat to start with.


Damn, now why didn't these guys think of that?

Into the rocks story . .


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Into the rocks story . .[/url]


So loss of the engine caused the boat to go into the rocks. Damn those "systems". Is there thread point other than looking for a way to 'prove" a point?


----------



## Ajax_MD

Don0190 said:


> You do the same thing you do with a regular mainsail if the slide gets jammed in the track. You go up the stick to unjam it, or you cut the sail away, or you tie the sail to the mast with lines or you just sail the boat with the mainsail part way out (we call that furled).


Really, this is a false equivalency argument.

You don't go "up the stick" to un-jam a partially furled main. You can't see where along the luff the jam is, because it's hidden. You might be lucky to see and repair a jammed furling line on the drum/swivel at the base of the mast.

Your strategy of cutting the sail away, or just "living with it" is um... not optimal. There is a higher chance of success of unsticking a stuck slide or slug, or going aloft to cut a halyard, thereby saving a valuable sail and restoring stability and control to your boat.

Like I said, I'm not advocating Luddite-ism. I'm not advocating abandoning any and all furling devices, electronics or power-assisted devices, but there is a growing over-dependence on this stuff as it proliferates throughout every function on the boat and down to ever-smaller boats.

Your argument to "sail the boat the way you would with a regular (fill in the blank)" is bogus, because people rarely take the time to learn or practice the "Emergency Operation Mode" of their equipment.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Actually the jam typically is not hidden. You can see where the problem is and get it untangled sometimes with a largish flat screwdriver (only had to do this once). When we got a boat with a furling main I was not at all sure about the technology. Decided to try it even enquired about what would be involved in having a regular main (you don't need to replace the mast btw). After tens of thousands of miles I am a big fan of roller furling mains. I think it is a great idea for long distance cruising on a boat with a big mainsail.


----------



## Don L

BubbleheadMd said:


> Your argument to "sail the boat the way you would with a regular (fill in the blank)" is bogus, because people rarely take the time to learn or practice the "Emergency Operation Mode" of their equipment.


So there it is! Your argument is basically that people on boats with "systems" just don't know how to sail or are just too stupid to learn how to operate their boats :laugher

This whole "modern" boat argument is basically that all the boat builders, designers, and people who use these boats are idiots. Doesn't matter that for most part these boats have been around a long time now and being designed by the same people who were designing/building boats 30 years ago.

The only real "problem" with modern boats is that too many internet experts can not afford one or are too stupid to learn how to operate them. So there must be a problem with the boat.


----------



## Ajax_MD

killarney_sailor said:


> Actually the jam typically is not hidden. You can see where the problem is and get it untangled sometimes with a largish flat screwdriver (only had to do this once). When we got a boat with a furling main I was not at all sure about the technology. Decided to try it even enquired about what would be involved in having a regular main (you don't need to replace the mast btw). After tens of thousands of miles I am a big fan of roller furling mains. I think it is a great idea for long distance cruising on a boat with a big mainsail.


Thanks for the education. There are a few different models out there. 
Is your furler a unit that is riveted onto the trailing edge of the mast, or is it fully "inside" the mast?

I made a blanket statement that wasn't helpful. I know these things don't fail frequently, but I suspect it's pretty ugly when they do.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> So loss of the engine caused the boat to go into the rocks. Damn those "systems". Is there thread point other than looking for a way to 'prove" a point?


No, the loss of power resulted in the loss of _steering_, as well...

If you think such 'integration' is a good system, perhaps you should be driving a Sense-Boat, instead...


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> No, the loss of power resulted in the loss of _steering_, as well...
> 
> If you think such 'integration' is a good system, perhaps you should be driving a Sense-Boat, instead...


well that doesn't make sense to me and I would never argue for a system that needs power just to steer

BTW - a nuclear submarine will lose steering if power is lost, I know I was there


----------



## Ajax_MD

Don0190 said:


> well that doesn't make sense to me and I would never argue for a system that needs power just to steer
> 
> *BTW - a nuclear submarine will lose steering if power is lost, I know I was there*


Really? I'd love to hear about that. I served on nuclear submarines for 12 years.

When we would practice "loss of power" drills, the control surfaces automatically switched to a backup mode that relies on pressurized hydraulic accumulators.

For the emergency accumulators that power the control surfaces to fail, you'd have to lose the reactor, the emergency diesel generator, and finally, exhaust the batteries.

By then, you'd have much greater things to worry about.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> The only real "problem" with modern boats is that too many internet experts can not afford one or are too stupid to learn how to operate them. So there must be a problem with the boat.


Below, from the resume of the skipper of that Sense-Boat that locked up at Ft Pierce...

Obviously, a man way too stupid and inexperienced to be in command of a "modern boat"...



> PROFESSIONAL MARINE EXPERIENCE
> 
> Aug-Sept 2014 S/V "Volterra" - 80 ft Palmer Johnson
> Captain - Quick haul out and bottom job in Connecticutt, then 6 week cruise with owners, Marthas Vineyard, Nantucket, Elizabeth Islands, and up through Maine up to 40 miles south of the Canadian border and back.
> 
> June 2014 M/V "Drifter"- 70 ft Hatteras
> Captain- Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Marthas Vineyard
> 
> June 2014 S/V "Volterra" - 80 ft Palmer Johnson
> Captain - Delivery from Martinique to Connecticut
> 
> April-May 2014 S/V- "NANAN" - Sunreef 62' sailing Catamaran
> Delivery from Los Roques, Venezuela to Ft. Lauderdale stopping in Ponce, Puerto Rico for U.S. clearance and provisioning.
> 
> April 2014 S/V- "Albertina" - 2012 Hylas 49'
> Captain Delivery from St. Thomas to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> March-April 2014 S/V "Nepenthe" 1965 Gulf 32
> 6 week haul out and paint job and rudder and propeller and steering overhaul of my personal sailboat that I have owned since I was 19 years old.
> 
> Feb. 2014 S/V -"Marinette" Island Packet 29'
> Captain - Delivery from Provo, Turks and Caicos to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Feb. 2014 M/Y -"Vivere" - 116 ft Azimut - Charter
> Charter Bahamas- West Palm-Port Lacaya, Berry Islands, Atlantis-Paradise Island, Nassau-Miami, Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Jan. 2014 M/Y -"Vivere" - 116 ft Azimut - Charter
> 2 week Charter from Ft. Lauderdale to Miami to Bahamas - Exuma Cays - and back to West Palm Beach.
> 
> Dec. 2013 S/V -"Aldora" - Outremer 45' sailing catamaran
> Delivery with owner from Ft. Lauderdale to Nassau, Bahamas- Albany Marina south side, New owner sailing and systems instruction.
> 
> Nov. 2013 S/V "Volunteer" Cambria 44'
> Captain, Delivery from Newport, Rhode Island to St. Augustine, Florida
> 
> Oct. 2013 S/V "SunDown" Taswell 56'
> Captain, Delivery from Newport, Rhode Island to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Sept. 2013 "No Name" Hatteras 70'
> Captain/Engineer - Delivery from Martha's Vineyard to Ft. Lauderdale.
> 
> August 2013 Jeanneau 52- Sakinah
> Captain - delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Hinkley yard in Savannah to haul boat and drop mast, then wrapped and secured mast to deck and delivered boat up to main port of Savannah and loaded sailboat onto ship and shipped sailboat to Hong Kong for new owner.
> 
> July 2013 M/V "No Name"- Hatteras 70'
> Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Marthas Vineyard
> June 2013
> 
> S/V -"SunDown" - 56' Taswell
> Captain - Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Falmouth, Massachussetts.
> 
> April/May 2013 S/V "French Kiss" -50' Beneteau
> Delivery from Antigua to Indian Creek, Virginia
> 
> April 2013 M/V- "Electra" 52' Krogen Express
> Captain - Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Ft. Pierce
> 
> March/April 2013 M/Y -"Vivere" - 116 ft Azimut - Charter 2nd Captain in command/Engineer - Ft. Lauderdale to Miami to Paradise Island, Nassau- Atlantis, and back to Lauderdale
> 
> Nov. 2012 M/V "Electra" Krogen Express 52
> Captain - Joined the owner in Savannah, Georgia and delivered vessel to Bahamas where we will cruise to the Southern Bahamas and then back up to the Abacos on a 3-4 month exploration of the many islands.
> 
> Nov. 2012 S/V "Sundown" Taswell 56
> Captain - Delivery from Charleston, S.C. to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Oct.-Nov. 2012 S/V "Pomaikai" Sunreef 70 Sailing Catamaran 2012 model
> Captain - Delivery from San Diego, California to Oahu, Hawaii.12 day crossing.
> 
> Oct. 2009-Aug. 2012 S/V "NANAN" SunReef 62' Sailing Catamaran
> Captain/Engineer- Picked up and finished commissioning of new catamaran after it was shipped across Atlantic to Ft. Lauderdale. Delivered to Los Roques, Venezuela and became full time Captain and Engineer for three years of private catamaran with four full time crew and gave the owners a five star service. Full fleet, Venture 39, Venture 34 and three dinghies. In the three years I delivered the Catamaran two times back to Ft. Lauderdale for servicing, refit and upgrades.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, some won't see that can cut both ways...
> 
> Those who venture off road in vehicles unsuited for the task can often provide a similar degree of amusement...


I would never venture off-road in that color thong.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Below, from the resume of the skipper of that Sense-Boat that locked up at Ft Pierce...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PROFESSIONAL MARINE EXPERIENCE
> 
> Aug-Sept 2014 S/V "Volterra" - 80 ft Palmer Johnson
> Captain - Quick haul out and bottom job in Connecticutt, then 6 week cruise with owners, Marthas Vineyard, Nantucket, Elizabeth Islands, and up through Maine up to 40 miles south of the Canadian border and back.
> 
> June 2014 M/V "Drifter"- 70 ft Hatteras
> Captain- Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Marthas Vineyard
> 
> June 2014 S/V "Volterra" - 80 ft Palmer Johnson
> Captain - Delivery from Martinique to Connecticut
> 
> April-May 2014 S/V- "NANAN" - Sunreef 62' sailing Catamaran
> Delivery from Los Roques, Venezuela to Ft. Lauderdale stopping in Ponce, Puerto Rico for U.S. clearance and provisioning.
> 
> April 2014 S/V- "Albertina" - 2012 Hylas 49'
> Captain Delivery from St. Thomas to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> March-April 2014 S/V "Nepenthe" 1965 Gulf 32
> 6 week haul out and paint job and rudder and propeller and steering overhaul of my personal sailboat that I have owned since I was 19 years old.
> 
> Feb. 2014 S/V -"Marinette" Island Packet 29'
> Captain - Delivery from Provo, Turks and Caicos to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Feb. 2014 M/Y -"Vivere" - 116 ft Azimut - Charter
> Charter Bahamas- West Palm-Port Lacaya, Berry Islands, Atlantis-Paradise Island, Nassau-Miami, Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Jan. 2014 M/Y -"Vivere" - 116 ft Azimut - Charter
> 2 week Charter from Ft. Lauderdale to Miami to Bahamas - Exuma Cays - and back to West Palm Beach.
> 
> *January 14, 2014 "S/V Slow Reboot" - Beneteau Sense 50'
> Delivered her onto the rocks and totaled her before we even left the jetties.*
> 
> Dec. 2013 S/V -"Aldora" - Outremer 45' sailing catamaran
> Delivery with owner from Ft. Lauderdale to Nassau, Bahamas- Albany Marina south side, New owner sailing and systems instruction.
> 
> Nov. 2013 S/V "Volunteer" Cambria 44'
> Captain, Delivery from Newport, Rhode Island to St. Augustine, Florida
> 
> Oct. 2013 S/V "SunDown" Taswell 56'
> Captain, Delivery from Newport, Rhode Island to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Sept. 2013 "No Name" Hatteras 70'
> Captain/Engineer - Delivery from Martha's Vineyard to Ft. Lauderdale.
> 
> August 2013 Jeanneau 52- Sakinah
> Captain - delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Hinkley yard in Savannah to haul boat and drop mast, then wrapped and secured mast to deck and delivered boat up to main port of Savannah and loaded sailboat onto ship and shipped sailboat to Hong Kong for new owner.
> 
> July 2013 M/V "No Name"- Hatteras 70'
> Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Marthas Vineyard
> June 2013
> 
> S/V -"SunDown" - 56' Taswell
> Captain - Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Falmouth, Massachussetts.
> 
> April/May 2013 S/V "French Kiss" -50' Beneteau
> Delivery from Antigua to Indian Creek, Virginia
> 
> April 2013 M/V- "Electra" 52' Krogen Express
> Captain - Delivery from Ft. Lauderdale to Ft. Pierce
> 
> March/April 2013 M/Y -"Vivere" - 116 ft Azimut - Charter 2nd Captain in command/Engineer - Ft. Lauderdale to Miami to Paradise Island, Nassau- Atlantis, and back to Lauderdale
> 
> Nov. 2012 M/V "Electra" Krogen Express 52
> Captain - Joined the owner in Savannah, Georgia and delivered vessel to Bahamas where we will cruise to the Southern Bahamas and then back up to the Abacos on a 3-4 month exploration of the many islands.
> 
> Nov. 2012 S/V "Sundown" Taswell 56
> Captain - Delivery from Charleston, S.C. to Ft. Lauderdale
> 
> Oct.-Nov. 2012 S/V "Pomaikai" Sunreef 70 Sailing Catamaran 2012 model
> Captain - Delivery from San Diego, California to Oahu, Hawaii.12 day crossing.
> 
> Oct. 2009-Aug. 2012 S/V "NANAN" SunReef 62' Sailing Catamaran
> Captain/Engineer- Picked up and finished commissioning of new catamaran after it was shipped across Atlantic to Ft. Lauderdale. Delivered to Los Roques, Venezuela and became full time Captain and Engineer for three years of private catamaran with four full time crew and gave the owners a five star service. Full fleet, Venture 39, Venture 34 and three dinghies. In the three years I delivered the Catamaran two times back to Ft. Lauderdale for servicing, refit and upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, a man way too stupid and inexperienced to be in command of a "modern boat"...
Click to expand...

I updated the CV for him.


----------



## Don L

BubbleheadMd said:


> Really? I'd love to hear about that. I served on nuclear submarines for 12 years.


As a nuc mechanic I'm not going to argue with you about it.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Don0190 said:


> As a nuc mechanic I'm not going to argue with you about it.


That's fine but I hope you don't mind if I correct the false impression you've created by implying that at the first disruption of electrical systems, that all ability to control the submarine is lost.


----------



## Don L

BubbleheadMd said:


> That's fine but I hope you don't mind if I correct the false impression you've created by implying that at the first disruption of electrical systems, that all ability to control the submarine is lost.


You can say anything you want to including saying that I said "at the first disruption of electrical systems, that all ability to control the submarine is lost", which I didn't. Doesn't change the facts since I was there and the one responsible for regaining hydraulics.

has nothing to do with the topic


----------



## Ajax_MD

I said that you _implied_, not that you _said._ There's a difference.

You said-


> a nuclear submarine will lose steering if power is lost, I know I was there


 which is absolutely true, only in the strictest technical sense. Usually, a lot of other things have to go wrong for it to happen right away. Maybe you were the unlucky one that suffered multiple systems failures simultaneously.

How does this relate to the topic at hand?

Some of these recreational vessel powered steering systems do not have these redundancies, or the redundancies that they do have, are not quickly brought online. For instance, *I thought* I read that certain valves needed to be opened or closed in a tight locker space, in order to free the rudder for emergency operation.

Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this, so take it with a grain of salt. Does anyone have any insight on powered yacht steering systems?


----------



## killarney_sailor

BubbleheadMd said:


> Thanks for the education. There are a few different models out there.
> Is your furler a unit that is riveted onto the trailing edge of the mast, or is it fully "inside" the mast?
> 
> I made a blanket statement that wasn't helpful. I know these things don't fail frequently, but I suspect it's pretty ugly when they do.


Ours is in the mast section (it is divided into two parts). Ours is a Hood, one of the first ones built. I don't think these things fail very much at all, but you can get user-induced jams if you are sloppy. Generally they are very easy to fix (1-5 minutes). The one where I had to go up the mast was more like 20 minutes. I think you need to try a few of these out and see what you think.


----------



## Ajax_MD

So far, I've tried one out on a Catalina 38.

It jams in each direction and requires a lot of fiddling to get it past the sticking point.
The theory is that the mainsail is blown out and the way the cloth is rolling up, is causing the problem. This is an external furling unit.

I realize that "one" is not a valid sampling of the main furling population, but I came away feeling underwhelmed. I'll try to be more open minded.


----------



## Faster

MarkofSeaLife said:


> That's a very common occurrence only on internet forums.


Not a fan of roller mains for other reasons... but I suspect you're right about that, Mark!


----------



## knuterikt

JonEisberg said:


> I have no idea... All I know, is whenever I look at the entries in the ARC, Hunters/Legends appear to be 'under-represented', to say the least... Only one shows up among this year's list of entries so far, for instance... Likewise, there was only the one you cited in 2013...
> 
> World Cruising Club - ARC Entries
> 
> Actually, with the exception of the Alden 54, all those boats you listed made it back to port on their own...


Not so strange that US built boats are 'under-represented'
US flagged boats are 21 out of 251
Sweden + Norway = 22 boats
UK 68
Germany 30

US built boats are 'under-represented' in the European market.

No of boats by make
Beneteau 23
Jeanneau 18
Oyster 17
Lagoon 16
Swan 15
Hanse 13
X-Yacht 11
Bavaria 10
Hallberg Rassy 9


----------



## goboatingnow

knuterikt said:


> Not so strange that US built boats are 'under-represented'
> US flagged boats are 21 out of 251
> Sweden + Norway = 22 boats
> UK 68
> Germany 30
> 
> US built boats are 'under-represented' in the European market.
> 
> No of boats by make
> Beneteau 23
> Jeanneau 18
> Oyster 17
> Lagoon 16
> Swan 15
> Hanse 13
> X-Yacht 11
> Bavaria 10
> Hallberg Rassy 9


Given the small size of the US sailing market, it not surprising they are under represented in the European market. Very few US boats sell across the pond.


----------



## knuterikt

goboatingnow said:


> Given the small size of the US sailing market, it not surprising they are under represented in the European market. Very few US boats sell across the pond.


Just my point - can't use ARC as a yardstick as most of the boats are non US, most are European.


----------



## smackdaddy

knuterikt said:


> Not so strange that US built boats are 'under-represented'
> US flagged boats are 21 out of 251
> Sweden + Norway = 22 boats
> UK 68
> Germany 30
> 
> US built boats are 'under-represented' in the European market.
> 
> No of boats by make
> Beneteau 23
> Jeanneau 18
> Oyster 17
> Lagoon 16
> Swan 15
> Hanse 13
> X-Yacht 11
> Bavaria 10
> Hallberg Rassy 9


That's cool. If you count Lagoon, that's 67 "production boats" (I'd lump X-Yachts in that too - but might get some blow-back) that are crossing oceans just fine. That's the point of this thread.


----------



## goboatingnow

well whiles its not the same the 2014 Baha is 

Catalina 15
Beneteau 12
Hunter 11
Island Packet 5

after that its a mis mash of everything

Seems like a lot of people are prepared to take "ordinary " boats on long journeys


----------



## killarney_sailor

The reality is that the term 'production boat' is so generic that it makes no sense to even try to use it in a meaningful discussion. After all an Oyster and a Morris are both production boats. A better question would be which boats are non-production - even when you get into the low seven-figure price range. For ordinary people, we all sail production boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

knuterikt said:


> Not so strange that US built boats are 'under-represented'
> US flagged boats are 21 out of 251
> Sweden + Norway = 22 boats
> UK 68
> Germany 30
> 
> US built boats are 'under-represented' in the European market.


_Of course_ it's not surprising... Bear in mind, however, I'm not the one who introduced the example - "in an effort to mock the Full-Keel Traditionalists" - of a single, solitary Hunter in the ARC as being indicative that Hunters are out there "tearing up" the Seven Seas... 

Still, there are several Island Packets that have done the ARC in recent years, for instance... And, the fact that there is not yet a single Hunter signed up for either of this fall's rallies from the East coast to the Caribbean - the fleets of which tend to be overwhelmingly comprised of American entries - IS a bit of a head-scratcher, no?

That is, if you really do subscribe to the notion that Hunters are out there tearing up the ocean passages of the world in significant numbers...


----------



## ianjoub

BubbleheadMd said:


> Like I said, I'm not advocating Luddite-ism. I'm not advocating abandoning any and all furling devices, electronics or power-assisted devices, but there is a growing over-dependence on this stuff as it proliferates throughout every function on the boat and down to ever-smaller boats.
> 
> Your argument to "sail the boat the way you would with a regular (fill in the blank)" is bogus, because people rarely take the time to learn or practice the "Emergency Operation Mode" of their equipment.


I just taught a 16 year old daughter to drive. I had her practice fast stops and how it feels to lock up wheels.

I would not advise here to never buy a car with ABS because it may fail at some point....


----------



## kwaltersmi

As long as we're looking at cruising rallies to inform us about production boats being "out there" in the blue waters of the world, we might as well take a look at the 2014 Pacific Puddle Jump (America - French Polynesia) Fleet List.

Here's a few bits I pulled out:

2 Catalinas (both 42's)
3 Tartans
5 Hunters
7 Jeanneaus
8 Lagoons
8 Island Packets
10 Beneteaus

There are plenty other production boats in the list too, many from the U.S. (Morgan, Irwin, Westsail, Islander, Gulfstar, etc.).


----------



## JonEisberg

goboatingnow said:


> well whiles its not the same the 2014 Baha is
> 
> Catalina 15
> Beneteau 12
> Hunter 11
> Island Packet 5
> 
> after that its a mis mash of everything
> 
> Seems like a lot of people are prepared to take "ordinary " boats on long journeys


The Pacific Puddle Jump is perhaps a better example of people venturing far and wide in ordinary boats...

Out of the 258 boats listed this year, only 5 were Hunters... And, only one of those had an American home port, the other 4 were from Oz, or Hong Kong...

On the other hand, the fleet featured 8 Island Packets, and 8 Westsails...

So much for "mocking the Full-Keel Traditionalists", eh?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> The Pacific Puddle Jump is perhaps a better example of people venturing far and wide in ordinary boats...
> 
> Out of the 258 boats listed this year, only 5 were Hunters... And, only one of those had an American home port, the other 4 were from Oz, or Hong Kong...
> 
> On the other hand, the fleet featured 8 Island Packets, and 8 Westsails...
> 
> So much for "mocking the Full-Keel Traditionalists", eh?


As kwalt pointed out above, there are lots of production boats jumpin' the Puddle. Remember, this is not just a Hunter* thread - it's a Production Boats thread. And they seem to be holding up just as well as the FKTers (the point of this thread). They just get there a lot faster.

(*Poor Catalinas only have 2 carrying its banner. Hunters must rock - especially coming from Oz and Hong Kong to start this thing.)

PS - There's even a couple BS Yachts in there!!! Go the steel! Of course, Bob Perry's boats are all over the freakin' place in this thing. Valiants, Passports, Tayanas, etc., etc. Tell those captains to keep an eye on the steelers. They seem to like hitting stuff.


----------



## bobperry

Wow! 2 BS boats. 2?

I count 19 of my designs in that group. Makes me feel,,,,,,,justified. That's it.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Wow! 2 BS boats. 2?
> 
> I count 19 of my designs in that group. Makes me feel,,,,,,,justified. That's it.


I'm going to follow the tracker for this race and watch the BS boats get there DAYS ahead of all your boats and perch themselves neatly on a reef.


----------



## outbound

Having been on a hinckley that jammed its in mast roller main on a trip back to N.E. from Bermuda after a Marion I'm not a fan. Also like roach in a main. But Amels which for decades have been considered good blue water boats seem to do quite well with them.
New production boats seem to be following the slice of pizza trend in hull shape. Also not a fan mostly due to how they ride in a seaway. That shape is obviously successful and fast in the hands of a professional French blue water racer but also felt like with cats concerned I want a boat that will take care of me not a boat I need high vigilance to care for. Think the new systems are fine as long as you can run the boat in their absence e.g. I have powered winches and the winch handle rarely leaves it's pocket on the binicle. Still it's nice to know it's there if needed. Issue of redundant systems( to extent feasible) is germane to ocean boats. Issue of ergonomics in a boat expected to rock and roll off the shelf v. the more placid coast setting is relevant. Simple things like a berth or galley that works when the seas are over 4'. As time passes there are fewer boats made dedicated to the niche market of off shore sailors and more to coastal or charter markets. In past had V40-42s, the larger cape Dories, Pearsons, B40s, SW ers, PSCs etc. all being built in this country and sailing the oceans of the world. Now defunct or the molds/tooling rarely used.


----------



## goboatingnow

> Like I said, I'm not advocating Luddite-ism. I'm not advocating abandoning any and all furling devices, electronics or power-assisted devices, but there is a growing over-dependence on this stuff as it proliferates throughout every function on the boat and down to ever-smaller boats.


Can you detail the "growing over-dependance", I mean before that "dependance" what was there


----------



## Group9

outbound said:


> Having been on a hinckley that jammed its in mast roller main on a trip back to N.E. from Bermuda after a Marion I'm not a fan.


Isn't that like saying you don't like Chevrolets because you were in one that had a flat tire one time?

Sometimes you really leave me scratching my head, and thinking, "What?".


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

If RADAR was invented until now I bet there would be an outcry on forums blaming all the worlds ills on it.


----------



## JonEisberg

Group9 said:


> Isn't that like saying you don't like Chevrolets because you were in one that had a flat tire one time?
> 
> Sometimes you really leave me scratching my head, and thinking, "What?".


Well, I hardly think that's a very apt analogy... But I suppose that begs the question "How many times must one experience a problem with a particular feature on a boat, before one decides on a preference for an alternative?"

For example, I've never liked the motorized version of the Leisure-Furl system, which places a very heavy electric motor at the end of the boom. Just seems like a bad idea, I was skeptical of it before I ever had a problem with it, but kept my fingers crossed as we headed south from Annapolis with one in December several years ago...

We pull into Palm Beach after a very sporty ride out around Canaveral, and sure enough, nothing happens when we pushed the magic button to lower the main... We'd been hard on the breeze, and spray had been flying back to the cockpit, so water intrusion would have been my guess...No big deal, we simply roll down the sail manually. A rather painstaking process with a stick almost 80' tall, however, and certainly not what someone who pays probably $30K for the system really wants to be doing  After that single experience, would I have been justified in thinking if I were going for a L-F on my own boat, I'd rather go the more conventional route, and simply use the downhaul led to a winch instead of the electric mandrell? Or, should I have applied you Flat Tire/Sh_t Happens analogy, and simply shrugged the experience off, and maintained an "Open Mind'? 

So, we deliver the boat to Lauderdale just before Christmas, the owner is gonna race it in the Pineapple Cup the following month. After spending half a day removing the motor, an incredible PITA, it gets shipped back to Germany to be repaired at great expense, and is overnighted back to FL just in time to be re-installed for the start of the race...

45 minutes after the start, while broad reaching in sporty conditions in the Stream, they dip the end of the boom in the back of a wave... That's all it took, the motor was toast, once again... LMAO! So, the owner gets to sail the rest of the way to Montego Bay without the use of this state-of-the-art toy, and I get to eventually bring the boat back to Lauderdale from Jamaica without it, as well...

So, would I _NOW_ be justified in holding the opinion that I'd never want such a setup on a boat of my own, or is the jury still out?

Well, I can tell you it didn't take much longer for the _OWNER_ of that boat to make up his mind...

_Former_ owner, actually... 

I don't know, seems to me a sailor as experienced as Outbound probably has the knowledge and judgement to legitimately determine - at least in his own mind - that a particular system or arrangement is not to his liking, even after only seeing the drawbacks or potential downsides of it on one occasion...


----------



## Don L

What does sail furlers have to do with the thread?????????????????? "Production" boats use the same ones as the "expensive" boats and don't make them themselves. Like most systems on a boat if the users don't operate them correctly it isn't the boat builders fault.

If you don't like furlers don't get one. Geez!


----------



## Omatako

Don0190 said:


> What does sail furlers have to do with the thread?????????????????? "Production" boats use the same ones as the "expensive" boats and don't make themselves. Like most systems on a boat if the users don't operate them correctly it isn't the boat builders fault.
> 
> If you don't like furlers don't get one. Geez!


To your point, I'll bet the owner of this boat doesn't often think "Geez, we need to get rid of those pesky furlers - they'll eventually give us trouble!"


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> What does sail furlers have to do with the thread??????????????????


Did you happen to notice how quickly your "Boat upgrade list" thread died, when you attempted to limit the discussion to what topics/examples you felt 'belonged' there?

We often engage in what amount to _'CONVERSATIONS'_ around here, that's a fact of forum life... One of the defining characteristics of a 'conversation' - well, at least an _INTERESTING_ one - is that they may sometimes take an unexpected turn, often as the result of the use of an example, or an analogy...

You might want to look up the meaning of the word...

)


----------



## ianjoub

JonEisberg said:


> Did you happen to notice how quickly your "Boat upgrade list" thread died, when you attempted to limit the discussion to what topics/examples you felt 'belonged' there?
> 
> We often engage in what amount to _'CONVERSATIONS'_ around here, that's a fact of forum life... One of the defining characteristics of a 'conversation' - well, at least an _INTERESTING_ one - is that they may sometimes take an unexpected turn, often as the result of the use of an example, or an analogy...
> 
> You might want to look up the meaning of the word...
> 
> )


Otherwise known as threadjacking :laugher


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Did you happen to notice how quickly your "Boat upgrade list" thread died, when you attempted to limit the discussion to what topics/examples you felt 'belonged' there?
> 
> We often engage in what amount to _'CONVERSATIONS'_ around here, that's a fact of forum life... One of the defining characteristics of a 'conversation' - well, at least an _INTERESTING_ one - is that they may sometimes take an unexpected turn, often as the result of the use of an example, or an analogy...
> 
> You might want to look up the meaning of the word...
> 
> )


In other words you feel your thread drift is all that matters. :laugher

You ever get tired of being the only one right? You what to trash furlers go ahead and start a thread.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> In other words you feel your thread drift is all that matters. :laugher


Well, if merely responding to Posts #555 & 557 constitutes being guilty of "thread drift", then call me guilty... (Ignoring, of course, the minor detail that I was not the one to raise the subject of in-mast furling, to begin with)



Don0190 said:


> You ever get tired of being the only one right? You what to trash furlers go ahead and start a thread.


I'd suggest you take a Reading Comprehension Refresher Course if you think I'm "trashing furlers"... In another post recently I endorsed the Leisure-Furl system system heartily, what I don't like is the very specific example of placing a $7K electric motor that probably weighs 60 pounds - and can only be repaired by the manufacturer in Europe - at the end of the boom...You must have already seen it, it was posted in a thread you started, after all:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2213106-post41.html

I actually _LOVE_ most types of furling, and I'm guessing my little tub has one more forward of the mast than your boat does...










Don't _you_ ever get tired of attempting to determine what's 'appropriate' for discussion in any given thread around here? Damn, I'll bet you're the life of the party at your annual High School Hall Monitors Reunion...


----------



## Capt Len

Godam ,Love it when a sailor shows he has a sharp knife, a sharp mind and a sharp tongue. Two outa three just gets a wedgie. How's that for drift?


----------



## Group9

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I hardly think that's a very apt analogy... But I suppose that begs the question "How many times must one experience a problem with a particular feature on a boat, before one decides on a preference for an alternative?"
> 
> For example, I've never liked the motorized version of the Leisure-Furl system, which places a very heavy electric motor at the end of the boom. Just seems like a bad idea, I was skeptical of it before I ever had a problem with it, but kept my fingers crossed as we headed south from Annapolis with one in December several years ago...
> 
> We pull into Palm Beach after a very sporty ride out around Canaveral, and sure enough, nothing happens when we pushed the magic button to lower the main... We'd been hard on the breeze, and spray had been flying back to the cockpit, so water intrusion would have been my guess...No big deal, we simply roll down the sail manually. A rather painstaking process with a stick almost 80' tall, however, and certainly not what someone who pays probably $30K for the system really wants to be doing  After that single experience, would I have been justified in thinking if I were going for a L-F on my own boat, I'd rather go the more conventional route, and simply use the downhaul led to a winch instead of the electric mandrell? Or, should I have applied you Flat Tire/Sh_t Happens analogy, and simply shrugged the experience off, and maintained an "Open Mind'?
> 
> So, we deliver the boat to Lauderdale just before Christmas, the owner is gonna race it in the Pineapple Cup the following month. After spending half a day removing the motor, an incredible PITA, it gets shipped back to Germany to be repaired at great expense, and is overnighted back to FL just in time to be re-installed for the start of the race...
> 
> 45 minutes after the start, while broad reaching in sporty conditions in the Stream, they dip the end of the boom in the back of a wave... That's all it took, the motor was toast, once again... LMAO! So, the owner gets to sail the rest of the way to Montego Bay without the use of this state-of-the-art toy, and I get to eventually bring the boat back to Lauderdale from Jamaica without it, as well...
> 
> So, would I _NOW_ be justified in holding the opinion that I'd never want such a setup on a boat of my own, or is the jury still out?
> 
> Well, I can tell you it didn't take much longer for the _OWNER_ of that boat to make up his mind...
> 
> _Former_ owner, actually...
> 
> I don't know, seems to me a sailor as experienced as Outbound probably has the knowledge and judgement to legitimately determine - at least in his own mind - that a particular system or arrangement is not to his liking, even after only seeing the drawbacks or potential downsides of it on one occasion...


I think the tire analogy is apt. Automakers don't make their own tires, they buy them and install them on their vehicles from the people who do make them. Sometimes, they get really bad tires (i.e. Firestone 500s). That doesn't mean a car with Firestone 500s installed on it is a bad car.

I'm not talking about whether in mast furling is good or bad (I don't think it's a great idea either). I'm talking about saying he doesn't like Hinkley's because the aftermarket product on one failed. Does Hinkley make their own in mast furling system?

Sorry, I just don't see the logic. But, maybe it's there and I just don't get it.


----------



## JonEisberg

Group9 said:


> I think the tire analogy is apt. Automakers don't make their own tires, they buy them and install them on their vehicles from the people who do make them. Sometimes, they get really bad tires (i.e. Firestone 500s). That doesn't mean a car with Firestone 500s installed on it is a bad car.
> 
> I'm not talking about whether in mast furling is good or bad (I don't think it's a great idea either). *I'm talking about saying he doesn't like Hinkley's because the aftermarket product on one failed. * Does Hinkley make their own in mast furling system?
> 
> Sorry, I just don't see the logic. But, maybe it's there and I just don't get it.


Well, I think most folks would take what outbound wrote to imply that he's skeptical of _in-mast furling_, and not _boats built by Hinckley_...





outbound said:


> Having been on a hinckley that jammed its in mast roller main on a trip back to N.E. from Bermuda after a Marion I'm not a fan. Also like roach in a main. But Amels which for decades have been considered good blue water boats seem to do quite well with them.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I think most folks would take what outbound wrote to imply that he's skeptical of _in-mast furling_, and not _boats built by Hinckley_...


I think you could read Out's post either way.


----------



## Cdory28167

There's a lot of mention of "the boat can take more than the skipper/crew can," but this should be considered in the context of cruising offshore. Once you're out there, you have no choice but to take it. The last thing you need is a boat that adds to your woes. 

Modern designs tout speed that can run from approaching weather, but that would likely require a wild ride through near-storm conditions and gear (e.g., wind vane) that doesn't fail when you most need it. Older designs heave to well and/or can lie ahull and survive.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I think you could read Out's post either way.


Well, I think that's rather a stretch... Do you think outbound is also suggesting that Hinckley's mainsails are unique in having a hollow leech, and their lack of a roach?

Sure, you can read outbound's comment any way you want to. One could also take away that he's "a fan of" sailing _TO_ Bermuda, but not _BACK_ to Marion, I suppose...

However, I doubt that's the point he was trying to make...


----------



## smackdaddy

Cdory28167 said:


> There's a lot of mention of "the boat can take more than the skipper/crew can," but this should be considered in the context of cruising offshore. Once you're out there, you have no choice but to take it. The last thing you need is a boat that adds to your woes.


That sounds good in theory - but it seems an increasing number of cruisers, on both old traditional heavies and new production boats, are calling the USCG when things get nasty. You're just talking about a matter of "comfort" not actual peril. In this regard, the difference of degrees of woe encountered in either boat is pretty small.

It's the sailors. Period. The only way that changes is if one boat type or the other is truly consistently falling apart. That's not happening from what I've seen.



Cdory28167 said:


> Modern designs tout speed that can run from approaching weather, but that would likely require a wild ride through near-storm conditions and gear (e.g., wind vane) that doesn't fail when you most need it. Older designs heave to well and/or can lie ahull and survive.


My Hunter heaves to just fine. And though I've not yet tried it, I have a SeaBrake drogue that should keep us safe in a big blow that surpasses heaving-to conditions. The difference between my Hunter and a 45 year-old full-keeler is that I can do this AND still go fast.

Sorry. I just don't buy your argument.

That gives me an idea for another thread though...


----------



## outbound

I LOVE Hinckleys, I'd be walking on clover with a new B50 under my toes. I'm reluctant to have in mast due weight aloft and to past experience but accept if done right a reasonable feature. I pointed out many voyagers have them without mishap.I'm reluctant to have schaeffer or leisure furl due to weight of the boom, fear if you break the halyard you have a large uncontrolled sail on the deck and loss of ability to shape sail but realize it may be a good trade off of larger boats sailed by small crews. Once again many far reaching cruising boats have them without mishap.For convenience like all powered winches and Dutchman. That why even if the power is lost you can still raise, reef and strike the old fashioned way. 
What I object to is the current generation of both sail and power boats where if you have a software malfunction or lose electrical power you have a large piece of flotsam.


----------



## outbound

Smack you are never ever to disparage a mans boat or his wife. Otherwise you end up like BS. However, I remain convinced there are a few boats being made still aimed at the very limited market of offshore sailors. The production builders appropriately see this market as so limited as not to be worth the cost of tooling and molds. The resultant boats reflect this economic reality.
I was just invited to crew on a vessel going from California to Europe. I declined as it would conflict with the SDR. In discussion you would want to know
type of vessel
age of vessel
equipment on vessel
maintenance and state of vessel
and then about crew/captain.
Surely where would you feel more secure. On a vessel purpose built for blue water or a production boat aimed at the coastal market.
Simply things like a boat built with a liner would make me nervous- I cant see nor access much of the interior of the hull. Safely factors in rig and hull construction. I'd rather be in a hull with factors of 3-4x than 2x. No fears of oilcanning. No fears of catastrophic failure falling off a wave. In an aged hull would be wary of cored vessels and so on.
Yes a skilled mariner is important to the survival of the craft but knowing the craft was built to the purpose used gives great comfort.
I don't think its about production v one offs. I'd rather be on a good condition PSC, Mason, Outbound, Shannon, Hinkle etc. than a B,H or J. when it gets really nasty.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Surely even in a "stick-built" boat, furniture and cabinetry (joinery?) can impede inspections and repairs of hull damage?

My cabin liner has access panels that allow me to access nearly the entire skin of the hull. My access along the centerline is somewhat limited, but my ballast is encapsulated, so there are no keelbolts to worry about. There's a section along the aft port quarter of the liner that has no access, but I could easily make a large inspection panel that would give me access.

I could (and probably will) laminate stringers to the entire hull by these access panels.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack you are never ever to disparage a mans boat or his wife. Otherwise you end up like BS.


Woah, woah. Where did I disparage a man's boat - or wife?

I said that my Hunter is faster than an old, traditional, full-keeler. And that is absolutely true. That's not disparaging anyone or anything.


----------



## outbound

Bubble agreed. I have no wish to disparage any one's boat. Like the ladies they are all beautiful but none do everything well ( just like me- I do few things well). Still I was trying to make a fundamental point. The market has diverged. In the past more boats were multifunctional. You could reasonably be competitive on a stock boat racing and cruising. Now my boat with a PHRF of 90 would get smoked by a dedicated racer with a PHRF of zero or negative numbers. With cheap oil and U.S. labor being reasonable a Cape Dory 40 or 45, a Valiant and like boats of past decades were in reach of us expense wise and could be sailed anywhere. The markets have diverged. A friend took his Bene 50 to the Caribe. Its a fine boat with huge expanses of room to live in and entertain. The boat got beat up. He had huge bills to restore it to its former glory and vowed to never make that trip again. A couple on my finger pier "commutes" yearly on their Valiant to the BVIs. They short haul for the bottom/zincs and life goes on. As an example I'd rather be on Smacks Hunter than one built more recently aimed at competing for the usual coastal cruising couple or family's dollar.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by Cdory28167
> 
> Modern designs tout speed that can run from approaching weather, but that would likely require a wild ride through near-storm conditions and gear (e.g., wind vane) that doesn't fail when you most need it. Older designs heave to well and/or can lie ahull and survive.
> 
> 
> 
> My Hunter heaves to just fine. And though I've not yet tried it, I have a SeaBrake drogue that should keep us safe in a big blow that surpasses heaving-to conditions. The difference between my Hunter and a 45 year-old full-keeler is that I can do this AND still go fast.
Click to expand...

I don't think your Hunter is as fast as you think it is... 

If you really think the speed differential between your boat and, say, a Baba 40 is sufficient to allow you to consistently outrun or out-maneuver open ocean low pressure systems that the Baba would be caught up in, well... _you're dreaming_...





> We regularly read reviews in the sailing press of 40- and 45-foot offshore cruising boats that are "capable of 200-mile days" and have seen quotes saying things like, "In the right conditions, any well designed modern 48 foot boat should achieve 8.33 knot [200 mile per day] averages." *Other articles and books advocate 'larger' boats in order to maneuver with respect to weather systems. Yet low pressure systems can move at 20 knots or more and bring storm- or gale-force winds to areas within a couple hundred miles of the low center. Even good weather routers can usually only give accurate forecasts on the speed and direction of these systems 12 to 24 hours in advance of the storm. Therefore, these authors are assuming that these 'larger' boats can sail 200 miles in a day to get on the right side or to get out of the way of the approaching weather. *Yet if we move from theory to reality, we have met only a few crews on cruising boats less than 50 feet who have made good 200 miles toward their destination in twenty-four hours, and only two crews on much larger boats who have averaged 200-mile days for the length of a passage.
> 
> http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/200mile.pdf


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I don't think your Hunter is as fast as you think it is...
> 
> If you really think the speed differential between your boat and, say, a Baba 40 is sufficient to allow you to consistently outrun or out-maneuver open ocean low pressure systems that the Baba would be caught up in, well... _you're dreaming_...


You'll notice that I didn't list mileage or claim I could outrun storms. I said my boat is faster than a 45-year-old full keeler. It is.

So what's your point?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You'll notice that I didn't list mileage or claim I could outrun storms. I said my boat is faster than a 45-year-old full keeler. It is.
> 
> So what's your point?


As usual, _It depends..._

Faster while beating into 25-30 knots offshore for days on end, for example? I wouldn't be so sure about that, flat-bottomed boats with little forefoot tend not to like that too much...

I've sailed more than one Production Flyer that needed to be seriously throttled back when the going got sporty, whereas something like a Baba 40 could have kept soldiering on...

My point remains, I don't think your boat is as fast as you think it is, when being sailed offshore, in Kroozing Trim...


----------



## smackdaddy

Ah, it's about your Depends again.

Okay, I suppose if the ONLY way to get to a destination is to beat into 25-30 knots for days on end and the Baba (which, being Bob's design has my utmost respect) can do it without any breakages. Yes. I suppose it will get there faster...primarily because I'm certainly not interested in pushing myself, my boys, or my boat that hard. I'll just head somewhere else or hang out until it calms down a bit.

For the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of sailing, I like my Hunter. It will be faster than the Baba.


----------



## davidpm

I forget the young sailors name. I think the boat might have been pink lady.

The way her team solved the problem was to install a 5 point aircraft harness in a below decks seat for when it got rough.

She strapped herself in and I suspect was as safe as she was going to be.

As others have said and I have experienced in much more benign situations the chance of getting seriously injured by falling in the cabin approaches 100% at some point.

Travelingeasy's story is particularly compelling.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Ah, it's about your Depends again.


Well, here's a News Flash for you: When discussing situations involving sailing small boats out on a big ocean, it _ALWAYS_ "depends", any two scenarios are rarely identical... 



smackdaddy said:


> Okay, I suppose if the ONLY way to get to a destination is to beat into 25-30 knots for days on end and the Baba (which, being Bob's design has my utmost respect) can do it without any breakages. Yes. I suppose it will get there faster...primarily because I'm certainly not interested in pushing myself, my boys, or my boat that hard. I'll just head somewhere else or hang out until it calms down a bit.
> 
> For the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of sailing, I like my Hunter. It will be faster than the Baba.


Every once in awhile, when the Caribbean 1500 fleet encounters the Trades 2/3 of the way down the rhumbline, the only way to the destination can be a punishing slog uphill...

My guess would be that you'd bite the bullet and keep bashing on, for I don't think you'd be able to stomach the prospect of the crew on some obsolete full-keeler enjoying the After Party at Nanny Cay, while you were still "hanging out", hove-to 200 miles NW of San Juan...


----------



## RTB

smackdaddy said:


> primarily because I'm certainly not interested in pushing myself, my boys, or my boat that hard. I'll just head somewhere else or hang out until it calms down a bit.


You know...you're going to make a good cruiser some day. That's our thinking too, and it works very well. Why beat yourself and the boat up? Especially if the boat is your home, like us and so many other cruisers out there.

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> My guess would be that you'd bite the bullet and keep bashing on, for I don't think you'd be able to stomach the prospect of the crew on some obsolete full-keeler enjoying the After Party at Nanny Cay, while you were still "hanging out", hove-to 200 miles NW of San Juan...


Why should something like that bother me and make me take more risk? I'm more interested in keeping ourselves and my boat safe than worrying about some After Party.

Ah, you're pointing out the inherent dangers of herd mentality with rallies. Yes, you're right, it is a problem for most people in many of these rallies...especially the less experienced ones.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Why should something like that bother me and make me take more risk? I'm more interested in keeping ourselves and my boat safe than worrying about some After Party.
> 
> Ah, you're pointing out the inherent dangers of herd mentality with rallies. Yes, you're right, it is a problem for most people in many of these rallies...especially the less experienced ones.


Rest easy, smack - sorry if you missed my drift, that was merely intended as a 'lighthearted jab'...


----------



## outbound

So let me understand this Jon. You would rather be on a Baba then an Outbound or a Boreal or a recent HR or a Morris going upwind in the snot. I have the utmost respect for you and your experience but think you are offending all the NAs of the last thirty years. Surely they are smart and have advanced boat design with each passing year. I have gone to weather in thirty knots. I appreciate the moderate weight of my boat ( she's not an ultralight flyer). I can only compare to my prior Tayana to say the ride is much better as is the vmg. Bob designs and has designed great boats. I would like to think his best days have not passed.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> So let me understand this Jon. *You would rather be on a Baba then an Outbound or a Boreal or a recent HR or a Morris going upwind in the snot.* I have the utmost respect for you and your experience but think you are offending all the NAs of the last thirty years. Surely they are smart and have advanced boat design with each passing year. I have gone to weather in thirty knots. I appreciate the moderate weight of my boat ( she's not an ultralight flyer). I can only compare to my prior Tayana to say the ride is much better as is the vmg. Bob designs and has designed great boats. I would like to think his best days have not passed.


Sorry, but I'm not saying that at all... I'd rather be on any of those you've listed, rather than the Baba...

However, if the choice were between the Baba and a Hunter, I'd take the former 

Now, before some start accusing me of "trashing" Hunters, permit me to say that one of my most pleasant trips up and down the coast in recent memory, was aboard a Hunter 41... With the exception of a few features, I enjoyed the hell out of that boat... But I was lucky, it was an easy trip down and back in favorable conditions, and I'm sorry, but it would NOT be my preferred choice for beating into a big breeze and seas for days on end...


----------



## outbound

So we are back to the original premise. There are truly offshore boats and coastal boats. Whether they are in production or one offs is not relevant. As time goes by the lines of production boats are more likely to be aimed at coastal use with fewer production offshore boats being made. Given how limited this market is a premium is charged for them as with limited runs cost per unit is higher.


----------



## TQA

JonEisberg said:


> Well, here's a News Flash for you: When discussing situations involving sailing small boats out on a big ocean, it _ALWAYS_ "depends", any two scenarios are rarely identical...
> 
> Every once in awhile, when the Caribbean 1500 fleet encounters the Trades 2/3 of the way down the rhumbline, the only way to the destination can be a punishing slog uphill...
> 
> My guess would be that you'd bite the bullet and keep bashing on, for I don't think you'd be able to stomach the prospect of the crew on some obsolete full-keeler enjoying the After Party at Nanny Cay, while you were still "hanging out", hove-to 200 miles NW of San Juan...


Thats the delivery mentality, most cruisers would be easing the sheets and checking the charts for the Turks and Caicos, Haiti and the DR. It's nice down there too.


----------



## smackdaddy

TQA said:


> Thats the delivery mentality, most cruisers would be easing the sheets and checking the charts for the Turks and Caicos, Haiti and the DR. It's nice down there too.


Bingo.


----------



## SVAuspicious

TQA said:


> Thats the delivery mentality, most cruisers would be easing the sheets and checking the charts for the Turks and Caicos, Haiti and the DR. It's nice down there too.


I don't agree. It doesn't have anything to do with deliveries and everything to do with good route planning. Get lots of Easting North of the trades and you can go where you want. You may be late or early but you'll get where you planned.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> I don't agree. It doesn't have anything to do with deliveries and everything to do with good route planning. Get lots of Easting North of the trades and you can go where you want. You may be late or early but you'll get where you planned.


Yup... Sometimes it's just a simple matter of "Do you want to take your medicine now, or take it later?" 

Given the choice of being able to lay Tortola on one tack in November, or waiting until the Christmas winds can get _REALLY_ established in December or January to beat my way directly into them out of Provo, or Luperon, well... I think I'll take my medicine sooner, thank you...

For cruisers really interested in going places, and lack the luxury of having no schedule whatsoever, sometimes there's just no good way to avoid having to sail to weather...

That's why it can often pay dividends to have a boat capable of doing so...


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> I don't agree. It doesn't have anything to do with deliveries and everything to do with good route planning. Get lots of Easting North of the trades and you can go where you want. You may be late or early but you'll get where you planned.


I don't think anyone is disputing the need for good route planning. I think the point is that if your _only_ choice is beating into huge conditions for days on end, you've obviously not done a great job of planning in the first place and might need to consider another option.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> For cruisers really interested in going places, and lack the luxury of having no schedule whatsoever, sometimes there's just no good way to avoid having to sail to weather...
> 
> That's why it can often pay dividends to have a boat capable of doing so...


Relatively modern boats are very comfortable upwind. You don't have to beat your head against the wall. Many times a close reach is one of the most comfortable points of sail. Boats like Jon's and mine are fine heading to weather. Just crack off a bit and and enjoy yourself. An autopilot that steers to wind or a vane make the experience a real pleasure.


----------



## Whitebread117

"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." - Hunter S. Thompson

Surely it's been quoted already, but I didn't want to hunt through 60 pages of discussion to find it. So there it is (likely again). If it hasn't already been used, shame on all of you - there's very few chances to use an iconic quote in a relevant manner during normal discussion and you gentlemen (and gentlewomen?) have dropped the ball.

Back on track, look at the number of (mentally questionable mascochistic) folks who have rowed across the Pacific, or gone Transatlantic in a daysailer in recent years. It seems to me that in the age of accurate weather forecasts, most anyone can get from A to B in whatever floaty tub they like IF they are willing to be flexible on timeline and stopover points en route to final destination. A conservative mentality regarding weather and a willingness to deviate from the travel plan negates a lot of the arguments for a heavy displacement bruiser.

Those of you who voluntarily choose to cruise high lattitudes or want to (or need to) push a tight schedule into questionable conditions benefit from a beefier boat. No question there. But horses for courses folks. The people that are more flexible on time/destination and more conservative regarding projected (really) rough weather can also be more flexible in their shopping choices.

Not saying there's not still a risk of being caught in a freak storm, but I'd take those odds over the risk of being in a traffic accident on most US roads. I'd probably pass on taking a modern production boat on repeat laps across the north Atlantic in winter, but a crossing with an eye on the weather and a willingness to wait for a favorable window suddenly becomes much less of a concern.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> . As an example I'd rather be on Smacks Hunter than one built more recently aimed at competing for the usual coastal cruising couple or family's dollar.


I wouldn't! Just like in cars more modern boats just plain benefit from better construction methods. My last boat was a 1988 model that was considered to be of high construction, but compared to my 2001 Hunter it was definitely in my opinion not as well put together.

This "older is better" thinking is just a way for us older people to try to be superior because since we are better than younger people, then so must the stuff built "in our day".


----------



## Pendragon35

I have one of the first production fiberglass sailboats: An Alberg 35. She's narrow, compared to contemporary designs, her stern lifts in a way I think is graceful: no swim platform. 
A similar boat with minimal re-equipping hove to and sat out the 1979 Fastnet storm off Ireland. So the boat can handle tough conditions?

But my wife and I can't. She's just learning to sail; I've been sailing for 40 years, but almost never on anything bigger than 22'. I've been out of sight of land once, on a trip to Beaver Island, MI. We think just getting out of the Patapsco River to the Chesapeake is a big deal. Our "big water cruise" plan for next summer is St. Michaels.

Having a tough, well equipped vessel is better, maybe critical; clearly if your keel falls off or your rudder fails you're in trouble. But when it comes down to it, we've all heard the stories of people who overcame these things. It's the sailors that make the difference.

A boat and crew are a unit. The boat will be a blue water cruiser when we are.


----------



## smackdaddy

Whitebread117 said:


> "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." - Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> Surely it's been quoted already, but I didn't want to hunt through 60 pages of discussion to find it. So there it is (likely again). If it hasn't already been used, shame on all of you - there's very few chances to use an iconic quote in a relevant manner during normal discussion and you gentlemen (and gentlewomen?) have dropped the ball.
> 
> Back on track, look at the number of (mentally questionable mascochistic) folks who have rowed across the Pacific, or gone Transatlantic in a daysailer in recent years. It seems to me that in the age of accurate weather forecasts, most anyone can get from A to B in whatever floaty tub they like IF they are willing to be flexible on timeline and stopover points en route to final destination. A conservative mentality regarding weather and a willingness to deviate from the travel plan negates a lot of the arguments for a heavy displacement bruiser.
> 
> Those of you who voluntarily choose to cruise high lattitudes or want to (or need to) push a tight schedule into questionable conditions benefit from a beefier boat. No question there. But horses for courses folks. The people that are more flexible on time/destination and more conservative regarding projected (really) rough weather can also be more flexible in their shopping choices.
> 
> Not saying there's not still a risk of being caught in a freak storm, but I'd take those odds over the risk of being in a traffic accident on most US roads. I'd probably pass on taking a modern production boat on repeat laps across the north Atlantic in winter, but a crossing with an eye on the weather and a willingness to wait for a favorable window suddenly becomes much less of a concern.


Bingo.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> I wouldn't! Just like in cars more modern boats just plain benefit from better construction methods. My last boat was a 1988 model that was considered to be of high construction, but compared to my 2001 Hunter it was definitely in my opinion not as well put together.
> 
> This "older is better" thinking is just a way for us older people to try to be superior because since we are better than younger people, then so must the stuff built "in our day".


You might be harshing my boat a bit - but I agree with you. I don't buy the "older is better" argument at all when it comes to boats. How many of us are using 25 year old VHFs in our boats? How about 25 year old GPS? Heh-heh.

The very fact that we can be extolling the virtues of a nearly 50 year old boat is really pretty amazing in itself.

Beyond that, the bluewater boat debate is seriously goofy.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Given the choice of being able to lay Tortola on one tack in November, or waiting until the Christmas winds can get _REALLY_ established in December or January to beat my way directly into them out of Provo, or Luperon, well... I think I'll take my medicine sooner, thank you...
> 
> *For cruisers really interested in going places, and lack the luxury of having no schedule whatsoever*, sometimes there's just no good way to avoid having to sail to weather...


Jon, I honestly can't believe you typed these words.

Your cruiser is willing to tear up his boat by beating into big wind and waves because he's "really interested in going places" and doesn't "have the luxury" of not having a schedule?

I'm going to have to assume that you're just being provocative because this is really the dumbest advice for up-and-coming cruisers I've seen in a long time.

_"Buy an old Baba and you can sail through whatever you want on a single tack and always meet your schedule. Weather and seamanship be damned."_

Ausp is even trying to temper these comments above. As a very experienced delivery captain, you really mystify me sometimes.


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Ah, it's about your Depends again.
> 
> Okay, I suppose if the ONLY way to get to a destination is to beat into 25-30 knots for days on end and the Baba (which, being Bob's design has my utmost respect) can do it without any breakages. Yes. I suppose it will get there faster...primarily because I'm certainly not interested in pushing myself, my boys, or my boat that hard. I'll just head somewhere else or hang out until it calms down a bit.
> 
> For the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of sailing, I like my Hunter. It will be faster than the Baba.


Well, if you can beat my friend Jeff HarTjoy on his BABA 40 good for you, but you will have to get past the break water first.

Cape Horn: Ahead or Behind Forever on My Mind, Solo Around the Horn: Jeffrey R Hartjoy: 9781499535594: Amazon.com: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@51YODZ4BJDL


----------



## smackdaddy

A Hunter 49 (_S/V Sequitur_) comfortably did The Horn in an F10/11. So what's your point?


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> A Hunter 49 (_S/V Sequitur_) comfortably did The Horn in an F10/11. So what's your point?


Just more hat then cow from the armchair.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's my hat and cattle:









_S/V Sequitur, a Hunter 49, off Cape Horn in 52+ knots._



> "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."


Sequitur - To Cape Horn in Comfort and Style: Michael Walsh: 9780991955602: Amazon.com: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@51NeLF5gkWL


----------



## aeventyr60

Still living vicariously through others adventures? The old cut and paste sailor strikes again! Come on Smack, post your own go pro stuff. Far more interesting stuff in your own files?


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> Still living vicariously through others adventures? The old cut and paste sailor strikes again! Come on Smack, post your own go pro stuff. Far more interesting stuff in your own files?


I'm getting there. I'm just saying - don't blame Hunter if you can't sail worth a damn.

(I'm on my own bad-ass-F-10-spanking Hunter as we speak.)


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> I'm getting there. I'm just saying - don't blame Hunter if you can't sail worth a damn.
> 
> (I'm on my own bad-ass-F-10-spanking Hunter as we speak.)


You must be having some kind of fit. Never mentioned anything about your Hunter. Enjoy your evening, a bit rainy and cool in the the "Land of Smiles" this morning.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> You must be having some kind of fit. Never mentioned anything about your Hunter. Enjoy your evening, a bit rainy and cool in the the "Land of Smiles" this morning.


My mistake. I thought the hat/cow thing was about Hunter. I guess it's about me not being able to enjoy the "Land of Smiles" yet.

I'll get there. We all have our timelines.

Stay tuned, dude.


----------



## aeventyr60

No winners for the Coldie Cup yet.......You are still in contention.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Relatively modern boats are very comfortable upwind. You don't have to beat your head against the wall. Many times a close reach is one of the most comfortable points of sail. Boats like Jon's and mine are fine heading to weather. Just crack off a bit and and enjoy yourself. An autopilot that steers to wind or a vane make the experience a real pleasure.


Well, some are, and some aren't 

As much as I enjoyed my trips on that Hunter 41 I mentioned, I sure wouldn't want to have to do much sailing hard on the breeze in one... But many of my 'issues' with some of today's boats have nothing to do with sailing performance. It's often stuff like cockpit and deck ergonomics, and what you encounter when going below that can often make them uncomfortable, exhausting, and sometimes downright dangerous to be sailing to weather offshore...

The interiors by Ikea may look snazzy at the boat shows, but take those wide open spaces with few handholds, sharp corners, 'Euro-style' galleys, lack of decent seaberths and so on, put them on an decent angle of heel, and sailing many of today's Latest & Greatest to weather can grow _VERY _ old, _VERY_ quickly...

The aforementioned Hunter had one rather important feature below that simply boggled the mind... Here's the galley on a sister ship:










That black thing aft of the stove is the front-opening _door_ of the refrigerator... Any guesses as to what happens to the contents of that thing when it's opened on port tack? Hell, even Sea Ray generally tries to orient their Winnebago reefer doors to swing open in a fore & aft axis...

Even if you were lucky enough to get in plenty of easting early on that boat, what should be a fast and very enjoyable final slide on port tack down Route 66 to the islands would be an incredible PITA on a boat with such a feature... Having to tack in order to avoid dumping the contents of the fridge onto 'the kitchen floor' every time you wanted to open it, yeah... that might grow old, _VERY _ quickly...

But, hey, if it looks OK in the eyes of their 'Target Demographic' at the Boat Shows, it's all good...

)


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> As much as I enjoyed my trips on that Hunter 41 I mentioned, I sure wouldn't want to have to do much sailing hard on the breeze in one... But many of my 'issues' with some of today's boats have nothing to do with sailing performance. It's often stuff like cockpit and deck ergonomics, and what you encounter when going below that can often make them uncomfortable, exhausting, and sometimes downright dangerous to be sailing to weather offshore...


As usual Jon I generally agree with you. Ergonomics are important, especially around critical elements like cooking. It astounds me that so many manufacturers can't find an aesthetically pleasing way to incorporate handholds throughout the boat.

I do think that seaberths are overrated. The floor is a great place to sleep. You can't fall off the floor. *grin*

My point about sailing to weather on relatively new boats (including yours) is that a passage can be pleasant above a broad reach. As you well know sometimes your VMG is better on a close reach than a beat. Almost always the boat is more comfortable and an extra five or even ten percent passage time is a worthwhile trade.

I looks like I'll be doing this very thing this weekend from Newport to NY Harbor. Why pound into LIS chop in NWly and Wly winds when we can head offshore and do it in one tack? *grin*


----------



## JonEisberg

Whitebread117 said:


> It seems to me that in the age of accurate weather forecasts, most anyone can get from A to B in whatever floaty tub they like IF they are willing to be flexible on timeline and stopover points en route to final destination. A conservative mentality regarding weather and a willingness to deviate from the travel plan negates a lot of the arguments for a heavy displacement bruiser.


The problem with these discussions often becomes that they are so often divided along the lines of New vs Old, Heavy vs Light, Production vs Custom, and so on... In my view, such distinctions are _WAY_ too simplistic, and do little to further an understanding of what _CHARACTERISTICS_ are desirable, or not, in a boat to be taken offshore... I've sailed more than a couple of "heavy displacement bruisers" that had features that became serious liabilities for passagemaking, for instance... Likewise, some lighter displacement boats can be in many respects well suited for sailing offshore, a boat like a J-42 or 46 is one of the first that comes to my mind. The late Ned Cabot did some very impressive high latitude voyaging in his J-46, for example...












Whitebread117 said:


> Not saying there's not still a risk of being caught in a freak storm, but I'd take those odds over the risk of being in a traffic accident on most US roads. I'd probably pass on taking a modern production boat on repeat laps across the north Atlantic in winter, but a crossing with an eye on the weather and a willingness to wait for a favorable window suddenly becomes much less of a concern.


Even for a passage from the East coast to the islands in November or December ? Some folks learned a bit about the reliability of "favorable weather windows" in "The Age of Accurate Forecasts" last November, I seem to recall:



> Weather Routing Delusions
> 
> I have saved what I think is the biggest reason for this sorry state of affairs for last. Back 40 years ago, when I first started ocean passaging, we were subjected to at least one gale, and maybe worse, on at least half the passages I went on. The reason was simple. We set a date to go, and when that day came, we went. That was just the way it was. Weather forecasts were pretty useless past 36 hours then, so why try to pick a window? We went to sea and dealt with what came.
> 
> The result of these frequent heavy weather experiences was that we knew better than to make the basic errors detailed above. That knowledge was just embedded in the sport of offshore sailing.
> 
> But about 20 years ago, much better weather forecasting became available and cruisers started buying routing packages from the professionals and listening to gifted and dedicated amateurs like Herb, of South Bound II fame. And gradually, over time, a very dangerous delusion set in.
> 
> *A whole generation of offshore sailors, and aspiring ones, have got the idea, aided and abetted by the yachting press, the routers, and perhaps several easy passages, that if they just have a good enough forecaster on their side and wait long enough for a window, and blindly do exactly what the router tells them, they can go voyaging and never face a gale at sea. And they set their boats and themselves up on that assumption. Well, that's&#8230;let me see if I can put this gently&#8230;bullsh_t.*
> 
> Even today, forecasts are only reliable out about 72 hours, and that goes double for the fall in the North Atlantic. So any boat and crew that are planning on participating in the fall migration should be comfortable with the fact that they may be subjected to gale force winds at some point and that there's a very real chance that they will experience a full-on storm at sea, and prepare accordingly. A boat and crew that is not confident in their ability, and willingness, to deal with that, should not go to sea, it's that simple.
> 
> Atlantic Sailboat Rallies Are Not A Good Idea In The Fall


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> You might be harshing my boat a bit


Not harshing your boat at all. In fact I always feel it is crazy to bash any 20+ year old boat that is in good shape.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> Given the choice of being able to lay Tortola on one tack in November, or waiting until the Christmas winds can get REALLY established in December or January to beat my way directly into them out of Provo, or Luperon, well... I think I'll take my medicine sooner, thank you...
> 
> For cruisers really interested in going places, and lack the luxury of having no schedule whatsoever, sometimes there's just no good way to avoid having to sail to weather...
> 
> 
> 
> Jon, I honestly can't believe you typed these words.
> 
> Your cruiser is willing to tear up his boat by beating into big wind and waves because he's "really interested in going places" and doesn't "have the luxury" of not having a schedule?
> 
> I'm going to have to assume that you're just being provocative because this is really the dumbest advice for up-and-coming cruisers I've seen in a long time.
> 
> _"Buy an old Baba and you can sail through whatever you want on a single tack and always meet your schedule. Weather and seamanship be damned."_
Click to expand...

If you really believe that's what I'm saying, methinks you could use a Reading Comprehension Refresher Course...

I'm going to have to assume that you're just being provocative because this is really the dumbest interpretation of something I've written I've seen in a long time.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Here's my hat and cattle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _S/V Sequitur, a Hunter 49, off Cape Horn in 52+ knots._


Why do you persist in your endless repetition of this falsehood?

You _KNOW_ that SEQUITUR hove-to in the lee of West Falkland. Only to those who believe that 500 NM to the NE is rightfully considered "off Cape Horn" would your statement be accurate...

Michael's voyage was exemplary, awesome in every respect, no question about it... It certainly doesn't require any of the false/misleading embellishment you continue to apply to it, and should be left to stand on its own highly impressive merits alone...


----------



## Dean101

Is it possible we are generalizing too much by comparing Hunter to Baba, or Catalina to Beneteau? I mean, within each brand aren't there different series', different keel options, different hull shapes and specs, even different build qualities over the years? It seems to me that the characteristics of each boat regardless of, or even within each, brand would dictate it's strengths and weaknesses more so than the name stamped on it. From everything I've heard and read, all cruising is not the same. I would think any boat could be taken anywhere by a good sailor. My question is, do the so called production boats hold up as well over time when used offshore as a more traditional design?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Why do you persist in your endless repetition of this falsehood?
> 
> You _KNOW_ that SEQUITUR hove-to in the lee of West Falkland. Only to those who believe that 500 NM to the NE is rightfully considered "off Cape Horn" would your statement be accurate...
> 
> Michael's voyage was exemplary, awesome in every respect, no question about it... It certainly doesn't require any of the false/misleading embellishment you continue to apply to it, and should be left to stand on its own highly impressive merits alone...


You certainly have a thing about Micheal. You maintain that he didn't "_really_ round the horn", when he says he did:



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.


Then you poo-poo his comfortably riding out a very serious storm in the southern ocean (in a Hunter by the way).

Sequitur

And it wasn't West Falkland, it was East Falkland. Putting him roughly here:










In this part of the ocean, which is pretty vast, I definitely consider him to still be "off Cape Horn". As he said in his post, at that position, the next easterly landfall is Chile. Think about that.

You can nitpick his position all you want. But he did it. Period.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You certainly have a thing about Micheal. You maintain that he didn't "_really_ round the horn", when he says he did:


Actually, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Michael and his accomplishments with SEQUITUR... Even more than you do, it might appear 

Michael sailed out _TO_ Cape Horn, then back from whence they came... No question, that in itself is a hugely impressive feat, something I am certainly unlikely ever to do aboard a boat of my own. However, in my mind - and I think in the minds of most sailors - that does not constitute a true "rounding" of Cape Horn. And to place such quick dashes out there and back in that category, well... I think that only tends to diminish the accomplishments of sailors like Matt Rutherford, John Kretschmer, aventyr's friend, and scores of other sailors who have done a 'true' rounding of Cabo Hornos...

I've been to that part of the world, and have seen first hand how awe-inspiring the conditions can be that sailors venturing down there can face. The Falklands are one of the windiest, wildest places I've ever seen, and I am _HUGELY_ impressed by SEQUITUR's crew for having ridden out a storm in those waters in safety, and such apparent comfort...

Rather, it seems YOU are not quite as impressed as I am, that riding out a storm off the Falklands _is not quite impressve enough_, and needs some further embellishment with your implication that they rode out that weather in the Drake Passage instead, in your desperation to 'prove' that a particular brand of boat can, indeed, _"Go The Distance"..._


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm not desparate at all. Michael proved all that needs proving. That Hunter 49 is a seriously impressive bluewater boat. 

Oh and don't worry, I'm impressed.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I'm not desparate at all. Michael proved all that needs proving. *That Hunter 49 is a seriously impressive bluewater boat. *


OK, if you say so...

But looking at those side decks, I'm not sure they're even wide enough to accommodate the ubiquitous Cruiser's Cluster of Jerry Jugs...


----------



## Don L

Boats with good tankage don't need those stupid jugs on the side decks!


----------



## killarney_sailor

Actually you need a couple of diesel cans and a couple of water cans if you are going to cruise in a lot of places. Getting fuel and water means a trip ashore. We have a handy cart that will take three jerry cans, so having three of each might not be a bad idea.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Boats with good tankage don't need those stupid jugs on the side decks!


Well, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, based upon what you see so many cruisers doing out there in the Real World... Hell, most folks can't even make it down the ICW and over to the Bahamas, without resorting to carrying fuel on deck...

Ooops, looks like even Smackdaddy's 2 most recent cites of voyagers tearing up the oceans on their Bluewater Hunters seem to agree... 



smackdaddy said:


> And here's a Hunter that made it through last year's ill-fated SDR which saw several FKT boats (see above) beat down:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they even had a bunch of crap hanging off the back of it. Tough boats.


And this YouTube recently linked to:






And the skipper of this Hunter "Passage" in the Caribbean 1500 a couple of years ago obviously felt the need... Looks like he subscribed to the belief that when storing a couple of hundred pounds of diesel on deck, _the higher above the waterline, the better_...

)


----------



## Don L

So now the winning item is jerry cans on the deck (even though some boats have enough stern locker space to put 10 of those in it). Wish I were motivated enough to hunt down pictures to support such a thing to prove I'm right (not).

BTW - just where do those old boats put their jerry cans? Are old boats designed specifically to store jerry cans on the deck. If so that seems sad to me.


----------



## JonEisberg

killarney_sailor said:


> Actually you need a couple of diesel cans and a couple of water cans if you are going to cruise in a lot of places. Getting fuel and water means a trip ashore. We have a handy cart that will take three jerry cans, so having three of each might not be a bad idea.


I'm able to manage with just one... Hell, you get more exercise that way 










There are times, however, where it can be pretty nice to have it delivered right to the boat...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, based upon what you see so many cruisers doing out there in the Real World... Hell, most folks can't even make it down the ICW and over to the Bahamas, without resorting to carrying fuel on deck...
> 
> Ooops, looks like even Smackdaddy's 2 most recent cites of voyagers tearing up the oceans on their Bluewater Hunters seem to agree...
> 
> And this YouTube recently linked to:
> 
> Hunter Passage 42 - YouTube
> 
> And the skipper of this Hunter "Passage" in the Caribbean 1500 a couple of years ago obviously felt the need... Looks like he subscribed to the belief that when storing a couple of hundred pounds of diesel on deck, _the higher above the waterline, the better_...
> 
> )


Do you know how to say anything except: "You're doing it wrong." You do notice that these people _actually made it to their destination_ just fine - despite "doing it wrong"?

Also, I don't see any of these fine Hunter owners riding a nerdy bike around.

Look, I personally enjoy a nice set of jugs. And if one is headed down to the islands from NYC like Sea Monkey, carrying some extra fuel and water is a pretty good idea - you could even call it good seamanship.

When we get down there ourselves, I'm definitely going to watch for a stalker dude on a geekcycle taking surreptitious photos of boats so he can gripe about them in the forums. Then I'll call you out and buy you a beer. But you have to leave the bike at the gas station. I've got standards you know.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> BTW - just where do those old boats put their jerry cans? Are old boats designed specifically to store jerry cans on the deck. If so that seems sad to me.


I'm not aware of a any boats designed specifically to accommodate jerry cans on deck. But given the way things are progressing, it's probably just a matter of time&#8230; 

It's no secret that side decks have narrowed over the years, as most boats are now drawn from the inside out&#8230; Many older boats with wider and safer side decks, and higher bulwarks, are unfortunately 'better suited' to the proliferation of all this crap being stowed on deck, their skippers can be just as guilty as anyone in compromising their crew's ability to move about the deck safely&#8230;


----------



## smj

JonEisberg said:


> I'm able to manage with just one... Hell, you get more exercise that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are times, however, where it can be pretty nice to have it delivered right to the boat...


You call that a bicycle? My god that things dangerous, not road worthy at all! It would look kinda cute in Key West though


----------



## JonEisberg

smj said:


> You call that a bicycle? My god that things dangerous, not road worthy at all! It would look kinda cute in Key West though


LOL!

Obviously, you've never ridden a Helios... As folding bikes go, a very impressive ride...

An ideal bike to carry aboard a boat as small as mine, and being all aluminum and stainless, has held up very well in the marine environment over time...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Also, I don't see any of these fine Hunter owners riding a nerdy bike around.


Perhaps you're right, I certainly didn't see any myself this summer... Then again, I never saw any Hunters up north, _period_... 

I can assure you, one photo no one will ever see, is me on that bicycle... That would resemble a bear in the circus act, for sure... 

Still, that little thing has served me very well over the years, and enhanced my cruising immeasurably... that day i shuttled almost 20 gallons of diesel back to the boat, three round trips adding up to about 9 miles in total... If you would have preferred doing that on foot, lugging almost 40 pounds of fuel back to the harbor each time, you're welcome to it...

There is a LOT of stuff I never would have seen over the years - not to mention a lot of exercise I would not have gotten - without that bike... The village where Sidney Poitier grew up on Cat Island is just one that comes to mind, the beautiful ride from Fernandez Bay up to Steveston remains one of my favorites in all of the Bahamas...












smackdaddy said:


> Look, I personally enjoy a nice set of jugs. And if one is headed down to the islands from NYC like Sea Monkey, *carrying some extra fuel and water is a pretty good idea - you could even call it good seamanship.*


Well, I wouldn't...

Neither would John Harries... Then again, what the hell does _HE_ know about venturing offshore? 



> Basic Seamanship
> 
> I have ranted about this before but, just by looking at boats getting ready to go offshore, I can see that their owners are not putting proper effort into basic seamanship and preparation:
> 
> Boats festooned with all kinds of junk that will cause problems at sea in any kind of heavy weather. Excessive numbers and/or poorly mounted solar panels, *jerry cans of fuel*, and large RIB dinghies, are the worst offenders.
> 
> Atlantic Sailboat Rallies Are Not A Good Idea In The Fall
> 
> Over the more than 40 years that I have been going offshore in sailboats I have noticed a disturbing trend toward ever more clutter on deck: Huge RIB dinghies in davits, rafts of poorly secured solar cells, portable generators, windsurfers, bicycles, television dishes; there seems to be no end to the stuff that festoons cruising boats today.
> 
> But offshore this stuff has the potential to cause real harm when the weather gets nasty. Not only do these obstructions make it difficult and dangerous to move around on deck, they also increase the chances that you will have to do exactly that when the lashings holding all the deck stuff loosen, as they inevitably will in a gale.
> 
> The Importance Of Clear Decks On An Offshore Voyaging Sailboat





smackdaddy said:


> When we get down there ourselves, I'm definitely going to watch for a stalker dude on a geekcycle taking surreptitious photos of boats so he can gripe about them in the forums. Then I'll call you out and buy you a beer. But you have to leave the bike at the gas station. I've got standards you know.


Hmmm, you branding someone else a stalker, eh?

I'll bet Brent would get a chuckle out of that one... 

I'll still take you up on that beer, however...


----------



## smj

JonEisberg said:


> LOL!
> 
> Obviously, you've never ridden a Helios... As folding bikes go, a very impressive ride...
> 
> An ideal bike to carry aboard a boat as small as mine, and being all aluminum and stainless, has held up very well in the marine environment over time...
> 
> Dahon folding bikes trip around the world - YouTube


I was just pulling your chain

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JonEisberg

smj said:


> I was just pulling your chain


Nah, no worries, that's what I figured... And you're absolutely correct, that thing would fit right in, being ridden in the parade during Fantasy Fest... 

However, until I found this bike, I always thought bikes on a small cruising boat made little sense... I always saw cruisers using either full-sized bikes stowed on deck that went to hell very quickly, or the tiny little 'toys' one usually sees on display in West marine, that are essentially worthless for serious riding by a full size adult...

But for anyone interested in a compact folding bike that really does have some utility, I recommend the Helios highly... I have to sacrifice a fair amount of valuable storage space on my boat to stow it below, but for me at least, it's been well worth it, having it along has really enhanced my cruising...

Hey, at least I'm not as much of a geek as this guy... )


----------



## copacabana

Jon, what model is your Helios? It looks pretty darn good. Does it have any parts made of mild steel? Any corrosion problems so far?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Neither would John Harries... Then again, what the hell does _HE_ know about venturing offshore?


You should read Harries' quote again. I completely agree with him. Because in referring to the stuff you've bolded he's qualified it at the beginning of the sentence with "Excessive numbers and/or poorly mounted..."

He's right on the mark. And so am I.

I take it, then, you're saying that one should NOT take extra fuel and/or water on a long off-shore passage? I'm having trouble following your point.


----------



## Nauta

smackdaddy said:


> You should read Harries' quote again. I completely agree with him. Because in referring to the stuff you've bolded he's qualified it at the beginning of the sentence with "Excessive numbers and/or poorly mounted..."
> 
> He's right on the mark. And so am I.
> 
> I take it, then, you're saying that one should NOT take extra fuel and/or water on a long off-shore passage? I'm having trouble following your point.


Clear enough you never see a row of 5 gallons Jerry cans spilling all the fuel in the deck with the stanchion detached from the deck base......uke


----------



## outbound

Live in fear of stuff washing free and wandering about the decks. To the point of getting a dinghy with fold down transom in order to decrease profile to a boarding wave and not obstruct vision. Also think having the side is clear is a safety issue as it's problematic to get by them where you usually see them e.g. By the shrouds. Think offshore boats should have 200g plus of fuel or enough for 300 - 500 m plus. Fuel like water should be in multiple tanks in case one tank contaminated. 
Love your bike Jon. How expensive was it?


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Think offshore boats should have 200g plus of fuel or enough for 300 - 500 m plus.


200 gal fuel to go 300-550 km, must be a powerboat 

I can go 500 miles on my 50-gal tank if I don't go for max speed and keep it to 5-6 knots.


----------



## smackdaddy

Nauta said:


> Clear enough you never see a row of 5 gallons Jerry cans spilling all the fuel in the deck with the stanchion detached from the deck base......uke


Sounds like they were poorly mounted as Harries says. That'll definitely make for an ice skating rink on your side decks.


----------



## smj

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, no worries, that's what I figured... And you're absolutely correct, that thing would fit right in, being ridden in the parade during Fantasy Fest...
> 
> However, until I found this bike, I always thought bikes on a small cruising boat made little sense... I always saw cruisers using either full-sized bikes stowed on deck that went to hell very quickly, or the tiny little 'toys' one usually sees on display in West marine, that are essentially worthless for serious riding by a full size adult...
> 
> But for anyone interested in a compact folding bike that really does have some utility, I recommend the Helios highly... I have to sacrifice a fair amount of valuable storage space on my boat to stow it below, but for me at least, it's been well worth it, having it along has really enhanced my cruising...
> 
> Hey, at least I'm not as much of a geek as this guy... )
> 
> Dahon Helios folding bike Review by GRVO TV - YouTube


I purchased a 1969 Raleigh Twenty folding bike last year. Great well built bike, but as I'm 6'4" I look like a circus clown riding it. Good thing I'm to old to care

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## miatapaul

outbound said:


> Live in fear of stuff washing free and wandering about the decks. To the point of getting a dinghy with fold down transom in order to decrease profile to a boarding wave and not obstruct vision. Also think having the side is clear is a safety issue as it's problematic to get by them where you usually see them e.g. By the shrouds. Think offshore boats should have 200g plus of fuel or enough for 300 - 500 m plus. Fuel like water should be in multiple tanks in case one tank contaminated.
> Love your bike Jon. How expensive was it?


Dahon Bikes USA - Mariner D7

Looks like about $600.


----------



## copacabana

miatapaul said:


> Dahon Bikes USA - Mariner D7
> 
> Looks like about $600.


I think Jon mentioned it's a Dahon Helios, but which Helios model?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You should read Harries' quote again. I completely agree with him. Because in referring to the stuff you've bolded he's qualified it at the beginning of the sentence with "Excessive numbers and/or poorly mounted..."
> 
> He's right on the mark. And so am I.


Nice try, but wishing that's what he's saying does not necessarily make it so 

If you read his second article I linked to on keeping the decks clear, you'll come to a slide show that the "stalker" Harries took "surreptitiously" of other boats that exhibited what he's trying to describe... 

Accompanying a shot of a few cans lashed on deck, are the following words:



> I do sympathize with those with small fuel tanks, but this increasingly commonplace practice is just plain dangerous. Not only will these fuel jugs come loose in any sort of blow, but worse still, a wave strike hitting them could tear the stanchion bases right out of the deck, leaving a gaping hole...
> 
> ...
> 
> Let's end on a positive note. You don't see decks much cleaner than on this Apogee 50 that has been to Bermuda several times. This bears out our observation that the more experience an owner has, the less stuff he or she is likely to tolerate on deck.
> 
> The Importance Of Clear Decks On An Offshore Voyaging Sailboat





smackdaddy said:


> I take it, then, you're saying that one should NOT take extra fuel and/or water on a long off-shore passage? I'm having trouble following your point.


Certainly, a store of emergency water is absolutely necessary. That can usually be accomplished quite easily, stowing bottled water in various locations throughout the boat...

But if extra fuel can only be carried on deck, then no... Both the Hunters pictured earlier had considerable space available on their transom steps/swim platforms. If it was determined that extra fuel was absolutely necessary, stowing them there would be the next best alternative, worst thing likely to happen with them back there would be to lose them overboard... Or, perhaps, losing the crew that had to go back there to re-secure them in sporty conditions... 

This issue really gets to the heart of this thread... A true bluewater boat should have a fuel capacity sufficient for lengthy passages, period... The only legitimate exceptions might be in cases such as a transit of the NW Passage, or a trip down the Chilean canals, which generally involve lots of motoring, the use of diesel for heat, and the places for re-supply few and far between... But if one is attempting to enlist a more typical production boat that might be deemed in excess of what its fuel range and water capacity is, well - that might be an indication that the boat may not really be up to making the passage safely and comfortably, no? Asking a boat to do something it was not really intended for is rarely a sound approach, in my view... Bottom line is, any boat that cannot be sailed over a route like that of the Caribbean 1500 with the fuel stored in its tanks alone, is by definition a poor choice to be making that passage in the first place...


----------



## JonEisberg

copacabana said:


> I think Jon mentioned it's a Dahon Helios, but which Helios model?


Mine is several years old, but I seem to recall it was the D8, perhaps?

It's held up well, but there is always something that's gonna show rust. I swapped the original chain for a stainless one, for example. But the only stuff that has shown rust are small bolts or components on brakes, maybe an adjusting screw on the derailleur, stuff like that which is easily dealt with... The rear sprocket has gotten some rust, but it's only cosmetic, the teeth are easy to keep clean...

The one problem I did have in the beginning, I was breaking a lot of spokes. Finally a guy in a bike shop in Miami Beach said that with my vintage bike, there had been a bad batch of Chinese spokes used on smaller wheels. I had both wheels re-done with stainless spokes, and haven't had one break since...

As much as I like mine, I realize preferences regarding bikes can be a very personal thing. Others' mileage may vary significantly, they might not like these at all, so I'd suggest you really try to ride one of these types of bikes first, before committing to buy...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> This issue really gets to the heart of this thread... A true bluewater boat should have a fuel capacity sufficient for lengthy passages, period... The only legitimate exceptions might be in cases such as a transit of the NW Passage, or a trip down the Chilean canals, which generally involve lots of motoring, the use of diesel for heat, and the places for re-supply few and far between... But if one is attempting to enlist a more typical production boat that might be deemed in excess of what its fuel range and water capacity is, well - that might be an indication that the boat may not really be up to making the passage safely and comfortably, no? Asking a boat to do something it was not really intended for is rarely a sound approach, in my view... Bottom line is, any boat that cannot be sailed over a route like that of the Caribbean 1500 with the fuel stored in its tanks alone, is by definition a poor choice to be making that passage in the first place...


But that's really the rub isn't it? How much fuel does it take to sail the route?

(That's a softball pitch for you, BTW.)

Anyway, have I mentioned a particular True Bluewater Hunter that survived an F10-11 off Cape Horn with a gas can lashed to the deck (and a full enclosure, and a swinging dinghy, etc.)? Maybe in REAL storms, you actually need this stuff? Or, maybe it's more the sailor than the technique?




























Heh-heh.


----------



## Minnesail

smackdaddy said:


> I don't see any of these fine Hunter owners riding a nerdy bike around.


I think the folding bikes may be getting a bit of a hipster factor, at least around here. I see more and more bearded young scenesters riding them around.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnesail said:


> I think the folding bikes may be getting a bit of a hipster factor, at least around here. I see more and more bearded young scenesters riding them around.


Hey! Take it to the Young Punks thread!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> But that's really the rub isn't it? How much fuel does it take to sail the route?


Not as much as many people think, it would seem... You'd think the Gurus of the Caribbean 1500 would have set these folks straight, no?

Ted Hood would be turning over in his grave, his Wauquiez Hood 38 is one sweet-sailing boat, after all 










If one is really in doubt whether one has the range under power to complete the passage in a comfortable and timely fashion without resorting to carrying extra fuel on deck, one needs to seriously question either the route, the boat, or the time of departure... After all, _REAL_ cruisers have no schedule, and all the time in the world to await the Perfect Weather Window to make the entire trip in favorable sailing conditions, right?





smackdaddy said:


> Anyway, have I mentioned a particular True Bluewater Hunter that survived an F10-11 off Cape Horn with a gas can lashed to the deck (and a full enclosure, and a swinging dinghy, etc.)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh-heh.


Well, I'd hardly put a single gas can in the same category as a rail lined with jerry cans filled with diesel... Hell, even _I_ store my 1 gallon dinghy gas can forward of the mast, between my dorades where it fits quite nicely, along with another 2 gallon storage container in the cockpit... 

Even in the deep South, however, Michael really should have had a UV cover for that thing... 



smackdaddy said:


> Maybe in REAL storms, you actually need this stuff? Or, maybe it's more the sailor than the technique?


Seems to me that Seamanship _IS_ primarily comprised of the various _"TECHINQUES"_ that a sailor employs... If you want to isolate one from the other, then i think that sailor is gonna be largely dependent upon _LUCK_, and little else...

Time and time again, we hear of experienced offshore sailors stressing the importance of keeping the decks clear... Here's Steve Dashew, another guy with a few bluewater miles behind him:



> Clear the Decks
> 
> There are two reasons for clearing the decks of loose gear. First, anything loose on deck will probably be lost early on, even in a moderate gale.
> 
> Second, when it does come adrift, the odds are that, for a short period of time, the loose gear will have the potential to do damage to the boat and/or its crew.
> 
> Inflatables should be deflated and stored below, anything stored in the hard dinghy should be removed, and it should be inverted. *Jerry jugs, sail- boards, fender boards, etc. should either be left behind or stored below.*
> 
> There may be situations where you have sails on deck, either in their bags or tied to the lifelines. Even in moderate gales, this can be a prescription for disaster. A small boarding sea will have the power to remove these from the deck, and they will tend to take what they are attached to as well-leaving your lifeline system bent and broken.
> 
> SURVIVING THE STORM pg. 106


So, are you feeling _LUCKY_ ? If so, then feel free to dismiss such advice...


----------



## smackdaddy

I don't plan to have _anything_ on my own decks when weather gets stinky. I'm just saying it's not a categorically bad thing to have stuff on your decks, or a full enclosuer, or dinghy on the davits, or whatever. You just need to be smart about it. In that regard, I put a lot of stock in Michael. He's the real deal.


----------



## RTB

JonEisberg said:


> This issue really gets to the heart of this thread... A true bluewater boat should have a fuel capacity sufficient for lengthy passages, period.
> 
> Bottom line is, any boat that cannot be sailed over a route like that of the Caribbean 1500 with the fuel stored in its tanks alone, is by definition a poor choice to be making that passage in the first place...


Surely, you are kidding? Hell, I sailed with imagine2frolic from Florida to Cartagena, Colombia. We carried 120 gallons of diesel and 30 gallons of gas in jugs. Imagine is a very capable bluewater 46' Simpson catamaran. I bet John (i2f) would kick you in the chops for saying Imagine a "poor choice" for making long passages, because of inadequate tanks.

I carry jugs on deck (tied to the toe rails with 5/8" dockline), despite being able to motor about 90 hours on a tank of diesel. One big reason is because I don't pump fuel directly into my tank at the fuel dock. I pump through a filter funnel via a siphon pump, from the jugs to the main tank. I'd rather go through the extra effort, rather than pump water and crap into my tank. Call me paranoid, but after 1000 hours of motoring, I just replaced the 2 micron Racor filter for the first time.

Ralph


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> Surely, you are kidding? Hell, I sailed with imagine2frolic from Florida to Cartagena, Colombia. We carried 120 gallons of diesel and 30 gallons of gas in jugs. Imagine is a very capable bluewater 46' Simpson catamaran. I bet John (i2f) would kick you in the chops for saying Imagine a "poor choice" for making long passages, because of inadequate tanks.


No, not kidding at all, and I stand by my statement... Any cruising boat attempting to do a route like the Caribbean 1500 should be capable of doing so without carrying additional fuel on deck... If the skipper reckons that it's not, then the route should be re-considered, perhaps to involve a planned stop in Bermuda, or motorsailing down island via the Thorny Path, instead...

You do realize that this practice of carrying jerry jugs is a relatively recent phenomenon, right? And that for decades, sailors like the Hiscocks and the Roths wandered the globe, with far smaller fuel capacity on their boats than even most production coastal cruisers have today, without resorting to the practice of carrying additional fuel in containers? It actually _CAN_ be done, after all... However, it generally involves a fair amount of _SAILING_... 

Why would I suggest I2F was not a capable bluewater boat? 120 gallons sounds adequate to me, I'm made longer trips on boats with less capacity than that... And I thought those big cruising multihulls are supposed to be all about performance _Under SAIL_ anyway, no?



RTB said:


> I carry jugs on deck (tied to the toe rails with 5/8" dockline), despite being able to motor about 90 hours on a tank of diesel. One big reason is because I don't pump fuel directly into my tank at the fuel dock. I pump through a filter funnel via a siphon pump, from the jugs to the main tank. I'd rather go through the extra effort, rather than pump water and crap into my tank. Call me paranoid, but after 1000 hours of motoring, I just replaced the 2 micron Racor filter for the first time.
> 
> Ralph


Sorry, but I think you ARE being a bit paranoid... 

I've bought a fair amount of diesel fuel over the years, some of it in some pretty sketchy locales... With the exception of one incredibly filthy batch I had to buy from a truck stop in Varadero, Cuba about 10 years ago, i honestly cannot recall the last time I might have taken on some fuel that was seriously contaminated by "Water and other crap", but the time passed since that last occurred would definitely be measured in decades... 

If any source today is suspect, it's a very simple matter to do a quick check of taking a sample in a clean jar, and let it sit for a few minutes. Any major contamination will become evident pretty quickly... And with today's sophisticated filtration systems from Racor and others, the relative ease with which an onboard polishing system can be configured, a main fuel tank with an inspection port of adequate size (a no-brainer feature woefully absent on so many boats today), and a watchful eye on the filter's vacuum gauge, there's really no reason ever to be caught out by a 'bad batch' of diesel fuel today...

Hell, I'd wager your jerry cans themselves contain more impurities than any source you've bought fuel from...

)


----------



## Bill-Rangatira

and not long before that there were sailors who circumnavigated with no motor at all 
the point is increasing system loads require power and engine run times


----------



## JonEisberg

white74 said:


> and not long before that there were sailors who circumnavigated with no motor at all
> the point is increasing system loads require power and engine run times


Well, then if that is the case, shouldn't the 'demand' for increased engine run times in order to run a freezer, or watch DVDs, be met by increasing the boat's fuel capacity to begin with? Sounds like just one more "Limit" inherent in the choice of a production coastal cruising boat with modest tankage for 'comfortable' passagemaking, no?

Not to mention, there are other means of generating power available that don't require burning diesel fuel. Hydrogenerators, for instance, can produce impressive amounts of power underway, yet they seem rarely used by the cruisers I'm seeing out there... Walking the docks in Hampton a couple of years ago prior to the departure of the 1500 and SDR, I didn't see a single boat with a water generator rigged and ready to go (though it is possible some might have had a towed generator stowed away, but they are still quite rare, in my observation)


----------



## TomMaine

JonEisberg said:


> No, not kidding at all, and I stand by my statement... Any cruising boat attempting to do a route like the Caribbean 1500 should be capable of doing so without carrying additional fuel on deck... If the skipper reckons that it's not, then the route should be re-considered, perhaps to involve a planned stop in Bermuda, or motorsailing down island via the Thorny Path, instead...
> 
> )


Come on, Jon. Didn't you just meet these friends?  They carry 3 or 4 jerry cans ondeck at all times. Their boat is modest and simply does not have room for more fuel tankage below decks.

They've been circling the Atlantic rim for years now and made 3 SDR runs. They have minimal electronics, a microscopic reefer, no tv, have a solar panel and drag a water generator when their wind generator isn't in their rigging.

Those 15 to 20 gallons of diesel can make a big difference on a passage for them, which has to be mostly under sail.










I don't really know who John Harries is but he probably owns a big boat? Steve Dashew, doesn't he cruise in a big motorboat with massive fuel tankage?

Their rules don't work for Iain and Fiona on RUFFIAN.

Come to think of it, the Alden Schooner in the background makes an annual passage from Rockport Maine to St. John in the Caribbean, and carries near a dozen jerry cans lashed in and around the cockpit. Very experienced sailors, Twig(owner,captain,builder) has made that run in November, annually, for over a decade.

The rules don't work for these folks either.


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> Come on, Jon. Didn't you just meet these friends?  They carry 3 or 4 jerry cans ondeck at all times. Their boat is modest and simply does not have room for more fuel tankage below decks.
> 
> They've been circling the Atlantic rim for years now and made 3 SDR runs. They have minimal electronics, a microscopic reefer, no tv, have a solar panel and drag a water generator when their wind generator isn't in their rigging.
> 
> Those 15 to 20 gallons of diesel can make a big difference on a passage for them, which has to be mostly under sail.


LOL! yeah, how could I have forgotten about Iain and Fiona, RUFFIAN and mine were the only 2 boats in Newport on the boat show weekend with our wind generators suspended in the rig... 

Exemplary cruisers, no doubt about it...

However, hope you haven't forgotten that when they did the SDR last fall, they lost the use of their engine quite early on into the passage... So, it turns out they didn't even 'need' the fuel in their main tanks, much less the additional they carried on deck... Pretty good evidence that it IS possible to make that passage without additional fuel on deck, no?



From their blog:



> Ruffian had performed brilliantly. We were the smallest boat in fleet, by some 6 feet, to have made it in and the only boat without motoring. Yet we were just hours behind boats some 20 feet longer than us and we would have to wait for days before anyone close to our size tied up in the paradise of the Caribbean. Well done Ruffian and well done TEAMRuff.
> 
> Are we there yet? | A little boat and a big ocean.





TomMaine said:


> I don't really know who John Harries is but he probably owns a big boat? Steve Dashew, doesn't he cruise in a big motorboat with massive fuel tankage?
> 
> Their rules don't work for Iain and Fiona on RUFFIAN.
> 
> Come to think of it, the Alden Schooner in the background makes an annual passage from Rockport Maine to St. John in the Caribbean, and carries near a dozen jerry cans lashed in and around the cockpit. Very experienced sailors, Twig(owner,captain,builder) has made that run in November, annually, for over a decade.
> 
> The rules don't work for these folks either.


Obviously, there are many examples of sailors who have 'gotten away with' carrying fuel on deck, myself included  Still, that doesn't make doing so 'good seamanship', or a practice that is best avoided if at all possible... And, I'll bet any sailor who has experienced the misfortune of having diesel fuel spilled on deck or in the cockpit in sporty conditions - as I have - would tend to agree...

Just my opinion, as always...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Oneof the great things about the modern production boat is they are lighter displacement than the old fashioned slow moving bricks of the sea. Also modern boats use modern fuel efficient technology.

These two factors combilned, and some others like weight reductions via water makers, battery weight reductions by solar and wind generation, have meant modern boats dont need to tankage once required.

I did the whole Pacific on the 38 gallons in my tank. Thats 6,500 nms! I did top off in Tonga just for safety but didnt need it. So from Galapagos to Sydney over nearly 6 months on a Benteau tank.

On the odd occasion where one needs extra fuel sticking gerry cans wherever is fine, especially as a tempory measure. In the Gulf of Aden we knew our convoy would be motoring for 5 days and while they were heading into Aden, I was heading directly to Egypt. I wanted fuel for the Red Sea for pirate protection and the head winds etc.

So I had 13 gerry cans in the lazarette.

Once out of hell and into civilization i sold off the extra gerry cans keeping 6 for the transatlanitic because I knew I was crossing early before the trades have set in... I went a day after the ARC which is set very early so it doesnt conflict with Christmas.

The only reason why some people need huge tankage is to push their boated extra 10 tons, or more... Some are 20 tons heavier than mine and still have less room inside!


----------



## outbound

Wasn't talking about myself. Not that self referenced. I can power
Hampton to virgin gorda and have the genset on the whole time.


----------



## RTB

JonEisberg said:


> Why would I suggest I2F was not a capable bluewater boat? 120 gallons sounds adequate to me, I'm made longer trips on boats with less capacity than that... And I thought those big cruising multihulls are supposed to be all about performance _Under SAIL_ anyway, no?


I think you mis-read what I posted...the 120 gallons of diesel was in jugs. Actually, Imagine had smallish tanks for her two Yanmars. Perhaps most cats have small tanks?

As to sailing rather than motoring - The wind doesn't always cooperate does it? After passing the windward passage, the wind switched to the SW, rather than the usual east trades. That leg should have been a reach, rather than a bash. That is why we ended up in Cartagena, rather than our planned destination of Panama. Funny how that pointy thing at the top of the mast so often points to where I want to go.


----------



## smackdaddy

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I did the whole Pacific on the 38 gallons in my tank. Thats 6,500 nms! I did top off in Tonga just for safety but didnt need it. So from Galapagos to Sydney over nearly 6 months on a Benteau tank.


+1.

Yet again, reality trumps purism.

I understand the arguments against outside stuff on a boat. And these arguments generally make sense when talking about big seas and/or storms (even though there are certainly exceptions as I've just illustrated above). But as "set rules that all should follow" it just doesn't fly for the type of cruising 99% of sailors do for the 99% of the conditions they face (i.e. - not storms).

I'm as avid a proponent of heavy weather techniques and rules as pretty much anyone out there. But I certainly don't think the strict application of those techniques and rules across the board for _general cruising_ makes any sense at all. It's kind of silly actually - and is the underlying theme of this thread.


----------



## Don L

So, a few pages ago production boats weren't good boats because you couldn't tie a bunch of jerry cans to the side ............................................... now production boats are good because they already have enough tankage so don't need to tie jerry cans to the side. 

Soon it will be that production boats aren't good because most of them are white, but then we will prove that white is good! :laugher


----------



## outbound

Old Nate the wizard of Bristol said "there are two colors for a boat-white and the wrong color"


----------



## outbound

Been following this thread for awhile and still think its not about production v. custom but rather boats designed for coastal v. offshore use. 
I have driven across the US in a car and on an old Triumph 650. I made it both times. I had to rework the carb and chain on the bike. I could ride for 8h max on the bike and I was a kid at the time. Crossing the plains and dealing with the cross winds was a ***** on the bike. In the car could do 12-14h days. Rain, cold and wind was no issue. Could eat and drink while driving even pee using the coke bottle trick. Yes there are Iron Butt riders. Yes a bike may be better for trail riding but for long hauls a well prepared car or truck is safer, faster and more comfortable. 
Same kind of thing f or water travel -the boat designed for offshore work is safer, more comfortable and ultimately faster as you are more likely to "work the boat" and get a good vmg then its coastal counterpart. Fewer production boats are aimed at the offshore market then custom but some production boats are specifically aimed at the offshore crowd. To say a Bene or other like production boat with an open floorplan, large distances in the cockpit, insecure galley and unprotected flat glass expanses is aimed at going offshore is foolish. As a coastal live aboard or getaway it is clearly a better boat with more bang for the buck. As an open ocean passagemaker there are better choices from other production builders.


----------



## jorgenl

outbound said:


> . To say a Bene or other like production boat with an open floorplan, large distances in the cockpit,* insecure galley *and unprotected flat glass expanses is aimed at going offshore is foolish. As a coastal live aboard or getaway it is clearly a better boat with more bang for the buck. As an open ocean passagemaker there are better choices from other production builders.


I think that is a very broad statement, there are different models of Bene's. I am not sure how the galley in for example the 423 or the 473 is any less secure than that in your Outbound?

I used to own a Catalina 400, typical production boat, thought the galley was close to B Perry class in it's layout, and it did not feel insecure...

One thing I liked with the C400 was its very wide side decks. Plenty of space for jerry jugs ;-)


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I raced a Swan 65 footer (the 651) from the Canaries to argentina and they are much bigger than a Bene below. With the same number or fewer hand holds than the Bene.

So you are saying a 65 foot Swan isnt ocean going?


Lol


----------



## Don L

If it isn't red, it is just crap!





I read that somewhere, but it may have been in Penthouse about panties. If good enough for penthouse panties it must be good for boats!


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> I think you mis-read what I posted...the 120 gallons of diesel was in jugs. Actually, Imagine had smallish tanks for her two Yanmars. Perhaps most cats have small tanks?


Wow... Sorry, but IMHO there is definitely something wrong with that picture... 

Excess weight is single biggest performance killer for multihulls... Hell, piling 1000 pounds of fuel on the decks would turn even a Gunboat 60 into a comparative slug under sail...

)


----------



## RTB

Haha! We were cruising.....the plan was Florida-Panama-Hilo-San Francisco.

The jugs were not on deck, but stored below. Just pointing out that Imagine didn't have large built in tanks, which in your opinion, makes this a boat not suited for long distance sailing.

Imagine is not a high tech, fast boat, but pretty comfy for cruising. I just think you are playing this up to the ridiculous. Like you admit, many, if not most cruisers carry fuel in jugs. If the norm is to keep fuel tanks full, I don't want a 100+ gallon tank on my boat.






Ralph


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> Yet again, reality trumps purism.


All credit to Mark, that's very impressive... However, I'm not sure it reflects the "Reality" of what's going on out there, with so many boats carrying excess fuel, or relying on their engines to a FAR greater degree than Mark apparently does... And the jerry cans on the rail of Drake's PARAGON probably more accurately reflect "The REAL Cruising Life"...





smackdaddy said:


> I understand the arguments against outside stuff on a boat. And these arguments generally make sense when talking about big seas and/or storms (even though there are certainly exceptions as I've just illustrated above). But as "set rules that all should follow" it just doesn't fly for the type of cruising 99% of sailors do for the 99% of the conditions they face (i.e. - not storms).
> 
> I'm as avid a proponent of heavy weather techniques and rules as pretty much anyone out there. But I certainly don't think the strict application of those techniques and rules across the board for _general cruising_ makes any sense at all. It's kind of silly actually - and is the underlying theme of this thread.


Well, that's a legitimate argument, and a point of view that many apparently hold...

But I maintain that it is NEVER a good idea to place significant amounts of additional weight above deck on a cruising sailboat, even those intended for "General Cruising", whatever one's definition of that might be... Likewise with the addition of stuff that creates massive amounts of additional windage... So much of the crap I see on many boats out there can only have the ultimate effect of reducing the amount of time spent under sail, and increasing the amount of time spent motoring... Of course, for those who don't really care about that, it's less of an issue... 

Two things inform my perspective on all this, that may not apply to others... First, having grown up on the Jersey Shore, the importance of any boat's ability to run the sort of potentially dangerous inlets for which the Jersey coast is famed is absolutely paramount, and trumps everything else whenever one is venturing out of the protected back bays... And whether you're aboard a powerboat, or a sailboat, anything that will increase the rolling moment, make the boat more sluggish, and so on, is just a _Really Bad Idea_ when running an inlet, or a Bahamian cut, in sporty conditions...

Second, comes from my experience in the delivery business... The nature of which, at least for me, is to often basically jump on a boat and _GO..._ Imprudent, for sure, but sometimes that's just the way it is 

There's a natural tendency to assume "Well, I can sort things out while underway, and properly stow gear, etc., before anything we encounter anything nasty..." Well, that just _NEVER_ seems to happen, it's just not that easy to switch gears from "General Cruising in Coastal/Protected Waters Mode", to being ready for a nasty bit which might suddenly arise out of nowhere... Maybe I'll finally learn this lesson, in the Next Life... 

Finally, my apologies for having diverted this discussion off into a referendum re jerry jugs... But if you read my original comment re the Hunter 49, the mention of jerry jugs was simply a flip remark intended to be humorous... What I was really addressing was the ridiculously narrow side decks on the Hunter 49, which I feel is a very poor characteristic on ANY boat - whether it is one intended to venture offshore, or one simply meant to be used for "General Cruising"...


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Old Nate the wizard of Bristol said "there are two colors for a boat-white and the wrong color"


I always thought his comment was to the effect of "White, and Black... And only a fool would paint a boat black"...

Well, looks like yours truly could serve as Exhibit A... 

Damn, that guy sure was one _Opinionated_ bastard, wasn't he?


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> I think that is a very broad statement, there are different models of Bene's. I am not sure how the galley in for example the 423 or the 473 is any less secure than that in your Outbound?
> 
> I used to own a Catalina 400, typical production boat, thought the galley was close to B Perry class in it's layout, and it did not feel insecure...
> 
> One thing I liked with the C400 was its very wide side decks. Plenty of space for jerry jugs ;-)


I agree. I've seen so many comments about such things as the lack of good handholds in production boats, dangerous cockpits, etc. - and I'm not real sure what all that means exactly. Is it the traditional ceiling-mounted hand "rails"?










Or the side-mounted rails?










My Hunter has neither of these - but I have tested it, and it has PLENTY of handholds for moving back and forth through its "dangerously roomy" salon on either heel:










From the companionway ladder, to the vertical deck support post at the edge of the counter, to the mast compression post, to the v-berth door...with plenty of additional, smaller holds along the way (nav desk, table, fiddle edges of shelves, etc.). It's the same moving back into the aft cabin.

And the new Hunter 40 even does better on the interior than my Legend in adding the side-mount hold rails:










So where are all these wide open spaces on production boats to freefall across? This Hallberg-Rassy-372 looks a bit more sketchy than my Hunter in terms of fewer handhold options in wide spaces:










...or even the Oyster 475?










And where are these IKEA-like sharp edges that kill? Maybe you're referring to "coastal production boats" like the Oyster 625?










It's the same thing with companionway hatches. My Hunter's hatch...










...is a pretty damn good downflooding deterrent - much higher, smaller, and more protected than this Cabo Rico's:










I think my side decks are even wider than this CR's!

My cockpit appears to be even a bit smaller than this Hinckley 40 - to minimize issues with a boarding wave:










So, many of these "bluewater features" are on my Hunter. I guess I'm just not seeing the logic in these claims.


----------



## outbound

Sorry guys I was too free with my words. Yes it isn't by brand but rather by design. At the last several Annapolis and newport shows there has been a swan which is cavernous below and devoid of effective handholds. You folks have,in the main, been referencing boats constructed in past decades. I been referencing boats of much more recent vintage. In an earlier post tried to make the point that it seems in recent production boats apparently due to market forces there has been a divergence. On one side ( and the overwhelming focus) boats aimed at pleasant sailing. On the other boats aimed at voyaging designed with the worst in mind Both are production boats. The extreme of the second group would be boats aimed at high latitude sailing. In this group the customs dominant. Sure a Contest or BCC of decades past may successively engage in this activity but of current production runs which boat do you think is a good choice?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Sorry guys I was too free with my words. Yes it isn't by brand but rather by design. At the last several Annapolis and newport shows there has been a swan which is cavernous below and devoid of effective handholds. You folks have,in the main, been referencing boats constructed in past decades. I been referencing boats of much more recent vintage. In an earlier post tried to make the point that it seems in recent production boats apparently due to market forces there has been a divergence. On one side ( and the overwhelming focus) boats aimed at pleasant sailing. On the other boats aimed at voyaging designed with the worst in mind Both are production boats. The extreme of the second group would be boats aimed at high latitude sailing. In this group the customs dominant. Sure a Contest or BCC of decades past may successively engage in this activity but of current production runs which boat do you think is a good choice?


Out - I totally agree with you about the divergence in the market - separating the cruising class from the passage class. And, obviously, the larger market is the cruising class...largely due to cost and typical usage I think. I also totally agree with you that the passage boats will be much better designed for doing just that.

But I definitely don't buy the categorical statements about modern production boats not being "suitable" to offshore use. Not by any means. It's ridiculous. They just have certain limitations you either need to plan for - or address through upgrades - or bypass for a much more expensive boat.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> They just have certain limitations you either need to plan for - or address through upgrades - or bypass for a much more expensive boat.


"limitations" 

I feel this is a poor word. I don't feel most production boats designed for cruising have anymore limitations than other boats. And I wouldn't call the things they may need to bring up to passage making level "upgrades" compared to the big $$ boats as much as just "outfitted".

But it is pointless as some are never going to accept it. Which is why so many production boats sink on the internet.


----------



## Jeff_H

outbound said:


> Old Nate the wizard of Bristol said "there are two colors for a boat-white and the wrong color"


Actually, Nat Herreshoff''s quote was "There are only two colors to paint a boat, black and white, and only a fool would paint a boat black."

Of course Nat said that at a time when his J Class Boats were racing against Shamrock (which was very dark green) and Endeavour (which was a particular shade of dark blue that has been called Endeavour Blue ever since.)

Jeff


----------



## SVAuspicious

killarney_sailor said:


> Don0190 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boats with good tankage don't need those stupid jugs on the side decks!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you need a couple of diesel cans and a couple of water cans if you are going to cruise in a lot of places. Getting fuel and water means a trip ashore. We have a handy cart that will take three jerry cans, so having three of each might not be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In some places, depending on your boat, you can't reach the fuel dock if you wanted.

Philosophically I believe that the place for fuel (and water for that matter) is in tanks. When I carry additional of either (like Jon, my experience on delivery is you get what you get and you have to make it work) it goes in the tanks as soon as there is space for it and weather permits.

Keeping the decks clear is important, especially the side decks. Stumbling around jerry jugs when something is already wrong forward is a safety hazard.

I own five 20l diesel jugs, three 20l water jugs, two 20l gasoline jugs, a 20l waste oil jug, and a 3 USG dinghy fuel tank. Auspicious has 120 USG of diesel and 120 USG of fresh water.

I offer our solution while cruising. It isn't the only solution, or even the only solution--or the best solution--for someone with the exact same boat. It fits with our needs and priorities.

All my jerry jugs are the same make and model (non-US Sceptre jugs) in appropriate colors. This (size not color) makes securing them more straightforward. My fender boards are sized so they fit across the transom opening of the pushpit; I have fabricated mounting brackets so one bolts to the pushpit, the jugs fit against the board, and the second fender board attaches to the first capturing the jugs. It helps to have the aft deck of a center cockpit boat (*grin*). While cruising we carry two diesel, two water, one gasoline, and one waste oil jug. We carry them to replenish stores of needed material and to collect waste for appropriate disposal. If I'm going to carry jugs they might as well be full (except for waste oil). I don't have room for the jugs in my cockpit or anchor lockers and they aren't going below (1. I'd have to give up something else and 2. I don't carry "dirty" things like fuel or even fuel jugs inside the boat - the minor exception is my clean oil supply in the engine room). The dinghy gas tank goes on the forward cabin top, secured by a custom bridle (sometimes I splice on passage) with the dinghy upside down on top of it, itself held down by semi-custom lashings.

If need be I can carry ten jugs in my contraption, but the six listed above works for us. Hint - we always stow the jugs, from starboard to port, gasoline, diesel, waste oil, water. Why? 1. consistency is good, and 2. the grill is mounted on the port side. *grin*

With regard to the general appropriateness of using jugs, here on the US East Coast we have a lot of snowbird cruisers who head down the ICW in the Fall to Florida and the Bahamas, returning to their homes in the Spring. For these sorts of cruisers I think that jugs are entirely appropriate. Their only schedule is that dictated by insurance companies and the cold. Stops for fuel cost several hours. If you can carry fuel aboard and refuel tanks once at anchor in the evening you will make an extra 25 to 40 miles per week - miles you can use to spend more time seeing cool things or just staying ahead of the cold. For that application I don't have an issue with jugs, even on the side deck (heck they aren't sailing anyway). If you're sailing I think the concept of spare fuel and water on deck is flawed. I think you do need jugs to replenish the boat. I think that storing fuel below is not a good idea. I think sailing is full of conflicting priorities and you have to find the best solution for you.

I still think permanent full enclosures are stupid and that rows of jugs on the side decks are inherently unwise. I _will_ be making fun of you in the anchorage. On the other hand I'll be among the first to show up when your radio stops working, your electronics fail, or your refrigerator stops cooling.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> I still think permanent full enclosures are stupid and that rows of jugs on the side decks are inherently unwise. I _will_ be making fun of you in the anchorage.


That's okay. Eisberg and Harries will be making fun of you and your jugs. It's all relative.


----------



## mitiempo

Don0190 said:


> "limitations"
> 
> I feel this is a poor word. I don't feel most production boats designed for cruising have anymore limitations than other boats. And I wouldn't call the things they may need to bring up to passage making level "upgrades" compared to the big $$ boats as much as just "outfitted".


One issue is a companionway that goes down to cockpit sole level on some boats. I would call that a limitation not an upgrade. Lack of a sliding hatch garage may be another.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> "limitations"
> 
> I feel this is a poor word. I don't feel most production boats designed for cruising have anymore limitations than other boats. And I wouldn't call the things they may need to bring up to passage making level "upgrades" compared to the big $$ boats as much as just "outfitted".
> 
> But it is pointless as some are never going to accept it. Which is why so many production boats sink on the internet.


I think it's the right word in this context. For example, I absolutely do look at my 40 gallon fuel tank as a "limitation" for "passage-making". Now, I DO NOT mean that this small tank will limit me from sailing virtually anywhere I want to go. However, it will limit the amount to hours I run my engine and/or my generator.

As for the engine, this means I am limited in how much I can run it in low/no wind conditions to keep my pace up and get to my destination sooner. So this means I'm limited to waiting for wind - I can't just motor sail all the time. And I have to watch the amount of time I'm using the engine to charge my batteries. So, again, I'm "limited" to needing another source of supplemental power, like solar, if I want to keep my house bank in good shape and use the gear I have aboard - while also conserving fuel.

As for the generator, this means I am limited in how often I can use my microwave or A/C or battery charger. Again, I need to figure out other options to conserve my 40 gallons. No big deal. I can do that.

All of these are limitations that would be much more relaxed if I had 100 gallons of fuel. But they are certainly not holding me back from going anywhere I want to go. I just have to work the boat I have and work with its "limitations". RTB and MarkofSeaLife (among many, many others) have proved this.

Categorical rules of "suitability" in sailing are really pretty ridiculous - at least when you're making distinctions this minor.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

After 6 years in the trade winds I can tell you I would F'ing *love* an enclosure. I dont even have a dodger. Getting blown off deck every bloody day has given me my fill of _it_.

An enclosure, if rainproof, gives you a whole new room on your boat. Some cruisers use theirs all day every day - its their main room. Best view, best spot to iteract with people passing by.

And on passage how much better is it going to make your trip? Vastly, muchly.

Cruising wether its in the tropics or any other weather pattern is about is about enjoying the years before you peg out. Its not about freezing your ass off, or freezing your wifes ass off, or blowing the chips from your dinner plate, or having 20 knots of superheated air mincing your toupee, its not about camping at sea in the space of a jail cell for the rest of your life.

When will you lot wake up to yourselves and realise at 50, 60, or 70 years old you only have a few years on this earth, I think a *precious* few years so why live rough? Why torture your life partner? Why rip the guts out of everything you have saved for, dreamed of and wanted to go live like a hobo under a bridge?

So f'ing what if you have a gerry can on your deck? You have fuel. And if you are not a miserly old grumpy bum you might use it to increase your pleasure.
So f'ing what if you have a saloon twice the size of the Queen Mary... You will enjoy it more than living like a mouse in a pencil case.
So f'ing what if you have a huge plastic enclosure? You will be enjoing the LAST REMAINING DAYS of your life more than the gumble bum skin-flint old hermit forced to hibernate below.

Now I shall leave you as I wish to go snorkelling at an offshore island which I can get there safely in my oversized dinghy, and fast with my oversized 18hp OB, and with a nice cold beer in the stern because I don't give a tinkers cuss about you nor any of your pathetic safety rules.

Mark


----------



## copacabana

Mark, you don't have to sugarcoat it! Tell us how you really feel. 

I couldn't agree more on the idea of a dry, shaded cockpit. In the tropics it's where you spend most of your time and it has to be dry, shaded and protected from wind and rain. Why suffer?


----------



## smackdaddy

MarkofSeaLife said:


> After 6 years in the trade winds I can tell you I would F'ing *love* an enclosure. I dont even have a dodger. Getting blown off deck every bloody day has given me my fill of _it_.
> 
> An enclosure, if rainproof, gives you a whole new room on your boat. Some cruisers use theirs all day every day - its their main room. Best view, best spot to iteract with people passing by.
> 
> And on passage how much better is it going to make your trip? Vastly, muchly.
> 
> Cruising wether its in the tropics or any other weather pattern is about is about enjoying the years before you peg out. Its not about freezing your ass off, or freezing your wifes ass off, or blowing the chips from your dinner plate, or having 20 knots of superheated air mincing your toupee, its not about camping at sea in the space of a jail cell for the rest of your life.
> 
> When will you lot wake up to yourselves and realise at 50, 60, or 70 years old you only have a few years on this earth, I think a *precious* few years so why live rough? Why torture your life partner? Why rip the guts out of everything you have saved for, dreamed of and wanted to go live like a hobo under a bridge?
> 
> So f'ing what if you have a gerry can on your deck? You have fuel. And if you are not a miserly old grumpy bum you might use it to increase your pleasure.
> So f'ing what if you have a saloon twice the size of the Queen Mary... You will enjoy it more than living like a mouse in a pencil case.
> So f'ing what if you have a huge plastic enclosure? You will be enjoing the LAST REMAINING DAYS of your life more than the gumble bum skin-flint old hermit forced to hibernate below.
> 
> Now I shall leave you as I wish to go snorkelling at an offshore island which I can get there safely in my oversized dinghy, and fast with my oversized 18hp OB, and with a nice cold beer in the stern because I don't give a tinkers cuss about you nor any of your pathetic safety rules.
> 
> Mark


Says the guy who rounded the marble and is now cruising on his production boat full-time in the Carib. Pffft. What the hell do you know about it??

Add that enclosure and you will definitely start your last remaining days, my friend.

Heh-heh.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I think it's the right word in this context. For example, I absolutely do look at my 40 gallon fuel tank as a "limitation" for "passage-making". Now, I DO NOT mean that this small tank will limit me from sailing virtually anywhere I want to go. However, it will limit the amount to hours I run my engine and/or my generator.
> 
> As for the engine, this means I am limited in how much I can run it in low/no wind conditions to keep my pace up and get to my destination sooner. So this means I'm limited to waiting for wind - I can't just motor sail all the time. And I have to watch the amount of time I'm using the engine to charge my batteries. So, again, I'm "limited" to needing another source of supplemental power, like solar, if I want to keep my house bank in good shape and use the gear I have aboard - while also conserving fuel.
> 
> As for the generator, this means I am limited in how often I can use my microwave or A/C or battery charger. Again, I need to figure out other options to conserve my 40 gallons. No big deal. I can do that.
> 
> All of these are limitations that would be much more relaxed if I had 100 gallons of fuel. But they are certainly not holding me back from going anywhere I want to go. I just have to work the boat I have and work with its "limitations". RTB and MarkofSeaLife (among many, many others) have proved this.
> 
> Categorical rules of "suitability" in sailing are really pretty ridiculous - at least when you're making distinctions this minor.


You know, you and I aren't as far apart on this issue as you might think, as I pretty much agree with everything you've said...

I don't think anyone is voicing opinions as "categorical" as you might think. As you've said earlier, much of this stuff is relative, and I couldn't agree more. What's a 'suitable' choice for one sailor to do the Caribbean 1500, may be considerably less suitable for another, that's the key distinction, in my view...

Myself, I happen to like the ability to carry plenty of fuel, for the sort of sailing I do. I built in an oversize fuel tank for that reason, 50 gallons is a lot for a 30-footer, but I've really benefited from having that sort of capacity over the years...

I'm not saying that any boat with a marginal fuel capacity is "unsuitable" for extended cruising, or lengthy passagemaking... We're talking about _SAILBOATS_, after all, and Mark has definitely shown that one can cover vast distances without relying on fuel... The point I'm trying to make, is simply that _if one feels they have to resort to what I feel is the questionable practice of carrying fuel above deck to complete a particular passage_, then the suitability of that particular boat, or that particular route, for that particular sailor, suddenly becomes less than optimal...

As you're rightly argued, we _ALL_ are constantly dealing with the various "limitations" of our respective boats... Sailing a boat as small as my own, and on as modest a budget as I generally try to adhere to, I'm probably more 'limited' than most  No problem, you simply learn to deal with it, and sometimes even learn to appreciate that sometimes what appear to be 'limiting' factors, turn out to be advantages, over the long haul, in terms of stuff like economy, and simplicity...

The problem with these discussions, is that we never seem to be able to move beyond the dividing lines of Brand Names, Production vs. Custom, Traditional vs Modern, and so on... I know I'm a broken record on this, but what I think really matters when discussing the 'suitability' of various boats for various purposes, is the simple design and construction _CHARACTERISTICS_ of different boats... I've linked to it so many times before, I'll spare you all the link to DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS again... 

Where you and I do seem to disagree, is along the lines of your arguments that many production coastal cruising boats might be magically transformed into Bluewater Boats through a series of 'upgrades'... Many boats I see out there today possess features which I believe are unsuitable for offshore sailing, there's just no way to 'upgrade' something like a narrow side deck, for instance... And, with the ever-increasing complexity found in many of today's boats, the most sensible 'upgrade' for contented cruising over the long haul might often involve the _removal_ of some Latest & Greatest gadget... 

btw, you earlier asked to see an example of a dangerously "sharp corner" on a modern boat... Well, is this corner of a swinging companionway door sharp enough for you? 

Perhaps the single most dangerous feature on any boat I've run in recent memory, that thing could easily produce a very wicked injury...

Don't worry, I'll politely refrain from identifying the 'Brand' of boat I found it on...


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah - that door corner looks nasty for sure. What model of Hunter was that? And was it stock or owner added?

When I said this:



> They just have certain limitations you either need to plan for - or address through upgrades - or bypass for a much more expensive boat.


I certainly didn't mean things that change the _design_ of the boat (such as redoing freakin' side decks). I meant things like adding more tankage, beefing up rigging, even adding handholds, etc. So I think you just missed my point.

So - yeah, maybe we're a little closer in viewpoint than I thought. However, when you and Harries _are mocking boats with enclosures_ (etc.) posting photos, and going on and on about how bad/ignorant this stuff is, thereby mocking the owners - that's being categorical. Just so you know.

It's very different from this statement which is 180 degrees from the above:



JonEisberg said:


> What's a 'suitable' choice for one sailor to do the Caribbean 1500, may be considerably less suitable for another, that's the key distinction, in my view...


Again, just so you know.


----------



## BryceGTX

smackdaddy said:


> But where exactly can you take a Catalina,
> 
> So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?


I expect the "outer limits" refers to extreme rough water sail.. a survival situation. In that case it is probably useful to look at rough water boats. The way I see it blue water boats are not always rough water boats and rough water boats are not always blue water boats. I think this is a critical distinction that most do not realize.

There are elements of design that make some production boats quite good rough water boats.

One of the most critical design issues for a rough water boat is the standing rigging. I see two critical design points here.

First if you are going to have a chain plate design where the shrouds connect to the outer hull, the bulkheads should be secured to the hull in as they are structural elements of the boat.

If the shrouds connect down into the hull near the structural grid such as Catalina's, then bulkheads are not critical structural elements. From my point of view, this is the best design as it reduces the stresses of the hull over a chain plate design.

One thing that I do not agree with about many blue water boats is the insistence to use built in tanks for liquid storage. These tanks that are built as part of the structure become very difficult to repair if they leak. To repair properly requires cutting through structural members just to get at the leak. Rough water puts stresses on these types of tanks. Many production boats (Catalina included) have tanks that are separate from the structure. I can get at every one of my tanks without ripping into the structure of the boat.

Keel and hull design are critical design elements that we can talk about. Extremely deep keels have no place in a rough water boat. Some blue water boats have extremely deep keels. A shoal keel has the advantage. Take a look at the Island Packets for a good example of a shoal hull-keel designed for rough water.

Any thoughts?
Bryce


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - that door corner looks nasty for sure. What model of Hunter was that? And was it stock or owner added?


It was the 41 I mentioned earlier, the one with the drop-in Norcold refirgerator couldn't be opened on port tack. The companionway doors sure looked like they came from the factory, to me... Wouldn't have been quite as bad if they could be removed from lift-off hinges, but they were mounted permanently using piano hinges that ran the entire height of the door...



smackdaddy said:


> So - yeah, maybe we're a little closer in viewpoint than I thought. However, when you and Harries _are mocking boats with enclosures_ (etc.) posting photos, and going on and on about how bad/ignorant this stuff is, thereby mocking the owners - that's being categorical. Just so you know.


Ahhh, my bad... I'd forgotten that only the SDR Pig Roast, or "Nerdy" folding bicycles, are permitted to be "mocked" around here...



So, John Harries is "mocking" others by pointing out some of the questionable stuff he sees out there, and illustrating his points with the use of photos? Seriously? John has always struck me as one of the most gentlemanly sailors in cyberspace... Care to point to a specific example of Harries' use of "mockery" to make his point?

I've long been a photographer by profession, so I'm in the habit of taking photographs. Sure, I often use them to help illustrate or support an argument I might be making, or to help illustrate why I might hold a particular _OPINION_... Anyone who can't handle that, they're welcome to avert their eyes, or put me on 'Ignore'... 

Certainly, there are many good arguments in favor of something like a full cockpit enclosure. Obviously, most folks who have them are quite happy with their choice... But, as with virtually any modification or upgrade that is made to a boat, there are tradeoffs and compromises - some of which people who are considering the addition of such a feature to their own boat may not appreciate beforehand. As someone who has run a variety of boats with enclosures, I'm simply pointing out what I have found the downsides to such things to be, and why I would not have one on _MY_ boat, for the type of sailing and cruising _I_ choose to do... Others' mileage may vary, as always...

Sure, I have no shortage of strong opinions about what might work, and what may not, aboard small sailing yachts, and I'm not shy about expressing them... And, I don't feel they are entirely without foundation - I don't pull them out of thin air, they're based upon my experience over the years running a pretty wide variety of boats... So, if being an Opinionated Bastard gets me lumped in with the likes of people like John Harries, or Nat Herreshoff, well... I'm OK with that... 

Besides, every once in awhile, one does come across something that truly is _DESERVING_ of mockery...

Hmmm, do you suppose this guy might travel with a jerry jug filled with Rain-X lashed to the rail?

)


----------



## outbound

What follows will be a long post as I see things differently than Byrce. I will reference my own boat only because I had investigated its structure prior to commitment to its build. But what follows applies to many boats.
I have six integral tanks. 4 fuel and 2 water placed amidships below the sole. They have oversized examination ports large enough for my wife to just about crawl through. They are heavily constructed and baffled. In 53 sisterships over a decade+ no boat has had a failure or leak. This method plus the integrated stringer system adds to the rigidity strength of the hull as well as improving gyradius and comfort quotient . Given these tanks neither leak nor degrade issues of replacement or repair are not operative. Unfortunately from what I understand either metal or plastic tanks will likely require repair or replacement so it's great Bryce can get at them.
Much has been written about whether it is better to have a boat designed to slip down a wave front implying the need to decrease side profile of underwater appends ages or strive for most favorable capsize quotient. Full keel boats or modified full keeled boats may not be a favorable design element under either construct. 
The issue of chain plates is quite germane. Attachment of the shrouds to either the main structural bulkhead or the hull or even the toe rail as in Cheribinis can be equally strong. This is a matter of design and execution. Ability to inspect and maintain all aspects of this structure is important and not infrequently overlooked. Ability to further augment the rigging with dedicated storm jib stay and running back stays should be incorporated into the original design parameters.
In short there is no reason a good "blue water" boat cannot be a good " rough water" boat. In fact I believe most designs by many production builders are just that when the N.A. is told to design with that possible use in mind. Frers,Perry, Schumacher , Crealock etc. have all,done so.
Smack speaking of Cherubini my favorite Hunter was the little one he designed. A small tough but pretty boat.


----------



## copacabana

JonEisberg said:


> Certainly, there are many good arguments in favor of something like a full cockpit enclosure. Obviously, most folks who have them are quite happy with their choice... But, as with virtually any modification or upgrade that is made to a boat, there are tradeoffs and compromises - some of which people who are considering the addition of such a feature to their own boat may not appreciate beforehand. As someone who has run a variety of boats with enclosures, I'm simply pointing out what I have found the downsides to such things to be, and why I would not have one on _MY_ boat, for the type of sailing and cruising _I_ choose to do... Others' mileage may vary, as always...
> 
> Besides, every once in awhile, one does come across something that truly is _DESERVING_ of mockery...
> 
> Hmmm, do you suppose this guy might travel with a jerry jug filled with Rain-X lashed to the rail?
> 
> )


Jon, now I understand what you mean by full cockpit enclosure! Not pretty...

There is an interesting article by Beth and Evans (it's also in their handbook If I recall correctly) where they interview a number of experienced cruisers on what they want in their second boat. These are all people who had done one circumnavigation and were shopping for their next 'forever" boat. The choices were interesting. Almost all wanted a boat in the 45ft range. Many wanted a metal boat (not for strength, but because they are not prone to leaks) and almost all wanted a hard dodger on their next boat. This last point I found interesting. My boat came with a hard dodger and I always took it for granted until I started sailing on boats without cockpit protection. There is NOTHING like sailing from a protected helm, out of the sun, wind and rain (especially the sun!). I see it as a safety feature as it keeps the helmsman dry, warm and rested when conditions are sporty. Being wet and cold takes a lot out of you.

The cockpit enclosure (as I now understand it!) is, I guess, a way to use the cockpit at anchor when the weather is cold and rainy. Don't these panels unzip so you can remove them when sailing? if yes, then it seems like a nice feature to have at anchor.

BTW, I Always enjoy the photos you post Jon, especially of your remarkable little boat in faraway anchorages. Keep 'em coming!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Of course it comes off. Can't you see the damn studs?

And WHO is deserving of mockery?

What a pretentious thing to say. In fact how dare you say someone elses boat deserves mockery?



Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, my bad... I'd forgotten that only the SDR Pig Roast, or "Nerdy" folding bicycles, are permitted to be "mocked" around here...


I absolutely mock the SDR and the nerdy bicycle. And I do so categorically. I happily admit that.

But here's the difference:

In the case of the bicycle, I, like you in this debate, am on very thin ice. This is because there's nothing inherently wrong with the bicycle. It functions exactly as intended and will get you where you want to go, though might be less safe than its non-folding counterpart, especially with a big jerry can on the back which can affect your balance in high winds. I just think it _looks_ goofy. So it's purely subjective (even my safety argument). So, like you with the boats, I'm probably wrong in mocking the nerdy bike. But it's fun so what the hell.

In the case of the SDR, I'm mocking it based on fact...the fact that there were 5 SAR calls (and several rescues) _in a single day_ from its fleet in conditions that were far from survival - which then spurred a Marine Alert from the USCG. Therefore, my mocking of the SDR is categorical because it's based on provable fact - not whether it looks nerdy, or because it roasts innocent pigs, or might even be unstable due to a jerry can on it's carrier.

PS - Like copa, I love your photos of your adventures. Great stuff for sure - and your professionalism shows. The only photos I've referred to in this thread are of OPBs with the condescending verbal eyerolls....like this:



JonEisberg said:


> Besides, every once in awhile, one does come across something that truly is _DESERVING_ of mockery...
> 
> Hmmm, do you suppose this guy might travel with a jerry jug filled with Rain-X lashed to the rail?
> 
> )


Why should I care how this guy sets up his boat? What does it do with his ability to get where he wants to go and enjoy himself doing it - and whether its a bluewater or production boat? It's just a "nerdy bike". Surely you can relate to him?


----------



## outbound

+1 on hard dodgers. With inset in to,hard Bimini cockpit is out of wind and weather. Choose clear safety glass so it functions at night. Put in two opening port lights so can get a breeze to cool,hot days and you can see the sails through them. Got that semitransparent cloth that snaps in that sport fish guys use to cover the glass on hot days so no hot house effect. Put red/white LEDs in the overhead so you can read be on deck but totally out of the weather.. Have grab rail running its length making standing in the middle of cockpit holding that rail my favorite spot.Only downside is you may need to move a foot or three to see all of the sails and I still bang my stupid head from time to time.


----------



## GeorgeB

Been a highly entertaining food fight so far (You go Smackdaddy!) A couple of quick observations: The CG and CB on a folding bike is about the same (or maybe a little bit lower) than a standard road bike. The folding bike only looks more ungainly because of the longer seat post and handle bar post. If anything, it would be more stable in a cross wind because the jerry jug is lower to the ground owing to the smaller wheels. This might just be a metaphor for this whole thread – if it is not “cool” looking or fits our preconceived notions of what a cruising sail boat is supposed to look like then it is unsuitable? 

Second: “You dance with the girl you bring to the party”. Sure, I’d love to sink a mil into the ultimate cruising sailboat, but that’s not going to happen. Nor do I expect to cruise in the Southern Ocean. So I keep my needs real and reasonable. Every conversation doesn’t have to start with “first you buy an Amel 54”.

Third: Thank god I live (and cruise) here on the Pacific side. People aren’t so hung up on Jerry Jugs and dodgers. The fact is the sun is brutal in Mexico. You need some shade in the cockpit. The winds are light and fluky down there and fuel stops are hundreds of miles apart. My production boat is designed to be cruised in the USA (I have discussed this with my designer) where fuel and water are readily available and it is rather pointless to lug all that extra weight around.

And Finally (and most importantly), the “experts” have all told us ad nauseaum what “won’t” work. How about showing us what does work on your boats? How about a photo essay or two? For example, Jon’s boat’s entire length is the same as my waterline yet he has double the tankage – where does it all go? Where do you store all the stuff down below? Can someone post a picture of what it truly looks down below when you’re cruising. I want to learn at the knee of the masters. You guys on the “ultimate” cruisers, how many of you sail solo, and how many with spouses, friends etc?


----------



## TomMaine

And ride that Dahon and make a vid, Jon. I ride a folder all over town here, nobody laughs. 

You guys aren't fooling me. You're afraid to crack to 1000 post ceiling on the Rally's gone psycho thread. 

I'm counting any posts here that mention a Rally!


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Been a highly entertaining food fight so far (You go Smackdaddy!) A couple of quick observations: The CG and CB on a folding bike is about the same (or maybe a little bit lower) than a standard road bike. The folding bike only looks more ungainly because of the longer seat post and handle bar post. If anything, it would be more stable in a cross wind because the jerry jug is lower to the ground owing to the smaller wheels. This might just be a metaphor for this whole thread - if it is not "cool" looking or fits our preconceived notions of what a cruising sail boat is supposed to look like then it is unsuitable?


Wait just a minute, pal. Are you equating the folding bicycle to a full keeler??!?!?


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Wait just a minute, pal. Are you equating the folding bicycle to a full keeler??!?!?


Wouldn't the bicycle equivalent to a full keeler be a penny-farthing (one of those old big front wheel boats)


----------



## capttb

Jon, why didn't you post that picture over on the thread about keeping your glasses dry in the rain?


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it blue water boats are not always rough water boats and rough water boats are not always blue water boats.


You are going to have to help me here as the vocabulary you are using is creative. Of course no one really agrees on what a blue water boat is in the first place. What the heck is a rough water boat? Based on the words alone there is no way I would consider a boat suitable for blue water that cannot take rough water. So what are you opining?


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Of course it comes off. Can't you see the damn studs?
> 
> And WHO is deserving of mockery?
> 
> What a pretentious thing to say. In fact how dare you say someone elses boat deserves mockery?
> 
> Mark


Well, hopefully others who read my comments got the impression I was using the term "mockery" loosely, in an attempt to inject a bit of humor...

In the same spirit that Nat Herreshoff might have applied the word "fool" to anyone who chose to paint a boat black, perhaps?





smackdaddy said:


> I absolutely mock the SDR and the nerdy bicycle. And I do so categorically. I happily admit that.
> 
> But here's the difference:
> 
> In the case of the bicycle, I, like you in this debate, am on very thin ice. This is because there's nothing inherently wrong with the bicycle. It functions exactly as intended and will get you where you want to go, though might be less safe than its non-folding counterpart, especially with a big jerry can on the back which can affect your balance in high winds. I just think it _looks_ goofy. So it's purely subjective (even my safety argument). So, like you with the boats, I'm probably wrong in mocking the nerdy bike. But it's fun so what the hell.
> 
> Why should I care how this guy sets up his boat? What does it do with his ability to get where he wants to go and enjoy himself doing it - and whether its a bluewater or production boat? It's just a "nerdy bike". Surely you can relate to him?


That analogy works well for me... I've freely admitted my 6'5" frame on that bike probably looks like a circus act, and that's one photo you'll never see from me  But as sdr else said earlier, "I'm too old to care", and hopefully the owner of that boat feels the same way, about what many people undoubtedly would feel looks "goofy"...

But you're mistaken if you think I actually _CARE_ whether anyone else puts such a contraption on their own boat... I only care about the boat I sail myself, and those I deliver... And, I've yet to run an aft cockpit boat with an enclosure that worked well for me. Certainly, it can be very pleasant motoring down the ICW in December inside a greenhouse... But when it comes to actually trying to sail, or run at night, or docking when singlehanded, and so on, well... not so much... That's simply one man's opinion, but if the subject under discussion is the utility of full cockpit enclosures, I think such photos can be illustrative of their potential downsides... That enclosure around the helm certainly isn't gonna make trying to _SAIL_ that boat (a wonderful sailing machine, a Peterson 34) much fun, restricting the access to the primaries and the mainsheet/traveler as it does... Hmmm, what do you suppose Doug Peterson himself would have to say, upon seeing that done to one of his babies ? 

OK, now if anyone wants to see something truly worthy of "mockery", how about starting with my own Ambiguously Gay Spinnaker?

I _KNEW_ I never should have let a certain Cute Young Thing convince me the hot pink would look cool... Hell, even she admits that was a bridge too far...














smackdaddy said:


> In the case of the SDR, I'm mocking it based on fact...the fact that there were 5 SAR calls (and several rescues) _in a single day_ from its fleet in conditions that were far from survival - which then spurred a Marine Alert from the USCG. Therefore, my mocking of the SDR is categorical because it's based on provable fact - not whether it looks nerdy, or because it roasts innocent pigs, or might even be unstable due to a jerry can on it's carrier.


Whoa, dude... That's _COLD..._

It's one thing to "mock" the Pig Roasts, but the entirety of what occurred last fall? Seriously??? By doing so, you're mocking the very sailors who got into trouble, or required assistance... Unless you're still trying to maintain your delusion that the skippers and crews are not ultimately responsible for what transpired, and that the real blame rests on the shoulders of the organizers, that is...

I doubt many skippers or owners - particularly those of the Alden 54, the Catalina 42, and the Catana 47, who had all made the passage to the islands or crossed the Atlantic before - would much appreciate, or see any humor, in such an _"absolute and categorical mockery"..._

Especially, from a sailor who has never made a comparable offshore passage, himself...


----------



## smj

I personally think that's a great looking spinnaker!


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> I have six integral tanks. 4 fuel and 2 water placed amidships below the sole. They have oversized examination ports large enough for my wife to just about crawl through. They are heavily constructed and baffled. ....... This method plus the integrated stringer system adds to the rigidity strength of the hull as well as improving gyradius and comfort quotient .


The way I see it you are confusing design requirements with actual implementation. It does not take tanks built below the sole to create a rigid or well built boat. That can be done with built in tanks or plastic tanks. So I don't see your point.

In spite of the fact you might have your wife crawl in and repair the tanks, its unlikely it will be a suitable repair. You must repair it both from the inside and the outside of the tank. This requires access to both sides which is highly unlikely without breaking into the structure. Keep in mind your tank has 6 sides, 8 2-dimensional linear joints and 8 more 3-dimensional corner joints. And each one of these has two sides. I will take my tank out and set it on the ground to inspect it. Your boat will look like swiss cheese by the time you access all these points.

Most boats with these tanks are considerably less accessible than what you seem to think and very few have ports you can crawl into.



> In 53 sisterships over a decade+ no boat has had a failure or leak.


A ten year old boat is hardly a teenager in its life. I recommend you look at your boat in 40 years which is the age of many of these "blue water" boats. When you see some of these boats and tanks perhaps you will change your mind.



> Unfortunately from what I understand either metal or plastic tanks will likely require repair or replacement


You are absolutely right.. and I agree.. difference is when my boat is 40 years old, the tanks are easily replaced.



> Attachment of the shrouds to either the main structural bulkhead or the hull or even the toe rail as in Cheribinis can be equally strong. This is a matter of design and execution.


No argument here.. my point is chainplates require a specific hull-deck-bulkhead design.. Problem is that many are not well designed. And have the negative issue of inspection. Anchors deep in the hull are less dependent on bulkhead and deck design. And are considerably easier to inspect. So we agree here..



> In short there is no reason a good "blue water" boat cannot be a good " rough water" boat.


This was not my point.. my point was clearly "not all blue water boats are rough water boats" "not all rough water boats are blue water boats" Clearly a boat can be both a blue water and rough water boat. However, I would not agree that most are.

I think most people immediately pull out a stability diagram to support their understanding of rough water characteristics.. However such a diagram is nearly useless in determining the propensity of a boat to get knocked down or over turn in survival seas.

Anyone like to expound on what it takes to make a (rough water) boat not over turn in survival seas?
Bryce


----------



## outbound

Remain confused Bryce. Been on several boats as old as yours with integral tanks good as new. As with most things depends on design and execution.
BTW in 40 yrs. I'll be worm poop. Think more important is miles traveled and stress cycles than age. When a boat is overbuilt to take what the open sea demands she is more likely to remain safe into her senescence. I think you should agree you be more sanguine doing open water in a boat built for that purpose than a boat built for coastal use regardless of age.
Haven't been on any blue water boats that weren't good rough water boats yet. Been at this awhile. Can you name any? Agree some are much more comfortable than others and N.A.s have learned a thing or two in the last 40yrs.
Do you personally know of any failures of integral tanks in well thought of blue water boats? Can you reference the event? Still think an overbuilt vessel with as many features leading to minimal stress loading of any component is wise. BTW the tanks are under the sole. The sole panels are on retainers but do come up with a twist. The out sides are not hidden to the degree you imply. Think your concern is a non issue. Surprised you didn't make issue of the encapsulated keel also part of the initial lay up. Even though bulbed it too is encapsulated . The keel is done in the mold.Here again a belt and suspenders attitude was taken. Loads are transferred to the stringers grid system and the solid glass hull also supports it. The bulb is horizontally through bolted and glassed in. This over build is still seen with different production runs with totally different solutions. Examples being HR, ocean series Morris, Waterlines, K&Ms, Bobs new PSC etc. Again the point isn't production or custom. It's whether the boat was designed and properly executed to serve as an open water boat. Paulo previously mentioned many boats of light weight but of strong construction built and used for voyaging. Here again this was the design objective. His view of blue water boats was quite different than mine but equally valid.
I don't wish to be argumentative but I don't understand your position. Please expound as I would like to learn. Thanks


----------



## BryceGTX

For folding bikes you might like to check out "www.citizenbike.com"..

These are aluminum frames.. seem to be much better built than the run of the mill folding bikes.. I dislike derailers on my folding bike.. these bikes have three speed axles..

Notice the low rail girls bike..


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> Remain confused Bryce. Been on several boats as old as yours with integral tanks good as new.


LOL.. my boat is not old.. I do not have problems with my tanks..



> I think you should agree you be more sanguine doing open water in a boat built for that purpose than a boat built for coastal use regardless of age.


Now you are changing the subject.. it was specifically blue water versus rough.. not blue water versus coastal.. quite different discussion



> Haven't been on any blue water boats that weren't good rough water boats yet. Been at this awhile.


Sounds fair enough.. you are the expert.. lets start simple.. define the hull and keel characteristics that make a good rough water boat.. survival seas..

Bryce


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Whoa, dude... That's _COLD..._
> 
> It's one thing to "mock" the Pig Roasts, but the entirety of what occurred last fall? Seriously??? By doing so, you're mocking the very sailors who got into trouble, or required assistance... Unless you're still trying to maintain your delusion that the skippers and crews are not ultimately responsible for what transpired, and that the real blame rests on the shoulders of the organizers, that is...
> 
> I doubt many skippers or owners - particularly those of the Alden 54, the Catalina 42, and the Catana 47, who had all made the passage to the islands or crossed the Atlantic before - would much appreciate, or see any humor, in such an _"absolute and categorical mockery"..._
> 
> Especially, from a sailor who has never made a comparable offshore passage, himself...


After 10,000 pages in the Rallies thread, I'm honestly surprised that you _still_ don't understand that I'm mocking _the SDR as an organization_. Not its participants. The SDR is why there were so many boats in that place at that time. Pure and simple. If you need _even more_ clarification on this - re-read the Rallies thread. It's all there.


----------



## outbound

Bryce that's a good topic for another thread. Would be very curious what Bob and our esteemed pro captains would opine about good rough water boats. 
I know Smack likes to rag on the SDR but would note there is one Catalina and six Outbounds this year. They made a lot more Catalinas. The 47 is a good boat ( and I would crew on one without concern) and I'm sure they'll do just find but its nice to have a flotilla of sisterships. Reassures one others have similar views of what makes for a good boat for this use.


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> Bryce that's a good topic for another thread.


Wise decision.. my opinion is that if one cannot quantify the "Blue Waterness" or "Rough Waterness" of even a blue water boat, one cannot judge how blue water capable any production boat is.. be it Hunter, Catalina or Bene, Jenneau..

Clearly a Hunter 49 has easily managed a blue water experience of a magnitude many blue water boaters would not attempt. Is this the limit of this Hunter.. not even close!

Was it luck?? Is it not a true passage as one laughingly has suggested??

Fact is, there is little information on this thread that has contributed to the original question.. That is what is the limit of a production boat.. Its clear we are not going to get this answer from the (cough) "Blue water" crowd.. Instead it degenerates into an old age argument as to what is a blue water boat.. LOL.. and a discussion of folding bikes..

Bryce


----------



## desert rat

A blue water boat keeps the water out even when the waves are standing up and walking over the boat. A blue water boat is stable enough that when the waves are walking over the boat the crew is not shaken to death inside like peas in a maraca. 
What does this boat look like? Solid construction, (hull deck joints, bulkheads-stringers, coach roof) so that the boat does not break. 
Little things like, short overhangs, narrow companionway, and small cocpit.
All gleaned from the above thread or other similar threads on this forum. 
How many of the attributes dose the modern production boat have, the older production boat. Then look at the beautiful one off boats and ocean raceing boats.
Make your own decisions but do not sink.


----------



## outbound

Bryce please start it off. When I start a thread it flops. Read old and new about this topic and just get more confused. My distorted limited understanding is some more recently say
Light - using mostly form stability and withdrawn centerboards. The light and wide,at least, seems to work for the open boats. The boat floats on not in the water so will slide not trip. Stable if even caught broadside to the wave front. Wonder if this is relevant to us run of the mill cruisers with all our stuff and weight we carry.
Others say narrow and long with high righting arm due to deep high aspect bulbed keel. Again how muchdraft will you tolerate and fees are by length. But you have to agree dashews narrow boats work well. Just glad I don't have to pay the slip fees.
Others say traditional slack bilges,low freeboard and high displacement to length. But don't these boats have trouble with their sailing polars compared to others unless it's an exceptional design and isn't elbow room at a premium. Also aren't your spirits better when you don't live in cave.
Others say design so vessel will ride well to a drogue or sea anchor. Seems scary to have your life depend on a piece of cordage.
Most seem to agree bare poles or hoving to may not suffice in the ultimate survival setting. In short I'm confused how to interprete these assessments as how they may relate to how we sail and use our boats.
Go for it Bryce. You asked a great question.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Go for it Bryce. You asked a great question.


Well, if he does, I hope he offers to explain the salient distinction between "Blue Waterness" and "Rough Waterness"...


----------



## aeventyr60

^ Struggling with those terms my self. So a Valiant 40, Tayana 37, etc are not "rough water" boats?


----------



## smackdaddy

desert rat said:


> A blue water boat keeps the water out even when the waves are standing up and walking over the boat. A blue water boat is stable enough that when the waves are walking over the boat the crew is not shaken to death inside like peas in a maraca.


Yeah, I don't buy this one. If waves are walking over a sailboat...any sailboat...you're in big trouble. I don't care how blue the boat is, or how big your maracas are...you're screwed.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> Keep in mind your tank has 6 sides, 8 2-dimensional linear joints and 8 more 3-dimensional corner joints.


That would be 12 linear welds, not 8.



BryceGTX said:


> my point was clearly "not all blue water boats are rough water boats" "not all rough water boats are blue water boats" Clearly a boat can be both a blue water and rough water boat. However, I would not agree that most are.


Clearly I am not the only one confused by your vocabulary. Here is my take:

"Rough water boat" is meaningless. A blue water boat must be capable of managing rough water (which I will accept as a synonym for heavy weather) in order to be a blue water boat. You are making a distinction that does not exist.



outbound said:


> This over build is still seen with different production runs with totally different solutions. Examples being HR, ocean series Morris, Waterlines, K&Ms, Bobs new PSC etc.


I don't agree that overbuilding is a good thing. The examples you cite are properly built for the service they are marketed to perform in.

Story: back in the 70s and 80s the US Navy reviewed the performance of a number of systems that were getting huge and heavy and still suffered failures over their life-cycle beyond what was considered acceptable. I particularly remember the AN/UYK computers as absolute structural monstrosities. What the Navy determined was that in a dynamic environment the inertial component of shock loading and the high vibration environment made lightness highly desirable. Many systems were redesigned accordingly. The more widespread availability of tools like finite element analysis greatly reduced the risk of optimizing design. "Make it bigger" and "beef it up" are not necessarily always good.

The rigging on my HR is bigger than a Catalina or Hunter of similar size. HR expects their owners will take their boats into conditions that make that sizing appropriate. Catalina and Hunter recognize that the overwhelming majority of their target market simply don't put those kinds of loads on their boats and size their rigging (and other structural and system components) accordingly.



BryceGTX said:


> Now you are changing the subject.. it was specifically blue water versus rough.. not blue water versus coastal.. quite different discussion


Which (blue water versus rough) I still maintain is a meaningless distinction.


----------



## Don L

BryceGTX said:


> Fact is, there is little information on this thread that has contributed to the original question.. That is what is the limit of a production boat..


I think the answer is in the thread many times; the limit of a "production" boat is the people on it.


----------



## outbound

Apologize for my poor use of language.
By overbuilt I meant not built to expected load cycles of coastal work but rather to loading expected in years of offshore service. Had experience of taking a nap on the forward v berth of a well known production boat while going downwind in moderate conditions. Watched the hull oilcan in and out as we surfed a bit and would strike in the troughs. Boat was built during 1980s oil crisis. Lay up was insufficient.
Whole heartily agree blue water implies rough water. Maybe I have lousy luck but even during 3-5d coastal hops usually see some weather. Most of us have 2-3d of weather window to play with so unless predictions are bad will put up with 20-30 predicted.

Stil although the consensus seems to be blue v. rough is meaningless. Bryce's question remains excellent. "What comprises a good heavy weather boat? What features are required for a boat to exceed survival conditions?


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Boat was built during 1980s oil crisis. Lay up was insufficient.


Boat was built in the 80s and is still out there doing it. How can you say the layup is insufficient?


----------



## outbound

Don with all due respect I think this statement is plain wrong. There is wide variance in the capabilities of production boats. Although many would argue the classification systems of the various certification agencies are faulty but even the governments of the world recognize they need to make an attempt to inform the public of this. In general you would be better served to take an EU A boat than an EU B boat across the North Atlantic. Or an ice certified boat into the high latitudes. I think this is true regardless of who is aboard.


----------



## outbound

Event occurred in early 1990s. I'm an old fart. I have no idea if the thing is still floating. Got off in Maine. Called my wife and had her drive me home. She was pissed.


----------



## mitiempo

BryceGTX said:


> define the hull and keel characteristics that make a good rough water boat.. survival seas..
> Bryce


The following are all offshore boats and many agree.







Offshore capable and "roughwater capable" are the same thing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Miti,

I think you've hit on a very pertinent aspect of this thread. Bob's Valiant is unquestionably one of the most successful cruising boats in history. But that was a few decades ago. Look at what he's doing now:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...cific-seacraft-63-ketch-nears-completion.html




























Very different design. Would you call this one offshore-worthy?

Another issue that I pointed out in my blog post about choosing my Hunter is that because the Valiant or Morris or Saga (or whatever) are such great boats, they are 1.5-3+ times more expensive on the used market - even for a much older boat.

YW: Valiants

YW: Morris

YW: Saga

A tribute to their designers and builders for sure. But for people like me and the sailing I'll do, I would much rather pay cash for a newer production boat and go now - than either wait and save for several more years or take out a big loan for a boat like those - ESPECIALLY for the type of sailing we plan to do.

The real question is: What am I really giving up? And I think the answer is - something for sure, but not something that is several times in magnitude.


----------



## smackdaddy

Then...let's look at something like the interior layout of the Morris 44. Where exactly is it FAR better than my Hunter for offshore sailing (e.g. - handholds, seaberths, open spaces, etc.)? I just don't see a lot of difference:

Morris









Hunter









What am I missing?

I would even argue that our galley is a bit safer than the one on this Morris. We've got the engine compartment/companionway right behind us to wedge against. On the Morris, you might need to be clipped in on a port tack:

Morris









Hunter









BTW - this Morris is *9 times* what I paid for my Hunter.

Here's the cheapest Saga (40) I could find in the UK for twice what I paid for my Hunter - and 2 years older. Same issue with the galley:

Saga









No more/better handholds that I can see (apart from the double posts at the galley/nav table:

Saga









And I definitely prefer my aft cabin over this one:

Saga









And, finally, I'm sorry, but I really just don't want to be dragging one of these things around all the time:

Saga









Now if you're talking Bob's Saga 43, that's a completely different kettle of monkeys than this 40. But it's still way out of my league price-wise.

But even with the 43...is Jon going to harangue Bob for this "sharp" detail at the companionway (which is still larger and lower than my Hunter's)?










I know for a fact he and Harries would be mocking this dude in his Saga 43 in the anchorage (heh-heh):










Now, am I saying that my Hunter is "better" than all these boats? Of course, not. But if you're going to criticize a production boat brand I think you need to show very specific examples - that illustrate a very clear _and significant_ difference - between these high-end boats and the production "deathtraps that should never venture off-shore".


----------



## Jeff_H

I have followed this thread almost continuously, or at least when I have had the time. And since the beginning I have always been struck by a few points that I have wanted to make. First of all, I think that the way terms are being used in this thread seems imprecise and within their imprecision comes some of the differences in opinion. For example, the term 'Production Boats' strikes me as somewhat misleading since the vast majority of fiberglass boats of all types are constructed within a production run of one length or another. I would suggest that this term is being used as a short hand for 'value oriented coastal cruisers', and when described in that manner it takes out some debate as to what type of boat is being discussed. 

By the same token, the term 'offshore capable' gets thrown around pretty frequently as well, and again that term has a certain imprecision in it as well. I would suggest that a clearer description of what is meant by that term would be 'long distance voyaging capable' which to me implies the ability to carry the necessary gear and supplies needed to make long passages and the robustness to withstand not just the high stresses of incidents that exceed the normal service life cycle of a boat, but to take the high and cyclical loadings of multiple heavy weather passages without breaking down. 

When it comes to what separates a value oriented coastal cruiser from a long distance voyager comes down to its ability to maintain a reasonable service life in a prolonged harsh environment. I think that Dave's (S/V Auspicious) post 711 gets to the heart of the matter when he talked about the Navy research. 

What I believe Dave is alluding to is impact on the structural integrity of the boat when exposed to large cyclical loading over a prolonged period of time. 

As I have pointed out before, a coastal cruiser who uses their boat a whole lot might rack up maybe 1,000 hours under sail in a year (and it would be extremely rare to find a coastal cruiser who did anything like that). But a single trans-Atlantic passage can easily rack up that much and more.A coastal cruiser will generally duck in when things get nasty. Spending 8-10 hours in heavy going would be rare. On a major offshore passage, if one's luck is not quite what it should be, its easy to spend many times that in survival conditions, and do that with the boat heavily loaded with gear and consumables. 

And its not that the value oriented coastal cruiser can't survive in those conditions for short periods of time, but its in the details of the boat that the story is told. And it is because of those details that the overall useful lifespan of the boat becomes shortened by that kind of exposure. 

Those details included glued in internal framing, bulkheads; often outward flange hull to deck joints, often water and fuel tanks without baffling,often the lack of backing plates, or glassed-in threaded bolting plates and so on. Details like these are perfectly satisfactory when a boat is used the way most coastal cruisers are used. But they do not hold up when exposed to cyclical loadings over time. 

Take the glued in internal framing for example. On a boat intended to spend its life voying long distance, these frames would normally be glassed in. Even if they were molded as a unit, they are generally tabbed to the hull with glass and resin. Usually when glued in, the frames are adhered with a 'slurry' which is a mix of polyester resin and a thickener. While making that connection with a slurry is adequate for normal loads, the materials used for that slurry are fatigue prone and poor in tension and sheer, so that over time when repeatedly exposed to the high loads of a boat in heavy conditions, that bond breaks down, weakens and fails reducing the strength of the connection. It may not fail during the incident that weakened it, but fail years later when that weakened structure is exposed to a heavy loading that it might have otherwise survived. 

Another is glued in bulkheads. Virtually all high production builders are doing this on their value oriented models. They point out that the glue bonds are stronger than the plywood bulkhead of the fiberglass of the hull, and that the plywood and fiberglass fail before the glue joint. And that is completely understandable but irrelevant. 

If these boats were being constructed for the long term high loads which are expected on a distance voyager, these critical structural connections would be done with tabbing (resin and cloth tape joints) that would be built up to spread out the connective forces over a broader area so that more of the hull and more of the bulkhead experience the load and the load per square unit and the likelihood of the total load occurring in one small spot becomes enormously reduced. And that not only helps with standing up to that one exceptionally high load (falling off a wave, or running aground for example) but also reduces fatigue over time, thereby prolonging a greater percentage of the strength of the boat as it was built over a much greater long term lifespan. 

Outward flange hull deck joints are a similar problem in that the have smaller gluing surfaces and they place the laminate in 'peel', which is a force prying apart the laminate layers, and which is fiberglass's (especially fiberglass layups with polyester and non-directional fabrics as is typical in virtually all value oriented boats) weakest load directions. 

So in my mind it is not a matter of whether a value oriented boat can be taken offshore and make offshore passages, but more a matter of the lifespan and how well they will hold up when doing so. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## RTB

smackdaddy said:


> Miti,
> 
> I think you've hit on a very pertinent aspect of this thread. Bob's Valiant is unquestionably one of the most successful cruising boats in history. But that was a few decades ago. Look at what he's doing now:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...cific-seacraft-63-ketch-nears-completion.html


.....and no one has mentioned anything about the spade rudder?

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

As usual, Jeff, I think you nailed it. Let me address some of these terms, and their meaning in my mind, as related to this discussion.



Jeff_H said:


> For example, the term 'Production Boats' strikes me as somewhat misleading since the vast majority of fiberglass boats of all types are constructed within a production run of one length or another. I would suggest that this term is being used as a short hand for 'value oriented coastal cruisers', and when described in that manner it takes out some debate as to what type of boat is being discussed.


I think this is exactly right. At the same time (and as you address below) this thread is more about the question of whether the 'value oriented coastal cruisers' can handle _offshore_ work (more on that below).



Jeff_H said:


> By the same token, the term 'offshore capable' gets thrown around pretty frequently as well, and again that term has a certain imprecision in it as well. I would suggest that a clearer description of what is meant by that term would be 'long distance voyaging capable' which to me implies the ability to carry the necessary gear and supplies needed to make long passages and the robustness to withstand not just the high stresses of incidents that exceed the normal service life cycle of a boat, but to take the high and cyclical loadings of multiple heavy weather passages without breaking down.


Exactly. This is absolutely the heart of it. A boat that is "offshore capable" is definitely not automatically "long distance voyaging capable".

But I think most of the discussion in this thread (and usually around this subject) centers on what boat is "offshore capable" - not "long distance voyaging capable" - because, as you well know, most sailors stay to coastal/island cruising with only an occasional encounter with heavy weather (especially repeated heavy weather) that will truly test a boat as in a long distance voyage.



Jeff_H said:


> When it comes to what separates a value oriented coastal cruiser from a long distance voyager comes down to its ability to maintain a reasonable service life in a prolonged harsh environment. I think that Dave's (S/V Auspicious) post 711 gets to the heart of the matter when he talked about the Navy research.
> 
> What I believe Dave is alluding to is impact on the structural integrity of the boat when exposed to large cyclical loading over a prolonged period of time.


Again, I think both you and Dave have nailed it. It's about stress cycles more than anything else.

But this is where it gets interesting. When most people are looking to buy, they have a price-point. And the conventional arguments have always been that you should buy a "blue water boat" even if it's older - and _especially_ if it's been cruised extensively (i.e. - has been fitted out with the stuff you need for cruising).

But I think there are a couple of fallacies in this very common argument:

1. An older "bluewater boat" that has been cruised extensively and is anywhere near the buyer's price range when compared to a "production boat" is likely going to have faced many more cycles than that "production boat". So, though there's obviously no way to measure that empirically, a newer "production boat" that has been sailed like most of them are (i.e. - light coastal cruising) might very well be "stronger" overall due to less cycles.

2. This mindset still leaves in place the "I want a bluewater boat because it will protect me in a storm". Again, if it's a 40 year old bluewater boat, it's already done a lot of protecting. And, 40 years later, with the technology we now have, you should DEFINITELY be able to avoid storms like you couldn't then. So it's really less of a benefit...especially for 99% of the sailors out there.



Jeff_H said:


> As I have pointed out before, a coastal cruiser who uses their boat a whole lot might rack up maybe 1,000 hours under sail in a year (and it would be extremely rare to find a coastal cruiser who did anything like that). But a single trans-Atlantic passage can easily rack up that much and more.A coastal cruiser will generally duck in when things get nasty. Spending 8-10 hours in heavy going would be rare. On a major offshore passage, if one's luck is not quite what it should be, its easy to spend many times that in survival conditions, and do that with the boat heavily loaded with gear and consumables.
> 
> And its not that the value oriented coastal cruiser can't survive in those conditions for short periods of time, but its in the details of the boat that the story is told. And it is because of those details that the overall useful lifespan of the boat becomes shortened by that kind of exposure.
> 
> Those details included glued in internal framing, bulkheads; often outward flange hull to deck joints, often water and fuel tanks without baffling,often the lack of backing plates, or glassed-in threaded bolting plates and so on. Details like these are perfectly satisfactory when a boat is used the way most coastal cruisers are used. But they do not hold up when exposed to cyclical loadings over time.
> 
> Take the glued in internal framing for example. On a boat intended to spend its life voying long distance, these frames would normally be glassed in. Even if they were molded as a unit, they are generally tabbed to the hull with glass and resin. Usually when glued in, the frames are adhered with a 'slurry' which is a mix of polyester resin and a thickener. While making that connection with a slurry is adequate for normal loads, the materials used for that slurry are fatigue prone and poor in tension and sheer, so that over time when repeatedly exposed to the high loads of a boat in heavy conditions, that bond breaks down, weakens and fails reducing the strength of the connection. It may not fail during the incident that weakened it, but fail years later when that weakened structure is exposed to a heavy loading that it might have otherwise survived.
> 
> Another is glued in bulkheads. Virtually all high production builders are doing this on their value oriented models. They point out that the glue bonds are stronger than the plywood bulkhead of the fiberglass of the hull, and that the plywood and fiberglass fail before the glue joint. And that is completely understandable but irrelevant.
> 
> If these boats were being constructed for the long term high loads which are expected on a distance voyager, these critical structural connections would be done with tabbing (resin and cloth tape joints) that would be built up to spread out the connective forces over a broader area so that more of the hull and more of the bulkhead experience the load and the load per square unit and the likelihood of the total load occurring in one small spot becomes enormously reduced. And that not only helps with standing up to that one exceptionally high load (falling off a wave, or running aground for example) but also reduces fatigue over time, thereby prolonging a greater percentage of the strength of the boat as it was built over a much greater long term lifespan.
> 
> Outward flange hull deck joints are a similar problem in that the have smaller gluing surfaces and they place the laminate in 'peel', which is a force prying apart the laminate layers, and which is fiberglass's (especially fiberglass layups with polyester and non-directional fabrics as is typical in virtually all value oriented boats) weakest load directions.
> 
> So in my mind it is not a matter of whether a value oriented boat can be taken offshore and make offshore passages, but more a matter of the lifespan and how well they will hold up when doing so.


And, again, you nailed it. I honestly understand and accept the fact that my Hunter is more lightly built than a Saga, Morris, Valiant, etc. And I think you've very effectively highlighted the areas of difference in these builds.

But, the most important factor, for me anyway, is what that really means in terms of safety and cost. The most important question is...will my Hunter _break up and sink_ in a F9-F10 storm (the most a typical sailor will ever face according to Hal Roth)? I'm confident that the answer to that question is "no". That's why I bought it, despite these common arguments that say I should have done otherwise if I want to be safe offshore.

Now, more to your point, in a storm will it likely sustain more structural stress and damage than an equivalent Morris or Saga? I'm confident that the answer to that question is "yes".

So, where does that leave me? Purely from a cost perspective, I could go through a few Hunters for what I'd pay for a Morris. So as long as the Hunter will keep me safe in that storm - I'm okay with potentially totaling it after doing so if it has sustained serious structure damage. Is this approach worth the "gamble"? It is to me for the kind of sailing we'll do and the price I want to pay to do it. I can go now...with the understanding that I will likely need to be a bit more careful and vigilant than the guy in the Morris - but honestly, not by much. And, I definitely won't be keeping any boat I buy for 30 years anyway.

I just don't think the difference in those degrees is great enough to automatically push us toward one of these high-end brands. The Hunter can handle offshore sailing - and heavy weather. Long distance voyaging - that's a different debate. But Michael's Hunter certainly did okay even there.


----------



## Faster

I think another essential difference - perhaps a tad off topic for this thread - is the reasonably expectable resale value. How much did your Hunter sell for new (in today's dollars) compared to what you paid 25 or so years later? Then look at what the upper ender sold for new vs the typical asking price on the same used basis.. I think this is another area where 'quality and endurance' tells - I haven't done the research so I could be wrong but I suspect it's not the same ratio...


----------



## maru657

I have a CT 41, it's been to Hawaii and back. It's an affectionally known as a " Tiawan Turkey". Many of these boats had weak fuel or water tanks. However, many of the older ones have had these things replaced and their actually better boats as a result.


----------



## davidpm

smackdaddy said:


> Now, more to your point, in a storm will it likely sustain more structural stress and damage than an equivalent Morris or Saga? I'm confident that the answer to that question is "yes".


If someone tells my rigger they as been knocked down and wants a rigging inspections he typically tells them to swap out the rigging. All the components are sized based on some percentage of failure rating.

In a knock down he says that multiple components can be stressed to near 100 percent of their failure number and even if they didn't fail and look OK their strength has been compromised.

So while he can look at it the standing rigging it may be seriously weaker than when new.
So how lucky do you feel.


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> The most important question is...will my Hunter break up and sink in a F9-F10 storm (the most a typical sailor will ever face according to Hal Roth)? I'm confident that the answer to that question is "no".






I'm not so sure of that Smack.


----------



## mitiempo

RTB said:


> .....and no one has mentioned anything about the spade rudder?
> 
> Ralph


That was the reason I picked the 3 designs I did. I had to have a spade rudder on one.

I wasn't thinking of construction quality as much as of design from the 70's (Valiant 40) to the more recent Saga. I should have included one like the Saga 40 Smack posted about with its heavy displacement and full keel as well. Note this is not a Perry design but an Alan Pape design built by Saltram in England. It displaces 30,000 lbs.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> I'm not so sure of that Smack.


Well, first, I think it's funny that you post a pic with a carbon fiber, blade/bulb keeled Open 60 racing boat handling that storm. The absolute antithesis of the full-keel Saga and any other high-end brand we're talking about. Yet, absolutely a blue water boat. No question.

Second, I just believe Hal Roth from his "Handling Storms at Sea" book:



> 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.


A Hunter 49 did just fine in an F10-11 off Cape Horn. I'm pretty comfortable in my Hunter handling the conditions I'll likely see over the next few years (Hint: I'm not crossing oceans.)


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> There are elements of design that make some production boats quite good rough water boats.
> ...
> 
> Keel and hull design are critical design elements that we can talk about. Extremely deep keels have no place in a rough water boat. Some blue water boats have extremely deep keels. A shoal keel has the advantage. Take a look at the Island Packets for a good example of a shoal hull-keel designed for rough water.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> Bryce


Island Packets with their trademarked "Full Foil Keel" coupled with high freeboard would be pretty far down the list of boats I'd want for heavy weather... I'd prefer a boat with considerably more weatherly ability, particularly in the event one is running short on searoom with a lee shore potentially in play...

IPs have not acquitted themselves particularly well offshore recently, we know of at least 3 that have been abandoned off the East coast in the last 3 years... One off Charleston in the early summer, another off Hatteras, and of course the one abandoned in the NARC in 2011 after the helmsperson was pitched overboard in a heavy roll, and lost...

I'd be curious to hear what you consider to be an example of a "Bluewater Boat" with an "extremely deep keel"... Whatever it might be, I'm having a hard time picturing one that would be an inferior choice than an IP, in my opinion...


----------



## outbound

+1 on Jeff 's post. He elucidated the points I tried to make. Although my experience is quite limited compared to many posting I'd like to point out from personal experience 
I'd rather be in a gale, let alone a storm offshore than coastal. I'd rather not be concerned about Lee shores or the beating you take with wind against tide. I'd rather miss out on the waves breaking when the depth is less than 7x wave height. The load cycles for the same weather may be worse in the coastal setting than offshore.
I'd rather be on a new boat built for long distance voyaging. If forced by economics then a used boat built for that purpose. Stress cycles are less likely to approach near failure loads as c/w the value boat of any age. Destruction of fine structure,micro delamination, elongation and other factors leading to failure are less likely to have occurred.
The ocean boat is more likely to have been sailed in skilled hands. More likely to have been "baby-ed". More likely to have been reefed and sailed appropriately for conditions it encountered. It is also less likely to have had hard groundings or other such mishaps. It also is more likely to have been well maintained as owners are more likely to have the knowledge and resources.
I've had multiple boats over the last 35years. My current boat is the only one I bought new. I saved for decades for this boat. Even if I never do the world tour my bride and I contemplate and just snowbird there is no question in my mind given our exposure to at least two open water trips per year and near constant near shore roaming with that scenario I have chosen wisely. The basic structure of a boat doesn't repair. It's not like you. When you over do you are sore for a day or two then good as new. When you exceed your limits you need the orthopedist and even then are never really right.


----------



## outbound

Smack some examples came to mind.
Coming home in Block I. sound passed a Hunter with the no back stay Bergstrom rig. It was a fresh breeze but very gusty. I had reefed main on preventer with poled Solent opposite doing high 7s to low 8s. He had full genny and no main. When passing I could see the slight S curve his mast had with the gusts.
Coming home from Maine passed a Bene of ~50'. He had all the rags up showing keel stub. I was reefed and nearly flat (maybe 20 degrees). We were both close hauled in the delightful buzzards bay wind against water chop. Which boat had more load cycles of significance impacting how they age?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> +1 on Jeff 's post. He elucidated the points I tried to make. Although my experience is quite limited compared to many posting I'd like to point out from personal experience
> I'd rather be in a gale, let alone a storm offshore than coastal. I'd rather not be concerned about Lee shores or the beating you take with wind against tide. I'd rather miss out on the waves breaking when the depth is less than 7x wave height. The load cycles for the same weather may be worse in the coastal setting than offshore.


Totally agree with you.


----------



## outbound

Lastly the mind set for captain and crew is totally different for coastal v. offshore or even near shore. You are less likely to beat yourself up when you know you are going to be on the boat for a another few days or weeks.
So Smack are we at the point that you also agree the cost point boat is less sound after 5- 10 yrs. then the proverbial blue water boat and 5 yrs of the hard sailed coastal boat may equal 10yrs of the ocean boat depending on providence . Unfortunately even with a good survey that is basically unknown.


----------



## Faster

outbound said:


> ......
> So Smack are we at the point that you also agree the cost point boat is less sound after 5- 10 yrs. then the proverbial blue water boat and 5 yrs of the hard sailed coastal boat may equal 10yrs of the ocean boat depending on providence . Unfortunately even with a good survey that is basically unknown.


Good theory, Out.. now all we need to do is to find two owners who fit the thesis who are willing to submit their boats to a forensic 'autopsy' to truly know what the state of the laminates and various joints and structures are in after those time frames..

Not going to happen, obviously, and as you say therefore even a 'good survey' is full of assumptions and unknowns.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> 1. An older "bluewater boat" that has been cruised extensively and is anywhere near the buyer's price range when compared to a "production boat" is likely going to have faced many more cycles than that "production boat". *So, though there's obviously no way to measure that empirically, a newer "production boat" that has been sailed like most of them are (i.e. - light coastal cruising) might very well be "stronger" overall due to less cycles.
> *


Sounds like a textbook example of 'Wishful Thinking', to me... 



smackdaddy said:


> 2. This mindset still leaves in place the "I want a bluewater boat because it will protect me in a storm". Again, if it's a 40 year old bluewater boat, it's already done a lot of protecting. *And, 40 years later, with the technology we now have, you should DEFINITELY be able to avoid storms like you couldn't then.* So it's really less of a benefit...especially for 99% of the sailors out there.


More wishful thinking...



smackdaddy said:


> But, the most important factor, for me anyway, is what that really means in terms of safety and cost.* The most important question is...will my Hunter break up and sink in a F9-F10 storm* (the most a typical sailor will ever face according to Hal Roth)? I'm confident that the answer to that question is "no". That's why I bought it, despite these common arguments that say I should have done otherwise if I want to be safe offshore.


You must be supremely confident that you will never do anything short of that silly notion of "stepping UP into the liferaft", then... Time and time again, we see cases of boats being abandoned in far less severe conditions than a full-blown storm at sea, and in most cases, these boats rarely "break up and sink"... Again, it's wishful thinking to believe you can calculate the odds with any degree of precision what exactly any boat will, or will not withstand... One breaking sea among the billions out there can change everything in an instant, no matter what sort of boat you're on...



smackdaddy said:


> Now, more to your point, in a storm will it likely sustain more structural stress and damage than an equivalent Morris or Saga? I'm confident that the answer to that question is "yes".


In my opinion, this is at the heart of what I believe you fail to fully understand about sailing offshore... Things rarely go south as the result of a single massive or catastrophic failure, certainly in less than storm force conditions... Far more likely and commonplace, is the steady degradation of life aboard through the accumulation of a series of 'little things'... Often matters of simple discomfort more than anything else, stuff like dealing with persistent topside leaks that can quickly turn life miserable, eventually degrading the morale of the crew, leading to exhaustion and distraction from the primary objective of actually sailing and navigating the boat, and can lead to poor decision-making that may not surface until much further into the voyage...

We'll never know precisely, of course, but that has always been my hunch about what happened aboard RULE 62... Their decision to abandon the Caribbean 1500 was not the result of any catastrophic failure or damage that we know of, but more likely a piling-up of 'minor things' like topside leaks, creaking bulkheads, perhaps a galley that made the preparation of proper meals difficult, the lack of good seaberths, the list of potential issues on any boat is virtually endless... Whatever, that skipper and crew eventually arrived at a point where they so desperately wanted to be _"OFF THAT DAMN BOAT'_, that a supremely foolish decision was taken, in the end, and I've got to believe that there were contributing factors that led to that end, that were a consequence of certain features or liabilities of that particular boat, that may not have been quite as consequential on a more moderate or seakindly design...


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack some examples came to mind.
> Coming home in Block I. sound passed a Hunter with the no back stay Bergstrom rig. It was a fresh breeze but very gusty. I had reefed main on preventer with poled Solent opposite doing high 7s to low 8s. He had full genny and no main. When passing I could see the slight S curve his mast had with the gusts.
> Coming home from Maine passed a Bene of ~50'. He had all the rags up showing keel stub. I was reefed and nearly flat (maybe 20 degrees). We were both close hauled in the delightful buzzards bay wind against water chop. Which boat had more load cycles of significance impacting how they age?


Well, it really depends on how often that Bene or Hunter was taken out - and how old they were.

Again, the discussion is about cycles. As we all know, most boats sit at the dock most of the time - and when they do go out, it's rarely it sporty conditions. So it's quite possible (especially in light of the the over-canvassing) that it was the first time either of those boats faced any stress. Who knows? I certainly wouldn't discount production boats based on what you saw.



outbound said:


> Lastly the mind set for captain and crew is totally different for coastal v. offshore or even near shore. You are less likely to beat yourself up when you know you are going to be on the boat for a another few days or weeks.
> So Smack are we at the point that you also agree the cost point boat is less sound after 5- 10 yrs. then the proverbial blue water boat and 5 yrs of the hard sailed coastal boat may equal 10yrs of the ocean boat depending on providence . Unfortunately even with a good survey that is basically unknown.


As you have pointed out, and as has been borne out by hundreds of stories, coastal sailing is really far more dangerous in many ways than offshore sailing. Yet another reason the traditional bluewater argument is pretty silly.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> You must be supremely confident that you will never do anything short of that silly notion of "stepping UP into the liferaft", then... Time and time again, we see cases of boats being abandoned in far less severe conditions than a full-blown storm at sea, and in most cases, these boats rarely "break up and sink"... *Again, it's wishful thinking to believe you can calculate the odds with any degree of precision what exactly any boat will, or will not withstand... One breaking sea among the billions out there can change everything in an instant, no matter what sort of boat you're on...*


Well, yeah, that's been my point for this whole thread. So why does the silly bluewater boat argument keep going on ad infinitum?

I'm not supremely confident in anything. If anything, I believe your bolded part above more-so than the guy in the Morris. But this isn't about me, it's about boats. And I agree with your statement above. To a large degree in these extremes, it doesn't matter what sort of boat you're on.



JonEisberg said:


> In my opinion, this is at the heart of what I believe you fail to fully understand about sailing offshore... Things rarely go south as the result of a single massive or catastrophic failure, certainly in less than storm force conditions... Far more likely and commonplace, is the steady degradation of life aboard through the accumulation of a series of 'little things'... Often matters of simple discomfort more than anything else, stuff like dealing with persistent topside leaks that can quickly turn life miserable, eventually degrading the morale of the crew, leading to exhaustion and distraction from the primary objective of actually sailing and navigating the boat, and can lead to poor decision-making that may not surface until much further into the voyage...


I understand this. I've been in the middle of it with two seasick kids offshore in the Gulf and a day-and-a-half more to go until we reach the jetties. No turning back. No relief. You just slog.

And this was on a highly regarded bluewater boat. It happens - regardless of the brand. We are talking degrees of separation in these debates - not polar separation as some want to think. The question isn't about boat brand - it's about how _you_ deal with the above scenario.


----------



## RTB

JonEisberg said:


> it's wishful thinking to believe you can calculate the odds with any degree of precision what exactly any boat will, or will not withstand... One breaking sea among the billions out there can change everything in an instant, no matter what sort of boat you're on...


*Bruce Van Sant:* "_If you do long passages just to test yourself against the sea, you have to know you shall eventually lose the test. Passage Maker or Island Hopper, only the cowards survive."_

Following this thread while reading _Passages South_. Preparing ourselves and our old production boat for the trip next year.










Ralph


----------



## outbound

Great book. Pretty much convinced me to do the SDR. Think there is much wisdom in Jons post. Smack with two kids puking and the bride thinking" why did I let him talk me into this" weren't you happy the integrity of the boat was not a major concern? 
The little things add up. For my wife one was "can the boat do it?" I told her she would pick our boat after I generated a list of possibles. After talking with the fairer half of our sisterships and hearing what those ladies had done, where they have been and what weather they had seen she was reassured. Makes for less OMGs when it gets sporty.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Great book. Pretty much convinced me to do the SDR. Think there is much wisdom in Jons post. Smack with two kids puking and the bride thinking" why did I let him talk me into this" weren't you happy the integrity of the boat was not a major concern?


Sure - but I would have had just as much faith in my Hunter as I did this "bluewater" boat. No question. And that's the point of this thread (and Jon's post I think). The boat wasn't the issue at all. (Unless you want to go in circles about the lauded "increased comfort factor of bluewater boats" - that obviously wasn't working here.)

That said, I think an important emotional factor on that run was that we were crew on a delivery of this boat with the owner/friend as skipper. Because of that it was not my call to turn back. And that was good. It took the emotional pull of me wanting my kids to feel better out of the equation.

And in the end, after they got their sealegs (6 hours for one, 22 hours for the other), they LOVED the trip. Seriously. And that was the lesson.

As I said, I totally understand Jon's points and generally agree with the wisdom. But it certainly doesn't mean a production boat is unsuited to off-shore work.


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> That would be 12 linear welds, not 8.


Yes a box has 12 linear connections of the sides as stated and 12 corners.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> Clearly I am not the only one confused by your vocabulary. Here is my take:
> 
> "Rough water boat" is meaningless. A blue water boat must be capable of managing rough water (which I will accept as a synonym for heavy weather) in order to be a blue water boat. You are making a distinction that does not exist.
> 
> Which (blue water versus rough) I still maintain is a meaningless distinction.


Well here is my take on the subject.. virtually every hull design and keel design at one point or another has been purported to be "Blue water". From that I can only take away that blue water designs are independent of hull design.

Given that, clearly there is an optimum hull and keel that is better off for rough water. So clearly blue water and rough water are not the same.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Island Packets with their trademarked "Full Foil Keel" coupled with high freeboard would be pretty far down the list of boats I'd want for heavy weather...


No doubt this is your opinion.. however, your opinion does not seem to agree with 3 or 4 thousand years of sailboat history where boats had round hulls and long shallow keels. The way I see it, you guys only seem to be taking in a few decades of history and ignoring the thousands of years prior.

Perhaps the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago might tend to disagree with you..


----------



## BryceGTX

Bryce said:


> Fact is, there is little information on this thread that has contributed to the original question.. That is what is the limit of a production boat..





Don0190 said:


> I think the answer is in the thread many times; the limit of a "production" boat is the people on it.


Sounds fair enough.. but since this also seems to be the limit of the blue water boat, you would conclude the blue water boat and production boats are one and the same?


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> No clearly, a box has 8 linear connections of the sides.. perhaps you should recount.


Let's see. There is a flat plate on the top. Four sides of the plate, each with a weld to an adjacent tank side. There is a flat plate on the bottom. Four sides, each with a weld to an adjacent tank side. Then there are four more welds between the four tank sides, one tank side to the next. That is twelve.

See:










Cube, rectangle, or any similar polygon. Twelve welds.


----------



## BryceGTX

Yep.. thanks for catching that..
Bryce


----------



## Faster

Many typical tanks could be even more....


----------



## Mr. Bubs

BryceGTX said:


> No doubt this is your opinion.. however, your opinion does not seem to agree with 3 or 4 thousand years of sailboat history where boats had round hulls and long shallow keels. The way I see it, you guys only seem to be taking in a few decades of history and ignoring the thousands of years prior.
> 
> Perhaps the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago might tend to disagree with you..


You know what, you're right. As a mechanical engineer I'm going to quit using my computer and go back to a pencil and slide rule. Better yet, I'll just use an abacus.


----------



## smackdaddy

Mr. Bubs said:


> You know what, you're right. As a mechanical engineer I'm going to quit using my computer and go back to a pencil and slide rule. Better yet, I'll just use an abacus.


A production or bluewater abacus?


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> A production or bluewater abacus?


Why not a production bluewater abacus????????????????


----------



## BryceGTX

Mr. Bubs said:


> You know what, you're right. As a mechanical engineer I'm going to quit using my computer and go back to a pencil and slide rule. Better yet, I'll just use an abacus.


If you are not experienced with a slide rule.. you have a few years to catch up with my engineering experience.. Although my graduate and undergraduate studies are now a number of dacades back. I always check my computer calculations and simulation with nothing more than a pencil and paper..

AS far as boat design.. studying a bit of history is useful.. that was my point.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

Faster said:


> Many typical tanks could be even more....


Excellent point.. which points out even more importantly why our tanks should not be built in. Cars, jetskis, motorcycles, most power boats and ....... do not have built in tanks.

There is a good reason for that..


----------



## Faster

BryceGTX said:


> No doubt this is your opinion.. however, your opinion does not seem to agree with 3 or 4 thousand years of sailboat history where boats had round hulls and long shallow keels. The way I see it, you guys only seem to be taking in a few decades of history and ignoring the thousands of years prior.
> 
> Perhaps the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago might tend to disagree with you..


This argument really doesn't hold water - aside from the fact that these vessels typically leaked a bit, p) I'm sure if those forward thinking and intrepid groups had had the technology and the physics knowledge to build spades and fins they may well have done so. They didn't know any better at the time and their 'leading edge' was better than carving out a log.

Pretty sure that avoiding getting hung up on crab pots was not in their design requirements.


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> No doubt this is your opinion.. however, your opinion does not seem to agree with 3 or 4 thousand years of sailboat history where boats had round hulls and long shallow keels. The way I see it, you guys only seem to be taking in a few decades of history and ignoring the thousands of years prior.
> 
> Perhaps the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago might tend to disagree with you..


Of course it's "my opinion"... I'll bet a guy named Bob Perry has his own opinion, as well - and I doubt it squares with yours that "round hulls and long shallow keels" are "clearly" the superior choice for Bluewater/Rough Water/whatever...

Thanks, but I'll stick with my preference for some weatherly ability in a sailing yacht, and a sail plan which evolved after the invention of the jib, and the development of the fore & aft rig...


----------



## clip68

Don0190 said:


> Why not a production bluewater abacus????????????????


I hear those explode in heavy weather.

-Chris


----------



## BryceGTX

Faster said:


> Pretty sure that avoiding getting hung up on crab pots was not in their design requirements.


This is why I distinguish between blue water and rough water. Perhaps a blue water boat must not hang up on crab pots, and according to some it must have wide side decks.. and it must have large tanks.. and the fridge door should not open on a heel.. and inside decks must not fall out.. and batteries must remain.. and on.. and on.. and on..

However, I have yet to see a clear hull and keel design that is specifically blue water.. or rough water or whatever you guys care to call it considering you see no difference..


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Of course it's "my opinion"... - and I doubt it squares with yours that "round hulls and long shallow keels" are "clearly" the superior choice for Bluewater/Rough Water/whatever...


The way I see it, Island Packet seems to think that these hulls are superior..

And Every European square rigger seems to have used a similar design.. and these boats have been to every point on the planet.

From my standpoint.. I am pointing out what history has shown..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

Faster said:


> I'm sure if those forward thinking and intrepid groups had had the technology and the physics knowledge to build spades and fins they may well have done so. They didn't know any better at the time and their 'leading edge' was better than carving out a log.


I find it a bit amazing that you think that older boats were somehow designed backwards..

Do you really think these guys did not know what they were doing!!!!

When you read the history books of boat design, you realize how brilliant some of these guys were.


----------



## outbound

Bryce
Curious if you have any thoughts on why experienced sailors have and continue to view built in tanks as a favorable feature. For all the fellow sistership owners I know the Outbound was not their first boat. All the owners bought the boat for the expressed purpose of open water passagemaking. Several ( including myself) went to engineering school. We recognize when a better mousetrap comes along its wise to wait for real world experience. But when that experience demonstrates an advance to incorporate it.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> No doubt this is your opinion.. however, your opinion does not seem to agree with 3 or 4 thousand years of sailboat history where boats had round hulls and long shallow keels. The way I see it, you guys only seem to be taking in a few decades of history and ignoring the thousands of years prior.
> 
> Perhaps the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago might tend to disagree with you..


When I was in college (Webb '82) we spent a fair amount of time on the history of ship design and construction, mostly to avoid making mistakes that have been made so many times before. A great deal of early ship construction was limited by materials and fabrication technology at the time. Full keels are a good example of that - there weren't ways to build much of anything else and make it strong until the late in the last century. The same with rudders - there weren't many choices.



BryceGTX said:


> This is why I distinguish between blue water and rough water. Perhaps a blue water boat must not hang up on crab pots, and according to some it must have wide side decks.. and it must have large tanks.. and the fridge door should not open on a heel.. and inside decks must not fall out.. and batteries must remain.. and on.. and on.. and on..
> 
> However, I have yet to see a clear hull and keel design that is specifically blue water.. or rough water or whatever you guys care to call it considering you see no difference..


Generally crab pots are a coastal issue, not offshore. I have never seen a crab pot off the continental shelf, and rarely in more than 50'.

Are you suggesting that wide sidedecks are not a good idea? Offshore you want to be able to get forward even if you have to crawl.

Are you suggesting that large(er than common) tanks are not wise for those heading offshore? Certainly people have sailed great distances with no engine at all, but that big lump of iron isn't useful without fuel, and crossing oceans without adequate water is certainly not a survival characteristic.

Clearly having the contents of a refrigerator ending up on the sole on one tack or the other isn't a good design characteristic. If one is daysailing this can be worked around, but for day after day offshore it simply isn't acceptable.

By inside decks do you mean that cabin soles should not be fastened? Please.

Car batteries are supposed to be fastened down. Surely you agree that boat batteries should be ...



BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it, Island Packet seems to think that these hulls are superior..


Bob Johnson certainly feels that for his market the IP Full Foil Keel is a good idea. His dedicated community of owners agree. For those of us that sail to windward and habitually go offshore, not so much. I have great respect for Bob and his team, but I think they are focused on the coastwise/inshore market and have optimized their designs for that market segment.



BryceGTX said:


> And Every European square rigger seems to have used a similar design.. and these boats have been to every point on the planet.


And sunk. And struggled to windward, waiting for extended periods. Big crews pulling the ships up rivers and bays. Again - older designs were limited by manufacturing technology. Those days are past and we are all the better for it.


----------



## Faster

BryceGTX said:


> I find it a bit amazing that you think that older boats were somehow designed backwards..
> 
> Do you really think these guys did not know what they were doing!!!!
> 
> When you read the history books of boat design, you realize how brilliant some of these guys were.


Not at all what I meant to say... I was saying that they WERE ahead of the curve in their day... We've climbed higher up that curve since then have we not?


----------



## outbound

Byrce
I'm also curious if you any thoughts why other than IP and few nitch builders no one is making full keel or modified full keel boats?!
I inherited a collection of antique tools. They are works of art and ingenuity. But I use my power tools, laser level and fence. The chisels sit dormant while powered jigs make the dadoes. The planes sit as the joiner hums. My wife may use the old tools for bird carving as it gives her pleasure to do it the old way. Still,the blanks are shaped with power and she's known to use a Dremel. Your argument is quite surprising coming from,an engineer.


----------



## Mr. Bubs

BryceGTX said:


> ...you have a few years to catch up with my engineering experience...


Perhaps, it all depends on what field of engineering and on what level you are actively involved in.



BryceGTX said:


> ...I always check my computer calculations and simulation with nothing more than a pencil and paper...


Sounds to me that you are not very confident in your work, nor are you very advanced in you field to use such a crude (not to mention extremely fallible) method of checking your work. Again, what field of engineering are you actively involved in?


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> Curious if you have any thoughts on why experienced sailors have and continue to view built in tanks as a favorable feature.


The way I see it, more importantly.. why do not automotive engineers agree with you?



SVAuspicious said:


> When I was in college we spent a fair amount of time on the history of ship design and construction, mostly to avoid making mistakes that have been made so many times before. A great deal of early ship construction was limited by materials and fabrication technology at the time. Full keels are a good example of that - there weren't ways to build much of anything else and make it strong until the late in the last century. The same with rudders - there weren't many choices.


Mistakes in one era are design features in another. For instance the vertical bow is hundreds of years old.. movable ballast is over 150 years old.. flat, rounded v-shaped hulls have been around hundreds of years. Bulb, deep and fin keels have been around hundreds of years..

Clearly materials have changed.. To suggest that the designs are considerably better (ignoring material advancements) does not seem to agree with history..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

Mr. Bubs said:


> Sounds to me that you are not very confident in your work, nor are you very advanced in you field to use such a crude (not to mention extremely fallible) method of checking your work. Again, what field of engineering are you actively involved in?


Any good engineer checks his work.. once you have a bit of experience.. you will understand. If you cannot check your work with an approximation, you cannot be assured of its accuracy.
Bryce


----------



## outbound

Sailing polars,vmg, and fact that passagemaking is now commonplace done by amateurs like me would suggest otherwise.


----------



## Mr. Bubs

BryceGTX said:


> Any good engineer checks his work.. once you have a bit of experience.. you will understand. If you cannot check your work with an approximation, you cannot be assured of its accuracy.


I agree 100%. But you didn't actually answer my question?


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it, Island Packet seems to think that these hulls are superior..
> 
> And Every European square rigger seems to have used a similar design.. and these boats have been to every point on the planet.
> 
> From my standpoint.. I am pointing out what history has shown..
> Bryce


Well, if history has shown anything, it would appear to be that time has passed the "European square rigger" by, at least as a viable cruising yacht design...

And, as _Recent History_ has shown, Island Packets have not fared especially well in at least 3 encounters with rough weather off the Eastern seaboard during the past few years...


----------



## BryceGTX

Mr. Bubs said:


> I agree 100%. But you didn't actually answer my question?


I did not see a question pertinent to the subject..



outbound said:


> I inherited a collection of antique tools. They are works of art and ingenuity. But I use my power tools, laser level and fence. The chisels sit dormant while powered jigs make the dadoes. The planes sit as the joiner hums. My wife may use the old tools for bird carving as it gives her pleasure to do it the old way. Still,the blanks are shaped with power and she's known to use a Dremel. Your argument is quite surprising coming from,an engineer.


I use advanced simulation tools.. Simulation-X, Simulink and advanced development tools. And I use only new power tools. However, once I make a cut in wood.. I will check its length with a tape measure or ruler.. which is ages old..


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Well, if history has shown anything, it would appear to be that time has passed the "European square rigger" by, at least as a viable cruising yacht design...


Actually, the way I read history.. square riggers were replaced with engine powered freighters.. not cruising yachts.



> And, as _Recent History_ has shown, Island Packets have not fared especially well in at least 3 encounters with rough weather off the Eastern seaboard during the past few years...


I would bet I can find considerably more "Blue Water" boat problems with rough water. And I am sure we can find issues with production boats in rough water.. and no doubt canoes, kayaks, row boats, power boats.....
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

Faster said:


> Not at all what I meant to say... I was saying that they WERE ahead of the curve in their day... We've climbed higher up that curve since then have we not?


Not the way I see it.. I see the same hull and keel designs that are in the history books 150 years ago.


----------



## outbound

That's what I don't get. You are obviously a smart educated guy. But fail to accept as time moves on and folks gain experience a consensus builds whether an improvement or paradigm shift is successful. To ignore this consensus requires a strong argument which you failed to generate. 
BTW I measure twice. Right to left and left to right. I know the scarf of my blades and move on. Please answer the questions posited by Jon and me. Then let's move on.
Another one
Are you aware of any square rigged cruising boats being built? Gaff rigged schooners? Lateen rigged? Sure they were clever but now superceded by better designs.
Can we please return to the original direction of this thread or discuss insights on what makes for a good passage maker-please.


----------



## clip68

BryceGTX said:


> Not the way I see it.. I see the same hull and keel designs that are in the history books 150 years ago.


So what I'm hearing you say is forget all this new fangled technology. GPS is for wimps bring out the sextants, who needs modern communications lets bring back the signal flags and pigeons, forget modern fabrication techniques we need more boats made from live oaks, today's marine engineers don't know what they are talking about lets go back to using the designs from the 17th century where the designs were so much stronger and efficient. uke

I just don't get your point of view.


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> Sailing polars,vmg, and fact that passagemaking is now commonplace done by amateurs like me would suggest otherwise.


Actually, amateurs crossed the ocean 100 years ago.. Perhaps its just that we have more disposable income now a days..

Polars, VMG all the mathematics for buoyancy, moments and such was developed hundreds of years ago..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

clip68 said:


> So what I'm hearing you say is forget all this new fangled technology. GPS is for wimps bring out the sextants, who needs modern communications lets bring back the signal flags and pigeons, forget modern fabrication techniques we need more boats made from live oaks, today's marine engineers don't know what they are talking about lets go back to using the designs from the 17th century where the designs were so much stronger and efficient. uke
> 
> I just don't get your point of view.


Not sure where this is coming from..

I am only pointing out that much of what many think is new is actually quite old. To suggest that I would not use GPS does not make any sense how do you get this from this thread?

I haven't even suggested that designs from the 17th centry were stronger.. Perhaps you should re-read my posts.

Bryce


----------



## Don L

Yeah old school engineered stuff was the best. That is why you see so many 1980 Chevys out on the roads and not in the junk yards  Of course the height of design probably hit around the 1950s. Just look at the weight, power and safety of cars back then..................not!.

So much of stuff like tanks, rudders, etc. are so worthless really in these production/modern design "discussions". You want to improve a sailboat's ability to cross oceans etc. build a better human.


----------



## clip68

BryceGTX said:


> Not sure where this is coming from..
> 
> I am only pointing out that much of what many think is new is actually quite old. To suggest that I would not use GPS does not make any sense how do you get this from this thread?
> 
> Bryce


What I'm getting from the thread is that you are convinced the hull designs in particular and ship designs in general from the previous centuries are as good or better than what is being designed today. This isn't true and shows a particularly Luddite point of view in my opinion.


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> ..fail to accept as time moves on and folks gain experience a consensus builds whether an improvement or paradigm shift is successful. To ignore this consensus requires a strong argument which you failed to generate.


I only posted a very simple point which has degenerated as threads are prone to do to other subjects.

Clearly my point is that no one has presented a measure of what is "blue water" or "rough water".

When we read threads like this, most people are concerned with whether their boat will over turn. The "broken record" answer is always "buy a blue water boat".

The problem I see is that "blue water" covers a huge array of conflicting designs where no design seems to be best nor is there a way to measure which is best.

Given that you cannot define what is the best, you have no way to determine what is worse or say define even average. Rather, it is a conflicting set of opinions from numerous individuals.
Bryce


----------



## outbound

Once again you fail to see the forest. Those amateurs of years past were quite unusual. Few had the income or time. Now it is commonplace for us unwashed masses. Those intrepid souls went slower and at much greater risk. They, like Slocum , were pretty much committed to downwind or at best close reach sailing. Yes we stand on the shoulders of giants but I would expect an engineer such as yourself to be pragmatic and accept the current versions of recent offshore boats are an improvement from those of decades past. One could argue there are asthetic or emotional reasons to not embrace advances or desire to wait until sufficient passage miles and years of use have passed but beyond that just see you as being argumentative.


----------



## BryceGTX

clip68 said:


> What I'm getting from the thread is that you are convinced the hull designs in particular and ship designs in general from the previous centuries are as good or better than what is being designed today. This isn't true and shows a particularly Luddite point of view in my opinion.


Not at all... I was suggesting we can look at history to get an idea what has worked well. If it worked for 1000 years, does it somehow stop working today?

Keep in mind that waves are much the same as they were 1000 years ago.. they had Hurricanes, storms low pressure areas..


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Clearly having the contents of a refrigerator ending up on the sole on one tack or the other isn't a good design characteristic. If one is daysailing this can be worked around, but for day after day offshore it simply isn't acceptable.


Actually, no, it's not acceptable for ANY sailboat doing ANYTHING. So, if what Jon pointed out as a flaw is really the kind of flaw he says - Hunter completely screwed that up. I've not heard much about it. So I'll have to do some searching on it.

Jon - did you actually have that experience? Or are you just WAGing it?



outbound said:


> Bryce
> Curious if you have any thoughts on why experienced sailors have and continue to view built in tanks as a favorable feature.


Actually, I have a prime example of integral tanks going bad. In the Hunter 40s prior to my year boat, the aft head had an integral tank. It is absolutely notorious for failure with obviously horrible, costly results. That is another prime reason I bought an '89.


----------



## outbound

Bryce there is some limited consensus. Several races and some rallies require the boat have point of vanishing stability of x, some require other defined parameters, some require incorporation of certain features to prevent down flooding, incorporate certain features to prevent injury from loose objects ( batteries, engines etc) and so on. As I suggested in a earlier post there is a divergence in what features are considered most desirable in a survival storm setting. A discussion of this would be informative.


----------



## outbound

:laugherSmack what a stinker you are:laugher.
So there is an example of it done poorly. Still know of the host of boats where it was engineered and done correctly with no subsequent issues. Also know tanks of metal or plastic will ultimately fail. Recent article in one of the sailing rags pointing that out. Not if but when.


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> Actually, the way I read history.. square riggers were replaced with engine powered freighters.. not cruising yachts.


Perhaps you should stick to reading history, then, instead of attempting to apply design characteristics of 19th century merchant vessels such as this...










..to a discussion of the design and construction of recreational sailing yachts a mere fraction of the size, intended to be sailed by a couple, or shorthanded, today...



BryceGTX said:


> I only posted a very simple point which has degenerated as threads are prone to do to other subjects.
> 
> Clearly my point is that no one has presented a measure of what is "blue water" or "rough water".


We're still awaiting yours, it appears to me...



BryceGTX said:


> Given that you cannot define what is the best, you have no way to determine what is worse or say define even average. Rather, it is a conflicting set of opinions from numerous individuals.
> Bryce


If you're expecting agreement from "numerous individuals" on such a subject, an internet sailing forum is hardly the place to find it...

if you're looking for anything close to an informed consensus as to what works offshore, here's a pretty good place to start...

Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of the Offshore Yachts (A Nautical quarterly book): John Rousmaniere: 9780393033113: Amazon.com: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@51gC6fivbHL

In the meantime, we'll await whatever 'proof' you can provide that the hull form of the Island Packet "clearly has the advantage" in heavy weather...

And, I doubt I'm the only one, who might be curious to see an example of a fin or a bulb keel on an ocean going vessel from "hundreds of years" ago...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, some are, and some aren't
> 
> As much as I enjoyed my trips on that Hunter 41 I mentioned, I sure wouldn't want to have to do much sailing hard on the breeze in one... But many of my 'issues' with some of today's boats have nothing to do with sailing performance. It's often stuff like cockpit and deck ergonomics, and what you encounter when going below that can often make them uncomfortable, exhausting, and sometimes downright dangerous to be sailing to weather offshore...
> 
> The aforementioned Hunter had one rather important feature below that simply boggled the mind... Here's the galley on a sister ship:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That black thing aft of the stove is the front-opening _door_ of the refrigerator... Any guesses as to what happens to the contents of that thing when it's opened on port tack?


I've looked around and have not seen much complaining about this issue. As a matter of fact, I found a great article about this boat here:

Hunter 41 Deck Saloon: At Home with Speed | Cruising World

It has a detailed breakdown of how the 41 was designed and why - with this being Henderson's guiding principal:



> "First off," he said, "I wanted a boat that would have all the systems and conveniences you'd expect in a house and also be capable of long-distance offshore passages."


Nim Marsh, the reviewer/author, did mention the fridge - but it certainly didn't seem to be a concern like the stove:



> Corian countertops (with an inset waste bin and, to protect the dinette, a clear backsplash with rounded edges) are surrounded by high, inward-curved fiddles, which do double duty as grabrails as you prepare meals and approach or descend the companionway. These ergonomic fiddles are found throughout the boat along shelf edges over settees and in the cabins. In the galley, at the stove, a harness will be needed, especially when on port tack.
> 
> The double sinks, positioned diagonally in the angle of the L, would take some getting used to while washing up in a seaway. Aft of them is a gimbaled two-burner propane stove and oven, with a microwave set above, and a stainless-steel front-loading fridge. The pantry, with shelves and a deep bin, is worthy of any small home....


And I would have to think that if things were always spilling across the sole on a port tack as you envision, it wouldn't have generated this:



> Apparently, Cruising World's 2006 Boat of the Year judges also think the Hunter Design Group is on the right track: The 41 DS was voted Best Production Cruiser 40 to 44 Feet (see "Crunching the Numbers," January 2006).







So you might be making a mountain out of a molehill...even though I agree that it would make more sense to me to put the fridge on a forward-aft facing axis.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, if history has shown anything, it would appear to be that time has passed the "European square rigger" by, at least as a viable cruising yacht design....


Same with full keels. But people still seem to want them for some reason.

How did this become a square rigger vs production boat vs bluewater boat thread?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> :laugherSmack what a stinker you are:laugher.
> So there is an example of it done poorly. Still know of the host of boats where it was engineered and done correctly with no subsequent issues. Also know tanks of metal or plastic will ultimately fail. Recent article in one of the sailing rags pointing that out. Not if but when.


Hey, man, if your holding tank is leaking into your bilge, you can't help but be a stinker!

You can take solace in the fact that the example I cite was a production boat, though, right? Heh.

I also know the failure of metal tanks. I just repaired my 105 gallon water tank that was leaking like a sieve.

I think I'm in the "there is no magic bullet" camp on this one.


----------



## BryceGTX

outbound said:


> Yes we stand on the shoulders of giants but I would expect an engineer such as yourself to be pragmatic and accept the current versions of recent offshore boats are an improvement from those of decades past.


I have yet to see the definition of "Blue Water" "Offshore" or "Rough Water". Worse yet, no way to define the "Improvements" you are suggesting.. rather I see a barrage of conflicting opinions as to what are improvements. A pragmatic engineer sees this..



outbound said:


> :laugherSmack what a stinker you are:laugher.
> So there is an example of it done poorly. Still know of the host of boats where it was engineered and done correctly with no subsequent issues. Also know tanks of metal or plastic will ultimately fail. Recent article in one of the sailing rags pointing that out. Not if but when.


No not even close.. I know specifically of failed tanks in a "Blue water" cruiser. So no, it has nothing to do with how well it is engineered. This is why I bring up the point..

The way I see it, if integral tanks were such a great idea.. automotive companies would have long since used this design strategy.. Its just better to isolate structure from tanks..

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps you should stick to reading history, then, instead of attempting to apply design characteristics of 19th century merchant vessels such as this...


This is a great picture that shows how sea worthy these boats were.. 4 men are on a yard arm in this rough sea.. are you suggesting your boat is so seaworthy that you might like to go up the mast in the same conditions??



> In the meantime, we'll await whatever 'proof' you can provide that the hull form of the Island Packet "clearly has the advantage" in heavy weather...


The picture you show above is a rounded hull with shallow keel. Again.. perhaps a few thousand years of this hull design apparently does not provide any indication of its seaworthiness??



> And, I doubt I'm the only one, who might be curious to see an example of a fin or a bulb keel on an ocean going vessel from "hundreds of years" ago...


This picture was from "Yacht Architecture" 1897. I can provide many more pictures if you prefer.
Bryce


----------



## Jeff_H

BryceGTX said:


> No doubt this is your opinion.. however, your opinion does not seem to agree with 3 or 4 thousand years of sailboat history where boats had round hulls and long shallow keels. The way I see it, you guys only seem to be taking in a few decades of history and ignoring the thousands of years prior.
> 
> Perhaps the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago might tend to disagree with you.


To me this is a bit of a non-sequitor. For what it is worth, none of the vessels employed by the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago actually had anything which resembled what would normally be considered a full keel and or hull forms that directly relate to those of the Island Packet, and as such have little or no bearing on the context of what Jon Eisberg had posted about the Island Packet.

If you study the history of small watercraft design in any detail, you will find that small craft have evolved over time for very specific venues, for very specific purposes, and developed in response to very the specific technologies of their day. Over the course of time, individual types evolved to such an extreme degree based on these types of factors, that the type of boats in use in one location would often be very different from the type used a mere dozen miles away for the same purpose at the same point in history.

And when you read about the history of working watercraft, you realize just how vulnerable they were to changes in the weather and sea-state. There are records of storms that came through and destroyed the majority of the craft working in a particular area, in some cases as many as hundred vessels lost, along with their skippers and crews. If you have ever sailed replicas of some of these mid-to late 19th century designs, or talked to people who had, you would find that the seaworthiness of these older designs emerged more from the hands-on skills of the sailors who sailed them, than in the inherent safety of these older designs. It was just a fact of life that sailors lived with back then, but we expect better of our cruising boats.

In talking about what early long distance cruisers historically sailed, it's important to understand that the phenomena of long distance, small boat cruising is a pretty recent one, less than a few hundred years old. And for much of that time, it was 'run what you brung', meaning that early small cruising boats were pretty much adapted from whatever working water craft existed in the area where the cruiser-to-be was starting from and which could be and was volunteered to go cruising with minimal modification to make them better cruising boats, or more seaworthy.

To a great extent this is the origins of the traditional full keel cruising boat. But full keels as we tend to thank of them today came into being in response to a lot of external factors such as the way that wooden boats were constructed, the adoption of internal ballasting and the related need to have a place to store that internal ballast, the increased popularity of fore and aft rigs and so the need for a lateral plane, and a whole range of similar factors that had almost nothing to do with seaworthiness or seakindliness.

And the key to this kind of discussion of any particular design is to understand that individual design as a snapshot in boat evolution in response to: what the designer/builder has learned from the past, changes in needs and technological capability, a changing understanding of the environment which that boat is expected to be operating in and the particular prejudices and ideology of the designer/builder. And, it is in all of these regards that you can look back and see that a broad range of rig, hull-forms, keels, and construction types being used as serious cruisers, but that does not mean that any of these are actually good type forms when theorizing about what makes a good (let alone ideal) cruising boat.

In internet discussions like these, there seems to be a methodology that relies on citing some mix of esoteric, obscure and anecdotal references to make a case. But the case for any hull type, keel type, boat construction, or rig type needs to be seen in the context of the design of the vessel of the whole. And it is in this regard that I think Jon's point about Island Packets should be taken. For although the Island Packet contains elements which might be viewed as based in tradition, the Island Packets are not a design which reflects the best practices of any type of traditional water craft that I can think of.

While I am not attempting to speak for Jon, at the heart of his comments, I would suggest that at the heart of his comments, boats like the Island Packet, which are a caricature of a tradition water craft without actually being one, have demonstrated that simply hanging the trappings of some types of traditional working water craft (long keel, soft bilges, a lot of displacement for its length and so on) on a yacht does not make that yacht inherently seaworthy or seakindly, as demonstrated by the examples that Jon mentioned in his post.

Respectfully 
Jeff


----------



## BryceGTX

Jeff_H said:


> To me this is a bit of a non-sequitor. For what it is worth, none of the vessels employed by the Vikings, Egyptians, Chinese and European (square sails) from thousands of years ago actually had anything which resembled what would normally be considered a full keel and or hull forms that directly relate to those of the Island Packet, as such has little or no bearing on the context of what Jon Eisberg had posted about the Island Packet.


The way I see it, these boats had long shallow keels with rounded bilge. IP has similar design. Whether or not we agree that it is the same as IP, I suppose is personal opinion..



Jeff_H said:


> In talking about what early long distance cruisers historically sailed, it's important to understand that the phenomena of long distance, small boat cruising is a pretty recent one, less than a few hundred years old.


The way I see it, you are missing my point.. My original discussion was to limit the discussion to simply hull and keel design.. I specifically limited the discussion because no one could quantify a complete "blue water" boat. This means looking at design examples for certain hull/keel combination to support your opinion.



Jeff_H said:


> For although the Island Packet contains elements which might be viewed as based in tradition, the Island Packets are not a design which reflects the best practices of any type of traditional water craft that I can think of.


I suppose I view the similarities in hull and keel design rather than the differences. Seems to me, it is very easy to point out the differences.

Bryce


----------



## killarney_sailor

Smack, one other problem with that galley (sorry don't know how to repost the picture) that no one has mentioned - or at least I didn't see it in my perusal of this subject is with the position of the sinks so far outboard. If you are on starboard tack (we were for close to three weeks in the Indian Ocean with a steady 25 to 35 knots) you could not use those sinks since they would not drain (in fact water would slosh in), and especially if they were deep sinks which you want on a cruising boat. Not sure what you are supposed to do when it comes time to do the dishes or wash vegetables. Seems like your options are to do it in a head sink that is on the windward side or gybe, do the dishes and then gybe back on course.


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> This is a great picture that shows how sea worthy these boats were.. 4 men are on a yard arm in this rough sea.. are you suggesting your boat is so seaworthy that you might like to go up the mast in the same conditions??


Congratulations... That has to rate as one of the most far-fetched analogies/comparisons I have _EVER_ seen posted around here... 

In answer to your question, the answer is 'No'... For I happen to sail a boat that is sufficiently 'evolved' or advanced, so as not to require my going aloft to either reef, or furl, the sails...

And I'll bet you do, as well... and I doubt you'd care to go up your mast in such conditions, either...


----------



## BryceGTX

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, one other problem with that galley (sorry don't know how to repost the picture) that no one has mentioned - or at least I didn't see it in my perusal of this subject is with the position of the sinks so far outboard.


I don't think we could count the number of "blue water" boats that have the galley sink on the outboard.. particularly center cockpit boats. Not sure we can criticize this boat on that account.


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> In answer to your question, the answer is 'No'... For I happen to sail a boat that is sufficiently 'evolved' or advanced, so as not to require my going aloft to either reef, or furl, the sails...


Such boats were "evolved" well enough that these sailors *could* go up on a yardarm in these conditions. That is the point..


----------



## Jeff_H

BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it, these boats had long shallow keels with rounded bilge. IP has similar design. Whether or not we agree that it is the same as IP, I suppose is personal opinion..
> Bryce


With all due respect, if you actually studied the lines and the naval architecture of the historic vessels you cited, you would see that they did not have round bottoms as much as elliptical bottoms and in most cases a fair amount of of form stability. But also that they relied on large quantities of internal ballast and cargo stowed low in the bilge to develop what stability that they were able to develop. Even though the terms were not known, the impact of their evolution was that their hull forms were mostly about minimizing viscous drag for the amount of weight they carried. In rough conditions these boats tended to roll through enormous angles, angles wide enough to founder and wash seaman from their yardarms, which no modern sailor would put up with. While many of the larger sailing vessels of the middle ages carried a lot of top hamper, most smaller craft did not.

Its not a matter of opinion but simple naval architecture than the actual shape of the IP's hull, its amount of top hamper and weight distribution bear little resemblance to the traditional craft that you have cited.

In naval architecture its not just the 'similar design' that counts, because its the larger and lesser nuanced differences that result in a seaworthy boat vs something that can overwhelm and exhaust its crew, which I believe was the point that Jon was trying to make.



BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it, you are missing my point.. My original discussion was to limit the discussion to simply hull and keel design.. I specifically limited the discussion because no one could quantify a complete "blue water" boat. This means looking at design examples for certain hull/keel combination to support your opinion.
> Bryce


Actually I understood the point that you were trying to make in terms of wanting to turn the discussion to hull forms and keels. Which is why my point, and I think Jon's point, was that hull and keel design have evolved way past the point where full keels, round bottoms, and blunt bows offer any advantage in terms of seaworthiness and/or seakindliness.

But if you choose to look back to historic precedent in designing a cruising boat, you can't just do the 'squint test'. Its just not that simple. if you are going to advocate traditional small craft design principles for cruising boats then at least look back at designs which are based on the best principles that were evolved in traditional working watercraft (such as was done by the likes of Colin Archer, the Atkins, L.Francis Herreshoff, Alden, and Garden). It is the difference in design between an Island Packet and something like a Atkins Ingrid or Eric. To someone who understands the naval architecture of these historic vessels, it makes no sense to try to equate them to a caricature of those features, as is the case with the IP's, and expect to achieve the same virtues, which was my response to trying to respond in the direction you say you are trying to take the thread.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, one other problem with that galley (sorry don't know how to repost the picture) that no one has mentioned - or at least I didn't see it in my perusal of this subject is with the position of the sinks so far outboard. If you are on starboard tack (we were for close to three weeks in the Indian Ocean with a steady 25 to 35 knots) you could not use those sinks since they would not drain (in fact water would slosh in), and especially if they were deep sinks which you want on a cruising boat. Not sure what you are supposed to do when it comes time to do the dishes or wash vegetables. Seems like your options are to do it in a head sink that is on the windward side or gybe, do the dishes and then gybe back on course.












That's a great point. Of course, when under sail, even centerline sinks never really drain all the way anyway. But I definitely agree that having them more centered helps a lot.

But - though it might sound silly, I _*would*_ actually ease off for cooking/cleaning as needed (even heave to if necessary to keep it safe), then hit the wind hard again afterward. Reducing heel for stuff like this make sense to me. Unless I'm racing. Then it's just canned haggis and cheese sticks anyway.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I've looked around and have not seen much complaining about this issue. As a matter of fact, I found a great article about this boat here:
> 
> Hunter 41 Deck Saloon: At Home with Speed | Cruising World
> 
> It has a detailed breakdown of how the 41 was designed and why - with this being Henderson's guiding principal:
> 
> Nim Marsh, the reviewer/author, did mention the fridge - but it certainly didn't seem to be a concern like the stove:
> 
> And I would have to think that if things were always spilling across the sole on a port tack as you envision, it wouldn't have generated this:
> 
> So you might be making a mountain out of a molehill...even though I agree that it would make more sense to me to put the fridge on a forward-aft facing axis.


Are you really doubting that the contents of that fridge would spill if the boat was being sailed hard on port tack? Try tilting your fridge at home on a 20-25 degree angle forward, then open the door, see what happens... 

"Mountain out of a molehill"? Nah, not for the way most people are apparently using those boats. It wasn't a big deal on my delivery, either, I was usually able to 'capture' most of the contents before they poured out... But, having once sailed hard on port tack for the last 6-700 miles trying to lay Tortola on a different boat, such an arrangement would have been a major PITA in such a scenario offshore...

Actually, the REAL issue with that fridge for any sort of work offshore, is how absurdly undersized it was in terms of capacity... It wouldn't have been remotely adequate to support a crew of 4 on a trip out to Bermuda, for instance - you'd have to bring something like an additional Engel along if you wanted to have proper refrigeration for such a trip...

This isn't the only boat I've seen this on... Another CRUISING WORLD BOTY Winner, the Trintella 50, also had one of its 3 refrigerators - placed above the galley counter - in a similar orientation on the starboard side... It required the configuration of mini 'lee-cloths' made from Phifertex, and we quickly learned not to stow cans or bottles in that fridge, it was only for softer goods like cold cuts, cheeses, etc... Being on the starboard side, it was not an issue on that long beat down to the BVIs... 

I don't recall the sinks on that Hunter being an issue, I believe they are actually situated a bit more inboard than the photo seems to indicate. I think you'd really have to lay that boat on its ear, for them to have a real problem draining... But I never really sailed that boat hard enough to develop any deep angle of heel, so I can't say for certain...


----------



## BryceGTX

Jeff_H said:


> With all due respect, if you actually studied the lines and the naval architecture of the historic vessels you cited, you would see that they did not have round bottoms as much as elliptical bottoms and in most cases a fair amount of of form stability. But also that they relied on large quantities of internal ballast and cargo stowed low in the bilge to develop what stability that they were able to develop. Even though the terms were not known, the impact of their evolution was that their hull forms were mostly about minimizing viscous drag for the amount of weight they carried. In rough conditions these boats tended to roll through enormous angles, angles wide enough to founder and wash seaman from their yardarms, which no modern sailor would put up with. While many of the larger sailing vessels of the middle ages carried a lot of top hamper, most smaller craft did not.
> 
> Jeff


Virtually every one of our boats even now invariably have more form stability than otherwise. So not sure where you are going with that..

And not sure why you are detailing where ballast is.. clearly ballast is put as low as possible now or 100 years ago.. So not sure where you are going with that..

As far as minimizing drag.. These square sailers were all about maximizing cargo space, not drag.. The sail boat racers clearly designed narrow deep boats for racing.. This is clearly discussed in the old books..

Wide round, shallow bilges were designed for cruising as is clearly discussed in these old books. Yes, people cruised 150 years ago..
Bryce


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Are you really doubting that the contents of that fridge would spill if the boat was being sailed hard on port tack? Try tilting your fridge at home on a 20-25 degree angle forward, then open the door, see what happens...
> 
> "Mountain out of a molehill"? Nah, not for the way most people are apparently using those boats. It wasn't a big deal on my delivery, either, I was usually able to 'capture' most of the contents before they poured out... But, having once sailed hard on port tack for the last 6-700 miles trying to lay Tortola on a different boat, such an arrangement would have been a major PITA in such a scenario offshore...
> 
> This isn't the only boat I've seen this on... Another CRUISING WORLD BOTY Winner, the Trintella 50, also had one of its 3 refrigerators - placed above the galley counter - in a similar orientation on the starboard side... It required the configuration of mini 'lee-cloths' made from Phifertex, and we quickly learned not to stow cans or bottles in that fridge, it was only for softer goods like cold cuts, cheeses, etc... Being on the starboard side, it was not an issue on that long beat down to the BVIs...
> 
> I don't recall the sinks on that Hunter being an issue, I believe they are actually situated a bit more inboard than the photo seems to indicate. I think you'd really have to lay that boat on its ear, for them to have a real problem draining... But I never really sailed that boat hard enough to develop any deep angle of heel, so I can't say for certain...


Like I said, I agree with you on this one that it's definitely not to my personal liking - but there's been very little complaint about it that I can find on the interwebs. In fact many seem to really like it:

http://sanjuansailing.com/charter-detail/sail/hale-kai/content/hale_kai_owners_notes.pdf

Here's a video showing the fridge being opened at about 2:26:






Doesn't look like you could get much in there anyway - though the door seems to be secure at least. And, unlike my fridge at home, it has many more securing rods running across, etc.

In any case, I definitely prefer my deep sinkhole of a top-loading fridge/freezer on my boat (even with its drawbacks of very poor "shelving"). But that's just me.


----------



## BryceGTX

Jeff_H said:


> Actually I understood the point that you were trying to make in terms of wanting to turn the discussion to hull forms and keels. Which is why my point, and I think Jon's point, was that hull and keel design have evolved way past the point where full keels, round bottoms, and blunt bows offer any advantage in terms of seaworthiness and/or seakindliness.


Sounds fine.. you don't agree that IP looks like anything.. and apparently you think it is not "Blue Water" or "Rough Water". I will agree to disagree..



> But if you choose to look back to historic precedent in designing a cruising boat, you can't just do the 'squint test'.
> Jeff


LOL.. every blog, book or discussion I have ever read defines "Blue water" using the squint test.

Now perhaps you might suggest how to quantify "Blue Waterness" or "Rough waterness" in measureable terms and your discussion might be convincing. The way I see it, only the "Experts" can determine what boat is "Blue Water" using explanations that are ambiguous.. even more amusing as it seems, a boat is clearly "Blue water" or not!!


----------



## Faster

Aside from the issue of fridge stuff tumbling out of a side mounted front loader, just as big a deal, IMO, is the massive 'loss of cold' compared to a top loader every time it's opened. All that expensively chilled air will naturally tumble down and out of the fridge.. happens at home too but less of an issue with the power budget there.


----------



## killarney_sailor

BryceGTX said:


> I don't think we could count the number of "blue water" boats that have the galley sink on the outboard.. particularly center cockpit boats. Not sure we can criticize this boat on that account.


i would like to see your list. We have a centre cockpit boat (Bristol 45.5) and the sink is very close to the centre line of the boat. Was on a Hylas 56 at Annapolis (friends bought one) and even though the galley is in the passage way to the aft cabin the sinks are close to centre, almost below the companionway ladder. I think when a designer is thinking about a boat for serious offshore work this should be (and generally is) one of the starting points. The Hunter we are talking about here could have been designed with the sink at the near end of the peninsula sticking out.


----------



## killarney_sailor

JonEisberg said:


> I don't recall the sinks on that Hunter being an issue, I believe they are actually situated a bit more inboard than the photo seems to indicate. I think you'd really have to lay that boat on its ear, for them to have a real problem draining... But I never really sailed that boat hard enough to develop any deep angle of heel, so I can't say for certain...


Jon, do you remember how deep the sinks were? That is a way that designers cheat. I have been on a couple of fancy boats what had sinks no more than 6 or 8 inches deep. Another feature to make a passage more fun.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> That's a great point. Of course, when under sail, even centerline sinks never really drain all the way anyway. But I definitely agree that having them more centered helps a lot.
> 
> But - though it might sound silly, I _*would*_ actually ease off for cooking/cleaning as needed (even heave to if necessary to keep it safe), then hit the wind hard again afterward. Reducing heel for stuff like this make sense to me. Unless I'm racing. Then it's just canned haggis and cheese sticks anyway.


When it is honking even a bit (25+ off the wind) you can't really ease off. You could heave it to do your cooking, but with a proper design you should not have to. In boisterous trade wind conditions we will do 160 to 200 mile days with the boat never healing more than 20°, usually more like 10 to 15° and with the boat being comfortably stable for cooking, cleaning, sleeping, whatever. The boat needs to designed to operate in a way that is not unduly taxing for the crew. We have friends who have a collective age (two of them!) of something like 155. They have been cruising for close to 20 years on a Camper Nicholson 48 ketch. That is a big boat for anyone to handle but when they finish a long passage they are not particularly bagged because the boat is comfortable and well thought out.

For what is worth, we did not see one of the newer style, big Hunters anywhere between the Pacific side of Panama and the South Atlantic (going west of course). For that matter, we saw a tiny handful (2 or 3?) IPs. When you consider how many of these boats have been built it was quite remarkable. On the flip side, compared to the fairly small number of them built, there are a lot of Amels, Oysters (they seem to love rallies, which is a different discussion), HRs, and Beneteau 50s being used for long distance cruising.


----------



## BryceGTX

killarney_sailor said:


> For what is worth, we did not see one of the newer style, big Hunters anywhere between the Pacific side of Panama and the South Atlantic (going west of course).


You are kidding right!!! Threads like this dissuade anyone from cruising in anything that does not have "Blue Water" attached to it. Instead people buy 50 year old boats that have corroded chainplates and old dilapidated engines. Then they pour thousands of dollars into it and still end up with an old boat whose engine will fail or mast will fall over. And of course, "Blue water" is not definable.. so the boat is questionable in its capabilities.

I don't think I have ever read a blog where numerous boats in the group did not have engine. electronics, rig, rudder or sail failures. I would say the norm is that a typical group of boats has numerous failures of many of the group.

Since most are "Blue water" boats, I suppose we can conclude "Blue Water" boats are prone to failure.
Bryce


----------



## Bene505

killarney_sailor said:


> When it is honking even a bit (25+ off the wind) you can't really ease off. You could heave it to do your cooking, but with a proper design you should not have to. In boisterous trade wind conditions we will do 160 to 200 mile days with the boat never healing more than 20°, usually more like 10 to 15° and with the boat being comfortably stable for cooking, cleaning, sleeping, whatever.


Was thinking the same thing.



> On the flip side, compared to the fairly small number of them built, there are a lot of... ...Beneteau 50s being used for long distance cruising.


Of course, loved that part, even though we haven't "set off" yet. 

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> For what is worth, we did not see one of the newer style, big Hunters anywhere between the Pacific side of Panama and the South Atlantic (going west of course). For that matter, we saw a tiny handful (2 or 3?) IPs. When you consider how many of these boats have been built it was quite remarkable. On the flip side, compared to the fairly small number of them built, there are a lot of Amels, Oysters (they seem to love rallies, which is a different discussion), HRs, and Beneteau 50s being used for long distance cruising.


I don't doubt that at all. But the point of this thread is that there's no reason they couldn't be out there.


----------



## JonEisberg

killarney_sailor said:


> Jon, do you remember how deep the sinks were? That is a way that designers cheat. I have been on a couple of fancy boats what had sinks no more than 6 or 8 inches deep. Another feature to make a passage more fun.


I don't recall them being especially inadequate, but looking again at the photo, I am reminded that I was perplexed by their placement so close to the stove, especially with all that counter space further inboard... Seems when you're cooking, you really want some space adjacent to the stove to set things down... I'll bet Bob P would see this as a rather dumb galley arrangement, particularly given all the counter space available. I'm guessing the major reason for the placement of those sinks, might simply be a matter of being more interesting visually, with their placement at an angle...

One thing that boat did have, was a nice big trash bin, you can see the cutout of the cover in the Corian in the foreground... Never ceases to amaze, how many builders overlook this most basic amenity... If I had a dollar for every boat I've run, where my trash went in a plastic grocery bag hung from the knobs controlling the burners on the stove, well... I might be retired, by now... 



smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by killarney_sailor
> 
> For what is worth, we did not see one of the newer style, big Hunters anywhere between the Pacific side of Panama and the South Atlantic (going west of course). For that matter, we saw a tiny handful (2 or 3?) IPs. When you consider how many of these boats have been built it was quite remarkable. On the flip side, compared to the fairly small number of them built, there are a lot of Amels, Oysters (they seem to love rallies, which is a different discussion), HRs, and Beneteau 50s being used for long distance cruising.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that at all. But the point of this thread is that there's no reason they couldn't be out there.
Click to expand...

But, they're not... 

Well, that's one man's opinion... Apparently, most folks out there feel there are better choices, at least for them...


----------



## killarney_sailor

BryceGTX said:


> You are kidding right!!! Threads like this dissuade anyone from cruising in anything that does not have "Blue Water" attached to it. Instead people buy 50 year old boats that have corroded chainplates and old dilapidated engines. Then they pour thousands of dollars into it and still end up with an old boat whose engine will fail or mast will fall over. And of course, "Blue water" is not definable.. so the boat is questionable in its capabilities.
> 
> I don't think I have ever read a blog where numerous boats in the group did not have engine. electronics, rig, rudder or sail failures. I would say the norm is that a typical group of boats has numerous failures of many of the group.
> 
> Since most are "Blue water" boats, I suppose we can conclude "Blue Water" boats are prone to failure.
> Bryce


Actually I am not kidding, just reporting on what I saw in places as diverse as Mauritius and Easter Island. You see people cruising in very new HRs, Oysters, Amels and the the like. Unfortunately most of us are not in the market for boats that cost seven figures or even close. Failures happen to all boats. We met a Swiss couple on a Discovery 55 - gorgeous boat that runs about $1.5 million new. Their boat was about seven years old and on its fourth mast. We were in an obscure part of Indonesia and they were buying up all the engine oil they could so that they could get to Bali for a major engine repair. Of course stuff happens, it is just part of the experience whether your boat cost a million or less than $10,000 (we saw a few of those out there too).

You seem to want to talk in vague generalities based on reading blogs rather than listen to people who have real experience and have spent years cruising and sharing a beer or three with other folks doing the same thing.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> I don't doubt that at all. But the point of this thread is that there's no reason they couldn't be out there.


There is probably no reason why they could not be 'out there', except they aren't. It seems that, at whatever price point you are at there are better options available. You spend a lot more of your time at anchor than on passage and the amenities of a big Hunter or similar boat would be very nice to have - only problem is you got to get to where you want to go before you can enjoy the anchor time. We could have gotten a pretty nice Hunter for the money we spent on the Bristol. Most of the time the Hunter would have been very nice to have. It is the other 10% that matters though.


----------



## Mr. Bubs

BryceGTX said:


> blah blah blah...


I feel as if I have been bukkaked with stupid. Are you ever going to answer my question?


----------



## BryceGTX

> Actually I am not kidding, just reporting on what I saw in places as diverse as Mauritius and Easter Island. You see people cruising in very new HRs, Oysters, Amels and the the like. Unfortunately most of us are not in the market for boats that cost seven figures or even close. Failures happen to all boats. We met a Swiss couple on a Discovery 55 - gorgeous boat that runs about $1.5 million new. Their boat was about seven years old and on its fourth mast. We were in an obscure part of Indonesia and they were buying up all the engine oil they could so that they could get to Bali for a major engine repair. Of course stuff happens, it is just part of the experience whether your boat cost a million or less than $10,000 (we saw a few of those out there too).


Sounds fair enough.. you agree.. "Blue water" boats are prone to failure. Perhaps this is to be expected. Kinda hard to get all the bugs out of a design if you only make a few. These boats are built in low volume unlike high volume production boats.



killarney_sailor said:


> You seem to want to talk in vague generalities based on reading blogs rather than listen to people who have real experience and have spent years cruising and sharing a beer or three with other folks doing the same thing.


They are blogs of people that have actually "real experience". They are books written by the same people.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> One thing that boat did have, was a nice big trash bin, you can see the cutout of the cover in the Corian in the foreground... Never ceases to amaze, how many builders overlook this most basic amenity... If I had a dollar for every boat I've run, where my trash went in a plastic grocery bag hung from the knobs controlling the burners on the stove, well... I might be retired, by now... .


+Freakin1.



JonEisberg said:


> But, they're not...
> 
> Well, that's one man's opinion... Apparently, most folks out there feel there are better choices, at least for them...


Actually, I think the issue is that most folks who own Hunters are not doing long passages and circs. That says absolutely nothing about the boat's ability to handle doing so. Because there are a few that do. No question.

So you're just drawing the wrong conclusions.


----------



## BryceGTX

Mr. Bubs said:


> I feel as if I have been bukkaked with stupid. Are you ever going to answer my question?


Perhaps you could refresh my memory what the question is.. I might have felt it was irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Most of the time the Hunter would have been very nice to have. It is the other 10% that matters though.


I certainly won't argue with your personal view on things - especially due to your experience. But I definitely don't hold the same view. First off, I don't want to lug that 10% possibility around for 90% of my cruising life.

Then beyond that, I think there is plenty of evidence out there that realistically puts that percentage much closer to low single digits.

For that trade-off, I'll take the "nice-to-have" production boat. Every time.

I could very well be wrong. We'll see.


----------



## smackdaddy

Mr. Bubs said:


> I feel as if I have been bukkaked with stupid.


Oh boy. That's raised the thread to a new level.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, I think the issue is that most folks who own Hunters are not doing long passages and circs. That says absolutely nothing about the boat's ability to handle doing so. Because there are a few that do. No question.
> 
> So you're just drawing the wrong conclusions.


So, then - what do you conclude from the observation that a comparatively small percentage of the cruisers who are really 'Out There' are sailing Hunters?

To infer that they may feel there are better choices for extended voyaging within their budgets doesn't seem all that unreasonable, to me...


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> To infer that they may feel there are *better* choices for extended voyaging within their budgets doesn't seem all that unreasonable, to me...


The way I see it, one must define *"BETTER"*. My wife defines this much different than I. Once again, we made the trek to Annapolis.. and we looked at all the boats.. She did not find a *BETTER* in any 40 foot boat she looked at. That includes all "Blue Water" boats at the show.

My goal is to try to align her *"BETTER"* with my *"BETTER"*.

AS far as I see, this thread has much to do with defining *"BETTER"*. It seems you and others are struggling with quantifying this.


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> I don't doubt that at all. But the point of this thread is that there's no reason they couldn't be out there.


yeah, but what's the reason they are not out here? We're not seeing them here either...gotta go a long way to get here and those that are making longer voyagers are making other choices.


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> AS far as I see, this thread has much to do with defining *"BETTER"*. It seems you and others are struggling with quantifying this.


That's pretty amusing, coming from one who has yet to "quantify" the distinction between "Blue Water" and "Rough Water", or why shoal draft "clearly... has the advantage" offshore...

In recent pages, I have voiced my _opinion_ that wider side decks are better than narrower, adequate tankage is better than supplemental solutions stowed on deck, and that the hull form of an Island Packet would be near the bottom of my preferences for dealing with heavy weather...

It appears you disagree with those opinions, that's fine... Perhaps, then, you can "quantify" why you believe those opinions are invalid?


----------



## clip68

Every time I see threads like this saying what crap production boats are etc... All I can see in my minds eye are a group of people walking around in blue blazers with epaulets and noses so high they are in danger of drowning when it rains and on the other side a bunch of people in shorts and flip flops who would cross the Atlantic in a dinghy to win a free bottle of rum. 

Have to ask yourself which one are you?


----------



## Group9

Obviously, with the number of production boats growing, that have been abandoned at sea by their crews, only to be found still floating months later, it appears their limits are far above their crews in most cases.


----------



## aeventyr60

clip68 said:


> Every time I see threads like this saying what crap production boats are etc... All I can see in my minds eye are a group of people walking around in blue blazers with epaulets and noses so high they are in danger of drowning when it rains and on the other side a bunch of people in shorts and flip flops who would cross the Atlantic in a dinghy to win a free bottle of rum.
> 
> Have to ask yourself which one are you?


I'm just heading into the bar from my production boat, anyone want to join me for a Singha? I'm buying! Ok, I'll give you to Sunday which is my birthday, I'm sponsoring Margarita's from my plentiful duty free stash from my Oh, Oh, Oh so big storage lockers,,,(thanks Bob P).


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> I certainly won't argue with your personal view on things - especially due to your experience. But I definitely don't hold the same view. First off, I don't want to lug that 10% possibility around for 90% of my cruising life.
> 
> Then beyond that, I think there is plenty of evidence out there that realistically puts that percentage much closer to low single digits.


The problem is that the 10% (or 25% or 1% or 0.25%, depends on where you are going) can kill you or at least give you that opportunity to meet the nice people on the container ship who rescue you. In why I have been talking about I am not talking about getting to the Eastern Caribbean via the thorny path and then hanging out there. I am talking about getting much further off the beaten track where you really do need to be self-sufficient and there are no repair facilities, travel-lifts and the like.


----------



## killarney_sailor

BryceGTX said:


> Sounds fair enough.. you agree.. "Blue water" boats are prone to failure. Perhaps this is to be expected. Kinda hard to get all the bugs out of a design if you only make a few. These boats are built in low volume unlike high volume production boats.
> 
> So the thing that matters is how many of a certain boat have been built, rather than the design brief for the building? By that reasoning the worst boats would be custom jobs. The most incredible blue water boat I have seen is Peter Smith's (yes the Rocna guy) Kiwi Roa, a 54' aluminum cutter that he built for himself in Englan. Peter hates warm water sailing. We met him in Namibia when he was on his way from the Southern Ocean to Greenland. He has been to Antarctica and spent five winters in Patagonia and the Falklands. On the way from the Falklands to Cape Town he did a 180. By your reasoning it must have caused massive damage since the boat is a custom and not part of a long series in which the kinks have been worked out (guess you would not want the first few before they worked out the kinks). Oh, the damage caused by his major knockdown - a broken shackle.
> 
> They are blogs of people that have actually "real experience". They are books written by the same people.


Reading the blogs written by people is not the same as having real experience. Hell, I kept a blog about our circumnavigation when I wasn't too busy doing other stuff. I am not talking from the perspective of having read about this stuff, neither are people like Jeff and Jon. We are talking about having actually done the stuff you have read about and spending great amounts of time with other people who have also done it.

The reality is that if you want to bugger off sailing and you have $X to pay for it you must make a decision. At each price point, $10,000 or $100,000 or $1 million, for example, people tend to make similar (not the same - there are a huge number of different boats doing extended cruising) choices. For example, with small budgets ($20,000) you are much more likely to see a Vega or Bristol 27 than a Catalina 27 or C&C 27, even though the prices are similar. Actually I have yet to see either of the latter boats even though they were produced in huge numbers. In the much more expensive boats designed for cruising you are much more likely to see an Amel (even though there total production might be only a few hundred) than an IP (which are cheaper and available in greater numbers).


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> Not at all... I was suggesting we can look at history to get an idea what has worked well. If it worked for 1000 years, does it somehow stop working today?


Of course not. That doesn't mean there aren't substantially better solutions today. Compare a CQR anchor to any of the "new generation" anchors. That the new designs are head and shoulders better doesn't make the CQR work any less well than it ever did. A modified Scheel keel works better than a classic full keel or modified full keel. Those older designs work as well as they ever did; newer designs work better - sailing performance, on board comfort, maneuverability ...



BryceGTX said:


> LOL.. every blog, book or discussion I have ever read defines "Blue water" using the squint test.
> 
> Now perhaps you might suggest how to quantify "Blue Waterness" or "Rough waterness" in measureable terms and your discussion might be convincing.


Like all complex systems, the overall performance of a boat is not something measured by one or even a small number of factors. You appear to be suggesting the replacement of one non-deterministic description ("bluewater") that at least has some cultural inertia with another, made-up one ("rough water") without offering any meaningful measures yourself.

William Froude published "On the Rolling of Ships" in 1861. At nearly 100 pages, it talks only about rolling. _Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts_, referred to by Jon above, provides a good discussion. Although a bit dated it provides a valid foundation if not a full specification for a bluewater or offshore (used herein as synonyms) yacht. I suggest that tome is the a good part of the answer to your question you say has not been answered.



Faster said:


> Aside from the issue of fridge stuff tumbling out of a side mounted front loader, just as big a deal, IMO, is the massive 'loss of cold' compared to a top loader every time it's opened. All that expensively chilled air will naturally tumble down and out of the fridge.. happens at home too but less of an issue with the power budget there.


If the fridge is full (absent tumbling out) the thermal inertia of the cold contents is much more significant than the air. I think the "cold air pouring out" problem while real and measurable is not as big a deal as people make it out to be. I still prefer a top loader, mostly for physical security.



BryceGTX said:


> I don't think we could count the number of "blue water" boats that have the galley sink on the outboard.. particularly center cockpit boats. Not sure we can criticize this boat on that account.


You are going to have to help me here. I don't see any significant difference between the range of galley sink positions relative to the centerline on center cockpit and aft cockpit boats. I have more residual water in my sinks (center cockpit boat) from trim than heel.



JonEisberg said:


> I don't recall them being especially inadequate, but looking again at the photo, I am reminded that I was perplexed by their placement so close to the stove, especially with all that counter space further inboard... Seems when you're cooking, you really want some space adjacent to the stove to set things down.


It is possible that someone put some real thought into the problem. Corian scorches easily. Locating the sink adjacent to the cooker makes putting a hot saucepan into the sink easy.



BryceGTX said:


> AS far as I see, this thread has much to do with defining *"BETTER"*. It seems you and others are struggling with quantifying this.


It seems you are making things up without substantiation.

If you are going to offer "rough water" as a deterministic substitute for "bluewater" you should make your case with measurable factors that demonstrate how your proposed alternative is better than the long term if not completely definitive term "bluewater." There are certainly many discussions about what "bluewater" means, but those discussions (absent the attempted contributions of the ill-informed) are part of the definition.

Defend your position instead of attacking something that has been long-standing. You cry for numbers without offering any of your own. Make your case. So far you have not.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> yeah, but what's the reason they are not out here? We're not seeing them here either...gotta go a long way to get here and those that are making longer voyagers are making other choices.


The reason is simple, production boats are being bought by a mass market. A very, very miniscule percentage of that market - _actually of sailors in general regardless of boat_ - are out there making long voyages. So, even all the "bluewater" brands you guys see around you are a tiny fraction of those boats as well.

Remember _Rebel Heart_? The dude bought a quintessential "bluewater boat", a 70's era Hans Christian. He spent 7 years living and working on it - with 10s of thousands poured into it. And on the first leg into is long voyage it fell apart and they had to be rescued. They bought the bluewater hype - and paid for it big time.

Then you have Sequitur - the _Hunter 49_ that endured the southern ocean with ease.

Who are we to believe?


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Who are we to believe?


I don't believe anyone anymore when it comes a boat!

But near as I can tell is that the people who own old school boats must be a little stupid. Why else would they need to always be worried about getting caught out in the perfect storm


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, while I applaud Sequitur’s accomplishments and enjoyed his blog very much, I’ve wondered about what happened during that storm by the Falkland’s but was never reported. I’ve wondered how he came up with the force 10 – 11 for the storm? The max wind number off a Raymarine anemometer can be off for any number of reasons and is only a sample of a couple of seconds. Certainly everything Jon and others have told us about full cockpit enclosures is wrong as Sequitur’s endured 60 – 70 mph winds without breaking even a snap or zipper. He mentioned something about damage, but instead of continuing on to Cape Town, which was a relatively short distance away, they went to Florida ASAP. And when they got there, the boat went up for sale very quickly. In other parts of his blog, he went into great detail on the numerous repairs (mainly to correct deficiencies during the commissioning process). But in Florida, Hunter, was doing mainly wear and tear type work. Something happened out there, and perhaps we will never learn the true cause for him to abandon his dream of a circumnavigation. But I’m not ready to equate a Hunter 49 with all the Amels out there based solely on Sequitur’s blog.


----------



## JonEisberg

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, while I applaud Sequitur's accomplishments and enjoyed his blog very much, I've wondered about what happened during that storm by the Falkland's but was never reported. I've wondered how he came up with the force 10 - 11 for the storm? The max wind number off a Raymarine anemometer can be off for any number of reasons and is only a sample of a couple of seconds. Certainly everything Jon and others have told us about full cockpit enclosures is wrong as Sequitur's endured 60 - 70 mph winds without breaking even a snap or zipper. He mentioned something about damage, but instead of continuing on to Cape Town, which was a relatively short distance away, they went to Florida ASAP. And when they got there, the boat went up for sale very quickly. In other parts of his blog, he went into great detail on the numerous repairs (mainly to correct deficiencies during the commissioning process). But in Florida, Hunter, was doing mainly wear and tear type work. Something happened out there, and perhaps we will never learn the true cause for him to abandon his dream of a circumnavigation. But I'm not ready to equate a Hunter 49 with all the Amels out there based solely on Sequitur's blog.


Well, I'm glad somebody else finally mentioned that... 

Cape Town is hardly a "relatively short distance away" from the Falklands, being well over 3000 NM distant, after all... But I've always wondered about that, as well... I think it's pretty rare for people to abandon their plans for a circumnavigation due solely to issues with a windlass, or instrumentation, or the other assorted relatively minor gremlins that were plaguing them...

Of course, there could be any number of reasons why their plans happened to change so drastically in the immediate aftermath of that storm. And Michael seems way too much of a gentleman to lay any blame publicly on the boat or its manufacturer... But it does make one wonder, whether in fact they _might_ have gotten some hint that SEQUITUR might actually have at least approached her "limit", and might not be quite up to the rigors of what would likely be a very challenging and risky passage to Cape Town...

Just to be clear, lest anyone accuse me of jumping on Michael again  If that were, indeed, the case, then such a decision would only increase my respect for him, as turning back or away is quite often the mark of consummate seamanship, and rarely an easy decision to take...


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, while I applaud Sequitur's accomplishments and enjoyed his blog very much, I've wondered about what happened during that storm by the Falkland's but was never reported. I've wondered how he came up with the force 10 - 11 for the storm? The max wind number off a Raymarine anemometer can be off for any number of reasons and is only a sample of a couple of seconds. Certainly everything Jon and others have told us about full cockpit enclosures is wrong as Sequitur's endured 60 - 70 mph winds without breaking even a snap or zipper. He mentioned something about damage, but instead of continuing on to Cape Town, which was a relatively short distance away, they went to Florida ASAP. And when they got there, the boat went up for sale very quickly. In other parts of his blog, he went into great detail on the numerous repairs (mainly to correct deficiencies during the commissioning process). But in Florida, Hunter, was doing mainly wear and tear type work. Something happened out there, and perhaps we will never learn the true cause for him to abandon his dream of a circumnavigation. But I'm not ready to equate a Hunter 49 with all the Amels out there based solely on Sequitur's blog.





JonEisberg said:


> Well, I'm glad somebody else finally mentioned that...
> 
> Cape Town is hardly a "relatively short distance away" from the Falklands, being well over 3000 NM distant, after all... But I've always wondered about that, as well... I think it's pretty rare for people to abandon their plans for a circumnavigation due solely to issues with a windlass, or instrumentation, or the other assorted relatively minor gremlins that were plaguing them...
> 
> Of course, there could be any number of reasons why their plans happened to change so drastically in the immediate aftermath of that storm. And Michael seems way too much of a gentleman to lay any blame publicly on the boat or its manufacturer... But it does make one wonder, whether in fact they _might_ have gotten some hint that SEQUITUR might actually have at least approached her "limit", and might not be quite up to the rigors of what would likely be a very challenging and risky passage to Cape Town...
> 
> Just to be clear, lest anyone accuse me of jumping on Michael again  If that were, indeed, the case, then such a decision would only increase my respect for him, as turning back or away is quite often the mark of consummate seamanship, and rarely an easy decision to take...


He reported _sustained_ winds over 50 knots with this image showing 52.3 (upper F10):










Gusts would have obviously been higher.

So, I'm certainly not about to read anything nefarious into his report or decisions. I have no reason to doubt the guy. You've seen the pic of his 45 degree angle of heel with bare poles, etc. That was a serious storm.

As for why they sold the boat - he talks about that in his blog.



> We had arrived back in Vancouver on Thursday evening, the 5th of July emotionally drained and grieving from having left Sequitur behind in St Augustine, Florida. She had for the past four years taken Edi and me safely, confidently and in grand comfort and style to some very remote and wild corners of the planet. We were still addicted to boating, and we were suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Realizing that we are approaching our best-before-dates for the type of cruising we had been doing, we have decided to look for a more sedate and gentle style of boating.


So I don't really see where all the intrigue is here. You guys are seriously reaching...

And clearly uninformed:



> *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.


Does anyone else feel the need to cast doubt the guy or his boat simply to maintain their seriously weak argument?


----------



## Faster

Smack, I'm sure George meant no disrespect... I think he felt he didn't have the full info on the reasons for the change of plan.

Having met Michael and Edi on a couple of occasions I have no doubt that their decisions were reasoned, considered and made in the best interest of all things and all persons. I doubt I've met a more 'detail oriented' person ever than Michael. He's applying the same resources and principles to his current 'Zonder Zorg' project in Europe.


----------



## miatapaul

outbound said:


> Bryce
> Curious if you have any thoughts on why experienced sailors have and continue to view built in tanks as a favorable feature. For all the fellow sistership owners I know the Outbound was not their first boat. All the owners bought the boat for the expressed purpose of open water passagemaking. Several ( including myself) went to engineering school. We recognize when a better mousetrap comes along its wise to wait for real world experience. But when that experience demonstrates an advance to incorporate it.


Well I know one boat that is known for tanks going bad is Island Packet, and of course you have to rip up the sole to get them out. Just about every blog on Island packets has a long several page diatribe about replacing the tanks. But they are metal, not built in fiberglass so I guess that one proves your point. I try not to slag on Island Packets, but I just don't get the fan boy attitude about them. They don't sail well, they have a lot of short cuts made in there construction (concrete/epoxy-iron/lead mix ballast, fiberglass encapsulated chain plates to name a few) from several reports have pretty bad motion, but they are nice and comfortable at the dock and do look salty. I don't see them as a _"bluewater"_ boat in the least. They are a _"classic"_ Florida coastal cruising boat, with shallow draft being the main concern. The keel is fullish and shallow not due to it's performance qualities but more so you can coastal hop into gunkholes and cay's not for rough weather sailing qualities. Sure if you have one it is better than nothing, but if I was looking at boats to take offshore they would be very low on my list and behind a lot of much less expensive boats.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> The dude bought a quintessential "bluewater boat", a 70's era Hans Christian.


By your definition. My boat was designed probably ten years after the HC. I could have gone that route and probably saved quite a bit of money but liked what the Bristol had to offer.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Smack, I'm sure George meant no disrespect... I think he felt he didn't have the full info on the reasons for the change of plan.
> 
> Having met Michael and Edi on a couple of occasions I have no doubt that their decisions were reasoned, considered and made in the best interest of all things and all persons. I doubt I've met a more 'detail oriented' person ever than Michael. He's applying the same resources and principles to his current 'Zonder Zorg' project in Europe.


I was aiming that last comment more at Jon than George. Throwing unsubstantiated stuff out in a forum that makes the guy and his boat look bad just to try to maintain your argument is just really poor form. Period.

I have tremendous respect for Michael.

The facts are there in his blog or book. Just read them.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> By your definition. My boat was designed probably ten years after the HC. I could have gone that route and probably saved quite a bit of money but liked what the Bristol had to offer.


Exactly the point of this thread. Technology, design, and the resulting bluewater capability of boats across the board continue to improve. Why do people staunchly keep looking backward for the definition of a bluewater boat? It's a little bit insane...and dangerous in the case of RH.


----------



## copacabana

Smack, wouldn't you say Rebel Heart's problems were more related to maintenance issues than any design issues? Not that I think the HC is the best boat for offshore sailing, but they do get around.


----------



## smackdaddy

copacabana said:


> Smack, wouldn't you say Rebel Heart's problems were more related to maintenance issues than any design issues? Not that I think the HC is the best boat for offshore sailing, but they do get around.


Yes. I would.

That boat was a very old disaster to begin with - BUT he bought it because of its bluewater reputation. I think that's the real problem with this mentality. It's a completely false sense of security.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> That boat was a very old disaster to begin with - BUT he bought it because of its bluewater reputation. I think that's the real problem with this mentality. It's a completely false sense of security.


The false mentality is to firmly believe that a 1980s "quality" boat is a better boat than today's modern production boat. That is really all it comes down to.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Smack, our boat was designed in the mid to late 1980s so is hardly a new design. Ted Hood had his way of doing things and they generally work very well. That is not to say that I can go to the boat show and pick up a Random 45 and start heading offshore with it. To look at very different design concepts - compare the Garcia 45 to a Hunter/Catalina/etc of similar size. Is there one of them I would like to cross an ocean with rather than the others. You betcha! But it is fallacious argument since we are comparing an $800k boat to a $250k boat. Far too often in these discussions we lose track of the fact that we are not talking about the best boat we are talking about the best boat for the buck we have. If you have $75k (or whatever the amount) what is the best way to spend it? People tend to reach similar conclusions. Doesn't mean they are right or best decisions, but until we see a reasonable number of modern production boats of modest size and cost doing extended passages we will not know.

A comment about Michael's voyage. He seems like a good and capable guy but I think he got himself in a bit of time bind. I checked and he was in the Falklands in the middle of February. Assuming he was ready to head towards Cape Town (and I don't think he was) he would not have arrived there until well into March. That is getting pretty late in the season to cross a bit of ocean that does not have much of a sense of humour. I mentioned elsewhere that Kiwi Roa (very solid 54' aluminum cutter) experienced a 180° knockdown on that route and they were sitting comfy in Cape Town in December. I think this was a much more important consideration than the damaged electronics he had. On a route that long, not sure knowing what weather is coming is of much help. Your barometer will do the trick and let you know when the next depression is coming. There is nowhere to anchor on the route and few places near Cape Town which can be entered in any condition. AIS? Not many vessels until you get near the African coast and then there are lots of them. Radar would be handy when you get near the Benguela Current because you do get fog and that is where the ships are too. Nice to have but not a 100% essential. I think the couple decided they were not having as much fun as they expected and it was miserable and there were pleasant things to do with their lives. I can fully appreciate and understand this.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Don0190 said:


> The false mentality is to firmly believe that a 1980s "quality" boat is a better boat than today's modern production boat. That is really all it comes down to.


Don, you are stuck on a false equivalence. It is not whether a Vega 27 is better than a newish Catalina 27, although it is for the purpose. Rather it is what is the best boat you can get to cross an ocean for, in this case, $15,000. Maybe you live in a world where the price does not matter, but I do and most cruisers do. My Bristol is probably worth something like $125,000. If someone was shopping with that much money in their pants they could get a Bristol like mine or a 2006 Catalina 34 Mk II (don't know the boat but it was the first one I came to on yachtworld in the price range - it is listed for $119k). Which one do you want to be on for your circumnavigation? And that is why you don't see people on Catalina 34s (that are perfectly fine boats for their intended purpose) sitting at anchor in Suvarov or at the Royal Cape Yacht Club waiting for the season to change so they can head north.


----------



## Don L

Well I choose to to get a 2001 43' production boat for $115k instead of an old 1980 boat, so that is my answer! And like I've posted in the past; after having a 39' 1988 supposedly higher quality boat I can say my 2001 production boat that used more modern construction and design is a better boat. 

Your Bristol I've sure is a nice boat, but far as I'm concerned it does nothing better than my production boat. Well I take that back, if you like to refinish wood you have me beat.


----------



## Faster

killarney_sailor said:


> ..... I think the couple decided they were not having as much fun as they expected and it was miserable and there were pleasant things to do with their lives. I can fully appreciate and understand this.


Spot on, I suspect. 
Great post overall, KS...


----------



## killarney_sailor

Don0190 said:


> Well I choose to to get a 2001 43' production boat for $115k instead of an old 1980 boat, so that is my answer! And like I've posted in the past; after having a 39' 1988 supposedly higher quality boat I can say my 2001 production boat that used more modern construction and design is a better boat.
> 
> Your Bristol I've sure is a nice boat, but far as I'm concerned it does nothing better than my production boat. Well I take that back, if you like to refinish wood you have me beat.


i am sure I got you beat on teak. Our toe rails look like they were made from 2 x 8s. A rain forest died for them. The remarkable thing is that our boat was bought as a racer-cruiser back when that meant something. The original owner did at least one Newport-Bermuda race. After one of the races (around 1983) he carried on to cruise the Med. Now when people want to something like that they have the boat's interior shipped to the finish so it can be installed for cruising.

What two boats are you talking about (before and after)?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I was aiming that last comment more at Jon than George. Throwing unsubstantiated stuff out in a forum that makes the guy and his boat look bad just to try to maintain your argument is just really poor form. Period.


Oh, please - get off your high horse, smack... This, coming from a guy who has waged a relentless campaign against the organizers of the SDR with your "unsubstantiated" accusations that inexperience led to those SAR calls, for which Bill and Linda Knowles are personally accountable?

Gimme a break... 



smackdaddy said:


> I have tremendous respect for Michael.


I do, as well, I've stated that repeatedly...

However, as killarney has alluded to, I still think there is at least the possibility that the timing of their decision to abandon their voyage was not entirely coincidental, and that there just _might_ be a bit more to the story...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> That boat was a very old disaster to begin with - BUT he bought it because of its bluewater reputation. I think that's the real problem with this mentality. It's a completely false sense of security.


You mean, like the "false sense of security" that comes from believing that with modern weather forecasting, storms at sea are "definitely" avoidable?





Don0190 said:


> The false mentality is to firmly believe that a 1980s "quality" boat is a better boat than today's modern production boat.


Hate to burst your bubble, but sometimes that actually _IS_ the case...


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but sometimes that actually _IS_ the case...


Hate to break yours (not really) but lots of times it ISN'T, which is the whole point of the thread.


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, help me out on Sequitur’s chronology. I know that their “big” storm was before Port Stanley, But I thought that they then set out for Cape Town and then turned towards Brazil shortly thereafter? I have a fair amount of experience with the same electronics as they have (both on my own boat as well as others) and their writings left me with more questions than answers. If their comms and nav systems were that wonky to begin with, why would they even attempt the Falklands in the first place? Their chart plotter seemed to be working OK during the storm as well as all along the trip back to the USA as evidenced by all the screenshots. 

Something that I didn’t notice before was how close to land he was when he was lying a hull. He was a mere five NM when he started his track and only 8 NM when he snapped the screenshot. Incidentally, his radar was spot on in mapping the shoreline as was the British Ordnance Survey when they mapped the island. In any case, lying a hull within the sight of land in 50+ Kts of wind would be pretty unnerving even if your drift track was generally parallel to shore. 

Killarney, when you mentioned the Catalina, I first thought that my broker is trying to sell my boat out from under me (again!). Different horses for different courses, but sorry, I’m not willing to trade straight across. I do have a navigation/geography question for you. Isn’t Cape Town on the same latitude as Buenos Aries? And relationally about the same latitude as San Diego at 35*N? Wouldn’t he be sailing into more temperate waters no matter which direction he went? I thought that it would be akin to sailing from Canada to Southern California which is best done in the fall. Help me out, what am I missing?


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Hate to break yours (not really) but lots of times it ISN'T, which is the whole point of the thread.


Hey, if you want to keep conceding the fallacy of some of your assertions made so categorically with such an absurdly broad brush, don't let me stop you...


----------



## killarney_sailor

GeorgeB said:


> Killarney, when you mentioned the Catalina, I first thought that my broker is trying to sell my boat out from under me (again!). Different horses for different courses, but sorry, I'm not willing to trade straight across.
> 
> It is entirely different horses for different courses. We are in the process of deciding if we want to any more major offshore cruising. If not, we will buy something that is much better suited for coastal cruising. At Annapolis, the Admiral decided she liked the X-Yachts that were there, in particular the Xc 35 (not that we could afford one even if the price were in dollars on the price sheet and not euros). Hell of a change from the Bristol but different use entirely. We might go as far as Lake Superior, Newfoundland, and Bermuda. Might do some two-handed racing (not seriously, too old for that).
> 
> I do have a navigation/geography question for you. Isn't Cape Town on the same latitude as Buenos Aries? And relationally about the same latitude as San Diego at 35*N? Wouldn't he be sailing into more temperate waters no matter which direction he went? I thought that it would be akin to sailing from Canada to Southern California which is best done in the fall. Help me out, what am I missing?


The latitude is the same but the ocean currents and weather are not. Cape Town is pretty much where the very warm Agulhas Current meets the cold West Wind Drift that has come across the Atlantic. This water turns north as the Benguela Current which is very cold. I guess sort of like the California Current at 35N although the geometry of the basins and continents is very different. I think enough water gets drawn up from the Antarctic go keep things frosty. In eastern South Africa where the Agulhas dominates we found water temperatures to be in the 28 to 32°C range. At the same time off Cape Town the temps can be as low as 12°C so at least you would have warm clothes (and perhaps the Espar) on, especially on night watches. We found the water was still cool as far north as Luderitz, Namibia (27°S). When we left there for St Helena it was cool for a few days until we got to the west of the current then it was toasty.










More important from a safety perspective is the procession of depressions across the Southern Ocean (think Volvo Ocean Race stuff). The later in the season the further north those things are. I found looking at weather maps that the depths of these depressions is incredible. I copied today's weather map from Passageweather above. The centre of that low is 965 mb. The minimum pressure for Hurricane Gonzalo right now is 970 mb. (I realize we are in spring in the south rather than fall, but my point is that the 'nice' season is very short indeed in spite of the latitude.) What is not shown on this map is that smaller depressions spin-off the bigger ones further south. These almost always reach South Africa and are responsible for the 50 knot winds that are common at Cape Town (I think we had four sets of them in three weeks in December) and for the chaotic wind-on-current conditions of the Agulhas (pilot books all talk about waves to 20 m) that sinks a few ships every year, forget about sailboats. This is just a nasty coast and you have to make every thing as much in your favour as you can.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, our boat was designed in the mid to late 1980s so is hardly a new design. Ted Hood had his way of doing things and they generally work very well. That is not to say that I can go to the boat show and pick up a Random 45 and start heading offshore with it. To look at very different design concepts - compare the Garcia 45 to a Hunter/Catalina/etc of similar size. Is there one of them I would like to cross an ocean with rather than the others. You betcha! But it is fallacious argument since we are comparing an $800k boat to a $250k boat. Far too often in these discussions we lose track of the fact that we are not talking about the best boat we are talking about the best boat for the buck we have. If you have $75k (or whatever the amount) what is the best way to spend it? People tend to reach similar conclusions. Doesn't mean they are right or best decisions, but until we see a reasonable number of modern production boats of modest size and cost doing extended passages we will not know.


Actually, no. This thread isn't about "the best boat for the buck we have". It is about the limits of standard, modern production boats. Are they off-shore capable or not?

The bluewater debate typically holds that the $250K production boat should not be out there. That's been clearly proven wrong by many, many such boats _being out there_.

Instead, the logic often goes that even a decades old "bluewater" boat - if it was originally more expensive than a typical production boat - it must be better (re: RH). I just don't buy that at all. We've seen plenty of dangers in that thinking.


----------



## JonEisberg

killarney_sailor said:


> The latitude is the same but the ocean currents and weather are not. Cape Town is pretty much where the very warm Agulhas Current meets the cold West Wind Drift that has come across the Atlantic. This water turns north as the Benguela Current which is very cold. I guess sort of like the California Current at 35N although the geometry of the basins and continents is very different. I think enough water gets drawn up from the Antarctic go keep things frosty. In eastern South Africa where the Agulhas dominates we found water temperatures to be in the 28 to 32°C range. At the same time off Cape Town the temps can be as low as 12°C so at least you would have warm clothes (and perhaps the Espar) on, especially on night watches. We found the water was still cool as far north as Luderitz, Namibia (27°S). When we left there for St Helena it was cool for a few days until we got to the west of the current then it was toasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More important from a safety perspective is the procession of depressions across the Southern Ocean (think Volvo Ocean Race stuff). The later in the season the further north those things are. I found looking at weather maps that the depths of these depressions is incredible. I copied today's weather map from Passageweather above. The centre of that low is 965 mb. The minimum pressure for Hurricane Gonzalo right now is 970 mb. (I realize we are in spring in the south rather than fall, but my point is that the 'nice' season is very short indeed in spite of the latitude.) What is not shown on this map is that smaller depressions spin-off the bigger ones further south. These almost always reach South Africa and are responsible for the 50 knot winds that are common at Cape Town (I think we had four sets of them in three weeks in December) and for the chaotic wind-on-current conditions of the Agulhas (pilot books all talk about waves to 20 m) that sinks a few ships every year, forget about sailboats. This is just a nasty coast and you have to make every thing as much in your favour as you can.


Yup, think 'Antarctic Convergence'... there's nothing like that off the coast of California... 

That low is sitting right on top of South Georgia... I can't even begin to imagine what this scene would look like about now...










It's a whole different part of the world down there, no question... that passage across to Cape Town could be as challenging as any to be found, anywhere... There's good reason why so few do it, it would certainly be above my pay grade aboard anything short of HAWK, SEAL, or PELAGIC (with a crew of Whitbread/VOR veterans to 'guide' me ), and I certainly would never second-guess Michael's decision to give it a miss...


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, no. This thread isn't about "the best boat for the buck we have". It is about the limits of standard, modern production boats. Are they off-shore capable or not?
> 
> The bluewater debate typically holds that the $250K production boat should not be out there. That's been clearly proven wrong by many, many such boats _being out there_.


Smack, the only problem is that I haven's seen more than a few such boat out there (beyond the Caribbean and Med lets say), let alone 'many, many'. Perhaps the people who have such boats have to keep working to pay for them, I don't know. There seem to be too types of boats in obscure places - the golden oldies (from 27 to 50+ feet) and the just golden ones - cats and monos with prices >$750.


----------



## blt2ski

SInce no one wants to define it. Here are my definitions of rough water.

Where I sail in puget sound, if it gets into the 3-6' range, that is as big as waves get. BUT, I can tell you, 3-6' waves at short intervals with the tide running against the waves, Total *****! If together, and nice day out in upper 20-40 knot winds. 

I would imagine the Straight of Juan De Fuca in the max 8-12 foot waves would be similar. A larger wave fighting a 4-6 knot current against it. not fun. 

Columbia bar, same but 20-30' waves. If everything is coming in, tide, wind, waves etc, that with a million gals a second of water flowing outward from the river, short steep wave interval, a few boats will get lost out there upon occasion, no matter the size or type. 

So at the end of the day, what is rough? good question, and the answer will vary depending upon where you are etc.

Blue water.......any time it is day time, the sun is shining, I see blue water. If cloudy, the water is grayish in nature, except a few glacier fed lakes in the rockies, those are ALWAYS blue, except when frozen over.....

From an ocean standpoint, if a day or more out from shore, that would be bluewater. That can range from maybe 100 miles for a smaller slower boat, to 1000 miles for a frieghter or volvo race boat doing 20 knots! again, answer can vary to a degree.'

Along with, why are you all debating with Bryce, they guy changes his tune every chance he gets...... 

Marty


----------



## GeorgeB

Killarney, I’m glad you have seen reason to stop coveting my Catalina and moved on to the Xc-35. I know it will always be your second choice, but I’m sure you will learn to be happy with it.  By and by, do you have a complete set of specs so I can add it into my data base? I’m looking for I, P, E etc. as well as weights and measures.

It is interesting how similar (and how unlike) S. Africa is to California. The cold water/ fog/ warm (hot) land mass are quite similar. Our ocean water temp is 56* today which is our “warm” season water wise. What we do have that S. Africa lacks is Canada which breaks up the weather patterns. How far north do those depressions travel? Looking at the gradients in your example, a depression wouldn’t have to get much more north than 45* to put pretty good winds on Cape Town. That would also explain the semi-arid climate. Just to note, there is also a massive high pressure ridge east of Ascension Island requiring a fair amount of motoring to get across. Is there a South Atlantic Ridge like the North Pacific High? Thanks for the info – I’m getting a better picture of what must have gone into Sequitur’s decision process.


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> If you are going to offer "rough water" as a deterministic substitute for "bluewater" you should make your case with measurable factors that demonstrate how your proposed alternative is better than the long term if not completely definitive term "bluewater." There are certainly many discussions about what "bluewater" means, but those discussions (absent the attempted contributions of the ill-informed) are part of the definition.





JonEisberg said:


> That's pretty amusing, coming from one who has yet to "quantify" the distinction between "Blue Water" and "Rough Water"


I never offered "rough water" as a replacement for "blue water". Rather is was you guys that made the substitution and assumed they are one in the same.

I offered it as a means to separate the issues of "blue water" sailing from the very specific issue of dealing with rough water.
Bryce


----------



## Minnesail

Isn't "Rough Blue" a cologne endorsed by Ben Stiller?


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> Like all complex systems, the overall performance of a boat is not something measured by one or even a small number of factors.
> 
> You cry for numbers without offering any of your own. Make your case. So far you have not.


Sounds fair enough.. it appears this is a non-trivial task how to quantify "___ water" boats. (insert you favorite term) So let me offer up a measure that to me is better than anything I have seen to this point. Although I could offer a variety of calculations..

We have had our boat in a wide variety of wind and weather that ranged from 0 to 55 knot winds. And some of the worst waves seen in the great lakes. We are often the only boat on the lake(s).. Our boat has exceeded our expectations by a long way!

The way I see it, our boat will handle the average ocean crossing with no issues based on what we have been through. Given that, how do I "quantify" its "rough water" abilities? Specifically, its ability to handle *rough water*.

As a SWAG, a circumnavigation is say 4000 hours (24000/6). And as a worse case, if I am very unlucky, I will see one "survival" storm during that circumnavigation. It appears most voyagers have never seen a survival storm. So clearly one in a circumnavigation is quite a high rate.

Suppose a survival storm is two days or 48 hours. Just to make numbers even, lets say 40 hours.

So now my boat may encounter a survival event in 1% (40/4000) of this circumnavigation. So now I, like any other sailor is faced with the choice.. do I spend two or three times more for a boat of the same size for less than 1% (if any) benefit?

What is even worse, is there appears to be no convincing argument that this boat that costs 3 times more than mine will fair better!!

So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.

Bryce


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, the only problem is that I haven's seen more than a few such boat out there (beyond the Caribbean and Med lets say), let alone 'many, many'. Perhaps the people who have such boats have to keep working to pay for them, I don't know. There seem to be too types of boats in obscure places - the golden oldies (from 27 to 50+ feet) and the just golden ones - cats and monos with prices >$750.


Well I guess we need to be clear that, in the context of this thread, I'm definitely not talking about running Capes or the NW Passage (obscure places). That's a completely different grade of difficulty.

I'm talking about typical cruising passages (milk-run, Atlantic/Pacific trades runs, etc.)...i.e. - being "off-shore" as most cruisers understand it.

There are many, many production boats doing this...and many people saying they shouldn't be able to.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Bryce, couple of points. I sailed on the Great Lakes for close to 40 years before heading into the ocean. I heard all the talk about the lakes being comparable to the ocean. Take my word for it, they are not the same for a couple of reasons. One is that you are never far from shelter on the lakes. On an ocean passage you can be weeks from safety/somewhere where you can do repairs. Also the forces on the ocean are much greater. It is not just the survival storm you need to be prepared for, it is extended periods of really snotty stuff. Going from Mauritius to South Africa is 1500 miles or so. We never had less than 25 knots and often had 35 to 40 knots - and my take is that we had an easy passage. We had friends who were hove-to for six days in a 34 footer waiting for conditions to cross the Agulhas Current. 

There is obvious wear and tear on the boat but there is also wear and tear on the crew. We hear many stories of boats being abandoned that end up floating around for many months. These happen because of crew exhaustion. Your boat has to provide a comfortable platform as well as a safe one so you are ready to deal with any eventuality that comes along. We had friends who had a new HR 43 with all the toys. They even had a weather router. They wanted to go from Mangareva to Tahiti, which is generally a pretty routine trip of about a week. The router told them that they should get nothing worse than 25 to 30. They had 55+ for more than 12 hours within a day of leaving Mangareva. You can't always avoid these conditions so you need to be able to deal with them as does your boat.

You don't need to spend 2 or 3x as much to be safe and comfortable, but you do need to pick the right boat (or boats - there are lots of possibilities). I guess what you need to do is take your boat out and see how it does and how you do. You might be just fine, as long as you stay in the Trades in the Atlantic and Pacific. Get outside that zone and things get tougher. You are hearing the experiences of people who have done it rather than just read about it.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Well I guess we need to be clear that, in the context of this thread, I'm definitely not talking about running Capes or the NW Passage (obscure places). That's a completely different grade of difficulty.
> 
> I'm talking about typical cruising passages (milk-run, Atlantic/Pacific trades runs, etc.)...i.e. - being "off-shore" as most cruisers understand it.
> 
> There are many, many production boats doing this...and many people saying they shouldn't be able to.


I am not talking about the Roaring 40s or any of those places either. Atlantic and Pacific trades are pretty tame generally but what do you do when you get to the leeward side of the Pacific. You mention an 'etc' but I am not sure where offshore that might be. Once you are in Oz or NZ you either head back to North America via Japan and the Aleutians, go west south of trades to South America, or keep going into the Indian Ocean toward South Africa. By my count, fewer than 100 boats a year are doing this. The other option is to go to Thailand or Malaysia and try to wait out the pirates or you try to sell your boat there. Great place for a bargain these days.


----------



## BryceGTX

killarney_sailor said:


> There is obvious wear and tear on the boat but there is also wear and tear on the crew. We hear many stories of boats being abandoned that end up floating around for many months. These happen because of crew exhaustion.
> 
> ..but you do need to pick the right boat (or boats...


I appreciate what you say.. From my standpoint, the next step is to quantify this ability of a boat.
Anyone like to offer any suggestions?

As a side point.. I have nearly 60 years experience on the great lakes.. started as a tot on dads boat..
Bryce


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think it is very hard to quantify. You can have two boats that came off a production line one after the other and depending on upgrades, not just expensive stuff like water makers, but also simple things like really effective reefing systems, they can be quite different boats, although obviously things like hull shape are either good or not.

A few 'numbers' you can use are things like sail area/displacement (boat horsepower) and displacement/water line (carrying capacity - sort of) ratios. Also things like capsize factor, even PHRF (I think that a faster boat is a safer boat, assuming that being faster does not require a big crew or historic efforts by a small crew).

In the non-numerical field I would look at entry lists for rallies like the ARC, Caribbean 1500, SDR, Sail Indonesia. These are not lists of the best boats for the purpose, but at least you can see what people are using. Note that many people choose not to do rallies. We have only done Sail Indonesia and that was because they do the bureaucratic stuff that is so complex in Indonesia. Also, people on a tight budget tend to avoid rallies since they can add to your costs of cruising. This likely includes many smaller boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> I am not talking about the Roaring 40s or any of those places either. Atlantic and Pacific trades are pretty tame generally but what do you do when you get to the leeward side of the Pacific. You mention an 'etc' but I am not sure where offshore that might be. Once you are in Oz or NZ you either head back to North America via Japan and the Aleutians, go west south of trades to South America, or keep going into the Indian Ocean toward South Africa. By my count, fewer than 100 boats a year are doing this. The other option is to go to Thailand or Malaysia and try to wait out the pirates or you try to sell your boat there. Great place for a bargain these days.


There are TONS of blogs and vlogs and even races/rallies out there of people doing this "non-high-latitude" sailing in all kinds of production boats and cats - quite successfully. This is decidedly off-shore sailing.



killarney_sailor said:


> In the non-numerical field I would look at entry lists for rallies like the ARC, Caribbean 1500, SDR, Sail Indonesia. These are not lists of the best boats for the purpose, but at least you can see what people are using.


For example, I looked at the entries for the ARC:

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

Almost 50 of the boats are what most consider production boats (Beneteau, Bavaria, Hunter, Jeanneau, etc.) And that's just the monos. Plenty of multis as well.


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> I appreciate what you say.. From my standpoint, the next step is to quantify this ability of a boat.
> Anyone like to offer any suggestions?
> Bryce


Well, Ted Brewer took a whack at it... If anything, his 'Comfort Ratio' only serves to further illustrate how next to impossible it is to "quantify" this sort of thing...

As he so rightly notes in summation: _"Nor will one human stomach keep down what another stomach will handle with relish, or with mustard and pickles for that matter! It is all relative."_



> COMFORT RATIO (CR): This is a ratio that I dreamed up, tongue-in-cheek, as a measure of motion comfort but it has been widely accepted and, indeed, does provide a reasonable comparison between yachts of similar type. It is based on the fact that the faster the motion the more upsetting it is to the average person. Given a wave of X height, the speed of the upward motion depends on the displacement of the yacht and the amount of waterline area that is acted upon. Greater displacement, or lesser WL area, gives a slower motion and more comfort for any given sea state.
> 
> Beam does enter into it as as wider beam increases stability, increases WL area, and generates a faster reaction. The formula takes into account the displacement, the WL area, and adds a beam factor. The intention is to provide a means to compare the motion comfort of vessels of similar type and size, not to compare that of a Lightning class sloop with that of a husky 50 foot ketch.
> 
> The CR is : Displacement in pounds/ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x B1.333). Ratios will vary from 5.0 for a light daysailer to the high 60s for a super heavy vessel, such as a Colin Archer ketch. Moderate and successful ocean cruisers, such as the Valiant 40 and Whitby 42, will fall into the low-middle 30s range.
> 
> Do consider, though, that a sailing yacht heeled by a good breeze will have a much steadier motion than one bobbing up and down in light airs on left over swells from yesterday's blow; also that the typical summertime coastal cruiser will rarely encounter the wind and seas that an ocean going yacht will meet. Nor will one human stomach keep down what another stomach will handle with relish, or with mustard and pickles for that matter! It is all relative.
> 
> Ted Brewer Yacht Design


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Oh, please - get off your high horse, smack... This, coming from a guy who has waged a relentless campaign against the organizers of the SDR with your "unsubstantiated" accusations that inexperience led to those SAR calls, for which Bill and Linda Knowles are personally accountable?
> 
> Gimme a break...


Wrong again dudescicle. I said, _for the ENTIRE SDR thread_, that the lack of safety standards coupled with the low threshold for entry likely contributed to those SAR calls. And I had proof for both of these items being true - pulled from the SDR website - and for the conclusion that this rally merited at least a hand-slap - the USCG Marine Alert, other leading sailors writing critical articles, etc. Most people call this "substantiated".

You, on the other hand, threw out stuff in this thread on Michael, just to try to maintain your argument, that was easily refuted by his own freakin' blog had you taken a moment to read it. Most people call that "unsubstantiated."

Now help me back on to my horse...and mind the bluewater spurs. They're new.


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, no. This thread isn't about "the best boat for the buck we have". It is about the limits of standard, modern production boats. Are they off-shore capable or not?


Best define production in one way or another Smack. After all the Ovni's are production boats. Probably the most "standard" production boat in the world is the Amel - there are no options period. I know of no other boat where this occurs.

Price is as good a way as any to narrow the field a bit.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> Best define production in one way or another Smack. After all the Ovni's are production boats. Probably the most "standard" production boat in the world is the Amel - there are no options period. I know of no other boat where this occurs.
> 
> Price is as good a way as any to narrow the field a bit.


We went through this early on in this thread. So look back there if you want to take a crack. Same thing with the definition of "bluewater".

In general, for me, production boats are the typical BeneHunterLina grouping. I'd also throw Bavaria in there. But that's just me.

Someone else can list multis of similar stock.

I basically mean boats that are "mass market".

As for the definition of "bluewater" - or "offshore" - I (personally) typically take that to mean 200+ miles offshore - out of reach of CG helos. Others might define it differently. But I don't think it really matters all that much...especially with that many production boats in the ARC.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> What is even worse, is there appears to be no convincing argument that this boat that costs 3 times more than mine will fair better!!


On what basis? What are you measuring?



BryceGTX said:


> So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.


How do you measure "it will handle?"



killarney_sailor said:


> I heard all the talk about the lakes being comparable to the ocean. Take my word for it, they are not the same for a couple of reasons.


I agree. The Great Lakes can generate a short chop that is exceedingly unpleasant to people. The shock cycles can really build up.

Huge shocks falling off a wave mid-ocean will not be as frequent but they sure get your attention.

I have yet to be faced with a survival storm. I agree with killarney_sailor that passagemakers will face a good bit of snotty weather. It's hard on boats and it's hard on people. Well found boats make it less hard on the people.

Which brings us back to the measurables. Killarney_sailor offered a few that are indicative, although _only if you know what they mean and how they may or may not apply_. SA/D, just as an example, allows one to compare craft of similar characteristics. Utility declines rapidly when comparing a full-sectioned, full keel boat to a more modern design. Throw a multi-hull into the mix and you are just playing with numbers; the arithmetic may be correct but the answers don't mean anything.

If these simple-minded numbers were complete measures it wouldn't take so long to understand the art and science of naval architecture and marine engineering. If simple numbers were adequate there would be no art left in ship and boat design.

The upshot is that vessel performance is a very complex amalgam of many many factors. Labels don't help a lot. Bluewater at least has some qualitative merit. Making up new ones, like rough water, doesn't help.

Professionals have worked on measures of seakeeping for centuries.

Finite-element analysis has contributed greatly to structural design optimization in the last few decades.

Stochastic analysis has helped (not solved) address the problem of load estimation.

There are lots of other tools.

Changing the vocabulary doesn't help. In fact, professionals in peer reviewed journals often include glossaries (or cite one) to ensure that author, reviewers, and audience are talking about the same thing.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Wrong again dudescicle. I said, for the ENTIRE SDR thread[/I], that *the lack of safety standards coupled with the low threshold for entry likely contributed to those SAR calls. And I had proof for both of these items being true* - pulled from the SDR website - and for the conclusion that this rally merited at least a hand-slap - the USCG Marine Alert, other leading sailors writing critical articles, etc. Most people call this "substantiated".


Hmmm, I somehow missed that _"proof"_ that you offered. Here's your chance to settle this once and for all. Could you direct me to any of the particular posts in that thread where you *PROVED* that the SDR's "lack of safety standards" or "low threshhold for entry" was either the proximate or ultimate cause of the rudder failures on ZULU or JAMMIN', or the dismastings of NYAPA or the Catana 47?

No hurry, take your time, but no doubt you have the relevant Post # at your fingertips... 



smackdaddy said:


> You, on the other hand, threw out stuff in this thread on Michael, just to try to maintain your argument, that was easily refuted by his own freakin' blog had you taken a moment to read it. Most people call that "unsubstantiated."


Here is what I wrote in the post that you've called out... What, exactly, did I say that was so egregious, or beyond the pale? What, precisely, was so easily refuted in his blog?



JonEisberg said:


> Well, I'm glad somebody else finally mentioned that...
> 
> Cape Town is hardly a "relatively short distance away" from the Falklands, being well over 3000 NM distant, after all... But I've always wondered about that, as well... I think it's pretty rare for people to abandon their plans for a circumnavigation due solely to issues with a windlass, or instrumentation, or the other assorted relatively minor gremlins that were plaguing them...
> 
> Of course, there could be any number of reasons why their plans happened to change so drastically in the immediate aftermath of that storm. And Michael seems way too much of a gentleman to lay any blame publicly on the boat or its manufacturer... But it does make one wonder, whether in fact they _might_ have gotten some hint that SEQUITUR might actually have at least approached her "limit", and might not be quite up to the rigors of what would likely be a very challenging and risky passage to Cape Town...
> 
> Just to be clear, lest anyone accuse me of jumping on Michael again  If that were, indeed, the case, then such a decision would only increase my respect for him, as turning back or away is quite often the mark of consummate seamanship, and rarely an easy decision to take...





smackdaddy said:


> Now help me back on to my horse...and mind the bluewater spurs. They're new.


So, I take it those Blue Water Spurs are different from the Cape Horner's Gold Earing, in that one does not actually have to get out there to _EARN_ them? They're awarded simply by reading blogs, sailing forums, and such?


----------



## Group9

For the record, I only have one really blue water experience (7 days at sea and getting the sh*t kicked out of us on a 90 foot boat for three of those days). I really don't want to do that again, in any boat. 

I am a proud coastal cruiser. If I can't make it to where I want to go in 48 hours or less, I don't go.


----------



## outbound

What I found interesting in reading about Hawk was their choice of Al due to concerns about deck leaks and how miserable living on a leaky grp boat can be. Even Brent makes this point. Believe one of the issues distinguishing coastal from offshore production boats is measures taken to decrease chance of that. Both the construction my current boat and my last boat, a PSC, expended design efforts/funds/labor to minimize that risk with much detail in the hull/deck joint and other feature. In past boats I have lived with deck features secured with washers instead of backing plates. Poorly designed chain plates leading to deck leaks. Inadequate mast boots. Similarly ventilation is of great concern. Living in a dark poorly ventilated space is depressing. Placement of sufficient well constructed dorades allowing ventilation of all spaces, design of hatches, inclusion of fans all contribute to a nice environment below. One sees many production boats delightful in benign settings but very stuffy when all buttoned up. Some of the older offshore boats are depressing dark caves with many steps to climb in and out of.
Lastly protection from cold,wind,spray, green water and rain. Simple things like thought given to how the decks will clear a boarding sea, hard dodgers or other ways to maintain a watch out of the weather, design of the companionway, built in features to allow good runs for jack lines,secure points at mast and fore peak. Been impressed by current ability to drain the cockpit. Have two scuppers forward and open stern. Have washboards to close top of that opening but maintain a 8"by 3' opening at the bottom. This seems to work much better than the small cockpit of my prior T37 or PSC. Think Bryce misses the point-they do keep coming up with better mousetraps. Think Smack needs to accept some production boats are optimized for pleasant coastal sailing and some production boats for offshore. Think his basic premise obscures this basic fact. I'm glad he believes his production boat is designed to successfully function in the offshore environment as he seems a good soul. I hope he is right. But I pay great heed to Jon,Jeff, and KS's posts. They clearly have much more insight and experience.


----------



## Don L

I think this whole thread is getting/gotten ridiculous. It really is just general boat bashing where a good general design point is made, but then something is just wildly applied to all production boats with no basis.

Yes _some_ production boats are designed just for coastal cruising. This doesn't mean that some aren't designed for much more. Large production builders build boats from 20' to 50+, I just don't understand why people want to made claims that a 40'+ model from a production builder is unworthy just because the builders 20-30' model is designed for a lighter use. Maybe even some of the 40' boats aren't designed to go offshore (but it probably can do it 99% of the time anyway); so what as that doesn't mean the builder doesn't make a model that is designed to do so. Using an example of a boat designed for lighter use as a basis to make broad statements against production boats proves nothing.

I actually do know the reason these threads continue, it is because sailing is full of snobs who are more interested in trashing others in order to feel superior. If the production boat owners fight back the snobs will then say the the production boat supporters are feeling inferior in order to defend being a snob. The funniest part of that is when the owners of some old 25-30' tries to be all superior to the owner of a modern 50' cruiser, which is just so laughable.

Compared to any other builder, production boats are only limited by the market a particular model was aimed at. Just get the one that does what you want to do with it. If you want to be a snob instead buy a blue blazer and hang out at the club.


----------



## Minnesail

outbound said:


> What I found interesting in reading about Hawk was their choice of Al due to concerns about deck leaks and how miserable living on a leaky grp boat can be. Even Brent makes this point. Believe one of the issues distinguishing coastal from offshore production boats is measures taken to decrease chance of that.


I've written about this experience before, I hope you'll pardon me repeating myself. I bring it up again because A) it's relevant, and B) I'm pretty new to sailing and this is my only good sailing story so I like to tell it again and again 

The only really crazy weather I've sailed in was on a Hunter 340 on Lake Superior. It was about ten years old and the owner had done no particular upgrades. We had eight hours of waves splashing over into the cockpit, submerging the bow, running the length of the boat and shooting up the dodger. It was good fun.

During the course of this we took a few gallons of water in the v-berth and another couple gallons or so into the aft cabin. Not enough that we were running the bilge pump, but enough that the cushions/bedding/gear got soaked. I know the hatch above the v leaked a little, but water was getting in elsewhere too. Anchor locker? Deck joint? I don't know. Same for the aft cabin, water was getting in somehow, but we weren't sure where.

This was fine for a coastal cruise. No big deal. We plugged into shore power and ran a space heater to dry the cushions, brought our wet gear into the laundromat at the marina to dry, and had a good story to tell over beers.

If we had still had six more days to go? Holy crap. That would have been miserable. Unacceptably miserable. Unacceptably cold and wet and sleepless and miserable.

So right there I would call that particular Hunter 340 a coastal cruiser, not a bluewater cruiser. Even though I'm sure the boat could have stood up to that weather for days, the crew would have been ready to mutiny.


----------



## outbound

Think Don gets it. As said a hundred posts ago by Jon all depends on targeted use. Other than the extremely few one offs we are all on production boats even the M48 owners.

BTW- it is said those with whales on their pants usually don't have whales in their pants

From one who shops at Wally world and Marshall for land togs so he can shop at Team One for boat cloths.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, I somehow missed that _"proof"_ that you offered. Here's your chance to settle this once and for all. Could you direct me to any of the particular posts in that thread where you *PROVED* that the SDR's "lack of safety standards" or "low threshhold for entry" was either the proximate or ultimate cause of the rudder failures on ZULU or JAMMIN', or the dismastings of NYAPA or the Catana 47?
> 
> No hurry, take your time, but no doubt you have the relevant Post # at your fingertips...
> 
> Here is what I wrote in the post that you've called out... What, exactly, did I say that was so egregious, or beyond the pale? What, precisely, was so easily refuted in his blog?
> 
> *So, I take it those Blue Water Spurs are different from the Cape Horner's Gold Earing, in that one does not actually have to get out there to EARN them? They're awarded simply by reading blogs, sailing forums, and such?*


Dude - take it to the RGW thread. It's all there.

This one is about Production Boats and The Limits.

PS - Michael has the earring. Do you? No? Still, like everything else with you, you seem to want to rip it out of his ear because he "didn't quite do it right".


----------



## smackdaddy

Group9 said:


> For the record, I only have one really blue water experience (7 days at sea and getting the sh*t kicked out of us on a 90 foot boat for three of those days). I really don't want to do that again, in any boat.
> 
> I am a proud coastal cruiser. If I can't make it to where I want to go in 48 hours or less, I don't go.


Honestly, that's not a bad way to live.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Could you direct me to any of the particular posts in that thread where you PROVED that the SDR's "lack of safety standards" or "low threshhold for entry" was either the proximate or ultimate cause of the rudder failures on ZULU or JAMMIN', or the dismastings of NYAPA or the Catana 47?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude - take it to the RGW thread. It's all there.
Click to expand...

In other words, you got _nuthin'_...

Gee, what a shocker... 



smackdaddy said:


> PS - Michael has the earring. Do you? No? Still, like everything else with you, you seem to want to rip it out of his ear because he "didn't quite do it right".


OK, I'll try again:



> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Here is what I wrote in the post that you've called out... What, exactly, did I say that was so egregious, or beyond the pale? What, precisely, was so easily refuted in his blog?


Moreover, why didn't you take KS to task as well, for what he surmised in Post #841, and the implication that there might have been more, or something left unsaid, behind their decision to abandon their circumnavigation than what was posted on their blog?


----------



## smackdaddy

Siiiigggghhhh.



JonEisberg said:


> In other words, you got _nuthin'_...
> 
> Gee, what a shocker...


I've posted everything needed to prove the point of that thread - _in that thread_. You're bringing in a different point - a point that is completely silly - and one that I have no interest in trying to prove, because it's silly. If you want to keep hounding on it - do it in that thread. That's all I'm saying.

Here's the link for you: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/vessels-lost-missing-danger/105421-rallies-gone-wrong.html



JonEisberg said:


> Moreover, why didn't you take KS to task as well, for what he surmised in Post #841, and the implication that there might have been more, or something left unsaid, behind their decision to abandon their circumnavigation than what was posted on their blog?


Because you're special.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well - it looks like Mark's production boat survived a seriously nasty hurricane on a big-ass mooring. Lots of other boats on the rocks and beach.

I'll be interested to hear more about it. Sounds like a nightmare.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ated/170226-tropical-storm-gonzalo-ooops.html


----------



## GeorgeB

Was it a production or custom mooring?

Smack, remember what your high school debating coach used to say, “resorting to name-calling, slurs, and insults are a sure sign that in your own mind, you have conceded the argument”. Keep it civil or concede and walk away.

The problem with using anecdotal evidence from Blogs is that blogs by their very nature are extremely self-serving. We are all heroes in our own story. It is the rare person that will write about what they did wrong – and why. Most people will blog their justifications for what they did or did not do. I find that places like owners associations give a far more accurate depiction of what breaks on a particular boat or its true capabilities. BryceGTX, try hitting up the C400 owners website or Cruising Dad for the cruising capabilities of your boat rather than doing analysis by analogy. 

In the for what it’s worth department, I’m proud of my Clorox bottle/ Winnebago/ station wagon or whatever you want to call it. I’ve owned it a long time, I have extensively raced it in one design, YRA, OYRA and SSS (both as a double and single hand). I have cruised it. The boat has been pooped and had boarding waves. I’ve rounded up and rounded down. My boom has been in the water. I have also raced extensively on other peoples boats. I have crossed the Atlantic and “half way” on the Pacific. Needless to say, I have a pretty good idea of my boat’s and my capabilities are and I can say that the southern ocean/ great capes is definitely outside my production boat’s capabilities. I am fine with that. I have a proclivity for warmer climes anyways. Appreciate what you own and do not denigrate or covet what others may own.

Being a past national measurer for my fleet, I have had exposure to many boats and seen my fair share of issues. The only instance I’ve heard of a hull – deck joint separation was on a Katrina salvaged boat. This might be a problem for other builders, but AFAIK, not Catalina. I would be far more concerned about bent/ broken rudder stocks on a “production” boat. (I’ve also been on a boat that had skeg damage due to repetitive stresses so don’t get totally down on spades on my account.) Butler used to record the notable voyages and first crossings of his boats. Frankly, all of the places I want to go have been gotten to first by another Catalina boat, most often by one in my class. Production boats have and will continue to do the coconut, pineapple and agave runs without incident.

Smack, I think that you are looking more for an affirmation than a frank discussion. Why don’t you contact Sequitur directly and get his advice and consultation? Cherry picking phrases from blogs really isn’t going to give you what you seek.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Was it a production or custom mooring?
> 
> Smack, remember what your high school debating coach used to say, "resorting to name-calling, slurs, and insults are a sure sign that in your own mind, you have conceded the argument". Keep it civil or concede and walk away.
> 
> The problem with using anecdotal evidence from Blogs is that blogs by their very nature are extremely self-serving. We are all heroes in our own story. It is the rare person that will write about what they did wrong - and why. Most people will blog their justifications for what they did or did not do. I find that places like owners associations give a far more accurate depiction of what breaks on a particular boat or its true capabilities. JAX. Try hitting up the C400 owners website or Cruising Dad for the cruising capabilities of your boat rather than doing analysis by analogy
> 
> Smack, I think that you are looking more for an affirmation than a frank discussion. Why don't you contact Sequitur directly and get his advice and consultation? Cherry picking phrases from blogs really isn't going to give you what you seek.


You mean "dudescicle" was a bit much? Look, I actually like Jon. Seriously, I do. But I don't pull punches if I think he, or anyone else, is out of line. He doesn't either when he thinks I'm out of line. So no harm no foul. Right now I'm just trying to keep the focus of this thread on its subject - not on a rally which already has its own thread.

As for Michael, who's cherry picking? I'm posting _exactly_ what he's reported on his blog. You and Jon are reading a lot more into it that doesn't seem to be there - with the underlying intent being to question the viability of his production boat and what it/he accomplished (the subject of this thread). Michael _very clearly_ made his point about the Hunter 49 and what it is capable of in the bolded quote I pulled from his blog above. There is absolutely no cherry picking required for that sentence...unless you don't want to believe it and want to try to make it mean something else.

So, yes, I absolutely want this thread to be a frank discussion...not just affirmation. But when a guy that's been there and done that in his Hunter presents a very specific assessment of this boat in plain words - and people are trying to insert their own doubts into that - that's not a frank discussion.

You hold that his reports and assessments are "anectdotal". That's fine. You're welcome to cherry pick all you want as to what you think is true vs. what is "self-serving". I just take the guy at his word...especially because he provides plenty of photographic evidence to back up what he says.

But, I certainly don't solely hold up Michael and his accomplishments to highlight the capabilities of a production boat. There are lots of other people out there that have done and are doing many an off-shore mile in Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, etc. It's just that his is the most recent, most well-documented, and most extreme that I've seen.

As to using any forum out there for this kind of analysis...seriously? You would take the posts on a forum (any forum) over a well-documented blog? I wouldn't. No way. Sure there are some invaluable nuggets on forums that I take as gospel (Bob P. for example) - but there's _way_ more analogous chafe than wheat.



GeorgeB said:


> In the for what it's worth department, I'm proud of my Clorox bottle/ Winnebago/ station wagon or whatever you want to call it. I've owned it a long time, I have extensively raced it in one design, YRA, OYRA and SSS (both as a double and single hand). I have cruised it. The boat has been pooped and had boarding waves. I've rounded up and rounded down. My boom has been in the water. I have also raced extensively on other peoples boats. I have crossed the Atlantic and "half way" on the Pacific. Needless to say, I have a pretty good idea of my boat's and my capabilities are and I can say that the southern ocean/ great capes is definitely outside my production boat's capabilities. I am fine with that. I have a proclivity for warmer climes anyways. *Appreciate what you own and do not denigrate or covet what others may own.*
> 
> Being a past national measurer for my fleet, I have had exposure to many boats and seen my fair share of issues. The only instance I've heard of a hull - deck joint separation was on a Katrina salvaged boat. This might be a problem for other builders, but AFAIK, not Catalina. I would be far more concerned about bent/ broken rudder stocks on a "production" boat. (I've also been on a boat that had skeg damage due to repetitive stresses so don't get totally down on spades on my account.) Butler used to record the notable voyages and first crossings of his boats. Frankly, all of the places I want to go have been gotten to first by another Catalina boat, most often by one in my class. Production boats have and will continue to do the coconut, pineapple and agave runs without incident.


I totally agree with your entire assessment above...especially the bolded part. Production boats are fully capable of off-shore sailing...as has been proven over and over.



GeorgeB said:


> Smack, remember what your high school debating coach used to say, "resorting to name-calling, slurs, and insults are a sure sign that in your own mind, you have conceded the argument".


Yeah I remember him. I left him writhing on the floor of the classroom screaming, "Smack you mean bastard!" during a debate out pomegranates.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I've posted everything needed to prove the point of that thread - _in that thread_. You're bringing in a different point - a point that is completely silly - and one that I have no interest in trying to prove, because it's silly. If you want to keep hounding on it - do it in that thread. That's all I'm saying.


In other words, you _STILL_ got nuthin'...

Got it, thanks...


----------



## GeorgeB

Smackdaddy,
You are an immature moron. When you insult one board member, you insult us all. To say that your victim doesn’t mind the cyber bullying is the hallmark of a bully. I did not tolerate this behavior in my own children nor will I tolerate it from you. You cannot fix stupid. Others may wish to continue in your pigpen, but I will not. I have placed you on ignore and will not open any threads initiated by you. I recommend that you do the same.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smackdaddy,
> You are an immature moron. When you insult one board member, you insult us all. To say that your victim doesn't mind the cyber bullying is the hallmark of a bully. I did not tolerate this behavior in my own children nor will I tolerate it from you. You cannot fix stupid. Others may wish to continue in your pigpen, but I will not. I have placed you on ignore and will not open any threads initiated by you. I recommend that you do the same.


That's fine. Sorry you're offended, George. But I'm not seeing where I insulted anyone - especially you. I'm arguing - I'm debating - just like you guys.

Do what you gotta. But I'm definitely not going to put myself on ignore...I'm not sure that's even possible.


----------



## outbound

George please continue to open and comment ON THE SUBSTANCE of threads opened by smack. I have always found you a gentlemanly, rational and very informative voice. I ( and I think many) will miss your contributions.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> George please continue to open and comment ON THE SUBSTANCE of threads opened by smack. I have always found you a gentlemanly, rational and very informative voice. I ( and I think many) will miss your contributions.


+1, well said...

George, just for the record, it's obvious that Smack and I butt heads around here pretty regularly  However, as strenuously as we might disagree on just about everything, I can't recall _EVER_ feeling that I was "insulted" in the course of our exchanges... I've been around un-moderated forums for awhile, so perhaps I've developed a bit thicker skin over the years... 

Your point is well taken, but I think Outbound makes the better argument, hope you'll reconsider...

Me, I've just never gotten the whole "Ignore" thing... Hell, seems like I'd miss half the fun around here, by going that route... then again, I'd lack the self-discipline to _REALLY_ ignore those I might be tempted to, anyway...

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> +1, well said...
> 
> George, just for the record, it's obvious that Smack and I butt heads around here pretty regularly  However, as strenuously as we might disagree on just about everything, I can't recall _EVER_ feeling that I was "insulted" in the course of our exchanges... I've been around un-moderated forums for awhile, so perhaps I've developed a bit thicker skin over the years...
> 
> Your point is well taken, but I think Outbound makes the better argument, hope you'll reconsider...
> 
> Me, I've just never gotten the whole "Ignore" thing... Hell, seems like I'd miss half the fun around here, by going that route... then again, I'd lack the self-discipline to _REALLY_ ignore those I might be tempted to, anyway...
> 
> )


Thanks Jon. I'm honestly glad to know that you take our battles in the way they are intended. And I'm also comforted to know that you are just as undisciplined as I.

Now enough of that sappiness - the gloves are off, pal.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Moreover, why didn't you take KS to task as well, for what he surmised in Post #841, and the implication that there might have been more, or something left unsaid, behind their decision to abandon their circumnavigation than what was posted on their blog?


I didn't answer this one earlier so I will. Here's what Kil said:



killarney_sailor said:


> A comment about Michael's voyage. He seems like a good and capable guy but I think he got himself in a bit of time bind. I checked and he was in the Falklands in the middle of February. Assuming he was ready to head towards Cape Town (and I don't think he was) he would not have arrived there until well into March. That is getting pretty late in the season to cross a bit of ocean that does not have much of a sense of humour. I mentioned elsewhere that Kiwi Roa (very solid 54' aluminum cutter) experienced a 180° knockdown on that route and they were sitting comfy in Cape Town in December. I think this was a much more important consideration than the damaged electronics he had. On a route that long, not sure knowing what weather is coming is of much help. Your barometer will do the trick and let you know when the next depression is coming. There is nowhere to anchor on the route and few places near Cape Town which can be entered in any condition. AIS? Not many vessels until you get near the African coast and then there are lots of them. Radar would be handy when you get near the Benguela Current because you do get fog and that is where the ships are too. Nice to have but not a 100% essential. I think the couple decided they were not having as much fun as they expected and it was miserable and there were pleasant things to do with their lives. I can fully appreciate and understand this.


Read it carefully. He talks of the timing of that passage getting late, the damaged electronics/etc., and their tiring of such a difficult slog in the cold Southern Ocean while immediately looking at 3K miles more of it (back to the timing). All of these line up with what Michael wrote in his blog - which I posted above.

Unlike you, Kil makes no implication of the Hunter being the _"real"_ problem that Michael's just too "gentlemanly" to admit - i.e., that he's hiding something:



JonEisberg said:


> And Michael seems way too much of a gentleman to lay any blame publicly on the boat or its manufacturer... But it does make one wonder, whether in fact they _might_ have gotten some hint that SEQUITUR might actually have at least approached her "limit", and might not be quite up to the rigors of what would likely be a very challenging and risky passage to Cape Town...


In fact, Michael says the _exact_ opposite on his blog. Here it is again:



> 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.


So that's why you get the tasking and kil doesn't.


----------



## davidpm

smackdaddy said:


> Instead, the logic often goes that even a decades old "bluewater" boat - if it was originally more expensive than a typical production boat - it must be better (re: RH). I just don't buy that at all. We've seen plenty of dangers in that thinking.


Another angle this conversation that I didn't see mentioned is what condition the boat will be in after the storm.

We have read stories of deliveries of new boats that hit a storm and the delivery captain got the boat delivered. Their was a lot of damage however. Bulkheads were moved, rigging broken, engine and interior ruined etc.

So it might be that one boat designed heavier would survive the storm with only minor damage and another boat designed lighter would survive the storm with significant damage.

Their would be a serious argument for a more lightly designed boat if it is one third the cost, was insured, and the actual risk of encountering a survival storm was less than one percent as some have speculated.

If then you factor in the concept that the boat and people would survive that one storm nine out of ten times then the risk is so small you might as well sail the production boat as long as you can stand how it looks.

I just finished reading a book about the Queens Birthday storm and they listed the boats that were lost and they were all heavy older style except for the cats. If the storm lasts long enough and the boat is knocked down multiple times it seems like something breaks no matter the boat. Also most of the people were beat up so bad they were seriously injured. It seems that the chances of serious injury during a knock down or roll over is very high.

So then you have to factor in the concept that some storm, very rare, are not survivable and injuries can can cause a SAR condition all partly independent of the boat.


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> On what basis? What are you measuring?
> 
> How do you measure "it will handle?"


I measure it as "Been there, done that" Perhaps you might like to offer another measure.. So far you have not.



SVAuspicious said:


> The Great Lakes can generate a short chop that is exceedingly unpleasant to people. The shock cycles can really build up.


Can always spot someone who has really never experienced the Great lakes when he says something like this.

I have been in the big swells on the ocean and have experienced the same in the great lakes. Just wait for a 45 knot wind that's been blowing for about 24 hours on any of the bigger lakes and you will be treated to the same huge swells.

BTW.. I don't agree with Kilarney.. he just struck me as the average great lakes sailor that runs for cover at the first hint of wind above 15 knots. Clearly he is no longer that..



> Huge shocks falling off a wave mid-ocean will not be as frequent but they sure get your attention.


If you would like to experience this, just head to the western end of Erie in a similar 40-45 knot wind (24 hours). The best way to describe it is go to your local beach with a 45 knot off shore wind.. imagine sailing in the 15 foot breakers.. welcome to lake Erie.



SVAuspicious said:


> Utility declines rapidly when comparing a full-sectioned, full keel boat to a more modern design. Throw a multi-hull into the mix and you are just playing with numbers; the arithmetic may be correct but the answers don't mean anything.
> 
> If these simple-minded numbers were complete measures it wouldn't take so long to understand the art and science of naval architecture and marine engineering. If simple numbers were adequate there would be no art left in ship and boat design.
> 
> The upshot is that vessel performance is a very complex amalgam of many many factors. Labels don't help a lot. Bluewater at least has some qualitative merit. Making up new ones, like rough water, doesn't help.


Interesting you quote the same speech about too complex to imagine. Sounds like the guy from the late 1800s who said nothing else to be discovered..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Well, Ted Brewer took a whack at it... If anything, his 'Comfort Ratio' only serves to further illustrate how next to impossible it is to "quantify" this sort of thing...


CR is : Displacement in pounds/ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x B^1.333)

This is an excellent place to *start..* 

It brings up one of the most critical aspects of comfort which I subscribe to whole heartedly.. "no replacement for displacement" (LOL.. actually comes from 60s street racing)

There are two very important aspects of weight. The first is the inertia effects in the linear sense. The second is the moment of inertial effects in a rotational sense.

Almost without exception, lower accelerations result in more comfort. So a larger weight directly (in an inverse relation) reduces acceleration thereby reducing discomfort.

Angular accelerations resulting from forcing moments that attempt to overturn our boat are resisted by the large moment of inertia of a heavier boat.

Shock forces from breaking waves are resisted by the two inertial effects of weight.

Both Catalina and Hunter boats have traditionally been the heavy boats. This is why early in my search I focused heavily on these two brands.

So we have the first element of our comfort measurement.. weight. And we know how it affects comfort.
Bryce


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> Can always spot someone who has really never experienced the Great lakes when he says something like this.
> 
> I have been in the big swells on the ocean and have experienced the same in the great lakes. Just wait for a 45 knot wind that's been blowing for about 24 hours on any of the bigger lakes and you will be treated to the same huge swells.


Can always spot someone who has really never experienced the open ocean when he says something like this.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of _'FETCH'_, as it applies to open ocean swells...


----------



## outbound

Bryce several N.A.s and authors concerning safety at sea note that light boats especially if lateral underwater profile is decreased and that float on not in the water are more likely to slide down wave fronts. Hence if caught beam too a sea less likely to broach and turtle. Analysis of storms resulting in multiple abandonments or lost vessels suggest merit to this argument. Prior post pointed out that with Queens storm the heavy displacement vessels did not fare well. One can argument light and beamy vessels react quicker to perturbations in the sea surface resulting in a jerky motion. Once did a Newport to Bermuda in a tri. At the end outside of arms to shoulders and legs especially hips had black and blues from bumps I wasn't even aware of. But this very light boat road well and safely in the open ocean. One cannot argue that a light boat if constructed to handle loads/forces involved is due to its decreased displacement unsafe. In short experience shows your argument and view may not be in concert with reality. One only has to look at the current crop of ocean racers Failures here seem due to their pushing the limit to far not to concept of avoiding unnecessary displacement. Personally choose a boat of moderate displacement able to accept considerable fluids and stores while continuing to be able to sail on its designed lines as I'm a cruiser not racer. But I choose to avoid a very heavy displacement boat due to safety concerns. I would agree if by displacement you are inferring a larger vessel I would agree with your premise. To date all generally accept size does matter and larger vessels are safer then c/w smaller versions of the same general design.


----------



## opc11

Picking up on Smack's reminder, " It is about the limits of standard, modern production boats. Are they off-shore capable or not?"

This thread is rather odd. It all comes down to three points.

1. "Production vs. Bluewater." It's a false premise to begin with. The implication is that the two are mutually exclusive. Nonsense. You can have the exact same two boats and one could be bluewater capable and another would not.

2. The Weather. Again, you could have the exact same two boats. One always sails in the softest of conditions while the other is regularly driven through stronger conditions. Does that make one of them a bluewater boat and the other a production boat?

3. The Captain. Again, the exact same two boats. One has a skilled captain who has significant experience in challenging conditions while the other skipper doesn't. Are we going to blame the builder? Blame the weather? Blame the boat's location? Of course not.

Bottom line: If you're going to whittle the thread down to the method of construction, no middle ground between the two sides will EVER be found. If instead, you factor in the boat's preparedness, it's location, the weather and the captain, then it's clear which boat is a bluewater boat....and it has nothing to do with how many of them are built in a year or a decade.

Feel free to end future (similar) threads with this post!  ....and save all of us a lot of mud slinging reading that will NEVER find middle ground.

Regards,


----------



## smackdaddy

davidpm said:


> Another angle this conversation that I didn't see mentioned is what condition the boat will be in after the storm.
> 
> We have read stories of deliveries of new boats that hit a storm and the delivery captain got the boat delivered. Their was a lot of damage however. Bulkheads were moved, rigging broken, engine and interior ruined etc.
> 
> So it might be that one boat designed heavier would survive the storm with only minor damage and another boat designed lighter would survive the storm with significant damage.
> 
> Their would be a serious argument for a more lightly designed boat if it is one third the cost, was insured, and the actual risk of encountering a survival storm was less than one percent as some have speculated.
> 
> If then you factor in the concept that the boat and people would survive that one storm nine out of ten times then the risk is so small you might as well sail the production boat as long as you can stand how it looks.
> 
> I just finished reading a book about the Queens Birthday storm and they listed the boats that were lost and they were all heavy older style except for the cats. If the storm lasts long enough and the boat is knocked down multiple times it seems like something breaks no matter the boat. Also most of the people were beat up so bad they were seriously injured. It seems that the chances of serious injury during a knock down or roll over is very high.
> 
> So then you have to factor in the concept that some storm, very rare, are not survivable and injuries can can cause a SAR condition all partly independent of the boat.


David - I think you absolutely nailed it.

But the idea of a less expensive boat that may sustain more damage than an old heavy in a major storm - yet stays intact and gets you home - is anathema to most sailors. It's a "disposable" boat.

A couple of reasons for this:

1. Most everyone sailing right now, including me, has a used boat a decade or two old. So that's where the idea of "buying the older, heavier boat being the safer bet" gets it legs. But like we talked about above with cycles being the main issue in structural damage - it is far more likely you'll find a production boat with many, many fewer cycles than the older bluewater brand. Most production boats are daysailers and are rarely sailed. And very, very rarely in rough weather. So you just have to know what to look for and be willing to pay for a very good survey.

2. Virtually no one these days is keeping their boat 30 years. They are sold - over and over. So the idea of paying for a boat that lasts this long, when you know you'll only use it 5 years is kind of ridiculous. This is just economics - and why the market is driving design and technology the way it is.

The fallacy, I believe, is the notion that production boats are somehow "dangerous". Yes, you should buy as new as you can. And yes, you have to check out the boat carefully if used. And yes, you might need to be a bit more choosy with the weather. But it will keep you safe - if you can stay on it. I have little doubt of that.

From everything I can see, the risk/reward is definitely in your favor with a production boat...as are the economics.


----------



## outbound

Still believe this thread has produced much wheat among the chaff. Especially if one went to and the material referenced in the discussion.

A partial list includes:
Blue water is reasonably defined as sailing off any continental shelf. It is not lake sailing regardless how big the lake. Not even lake Bakal.
Voyaging and blue water boats by definition should be able to handle whatever weather they may reasonably encounter and ideally even extreme storms.
Blue water sailing is different than voyaging. Voyaging is different than high latitude sailing.Boat requirements and skill sets are different. A boat/crew able to transit to Bermuda in June or snow bird to the BVI in the fall may or may not be to safely do all the Capes. A boat able to,voyage accross the oceans may not be the ideal craft for the Southern Ocean.
Production boat is a nebulous term including coastal craft, blue water vessels and voyaging vessels.
For voyaging and high latitude sailing there may be merit in choosing aluminum vessels.
Designs reflect their target consumers. IPs may be a great vessel for ICW and western Caribbean but not best choice for eastern Caribbean snow birding.
Comfort features are quite different for coastal v.blue vessels as are safety features.
Skill set and temperament requirements are different as well.
I would like this thread to continue. I've learn a lot from those who frequently sail blue water and voyage.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

The worst, most dangerous seas I have ever been in are all on continental shelves, the east coast of Australia and the Grand Banks off Novia Scotia. Also the worst ones I know of world wide: Cape Aghulas, Cape Hatteras and all the southern capes, the Bay of Biscay and the continental shelf into southern England, Alaskan banks.

There is no offshore area in the world, except the Southern Ocean and the Artic that can be as bad if sailed in the correct season.

Further, all those continental areas mentioned above can have fast brewing intense storms.

There are very many excellent sailors who sail regularly in those storm prone areas that cop much more bad weather than any voyager.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> I measure it as "Been there, done that" Perhaps you might like to offer another measure.. So far you have not.


I'm perfectly happy with qualitative measures. You asked for quantitative measures - you should apply them to your alternative concepts before expecting others to provide them for classic assessments.



BryceGTX said:


> Can always spot someone who has really never experienced the Great lakes when he says something like this.


I've sailed Lake Michigan, Georgian Bay, and Lake Ontario albeit not in heavy weather.

Jon's point on fetch is well taken. Add in the affects of depth and there are real differences. That doesn't mean the Great Lakes are a mill pond. In addition if something does go horribly wrong the SAR response times are quite good.



BryceGTX said:


> Interesting you quote the same speech about too complex to imagine. Sounds like the guy from the late 1800s who said nothing else to be discovered.


Those were NOT my words. I said performance was a complex amalgam of many factors. We (naval architects) use detailed specifications for the construction of ships that can run many hundreds of pages. Each individual specification is measurable. What lies under those specifications (actually over in a document tree) are performance requirements that are often qualitative. Derivation of the measurable specifications is based on analysis and educated judgment.



BryceGTX said:


> CR is : Displacement in pounds/ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x B^1.333)
> 
> This is an excellent place to *start..*


It actually isn't. Ted Brewer generated the comfort ratio as something of a joke and was then stuck with it because people who didn't understand grabbed hold of it. Look carefully and you can see the basis, and the limitations. It assumes a block coefficient of 0.65 and a particular relationship of beam and draft. It has the underlying assumption that heavier boats are more comfortable which is NOT always the case. Mr. Brewer himself states that the CR only provides a reasonable comparison between yachts of similar type; accordingly comparing the CR numbers of a Passport 40 to a Beneteau First 41 is specious.

The CR also has no dynamic component, so the impact of fineness of bows on speed and slamming is not reflected.

The CR can't reflect the distribution of displacement and so moment of inertia (especially in pitch) isn't considered. It doesn't reflect form stability, so comfort in roll is not properly addressed.



BryceGTX said:


> Angular accelerations resulting from forcing moments that attempt to overturn our boat are resisted by the large moment of inertia of a heavier boat.


If only it were that simple.



outbound said:


> A partial list includes:
> Blue water is reasonably defined as sailing off any continental shelf. It is not lake sailing regardless how big the lake. Not even lake Bakal.
> Voyaging and blue water boats by definition should be able to handle whatever weather they may reasonably encounter and ideally even extreme storms.
> Blue water sailing is different than voyaging. Voyaging is different than high latitude sailing.Boat requirements and skill sets are different. A boat/crew able to transit to Bermuda in June or snow bird to the BVI in the fall may or may not be to safely do all the Capes. A boat able to,voyage accross the oceans may not be the ideal craft for the Southern Ocean.
> Production boat is a nebulous term including coastal craft, blue water vessels and voyaging vessels.
> For voyaging and high latitude sailing there may be merit in choosing aluminum vessels.
> Designs reflect their target consumers. IPs may be a great vessel for ICW and western Caribbean but not best choice for eastern Caribbean snow birding.
> Comfort features are quite different for coastal v.blue vessels as are safety features.
> Skill set and temperament requirements are different as well.


Nice list.

The US NOAA marine weather is divided into three parts: Coastal/Great Lakes, Offshore, and High Seas. Personally I equate bluewater with being far enough from land that there is no meaningful shelter within the scope of a more or less reliable weather forecast, about three days. For all practical purposes my definition, outbound's definition, and NOAA High Seas cover similar areas.

I strongly agree that bluewater boats should be able to handle whatever weather they may reasonably encounter. "Handle" includes outfitting to get weather information on board to maintain situational awareness (I prefer weather fax for synoptic charts) which may affect onboard routing.


----------



## smackdaddy

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The worst, most dangerous seas I have ever been in are all on continental shelves, the east coast of Australia and the Grand Banks off Novia Scotia. Also the worst ones I know of world wide: Cape Aghulas, Cape Hatteras and all the southern capes, the Bay of Biscay and the continental shelf into southern England, Alaskan banks.
> 
> There is no offshore area in the world, except the Southern Ocean and the Artic that can be as bad if sailed in the correct season.
> 
> Further, all those continental areas mentioned above can have fast brewing intense storms.
> 
> There are very many excellent sailors who sail regularly in those storm prone areas that cop much more bad weather than any voyager.


This is exactly right. So when people talk about a "strong bluewater boat" - shouldn't those boats really be structurally modeled after modern production coastal cruisers (unless we're talking high-latitude voyager)?

Another win in the production boat column.

In seriousness, along the lines of the cycles debate we've been having - here is a question for the actual NAs and designers around here:

Let's put both a modern production boat and a bluewater boat through exactly the same "survival storm". The production boat, as mentioned above, comes back safely, but is broken structurally - and is totaled. The bluewater boat comes back with less structural breakage...but has obviously been stressed enough to cause damage.

So, for this bluewater boat - do you fix the obvious then fully trust it for the next survival storm? In other words, how many times can the bluewater boat realistically endure survival storms and not be totaled versus the number of times for a production boat?

Cycles is one thing. But most of the time the discussion gravitates toward "which would rather have in a storm?"

So what think ye?


----------



## TomMaine

*Can a good boat save a bad sailor?*

Maybe, but I think the case - a good sailor will save a bad boat, is more likely. The bad boat won't be subject to as much stress due to the higher skills onboard. A bad sailor could easily break a good boat.

I don't think the boat is what makes the sailing safe-or dangerous. The boat is one part in the systems of the sailor.

I think a good sailor will prioritize how well the boat sails and that might contradict the old salt definition of blue water boat.

I wouldn't chose my boat for long distance/living aboard but I would have once considered it a "blue water boat". I like a jet.

My post has nothing to do with rallies or RH, etc.


----------



## SVAuspicious

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The worst, most dangerous seas I have ever been in are all on continental shelves, the east coast of Australia and the Grand Banks off Novia Scotia. Also the worst ones I know of world wide: Cape Aghulas, Cape Hatteras and all the southern capes, the Bay of Biscay and the continental shelf into southern England, Alaskan banks.


I'm always happier when I get off soundings.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Let's put both a modern production boat and a bluewater boat through exactly the same "survival storm". The production boat, as mentioned above, comes back safely, but is broken structurally - and is totaled. The bluewater boat comes back with less structural breakage...but has obviously been stressed enough to cause damage.
> 
> So, for this bluewater boat - do you fix the obvious then fully trust it for the next survival storm? In other words, how many times can the bluewater boat realistically endure survival storms and not be totaled versus the number of times for a production boat?
> 
> Cycles is one thing. But most of the time the discussion gravitates toward "which would rather have in a storm?"
> 
> So what think ye?


Neither a designer not a naval architect but anyway here goes. Lets put aside the construct of a 'survival storm' since figuring out what that is or isn't would be about as productive as figuring out what a production boat is or what bluewater is. Instead lets talk about a particular example. Earlier I mentioned that Peter Smith's boat _Kiwi Roa_ was knocked down 180° on passage from the Falklands to Cape Town last year. The only damage that needed to be fixed was a broken 1/4" shackle. This is an incredibly solid boat built to take whatever abuse high latitude sailing could bring. It is also a very expensive boat if you were wondering where the royalty fees part of your Rocna anchor purchase went. It has over 20,000 hours of skilled labour in it (at British rates), not to mention all the 'stuff' that goes into building a 54' boat. Obviously this is a boat that few of us could afford (he will build one for you) or really need.

Since we are playing what-ifs, _Sequitur_ was considering the same passage. What damage would a 180 cause to it? Would the rig survive? Would it mean the boat would have to be abandoned either then or when port was reached because its basic integrity had been compromised? I would hope not. I think it would be a question of how much coin it would cost to fix.

As an intermediate case, what would happen to my Bristol in the same scenario (hope to never find out)? How much damage? Would the rig survive? Would the boat's integrity be compromised? How much would it all cost to fix?

Obviously, without some real destructive testing of the Hunter and Bristol we can never know. The reality is that those who head off sailing (not Roaring 40s stuff, lets say a circumnavigation that includes South Africa) must ask these questions of themselves and make a decision about what boat makes most sense for them within the budget constraints that they face. To date, the great majority of people doing this are picking what they think to be more robust boats (either newish Amels or oldish Vegas, or something in between depending on budget). When more people choose to do this trip in 30 to 50 foot 'production boats' (a silly descriptor because the Amels are obviously production boats), we will know better.

Final point to reiterate, Smack has talked about lots of 'production boats' doing the ARC or the trade wind run to Australia. What he continues to ignore is that once you have done these fairly easy downwind runs you need to be able to get back home and that either means a loop within an ocean basin that takes you into the Westerlies or you continue into the Indian Ocean toward South Africa with increased challenges for the boat and crew.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Neither a designer not a naval architect but anyway here goes. Lets put aside the construct of a 'survival storm' since figuring out what that is or isn't would be about as productive as figuring out what a production boat is or what bluewater is. Instead lets talk about a particular example. Earlier I mentioned that Peter Smith's boat _Kiwi Roa_ was knocked down 180° on passage from the Falklands to Cape Town last year. The only damage that needed to be fixed was a broken 1/4" shackle. This is an incredibly solid boat built to take whatever abuse high latitude sailing could bring. It is also a very expensive boat if you were wondering where the royalty fees part of your Rocna anchor purchase went. It has over 20,000 hours of skilled labour in it (at British rates), not to mention all the 'stuff' that goes into building a 54' boat. Obviously this is a boat that few of us could afford (he will build one for you) or really need.
> 
> Since we are playing what-ifs, _Sequitur_ was considering the same passage. What damage would a 180 cause to it? Would the rig survive? Would it mean the boat would have to be abandoned either then or when port was reached because its basic integrity had been compromised? I would hope not. I think it would be a question of how much coin it would cost to fix.
> 
> As an intermediate case, what would happen to my Bristol in the same scenario (hope to never find out)? How much damage? Would the rig survive? Would the boat's integrity be compromised? How much would it all cost to fix?
> 
> Obviously, without some real destructive testing of the Hunter and Bristol we can never know. The reality is that those who head off sailing (not Roaring 40s stuff, lets say a circumnavigation that includes South Africa) must ask these questions of themselves and make a decision about what boat makes most sense for them within the budget constraints that they face. To date, the great majority of people doing this are picking what they think to be more robust boats (either newish Amels or oldish Vegas, or something in between depending on budget). When more people choose to do this trip in 30 to 50 foot 'production boats' (a silly descriptor because the Amels are obviously production boats), we will know better.
> 
> Final point to reiterate, Smack has talked about lots of 'production boats' doing the ARC or the trade wind run to Australia. What he continues to ignore is that once you have done these fairly easy downwind runs you need to be able to get back home and that either means a loop within an ocean basin that takes you into the Westerlies or you continue into the Indian Ocean toward South Africa with increased challenges for the boat and crew.


I think this is a reasonable post, kil. But, on the last paragraph - what do you mean "I continue to ignore..."? Of course they have to get back home. And they do.

Or are you saying these ~50 boats just stay at their downwind destination because they're too fragile to bring back to the place they started? Is that what I'm ignoring?


----------



## killarney_sailor

What I am saying is that it is a lot easier to get downwind in the tropics than to get back home. There are a bunch of boats (in the hundreds) sitting in SE Asia waiting and hoping for the pirate menace to disappear in the western Indian Ocean so they use the Red Sea route. For a variety of reasons these folks don't want to tackle the South Africa route. High on the list is the challenge of the sea conditions going that way. For those with deep pockets there is a slow but steady stream of boats being taken to the Med by ship. We had some friends who were going to do that and the bill was something like $38,000. Also a lot of people are selling their boats there. Interestingly there are a growing number of Chinese (Hong Kong and especially mainland) going to Malaysia and Thailand to buy boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Let's put both a modern production boat and a bluewater boat through exactly the same "survival storm". *The production boat, as mentioned above, comes back safely, but is broken structurally - and is totaled.* The bluewater boat comes back with less structural breakage...but has obviously been stressed enough to cause damage.
> 
> So what think ye?


I think you're dreaming... 

Ask these folks on the Beneteau BLUE PEARL, which sank last spring enroute to the Azores, about their "safe return", after the boat was "broken"... Their 'home', now resting on the bottom of the Atlantic, was aboard a container ship...

Lost all when home sank. by TheBlue Pearl - GoFundMe

Or, how about the brand new $700K BE GOOD TOO last winter, with at least two highly experienced and capable offshore sailors aboard? They weren't able to get her "back home", either...

First off, all this talk of "survival storms" and such, is nonsensical... Very few sailors are likely to ever encounter such conditions. And, as we have seen time and time again recently, most of the boats being abandoned out there are the result of having met with weather and conditions not even remotely approaching full-blown storm force conditions... The 2 boats abandoned in last Fall's SDR, for instance...

Sorry, but the notion that one can go off voyaging - from both a practical and safety standpoint - in a series of "disposable" boats that might be routinely replaced with insurance checks, or with the kindness of strangers dispensing drops in the bucket of a PayPal account, seems laughable, to me...



smackdaddy said:


> Cycles is one thing. But most of the time the discussion gravitates toward "which would rather have in a storm?"
> 
> So what think ye?


Me, I'd go with what I feel is the "better" boat, every time...

An Outbound 46 over a Hunter 49, for instance... 

Moot point, of course, as I can afford neither... Plus, they're too big for me, anyway...


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> What I am saying is that it is a lot easier to get downwind in the tropics than to get back home. There are a bunch of boats (in the hundreds) sitting in SE Asia waiting and hoping for the pirate menace to disappear in the western Indian Ocean so they use the Red Sea route. For a variety of reasons these folks don't want to tackle the South Africa route. High on the list is the challenge of the sea conditions going that way. For those with deep pockets there is a slow but steady stream of boats being taken to the Med by ship. We had some friends who were going to do that and the bill was something like $38,000. Also a lot of people are selling their boats there. Interestingly there are a growing number of Chinese (Hong Kong and especially mainland) going to Malaysia and Thailand to buy boats.


I see what you mean. It's not really the boats at issue, but the less than ideal choices of where to go once you get there. I can see that.

One thing that might a plus in the production boats' favor is that since they'll typically be a couple-hundred-thousand less than other "bluewater brands" you'll have quite a bit more in your pocket to ship past the pirates.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> First off, all this talk of "survival storms" and such, is nonsensical... Very few sailors are likely to ever encounter such conditions. And, as we have seen time and time again recently, most of the boats being abandoned out there are the result of having met with weather and conditions not even remotely approaching full-blown storm force conditions... The 2 boats abandoned in last Fall's SDR, for instance...


That's what Hal Roth, I, and others, have been saying the whole time...that the chances of a survival storm for most cruisers is so incredibly low that it's really a non-factor in these kinds of discussions. Yet, people still seem to measure cruising boats by this standard in these "which boat do I buy" discussions. So you're preaching to the choir on this one.



JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but the notion that one can go off voyaging - from both a practical and safety standpoint - in a series of "disposable" boats that might be routinely replaced with insurance checks, or with the kindness of strangers dispensing drops in the bucket of a PayPal account, seems laughable, to me...


It is laughable. But, like above, many people seem to view production boats as boats that will fall apart in even a moderate storm...even though there is no real evidence to support it. And their logic then goes that it is better to buy an older, "stronger" "bluewater boat" that can "handle it".

The problem with this logic, as I've laid out above, is two-fold:

1. Modern production boats can easily handle stormy conditions that 99% of cruisers will ever see.

2. If you buy that "older, stronger bluewater boat" that has been cruised a lot, it has very likely seen many more stress cycles than the newer boat - and, therefore, could well be "weaker" overall than the "disposable" production boat. We've seen plenty of evidence for that.

So I agree. The idea of "disposable boats" is laughable. But I don't think that's what production boats are in reality.



JonEisberg said:


> Me, I'd go with what I feel is the "better" boat, every time...
> 
> An Outbound 46 over a Hunter 49, for instance...
> 
> Moot point, of course, as I can afford neither... Plus, they're too big for me, anyway...


I would too. No doubt. I would love to have a Wally 60. I'd even prefer it over an Outbound or Amel or Oyster or Swan or whatever.

But I'm perfectly comfortable and happy with our Hunter 40.


----------



## Don L

I don't consider my boat "disposable", that is just freaking insulting!


----------



## ianjoub

I don't see the problem with 'disposable' boats. We have 'disposable' cars. It is the way of our world in modern times.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> I don't consider my boat "disposable", that is just freaking insulting!


Well, then you might want to take that up with one of your fellow Hunter owners, he's been tossing that designation around for awhile, here...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/969653-post250.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/768017-post59.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2280802-post897.html

In comparison, I don't consider myself to be a "snob", either... Fortunately, my sensibilities are less delicate than yours, I didn't whine about feeling "insulted", but rather simply considered the source...



Don0190 said:


> I actually do know the reason these threads continue, it is because sailing is full of snobs who are more interested in trashing others in order to feel superior. If the production boat owners fight back the snobs will then say the the production boat supporters are feeling inferior in order to defend being a snob. The funniest part of that is when the owners of some old 25-30' tries to be all superior to the owner of a modern 50' cruiser, which is just so laughable.


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> In comparison, I don't consider myself to be a "snob".


maybe you are something else or in addition


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, then you might want to take that up with one of your fellow Hunter owners, he's been tossing that designation around for awhile, here...
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/969653-post250.html
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/768017-post59.html
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2280802-post897.html
> 
> In comparison, I don't consider myself to be a "snob", either... Fortunately, my sensibilities are less delicate than yours, I didn't whine about feeling "insulted", but rather simply considered the source...


As mentioned above, I bring that "disposable" term in because most of these debates center around the idea of the "fragility" of production boats. I don't buy that myself, I just bring it in to address the thinking behind it.

The real issue, that I raised above, is that in a true survival storm that older bluewater boat is just as likely (if not more likely - re David's mention of the Queens Birthday storm) to suffer catastrophic damage as the modern production boat. So that argument is a wash as far as I'm concerned. They are both "disposable" in the sense that you'd likely not want to trust either of these boats in another similar scenario if it survives such a storm.

So then, if this is true, the question comes down to how you want to define "disposable". Does anyone actually think a boat, any boat, is "permanent" in terms of its strength and suitability to storm related stresses? I don't.

At some point, just like with _Rebel Heart_, you either need to essentially rebuild the boat - or, better yet, retire it to far more gentle service like being a live-aboard at the slip. It's no longer "blue water" regardless of the brand.


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> I'm perfectly happy with qualitative measures. You asked for quantitative measures - you should apply them to your alternative concepts before expecting others to provide them for classic assessments.


My original question was to supply a means to evaluate the "Blue Waterness" of any boat. You have no means to do this.

You would have us believe a boat is "Blue Water" or not!! Amazing there are no shades of gray. Our production boats are only "Coastal Cruisers" according to you. No chance to be even 50% "Blue Water".

Even more comical is that there are no shades of gray in "Blue water" boats. Yet the term encompasses every imaginable hull and keel design.

If you cannot determine gray shades of even a "Blue water" boat. you are not qualified to determine the classification of any boat.
Bryce



SVAuspicious said:


> I've sailed Lake Michigan, Georgian Bay, and Lake Ontario *albeit not in heavy weather.*


So you have no experience with any heavy weather sailing great lakes.

You cannot determine if a production boat is blue water capable, because you can't even categorize even blue water boats.

But yet amazingly enough, you are qualified to judge my Great Lakes heavy weather experience and determine it is not sufficient to qualify my boat as even rough water capable.

Are you a politician?



SVAuspicious said:


> In addition if something does go horribly wrong the SAR response times are quite good.


You lack of experience shows through again.. "Hypothermia" causes death to occur in 30 to 90 minutes in Lake Superior in the dead of summer..

Top speed of chopper is 200mph.. you are 100 miles out in Superior.. chopper takes 1/2 hour to prepare.. 1/2 hour to find you..

Guess what.. you are dead.

South pacific east of panama 1000 miles, I can float for two days and survive no problem..

So much for your "Blue water" point of view.



SVAuspicious said:


> Those were NOT my words. I said performance was a complex amalgam of many factors. We (naval architects) use detailed specifications for the construction of ships that can run many hundreds of pages. Each individual specification is measurable. What lies under those specifications (actually over in a document tree) are performance requirements that are often qualitative. Derivation of the measurable specifications is based on analysis and educated judgment.


Well that explains in no uncertain terms your inability to classify boats. I had a hard time containing my laughter after reading this!


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> BryceGTX said:
> 
> 
> 
> CR is : Displacement in pounds/ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x B^1.333)
> 
> This is an excellent place to start..
> 
> 
> 
> It actually isn't. Ted Brewer generated the comfort ratio as something of a joke and was then stuck with it because people who didn't understand grabbed hold of it.
Click to expand...

No.. it is an excellent place to start.. the key word that seemed to escape your eye was *start*

The point clearly was this was beginning of a deliberate discussion about the traits of a boat necessary to survive rough water in a comfortable fashion..

Clearly, such a discussion must start somewhere.. and *WEIGHT (THE NUMERATOR TERM) * is a great place to start.

Seems not only do you not know how to classify these boats, you are not willing to listen to a discussion that will accomplish that.


----------



## miatapaul

BryceGTX said:


> No.. it is an excellent place to start.. the key word that seemed to escape your eye was *start*
> 
> The point clearly was this was beginning of a deliberate discussion about the traits of a boat necessary to survive rough water in a comfortable fashion..
> 
> Clearly, such a discussion must start somewhere.. and weight is a great place to start.
> 
> Seems not only do you not know how to classify these boats, you are not willing to listen to a discussion that will accomplish that.


Well as said it was kind of a joke, it does seem good at comparing fairly similar boats, but if they are similar it will be more of evaluating very similar things, so not much use. It can't really be used to compare different sized boats at all.


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> BryceGTX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angular accelerations resulting from forcing moments that attempt to overturn our boat are resisted by the large moment of inertia of a heavier boat.
> 
> 
> 
> If only it were that simple.
Click to expand...

Of course it is not that simple.. however, a complex discussion must develop from simple concepts. Keep in mind, we have a wide variety of readers.. not everyone understands even the simple things.

Anyone familiar with dynamics clearly recognizes the significance of moment of inertia in its resistance to acceleration. I take it you are in no way shape or form familiar with dynamics.

In such a case, I recommend you listen rather than vocalize.
Bryce


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> Of course it is not that simple.. however, a complex discussion must develop from simple concepts. Keep in mind, we have a wide variety of readers.. not everyone understands even the simple things.


Nor does everyone understand those who speak in tongues, with a heavy dose of condescension thrown in&#8230;

Time to put up, or shut up&#8230; Show us how you "quantify" the "Blue Waterness" of any small sailing yacht&#8230;


----------



## BryceGTX

SVAuspicious said:


> Look carefully and you can see the basis, and the limitations. It assumes a block coefficient of 0.65 and a particular relationship of beam and draft. It has the underlying assumption that heavier boats are more comfortable which is NOT always the case. Mr. Brewer himself states that the CR only provides a reasonable comparison between yachts of similar type; accordingly comparing the CR numbers of a Passport 40 to a Beneteau First 41 is specious.
> 
> The CR also has no dynamic component, so the impact of fineness of bows on speed and slamming is not reflected.
> 
> The CR can't reflect the distribution of displacement and so moment of inertia (especially in pitch) isn't considered. It doesn't reflect form stability, so comfort in roll is not properly addressed.


The equation cannot distinguish, hull types, keel types, does not consider natural frequency....

So what's your point.. you are pointing out the obvious.. I did not see you offering up any useful information to initiate or support the discussion..


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Time to put up, or shut up&#8230; Show us how you "quantify" the "Blue Waterness" of any small sailing yacht&#8230;


Sounds fair enough..

I provided a measure of the "rough waterness" of my boat.. according to you.. same as "Blue Waterness" So problem solved. This measure works for any boat. Here, I repeat if for you:

*We have had our boat in a wide variety of wind and weather that ranged from 0 to 55 knot winds. And some of the worst waves seen in the great lakes. We are often the only boat on the lake(s).. Our boat has exceeded our expectations by a long way!

The way I see it, our boat will handle the average ocean crossing with no issues based on what we have been through. Given that, how do I "quantify" its "rough water" abilities? Specifically, its ability to handle rough water.

As a SWAG, a circumnavigation is say 4000 hours (24000/6). And as a worse case, if I am very unlucky, I will see one "survival" storm during that circumnavigation. It appears most voyagers have never seen a survival storm. So clearly one in a circumnavigation is quite a high rate.

Suppose a survival storm is two days or 48 hours. Just to make numbers even, lets say 40 hours.

So now my boat may encounter a survival event in 1% (40/4000) of this circumnavigation. So now I, like any other sailor is faced with the choice.. do I spend two or three times more for a boat of the same size for less than 1% (if any) benefit?

What is even worse, is there appears to be no convincing argument that this boat that costs 3 times more than mine will fair better!!

So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.*

Are you saying you do not accept this? However, I am suppose to accept your loosie Goosie definition of a blue water boat? It was you and your blue water sidekicks that seem to agree rough water and blue water are one and the same..

Seems to me 99% is about as blue water as it gets.. So I guess my boat is blue water. 
Bryce


----------



## blt2ski

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> Time to put up, or shut up&#8230; Show us how you "quantify" the "Blue Waterness" of any small sailing yacht&#8230;
> Sounds fair enough..
> Bryce


We are waiting, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting. Could be a LONG LONG wait!

Then again, the ROUGH Water part seems to be the same general term for a lot of folks, something in the shallower depth arena, possible current against the prevailing wind/waves, causing Short crest time intervals, steep taller waves. Vs true open ocean, or current with wind/waves making the crest to crest interval longer in time for the same wave height.

This could also be variable, based on WL and OAL and possibly the weight of the boat too. WL/LOA in my mind are the bigger factors in how one well one will handle rough water per say. BUT, if the LOW is equal to the crest to crest, or crest to trough length, you will not be happy!

Marty


----------



## mitiempo

BryceGTX said:


> No.. it is an excellent place to start.. the key word that seemed to escape your eye was *start*
> 
> The point clearly was this was beginning of a deliberate discussion about the traits of a boat necessary to survive rough water in a comfortable fashion..


Ted Brewer's comfort ratio is only useful to compare boats of a similar type and size. If you take a boat and put 1000 lbs on the cabin top it will have a better "comfort ratio". If you add 500 lbs to the top of the mast it will also have a better "comfort ratio". In neither case will you have a better boat.

The basic premise of this thread makes little sense in any case, or at least its title. If I can buy a boat and that boat has already been built in numbers - say Amel, Ovni, Hunter or Catalina to name a few - they are all production boats - differing in quality perhaps but still production. Perry's Catari is not a production boat, one of very few. And what exactly is an older "bluewater boat"?

A better discussion might be framed around "desirable characteristics for offshore sailing".

And all boats are "disposable" - for some their end just comes sooner.


----------



## MedSailor

I'll add something to this thread (which is pretty much out of hand) that I've never told Sailnet before.

On last year's round the county race i was on a Catalina 400 (a production boat) and we hit s rock at over 6 knots of boat speed. 

That's a 7ft keel, and we struck the rock with the bottom 6 inches of the keel.

After a VERY COMPLETE survey where they removed the entire interior of the boat the final findings were,essentially no structural damage.

The crash we had was an absolute worst case scenario for that boat. Unyielding rock vs bottom of 7ft keel. The boat won.

I gained a lot of respect for fin keels and production boats that day. 

Medsailor

PS luckily there were no injuries.


----------



## Andrew65

Bryce, 

I hate to digress in this interesting thread, but, Mr. Bub's question has to be answered by you. 

It will both free him to whip off his bukaked face (a turn of phrase which has kept me laughing from his post until now) and it will also give a better perspective to everyone for where you're coming from in your contribution to this thread. 

Bub's question is in post 763. 

"What field of engineering are you actively involved in?" is the question. 

It's a direct question that requires a direct answer.

Andrew


----------



## BryceGTX

JonEisberg said:


> Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of 'FETCH', as it applies to open ocean swells...





blt2ski said:


> Then again, the ROUGH Water part seems to be the same general term for a lot of folks, something in the shallower depth arena, possible current against the prevailing wind/waves, causing Short crest time intervals, steep taller waves. Vs true open ocean, or current with wind/waves making the crest to crest interval longer in time for the same wave height.


You guys really should stop trying to analyze the great lakes.. you are totally insulting yourselves..



Andrew65 said:


> "What field of engineering are you actively involved in?" is the question.
> It's a direct question that requires a direct answer.


I judge people's post based on what they say, not who they are.
Bryce


----------



## Andrew65

That's not true at all. 

For one, you insult me by not answering my direct inquiry to allow me to make that judgment call myself and not all engineers are alike which was Bub's question after you blew him off.
That is bad forum participation because when you are in, you are in, warts and all. You're problem now is how to get out of this thread and still save some sort of face. Good luck with that. 

No two doctors are alike, yet they are both doctors. One can't necessarily talk shop with another in a different field of study. 

No worries though, you're level of applicable knowledge and experience has already been found out, weighed, and measured and found unworthy except for its blowhard value. I'll give you that one. 

Big ropes and small blocks to ya.


----------



## BryceGTX

Mr. Bubs said:


> You know what, you're right. As a mechanical engineer I'm going to quit using my computer and go back to a pencil and slide rule. Better yet, I'll just use an abacus





Mr. Bubs said:


> Sounds to me that you are not very confident in your work, nor are you very advanced in you field to use such a crude (not to mention extremely fallible) method of checking your work. Again, what field of engineering are you actively involved in?





Andrew65 said:


> For one, you insult me by not answering my direct inquiry to allow me to make that judgment call myself and not all engineers are alike which was Bub's question after you blew him off.





Andrew65 said:


> No worries though, you're level of applicable knowledge and experience has already been found out, weighed, and measured and found unworthy except for its blowhard value.


You are concerned about my forum etiquette.. but yet Bub's initial post is good etiquette???? His question was a rhetorical question meant to insult. It required no answer.

Before you post something like this, perhaps you should consider the facts.

Bryce


----------



## Andrew65

You can pick and choose what you want to comment on, blt2ski is right. You change with the wind. KS gave you great insight, but you blew him off too. 

Smackdaddy runs and has always run any thread he creates like a bar room brawl, down and dirty, no gloves. That's what makes his threads fun, but you don't give answers when asked directly. 

In this one, for me, you're like the old guy down at the end of the bar shooting his mouth off, but when asked to explain a statement from others more experienced than you, he won't. He merely wants to hear himself talk. You can keep all your numbers because when the ****e hits the fan sailing, your type folds and starts to mutter that it shouldn't be like this and that then looks for others to take over. Please keep on doing it, you're entertaining. 

Oh, and don't worry, I have survival storm experience. More than you'll see in your life time...and, No, I'm not going to post my experience just to show you how big is my mast. It's enough to know when you should ask questions instead of shooting off one mouth and belittling people of experience.


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of 'FETCH', as it applies to open ocean swells&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> You guys really should stop trying to analyze the great lakes.. you are totally insulting yourselves..
Click to expand...

You should stop trying to equate the swell that can be generated on Lake Superior with the sort of swell that can exist in the North Atlantic or Pacific, much less the Southern Ocean&#8230; Nor, equating how the 'swell' produced on enclosed bodies of water - no matter how large they might be - that have no significant open water currents, will be identical to the behavior of ocean swells when met by strong ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, Labrador, Aghulas, and so on&#8230;

Yours is not a winning argument, and only serves to indicate how limited your ocean sailing experience must be...


----------



## JonEisberg

BryceGTX said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> 
> Time to put up, or shut up&#8230; Show us how you "quantify" the "Blue Waterness" of any small sailing yacht&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds fair enough..
> 
> I provided a measure of the "rough waterness" of my boat.. according to you.. same as "Blue Waterness" So problem solved. This measure works for any boat. Here, I repeat if for you:
> 
> *We have had our boat in a wide variety of wind and weather that ranged from 0 to 55 knot winds. And some of the worst waves seen in the great lakes. We are often the only boat on the lake(s).. Our boat has exceeded our expectations by a long way!
> 
> The way I see it, our boat will handle the average ocean crossing with no issues based on what we have been through. Given that, how do I "quantify" its "rough water" abilities? Specifically, its ability to handle rough water.
> 
> As a SWAG, a circumnavigation is say 4000 hours (24000/6). And as a worse case, if I am very unlucky, I will see one "survival" storm during that circumnavigation. It appears most voyagers have never seen a survival storm. So clearly one in a circumnavigation is quite a high rate.
> 
> Suppose a survival storm is two days or 48 hours. Just to make numbers even, lets say 40 hours.
> 
> So now my boat may encounter a survival event in 1% (40/4000) of this circumnavigation. So now I, like any other sailor is faced with the choice.. do I spend two or three times more for a boat of the same size for less than 1% (if any) benefit?
> 
> What is even worse, is there appears to be no convincing argument that this boat that costs 3 times more than mine will fair better!!
> 
> So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.*
> 
> Are you saying you do not accept this? However, I am suppose to accept your loosie Goosie definition of a blue water boat? It was you and your blue water sidekicks that seem to agree rough water and blue water are one and the same..
> 
> Seems to me 99% is about as blue water as it gets.. So I guess my boat is blue water.
> Bryce
Click to expand...

_*FAIL*_&#8230; Perhaps not 'Epic', but certainly Laughable&#8230;

You've claimed your ability to 'quantify' the ability of any boat to handle 'Rough Water'&#8230; Yet you have done nothing of the sort, but have only claimed that your particular boat handles rough water, because you have "Been there, done that"&#8230; At best, seems your answer to the question amounts to little more than the suggestion to venture out into rough water, and see what happens, in order to determine the "Rough Waterness" of any particular vessel&#8230; Hardly the "quantifying" formula you have claimed&#8230;

Moreover, you've not even given us a hint as to the particular type of boat you sail, which supposedly serves as your Exhibit A of what constitutes a "Rough Water Boat"&#8230; Any particular reason for your apparent reluctance to do so?


----------



## TomMaine

ianjoub said:


> I don't see the problem with 'disposable' boats. We have 'disposable' cars. It is the way of our world in modern times.


Good analogy. Cars fall apart quickly under regular use. Good ones, bad ones. Boats last longer but go through the same decline.

What makes boats last a long time is often their design more than their construction. If it's a design the market finds appealing after a few decades, they'll last nearly forever as owners lavish them with $$$$.

Take a 50+ year old Hinckley or this 62 year old wooden boat. Still ready to go anywhere, 'cycles' be damned.










On the other hand, if the design doesn't stand the popularity test of a few decades(many don't and there are many to come), they decline quickly. Many of these less appealing boat designs are become floating housing(I'm making no judgements of the owners-everybody needs a home).

They may still be strong hulls, able to go on for decades, but their design has little appeal and the investment to restore them will never come. The next step for these glass boats is a grinder and the landfill Most unpopular old woodies get stripped and burned up. The market is brutal on design.

Decent all around sailboat designs will last a long time(like a few old car designs). Their construction will last beyond that, simple upkeep and $$$. Glass hulls could go for a century???


----------



## Don L

in the end how long a boat lasts is just mostly like whether it is has "limits", it's the owners/people on it


----------



## blt2ski

BryceGTX said:


> Sounds fair enough..
> 
> I provided a measure of the "rough waterness" of my boat.. according to you.. same as "Blue Waterness" So problem solved. This measure works for any boat. Here, I repeat if for you:
> 
> *We have had our boat in a wide variety of wind and weather that ranged from 0 to 55 knot winds. And some of the worst waves seen in the great lakes. We are often the only boat on the lake(s).. Our boat has exceeded our expectations by a long way!
> 
> The way I see it, our boat will handle the average ocean crossing with no issues based on what we have been through. Given that, how do I "quantify" its "rough water" abilities? Specifically, its ability to handle rough water.
> 
> As a SWAG, a circumnavigation is say 4000 hours (24000/6). And as a worse case, if I am very unlucky, I will see one "survival" storm during that circumnavigation. It appears most voyagers have never seen a survival storm. So clearly one in a circumnavigation is quite a high rate.
> 
> Suppose a survival storm is two days or 48 hours. Just to make numbers even, lets say 40 hours.
> 
> So now my boat may encounter a survival event in 1% (40/4000) of this circumnavigation. So now I, like any other sailor is faced with the choice.. do I spend two or three times more for a boat of the same size for less than 1% (if any) benefit?
> 
> What is even worse, is there appears to be no convincing argument that this boat that costs 3 times more than mine will fair better!!
> 
> So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.*
> 
> Are you saying you do not accept this? However, I am suppose to accept your loosie Goosie definition of a blue water boat? It was you and your blue water sidekicks that seem to agree rough water and blue water are one and the same..
> 
> Seems to me 99% is about as blue water as it gets.. So I guess my boat is blue water.
> Bryce


lets see, 8 pm pacific or so you have "JUST" fair enough. Around 11:30 pm pacific, you add all the rest.......hmmmmmmmmmm.......

Wind shift!

marty


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> Good analogy. Cars fall apart quickly under regular use. Good ones, bad ones. Boats last longer but go through the same decline.
> 
> What makes boats last a long time is often their design more than their construction. If it's a design the market finds appealing after a few decades, they'll last nearly forever as owners lavish them with $$$$.
> 
> Take a 50+ year old Hinckley or this 62 year old wooden boat. Still ready to go anywhere, 'cycles' be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if the design doesn't stand the popularity test of a few decades(many don't and there are many to come), they decline quickly. Many of these less appealing boat designs are become floating housing(I'm making no judgements of the owners-everybody needs a home).
> 
> They may still be strong hulls, able to go on for decades, but their design has little appeal and the investment to restore them will never come. The next step for these glass boats is a grinder and the landfill Most unpopular old woodies get stripped and burned up. The market is brutal on design.
> 
> Decent all around sailboat designs will last a long time(like a few old car designs). Their construction will last beyond that, simple upkeep and $$$. Glass hulls could go for a century???


Great post, as usual, Tom&#8230;

As myself and others continue to argue, "Design" is the fundamental starting point of the wide array of "Characteristics" that make certain boats more suitable for offshore sailing than others&#8230; The pics of your Alden and PALAWAN, for instance, are a wonderful illustration of the beauty of wide and clear side decks, for a boat designed to really go places&#8230;

Tom Watson and Sparkman & Stephens understood the value of that particular design element, so his boats were weighted heavily in favor of the trade-off in reduced interior space that usually results from such spacious side decks&#8230; Doesn't take a rocket scientist, in my view, to appreciate such a deck will afford a greater degree of comfort and safety than many much narrower or less secure that are seen on some of today's boats...

)


----------



## outbound

So Len and Lisa go off on their bluewater boat (Boreal, HR, Morris Ocean, Outbound, Bristol, Valiant-take your pick or add one). John and Jean go off in their bang for the buck boat ( J,Bene, Hunter Hanse, - take your pick). What follows is an amalgam of features I noted over 3yrs of boat shopping for my last boat.
First day- Jean gets burnt. Can't find a spot to lead her butt forming a stable triangle while cooking. John get 2nd degree burns on his fingers making coffee. There's a single big sink but its shallow so he can't wedge things in a the sink to pour hot water. Its way off the center line so things splash and the cup is overturned.
First night- The Js have 9 bunks. Two nice doubles aft, a huge center island queen, and the settees with the one around the table becoming a double. None work as they are far reaching and as the boat corkscrews they go flying around. So they sleep on the sole. The Ls have a quarter berth double with bungle board, settee berths with leeclothes. The Island queen stays empty except downwind. They sleep like babies.
Second day- John needs to go forward to clear a sheet. There's no good place to secure their dinghy . Their coach house is smooth and curvy. Pretty as can be but to secure the dinghy it end up high on the foredeck. He grabs a stanchion. A growler comes by and nearly jerks him off his feet. He's 250 so the stanchion bends. Unfortunately the water tightness of its support is lost. With each passing of green water is dripping into the electronics box in the nav station. No one sees it. They lose their master Multisystem display. The Ls boat was designed to have secure points in cockpit with Minnie jacklines and secure jacklines with dedicated attachment points. They have no issue.
Second night - The Ls boat has a grating at the base of the companion way draining into the bilge. The companion way is raised off the cockpit sole. Beyond doors it has washboards that insert. There is a head just to the right of the companionway. It has a separate shower room to dump foulies in. The Js have none of that. They take off their foulies sitting on settees/berths. Now those are all salt impregnated. Salt is very hydroscopic so they are all wet. The sole is getting really scratched. Every time they go below they drip on it. With nowhere to drain it slops around coating the whole thing. 
Third day- John broke a finger. He is so stressed he doesn't know if occurred bouncing across their huge cockpit ( is was great for drinks with Chas and Bunny) or hitting the saloon locker when he slid across trying to miss his bride sleeping on the sole. Their are no good handholds down below. 
Third night-The Js have a sloop. The Ls have a ( solent with inner stay for storm jib, cutter, double headed ketch - pick one). The wind is picking up. The Js roll the genny up but its shape stinks. They can't point and off wind the leach flutters. It rips. They also have that stay so try to get the storm jib that is said to be able to go around it. Its torture. They are sleepless, bruised and tired. They give up and go to bare poles. The Ls are nicely rolling along under two rolls of the solent and double reefed main. When it picks up triple reefed main and storm jib.
Fourth day- the junk in the bottom of the fuel tank has gotten churned up. The Js only have one fuel tank. They didn't want to break the lines of the boat so no wind or solar generators. They have a genset set but the raocor is fouled. They need the batteries for their electric head ( no second manual one) and communications. The Ls have 4 fuel and 2 water tanks. They also have wind and solar. There are double racors on the engines. No issues. The Js batteries go down. They turn off the Ap and hand steer. They are getting really worn out.
I could go on but still have chores.
Smack go to a boat show. Walk through current boats in production. With your experience it is real obvious which boats are viable places to live offshore and which are not. Noticed in the above there was no storm no dramatic event just the usual activities of daily living you can expect offshore.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BryceGTX said:


> No.. it is an excellent place to start.. the key word that seemed to escape your eye was *start*


Not at all, on both counts. Mr. Brewer's comfort ratio (CR) presupposes the answer. As mitiempo pointed out, weight in inappropriate places that will demonstrably decrease comfort increases CR. Like your own, the CR is an example of circular reasoning in which one assumes an answer and selects the analysis that leads to that answer.



BryceGTX said:


> Clearly, such a discussion must start somewhere.. and *WEIGHT (THE NUMERATOR TERM) * is a great place to start.


Thousands of years of naval architects started with a hull form. Displacement is addressed later. Of course (you do know this don't you?) there is a design spiral, and has been for centuries.



BryceGTX said:


> Seems not only do you not know how to classify these boats, you are not willing to listen to a discussion that will accomplish that.


You appear to be fixated on your own argument and are yourself not listening.



BryceGTX said:


> Anyone familiar with dynamics clearly recognizes the significance of moment of inertia in its resistance to acceleration. I take it you are in no way shape or form familiar with dynamics.


*sigh* I am quite familiar with dynamics.



BryceGTX said:


> In such a case, I recommend you listen rather than vocalize.


Well that is quite civil of you, isn't it?



BryceGTX said:


> As a SWAG, a circumnavigation is say 4000 hours (24000/6). And as a worse case, if I am very unlucky, I will see one "survival" storm during that circumnavigation. It appears most voyagers have never seen a survival storm. So clearly one in a circumnavigation is quite a high rate.
> 
> Suppose a survival storm is two days or 48 hours. Just to make numbers even, lets say 40 hours.
> 
> So now my boat may encounter a survival event in 1% (40/4000) of this circumnavigation. So now I, like any other sailor is faced with the choice.. do I spend two or three times more for a boat of the same size for less than 1% (if any) benefit?


You are making numbers up with no substantiation. There is a lot of peer-reviewed literature on this, and a good bit of consistent anecdotal data.



BryceGTX said:


> So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.[/b]


Risk management (which is what we are talking about here) requires consideration of both probability and impact. If not for impact there is no statistical reason to carry a life raft or an EPIRB. Let's also not forget statistical significance, starting with validating the appropriate distribution of data.



BryceGTX said:


> Seems to me 99% is about as blue water as it gets.. So I guess my boat is blue water.


I guess your goal is to justify your selection of your boat.



BryceGTX said:


> You are concerned about my forum etiquette.. but yet Bub's initial post is good etiquette???? His question was a rhetorical question meant to insult. It required no answer.


On the contrary, you opened that door by saying you are a practicing engineer. "What kind?" is a perfectly reasonable question. As a digression, I'm still looking for a civil engineer with a specialty in saturated soils for a SNAME paper I've been noodling with for some time.



TomMaine said:


> What makes boats last a long time is often their design more than their construction. If it's a design the market finds appealing after a few decades, they'll last nearly forever as owners lavish them with $$$$.
> 
> Take a 50+ year old Hinckley or this 62 year old wooden boat. Still ready to go anywhere, 'cycles' be damned.


Actually cycles are cared for as a maintenance item. Rerig? Relevant structure gets the cycle count reset. Retab a bulkhead? The same. Replace engine mounts? Replace the gooseneck? New anchor, chain, and windlass? All reset the load cycles for that equipment. At some point something really fundamental will reach the end of its service life and the owner will make a cost/benefit decision to stop pouring money into it. Wooden and metal boats are easier to extend hull life since localized repair is straightforward. When fiberglass hulls begin to delaminate over broad areas (which takes a long long time as a general matter) it is pretty expensive to fix.

My conclusion BryceGTX is that you are working well outside your areas of expertise. You appear to have drawn a line in the sand around a position that cannot be defended.

By the way, since you seem to think that because I have not endured heavy weather in the Great Lakes I am not qualified to judge the relationship between the Lakes and the oceans (despite having crossed oceans and experienced quite significant weather, and accumulated a great deal of experience on estuaries (like Chesapeake Bay, San Fransisco Bay, and Long Island Sound) and seas like the Skagerrak, North Sea, and Solent/English Channel)), you again open the door to the question of just what experience you base your statements on, since science and engineering are clearly not their basis.

I expect you will respond in your demonstrated fashion. If you are civil I will cede the last word to you.


----------



## jorgenl

outbound said:


> So Len and Lisa go off on their bluewater boat (Boreal, HR, Morris Ocean, Outbound, Bristol, Valiant-take your pick or add one). John and Jean go off in their bang for the buck boat ( J,Bene, Hunter Hanse, - take your pick). What follows is an amalgam of features I noted over 3yrs of boat shopping for my last boat.
> First day- Jean gets burnt. Can't find a spot to lead her butt forming a stable triangle while cooking. John get 2nd degree burns on his fingers making coffee. There's a single big sink but its shallow so he can't wedge things in a the sink to pour hot water. Its way off the center line so things splash and the cup is overturned.
> First night- The Js have 9 bunks. Two nice doubles aft, a huge center island queen, and the settees with the one around the table becoming a double. None work as they are far reaching and as the boat corkscrews they go flying around. So they sleep on the sole. The Ls have a quarter berth double with bungle board, settee berths with leeclothes. The Island queen stays empty except downwind. They sleep like babies.
> Second day- John needs to go forward to clear a sheet. There's no good place to secure their dinghy . Their coach house is smooth and curvy. Pretty as can be but to secure the dinghy it end up high on the foredeck. He grabs a stanchion. A growler comes by and nearly jerks him off his feet. He's 250 so the stanchion bends. Unfortunately the water tightness of its support is lost. With each passing of green water is dripping into the electronics box in the nav station. No one sees it. They lose their master Multisystem display. The Ls boat was designed to have secure points in cockpit with Minnie jacklines and secure jacklines with dedicated attachment points. They have no issue.
> Second night - The Ls boat has a grating at the base of the companion way draining into the bilge. The companion way is raised off the cockpit sole. Beyond doors it has washboards that insert. There is a head just to the right of the companionway. It has a separate shower room to dump foulies in. The Js have none of that. They take off their foulies sitting on settees/berths. Now those are all salt impregnated. Salt is very hydroscopic so they are all wet. The sole is getting really scratched. Every time they go below they drip on it. With nowhere to drain it slops around coating the whole thing.
> Third day- John broke a finger. He is so stressed he doesn't know if occurred bouncing across their huge cockpit ( is was great for drinks with Chas and Bunny) or hitting the saloon locker when he slid across trying to miss his bride sleeping on the sole. Their are no good handholds down below.
> Third night-The Js have a sloop. The Ls have a ( solent with inner stay for storm jib, cutter, double headed ketch - pick one). The wind is picking up. The Js roll the genny up but its shape stinks. They can't point and off wind the leach flutters. It rips. They also have that stay so try to get the storm jib that is said to be able to go around it. Its torture. They are sleepless, bruised and tired. They give up and go to bare poles. The Ls are nicely rolling along under two rolls of the solent and double reefed main. When it picks up triple reefed main and storm jib.
> Fourth day- the junk in the bottom of the fuel tank has gotten churned up. The Js only have one fuel tank. They didn't want to break the lines of the boat so no wind or solar generators. They have a genset set but the raocor is fouled. They need the batteries for their electric head ( no second manual one) and communications. The Ls have 4 fuel and 2 water tanks. They also have wind and solar. There are double racors on the engines. No issues. The Js batteries go down. They turn off the Ap and hand steer. They are getting really worn out.
> I could go on but still have chores.
> Smack go to a boat show. Walk through current boats in production. With your experience it is real obvious which boats are viable places to live offshore and which are not. Noticed in the above there was no storm no dramatic event just the usual activities of daily living you can expect offshore.


Outbound.

1. How does a secure galley have anything to do with whether the boat is a "production" or not? I have been on a lot of boats (including Outbound 44/46 and the 52), and a Valiant, Passport galley is/was no more secure that the galley on my Catalina 400. Period.
Looking at the layout of the outbound 46 galley it looks nearly identical to the C400 except it is on the port rather than starboard side.

2. Whether a boat have one or two sinks and depth of the sinks have nothing to do with "production" or "bluewater". The C400 had two sinks, as deep as the one on the Valiant (from memory).

3. Does your Outbound come standard with lee cloth? It is an easy job to add lee cloth to a C400, the salon setup is similar to the outbound (mirror image) and the settee is likely about as long wide and straight as an outbound settee. The difference is that while at anchor, I got to enjoy a near king size queen berth.

4. My C400 had a pretty decent bridge deck, smallish companion way opening and wash boards (no door). Difference?

5. Yes - separate shower stall near companion way for foulies.

I get you argument about inner forestay and somewhat that of multiple fuel tanks. If you keep the tanks clean (easier on a newer boat than on a 40 year old leaky teaky?) As long as the tank is clean installation of couple of racors (similar to the fuel boss system) should do the job?

What I'm trying to say is that the old arguments about insecure galleys, no handholds, no lee cloth/seaberth, companion way doors are just that - old.

All that said, I agree that some boats are better built than others? Of course! I would rather own a new(ish) HR or Outbound than a Catalina 400.
But I would rather own a Catalina 400 than some 40 year old design.

If I was doing the islands (again) I would much rather be on a C400 than on a Valiant or Tayana 37. Better accommodation. larger cockpit. Faster (maybe, depends on the sailor) boat. No teak. Wide side decks. Etc.

If I was crossing oceans, I'd buy an Amel.


----------



## outbound

J- I said before and I will say again the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. Multiple posts by me and others have pointed out other than the very rare one offs ALL BOATS under discussion are production boats. 
I continue to point out some boats by initial design and execution are better suited to a life at sea and others for coastal cruising. I'm delighted you feel your production boat is suitable to a life at sea. My production boat ( and several others) was designed and is actively marketed as an offshore boat. Hundreds if not thousands of little and some big details go into that. Some would require significant mods like can you rapidly rig running backstays up if the usual backstay fails, are there multiple forestays with some at or below the attachment of the runners. Did the mast come with fittings for this and a trysail.
I just pointed out features I've seen at recent boat shows which would worry me if I intended to take that production boat offshore. 
I wanted to move the conversation not only to include survivability but also to include how uncomfortable life can be on a boat not originally designed for offshore service. Things like absence of a secure place to store tools and work on things. Offshore boats give up things. In general there are no expansive spaces. They are cluttered given handholds and latches. Berths by intention can be made narrow and secure but difficult for a romp with your sweetie. Storage compartments are small, latched and a PIA when at anchor or in a slip. Heating requires more than the reverse AC of the slip queen. Some current boats would require mounts in the overhead to secure leecloths.
BTW all the features you mention were on my boat when I took delivery. Its a lot cheaper and better to do these things in original build than to retrofit.
Seems folks ( self included) are always referring to their own vessels. That's fine. Given I agree some production boats are suitable I just wanted to point out some are not. I also aim most of my comments to boats currently in production as I also continue to feel newer boats are more likely to have construction features which are the better mousetrap and you are less likely to inherit hidden faults ( that's from experience). I also want to point out there is in my view a greater divergence between these classes in current boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bryce - I just want to thank you for taking some of the heat off of me.

From one Sanitary Engineer to another - thanks, brother.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Great post, as usual, Tom&#8230;
> 
> As myself and others continue to argue, "Design" is the fundamental starting point of the wide array of "Characteristics" that make certain boats more suitable for offshore sailing than others&#8230; The pics of your Alden and PALAWAN, for instance, are a wonderful illustration of the beauty of wide and clear side decks, for a boat designed to really go places&#8230;
> 
> Tom Watson and Sparkman & Stephens understood the value of that particular design element, so his boats were weighted heavily in favor of the trade-off in reduced interior space that usually results from such spacious side decks&#8230; Doesn't take a rocket scientist, in my view, to appreciate such a deck will afford a greater degree of comfort and safety than many much narrower or less secure that are seen on some of today's boats...
> 
> )


That's why all those people are sitting outside the boat instead of being cramped inside a tiny, hot salon.

My Hunter has both wide side decks and a very roomy salon with AC and a bitchin' entertainment system. Oh, and my boat's faster.

I win.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> That's why all those people are sitting outside the boat instead of being cramped inside a tiny, hot salon.
> 
> My Hunter has both wide side decks and a very roomy salon with AC and a bitchin' entertainment system. Oh, an my boat's faster.
> 
> I win.


What's wrong with cramped, tiny steamy interior spaces???

I like my tiny cramped hot steamy SAUNA! Being cramped just means I need to be more cozy with the University of Finland Nudist Club members. They have a standing invitation to my boat you see... 

MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> So Len and Lisa go off on their bluewater boat (Boreal, HR, Morris Ocean, Outbound, Bristol, Valiant-take your pick or add one). John and Jean go off in their bang for the buck boat ( J,Bene, Hunter Hanse, - take your pick). What follows is an amalgam of features I noted over 3yrs of boat shopping for my last boat.
> First day- Jean gets burnt. Can't find a spot to lead her butt forming a stable triangle while cooking. John get 2nd degree burns on his fingers making coffee. There's a single big sink but its shallow so he can't wedge things in a the sink to pour hot water. Its way off the center line so things splash and the cup is overturned.


If they are on my Hunter - none of this happens:









If they are on this Morris - everything you just mentioned happens (with a tiny allowance for a little better sink configuration than you describe):











outbound said:


> First night- The Js have 9 bunks. Two nice doubles aft, a huge center island queen, and the settees with the one around the table becoming a double. None work as they are far reaching and as the boat corkscrews they go flying around. So they sleep on the sole.


Then the Js are kind of stupid if they immediately hit the sole:

Here is the salon of my Hunter:









I have a lee cloth for the port setee, and we lower the table and stack lashed cushions on the open side of the starboard bed against the compression post (might add a lee cloth - don't know yet). And we have the v-berth. Up to 5 people in very secure sleeping arrangements of various comfort levels.

Here's the salon of the Morris:











outbound said:


> The Ls have a quarter berth double with bungle board, settee berths with leeclothes. The Island queen stays empty except downwind. They sleep like babies.


Again, so do we. And so could the Js if they were on our production boat. The L's centerline queen is in the v-berth, ours is in the aft cabin. Apart from that. No difference whatsoever...well except for that fact that our aft cabin is far more spacious and comfortable - even under way (we can stack sailbags etc. to keep us from rolling). So we're up to 7 sleepers now - they're still at 5.

Poor Ls. Should have bought a Hunter.



outbound said:


> Second day- John needs to go forward to clear a sheet. There's no good place to secure their dinghy . Their coach house is smooth and curvy. Pretty as can be but to secure the dinghy it end up high on the foredeck. He grabs a stanchion. A growler comes by and nearly jerks him off his feet. He's 250 so the stanchion bends. Unfortunately the water tightness of its support is lost. With each passing of green water is dripping into the electronics box in the nav station. No one sees it. They lose their master Multisystem display. The Ls boat was designed to have secure points in cockpit with Minnie jacklines and secure jacklines with dedicated attachment points. They have no issue.


Okay - you have to do better than this. This is just user error. We have jacklines on our Hunter and all lines run to the cockpit. The Js just need to quit being stupid.

Oh, and we have an inflatable dinghy that we keep down below while underway. I believe in keeping our decks as clear as possible. It's safer. But that's not boat design, that's personal choice between safety and convenience.

So this example is a bit of a fail.



outbound said:


> Second night - The Ls boat has a grating at the base of the companion way draining into the bilge. The companion way is raised off the cockpit sole. Beyond doors it has washboards that insert. There is a head just to the right of the companionway. It has a separate shower room to dump foulies in. The Js have none of that. They take off their foulies sitting on settees/berths. Now those are all salt impregnated. Salt is very hydroscopic so they are all wet. The sole is getting really scratched. Every time they go below they drip on it. With nowhere to drain it slops around coating the whole thing.


They should have bought my Hunter.











outbound said:


> Third day- John broke a finger. He is so stressed he doesn't know if occurred bouncing across their huge cockpit ( is was great for drinks with Chas and Bunny) or hitting the saloon locker when he slid across trying to miss his bride sleeping on the sole. Their are no good handholds down below.


They should have bought my Hunter. Plenty of cockpit security and interior handholds.











outbound said:


> Third night-The Js have a sloop. The Ls have a ( solent with inner stay for storm jib, cutter, double headed ketch - pick one). The wind is picking up. The Js roll the genny up but its shape stinks. They can't point and off wind the leach flutters. It rips. They also have that stay so try to get the storm jib that is said to be able to go around it. Its torture. They are sleepless, bruised and tired. They give up and go to bare poles. The Ls are nicely rolling along under two rolls of the solent and double reefed main. When it picks up triple reefed main and storm jib.


Sail shape doesn't matter much to me in big wind. Area matters. The Js obviously didn't reduce their head sail enough for the conditions. Then immediately going bare poles and not using a reefed main for some stability? Not smart. These problems are pretty easily avoidable. They'll learn after they pay for new sails a couple of times.

At least they didn't have to head forward on a pitching deck in rough seas to hoist a storm sail on the inner stay. I've done that - on a bluewater Pacific Seacraft 37. It's sketchy.



outbound said:


> Fourth day- the junk in the bottom of the fuel tank has gotten churned up. The Js only have one fuel tank. They didn't want to break the lines of the boat so no wind or solar generators. They have a genset set but the raocor is fouled. They need the batteries for their electric head ( no second manual one) and communications. The Ls have 4 fuel and 2 water tanks. They also have wind and solar. There are double racors on the engines. No issues. The Js batteries go down. They turn off the Ap and hand steer. They are getting really worn out.


I'll definitely give the Ls' boat the nod for more fuel tankage. That's definitely handy, and saves having to carry jerry cans like we do.

But everything else you mention is just poor maintenance. So how does boat design and construction have anything to do with this again?



outbound said:


> Smack go to a boat show. Walk through current boats in production. With your experience it is real obvious which boats are viable places to live offshore and which are not. Noticed in the above there was no storm no dramatic event just the usual activities of daily living you can expect offshore.


Yes - but here's the problem. Apart from tankage, there is very little difference in your listed features between my Hunter and the Morris. _*Everything else*_ you lay out in your examples is poor seamanship. So how exactly is _any _of that the boat's fault? Answer: it's not. The boat has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And that is the point of this entire thread. Apart from the fuel capacity, your Ls would likely be very happy on my Hunter (unless they were gullible and just bought all the forum hype about production boats). Of course, we like to sail instead of motor and we don't mind a couple of solar panels to keep our bank topped off. It sounds like the Ls prefer motoring. So they might be a little miffed at having to sail more. But nothing's perfect.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> What's wrong with cramped, tiny steamy interior spaces???
> 
> I like my tiny cramped hot steamy SAUNA! Being cramped just means I need to be more cozy with the University of Finland Nudist Club members. They have a standing invitation to my boat you see...
> 
> MedSailor


If it's packed with Finish chicks - it's absolutely a win.

I'm trying to figure out how to mount a basketball goal on our compression post to out-do you. A boat with a _gym_ baby.


----------



## outbound

So Smack we are in the "my boat" frame of mind. O.K. Both you and J don't speak to the issue that a boat optimized for coastal sailing is different ( not better or worse) than a boat optimized for offshore. This is not referencing hull strength. In some important respects the offshore boat is worse than the coastal boat for coastal living.
Have 3 couples over for dinner. As is typical unless its raining sit in the cockpit. Only 4 can sit at the table. Rest need to balance their plates on their laps and sit on coaming or behind the helm. They came off a Shannon, a valiant, another outbound. It was not mentioned but clearly less comfortable than many current and smaller coastal cruisers.
Still offshore sitting on one side of the cockpit you can brace yourself with your legs on the opposite seat.
Have two couples who want a weekend cruise. Both are available for the same weekend. Couples like to sleep together and be private. Even some of the 36' coastal boats have doubles aft and a queen forward so no issue. You have to go to a very large ocean boat to get 3 staterooms.
Does anyone else want to accept what I think is obvious. There are coastal production boats optimized for coastal cruising and offshore production boats optimized for ocean passagemaking. The optimization has advanced to a point that for current boats in production the divergence is quite evident.
Once again in my mind this is not about your boat v my boat. ( although I think my boat is likely more comfortable and livable off shore ** grin}) Nor is it about production v one off. Its about is the boat optimized for its intended function.


----------



## TomMaine

smackdaddy said:


> I win.


You do win as far as I'm concerned. I don't think your boat has limits, or a certain number of 'cycles' to use up. People cross oceans in canoes.

I think the capability is all in who is sailing(or paddling).

Once you're comfortable with your own limits, then it's easy to decide if your boat is the right one for what you want to do.

If I decided to take on sailing around the world(not for me), the boat I'd chose would have no resemblance to what I enjoy for coastal sailing in New England.

The two ideas(coastal-globe girlding) are so different from my perspective that the right boat to do one- would be the wrong boat to do the other.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> So Smack we are in the "my boat" frame of mind. O.K. Both you and J don't speak to the issue that a boat optimized for coastal sailing is different ( not better or worse) than a boat optimized for offshore. This is not referencing hull strength. In some important respects the offshore boat is worse than the coastal boat for coastal living.
> Have 3 couples over for dinner. As is typical unless its raining sit in the cockpit. Only 4 can sit at the table. Rest need to balance their plates on their laps and sit on coaming or behind the helm. They came off a Shannon, a valiant, another outbound. It was not mentioned but clearly less comfortable than many current and smaller coastal cruisers.
> Still offshore sitting on one side of the cockpit you can brace yourself with your legs on the opposite seat.
> Have two couples who want a weekend cruise. Both are available for the same weekend. Couples like to sleep together and be private. Even some of the 36' coastal boats have doubles aft and a queen forward so no issue. You have to go to a very large ocean boat to get 3 staterooms.
> Does anyone else want to accept what I think is obvious. There are coastal production boats optimized for coastal cruising and offshore production boats optimized for ocean passagemaking. The optimization has advanced to a point that for current boats in production the divergence is quite evident.
> Once again in my mind this is not about your boat v my boat. ( although I think my boat is likely more comfortable and livable off shore ** grin}) Nor is it about production v one off. Its about is the boat optimized for its intended function.


The stark reality is that all the bluewater people want to come over and get drunk in the _comfy salons of our production boats_ while we're all at anchor in these exotic locales...because their tiny salons suck. We just grin and bear it while they talk about how great their boat is. Poor bastards. They forget we're both at the same anchorage.

I know what you're saying in terms of design, out, new vs. old, old vs. old, new vs. new - it gets jumbled. I just don't think there is as stark a difference as most people try to make between boat designs. If we go by your list of features, my Hunter, overall, is better than the pictured Morris. So that must make it bluewater/offshore capable from a design standpoint, right? I believe that to be true to large degree. _Not completely_ - but to a large degree.

So it's just about the boat you choose (production or otherwise) for the way you want to sail. Nothing more.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> My Hunter has both wide side decks and a very roomy salon with AC and a bitchin' entertainment system.


No reason any boat cannot strike a reasonable balance, and have both&#8230; Unfortunately, that balance has become skewed in many cases today, with boats being designed around their interiors, and the ergonomics of decks and cockpits suffering as a result...



smackdaddy said:


> Oh, and my boat's faster.
> 
> I win.


Well, I would't be so sure about that&#8230; In the right conditions, that skinny old S&S Design #991 might easily chew your beamy Hunter right up, and spit her right out&#8230;














smackdaddy said:


> The stark reality is that all the bluewater people want to come over and get drunk in the _comfy salons of our production boats_ while we're all at anchor in these exotic locales...because their tiny salons suck. We just grin and bear it while they talk about how great their boat is. Poor bastards. They forget we're both at the same anchorage.


You might want to wait until you actually make it to one of those "exotic locales" before advancing such a claim, no?


----------



## Bene505

Having kept up with this thread, I'd like to ask about one of the difficult-to-change factors just to get it clear in my own mind. This is to get away from modifications that you can make to get a boat more ready.

From the standpoint of just the base boat, not things like handholds or jack line tie points that you can add later... from the standpoint of the base boat, what is the **property and scenario** that you think of, when thinking about whether your boat is good enough to cross ocean?

Is it hull strength -- falling off a wave and hitting hard?

Is it deck strength -- taking a breaking wave down onto the deck? 

Is it hull-deck joint -- flexing in square seas until the joint leaks?

What is it? -- What scenario?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I would't be so sure about that&#8230; In the right conditions, that skinny old S&S Design #991 might easily chew your beamy Hunter right up, and spit her right out&#8230;


That's true I suppose. But in the right conditions a liferaft can chew up your boat and spit her right out too. Like when you're dismasted and half sunk.

I just mean every day sailing.



JonEisberg said:


> You might want to wait until you actually make it to one of those "exotic locales" before advancing such a claim, no?


Hey, I've sailed on the Hudson River in a production boat. What do you want from me?!?!?!


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Does anyone else want to accept what I think is obvious. There are coastal production boats optimized for coastal cruising and offshore production boats optimized for ocean passage making. The optimization has advanced to a point that for current boats in production the divergence is quite evident.
> .


I accept this but don't really feel there is much "divergence is quite evident". In fact I would bet there is little demand for a cruising boat that is at the far end of the "offshore" end of design. I know for me a cruising boat is about a LOT more than long passages as I want to explore not just sail, and that involves live aboard considerations.

But the thread is about production boats (and in this people are really taking the B/C/H boats); depending on the model nothing is stopping one from getting one and sailing pretty much anywhere one would want to go. Granted there are some crazy people who chose to sail in the extremes and also try to laugh in the face of the weather Gods, lets just let them do it and die and be done with them instead of trying to say they are setting the requirement standard.

My position is that I say that not ALL B/C/H boats should be taken off shore, but that some can be. On the other hand the anti production boat people aren't likely to ever admit any of the B/C/H boats are worthy.

Lets stop talking "production boats" as a boat brands as that is a waste of time. Talk about "production boat" models instead.

BTW - I love the Outbound 46 layout as about as perfect for a couple as you could hope for, but don't feel it is the perfect off shore passage making one.


----------



## jorgenl

JonEisberg said:


> You might want to wait until you actually make it to one of those "exotic locales" before advancing such a claim, no?


Well,

I have been to a somewhat exotic locale, the Bahamas, and I can tell you that no one, and I mean no one headed to the cockpit of the Tayana 37's for sundowners. They all came to our big ass cockpit as it was easy to enter via the swim platform, more comfortable to sit in, and in addition the food and wine was better ;-)


----------



## jorgenl

outbound said:


> So Smack we are in the "my boat" frame of mind. O.K. Both you and J don't speak to the issue that a boat optimized for coastal sailing is different ( not better or worse) than a boat optimized for offshore. .


Assuming that you are referring to me as J, I totally agree with you that some boats are more optimized for offshore work.

I just think that the arguments that you use;

Insecure galley
No handholds
no seaberths
no lea cloth
narrow side decks
etc

are not very good.

I think Smack illustrated that somewhat with his Hunter vs Morris example.

I think that there are other things that are differentiating boats that are better built and more optimized for offshore work.


----------



## Don L

jorgenl said:


> I think Smack illustrated that somewhat with his Hunter vs Morris example.


And that Morris looked to be the older Offshore 46 (nice boat). That model has been replaced with the Ocean 45RS or 48GT, which have a modern flatter bottom, wider stern, a bolted fin keel, and a spade rudder 

Those production boat guys are always cutting corners :laugher


----------



## JonEisberg

jorgenl said:


> Well,
> 
> I have been to a somewhat exotic locale, the Bahamas, and I can tell you that no one, and I mean no one headed to the cockpit of the Tayana 37's for sundowners. They all came to our big ass cockpit as it was easy to enter via the swim platform, more comfortable to sit in, and in addition the food and wine was better ;-)


Hell, we all know those folks who sail Tayana 37s and the like are an ornery bunch, to begin with&#8230; 

Without a doubt, I would have _LOVED_ the opportunity this summer to have stretched out and partied in the living room, or on the back porch, aboard the latest and greatest SenseBoat, or equivalent Plastic Fantastic&#8230;

Only problem was, I never encountered a _SINGLE_ production boat, in the 2000 miles I covered beyond Cape Breton on my little tub, age 44 and counting&#8230;


----------



## Andrew65

I offer the Hallberg-Rassy line as a production boat. They don't seem too bad. What's your general opinions?


----------



## SVAuspicious

Bene505 said:


> From the standpoint of just the base boat, not things like handholds or jack line tie points that you can add later... from the standpoint of the base boat, what is the **property and scenario** that you think of, when thinking about whether your boat is good enough to cross ocean?
> 
> Is it hull strength -- falling off a wave and hitting hard?
> 
> Is it deck strength -- taking a breaking wave down onto the deck?
> 
> Is it hull-deck joint -- flexing in square seas until the joint leaks?
> 
> What is it? -- What scenario?


Yes. *grin*



Andrew65 said:


> I offer the Hallberg-Rassy line as a production boat. They don't seem too bad. What's your general opinions?


HR makes production boats (they call them semi-custom). There are limited structural options. There are more but still limited outfit options. There are furniture choices but you can't move outside the bounds of what is offered. When I visited the factory during the construction of my boat it was very clear that they use all the best practices of program management and small volume manufacturing.

Great boat. I love it. It is the result of high quality production methods.


----------



## Andrew65

...and out of my price range I'm sad to say. The HR36 is a nice one. They are very popular here.


----------



## JonEisberg

Andrew65 said:


> I offer the Hallberg-Rassy line as a production boat. They don't seem too bad. What's your general opinions?


My experience on an H-R is limited to a single trip, running 43 up from Trinidad to Annapolis&#8230;

Dave is right. I was _VERY_ impressed, she trucked along like a freight train, very impressive performance under sail. Probably the most comfortable, least fatiguing boat of her size I have ever sailed offshore, that guy German Frers seems to know what he's doing&#8230; In terms of over all build quality, pretty much as good as a production boat gets today, in my opinion&#8230;

One of the few center cockpit boats I'd ever consider owning, if I could ever afford one, of course&#8230; Any of the newer aft cockpit H-Rs, the 34, 37, and 41, would all be on my short list of Dream Boats in any of those size ranges&#8230;

Simply wonderful boats, they come as close to checking all the right boxes as just about any production builder out there today, IMHO&#8230;

Only problem is, I'd want mine in black&#8230;


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Simply wonderful boats, they come as close to checking all the right boxes as just about any production builder out there today, IMHO&#8230;


Nothing is perfect of course. I have my issues with the boats. Interestingly my biggest frustration is the stupid Mobella/Southco cabinet latches. Lots of manufacturers use them and they fail way too often.


----------



## copacabana

SVAuspicious said:


> Nothing is perfect of course. I have my issues with the boats. Interestingly my biggest frustration is the stupid Mobella/Southco cabinet latches. Lots of manufacturers use them and they fail way too often.


Ausp, if your biggest issue is the latches, I'd say you've got a pretty good boat!


----------



## killarney_sailor

Your reasoning just does not make sense in a lot of ways. Some comments.



BryceGTX said:


> Sounds fair enough..
> 
> *We have had our boat in a wide variety of wind and weather that ranged from 0 to 55 knot winds. And some of the worst waves seen in the great lakes. We are often the only boat on the lake(s).. Our boat has exceeded our expectations by a long way!
> 
> I know you rejected my Great Lakes experience because apparently I never went out in more than 15 knots, but the fact that your boat exceeded your expectations is largely irrelevant because it depends on how high your expectations are. Also the fact that you once saw 55 knots in a squall is not remotely the same as being on an ocean passage for a few weeks where the winds are 30 to 40+ knots all the time and the waves never drop below 15 feet. Short of being caught in something really nasty at higher latitudes, this is the real testing condition for boat and crew.
> 
> The way I see it, our boat will handle the average ocean crossing with no issues based on what we have been through. Given that, how do I "quantify" its "rough water" abilities? Specifically, its ability to handle rough water.
> 
> You don't have to quantify it - just go and do it. Either it works or it doesn't work. In actual fact, just about every boat will fall somewhere on the continuum between not a problem and it sinks.
> 
> As a SWAG, a circumnavigation is say 4000 hours (24000/6). And as a worse case, if I am very unlucky, I will see one "survival" storm during that circumnavigation. It appears most voyagers have never seen a survival storm. So clearly one in a circumnavigation is quite a high rate.
> 
> Suppose a survival storm is two days or 48 hours. Just to make numbers even, lets say 40 hours.
> 
> I could quibble about your assumptions - the circumference of the world is a bit more than your estimate and you don't get to go in a straight line. Our circumnavigation was 33,000 miles, which is pretty typical but it is about 30% longer than your estimate. Also, you would be doing well if you could maintain a 6 knot average for the entire trip. This is 144 miles a day, which is quite a bit higher than most people would expect. Our boat is probably about average size (45') and average speed (people used to race them seriously back in the day. In trade wind conditions we use 120 mile days for planning and hope to do better. We will average >144 in good trade winds. Many boats plan on the basis of 100 mile days (4+ knots). Little boats are happy to do that much. Also, you are not always in the trades. Some people going Galapagos-Marquesas find it hard to get into the trades. We know one extreme case of a boat that took 96 days from Panama to Tahiti. They hated to motor but were not aggressive enough to get far enough south to get trades.
> 
> So now my boat may encounter a survival event in 1% (40/4000) of this circumnavigation. So now I, like any other sailor is faced with the choice.. do I spend two or three times more for a boat of the same size for less than 1% (if any) benefit?
> 
> The real issue, as others have mentioned, is not the survival storm, whatever the hell that is. Good routing and care should keep you out of those. If you go Mauritius-South Africa in December you will get a pasting but you won't die unless you are particularly stupid or unlucky. If you tried that route in June there would be a pretty decent chance that you could die.
> 
> What is even worse, is there appears to be no convincing argument that this boat that costs 3 times more than mine will fair better!!
> 
> It would help if you mentioned what boat comparison you are making. If your boat is $100K I don't know if spending $300k would make much of a difference. If you spent $1.4 million (new Amel for example) it might. if it is about spending $100,000 you can go in a variety of directions in terms of age and size. You pay your money and make your choice.
> 
> So now the number for my boat is it will handle 99% of what the ocean has to offer in terms of "rough water". The other 1% is only an unknown, rather than a number that indicates the boat cannot handle it.*
> 
> You don't know if your boat can handle 99% of what the ocean will bring - that is poorly speculation on your part. Back to me point above. You gain nothing by talking about it. Either you try it and let us know how it worked out or stop pretending that you know all the stuff that you pontificate about.
> 
> Are you saying you do not accept this? However, I am suppose to accept your loosie Goosie definition of a blue water boat? It was you and your blue water sidekicks that seem to agree rough water and blue water are one and the same..
> 
> Seems to me 99% is about as blue water as it gets.. So I guess my boat is blue water.
> Bryce


I could care less about semantic games. Everyone has their own idea about whether their boat can handle condition X. I know my boat can handle tens of thousands of miles crossing oceans with an acceptable level of safety and comfort - not because of my experience on the Great Lakes or because I read a bunch of blogs, but because we just did it. Would I be comfortable doing it again? We have bought new main and genoa and new dodger and bimini. Have to do a serious bottom paint and replace all the bearings and bushing in the Monitor. Probably should get the engine looked at a bit. Give me a month or two and we could head off again with reasoned confidence. Probably not on the agenda though, although the Admiral is making noises about Europe.

We seem to have a lot of internet experts here who are quite happy to argue with the guys who have actually done the stuff that is being talking about.


----------



## killarney_sailor

jorgenl said:


> Well,
> 
> I have been to a somewhat exotic locale, the Bahamas, and I can tell you that no one, and I mean no one headed to the cockpit of the Tayana 37's for sundowners. They all came to our big ass cockpit as it was easy to enter via the swim platform, more comfortable to sit in, and in addition the food and wine was better ;-)


Your point being? We ended up cruising for a time in Panama with three catamarans - they seemed to have low standards in who they would hanky out with. (They called us the monomaran.) We gravitated always to the biggest cat (PDQ Antares) for libations and pot lucks. Certainly the newer mass market boats are very comfortable but I thought this thread was about the limits of these boats as passage makers.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Andrew65 said:


> I offer the Hallberg-Rassy line as a production boat. They don't seem too bad. What's your general opinions?


HRs, Oysters, Amels, etc - they are all production boats. This thread got off to a poor start with its title.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Don0190 said:


> I accept this but don't really feel there is much "divergence is quite evident". In fact I would bet there is little demand for a cruising boat that is at the far end of the "offshore" end of design. I know for me a cruising boat is about a LOT more than long passages as I want to explore not just sail, and that involves live aboard considerations.
> 
> Liveaboard considerations matter, but you do have to get to where you want to go. If your goal is Georgia (state of, not country), that means one thing. If your goal is South Georgia that is an entirely different thing.If we decide that we are done our extended cruising we likely will sell the Bristol. It is a lot of boat for the Great Lakes. We would be better off with something smaller, cheaper, lighter, and faster - a boat we would not choose for another circumnavigation.
> 
> My position is that I say that not ALL B/C/H boats should be taken off shore, but that some can be. On the other hand the anti production boat people aren't likely to ever admit any of the B/C/H boats are worthy.
> 
> There are some for sure. You see quite a few people cruising off the beaten track in Bene Oceanis (sp?) boats starting around 37'. We saw several Beneteau 50s in obscure places like Indonesia. Saw a few Jeanneaus in the 37 to 45 foot range. Only saw Hunters and Catalinas in the Caribbean but I know that there a few Catalina 42 out there. I just don't know enough about which models I might be looking at to give a really definitive answer. Didn't see any of these boats in South Africa at all. Saw mostly Europeans there with various Dutch, British, and Scandinavian boats. There were very few American boats there so it would not have been a good sample size to consider. One older American couple had a Camper-Nicholson; a few single handers in boats in the 27 to 35 foot range.
> 
> Lets stop talking "production boats" as a boat brands as that is a waste of time. Talk about "production boat" models instead.
> 
> BTW - I love the Outbound 46 layout as about as perfect for a couple as you could hope for, but don't feel it is the perfect off shore passage making one.


Hope that helps


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> This thread got off to a poor start with its title.


Naa. The title's right. It's just everyone has different opinions on it.


----------



## davidpm

MedSailor said:


> On last year's round the county race i was on a Catalina 400 (a production boat) and we hit s rock at over 6 knots of boat speed.


Just to bring up one of my irrational fears.

If someone happened to be lying down in a bunk head forward near a bulkhead what do you think would have happened to them since you experienced this event and have a feel for the force of impact.


----------



## Don L

killarney_sailor said:


> Hope that helps


Nope! Was just another dig in your heels post really. But then I don't need any help on the "issue".


----------



## killarney_sailor

Don, you asked if some 'production boats' are suitable for cruising. I identified some that I thought qualified and I am digging in my heels - I thought I was agreeing with you - and I do think you need some 'help' on this issue.


----------



## Don L

killarney_sailor said:


> Don, you asked if some 'production boats' are suitable for cruising. I identified some that I thought qualified and I am digging in my heels - I thought I was agreeing with you -


I don't believe I asked anything and I didn't read your comment as agreeing with me. If you want to agree to something just do it next time.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Don0190 said:


> snip
> 
> My position is that I say that not ALL B/C/H boats should be taken off shore, but that some can be. On the other hand the anti production boat people aren't likely to ever admit any of the B/C/H boats are worthy.
> 
> Lets stop talking "production boats" as a boat brands as that is a waste of time. Talk about "production boat" models instead.
> 
> snip


I think what I said about certain boats (e.g. some Beneteau models that I have seen along the way) would be considered to be agreement. I think you are feeling so upset that your boat (whatever it is) is being maligned that you are not thinking about what people are actually saying. Instead you just react in an us vs them manner.

And lets not call them production boats since just about everything floating is or was a production boat. It would seem we are actually talking about recent (>2000?), mass market boats in comparison to two totally different groups of boats: 
1. (recent, limited market boats like Outbounds and Amels) 
2. non-recent (pre-1990 for the most part) mass and limited market boats. They seem to have been lumped together, although, for example, the production of the two Pearson brothers in their respective companies (Pearson and Bristol, especially the decimal series) were aimed at very different markets back in the day. A Pearson was much cheaper (and lighter) than a Bristol of the same length. When we look at these older boats we also need to pick and choose those that are decent offshore boats and those that are coastal cruisers.


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> No reason any boat cannot strike a reasonable balance, and have both&#8230; Unfortunately, that balance has become skewed in many cases today, with boats being designed around their interiors, and the ergonomics of decks and cockpits suffering as a result...
> 
> Well, I would't be so sure about that&#8230; In the right conditions, that skinny old S&S Design #991 might easily chew your beamy Hunter right up, and spit her right out&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to wait until you actually make it to one of those "exotic locales" before advancing such a claim, no?


We rarely see any of the Benehuntalina's in any of our exotic anchorages.....


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> We rarely see any of the Benehuntalina's in any of our exotic anchorages.....


Well, I do have to admit aev....your exotic is a hell of a lot more exotic than my exotic.


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Well, I do have to admit aev....your exotic is a hell of a lot more exotic than my exotic.


I'm leaving the light on for you. Coldie cup still waiting the first arrival. Free margarita's tomorrow at the yacht club, no need to crowd into anybody''s boat. 
Live music, free Wifi and plenty of young ladies to dance with.

The way I see it, most boats will be best for a party of six, dinner for four and sleep two.


----------



## RTB

aeventyr60 said:


> We rarely see any of the Benehuntalina's in any of our exotic anchorages.....


Great! Stay where you are. I don't see this kind of attitude in Georgetown, Bahamas. We are all just cruisers, enjoying life. No BS attitudes!

Ralph


----------



## aeventyr60

RTB said:


> Great! Stay where you are. I don't see this kind of attitude in Georgetown, Bahamas. We are all just cruisers, enjoying life. No BS attitudes!
> 
> Ralph


Exactly. Leaving the light on for Smackky. Funny we don't get these kinds of conversations in the anchorage either, nobody really seems to care what kind of boat your on, where your from or if you have the regulation bucket to boot.


----------



## RTB

Great thread smackers, but a bit silly in the end. Go where you want to go, given your personal limits and what you feel are your boats limits. With great weather info, you can go anywhere! I've been beat up way more with 4-6' seas on the Gulf of Mexico with 3-5 second intervals, that the same seas on the Tongue of the Ocean with 13 second intervals. It's really all about wind/seas. Sorry.....I'm not going to enjoy some storm on a crossing....just because I have some supposedly badass boat. My wife prefers something that doesn't make her sick. I don't enjoy it either. I'm sure that most people buying the "production" boats are pretty much in the same _boat_ as me.

Ralph


----------



## RTB

aeventyr60 said:


> Exactly. Leaving the light on for Smackky. Funny we don't get these kinds of conversations in the anchorage either, nobody really seems to care what kind of boat your on, where your from or if you have the regulation bucket to boot.


Confused here....see your post 972 above.....

Sorry! Lost most of my faith in the internet....especially sailing forums.

Ralph


----------



## mitiempo

RTB said:


> Confused here....see your post 972 above.....
> 
> Sorry! Lost most of my faith in the internet....especially sailing forums.
> 
> Ralph


I read post 972 as a statement of fact. Some of you have thin skin or a lack of reading comprehension.


----------



## h3mrn1

I have spent the better part of this last week reading through this entire thread. I have nothing to add to it as I have all of about 50 hours experience on a Flying Scot over the last couple of months out on the Potomac. I do want to say that even though the topic of the thread will probably never really be answered, the discussions within have proven to be very helpful and enlightening to a very novice sailor.

I had been going down many wrong paths for pursuing sailing including thinking I could learn enough by reading and analysis to start with a mid-30' boat to start out on. Of the many things learned from this thread one of the most prominent is that I need to get a much smaller boat at first and get out and gain my own experience. 

I am very thankful for all the participation of the old salts here in passing on real information and experience-based opinions that will undoubtably help me greatly if not flat out save my life as I take the plunge into boat ownership and sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

h3mrn1 said:


> I am very thankful for all the participation of the old salts here in passing on real information and experience-based opinions that will undoubtably help me greatly if not flat out save my life as I take the plunge into boat ownership and sailing.


My pleasure.


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> My pleasure.


Smack... He said "old salts"...not young whippersnappers


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Smack... He said "old salts"...not young whippersnappers


Heh. You caught that?


----------



## Andrew65

Where's the dividing line between the two?


----------



## smackdaddy

Andrew65 said:


> Where's the dividing line between the two?


Old.


----------



## Andrew65

Too ambiguous


----------



## blt2ski

I'm in the living again years, got one year closer to golden years today.......that is 50 and 60's. One is really old in there 40's, old in 30's......old pharts are 70's, really old pharts 80's..... oh, and them depends years, are the 90's, ie depends if you need them or not! LOL

Happy B-day smackers!

Marty


----------



## Andrew65

Happy Birthday Marty! 

May you always be able to keep your mast up straight!


----------



## RTB

mitiempo said:


> I read post 972 as a statement of fact. Some of you have thin skin or a lack of reading comprehension.


Sorry.....to much rum. Hell, I don't even know where the Andaman Sea is. My apology to aeventyr60.

Ralph


----------



## SVAuspicious

RTB said:


> I don't even know where the Andaman Sea is.


Off Thailand.


----------



## RTB

Now I know. Thanks.


----------



## aeventyr60

RTB said:


> Sorry.....to much rum. Hell, I don't even know where the Andaman Sea is. My apology to aeventyr60.
> 
> Ralph


No Worries, just pass the bottle when you sail by!


----------



## RTB

aeventyr60 said:


> No Worries, just pass the bottle when you sail by!


You got it! Thanks for being understanding.

I really hate seeing the same post at different forums, but I'm going to post this here too.

I get frustrated when the Hunter haters get going....but why? My boat is a 1982 Cherubini Hunter 36. Most say this is a good boat, even the folk bashing Hunters (that know anything about Hunters). I really shouldn't take offense, because much of the negative comments involve the newer models (which I know nothing about). But I do get offended, because that is what I choose to sail, cruise, and live aboard.

After 4 Gulf Stream crossings, sailing the Tongue of the Ocean, crossing from the Exumas to George Town, or to Eleuthera, to the Abaco's (how deep is "blue water"?), and eventually back to Texas, I'm pretty happy with our Hunter. We've been back in Texas for 4 months after 2 years and 5000 miles of cruising. I re-bedded the chainplates today, and have gone through the boat thoroughly after getting back here. All is the same as when we left back in Nov. 2012. I certainly don't have any gripes with our 32 year old boat. And - we still live aboard and plan to head to the BVI's next year.

Personally, I like the older Hunters. But finding a good one, where the previous owners took good care might be an issue. Same with any other boat. We have close friends with a Pacific Seacraft 37, they nearly lost the rig crossing to Bimini, because of poor maintenance. I can't blame the manufacturer, can I?

Heck....I don't know what other people have in mind when they buy a boat. No doubt, the cockpit on a Hunter 45 is huge! I'd love it, because that is where I spend most of the time on the boat. And really, I'm just not into long crossings. I've done a couple. Long as in 2-3 weeks. I'll leave that to the crazy old guy (Webb Chiles) sailing RTW on a Moore 24, and Ronnie Simpson (young Guy) doing the SHTP on a Moore 24 and an Olsen 30.

Really, these threads are hurtful. There are so many new sailors ( or wantabees) that read the posts here. I prove that a Hunter is fine for cruising the east coast and Bahamas. Mark J proves that a Bene 393 works for a RTW trip, if you know what the heck you're doing. Smackdaddy proves that there is value in the Hunter 40 (I'd love one). Maybe the "haters" should post why *their* choice is such a great value, instead of thrashing us....the ones that own Hunters, or other production boats?

So.... for Jon E and the rest, what is wrong with my way of thinking?

Ralph


----------



## MedSailor

RTB said:


> You got it! Thanks for being understanding.
> 
> I really hate seeing the same post at different forums, but I'm going to post this here too.
> 
> I get frustrated when the Hunter haters get going....but why? My boat is a 1982 Cherubini Hunter 36. Most say this is a good boat, even the folk bashing Hunters (that know anything about Hunters). I really shouldn't take offense, because much of the negative comments involve the newer models (which I know nothing about). But I do get offended, because that is what I choose to sail, cruise, and live aboard.


Like it or not, Hunter Hatred is a real thing. It's a meme of sorts that may or may not have any foundation in reality. It's a little like the vitriol that is always raised when a Macgregor 26 is mentioned, but usually much less severe. I'd be getting annoyed too if people were always trashing my boat.

I never really liked Hunters, and this opinion is based on three things:

1: What other people told me. (mob mentality)
2: They are ugly to my eye. (newer models as you mentioned) 
3: They look underbuilt, which reinforces #1.

I must admit that Smack's hunter doesn't look like the curvy Hunters that I associate with #2. Smack's thread on why he chose his boat had solid reasoning in my book. Sequitur's journey has also given me pause for #3. As for #1, I'm happy to discount the casual "dock talk" that engendered it in the first palce.

My opinion (which was never really well formed) is changing favorably towards Hunter. Still, I see the huge Hunter Hatred and I'm not exactly sure where it comes from....

MedSailor


----------



## mstern

MedSailor said:


> Like it or not, Hunter Hatred is a real thing. It's a meme of sorts that may or may not have any foundation in reality. It's a little like the vitriol that is always raised when a Macgregor 26 is mentioned, but usually much less severe. I'd be getting annoyed too if people were always trashing my boat.


Yeah, it can get pretty ugly. For some reason, it seems to go beyond the hate that some direct towards Beneteau, Jenneau and Catalina for their supposed crappy design and construction. I'm not sure why, but I am guessing it has to do with the perception that Hunter had some quality problems a few years ago. That, and the fact that more than their peers, Hunter seems to have pushed the design and style envelope beyond what we staid sailors deemed acceptable.

Personally, I don't like the styling of the new Hunters (or the French builders either for that matter). But I do acknowledge that some of the innovations that Hunter either started or pushed to the standard are great features: (sugar scoop sterns, cockpit arches with travelers, plumb bows).

FWIW, my friends' Hunter 23.5 sails rings around my Oday 23.


----------



## smackdaddy

mstern said:


> That, and the fact that more than their peers, Hunter seems to have pushed the design and style envelope beyond what we staid sailors deemed acceptable.


This is actually a great point - and a very, very interesting one. Remember all the hullabaloo about the arch when it first came out? Then all the trashtalk about the swept back spreaders on the B&R rig? This was YEARS ago.

Have you seen the new Beneteau Oceanis series? Heh-heh.

http://www.beneteauusa.com/Sailboats/Oceanis/Oceanis-41


----------



## IStream

smackdaddy said:


> This is actually a great point - and a very, very interesting one. Remember all the hullabaloo about the arch when it first came out? Then all the trashtalk about the swept back spreaders on the B&R rig? This was YEARS ago.
> 
> Have you seen the new Beneteau Oceanis series? Heh-heh.
> 
> Oceanis 41 / Oceanis / Sailboats - BENETEAU USA


The arch was a great move but the spreaders weren't the issue with the B&R rig. The problem was that they squandered the main advantage of the B&R, which is its ability to use a roachy, full batten main without backstay interference. It did save money on the standing rig though...


----------



## Faster

I think Hunter peaked with the late 80s early 90s Legend series (35.5, 37.5, 40.5) Nice lines, good interiors (esp later versions), really nicely proportioned, conventional moderately swept spreader fractional rigs. My wife's favourite boats are probably the C34/36, but if an equally equipped h35.5 was on offer I think she'd go for it and I'd probably be happier. My only beef with these is they weren't offered with a deep keel option.

To my eye the '6' series that followed were styled too much like Bayliners with backstay-less rigs. The round 'hot tub' cockpits did not appeal, and I can't say I've been swayed by the more recent Henderson boats, nor the newer Marlow boats. The first glass arch boats had some serious structural issues, the later beefy stainless arches were probably an improvement, but again I never cottoned on to the 'Hunters with handles'. These are all subjective/aesthetic personal objections - and nothing more.

And then they got into the MacGregor game with the 'Edge'... 'nuff said.

But aside from all of that it's pretty clear they've done a very good job of marketing and selling these boats, they've found a way to appeal to a large group of buyers (at least on the boat show floor) - it's hard to argue with all that.

The so-called 'Cherbuni' Hunters are seldom included in the anti-Hunter rants, I think they are good but uninspiring boats that have stood the test of time.

But from me the 'Legend' line mentioned above gets the thumbs up...


----------



## Bene505

aeventyr60 said:


> Exactly. Leaving the light on for Smackky. Funny we don't get these kinds of conversations in the anchorage either, nobody really seems to care what kind of boat your on, where your from or if you have the regulation bucket to boot.


Finally some recognition of the importance of a good quality bucket!

Regards,
Brad


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> You got it! Thanks for being understanding.
> 
> I really hate seeing the same post at different forums, but I'm going to post this here too.
> 
> I get frustrated when the Hunter haters get going....but why? My boat is a 1982 Cherubini Hunter 36. Most say this is a good boat, even the folk bashing Hunters (that know anything about Hunters). I really shouldn't take offense, because much of the negative comments involve the newer models (which I know nothing about). But I do get offended, because that is what I choose to sail, cruise, and live aboard.
> 
> After 4 Gulf Stream crossings, sailing the Tongue of the Ocean, crossing from the Exumas to George Town, or to Eleuthera, to the Abaco's (how deep is "blue water"?), and eventually back to Texas, I'm pretty happy with our Hunter. We've been back in Texas for 4 months after 2 years and 5000 miles of cruising. I re-bedded the chainplates today, and have gone through the boat thoroughly after getting back here. All is the same as when we left back in Nov. 2012. I certainly don't have any gripes with our 32 year old boat. And - we still live aboard and plan to head to the BVI's next year.
> 
> Personally, I like the older Hunters. But finding a good one, where the previous owners took good care might be an issue. Same with any other boat. We have close friends with a Pacific Seacraft 37, they nearly lost the rig crossing to Bimini, because of poor maintenance. I can't blame the manufacturer, can I?
> 
> Heck....I don't know what other people have in mind when they buy a boat. No doubt, the cockpit on a Hunter 45 is huge! I'd love it, because that is where I spend most of the time on the boat. And really, I'm just not into long crossings. I've done a couple. Long as in 2-3 weeks. I'll leave that to the crazy old guy (Webb Chiles) sailing RTW on a Moore 24, and Ronnie Simpson (young Guy) doing the SHTP on a Moore 24 and an Olsen 30.
> 
> Really, these threads are hurtful. There are so many new sailors ( or wantabees) that read the posts here. I prove that a Hunter is fine for cruising the east coast and Bahamas. Mark J proves that a Bene 393 works for a RTW trip, if you know what the heck you're doing. Smackdaddy proves that there is value in the Hunter 40 (I'd love one).* Maybe the "haters" should post why *their* choice is such a great value, instead of thrashing us....the ones that own Hunters, or other production boats?*
> 
> So.... for Jon E and the rest, what is wrong with my way of thinking?
> 
> Ralph


Nothing wrong at all, your boat obviously works well for you&#8230; If there's anything "wrong" in what you've written, I think it's in your perception of what I've been saying&#8230; 

I've long been citing the book DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS as one of the most useful starting point in these discussions. _"Characteristics"_ are for me what largely determine a particular boat's suitability for a particular purpose.

I'd ask you to find an example of where I've "trashed" Hunters wholesale or across the board. As a matter of fact, I recently spoke favorably of the HC 50, which I always thought was a pretty cool boat&#8230; Go figure, the one Hunter I really liked was perhaps one of the least successful of all their models, ever&#8230; 

So, if I'm being critical of a certain design or construction of a particular boat - such as the narrow side decks on the Hunter 49 - that does not necessarily mean I'm "trashing" your boat, or your "brand" of boat, across the board&#8230; If I say I would never own a boat with an aft-facing engine with a V-Drive that places the shaft log in a very difficult spot to access beneath the engine, does that mean I'm "trashing" the Valiant 40/42? If I simply point out the terrible ergonomics of the steering cockpit and helm on the awesome Trintella 50, does that imply that I have a low opinion of Trintellas in general? I think not, and I believe those capable of seeing through the red mist that appears whenever their own 'brand' is mentioned in a less than favorable will realize that&#8230;


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by mstern
> 
> That, and the fact that more than their peers, Hunter seems to have pushed the design and style envelope beyond what we staid sailors deemed acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually a great point - and a very, very interesting one. Remember all the hullabaloo about the arch when it first came out? Then all the trashtalk about the swept back spreaders on the B&R rig? This was YEARS ago.
> 
> Have you seen the new Beneteau Oceanis series? Heh-heh.
> 
> Oceanis 41 / Oceanis / Sailboats - BENETEAU USA
Click to expand...

So, because the Latest & Greatest Beneteau features an arch and a deeply swept rig, their respective downsides are effectively dismissed, and the 'issue' is settled once and for all?

Damn, who knew?

Anyone know if a step ladder is included with the Oceanis, in the event one might have to attend to something on the boom? If so, I hope it's more robust than the average production step ladder&#8230;


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> So, because the Latest & Greatest Beneteau features an arch and a deeply swept rig, their respective downsides are effectively dismissed, and the 'issue' is settled once and for all?
> 
> Damn, who knew?
> 
> Anyone know if a step ladder is included with the Oceanis, in the event one might have to attend to something on the boom? If so, I hope it's more robust than the average production step ladder&#8230;


Don't worry Jon. It's a boat that was DEFINITELY NOT designed for you.

As a matter of fact, I don't think JonBoats are even being made any more.


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> As a matter of fact, I don't think JonBoats are even being made any more.


And that's probably just fine with him! (and me ) They'll be forever less expensive...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Don't worry Jon. It's a boat that was DEFINITELY NOT designed for you.


Well, you've certainly got _that_ right... 



smackdaddy said:


> As a matter of fact, I don't think JonBoats are even being made any more.


Nah, there still a handful of builders that are still ticking most of the boxes for dinosaurs like me, and still believe a boat intended to do more than go from one marina to the next should have an 'old-fashioned' feature like a proper _RUBRAIL_, for instance...

They come in handy, every once in awhile...





































Of course, there are no marinas, or nicely padded floating docks in a place like Labrador... Hmmm, perhaps _THAT'S_ the reason I never saw any of the Latest & Greatest Boat Show Queens last summer? Can't be marring those perfect topsides, or scratching their picture windows on some rough piling now, can we?












Having sailed a few Ron Holland-designed Trintellas for 30K miles or so, I'm quite well acquainted with the disadvantages of deeply swept spreaders on a boat being sailed offshore... Perhaps you can educate me, what exactly are the overriding _ADVANTAGES_ of such a rig, on a cruising/voyaging boat likely to be sailed shorthanded?


----------



## blt2ski

Sorry smack, I can still find a jonboat for sail! or is that sale........hmmmmmmmm


----------



## mstern

JonEisberg said:


> So, because the Latest & Greatest Beneteau features an arch and a deeply swept rig, their respective downsides are effectively dismissed, and the 'issue' is settled once and for all?
> 
> Damn, who knew?


Jon: my point wasn't that because some manufacturers have started adopting Hunter-esque features, that they are now the last word in design and therefore beyond reproach; I was just trying to surmise why some people seem to really hate Hunters so much, and was pointing out the irony that many of the things that were once the object of that hate (high booms, cockpit arches for example) seem to now be common-place.

It seems to me that the current state of "production" sailboat design is better than ever. We have the market place creating and selling products for a multitude of users, all with different needs. Back in the day, I think more boats were designed to try and be all things to all people. Nowadays, we can pick and choose a design more suited to what we will really be doing.

I can't imagine Jon or any sailor that wants to go really offshore buying one of the new "Sense" designs. But for many, many (probably most IMHO) sailors, buying a boat that is designed to be comfortable sailing from marina to marina and as a cocktail boat makes a lot of sense.


----------



## mitiempo

mstern said:


> many of the things that were once the object of that hate (high booms, cockpit arches for example) seem to now be common-place.


Just because high booms may be commonplace doesn't mean they are good to have - unless you play for the Lakers.


----------



## Don L

that Bene is really a lot different than the Hunter B&R rig with traveler arch!


----------



## JonEisberg

mstern said:


> I can't imagine Jon or any sailor that wants to go really offshore buying one of the new "Sense" designs. But for many, many (probably most IMHO) sailors, buying a boat that is designed to be comfortable sailing from marina to marina and as a cocktail boat makes a lot of sense.


I don't disagree at all, many of today's boats would appear to suit the current 'Market' ideally...

However, in the context of this thread, I'm not sure moving from one marina to the next constitutes testing _"the LIMITS"_ of most modern production boats...

Some, perhaps, but probably not all...


----------



## smj

JonEisberg said:


> I don't disagree at all, many of today's boats would appear to suit the current 'Market' ideally...
> 
> However, in the context of this thread, I'm not sure moving from one marina to the next constitutes testing _"the LIMITS"_ of most modern production boats...
> 
> Some, perhaps, but probably not all...


Jon, just curious but out of the almost 4000 posts you've made on Sailnet in the last 4 years I realize that you've received almost 2000 likes but given none out. You've also been thanked over 150 times but given none out. Why is this? Are you above appreciating people's input, or is this forum so below you it's boring? Seems like some really unusual stats.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, you've certainly got _that_ right...
> 
> Nah, there still a handful of builders that are still ticking most of the boxes for dinosaurs like me, and still believe a boat intended to do more than go from one marina to the next should have an 'old-fashioned' feature like a proper _RUBRAIL_, for instance...
> 
> They come in handy, every once in awhile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there are no marinas, or nicely padded floating docks in a place like Labrador... Hmmm, perhaps _THAT'S_ the reason I never saw any of the Latest & Greatest Boat Show Queens last summer? Can't be marring those perfect topsides, or scratching their picture windows on some rough piling now, can we?


Dude - what's all that crap on your foredeck? Looks like a freakin' yardsale. Very unsafe.


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think that would be his dink. Would you prefer he add davits and an arch and spoil the lovely lines of the boat, plus create a nice landing spot for random waves to go.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> I think that would be his dink. Would you prefer he add davits and an arch and spoil the lovely lines of the boat, plus create a nice landing spot for random waves to go.


Hey, you know Jon and how this whole things works: when you see something not perfect on a boat you point it out and ridicule the sailor for being oblivious to the safety ramifications in a seaway. That dink should be below like mine - leaving the decks clear and seamanly. Not cluttered like a confused snowbird's floating condo.

(See? I've learned a lot from the master. Heh-heh.)


----------



## JonEisberg

smj said:


> Jon, just curious but out of the almost 4000 posts you've made on Sailnet in the last 4 years I realize that you've received almost 2000 likes but given none out. You've also been thanked over 150 times but given none out. Why is this? Are you above appreciating people's input, or is this forum so below you it's boring? Seems like some really unusual stats.


LOL! Yeah, you've nailed it, if this place wasn't so "beneath me", I probably would have racked up 10,000 posts, by now... 

Force of habit, I suppose... I've been bloviating on various sailing forums for almost 20 years, but this is the first one that employs all these Facebook-style features... Tough to teach an old dog new tricks, I suppose, and I don't do the "Chat" thing, or use smilies, either...

Sorry about that...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Hey, you know Jon and how this whole things works: when you see something not perfect on a boat you point it out and ridicule the sailor for being oblivious to the safety ramifications in a seaway. That dink should be below like mine - leaving the decks clear and seamanly. Not cluttered like a confused snowbird's floating condo.
> 
> (See? I've learned a lot from the master. Heh-heh.)


LOL! Yup, definitely one thing you'll never see in any ad or brochure for the Latest & Greatest, is a tender... Until you get up to the size of a boat that can accommodate a jet boat in a stern garage, builders simply prefer to pretend they don't exist, and ignore the issue of tender stowage completely...

For sure, one of the biggest challenges of cruising on a boat as small as mine, is resolving the matter of stowing a tender... All things considered, I think this Avon Lite RIB represents a pretty good compromise, for me...










I started out years ago with an Avon 2.80 Rollup... Nice little boat, but was an incredible PITA to set up and inflate aboard a boat as small as mine. My current dink is so far superior, it's not even close. If you think you're gonna be stowing a rollup like yours below every time you move the boat, dream on... 

My solution is far from perfect, but it's the best one overall I've been able to come up with... And in the event I ever had to take to my liferaft, it would be pretty quick work to take the tender along for the ride, as well...

But, hey - I'm always open to suggestions, if you have a better alternative in mind...


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh, no, I completely understand the convenience-over-safety mentality. It's very widespread among common cruisers these days. So, you'll get no blow-back from me. I'm just not sure JonEisberg would approve.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, no, I completely understand the convenience-over-safety mentality. It's very widespread among common cruisers these days. So, you'll get no blow-back from me. I'm just not sure JonEisberg would approve.


Well, if you think this represents an "unsafe" manner of stowing a 9' tender aboard a 30-footer, I'd suggest you refrain from ever venturing beyond the confines of your cockpit while underway...

Hell, my freakin' Boom Brake probably represents a greater hazard than my tender, going forward...


----------



## mr_f

True blue-water sailors have no reason to go to shore, so no reason to store a dink.


----------



## harmonic

With the two furlers up forward there would be no reason to go forward while under way,so the dink isnt really an issue.My system is the same for coastal cruising only roll up dink for offshore.I agree they are not ideal on the foredeck but there isnt anywhere else for them unless you have davits.


----------



## aeventyr60

We didn't need to use our stinking rub rails on our trip deep up a river in Borneo.

Even the subsistence village children were using FB, they even "liked" us.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> For sure, one of the biggest challenges of cruising on a boat as small as mine, is resolving the matter of stowing a tender... All things considered, I think this Avon Lite RIB represents a pretty good compromise, for me...


I put my Caribe L9 fully inflated on the foredeck between the mast (actually the J-tube) and the inner stay. The dink is upside down and held down by two truck towing straps and held forward by a custom spliced pendant (so the dink doesn't knock the J-tube off the deck - again).

Granted my boat is a bit bigger than yours, Jon, but I find the dinghy on the foredeck to be a safety plus. The dinghy gives me a place to sit while working at the mast. It gives me a leg up if I need to reach a main halyard or to get more leverage on the pole halyard. It keeps me from standing on the J-tube. It also gives me a safe place to keep dinghy gas (tied down separately under the dinghy) - not in a locker and definitely not below. When conditions dictate crawling there is comfort being between the lifelines and dinghy as I get forward.



harmonic said:


> With the two furlers up forward there would be no reason to go forward while under way,so the dink isnt really an issue.


A few things come to mind - a jammed furling drum, a failed halyard, a torn sail, adjustments to leech or foot lines, a sail caught during a tack, and a burned out nav light. I'm sure there are others.


----------



## JonEisberg

harmonic said:


> *With the two furlers up forward there would be no reason to go forward while under way,so the dink isnt really an issue.*My system is the same for coastal cruising only roll up dink for offshore.I agree they are not ideal on the foredeck but there isnt anywhere else for them unless you have davits.


That may be true in theory, but rarely so in practice... 

If you make use of a spinnaker or Code 0, it's pretty tough to avoid a trip to the foredeck to set or douse a free-flying sail... Also, whenever on a passage, I think it's a vital seamanlike routine to get into, to make regular trips around the deck at least once a day - usually before nightfall - to perform an inspection of the rig and all gear on deck, looking for anything amiss, issues of chafe, and so on... There are times you might really have to force yourself to do this, but you never know when catching something before it becomes a problem might pay off in spades...

With my transom measuring only 4 feet across, davits are definitely not an option for me  And, with the pinched ends on a boat like mine, dangling a dinghy on davits would further degrade the boat's trim noticeably. When fully loaded for a longer cruise, I have precious little room for any more weight in the back, as it is...










And, losing the use of a windvane is a tradeoff I would never accept. Davits obviously work well for many as a coastal/daily/weekending solution, but until you get up to boats in the size range of 55' more, I think they are rarely an acceptable means of carrying a tender offshore... This is one area where multihulls in general have a big advantage over monohulls, even on smaller boats, their davit arrangements can be configured to be very secure...

I always loved running this Cabo Rico 42, but this was one of the more ridiculous tender on davits 'solutions' I have ever seen. There would have been no way to secure that thing properly for going offshore, but putting it on the foredeck/coachroof wasn't much better, it degraded the visibility forward to an unacceptable degree... A good example of how tender stowage can be a challenge even on boats considerably larger than mine, and a classic case of a particular tender being poorly matched to a particular mother ship...


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> I put my Caribe L9 fully inflated on the foredeck between the mast (actually the J-tube) and the inner stay. The dink is upside down and held down by two truck towing straps and held forward by a custom spliced pendant (so the dink doesn't knock the J-tube off the deck - again).
> 
> Granted my boat is a bit bigger than yours, Jon, but I find the dinghy on the foredeck to be a safety plus. The dinghy gives me a place to sit while working at the mast. It gives me a leg up if I need to reach a main halyard or to get more leverage on the pole halyard. It keeps me from standing on the J-tube. It also gives me a safe place to keep dinghy gas (tied down separately under the dinghy) - not in a locker and definitely not below. When conditions dictate crawling there is comfort being between the lifelines and dinghy as I get forward.


That H-R 43 I ran last year had the same setup, it worked pretty well. There were times fiddling with something at the mast, when the only way I could really reach it, was to step up onto the tender's bottom... However, the visibilty forward really was compromised, though not nearly as much had the boat been an aft cockpit...

I took a Valiant 42 south with a large RIB inflated on the coachroof. One big advantage on such a trip, is that it allowed us to keep a large hatch under the dink open for the duration of the trip, a huge benefit as we got further south... And, as you mention, all the lashings served to provide additional handholds when moving about the deck at a more comfortable height than the coachroof itself...










Only real downside, was that it compromised the visibility forward to a huge degree... To stand a proper watch, you really did have to 'stand', literally... Deflating it would have made little difference, without the ability to fold down the transom... Definitely one of the unsung benefits of a center cockpit, they usually afford a less restricted view over a dink stowed up forward...


----------



## Shockwave

It's surprising they left the boat against a lee dock with the chop starting to build, not a good place to be, the motion can cause substantial slamming easily damaging the boat.

It's not surprising they have insufficient fenders, that seems to be the way of the world. Why buy a $350k boat and scrimp on fenders? Buy some big Polyforms and Taylor Made squares, so what they costs $1500? If trapped in a condition like this it may save substantial damage to the boat.



JonEisberg said:


> I don't disagree at all, many of today's boats would appear to suit the current 'Market' ideally...
> 
> However, in the context of this thread, I'm not sure moving from one marina to the next constitutes testing _"the LIMITS"_ of most modern production boats...
> 
> Some, perhaps, but probably not all...


----------



## JonEisberg

Shockwave said:


> It's surprising they left the boat against a lee dock with the chop starting to build, not a good place to be, the motion can cause substantial slamming easily damaging the boat.


Inexplicable, especially considering it was a 'professional' skipper delivering the boat, and the weather was forecast well in advance.

This occurred in late February a couple of years ago at Charleston City Marina. I was running a small Cape George cutter south, and had beat feet to make it into Charleston before the forecast SW gale, I knew I'd be stuck there for a couple of days... The inside of the Megadock was the only place to be, why these guys remained on the outside of the dock the night before the breeze switched to the SW is anyone's guess...

Once it started to blow the next morning, there was no getting off. In addition, they had stupidly tied several of their fenders to the lifelines, and they had quickly worked themselves down below the top edge of the dock. Anyone who witnessed what I did that day while helping them try to re-adjust the fenders, and stuff a few extras borrowed from other boats, would have gotten a good education about the 'wisdom' of placing those picture windows in the topsides of many of today's Latest & Greatest Production Boats... 



Shockwave said:


> It's not surprising they have insufficient fenders, that seems to be the way of the world. Why buy a $350k boat and scrimp on fenders? Buy some big Polyforms and Taylor Made squares, so what they costs $1500? If trapped in a condition like this it may save substantial damage to the boat.


Their fenders were actually pretty decent, not all that under-sized, to my eye... As mentioned, they had been worked down too low by the boat's motion, but the couple that remained closer to the proper height, were simply being squeezed flat by the massive pressure...

One of the problems many cruisers face today in trying to travel with sufficient fenders, is where do you stow them? Another feature common to many of today's production boats, is the dwindling lazarette/cockpit locker increasing being given over to accommodation space. And, oversized conventional fenders are one of the bulkier bits of gear aboard, often getting tied to the stern rail, and so on, with insufficient storage for gear below deck...

I don't know why more folks haven't gone to inflatable fenders, they are the certainly the only way to go on a smaller boat like mine. I've long been very impressed by the ones from Aere', they're virtually bulletproof... This was my compliment of fenders for this summer's cruise, there is no way I could travel with such an array if they weren't inflatable, and could be stowed very compactly...










Home page

They usually offer Specials on one of their products on their website. My smallest pair are the smallest they make - 9" X 22" - which I picked up on special for a pretty decent price...


----------



## Bene505

JonEisberg said:


> Once it started to blow the next morning, there was no getting off...


I always figured you could kedge off with an anchor line going to the midships cleat and then to a winch or a windlass. Similar to when run aground, only without running a line high to induce heeling.

Of course, you have to get the anchor upwind a ways, but if you can manage that, you can stop the madness and get to a more sheltered spot. Or you can just counter the force of wind and keep the boat off the lee dock.

Anyone have any experience doing this?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

Without a doubt, I'll trade fender space for accommodation space EVERY SINGLE TIME.


----------



## Classic30

Bene505 said:


> I always figured you could kedge off with an anchor line going to the midships cleat and then to a winch or a windlass. Similar to when run aground, only without running a line high to induce heeling.
> 
> Of course, you have to get the anchor upwind a ways, but if you can manage that, you can stop the madness and get to a more sheltered spot. Or you can just counter the force of wind and keep the boat off the lee dock.
> 
> Anyone have any experience doing this?


My only experience with this was whilst crewing on a square-rigger where it was SOP whenever berthed alongside - because without bow-thrusters that's the ONLY way some of them ever left the dock in a blow! 

A kedge was surreptitiously lowered in the channel by one of the crew as they came alongside (sideways) with line paid out along the bottom, so all you saw was a rope hanging loosely over the side and there was nothing for any other passing ship to snag on or for the harbourmaster to complain about. Hook it up to the windlass on departure and away you go.

I can't see why it wouldn't not only work well, but be a very good thing to do whenever berthed alongside like that..


----------



## MedSailor

I got stuck alongside with a beam wind in my formosa once. The long bowsprit on that beadt was like a unidirectional wind powered bow thruster pushing me into the dock.

I was able to get off by loading up me port stern quarter with fenders and then tying a line short from my starboard stern cleat to the dock. All other lines were let go and with right full rudder and lots of throttle i pivoted around thr stb sternline still attached until i was nearly perpendicular to the dock. Throttle was continuously applied and theline was cut and we were away.

Took a day of head scratching and planning but it worked. I think the springline that you are willing to power against and cut away could come in handy on another day when we're either shorthanded or don't completely trust the dockhands.

Medsailor


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> I got stuck alongside with a beam wind in my formosa once. The long bowsprit on that beadt was like a unidirectional wind powered bow thruster pushing me into the dock.
> 
> I was able to get off by loading up me port stern quarter with fenders and then tying a line short from my starboard stern cleat to the dock. All other lines were let go and with right full rudder and lots of throttle i pivoted around thr stb sternline still attached until i was nearly perpendicular to the dock. Throttle was continuously applied and theline was cut and we were away.
> 
> Took a day of head scratching and planning but it worked. I think the springline that you are willing to power against and cut away could come in handy on another day when we're either shorthanded or don't completely trust the dockhands.
> 
> Medsailor


With the ever-increasing dependance upon bow thrusters and joystick docking systems, springing off a dock will continue to become more and more of a lost art... And with today's sailboats becoming more like powerboats with their beam carried all the way aft, the hull shapes of many modern boats no longer lend themselves to performing the sort of maneuver you describe...

Here's the shape of the boat I pictured above:










And here's a more 'traditional' hull form, Bob Perry's Golden Wave:










Hmmm, guess which one is gonna afford more options for pivoting off a dock or wall, using either a forward or aft spring?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Without a doubt, I'll trade fender space for accommodation space EVERY SINGLE TIME.


Well, be careful what you wish for...


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> With the ever-increasing dependance upon bow thrusters and joystick docking systems, springing off a dock will continue to become more and more of a lost art... And with today's sailboats becoming more like powerboats with their beam carried all the way aft, the hull shapes of many modern boats no longer lend themselves to performing the sort of maneuver you describe...
> 
> {snippage}
> 
> Hmmm, guess which one is gonna afford more options for pivoting off a dock or wall, using either a forward or aft spring?


Jon, you make a good point, but it's not uncommon to encounter wind and sea conditions that will prevent springing off a dock with an engine of the size that's installed in your average cruising boat.

FWIW, an appropriately-placed kedge anchor off the windward bow makes the process soooo much easier and with far less banging and scraping and yelling and engine revving.. and it's so much more seaman-like.


----------



## Bene505

JonEisberg said:


> With the ever-increasing dependance upon bow thrusters and joystick docking systems, springing off a dock will continue to become more and more of a lost art... And with today's sailboats becoming more like powerboats with their beam carried all the way aft, the hull shapes of many modern boats no longer lend themselves to performing the sort of maneuver you describe...
> 
> Here's the shape of the boat I pictured above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a more 'traditional' hull form, Bob Perry's Golden Wave:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, guess which one is gonna afford more options for pivoting off a dock or wall, using either a forward or aft spring?


But with 2 proper showers in the more modern boat, you wouldn't ever be at a dock anyway. So it's an interesting trade-off. 

Regards,
Brad


----------



## weinie

JonEisberg said:


> With the ever-increasing dependance upon bow thrusters and joystick docking systems, springing off a dock will continue to become more and more of a lost art... And with today's sailboats becoming more like powerboats with their beam carried all the way aft, the hull shapes of many modern boats no longer lend themselves to performing the sort of maneuver you describe...
> 
> Here's the shape of the boat I pictured above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a more 'traditional' hull form, Bob Perry's Golden Wave:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, guess which one is gonna afford more options for pivoting off a dock or wall, using either a forward or aft spring?


Which one is easier to dock single handed when the wind is blowing the boat away from the dock?
If you are manning the throttle in the cockpit and have to put a line running from midship onto the dock before 20 knots of wind blows the boat too far from the dock, you are literally going to lasso the the dock cleat from a greater distance away or jump a much father distance with the second boat than the first.


----------



## JonEisberg

Bene505 said:


> But with 2 proper showers in the more modern boat, you wouldn't ever be at a dock anyway. So it's an interesting trade-off.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


LOL! You mean, like the boat I pictured? The very popular anchorage in Charleston right across the channel would have been a far better option than laying on the face of the Megadock that night...

However, in my observation, that seems to not be the case in actuality...

As a very rough rule of thumb, applied to snowbird cruisers traveling up and down the East Coast/ICW, the larger the boat, the more likely they are to be stopping in marinas vs anchoring as a matter of routine...

Amazing, the sort of $ some of these kroozers are spending on dockage alone...


----------



## JonEisberg

weinie said:


> Which one is easier to dock single handed when the wind is blowing the boat away from the dock?


All things being equal, I'd say the more traditional Golden Wave...

With its much shallower forefoot, and greater freeboard relative to a rather shallow underbody, the more modern boat is gonna be a greater challenge to try to avoid having the bow falling off...










Also, one of my biggest gripes about the prevalence of saildrives on so many of today's boats, is that the distance between the prop and rudder in general has been increased significantly... This has the effect of making maneuvering in close quarters, at dead slow speeds, more difficult as a quick 'burst' of prop wash against the rudder will have far less effect than a prop placed in closer proximity to the rudder...

How ironic, that a hopelessly outdated 44-year old tub like mine, with her deep forefoot, massive amount of underbody relative to freeboard, and prop directly adjacent to the rudder, would be far more maneuverable than many of today's Latest & Greatest in the situation you describe, and without the need for a bow thruster... 












weinie said:


> If you are manning the throttle in the cockpit and have to put a line running from midship onto the dock before 20 knots of wind blows the boat too far from the dock, you are literally going to lasso the the dock cleat from a greater distance away or jump a much father distance with the second boat than the first.


I see little difference, when I'm trying to get a spring line on to the dock without assistance, I'm gonna be doing it from the general vicinity where it's attached to the boat, whether that be a midship cleat, or cockpit winch, whatever... Chances are you're gonna have to leave the wheel momentarily, in any case...

However, if you're gonna be "jumping" onto the dock from the cockpit before the boat has been sprung alongside, with 20 knots of breeze trying to blow the boat off, well... you're a far braver man than I...

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, be careful what you wish for...


Yeah, but here's the difference...I can move my fenders down below into my incredibly spacious salon and cabins if I want to keep my boat "clean" so creepy "my-way-or-the-highway" paparazzi stalkers won't take photos and post them on forums as the "wrong way to do things". (If I actually gave a damn that is).

People with huge lockers and no space below don't have this choice. Poor bastards.

Like I said - every single time.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, but here's the difference...I can move my fenders down below into my incredibly spacious salon and cabins if I want to keep my boat "clean" so creepy "my-way-or-the-highway" paparazzi stalkers won't take photos and post them on forums as the "wrong way to do things". (If I actually gave a damn that is).


Ooops, my bad... I keep forgetting the only unflattering photos of other boats permitted to be posted on Sailnet is your archive of homely Brent Swain designs...





smackdaddy said:


> People with huge lockers and no space below don't have this choice. Poor bastards.


This doesn't have to be an Either/Or issue, you know... I'd hardly say a boat like an Outbound 46, or even a J-46, qualifies as having "no space below", yet still manages to strike a very good balance between accommodation space, and excellent access to machinery and belowdeck storage for the massive amount of gear some people need to be carrying to go off cruising...


----------



## MedSailor

JonEisberg said:


> With the ever-increasing dependance upon bow thrusters and joystick docking systems, springing off a dock will continue to become more and more of a lost art... And with today's sailboats becoming more like powerboats with their beam carried all the way aft, the hull shapes of many modern boats no longer lend themselves to performing the sort of maneuver you describe...


I'm hoping to keep these old skills and apply them as necessary to my new Nauticat 40. And when I need or want to, I'm using it's bowthruster!!! Why? Because I can! 

The best and most creative docking maneuver I successfully executed (we won't talk about the unsuccessful creative ones) was once when I hastily poached a slip to get some fresh water at a marina in Canada. I ignored the cardinal rule of planning your exit and found myself tied to a port finger pier with a very strong starboard wind (remember my bowsprit?) AND a strong current running port to stb in the fairway behind me. I don't steer well in referse AND I prop walk to stb.

Of course, I need to back the boat up, and turn the bow to stb. Hmmm.... the wind will push my bow strongly to port. The current and prop walk will turn my stern to stb... Crap!

What I did was raise a full mizzen at the dock and sheet it amidships. It provided more windage than my bowsprit and acted like a stern thruster and pivoted my stern sharply to port as I backed out. I loosed the mizzen sheet to "turn off the thruster" and was on my way.

BTW, my Formosa 41's traditional lines were a huge liability in docking. Just sayin' it;s not just a modern thing.

MedSailor


----------



## Don L

MedSailor said:


> I'm hoping to keep these old skills and apply them as necessary to my new Nauticat 40. And when I need or want to, I'm using it's bowthruster!!! Why? Because I can!


I don't see using a bow thruster as any type of real limit anymore than good cleats or an engine. If your boat needs one you get one.


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> BTW, my Formosa 41's traditional lines were a huge liability in docking. Just sayin' it;s not just a modern thing.
> 
> MedSailor


Of course it isn't, but such a design bears very little resemblance to the sort of boat(s) I was referring to...

Trust me, as one who got his start in the delivery business running Island Traders for Marine Trading International, I am at least somewhat acquainted with what absolute pigs they can be to maneuver in tight spots or tricky situations...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> One of the problems many cruisers face today in trying to travel with sufficient fenders, is where do you stow them? Another feature common to many of today's production boats, is the dwindling lazarette/cockpit locker increasing being given over to accommodation space. And, oversized conventional fenders are one of the bulkier bits of gear aboard, often getting tied to the stern rail, and so on, with insufficient storage for gear below deck...
> 
> I don't know why more folks haven't gone to inflatable fenders, they are the certainly the only way to go on a smaller boat like mine. I've long been very impressed by the ones from Aere', they're virtually bulletproof... This was my compliment of fenders for this summer's cruise, there is no way I could travel with such an array if they weren't inflatable, and could be stowed very compactly...


I agree. I know I make my own problem more difficult by keeping my cockpit locker as "clean" space (although not always dry...). I can't even imagine storing fenders in a living space. Totally unacceptable, not for seamanship but because it's just uncivilized. Fortunately I have a voluminous anchor locker that holds my eight conventional fenders. My two round fenders do hang from the pushpit (note to self - replace those fender whips). I do have three Aeré fenders--two huge and one gargantuan--that live deflated in a drainage bag in the cockpit locker. I don't need them often but when I do I'm so glad I have them.


----------



## travlin-easy

There has been a lot of days with nasty winds and currents while trying to dock in very tight spaces that I wished I had a bow thruster. Trying to turn the boat around in a fairway that is only 10 feet wider than the boat's length and filled with multimillion dollar boats can be quite perplexing in a 20 knot wind. I've done this enough times to know about the pucker factor.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## Shockwave

A bow thruster is only good to about 13~15 knots, it simply won't push the bow off the dock in more then that. Boats today have high freeboards, roller furling and stuff on deck, all that windage limits the usefulness of a bow thruster for "grunt" conditions like trying to push a boat pinned to the dock (ie like the Jon's photo). 

That said we love our bow thruster as a maneuvering tool when in a marina, flow across the rudder becomes a non issue.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ooops, my bad... I keep forgetting the only unflattering photos of other boats permitted to be posted on Sailnet is your archive of homely Brent Swain designs...
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't have to be an Either/Or issue, you know... I'd hardly say a boat like an Outbound 46, or even a J-46, qualifies as having "no space below", yet still manages to strike a very good balance between accommodation space, and excellent access to machinery and belowdeck storage for the massive amount of gear some people need to be carrying to go off cruising...


Well - hell yeah! If you have fender storage issues on _any_ 46' boat something is seriously wrong!

Oh, and the difference in the photo thing is that one is a discussion of the boat itself while the other is of the skipper and his/her way of doing things. I care if a boat itself is ugly or pretty - I don't care at all if the person sailing it wants to hang stuff all over it. I can easily fix the latter on my own boat - but I definitely can't fix the former.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> I'm hoping to keep these old skills and apply them as necessary to my new Nauticat 40. And when I need or want to, I'm using it's bowthruster!!! Why? Because I can!
> 
> The best and most creative docking maneuver I successfully executed (we won't talk about the unsuccessful creative ones) was once when I hastily poached a slip to get some fresh water at a marina in Canada. I ignored the cardinal rule of planning your exit and found myself tied to a port finger pier with a very strong starboard wind (remember my bowsprit?) AND a strong current running stb to port in the fairway behind me. I don't steer well in referse AND I prop walk to stb.
> 
> Of course, I need to back the boat up, and turn the bow to stb. Hmmm.... the wind will push my bow strongly to port. The current and prop walk will turn my stern to stb... Crap!
> 
> What I did was raise a full mizzen at the dock and sheet it amidships. It provided more windage than my bowsprit and acted like a stern thruster and pivoted my stern sharply to port as I backed out. I loosed the mizzen sheet to "turn off the thruster" and was on my way.
> 
> BTW, my Formosa 41's traditional lines were a huge liability in docking. Just sayin' it;s not just a modern thing.
> 
> MedSailor


Okay - I'd call that technique a win.


----------



## Shockwave

We like the round polyform fenders, they collapse when deflated and can be neaty stacked taking little room, we carry five 34" polyforms. We also carry three Taylor Made 26" square fenders, they are big and heavy but we have found them to be invaluable when laying against pilings. We also carry another half dozen 36" cylindrical fenders and a fender board. These don't stow well but they are handy and we have room.

As Jon mentioned the inflatable fenders are a very nice option especially if storage is at a premium. If we didn't already have a sizable investment in our current fenders we would certainly move it that direction, it would be worth it just from a weight standpoint.


----------



## Don L

I bet I could put a dozen plus fenders into each of my aft lockers at the swim platform. Those lockers are 2.5' of my boats 43.5' total length. Guess that is pretty limiting on my production boat! 

But how many fenders do you regularly need (I have 4 that I keep in the same locker as my lines etc.))? And if you need more haven't you ever hear of the fenders that you can inflate/deflate? 

But really posting pictures of a boat with fenders etc. tried to the rails isn't a "production boat" limit, which I thought was the topic. It is picking the wrong boat for the use. Well maybe not picking the wrong boat as much as choosing to use the wrong boat (using a racer as a cruiser, but if you want to do so what, go for it).


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> I agree. I know I make my own problem more difficult by keeping my cockpit locker as "clean" space (although not always dry...). I can't even imagine storing fenders in a living space. Totally unacceptable, not for seamanship but *because it's just uncivilized*. Fortunately I have a voluminous anchor locker that holds my eight conventional fenders. My two round fenders do hang from the pushpit (note to self - replace those fender whips). I do have three Aeré fenders--two huge and one gargantuan--that live deflated in a drainage bag in the cockpit locker. I don't need them often but when I do I'm so glad I have them.


Heh-heh. Ausp - you and Jon seriously crack me up. "Uncivilized"?

So, if we stow fenders in a holder on the rail we're ignorant, unseamanlike Gypsies. And cameras come out.

If we stow them below somewhere, we're uncivilized.

So, the only way to do this "right" is to buy a boat with deep, voluminous lockers?

Okaaaaaayyyyy.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. Ausp - you and Jon seriously crack me up. "Uncivilized"?
> 
> So, if we stow fenders in a holder on the rail we're ignorant, unseamanlike Gypsies. And cameras come out.
> 
> If we stow them below somewhere, we're uncivilized.
> 
> So, the only way to do this "right" is to buy a boat with deep, voluminous lockers?
> 
> Okaaaaaayyyyy.


All you kids have it wrong! What you do see is is you take yer' hemp lines down as you approach the dock and furl the sails. Once the lines are down, you quickly tie up some rope fenders. When you're done, a quick trip up the mast to reeve the lines and you're sailing again.









What's all this about storing fenders in the cargo hold. That's for the wenches, gold and rum! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! 










MedSailor


----------



## mstern

While I sometimes envy those of you with "real" cruising boats, I don't have that problem when docking in tight places. Not only is my Oday 23 pretty handy, but having an outboard for auxilliary power means I can point the prop. I can pretty much do a 360 without much movement forward or aft. And I can counteract the force of the wind as it tries to push the bow around. I once had to manuver off a dock with a contrary wind; I was tied up port-side to, with the wind pushing me directly onto the dock. I put an extra couple of fenders out on the port bow and cast off all of the lines except the port bow line. I doubled that line around the cleat on the dock, and snubbed it back on the port bow cleat, with a friend holding on. I then pointed the outboard to starboard (as if steering a sharp turn to starboard), and gave it the gas in reverse. The stern pulled away from the dock, pivoting on the lone attached bow line. When we were sufficiently off the dock (almost perpendicular to the dock), I had my friend let go the bow line, which ran off the dock cleat on its own. He hauled it in out of the water. We backed up a bit more, then were on our way. One of the most satisfying things I've done on the water.


----------



## mitiempo

JonEisberg said:


>


Jon

What design is Chancy? I don't recognize it.


----------



## MedSailor

It's a Brent Swain design. A little known fact is that he designed a few GRP boats. 

Medsailor


----------



## mitiempo

MedSailor said:


> It's a Brent Swain design. A little known fact is that he designed a few GRP boats.
> 
> Medsailor


Not bloody likely!

Brent doesn't have the "eye" and I doubt he really knows how.


----------



## JonEisberg

mitiempo said:


> Jon
> 
> What design is Chancy? I don't recognize it.


She's an ancient Chance 30-30, designed by the late Britton Chance, and by Allied back in 1970... 'Overbuilt' might be a better description, Allied was known for building a very stout line of more traditional cruising boats from designs like those from Thomas Gilmer, and of course the Allied Seawind is famous for having been the first fiberglass boat to complete a circumnavigation. The Chance 30-30 was Allied's first venture into the Cruiser-Racer or 'Performance Cruiser' genre of the day, and bears a lot of similarities to the boats from C&C of that era...

My boat has undergone a lot of modifications since I've owned her, swapping out the old 'Shark Fin' keel for a more modern shoal draft squashed bulb 'Beavertail' was the biggest change from the original design:










There's more of the story, here...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2291754-post10.html


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> It's a Brent Swain design. A little known fact is that he designed a few GRP boats.
> 
> Medsailor


LMAO!

Actually, she is the result of a unique collaboration between Brent, and Bob Perry... Bob drew the sheerline, the rest is pure Brent, but I removed the original 3' high solid steel lifelines, and replaced them with the more elegant 24" 'trip wires"... 

Brit Chance was a very interesting designer, and has a lot of impressive yachts in his portfolio, he certainly wasn't afraid of breaking the mold...

There was an excellent thread over on SA in the wake of his passing, a lot of people with very fond memories of his boats:

EIGHT BELLS - Britton Chance Jr. - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums

Back in the Glory Days of maxi yacht racing, EQUATION was always one of my favorites, what a spectacular boat...

This photo of her is just the sort of pic I would have put up on the wall of my room as a kid... Not sure how many of Brent's designs rate that sort of treatment, although no doubt a few probably have...

)


----------



## copacabana

Jon, from the very narrow stern it looks like an IOR design. Is that the case? It's certainly a nice-looking boat and it seems to have served you very well.


----------



## SVAuspicious

I raced on a Chance 30-30 back in the early 80s. A great boat.


----------



## Ajax_MD

JonEisberg said:


> She's an ancient Chance 30-30, designed by the late Britton Chance, and by Allied back in 1970... 'Overbuilt' might be a better description, Allied was known for building a very stout line of more traditional cruising boats from designs like those from Thomas Gilmer, and of course the Allied Seawind is famous for having been the first fiberglass boat to complete a circumnavigation. The Chance 30-30 was Allied's first venture into the Cruiser-Racer or 'Performance Cruiser' genre of the day, and bears a lot of similarities to the boats from C&C of that era...
> 
> My boat has undergone a lot of modifications since I've owned her, swapping out the old 'Shark Fin' keel for a more modern shoal draft squashed bulb 'Beavertail' was the biggest change from the original design:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's more of the story, here...
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2291754-post10.html


Wow, that's a hell of a story. I had actually PM'd you on SA asking about your boat a few weeks ago. I guess you didn't see it. This answers all of my questions.


----------



## Capt Len

Not having the maritime skills that Med advocates, I had to rely on old tires scatted discreetly along the gunnels. Approaching the dock with considerable way on, it was drop all sails and get the sheets onto the cleats in preparation for disembarking. This method actually worked all summer until I'd collected enough beer bottles to buy some real rope. Engine came much later.


----------



## JonEisberg

copacabana said:


> Jon, from the very narrow stern it looks like an IOR design. Is that the case? It's certainly a nice-looking boat and it seems to have served you very well.


I think it would be considered an 'Early IOR' design, before boats built to that rule started getting too radical... she certainly has the pinched ends that were common to race boats of that era, but still is surprisingly well-mannered off the wind, I rarely encounter a situation that the autopilot or vane isn't able to handle comfortably... I've added so much additional weight to the boat, so she's way down on her designed lines, so is quite a different boat now than what Brit originally designed...

I don't even want to know what the _TRUE_ SA/D ratio of my boat really is, she definitely likes a bit of breeze. Still, a Code O or spinnaker manages to keep her going thru the light stuff...



BubbleheadMd said:


> Wow, that's a hell of a story. I had actually PM'd you on SA asking about your boat a few weeks ago. I guess you didn't see it. This answers all of my questions.


Damn, sorry about that... Haven't been looking over there much recently, and I rarely think of checking for messages... 

So, I posed the question awhile back, looks like there have been no takers... Seems no one can think of any real advantages or benefits of those sexy deeply swept spreaders on boats like the Oceanis 41 for the type of sailing most cruisers do, huh?


----------



## MedSailor

JonEisberg said:


> So, I posed the question awhile back, looks like there have been no takers... Seems no one can think of any real advantages or benefits of those sexy deeply swept spreaders on boats like the Oceanis 41 for the type of sailing most cruisers do,


They're great on a mizzen. You never have the boom out downwind on a mizzen anyway.

Advantages for a sloop? Brand differentiation?

Medsailor


----------



## Shockwave

Jon, the advantage of swept spreaders is the elimination of checks. The disadvantages are increased wear and tear on the main and the inability to ease the main fully when deep.

If an inner forestay is added then checks are required, whether the spreaders are swept or not, to support the spar where the inner forestay terminates.

Marketing dictates that pulling in the checks and tensioning them is a bridge to far......... Remember, even travelers are disappearing, who wants to have to deal with forward D1's, preloaded spars and checks?

Well, other then you and me I guess?



JonEisberg said:


> I think it would be considered an 'Early IOR' design, before boats built to that rule started getting too radical... she certainly has the pinched ends that were common to race boats of that era, but still is surprisingly well-mannered off the wind, I rarely encounter a situation that the autopilot or vane isn't able to handle comfortably... I've added so much additional weight to the boat, so she's way down on her designed lines, so is quite a different boat now than what Brit originally designed...
> 
> I don't even want to know what the _TRUE_ SA/D ratio of my boat really is, she definitely likes a bit of breeze. Still, a Code O or spinnaker manages to keep her going thru the light stuff...
> 
> Damn, sorry about that... Haven't been looking over there much recently, and I rarely think of checking for messages...
> 
> So, I posed the question awhile back, looks like there have been no takers... Seems no one can think of any real advantages or benefits of those sexy deeply swept spreaders on boats like the Oceanis 41 for the type of sailing most cruisers do, huh?


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> They're great on a mizzen. You never have the boom out downwind on a mizzen anyway.
> 
> Advantages for a sloop? Brand differentiation?
> 
> Medsailor


Well, with so many big builders going that route, I'm not sure how much differentiation there is, anymore...

I think Colin Speedie might have the answer, and it's hardly a shocker:

Such rigs are cheaper to build... 

So, the end user gets to live with the disadvantages of something that's primarily to the advantage of the builder... Lucky us, eh? 



> Some say they can make for closer sheeting angles for headsails, but there are other ways of achieving that such as sheeting inside shrouds. OK, without forward lowers or a babystay there's less windage and weight aloft. And in some cases it may be possible to use a smaller section mast, I've heard it claimed.
> 
> But the over-riding factor seems to me to be cost. It must be far less expensive for a yard to install one oversized set of chainplates taking all of the rigging loads into a suitably reinforced matrix in the hull than the traditional way of installing several chainplates, plus their attachments below deck, reinforcing the hull over a larger area and then concealing them with joinery. The latter is far more labour intensive, and labour costs money-lots of it. And as you can also do away with the cost of the lowers, mast attachments, bottlescrews and the like, it may be understandable why that would be an attractive option for builders, especially in the current climate. Boatbuilidng has always been a financially precarious business, and cost cutting exercises that don't on the face of it harm the 'product' (i.e. the rig still stays up), but help the bottom line, must be hard to ignore.
> 
> Some of the earlier boats that have one big 'cluster' chainplate are now a good few years old, and there have been reports of failures of these units, usually on GRP boats where the stainless chainplate has suffered from unseen crevice corrosion below deck level. These units are, in effect, massive single points of failure, and should (at least) be checked regularly for any signs of corrosion-although that's often easier said than done as they tend to be built in, and hard to get at. Because if the chainplate fails, there's little or no chance that you can save the rig, unlike a traditional fore and aft lower set up, where one stay failing might not be catastrophic.
> 
> Swept Back Spreaders A Disadvantage On An Offshore Cruising Sailboat


----------



## JonEisberg

Shockwave said:


> Jon, the advantage of swept spreaders is the elimination of checks. The disadvantages are increased wear and tear on the main and the inability to ease the main fully when deep.
> 
> If an inner forestay is added then checks are required, whether the spreaders are swept or not, to support the spar where the inner forestay terminates.


Certainly, that is one rationale... Makes a bit less sense, however, when virtually none of these new Sense-Boats and their kin feature inner forestays... 



Shockwave said:


> Marketing dictates that pulling in the checks and tensioning them is a bridge to far......... Remember, even travelers are disappearing, who wants to have to deal with forward D1's, preloaded spars and checks?
> 
> Well, other then you and me I guess?


What's ironic about that, is that in the desire to make sailing more 'effortless' by eliminating something like running backstays, the result is a rig that might often compel cruisers with deeply swept spreaders to wind up having to sail higher angles and repeatedly gybe downwind...

The boats I have the most experience with swept spreaders are the Ron Holland Trintellas... The 47 and the 50 still had running backs, and those rigs really needed them...

Perhaps not entirely unrelated to the fact that riggers _HATED_ having to tune the damn things...


----------



## smackdaddy

I think the spreaders issue is pretty obvious: simplicity. As shock mentions it simplifies the rig and the attention it requires. This is what most cruisers (not racers) want...and, most of them being shorthanded and older, what they actually need. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

My Hunter's B&R rig actually still has the backstay (split/adjustable similar to the Bene above). So I can have a good deal of control over the mast/main. But, I (probably like most cruising sailors) honestly don't know the intricacies of fine tuning stay tension, etc. And, unless I'm racing, I don't really care. I just like getting out there and sailing. And I can. Again, simplicity.

Now, what do I give up? True, I can't lay my main out 85 degrees. So what? The main on my Hunter is actually relatively small. It's the headsail that gives it its power. So I'll get a cruising assym and only lose a few degrees, but will still be going faster than the dude doing his WoW.

I see very few downsides.


----------



## Faster

Actually, Smack, I suspect that with your diamond-trussed swept spreader rig the only thing adjusting your backstay will do is tension the forestay (not a bad thing).. I doubt backstay tension does much to your pre-stressed rigging-induced mast bend, esp if you don't have hydraulics..

Our boat is another Holland designed/swept spreader setup, it is a limiting factor but not a major one as sailing DDW is not my favourite thing to do in any event. 

I do think that economics and cost savings probably do have a lot to do with how rigs are designed these days.. and boats too, along with construction techniques.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Actually, Smack, I suspect that with your diamond-trussed swept spreader rig the only thing adjusting your backstay will do is tension the forestay (not a bad thing).. I doubt backstay tension does much to your pre-stressed rigging-induced mast bend, esp if you don't have hydraulics..


I see your point. That makes sense.

It definitely seems like a very stout rig.


----------



## Shockwave

You can adjust swept diamond rig depth by adjusting the diamond tension. This is done with hydraulics or mechanical throws but can create out of column conditions easily. Mast head swept rigs have very little adjustability for draft comtrol, swept fracs have better draft control provided the crane is eccentric.
Most modern swept rigs on cruising boats are set and forget. There is no way to board out the main.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> You can adjust swept diamond rig depth by adjusting the diamond tension. This is done with hydraulics or mechanical throws but can create out of column conditions easily. Mast head swept rigs have very little adjustability for draft comtrol, swept fracs have better draft control provided the crane is eccentric.
> Most modern swept rigs on cruising boats are set and forget. There is no way to board out the main.


Cool - thanks for that feedback shock. I'm actually okay with that. I'd likely reef to de-power way before I needed to board it out. I am cruising with youngsters after all.

Sure, I'd like to power up at times for fun...but for the most part, I like set and forget. We had running backstays for the mizzen on the Pearson 365 Ketch we raced. Not a fan. I can't imagine managing runners, checks, babies, hydraulics, etc. just to get to the next pig roast.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Now, what do I give up? True, I can't lay my main out 85 degrees. So what? The main on my Hunter is actually relatively small. It's the headsail that gives it its power. So I'll get a cruising assym and only lose a few degrees, but will still be going faster than the dude doing his WoW.
> 
> I see very few downsides.


Well, I think if you're ever in a situation where you're sailing deep downwind in a blow and big seas, you'll begin to see the downsides of having to contend with such conditions with a constantly over-trimmed main... 

So, yeah, other than the potential for increased chafe on the main, and difficulty of reefing it when sailing deep, the sacrifice of the full projection of sail area, the creation of added weather helm and increasing the potential for an accidental jibe when sailing DDW, and the fact that your main might still be be over-trimmed even as the boat wants wants to round up or broach in sporty conditions, there are very few downsides to deeply swept spreaders... 

Sure, easy to say you'll simply sail higher angles, set an asymetrical, and gybe your way to a destination directly downwind... But in the real world, that sometimes simply isn't a good option, and sailing DDW can often be the preferred - and far "simpler" - way to go...

btw, you'll lose more than a "few" degrees sailing hotter angles with a cruising chute... And, I still don't think your Hunter, loaded for kroozing, is gonna be as fast in terms of VMG as you think it is...

)


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. Ausp - you and Jon seriously crack me up. "Uncivilized"?
> 
> So, if we stow fenders in a holder on the rail we're ignorant, unseamanlike Gypsies. And cameras come out.
> 
> If we stow them below somewhere, we're uncivilized.
> 
> So, the only way to do this "right" is to buy a boat with deep, voluminous lockers?
> 
> Okaaaaaayyyyy.


If you get out and actually cruise, you might find you won't need so many fenders. Better that storage space be allocated to other water toys and of course some adult beverages.


----------



## ianjoub

aeventyr60 said:


> If you get out and actually cruise, you might find you won't need so many fenders. Better that storage space be allocated to other water toys and of course some adult beverages.


[Threadjack] On that note, just how much booze can one bring with them before it could be considered smuggling? [/threadjack]


----------



## killarney_sailor

Most countries seem to have a limit but we have never seen it enforced. Your alcohol store is taken to be 'ship's stores'. I assume if the customs guy had to walk across cases of booze covering the sole there might be an issue. What you do is stock up on whatever is cheap in a given location because down the street (er, in another country) the tax patterns will be completely different and something else might be cheap, or nothing might be cheap.


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> If you get out and actually cruise, you might find you won't need so many fenders. Better that storage space be allocated to other water toys and of course some adult beverages.


LOL! I take a different view, actually... If I'm headed off to parts unknown, I want to have as many fenders, docklines, and a long powercord as I can manage because, well, _You Never Know..._ 

I want to have sufficient fenders not only for my own boat, but extra for another in the event I'm forced into a situation where someone else might have to raft alongside...

There's always gonna be some place - Marina Hemingway in Havana during a norther is one that comes to mind - where you can't possibly have too many fenders... Or, extension cords, for that matter 

The upside is, the excellent Havana Club rum you can buy there is cheaper than most anything you could have filled your lazarette with from elsewhere...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I think if you're ever in a situation where you're sailing deep downwind in a blow and big seas, you'll begin to see the downsides of having to contend with such conditions with a constantly over-trimmed main...
> 
> So, yeah, other than the potential for increased chafe on the main, and difficulty of reefing it when sailing deep, the sacrifice of the full projection of sail area, the creation of added weather helm and increasing the potential for an accidental jibe when sailing DDW, and the fact that your main might still be be over-trimmed even as the boat wants wants to round up or broach in sporty conditions, there are very few downsides to deeply swept spreaders...


Can you walk me through some situations (based in reality please) where one HAS NO OPTION BUT to sail DDW in big seas?

And how exactly do the spreaders make it difficult to reef the main? I do it all the time - pretty easily. Maybe I'm missing something here.

For a dude who's sailed a million miles, your examples are pretty hair-brained sometimes.



JonEisberg said:


> Sure, easy to say you'll simply sail higher angles, set an asymetrical, and gybe your way to a destination directly downwind... But in the real world, that sometimes simply isn't a good option, and sailing DDW can often be the preferred - and far "simpler" - way to go...
> 
> btw, you'll lose more than a "few" degrees sailing hotter angles with a cruising chute... And, I still don't think your Hunter, loaded for kroozing, is gonna be as fast in terms of VMG as you think it is...
> )


No, I totally agree that sailing with an asym won't ALWAYS be the best option. But for crying out loud, does this mean I'm supposed to buy an ancient, outdated boat purely to cover this very, very, very, very rare inconvenience? No freakin' way. I think we can manage.

As for the VMG, it's cruising bro. Not a race or a delivery. I'm okay with that. What's the PHRF on your boat again?


----------



## ianjoub

DDW?
VMG?

Someone help me here please. What are these abbreviations for?


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, with highly swept spreaders the main will catch when reefing, more so then in line spreaders, it's just geomtry. Every design has plusses and minuses, there is no right or wrong, just preferences. 

In cruising trim we rate 9, racing trim we're -27, the boat is old school, think design ala 60's.


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> ........But for crying out loud, does this mean I'm supposed to buy an ancient, outdated boat......


Hate to break it to you, Smack, but you, me and many others DO have and DID buy an 'ancient outdated boat'... not a bad boat, necessarily, but certainly not a current "recent design thinking" boat.

FWIW I think many of these outdated boats are better in many ways than the current crop. But they're outdated either way... And while I don't want to put words in Jon's mouth I'm sure he'd say your boat is better than the current H40, for example...despite the wicked rig


----------



## Faster

ianjoub said:


> DDW?
> VMG?
> 
> Someone help me here please. What are these abbreviations for?


Dead Down Wind (App wind angle 180 deg)

Velocity Made Good. (net ground speed towards destination.)


----------



## Shockwave

ianjoub said:


> DDW?
> VMG?
> 
> Someone help me here please. What are these abbreviations for?


DDW dead down wind
VMG velocity made good.

Really though, since we sail courses that are not generally dead upwind or downwind, like a bouy race we should really say vmc or velocity made to a course.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Hate to break it to you, Smack, but you, me and many others DO have and DID buy an 'ancient outdated boat'... not a bad boat, necessarily, but certainly not a current "recent design thinking" boat.
> 
> FWIW I think many of these outdated boats are better in many ways than the current crop. But they're outdated either way... And while I don't want to put words in Jon's mouth I'm sure he'd say your boat is better than the current H40, for example...despite the wicked rig


The swept-back spreaders conversation came about not only because of the B&R rig on my Hunter, but because of the new Beneteau Oceanis photo I listed above (here's another angle).










So, I'm really referring to these new boats as much as mine.

Hell, even the new Oysters and Swans have swept-back spreaders. Do they suck?



















So you guys are trying to tell me that if one wants a "proper boat", NONE of these more modern options are suitable?

Sorry. No soup for you.

You do have to admit, though, that Hunter was definitely ahead of its time with the B&R rig.


----------



## sugarbird

I've refrained from commenting on this thread for some time, but I added a bit to a similar one over on SA about how some folks bash & some folks love Westsails, so I might as well barf on the table here too. I do believe that there's (still) room for everybody out on the water, no matter what I might think about your choice of craft. My experiences with boats over a good deal of miles over the past 50 years or so have led to some strongly held beliefs about what I like, and what I don't like, and NO amount of internet (expletive deleted) is going to change my mind. And I don't feel the need to convince you, or anyone else that my views are "right" for me.

If you love your boat, enjoy using it, take good care of it, don't run into me, and behave in a reasonably civilized manner, I'm happy for you, and respect you...even if I have no interest in setting foot on your boat, and wouldn't be caught dead out of sight of land on it. Some (IMHO) pretty pathetic boats and sailors have made some pretty epic voyages, while some darn nice, fully found yachts sailed by knowledgeable watermen have foundered with all hands lost.

We all must each perform our own due diligence, make our own choices, play the cards we're dealt, and deal with the consequences. That's part of what I love about sailing actually! 

Now back to our normally scheduled programming...


----------



## smackdaddy

I think that's a pretty reasonable post, sugar.


----------



## Minnesail

smackdaddy said:


> I think that's a pretty reasonable post, sugar.


Yeah, it is. What the h*ll is it doing in this thread?


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> But for crying out loud, does this mean I'm supposed to buy an ancient, outdated boat purely to cover this very, very, very, very rare inconvenience? No freakin' way. I think we can manage.


Well your boat has not been mad in almost 15 years now, so according to the "interesting boats" thread it is old and outdated! (now running and hiding)



Don0190 said:


> But really posting pictures of a boat with fenders etc. tried to the rails isn't a "production boat" limit, which I thought was the topic.


Looks like that is a production boat at it's carrying limit. Perhaps not the limit Smack was thinking....


----------



## RTB

sugarbird said:


> If you love your boat, enjoy using it, take good care of it, don't run into me, and behave in a reasonably civilized manner, I'm happy for you, and respect you...even if I have no interest in setting foot on your boat, and wouldn't be caught dead out of sight of land on it. Some (IMHO) pretty pathetic boats and sailors have made some pretty epic voyages, while some darn nice, fully found yachts sailed by knowledgeable watermen have foundered with all hands lost.
> 
> We all must each perform our own due diligence, make our own choices, play the cards we're dealt, and deal with the consequences. That's part of what I love about sailing actually!


You should post more, but maybe you're too busy cruising?

So....who buys these production boats? Obviously not (in most cases) the hard core passage-making sailors. The ones that need and want a boat built like a tank. The ones that charge out to sea. Damn the weather....she'll take it. The ones that just want to look at ocean for days and weeks at a time.

Honestly, of the many cruisers that I've met over the last couple of years, I find them very conservative. Just like me. I'm in the Bruce Van Sant camp - "the first principals of cruising: _safety, comfort, and pleasure"_.

So rather than doing the Caribbean 1500 or Salty Dog Rally, we'll meander our way through the Bahamas, over to Turks & Caicos, down to the Dominican Republic, to Puerto Rico, and south from the Virgins. Do I still need a good boat? Sure. Can I still get into trouble? You bet. With a careful watch on weather, I can do this much more safely, more comfortably, and for me, derive much more pleasure along the way vs. a long passage where weather may well catch you off guard.

Maybe in my mind, I put a limit on what I expect from my boat. Another with the same boat will have different ideas. I know that we (my wife and I) have our limits too. We live and cruise within our comfort factor. I'm pretty sure that most cruising couples/families live their lives much as we do. So, that's pretty much the way I see production boats and their limits, and for most of us, our boats do what we want and need.

PS smackdaddy- Don't worry about that B&R rig. The wind is going to be in you face most of the time, heading to the BVI's. And forget all those fenders! We rarely use them at anchor......and seldom at marinas. Definitely go with more rum, and enjoy life.

For all you hardcore passage makers....Ya'll be careful out there!

Ralph


----------



## weinie

smackdaddy said:


> The swept-back spreaders conversation came about not only because of the B&R rig on my Hunter, but because of the new Beneteau Oceanis photo I listed above (here's another angle).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm really referring to these new boats as much as mine.
> 
> Hell, even the new Oysters and Swans have swept-back spreaders. Do they suck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you guys are trying to tell me that if one wants a "proper boat", NONE of these more modern options are suitable?
> 
> Sorry. No soup for you.
> 
> You do have to admit, though, that Hunter was definitely ahead of its time with the B&R rig.


New Jeanneau 349 too:


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Can you walk me through some situations (based in reality please) where one HAS NO OPTION BUT to sail DDW in big seas?


I believe it happens at least every 30 minutes of sailing ...................... on a forum!

BTW - you can sail a B&R DDW, but you have to learn how to steer well


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> The swept-back spreaders conversation came about not only because of the B&R rig on my Hunter, but because of the new Beneteau Oceanis photo I listed above (here's another angle).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm really referring to these new boats as much as mine.
> 
> Hell, even the new Oysters and Swans have swept-back spreaders. Do they suck?
> 
> So you guys are trying to tell me that if one wants a "proper boat", NONE of these more modern options are suitable?
> 
> Sorry. No soup for you.


It would be nice if some folks around here responded to what has been actually written, rather than applying their _Imagination_ so liberally... 

I don't think anyone is saying such boats are "unsuitable", some of the less extreme swept spreader rigs would not necessarily be a deal breaker, for me... I simply posed the question as to what is the _ADVANTAGE_ of such rigs, why have they become so commonplace today, and how is the _INABILITY_ to fully ease the main an _IMPROVEMENT_ over the more traditional ability to do so?

Several downsides to deeply swept spreaders have been mentioned... I can think of only ONE real benefit to such rigs, and that is the ability to have very close sheeting angles on headsails with an LP of less than 105% or so... However, as most of us prefer to avoid sailing to weather unless necessary, and virtually all of the world's cruising routes and tradewind passages generally feature deep downwind sailing, I fail to see how the marginal upwind benefit to be gained by such an improvement in sheeting angle overrides the downsides cited for the kind of sailing most of us do, most of the time...



smackdaddy said:


> You do have to admit, though, that Hunter was definitely ahead of its time with the B&R rig.


Looks like they still are, I don't see many other builders following in their wake with a true B&R rig, sans a backstay...

Gotta admit, however, they took the elimination of the backstay to a whole new level, in using it with in-mast furling and mains with a hollow leech...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Can you walk me through some situations (based in reality please) where one HAS NO OPTION BUT to sail DDW in big seas?


Well, I haven't said that, of course... I'm only saying that in many situations, sailing DDW can be the much preferred, simpler, and safer option... A few examples from recent trips that happened to feature an unusual amount of DDW sailing...

Running this H-R 43 from Trinidad to Annapolis...










Once we had crossed the Caribbean and cleared the Mona Passage, due to the development of a system in the NW Caribbean that eventually became TS Andrea, we elected to pass south of the Turks & Caicos, and up thru the Mayaguana Passage and Exuma Sound, rather than going offshore to the E of the Bahamas... Our course was gonna be pretty close to DDW all the way. Passing to the N of the Dominican Republic, in order to stay clear of the tremendous amount of shipping passing thru there, we stayed to the N of the shipping lanes. However, that places one in close proximity to the dangers of the Silver Bank, and then the Caicos Bank...

That boat was poorly set up for sailing wing & wing, the aluminum pole weighed a ton, and we had to resort to using dock lines as fore and afterguys, and for the preventer... We were seeing a trememdous amount of squall activitiy, and so while trying to maintain a narrow track between the shipping and the Silver Bank, I was very happy we were sailing a boat that was very manageable sailing DDW, or even a bit by the lee... Especially given some of the intense squall activity we were subjected to at night, that passage would have become an incredible PITA if we were having to gybe our way downwind...

Now, had we continued up the Old Bahama Channel instead, we would have encountered one of the better situations anywhere where sailing DDW would have been definitely the way to go:










That narrow slot between Cuba and the the Great Bahama Bank can be truly like running a gauntlet, with a steady procession of cruise ships and merchant vessels threading the needle between the unlit reefs fringing the Bank to the north, and the dangerous reefs along the N shore of Cuba, whose lighthouses may or may not be operational at any given time... The prevailing breeze, of course, generally blows right up that channel... I'll take my chances sailing DDW along the reefs to the north, thank you... You want to gybe back and forth thru all that ship traffic instead, you're welcome to it..

After we'd hunkered down in Ft Pierce for the passage of TS Andrea, we hitched a ride on the Stream up to Hatteras, in a strong breeze that got us to Annapolis in under 4 days... Once abeam of the GA-FL line, again it was DDW all the way to Hatteras... Again, if you'd rather be gybing every couple of hours to remain in in the axis of the Stream, have fun with that...

Sailing my own boat this summer, I wound up having an incredible amount of sailing DDW... All the way from Nantucket to Cape Breton, then the entire distance from the Great Bras 'd Or up thru the Strait of Belle Isle, and beyond... The few hundred miles along the very straight western coast of Newfoundland, the prevailing wind runs directly parallel to the coastline, and most of the sailing I had was in pretty sporty conditions...










Now, maybe it's just me, but I'd much prefer to avoid having to gybe repeatedly in such conditions, especially when running very happily under a reefed main eased all the way out, and the autopilot handling it all quite nicely. Anyone who would rather be tacking downwind along that coast, well, my hat's off to you...

There's one major limitation of doing so, however, at least for a singlehander like me... By gybing downwind on such a passage along such a coast, a solo sailor will taking the possibility of getting some rest off the table for roughly half the passage... Perhaps some solo sailors out there might be brave enough to go to sleep while on the starboard gybe, thus on a course closing with the coast, but I'm not one of them... 

But on any circumnavigation of Newfoundland, or passage on up to Labrador or beyond, the Strait of Belle Isle is really where the fun begins:










Another narrow gauntlet, where ship traffic lanes occupy much of the passage... The wind only blows one of 2 directions thru there, either SW or NE, and with the acceleration effect created by the winds from either the Gulf of St Lawrence, or the N Atlantic Ocean, being squeezed thru that gap, the Strait is well known for its honking breezes... And with a strong SW-setting current, the seas in a SW blow can stand up pretty good...

It was blowing a solid 30 when I ran thru there headed north... Oh, and did I mention the _FOG_ which tends to settle in the Strait? Then, of course, there are these little bergy bits that crop up here and there - they're not transmitting AIS, unfortunately...










Running the Belle Isle gauntlet was some of the hairest sailing I've had in awhile, I was VERY glad I was simply able to manage a course DDW thru there, hugging the Labrador shore in an effort to avoid the worst of the fog, and keep clear of the downbound traffic lane... Again, anyone who would rather have been gybing back and forth across those shipping lanes, have fun... But I'm getting too old for that sh_t, I don't need those sexy swept spreaders, I'm quite content with my "ancient, outdated" inline shrouds...

That rig delivered me DDW to the beautiful Henley Harbor in one piece, after only one Chicken Gybe, whereupon I unwound while anchored beneath The Devil's Dining Table, with more than a couple of celebratory Manhattans, chilled with some ice that had wandered into the harbor from Greenland... 












smackdaddy said:


> And how exactly do the spreaders make it difficult to reef the main? I do it all the time - pretty easily. Maybe I'm missing something here.


Perhaps having tried to do so when sailing deep in a strong breeze is what's missing?



smackdaddy said:


> For a dude who's sailed a million miles, your examples are pretty hair-brained sometimes.


LOL! Well, for a dude who has yet to go much of anywhere under sail, the rigidity with which you hold some opinions which may not necessarily be "based in reality", or informed by first hand experience, can be pretty amusing, sometimes...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I haven't said that, of course... I'm only saying that in many situations, sailing DDW can be the much preferred, simpler, and safer option... A few examples from recent trips that happened to feature an unusual amount of DDW sailing...


Maybe - but I certainly wouldn't buy a boat tailored to these very rare circumstances, giving up many, many other advantages...circumstances that still can be overcome by sailing a slightly different angle.



JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Well, for a dude who has yet to go much of anywhere under sail, the strength with which you hold some opinions which may not necessarily be "based in reality", or informed by first hand experience, can be pretty amusing, sometimes...


Well, I've done it a few times actually...



















It was slow and not that much more comfortable. I would have MUCH rather sailed with an assym - but we were in the non-spin class. You'll notice in the above photo that the spreaders on this Pearson are not swept back - but the angle of this main would cause no problems on my Hunter that _does_ have the swept-back spreaders. So it's not really an issue. I could WoW just like this on my Hunter.

So, see, we've both sailed WoW on the ocean. You've done it quite a bit more - around icebergs apparently. Respect for that.

That still does nothing to convince me of your premise that swept-back spreaders are a liability for cruising when you can easily sail a few degrees hotter with either an assym if the weather is good...or reefed down if it's stinky. OR even still WoW with a slightly less deep main. Of course, if your navigation choices leave you no other options than DDW, I guess that's an issue too.

Look, I have absolutely NOTHING against your spreaders. You just seem to have something against everyone else's. So it's not just inexperienced me that disagrees with your viewpoint. It's pretty much the entire modern yachting industry as shown above.

Granted, the VO70 (Camper) I looked at a few months ago in the UK didn't have swept back spreaders:

VO70 SmackTour | SmackTalk!

BUT, the new VO65s do (along with all the other cruising boats I showed above). And they and the rest of the industry has thousands of times more experience than even I, or you, do.

So whaddayagonnado?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Look, it's not just inexperienced me that disagrees with your viewpoint. It's pretty much the entire modern yachting industry as shown above.


Yeah, I guess it's just me...

And John Harries... And Colin Speedie... looks like Steve Benjamin, as well...

Oh, and a French guy named Jean-Francois Eeman, who just happens to be building one of the most awesome offshore/expedition-style yachts on the planet today, the Boreal 44:



> You are not wrong ! For a (blue water) cruising boat made to last, there are, according to me, no valuable reasons to have swept back spreaders.
> 
> Swept Back Spreaders A Disadvantage On An Offshore Cruising Sailboat


so, I guess it's just us 5 dinosaurs, still awaiting the end-of-discussion rationale that settles once and for all the superiority of such deeply swept spreaders on a boat like that Beneteau, and why it's better not to be able to fully ease the boom when the situation might warrant... 



smackdaddy said:


> BUT, the new VO65s do (along with all the other cruising boats I showed above). And they and the rest of the industry has thousands of times more experience than even I, or you, do.
> 
> So whaddayagonnado?


Sorry, but such a comparison between a fully-crewed Volvo Race boat - which has ability to sail so fast as to pull the apparent wind angle far forward even when sailing the deepest of angles - and the type of displacement boats the vast majority of cruising sailors sail shorthanded, is simply laughable...

You really suppose the Caribbean 1500 rally tracker is gonna look anything remotely like this?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, I guess it's just me...
> 
> And John Harries... And Colin Speedie... looks like Steve Benjamin, as well...
> 
> Oh, and a French guy named Jean-Francois Eeman, who just happens to be building one of the most awesome offshore/expedition-style yachts on the planet today, the Boreal 44:
> 
> so, I guess it's just us 5 dinosaurs, still awaiting the end-of-discussion rationale that settles once and for all the superiority of such deeply swept spreaders on a boat like that Beneteau, and why it's better not to be able to fully ease the boom when the situation might warrant...
> 
> Sorry, but such a comparison between a fully-crewed Volvo Race boat - which has ability to sail so fast as to pull the apparent wind angle far forward even when sailing the deepest of angles - and the type of displacement boats the vast majority of cruising sailors sail shorthanded, is simply laughable...
> 
> You really suppose the Caribbean 1500 rally tracker is gonna look anything remotely like this?


Well, I guess comparing the VO boats to production cruisers is a bit of a stretch. About the same as comparing an "offshore/expedition-style yacht" to a production cruiser. So we're all guilty, right?

I think the advantages were discussed above. If you don't buy it - that's okay. A lot of others do.

BTW - your MC article has this photo:










It's a dual headsail config. Do they even have the main out on this one? Swept-back spreaders wouldn't be an issue here, right? And you probably want to have a word with Harries about that fender stowage I would imagine.


----------



## MedSailor

So while we argue about the disadvantages of swept back spreaders....

What ARE the advantages? 

Medsailor

PS I am a neutral party here bevause my boat has one mast with regular spreaders and one with swept.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> So while we argue about the disadvantages of swept back spreaders....
> 
> What ARE the advantages?
> 
> Medsailor
> 
> PS I am a neutral party here bevause my boat has one mast with regular spreaders and one with swept.


The advantages are simple...with such spreaders you can fit a spa on the boat.

Actually, here's one of the better explanations of the B&R rig I've seen:


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> So while we argue about the disadvantages of swept back spreaders....
> 
> *What ARE the advantages? *
> 
> Medsailor


According to smack's video, sounds like they offer _"A BETTER RIDE"_...

I know, such technical nautical terminology might be confusing to some...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> According to smack's video, sounds like they offer _"A BETTER RIDE"_...
> 
> I know, such technical nautical terminology might be confusing to some...


What was that whole comprehension thing you were talking about earlier?

Here's another description:

B&R 23 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The B&R 23 is equipped with the patented 'B&R rig'.[1][2] The main characteristics of the rig include:
> 
> two rigid struts supporting the lower section of the mast
> no backstays
> 30 degree swept spreaders
> double diamond shrouding
> 
> Benefits of the B&R rig are:
> 
> decreased load of mast foot - load spread over three points, allows for smaller mast section, decreasing weight
> increased strength of rig
> the loading of the mast, shrouds and mast foot is decreased
> allows for a large leach in mainsail


Strength, stability, simplicity, decreased weight aloft, more sail area possible, better distribution of loads...

And another, more in-depth description...

The Insider's Guide to Choosing and Buying a Yacht

Try to pay really close attention to the few pages discussing the rig. Yes, there are limitations with the swept-back spreaders like you mention...but obviously not enough to dissuade virtually the entire industry from adopting them.

Do we need the crayons again?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> What was that whole comprehension thing you were talking about earlier?
> 
> Here's another description:
> 
> B&R 23 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Strength, stability, simplicity, decreased weight aloft, more sail area possible, better distribution of loads...
> 
> And another, more in-depth description...
> 
> The Insider's Guide to Choosing and Buying a Yacht
> 
> Try to pay really close attention to the few pages discussing the rig. Yes, there are limitations with the swept-back spreaders like you mention...but obviously not enough to dissuade virtually the entire industry from adopting them.
> 
> Do we need the crayons again?


Ahhh, I think I see the problem... You seem to be confusing, or equating, the B&R rig with any and every other rig that features deeply swept spreaders...

That rig on the Beneteau Oceanis, for instance, with its backstay, and absence of double diagonals, would seem to have few of the purported advantages of the B&R, while retaining all of the disadvantages of deeply swept spreaders...


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! I take a different view, actually... If I'm headed off to parts unknown, I want to have as many fenders, docklines, and a long powercord as I can manage because, well, _You Never Know..._
> 
> I want to have sufficient fenders not only for my own boat, but extra for another in the event I'm forced into a situation where someone else might have to raft alongside...
> 
> There's always gonna be some place - Marina Hemingway in Havana during a norther is one that comes to mind - where you can't possibly have too many fenders... Or, extension cords, for that matter
> 
> The upside is, the excellent Havana Club rum you can buy there is cheaper than most anything you could have filled your lazarette with from elsewhere...


Silly me, my cruizeheimers acting up. I forgot to get rid of my 1500' of anchor rode, 5 anchors, storm jib, trysail, down wind pole etc, etc, etc in lieu of a few "extra fenders" to protect me from some other lame ass sailors. Those dinghies they have hanging from those davits work real well as fenders....

What's extra power cords? You mean you have to plug in?

Smackys biggest challenge will be finding enough room for the mountain of food he will need to feed his erstwhile crew. Can't have enough lucky charms for kids these days.


----------



## desert rat

John how can you criticize that beautifully orchestrated feat of salesmanship.
We are all now convinced that the only proper method of staying a mast is B&R.
I am no longer enamored of schooners and all; those thousands of lines running
every which way.

How is that for sarcasm

Fire away smack.


----------



## Capt Len

Nothing that some carefully placed baggiwrinkle wouldn't fix. Remember to slack the throats when W on W .Oops, maybe I'm thinking about a different kind of sailboat .


----------



## aeventyr60

Capt Len said:


> Nothing that some carefully placed baggiwrinkle wouldn't fix. Remember to slack the throats when W on W .Oops, maybe I'm thinking about a different kind of sailboat .


A by gone era for sure. Remember when dad used to take you to B & R for an ice cream cone?


----------



## JonEisberg

Capt Len said:


> Nothing that some carefully placed baggiwrinkle wouldn't fix. Remember to slack the throats when W on W .Oops, maybe I'm thinking about a different kind of sailboat .


Baggywrinkles on a Beneteau Sense-Boat, eh?

Now, _THAT_ would be something to see...

Damn, wish I had some mad skills with Photoshop...


----------



## SVAuspicious

aeventyr60 said:


> If you get out and actually cruise, you might find you won't need so many fenders. Better that storage space be allocated to other water toys and of course some adult beverages.


I don't think you can have too many fenders.






I've seen a lot of boats whose owners end up using life jackets to fend dragging boats, hold off hard dinghies, beef up the protection while rafting, any number of other purposes driven by not having enough fenders. Now we can reasonably talk about how many fenders are "enough." You can make a good case that my 13 are "too many." I can show you instances where all the fenders have been used, and a few when they were all in use at once.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, I haven't said that, of course... I'm only saying that in many situations, sailing DDW can be the much preferred, simpler, and safer option... A few examples from recent trips that happened to feature an unusual amount of DDW sailing...


When working through island chains you may find DDW to be forced on you. Offshore I tend toward 135 - 150 to reduce the risk, even with a preventer. I fly spinnakers as often as possible. I love them. It's an illness. There are some realities that deserve reflection. In seas as the boat speeds up and slows down (a characteristic many boats share) you can sail out from under the wind in a spinnaker. A smaller, heavier sail can reduce this problem. Buy the right sail. In my case I have a slightly undersized 1.5 oz asymm for offshore (and easy singlehanding on day sails) and a 3/4 oz symmetric for Bay sailing and when there are more people aboard.

The other issue is wind shadowing in big swells. A sail with more support - like a winged out jib - is less subject to fabric damage.

A boat well set up for spinnakers will be well set up for poling out a headsail.



MedSailor said:


> So while we argue about the disadvantages of swept back spreaders....
> 
> What ARE the advantages?


It depends on the boat. B&R rigs make great sense on sport boats. The reduction in weight aloft and easy rigidity is attractive. So is the opportunity to reduce hull scantlings due to reduced end loads. Sport boats are more likely to be really fast and even plane so the limited range of available boom angles is not a significant factor.

As boats get larger and cruising grounds are extended the calculus changes. I agree with Jon getting the boom out happens more often and the limitations imposed by the B&R rig start to add up. Add in the additional chafe panels (with weight and maintenance) and the attraction declines yet further.

Hunter in particular makes a point of the strength of a tripod. Unfortunately if a major shroud or stay fails loss of the rig is almost certain. Someone come sit on this stool while I cut a leg out from underneath you. *grin* A more conventional rig, particularly if there are running backs and an inner forestay, has much more redundancy.

Most of the advantages that Hunter advertises as derived from the B&R rig (small, easily tacked headsails and end-boom sheeting for example) are readily available on boats with conventional rigging.

There are a number of advantages to the boat builder. It's cheaper to build a B&R rig than a more conventional rig with a tree-trunk (<-reference to heavier large-section structures) for a mast.

Don't lose sight of the additional time it takes to tune a B&R rig. If you haul your boat mast down you'll pay that price over and over again unless you do your own tuning. If you do want to cruise a B&R rigged boat I suggest more frequent rig inspections (including dye penetrants) and likely more frequent rig replacement. The probability of a failure is no different than any other boat but the impact is greater.

In my opinion B&R rigs make good sense for sport boats. For cruising boats B&R rigs have few if any benefits over their disadvantages.


----------



## Don L

A BIG advantage of my current B&R rig with a shorter mast, longer boom, large mainsail, and a fraction 110% headsail over my last boat's conventional 39' is MUCH less weather helm. And I spend a LOT more time sailing into the wind than DDW (which only is a need ion a narrow seaway and if it becomes a problem I just center the main or roll up the headsail).

Now the harters can attack this all they want to, but it is fact I can personally say over arm chair claims. 

The main problem with B&R rigs is that people get on them for a short time and time to sail them the same way as "conventional" rigs instead of learning to sail it for the design it is.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> BTW - you can sail a B&R DDW, but you have to learn how to steer well


And so, you've summed up one of the principal liabilities of such deeply-swept rigs...  Most Mom & Pop cruisers are better served with boats that can be handled more easily by self steering devices, and require less 'attention' to steer downwind, which can quickly lead to exhausting a shorthanded crew. Boats that are well-mannered under the control of an AP or vane should be one of the highest priorities for people sailing longer distances, in my opinion...

The most sobering illustration for me of the downside of a deeply swept rig occurred about 6-7 years ago, running a Trintella 50 down to Florida in mid-Decdmber...

We didn't get going until about 2 weeks before Christmas. With the forecast of a very strong Polar Vortexy-type front, we knew it would be a very fast and cold night on the Bay... Just south of Cove Point, right on cue just after dark, the front arrived with a bang. The temperature plumeted, we were immediately treated to a sustained breeze of 35-40, and very gusty...

By the time we reached the mouth of the Potomac, the seas were considerably larger than I'd ever seen on the Bay before. The wind had settled into a steady 40+, and we were routinely seeing gusts well in excess of 50 knots, and the temps on shore had dipped into the low teens. We were starting to get a bit of ice on deck, it was a brutal night, I was glad for my heavy investments over the years in Musto and Patagonia gear...  The steering cockpit got pooped twice while crossing the Potomac, something that never happened on that boat in all the times I'd taken it north and south around Hatteras, or a couple of trips to Bermuda...

However, the sailing was, well, exhilarating... Full on adrenaline rush, plenty of hot chocolate served up to keep warm, but no coffee required to stay awake  I felt like I was driving a VOR boat in the Southern Ocean, we were just _FLYING_ down the bay, and the night just flew by...

We were sailing DDW under the main alone, a Leisure-Furl hoisted to perhaps just above the lowest spreaders, probably just a bit larger than storm trysail size, the boom just off the shrouds. The rig on that Trintella is placed well forward, so in theory running under the main alone should be 'pulling' the boat along a bit more than most. Spreaders are swept back on that rig to something around 22-25 degrees, if memory serves...

We were running square to the seas, for the most part, gybing downwind was definitely NOT an option that night, and fortunately we were able to run the entire length of the bay on starboard tack. However, here was the problem...

The boat was definitely NOT being overpowered, in fact had it been daylight, we might have tried carrying even a bit more sail... But every so often, on average every 20 minutes or so, we would be hit by a blast that was impossible to overcome with the helm, no matter how well it might have been anticipated. With the main in a constantly over-trimmed condition, the boat would be thrown into a screaming broach that was impossible to overcome, and would take a surprisingly long time to recover from, and resume our course downwind... The rudder would become completely stalled, and the inability to ease the main any further would keep the boat pinned beam-to the seas for what often seemed like forever. On more than one occasion, I started thinking we might have to start the engine to try to recover, and power out of it... Of course, if we had been sailing offshore in a mature storm, with large breaking seas, the consequences could have been far more grave...

The difficulty of dealing with these wild rides became so disconcerting, that by the time we were approaching the Bay Bridge-Tunnel, I was starting to become concerned about our ability to safely sail thru the bridge opening at the Chesapeake Channel...With the possibility of going into one of those out of control broaches at precisely the wrong time, I was thinking that we might have to drop the main, start the engine, and simply motor thru the gap between the two rockpiles...

Turned out as we closed on the tunnel, conditions had moderated a bit, and we were no longer seeing gusts topping 50. So, we managed to keep sailing, but did fire up the engine before passing over the tunnel, just in case...

The point of all this is, the boat was NOT being overpowered by the conditions... With careful attention to the helm, we were doing just fine _most of the time_... But, I'm firmly convinced that had we been able to ease the main fully, we would have been doing just fine _all of the time_... It was being forced to sail with a grossly over-trimmed main that was creating the problem, and would likewise create the same problem for any self-steering gear that most cruising sailors rely on so heavily, in conditions far more benign...


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> In my opinion B&R rigs make good sense for sport boats. For cruising boats B&R rigs have few if any benefits over their disadvantages.


Good post, Dave...

For certain types of sailors, deeply swept rigs can certainly make sense. On the Dashew's type boats, for instance, in order eliminate the backstay in order to get those big roachy mains. Or, for people like Beth & Evans on HAWK, who - like the Dashews - sail a large, powerful boat very aggressively, and with a constant eye toward taking advantage of weather while on a passage, and sailing boats capable of making the sort of speed off the wind to keep the AWA further forward...

However, that's just not the way most of us sail... And, it's certainly not the way most of those Beneteau Oceanis' and their cousins are likely to be sailed...



SVAuspicious said:


> The other issue is wind shadowing in big swells. A sail with more support - like a winged out jib - is less subject to fabric damage.


That's an excellent point that many appear to underestimate. Again, I don't know how anyone goes cruising without a downwind pole... 

As I mentioned earlier, my cruise this summer featured a very high percentage of deep downwind sailing. And, a very high percentage of that, was right in that 'No Man's Land', with an AWA or right around 150 degrees, or thereabouts. That fine line where it's a close call whether to fly the jib conventionally, but right on the edge of being shadowed, or keeping it poled out...

When I left Nantucket bound for Nova Scotia, it was only 2 days after Hurricane Arthur had passed right over the top of that area. The sea state in the Gulf of Maine was still pretty miserable, very confused, and my course towards Cape Breton was putting the AWA right at 150 on starboard tack... Very nice sailing in a fresh breeze, but carrying the jib conventionally was not possible, without sailing a much higher angle...

Few things I hate more, than that shock loading that can occur when a headsail spills the air in a confused seaway, and then fills again with a BANG... The punishment you're inflicting on your rig by permitting that can be immense, I don't know how anyone tolerates it... In such a situation, winging out the jib is the only way to go, helps keep the boat better squared away to the seas, and is probably faster, as well...

Did I mention that I don't understand how anyone goes off cruising without a downwind pole? Hell, they're even more vital on a passage than jerry cans...



btw, a little birdie at a Florida rigging shop just mentioned that a new Hunter 33 recently dropped its rig somewhere on the Chesapeake... Anyone know any more about that?

Riggers have a favorite nickname for the Bergstrom & Ridder rig:

_"Bird-strainers"..._

And, for those who enjoy reading between the lines, this one from one of Bob Perry's reviews is a good brain teaser:



> Hunter has used this rig exclusively for years, so I am going to assume that they believe there are actual advantages to it.


)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, I think I see the problem... You seem to be confusing, or equating, the B&R rig with any and every other rig that features deeply swept spreaders...
> 
> That rig on the Beneteau Oceanis, for instance, with its backstay, and absence of double diagonals, would seem to have few of the purported advantages of the B&R, while retaining all of the disadvantages of deeply swept spreaders...


Actually, no, I'm not confusing them. You're having that comprehension issue you disdain again.

You and Med asked about the advantages of swept-back spreaders, the B&R video and link address this point (among other things), as does "The Insider's Guide to Choosing and Buying a Yacht" (specifically in the pages leading up to the B&R rig-specific section I linked you to). You just have to pay attention - actually being willing to learn something. Instead, this was your takeaway:



JonEisberg said:


> According to smack's video, sounds like they offer _"A BETTER RIDE"_...


I understand that the Bene (Oyster/Swan/etc.) rig is different from the B&R - but it shares many of the same principles...if you're paying attention that is.


----------



## Bene505

Love this thread. Not liking the momentary lapses of civility. Just saying...

Regards,
Brad


----------



## MedSailor

B&R tally:

-Lighter weight aloft is always desirable. (they say stronger & lighter, but you can't have both, they're the same here and depend on the safety factors in your formula) +1 
-The ability to make a lighter hull may be desirable, or not +0/+1
-Decreased costs to produce +1 (if you're buying new)
-Large roachy main is usually desirable +1

-Increased costs to maintain. -1
-More difficult to tune and inspect. -1
-Can't sail as deep DDW. -1
-Increased headstay sag and no ability to tension. -2 (surprised nobody is jumping all over this one) 
-No ability to control main through mast bend. -1

Depending on what you're building and where you plan to go with it, it looks like it has it's place. I'd be willing to bet that Hunter likes to capitalize on the first 3 advantages in particular. Most of their boats aren't designed/intended to go to far off places so building a lighter, cheaper boat is good for them. They sacrifice some sail handling and shape and maintenance/inspection issues, but again if you look at their intended market, it makes sense. 

To be clear I'm not putting forward the opinion that Hunters built with this rig, can't go to far off places.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> And so, you've summed up one of the principal liabilities of such deeply-swept rigs...  Most Mom & Pop cruisers are better served with boats that can be handled more easily by self steering devices, and require less 'attention' to steer downwind, which can quickly lead to exhausting a shorthanded crew. Boats that are well-mannered under the control of an AP or vane should be one of the highest priorities for people sailing longer distances, in my opinion...
> 
> The most sobering illustration for me of the downside of a deeply swept rig occurred about 6-7 years ago, running a Trintella 50 down to Florida in mid-Decdmber...
> 
> We didn't get going until about 2 weeks before Christmas. With the forecast of a very strong Polar Vortexy-type front, we knew it would be a very fast and cold night on the Bay... Just south of Cove Point, right on cue just after dark, the front arrived with a bang. The temperature plumeted, we were immediately treated to a sustained breeze of 35-40, and very gusty...
> 
> By the time we reached the mouth of the Potomac, the seas were considerably larger than I'd ever seen on the Bay before. The wind had settled into a steady 40+, and we were routinely seeing gusts well in excess of 50 knots, and the temps on shore had dipped into the low teens. We were starting to get a bit of ice on deck, it was a brutal night, I was glad for my heavy investments over the years in Musto and Patagonia gear...  The steering cockpit got pooped twice while crossing the Potomac, something that never happened on that boat in all the times I'd taken it north and south around Hatteras, or a couple of trips to Bermuda...
> 
> However, the sailing was, well, exhilarating... Full on adrenaline rush, plenty of hot chocolate served up to keep warm, but no coffee required to stay awake  I felt like I was driving a VOR boat in the Southern Ocean, we were just _FLYING_ down the bay, and the night just flew by...
> 
> We were sailing DDW under the main alone, a Leisure-Furl hoisted to perhaps just above the lowest spreaders, probably just a bit larger than storm trysail size, the boom just off the shrouds. The rig on that Trintella is placed well forward, so in theory running under the main alone should be 'pulling' the boat along a bit more than most. Spreaders are swept back on that rig to something around 22-25 degrees, if memory serves...
> 
> We were running square to the seas, for the most part, gybing downwind was definitely NOT an option that night, and fortunately we were able to run the entire length of the bay on starboard tack. However, here was the problem...
> 
> The boat was definitely NOT being overpowered, in fact had it been daylight, we might have tried carrying even a bit more sail... But every so often, on average every 20 minutes or so, we would be hit by a blast that was impossible to overcome with the helm, no matter how well it might have been anticipated. With the main in a constantly over-trimmed condition, the boat would be thrown into a screaming broach that was impossible to overcome, and would take a surprisingly long time to recover from, and resume our course downwind... The rudder would become completely stalled, and the inability to ease the main any further would keep the boat pinned beam-to the seas for what often seemed like forever. On more than one occasion, I started thinking we might have to start the engine to try to recover, and power out of it... Of course, if we had been sailing offshore in a mature storm, with large breaking seas, the consequences could have been far more grave...
> 
> The difficulty of dealing with these wild rides became so disconcerting, that by the time we were approaching the Bay Bridge-Tunnel, I was starting to become concerned about our ability to safely sail thru the bridge opening at the Chesapeake Channel...With the possibility of going into one of those out of control broaches at precisely the wrong time, I was thinking that we might have to drop the main, start the engine, and simply motor thru the gap between the two rockpiles...
> 
> Turned out as we closed on the tunnel, conditions had moderated a bit, and we were no longer seeing gusts topping 50. So, we managed to keep sailing, but did fire up the engine before passing over the tunnel, just in case...
> 
> The point of all this is, the boat was NOT being overpowered by the conditions... With careful attention to the helm, we were doing just fine _most of the time_... But, I'm firmly convinced that had we been able to ease the main fully, we would have been doing just fine _all of the time_... It was being forced to sail with a grossly over-trimmed main that was creating the problem, and would likewise create the same problem for any self-steering gear that most cruising sailors rely on so heavily, in conditions far more benign...


Well, you did intentionally sail into a difficult situation. So there's that.

Apart from that, if you were having that kind of trouble spinning out due to the over-trimmed main, why didn't you douse the main and just use some headsail and the motor? I'm not seeing how this is all the fault of the spreaders.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> When working through island chains you may find DDW to be forced on you. Offshore I tend toward 135 - 150* to reduce the risk, even with a preventer.* I fly spinnakers as often as possible. I love them. It's an illness. There are some realities that deserve reflection. In seas as the boat speeds up and slows down (a characteristic many boats share) you can sail out from under the wind in a spinnaker. A smaller, heavier sail can reduce this problem. Buy the right sail. In my case I have a slightly undersized 1.5 oz asymm for offshore (and easy singlehanding on day sails) and a 3/4 oz symmetric for Bay sailing and when there are more people aboard.
> 
> The other issue is wind shadowing in big swells. A sail with more support - like a winged out jib - is less subject to fabric damage.
> 
> A boat well set up for spinnakers will be well set up for poling out a headsail.


Bingo.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - to be clear...I've not by any means argued that the B&R rig is the end-all of rigs. I've posted examples above that present the reasoning behind swept-back spreaders and the B&R design because some asked about it. It's just the rig I have on my boat - it's not _the reason_ I bought my boat. So I don't really care all that much. It will serve me fine.

But, as an ex-architect, I appreciate the design principles of the B&R rig and think it's got some cool things going for it. BUT, I also just paid to have all my standing rigging replaced - and paid nearly twice what I would have with a more conventional rig like with that Bene. There's a lot going on on that B&R rig.

This tells me two things, as one who generally understands the structural issues in play - but doesn't understand the nitty-gritty numbers of the engineering:

1. It's very hard for me to see how this rig can be "cheaper" for Hunter to use (as some have said) than a much more stripped down rig of the Bene. It certainly wasn't cheaper when I was re-rigging it.

2. I think stability AND simplicity is the driving factor in these swept spreader designs. These rigs certainly seem to provide both of those at the same time. And that's huge for most cruisers who don't want or need to be dealing with hydraulic backstays, checkstays, running backstays, whatever - for their typical cruising

We can argue this spreader/DDW thing for eternity. But the industry has already ruled pretty conclusively on it. That's good enough for me. I'm sure they've put some thought into it with some pretty smart, experienced people. And we've not seen a spate of complaints that is changing the industry's mind. Quite the opposite.

So, I certainly feel no need to defend the choices of virtually the entire leisure yachting industry to those traditionalists who don't like those choices.


----------



## travlin-easy

wow, that photo really brings back some old memories. Back then we made fenders from old hawsers, curtains from old canvas (It was called McNamara's Lace), and half-hitch wrapped hand rails and helms. That was 55 years ago, but I remember it well.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## weinie

smackdaddy said:


> Bingo.


If your main cruising grounds are places like long island sound, 3/4 the time you are beating into the wind or on reaches. Very rarely have I found the need to go DDW. Maybe in the trades, but not up here.

Racing non-spin to the leeward mark is one thing, but I almost never use my whisker pole for daily cruising. My aspin on the other hand got used often this year. For one thing, DDW just FEELS slower, especially on a hot summer day when the goal is not necessarily to get to any destination in particular.

FYI, I just traded in my catalina 27 for the jeanneau 349 with no backstay and swept back spreaders. One of the options, though I did not order it, is a square top mainsail with about 15% more surface area....obviously not possible with a backstay.


----------



## Faster

Our boat has a 'hunter-esque' swept spreader configuration. We still have a backstay. On those rare occasions that we spend a lot of time DDW I do worry about the pressure on the main and will choose an alternate course if it's reasonable to do so.

Our backstay is Dyneema, with a lifting 'whip' to clear our roachy main in light air tacks and gybes. This option/setup is not really available to a rig with in-line spreaders.. the momentary loss of backstay tension would be fatal.

I can easily envision the issues Jon faced in a serious blow downwind with such a rig.. and we have experiences a milder version ourselves.

At the end of the day we're all going to have our own prejudices, preferences, techniques, but we're all 'out there' doing it, usually without catastrophe.. and that's just fine, isn't it?

btw.. wienie.. congrats and all. I hadn't realized that Jeanneau had gone the backstay-less route with the '9' series....


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> At the end of the day we're all going to have our own prejudices, preferences, techniques, but we're all 'out there' doing it, usually without catastrophe.. and that's just fine, isn't it?


It's certainly fine with me.

Some just seem to think we're all out there doing it...wrong.


----------



## weinie

Faster said:


> Our boat has a 'hunter-esque' swept spreader configuration. We still have a backstay. On those rare occasions that we spend a lot of time DDW I do worry about the pressure on the main and will choose an alternate course if it's reasonable to do so.
> 
> Our backstay is Dyneema, with a lifting 'whip' to clear our roachy main in light air tacks and gybes. This option/setup is not really available to a rig with in-line spreaders.. the momentary loss of backstay tension would be fatal.
> 
> I can easily envision the issues Jon faced in a serious blow downwind with such a rig.. and we have experiences a milder version ourselves.
> 
> At the end of the day we're all going to have our own prejudices, preferences, techniques, but we're all 'out there' doing it, usually without catastrophe.. and that's just fine, isn't it?
> 
> btw.. wienie.. congrats and all. I hadn't realized that Jeanneau had gone the backstay-less route with the '9' series....


Thanks! The backstay is an option...but kinda pointless IMHO. Btw, did I miss the deep vs shoal keel debate yet 'cause I was really torn on that one.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Well, you did intentionally sail into a difficult situation. So there's that.


Well, if you're actually gonna go places, sometimes that's required... Pretty much the nature of the delivery business, after all... But I had the utmost confidence in the boat, and my crew, one of the best sailors I've ever had the pleasure to travel with... Turned out it was good we left when we did, as we got around Hatteras early the next evening, and had a beautiful sail across to Charleston, sneaking in there just before another big low developed off the SE coast...

We were actually scheduled to depart right after Thanksgiving weekend. But, problem after problem continued to arise with various 'systems' aboard, gotta love the complexity of those CRUISING WORLD "Best Full-Size Cruiser" BOTY Winners  and then there was a further delay, waiting for the Leisure-Furl motor to be shipped back from Germany after a repair...

Naturally, one of the final chores before catching the flight back home from Lauderdale for Christmas after the trip, was taking the L-F motor over to FedEx, to once again be shipped back to Germany...





smackdaddy said:


> Apart from that, if you were having that kind of trouble spinning out due to the over-trimmed main, why didn't you douse the main and just use some headsail and the motor?


That Trintella has a self-tacking jib, which is pretty useless when sailing deep. It would have to have been poled out, but the pole on that boat was way oversized for the self-tacker, configured for a i35% reacher or spinnaker, instead... Moot point anyway that night, no one was going forward to attempt to rig it, with freezing spray, and ice forming on deck...

yeah, I supposed we could have dropped the main, and motored DDW on thru the night... But then, I'd be too embarrassed to tell the tale... 



smackdaddy said:


> I'm not seeing how this is all the fault of the spreaders.


Well, then perhaps you need a little geometry lesson... 

Based on my experience, I have little doubt that had we been able to ease the main to near perpendicular, those conditions would have been _FAR_ easier to manage...

I could be wrong, of course...  But that's what my gut tells me...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So, I certainly feel no need to defend the choices of virtually the entire leisure yachting industry to those traditionalists who don't like those choices.


Well, I'd say asserting that _"virtually the entire leisure yachting industry"_ has ruled in favor of such rigs might be just a _BIT_ of a stretch... 

Catalina, Tartan, Island Packet, Hylas, Hallberg-Rassy are just a few that come to mind of the builders today who have stuck with rigs that are not even remotely close to being as 'radical' as the B&R, or feature the extreme sweep shown on that Beneteau Oceanis...

And, I think it's _really _ stretching it for the sake of argument, to try to categorize the spreaders on this Oyster you've pictured earlier as anything approximating being "deeply raked aft", as that boom could still be eased out to being reasonably close to perpendicular to the centerline...


----------



## SVAuspicious

Don0190 said:


> A BIG advantage of my current B&R rig with a shorter mast, longer boom, large mainsail, and a fraction 110% headsail over my last boat's conventional 39' is MUCH less weather helm.


Shorter mast, longer boom, mainsail size, and fractional headsail are completely independent of a B&R rig and so aren't relevant to a discussion of the pros and cons of that rig.



JonEisberg said:


> That's an excellent point that many appear to underestimate. Again, I don't know how anyone goes cruising without a downwind pole...


Agreed. I can't imagine cruising without a spinnaker pole. A whisker pole might be an nice _addition_.



MedSailor said:


> B&R tally:
> 
> -Lighter weight aloft is always desirable. (they say stronger & lighter, but you can't have both, they're the same here and depend on the safety factors in your formula) +1


You can have both. You get that with carbon fiber. You also get that with a lighter, smaller section mast and more rigging. More money in rigging, less in the mast - total is cheaper, lighter, and strong (I'm not convinced of stronger - it is strong enough). Unfortunately that means you pay more for rigging as most of us don't replace the mast often. Add in-mast furling and the mast costs go back up.



MedSailor said:


> -The ability to make a lighter hull may be desirable, or not +0/+1


Offshore, probably not.



MedSailor said:


> -Decreased costs to produce +1 (if you're buying new)


Lets not confuse cost with price. The savings are likely to go to the manufacturer, not to the buyer.



MedSailor said:


> -Large roachy main is usually desirable +1


Right, unless you have an in-mast furling main.



MedSailor said:


> -Increased costs to maintain. -1
> -More difficult to tune and inspect. -1
> -Can't sail as deep DDW. -1
> -Increased headstay sag and no ability to tension. -2 (surprised nobody is jumping all over this one)


All true



MedSailor said:


> -No ability to control main through mast bend. -1


On cruising boats with big masts this isn't true. You can move the masthead fore and aft but aren't going to bend beyond the pre-bend. -0

For cruising boats add increased difficulty of rigging an SSB antenna.



Faster said:


> Our backstay is Dyneema, with a lifting 'whip' to clear our roachy main in light air tacks and gybes. This option/setup is not really available to a rig with in-line spreaders.. the momentary loss of backstay tension would be fatal.


Those whips are great on smaller boats. As you say, getting a big roach through the backstay can be an issue on many boats unless you have something. Whips work. Taller masts work.



Faster said:


> At the end of the day we're all going to have our own prejudices, preferences, techniques, but we're all 'out there' doing it, usually without catastrophe.. and that's just fine, isn't it?


True enough. Unfortunately the other factor is that some people are very defensive about their boats. I suggest that we should be realistic that nothing is perfect. I can list the deficiencies of all my boats, cars, trucks, motorcycles, and houses. I have a few personal deficiencies as well. *grin* We should be honest about such things.


----------



## hellsop

MedSailor said:


> So while we argue about the disadvantages of swept back spreaders....
> 
> What ARE the advantages?


The swept spreaders mean you end up with the shrouds sloping sternward to the deck instead of being in line with the mast, and you end up not needing a backstay. Which means you can use a roach and end up with rather more mainsail than your height would otherwise allow.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, if you're actually gonna go places, sometimes that's required... Pretty much the nature of the delivery business, after all...


This is a discussion about cruising boats..cruising. As shown by your example, deliveries are a completely different ball of wax - much more akin to racing.

So let's keep things in context.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, if you're actually gonna go places, sometimes that's required... Pretty much the nature of the delivery business, after all... But I had the utmost confidence in the boat, and my crew, one of the best sailors I've ever had the pleasure to travel with... Turned out it was good we left when we did, as we got around Hatteras early the next evening, and had a beautiful sail across to Charleston, sneaking in there just before another big low developed off the SE coast...
> 
> We were actually scheduled to depart right after Thanksgiving weekend. But, problem after problem continued to arise with various 'systems' aboard, gotta love the complexity of those CRUISING WORLD "Best Full-Size Cruiser" BOTY Winners  and then there was a further delay, waiting for the Leisure-Furl motor to be shipped back from Germany after a repair...
> 
> Naturally, one of the final chores before catching the flight back home from Lauderdale for Christmas after the trip, was taking the L-F motor over to FedEx, to once again be shipped back to Germany...
> 
> 
> 
> That Trintella has a self-tacking jib, which is pretty useless when sailing deep. It would have to have been poled out, but the pole on that boat was way oversized for the self-tacker, configured for a i35% reacher or spinnaker, instead... Moot point anyway that night, no one was going forward to attempt to rig it, with freezing spray, and ice forming on deck...
> 
> yeah, I supposed we could have dropped the main, and motored DDW on thru the night... But then, I'd be too embarrassed to tell the tale...


So, first, you hammer your client's boat quality, then you say you were willing to risk damage to the boat because you would have been too embarrassed to motor in 50 knots? Nice.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I'd say asserting that _"virtually the entire leisure yachting industry"_ has ruled in favor of such rigs might be just a _BIT_ of a stretch...
> 
> Catalina, Tartan, Island Packet, Hylas, Hallberg-Rassy are just a few that come to mind of the builders today who have stuck with rigs that are not even remotely close to being as 'radical' as the B&R, or feature the extreme sweep shown on that Beneteau Oceanis...
> 
> And, I think it's _really _ stretching it for the sake of argument, to try to categorize the spreaders on this Oyster you've pictured earlier as anything approximating being "deeply raked aft", as that boom could still be eased out to being reasonably close to perpendicular to the centerline...


Okay - then I suppose we're getting down to _the number of degrees of "swept-back"_ now. Not just the categorical "swept back is bad" thing?

Here's the new HR 412:










And you might want to look at the spreaders on the new Hylas 63.

Do I need to keep going here?


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> True enough. Unfortunately the other factor is that some people are very defensive about their boats. I suggest that we should be realistic that nothing is perfect. I can list the deficiencies of all my boats, cars, trucks, motorcycles, and houses. I have a few personal deficiencies as well. *grin* We should be honest about such things.


Again - bingo.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> This is a discussion about cruising boats..cruising. As shown by your example, deliveries are a completely different ball of wax - much more akin to racing.
> 
> So let's keep things in context.


Ahhh, right... What was I thinking?

A cruiser would _NEVER_ encounter such weather... And, in the event one ever did, they'd simply trigger the EPIRB, or grab the satphone, and get the Coasties or one of those AMVER ships on the scene, pronto...





smackdaddy said:


> So, first, you hammer your client's boat quality, then you say you were willing to risk damage to the boat because you would have been embarrassed to motor in 50 knots? Nice.


I "hammered" the boat's quality? Really?



> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Well, if you're actually gonna go places, sometimes that's required... Pretty much the nature of the delivery business, after all... *But I had the utmost confidence in the boat,* and my crew, one of the best sailors I've ever had the pleasure to travel with...


A passing remark about the complexity of many of today's 'Globe Girdlers' is not necessarily a criticism of the boat itself. The Trintella in every respect was a very impressive yacht, but it certainly was a far more complicated boat than I'd ever care to deal with... Even the owner realized that in fairly short order, the boat was for sale after a few years of use... Like so many owners of custom built Dream Boats today, he probably spent more time building the thing, than owning it. Even he liked to joke about the fact that there had NEVER been a time when everything on board was ever working at the same time... 

Sorry, guess I forgot the sarcasm font with the comment on motoring... However, I am generally adverse to motoring in heavy conditions, bad things can happen. But I certainly would have done so, if I really thought continuing to sail would have entailed taking a needless risk...

And, here's a news flash for you... I would never leave the dock, with my own boat or anyone else's, if I wasn't aware that doing so involved a willingness to accept "the risk of damaging the boat"...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - then I suppose we're getting down to _the number of degrees of "swept-back"_ now. Not just the categorical "swept back is bad" thing?


As they say, _Reading is Fundamental..._ 

Sorry, I thought it was clear from my initial response to your comment about the B&R rig, that we were talking about *"deeply swept spreaders"* similar to the B&R you mentioned, and the Beneteau Oceanis you linked to...

Over 25 posts ago:



JonEisberg said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually a great point - and a very, very interesting one. Remember all the hullabaloo about the arch when it first came out? Then all the trashtalk about the swept back spreaders on the B&R rig? This was YEARS ago.
> 
> Have you seen the new Beneteau Oceanis series? Heh-heh.
> 
> Oceanis 41 / Oceanis / Sailboats - BENETEAU USA
> 
> 
> 
> So, because the Latest & Greatest Beneteau features an arch and *a deeply swept rig*, their respective downsides are effectively dismissed, and the 'issue' is settled once and for all?
> 
> Damn, who knew?
Click to expand...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, right... What was I thinking?
> 
> A cruiser would _NEVER_ encounter such weather... And, in the event one ever did, they'd simply trigger the EPIRB, or grab the satphone, and get the Coasties or one of those AMVER ships on the scene, pronto...


Again, you're kind of jumping all over the place in this debate. Your point for the past many pages has been how often you yourself seem to have to sail DDW which drives your dislike of swept-back spreaders. And you seem to think that this is a real drawback for ALL cruisers - when the way you seem to sail is very different than most of the other cruisers out there.

So, to be clear, once again, I don't doubt that a cruiser will experience 50 knots at some point. But I do seriously doubt that when they do, their ONLY choice will be having to sail DDW with a large amount of main up and over-trimmed.

As for the last part, your disdain for most common cruisers is pretty clear by now. I guess I just don't dislike them as much as you.



JonEisberg said:


> I "hammered" the boat's quality? Really?


That's the way I read this part...



JonEisberg said:


> We were actually scheduled to depart right after Thanksgiving weekend. But, problem after problem continued to arise with various 'systems' aboard, gotta love the complexity of those CRUISING WORLD "Best Full-Size Cruiser" BOTY Winners  and then there was a further delay, waiting for the Leisure-Furl motor to be shipped back from Germany after a repair...
> 
> Naturally, one of the final chores before catching the flight back home from Lauderdale for Christmas after the trip, was taking the L-F motor over to FedEx, to once again be shipped back to Germany...


Maybe you're separating the boat from its systems?



JonEisberg said:


> And, here's a news flash for you... I would never leave the dock, with my own boat or anyone else's, if I wasn't aware that doing so involved a willingness to accept "the risk of damaging the boat"...


I wouldn't either. So we're square there.



JonEisberg said:


> As they say, _Reading is Fundamental..._
> 
> Sorry, I thought it was clear from my initial response to your comment about the B&R rig, that we were talking about *"deeply swept spreaders"* similar to the B&R you mentioned, and the Beneteau Oceanis you linked to...


Ahm, you also posted this: Swept Back Spreaders A Disadvantage On An Offshore Cruising Sailboat

So "*deeply* swept spreaders" may be all _you're_ talking or thinking about - but most others in this thread (including Harries) are talking about _swept-back spreaders_...which covers much more than just the B&R rig.

So, to clarify it, how many degrees of "sweep" is _acceptable_ to JonEisberg?


----------



## Bene505

I personally think that traditional spreaders have a severe limitation very similar to the limitation of swept back spreaders. In 60 knots or thereabouts, you can't over extend the boom forward for greater control. My other boat can do this. It has _forward_ swept spreaders, which makes for increased stability.

Heck, I can loosen the main sheet to where the main is flapping under the forestay like a flag! It's excellent for gusts, provides good directionality and helm control, is great for running, and when you want a little more power, you just pull the boom in to where it's over the forward deck chairs -- still forward of the mast, but providing some wind resistance.

All you non forward-raked spreader sailors don't know what you are talking about!



Enjoying the thread, thought I'd add a bit of humor.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## MedSailor

Bene505 said:


> I personally think that traditional spreaders have a severe limitation very similar to the limitation of swept back spreaders. In 60 knots or thereabouts, you can't over extend the boom forward for greater control. My other boat can do this. It has _forward_ swept spreaders, which makes for increased stability.
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoying the thread, thought I'd add a bit of humor.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


HA! Sounds like something Hunter would come up with. What crap!

On MY boat the spreaders on the starboard side are deeply swept with diamond stays and on the port side are traditional and unswept. I get the best of all worlds on my boat!

MedSailor


----------



## Faster

MedSailor said:


> On MY boat the spreaders on the starboard side are deeply swept with diamond stays and on the port side are traditional and unswept. I get the best of all worlds on my boat!
> 
> MedSailor


Tuned your own rig, did you, Med??


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Again, you're kind of jumping all over the place in this debate. Your point for the past many pages has been how often you yourself seem to have to sail DDW which drives your dislike of swept-back spreaders. And you seem to think that this is a real drawback for ALL cruisers - when the way you seem to sail is very different than most of the other cruisers out there.


Actually, I see the need to tack downwind to a destination to be a drawback for most cruisers, I just don't think many want to be bothered to do that...

Come to think of it, many out there don't want to bother sailing downwind, _period..._ One purpose of the full enclosure for many, would appear to keep the exhaust fumes from wafting over the transom, and into the cockpit...














smackdaddy said:


> As for the last part, your disdain for most common cruisers is pretty clear by now. I guess I just don't dislike them as much as you.


My bad... Obviously, my attempts at humor are missing the mark on this Halloween 



smackdaddy said:


> That's the way I read this part...
> 
> Maybe you're separating the boat from its systems?


Perhaps... I don't need stuff like the satellite TV, or watermaker, to be working to run a boat to Florida... But I certainly understand if the owner wants to have such issues rectified by his own yard, before the boat goes south...



smackdaddy said:


> Ahm, you also posted this: Swept Back Spreaders A Disadvantage On An Offshore Cruising Sailboat


Sometimes, it helps to read beyond the title of an article or reference, it often lends a bit more clarity to what the writer is speaking of:



> The boat we chartered had one rig design feature that has become almost ubiquitous these days-swept back spreaders. *Heavily swept spreaders in fact,* with massive cap shrouds to keep the central panel of the rig from pumping, as there were no forward lowers or even a babystay to do that job. The backstays were far smaller diameter, and in effect, simply controIled the top of the rig. And this was on masthead rigged boat-*in fact, it was almost a Begstrom rig*, where there are no backstays at all (and it won't be long before&#8230.





smackdaddy said:


> So "*deeply* swept spreaders" may be all _you're_ talking or thinking about - but most others in this thread (including Harries) are talking about _swept-back spreaders_...which covers much more than just the B&R rig.


Again, I've been clear from the get-go, I don't think I have once written the word "spreaders" in this thread without prefacing it with "deeply swept". I can't speak for others, though I'm not sure it's entirely clear that "most others" in this thread are referring only to spreaders with with minimal or any degree of rake, at all...



smackdaddy said:


> So, to clarify it, how many degrees of "sweep" is _acceptable_ to JonEisberg?


As usual, _It Depends..._ 

Impossible to give a definitive answer, so much depends on the boat, the aspect ratio of the main, SA/Disp, and so on...

But, as a very rough guess, I'd suggest anything close to 20 degrees is pushing it, and 30 is way too much...

Just my opinion, as always...


----------



## Capt Len

Wow . I learned a lot reading the how to tune and the technical aspects of rigging wires. My tensioning experience leans more to handybilly and lanyards/deadeyes. But I can consider the situation where a cruiser buys into this really swept back techie stuff for what ever reason and then extends beyond the best before date or the number of working cycles or fails to get it right in self tensioning the port upper jackstaff baby jumper shroud and folds it all over the starboard deckchair.Cost of re rigging and rigger may have something to do with it while time goes by and maybe it'll work ok for another season. Looking for more stories of this ilk as the number of experienced vessels increases. . I'm pretty sure that this quality of sailing perfection is for some but others are running an outboard on a daysailer because they don't understand inboards. In between it appears to be a whole lot of coveting going on.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I see the need to tack downwind to a destination to be a drawback for most cruisers, I just don't think many want to be bothered to do that...
> 
> Come to think of it, many out there don't want to bother sailing downwind, _period..._ One purpose of the full enclosure for many, would appear to keep the exhaust fumes from wafting over the transom, and into the cockpit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad... Obviously, my attempts at humor are missing the mark on this Halloween
> 
> Perhaps... I don't need stuff like the satellite TV, or watermaker, to be working to run a boat to Florida... But I certainly understand if the owner wants to have such issues rectified by his own yard, before the boat goes south...
> 
> Sometimes, it helps to read beyond the title of an article or reference, it often lends a bit more clarity to what the writer is speaking of:
> 
> Again, I've been clear from the get-go, I don't think I have once written the word "spreaders" in this thread without prefacing it with "deeply swept". I can't speak for others, though I'm not sure it's entirely clear that "most others" in this thread are referring only to spreaders with with minimal or any degree of rake, at all...
> 
> As usual, _It Depends..._
> 
> Impossible to give a definitive answer, so much depends on the boat, the aspect ratio of the main, SA/Disp, and so on...
> 
> But, as a very rough guess, I'd suggest anything close to 20 degrees is pushing it, and 30 is way too much...
> 
> Just my opinion, as always...


Okay - this all helps. And sounds much more reasonable. Thanks.

As for the photo, I personally am not going to hassle sailors motoring in a channel. I do exactly that most of the time in the Galveston Bay Ship Channel. I usually have the main up for backup, but the wind rarely lines up with where I need to stay within the channel to be under sail alone. And I like to have options when those monster tankers start rolling through. So I guess I don't see the problem. But that's just me.

BTW, I'm not a member of Harries' site. So I can't read past the teaser to really understand the gist of the article. I was just going by your post and how you worded the link. You can actually read that teaser as the _benefits_ of this kind of rig...stability of the central panel while providing simplicity of the overall rig through the reduction of stays. Just what we listed above.


----------



## RTB

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I see the need to tack downwind to a destination to be a drawback for most cruisers, I just don't think many want to be bothered to do that...
> 
> Come to think of it, many out there don't want to bother sailing downwind, _period..._ One purpose of the full enclosure for many, would appear to keep the exhaust fumes from wafting over the transom, and into the cockpit...


Pretty tough on us cruisers. Not sure where your photo was taken, nor which way the wind was blowing. Certainly looks pretty much light conditions. It could have been on the nose for all we can tell (since I see no sail on your boat). I do see a number of markers, and assume it is shallow either side of them. If it's my first time through there, I'd probably be motoring too. I got no problems motoring to make 40 miles, burning 3 gallons of diesel on the waterway. Definitely no problem unfurling the genoa if we can make better time, without too much work.....

Hey, my wife and I probably had a romp in the v-berth before upping anchor, so just enjoying day on the water listening to some Santana. You need to slow down, lose the ego, and enjoy life.

For those thinking about a production boat, wanting to cruise, not the heavy hitters on this thread.....

Where can you go on a 32 year old boat that you paid $20K for 7 years ago?










Just check the boat out carefully and learn your weather.

Ralph

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/brogdon/


----------



## smj

No worries Ralph, looks like Jon's made an average of over 2.5 posts per day for the last 4 years. I doubt if he gets to see his boat that often, if he owns one. The armchair must be really comfortable.


----------



## RTB

Hey AJ! I hope all is well with your new cat. Send me a PM and let us know where you are. 

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

smj said:


> No worries Ralph, looks like Jon's made an average of over 2.5 posts per day for the last 4 years. I doubt if he gets to see his boat that often, if he owns one. The armchair must be really comfortable.


Ha! I FINALLY beat Eisberg!

Smackdaddy
Posts Per Day: 5.92

Eat that Mr. Grumpypants!


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon - you REALLY need this boat to reinforce your metrosexuality vibe:






Your boat. Your rules.

Sail's 2014 favorite, baby.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Jon - you REALLY need this boat to reinforce your metrosexuality vibe:
> 
> Your boat. Your rules.
> 
> Sail's 2014 favorite, baby.


Daaaaaamn! That boat looks like chancy on steroids! (and Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, Staxyn and a whisper of progesterone and estrogen)

It's even blue! (Like the boat/pill)

Medsailor


----------



## Don L

MedSailor said:


> Daaaaaamn! That boat looks like chancy on steroids! (and Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, Staxyn and a whisper of progesterone and estrogen)
> 
> It's even blue! (Like the boat/pill)
> 
> Medsailor


Time the time you read all the medical warnings there wouldn't be enough time left to take the boat out.


----------



## Jeff_H

smj said:


> No worries Ralph, looks like Jon's made an average of over 2.5 posts per day for the last 4 years. I doubt if he gets to see his boat that often, if he owns one. The armchair must be really comfortable.


That comment is just plain out of line and shows a total ignorance of who Jon is. I have known Jon for close to two decades and he spends more time 'out there' and racks up more sea miles in a year than any five or ten of Sailnet's average members. And while many of these miles are on other people's boats and some are on power boats, he has taken Chancy, a small, old inexpensive production racer-cruiser into the types of far flung places that most sailors fear to tread.

But that was not what I wanted to post about. I wanted to respond to the questions on swept back spreaders and thier purpose and advantages. I think that it might be helpful to start with rig designs of 30 or 40 years ago, which were typically deck stepped, single, inline spreader rigs. These typically had forward and aft lowers. These were cheap rigs to build, easy to tune, and pretty reliable. They just ere not terribly efficient. They were heavy, had lots of windage, And they were hard to power up and down.

Apropos of the running DDW discussion,the aft lowers limited the rotation of the boom far more than the aft set spreaders typical on a boat with swept spreaders, and in a time when vangs were seen as raceboat stuff, the sail laid hard against the shrouds and spreaders when DDW and no one seemed to mind.

Then as designers tried to deal with the inefficicies of the single spreader rig by going to multiple spreader rigs and lighter mast sections, the geometry of fore and aft shrouds on the lower panel of the rig became inadequate to properly control pumping. A range of strategies were tried including baby stays and check stays,which are very effective but a pain in the butt to sail with short-handed.


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> Pretty tough on us cruisers. Not sure where your photo was taken, nor which way the wind was blowing. Certainly looks pretty much light conditions. It could have been on the nose for all we can tell (since I see no sail on your boat). I do see a number of markers, and assume it is shallow either side of them. If it's my first time through there, I'd probably be motoring too. I got no problems motoring to make 40 miles, burning 3 gallons of diesel on the waterway. Definitely no problem unfurling the genoa if we can make better time, without too much work.....


Well, maybe some day I'll learn that my light-hearted jabs at those motoring down the Ditch inside their oxygen tents on a picture-perfect Florida afternoon in December will always raise the hackles of some... But not quite yet, I guess...

And, that's part of the reason I continue to do so, of course... )



RTB said:


> Hey, my wife and I probably had a romp in the v-berth before upping anchor, so just enjoying day on the water listening to some Santana. You need to slow down, lose the ego, and enjoy life.


You've got the right attitude, that's for sure... But the funny thing is, re that pic I posted, is that _I_ was the one who had "slowed down", and was ghosting along under sail DDW (the shot is framed by the boom and rigid vang), while those snowbirds powered right on by... 

Now, I'll certainly make no claim that I was "enjoying life" any more than they were that particular afternoon. I understand quite well that such anecdotal encounters/observations with other cruisers mean little on an individual basis, there could be a million reasons why someone else might feel compelled to press on to a destination under power, rather than choose to sail at a slower pace... I've done so many, many times myself in a similar situation...

That shot was taken south of Melbourne on the Indian River, approaching the cluster of islands north of Sebastian Inlet... Apart from the Sounds of North Carolina, the Indian River can afford by far the best opportunity for sailing within the confines of the ICW, miles and miles of an arrow-straight route that can offer beautiful sailing in flat water when conditions are right. On my last trip south a couple of years ago, this was one of my most memorable day sails of the entire winter, another perfect day on which I was treated to a steady N breeze about 12 knots or so, that took me most of the way from Titusville to an anchorage just N of Vero... Sure, I could have made more miles by motoring, and I was passed easily by several other boats under power, some with their unfurled headsails hanging limp in 3 knots of apparent wind, but for me this day was about as good as it gets. If there was truly an example in my recent memory of "slowing down, (not sure about losing the ego, however )), and enjoying life" aboard a cruising sailboat, this day was it, for me...










Please understand, I'm not laying claim to any sense of superiority, or purity, because I was the only snowbird in the Indian River that day who had chosen to sail. The overwhelming percentage of miles I have on the water, after all, have been racked up under power. And I believe Rudolf Diesel was one of the greatest men who ever lived, and his invention one of the greatest known to modern man... And as much as I have always loved to sail, at this point in my life, if I were to hit the lottery, my Dream Boat might very well be a Nordhavn  I could probably be quite happy getting a modest sailing fix by knocking around my home waters of Barnegat Bay and the Jersey Shore on something like an Alerion 28, and doing the big trips in comfort and style, annoying others in anchorages far and wide by running the requisite generator on a Nordhavn 63... 

But here's my point, in the context of this thread. I know many don't like to hear this, but in my observation, the actual activity of _SAILING_ is not a very high priority among many cruising sailors I see up and down the East coast... Again, nothing necessarily wrong with that, if folks are having fun out there, it's all good... We all go cruising for different reasons, one of the primary reasons for me is that it affords me the opportunity to do some sailing, but that certainly doesn't 'elevate' me above someone who might be tooling around mostly under power, to each his own...

However, as regards the specific discussion of various types of boats and their ability to sail DDW comfortably, I'm just not seeing where it really matters all that much in the bigger picture. One of the reasons why stuff like deeply raked spreaders are becoming 'accepted' today, is that so many end users of these latest offerings may not be doing that much sailing to begin with, or at least pressing their "Limits" under some of the conditions akin to the examples I've offered above...

So, when Smack says he'll just sail a higher angle downwind under an asymetrical, that's fine. Perhaps when he gets out there, he'll prove to be the exception to the rule. But my point is, that in my observation, gybing an asymetrical to a destination is simply NOT the way the overwhelming percentages of cruisers are doing it these days. Hell, it's extremely rare to see cruisers employing free-flying sails, _PERIOD_... Every single winter I've spent down south on my own boat, the number of times I've seen spinnakers flown on a cruising boat could be counted on one hand... Several winters ago, I did a loop thru the NW Caribbean: Down thru the Bahamas to Jamaica, across to the Bay Islands, up into the Rio Dulce, back thru Belize and the Yucutan, thence the Keys and back up the coast to NJ. That's a fair bit of ground to cover, and I certainly encountered my fair share of other cruisers enroute. And yet, over the course of those 4 months, thru all those various cruising grounds, I witnessed exactly ONE cruising boat flying something other than a white sail... This couple returning from a daysail on Lago Izabal on their Southern Cross:










I remember that boat well, for very sadly, that skipper was murdered a few months later when his boat was boarded while anchored off Fronteras...

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

Seems obvious to me that today's cruising sailors have a desire for more 'effortless' sailing, and making making things simpler all around. So, when your destination happens to be dead downwind, few things seem simpler or more effortless to me, than running straight towards it while sailing wing on wing, or perhaps with a chute set on a pole. As a result, some of these more 'modern' rigs, that might compel a cruising sailor to undertake a procedure such as gybing an asymetrical chute repeatedly to reach a downwind destination, would seem to have an unintended consequence in terms of making sailing more 'effortless', to say the least...



RTB said:


> For those thinking about a production boat, wanting to cruise, not the heavy hitters on this thread.....
> 
> Where can you go on a 32 year old boat that you paid $20K for 7 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just check the boat out carefully and learn your weather.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> Adult pool | sailing away with R & B


Good for you, Ralph, you've done well... We're definitely on the same page in that respect, my 44 year old Plain Jane production boat - which I originally purchased for $8K almost 2 decades ago - is still going strong, and has managed to get me a few places, as well...

Should we ever wind up in the same spot, I'll buy the first round, OK?

)


----------



## JonEisberg

Jeff_H said:


> That comment is just plain out of line and shows a total ignorance of who Jon is. I have known Jon for close to two decades and he spends more time 'out there' and racks up more sea miles in a year than any five or ten of Sailnet's average members. And while many of these miles are on other people's boats and some are on power boats, he has taken Chancy, a small, old inexpensive production racer-cruiser into the types of far flung places that most sailors fear to tread.
> 
> But that was not what I wanted to post about. I wanted to respond to the questions on swept back spreaders and thier purpose and advantages. I think that it might be helpful to start with rig designs of 30 or 40 years ago, which were typically deck stepped, single, inline spreader rigs. These typically had forward and aft lowers. These were cheap rigs to build, easy to tune, and pretty reliable. They just ere not terribly efficient. They were heavy, had lots of windage, And they were hard to power up and down.
> 
> Apropos of the running DDW discussion,the aft lowers limited the rotation of the boom far more than the aft set spreaders typical on a boat with swept spreaders, and in a time when vangs were seen as raceboat stuff, the sail laid hard against the shrouds and spreaders when DDW and no one seemed to mind.
> 
> Then as designers tried to deal with the inefficicies of the single spreader rig by going to multiple spreader rigs and lighter mast sections, the geometry of fore and aft shrouds on the lower panel of the rig became inadequate to properly control pumping. A range of strategies were tried including baby stays and check stays,which are very effective but a pain in the butt to sail with short-handed.


Thanks for the kind words, my friend... But, he's definitely right about one thing, the padded arms on my office chair are wearing awfully thin... I just received the latest discount flyer from Costco, and I think I'll make a trip over there on this miserable, rainy day here in NJ, and check out their office chairs that are being discounted this month... 

btw, have you read Herb's book about the Pardeys? You'll recall that night in Annapolis all those years ago at the CWBB party at Mears, when you, me, and Herb all met for the first time. Check it out, he did a fantastic job with it, I think you'd really enjoy it...

I'm proud of my copy, with its personal inscription from Herb:

_Iceberg,

To a great mate, a fine sailor, and the biggest Gasbag on the Internet!_

Remember that guy who called Dave Gibson the biggest gasbag on CWBB, and only ranked me #2? Damn, my feelings are still hurt over that one... 

Hey, why the hell aren't you out sailing this morning?

)


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> That comment is just plain out of line and shows a total ignorance of who Jon is. I have known Jon for close to two decades and he spends more time 'out there' and racks up more sea miles in a year than any five or ten of Sailnet's average members. And while many of these miles are on other people's boats and some are on power boats, he has taken Chancy, a small, old inexpensive production racer-cruiser into the types of far flung places that most sailors fear to tread.
> 
> But that was not what I wanted to post about. I wanted to respond to the questions on swept back spreaders and thier purpose and advantages. I think that it might be helpful to start with rig designs of 30 or 40 years ago, which were typically deck stepped, single, inline spreader rigs. These typically had forward and aft lowers. These were cheap rigs to build, easy to tune, and pretty reliable. They just ere not terribly efficient. They were heavy, had lots of windage, And they were hard to power up and down.
> 
> Apropos of the running DDW discussion,the aft lowers limited the rotation of the boom far more than the aft set spreaders typical on a boat with swept spreaders, and in a time when vangs were seen as raceboat stuff, the sail laid hard against the shrouds and spreaders when DDW and no one seemed to mind.
> 
> Then as designers tried to deal with the inefficicies of the single spreader rig by going to multiple spreader rigs and lighter mast sections, the geometry of fore and aft shrouds on the lower panel of the rig became inadequate to properly control pumping. A range of strategies were tried including baby stays and check stays,which are very effective but a pain in the butt to sail with short-handed.


Thanks for the feedback Jeff. It's nice to have a pro's view on this. I had completely forgotten about the lowers on the older rigs. We had that on our C27 and it did exactly as you say downwind, especially with a boom which was lower than the one on our Hunter now. At the end of the day, I would guess that it was about the same degree of restriction.










And still, that C27 would definitely pump in big wind. She was a blast to sail though!


----------



## Bene505

JonEisberg said:


>


When sailing WoW, I just let the sail rest agents the spreaders. it reinforced in those spots. Or alternatively we pull the boom in slightly, which seems to fill the head sail better anyway.

Is there a disadvantage in either of those?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> So, when Smack says he'll just sail a higher angle downwind under an asymetrical, that's fine. Perhaps when he gets out there, he'll prove to be the exception to the rule. But my point is, that in my observation, gybing an asymetrical to a destination is simply NOT the way the overwhelming percentages of cruisers are doing it these days. Hell, it's extremely rare to see cruisers employing free-flying sails, _PERIOD_... Every single winter I've spent down south on my own boat, the number of times I've seen spinnakers flown on a cruising boat could be counted on one hand... Several winters ago, I did a loop thru the NW Caribbean: Down thru the Bahamas to Jamaica, across to the Bay Islands, up into the Rio Dulce, back thru Belize and the Yucutan, thence the Keys and back up the coast to NJ. That's a fair bit of ground to cover, and I certainly encountered my fair share of other cruisers enroute. And yet, over the course of those 4 months, thru all those various cruising grounds, I witnessed exactly ONE cruising boat flying something other than a white sail... This couple returning from a daysail on Lago Izabal on their Southern Cross:


Jon, like you, I would imagine that the number of cruisers out there with an assym to begin with is very close to nil.

My point IS NOT BY ANY MEANS that every cruiser out there should get an assym to avoid DDW. I don't care at all what they do and won't be posting pictures of them doing something differently than me when they do it (unless we're in a race, then I'll mercilessly mock them...if they lose that is). And I totally agree with your statement that most cruisers want things to be simple (which is EXACTLY the claimed benefit I've been pointing out about these newer rigs over the last many pages - Jeff has just done the same.) It's about stability and simplicity and I think that's a very good thing.

I'm just saying *I* plan to get an assym and give it a shot. I think it will be faster overall than sailing DDW...and it will definitely be more fun. If I'm wrong, I'll definitely send you a photo and let you know.

My point is that if the primary argument against swept-back spreaders is how they perform DDW...that's a very weak argument in my opinion. First, the number of times you'll likely be in the HAVE TO SAIL DDW situation is extremely low*. There are usually many other options available to the common cruiser. Second, unless the winds and seas are up a good deal, gybing is no big deal (chicken gybe if you have to - I've done that plenty of times). Since most common cruising is downwind, I would certainly imagine that most cruisers can gybe just fine (maybe not with a chute, but definitely with a genny). And third, we seem to be talking about 10 degrees or so of what is "acceptable" for the boom angle. Even my "extreme" B&R rig can handle DDW if I absolutely HAVE it to. It's not ideal, but as Jeff says, I would have much the same problem with the lowers on an older rig with parallel spreaders.

And in any case, if it were as prevalent a problem for cruisers as you (and I guess Harries) make it out to be, all the new boats (both production and high-end) I've listed above would NOT be moving the direction of swept-back spreaders. I just think that, overall, this is a losing argument for you guys...especially with Jeff's point about the old designs' lowers and all the other stays one had to mess with to manage them.

_*The example I used is a great example of that. We sailed WoW in order to stay on the rhumbline - thinking it was a better strategy than sailing further offshore for more wind...which many boats in our class did. Though we were slow with that config, we were almost right. About 3 miles from the finish that we could clearly see, the wind lightened and clocked around such that we were severely pinching. We were going to be first over the line - for all boats in the race - if we could just get there. As we ghosted along at 2-3 knots toward the line, the other boats started screaming in from the south on a beam reach. We came in 6th. It was infuriating._


----------



## travlin-easy

Jon, I'm upset - you didn't post a photo of me in my greenhouse when I was sailing north two years ago and you got stuck at that bridge in SC. (Just kiddin') However, that first round is definitely on me when we meet up, which will likely be next fall when I head south again.

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H

I apologize about not finishing my post above. Unfortunately, the Ipad crashed one too many times and I gave up on it. I am including the beginning of the last post that I started so that it reads as a complete thought. 

I wanted to respond to the questions on swept back spreaders and thier purpose and advantages. I think that it might be helpful to start with rig designs of 30 or 40 years ago, which were typically deck stepped, single, inline spreader rigs. These typically had forward and aft lowers. These were cheap rigs to build, easy to tune, and pretty reliable. They just ere not terribly efficient. They were heavy, had lots of windage, And they were hard to power up and down.

Apropos of the running DDW discussion,the aft lowers limited the rotation of the boom far more than the aft set spreaders typical on a boat with swept spreaders, and in a time when vangs were seen as raceboat stuff, the sail laid hard against the shrouds and spreaders when DDW and no one seemed to mind.

Then as designers tried to deal with the inefficiencies of the single spreader rig by going to multiple spreader rigs and lighter mast sections, the geometry of fore and aft shrouds on the lower panel of the rig became inadequate to properly control pumping. A range of strategies were tried including baby stays and check stays,which are very effective but a pain in the butt to sail with short-handed.

Swept back spreaders allowed a geometry that worked against pumping both fore and aft with the spreaders pushing forward and the shrouds pulling aft. Those early swept back spreaders rarely raked more than 10-15 degrees. 

But then a design spiral (not in a negative sense) started, as hull forms became more easily driven and keels became more efficient, rigs became progressively more efficient. These more efficient rigs required more stability, and so keels and hull forms morphed to produce expodentially more stability of all forms, and rigs became more powerful to take advantage of that stability. 

If you look at a typical racer-cruiser or coastal cruiser before about 15 years ago, they rarely had an SA/D above 15 to 17. Its pretty common for modern racer-cruisers to be in the low 20 range. Boats from the 70's and 80's generally needed to be reefed in winds below 15 knots apparent. Modern boats can often carry their standing sail plan up to 20 knots apparent. 

But with that increased sail area in the working sail plan came the need to be able to depower the sails, and so fractional rigs with controllable mast bend became popular. But with controllable mast bend it becomes important to be able to progressive control fore and aft stiffness in order to control headstay sag. And the best way to do that is with raked back (or forward) spreaders. And so with the popularity of fractional rigs came the more deeply swept back spreaders that are so common. But even these rarely have more than 20 degrees of sweep. 

Of course under that argument deeply swept back angles would make little sense on the popular in mast furling rigs, except that they do not tolerate much mast bend before the furler jambs against the aft face of the mast, so the swept back spreaders help stiffen the spar for simple functional reasons. 

I am not a fan of the B&R rig. As Lars Bergstrom explained to me, his goal was to isolate the load path of shrouds that are needed to stiffen the spar from those needed to keep it vertical. The extra pair of diagonals bring the stiffening component of the load path back to the mast allowing the verticals to only address side loads. In theory it also generated larger aft forces and allowed the deletion of the backstay so that large roach sails could be employed, which makes little sense on the boats with in mast furling. That thumping sound you hear is Lars spinning noisily in his grave. But to me its a nutty rig. Its nearly impossible to tune properly, and the balance of its tuning goes out of whack over the full range of wind that a boat is exposed to, i.e. sighting the mast it may be looking perfect in one breeze and humpy in others. 

Which is my take on the aft spreader issue. As to heading dead downwind, as far as heading DDW, raked spreaders don't come into play in my mind. That is what spreader patches were made for. And as my friend Jon Eisberg would say about now *grin*. 

I have not read Herb's book about the Pardeys but to Herb McCormac's comment, if its any consolation, Herb once told me that I was the biggest internet gasbag he had encountered and somehow I suspect he may have been right that time.

Cheers.
Jeff



__________________


----------



## smackdaddy

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me Jeff.


----------



## JonEisberg

Bene505 said:


> When sailing WoW, I just let the sail rest agents the spreaders. it reinforced in those spots. Or alternatively we pull the boom in slightly, which seems to fill the head sail better anyway.
> 
> Is there a disadvantage in either of those?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


Not really, as long as the conditions stay relatively benign... Though I've never really bought into the notion that an over-trimmed main really 'spills' much additional air into a winged-out jib. Sailing WOW/DDW is primarily about simple projection of the sails, and little else. They're not really generating much in the way of lift, you simply want to spread those 'wings' as wide as possible, which effectively maximizes sail area DDW. Perhaps someone like Jeff or Rich H will prove me wrong on that, I'm surely no expert, but that's always been my general impression...

But the disadvantages with deeply swept spreaders begin to come into play as the wind and seas start to build. Normally, I'd want to begin reefing with the main, first. But with the main plastered against the spreaders, that can often be easier said than done, without sheeting the main in to a condition where it is WAY over-trimmed... As a result, I think what many folks wind up doing - and I've done myself - is performing the much more easily accomplished chore of reefing the headsail, instead, and hoping the breeze doesn't build too much more. But of course, this results in a sail plan that has become more unbalanced, and the boat becoming more "pushed along" by the main, rather than "pulled along" by the headsail... Precisely the opposite of what most boats prefer, as wind and seas continue to build...

Please understand, much of my perspective on this stuff is informed by the fact I often sail singlehanded... The sort of 'imbalance' that can result from an overtrimmed main when sailing DDW is far more consequential for a singlehander, who must depend solely upon self-steering gear when going forward to attend to reefing the main, or attending to the pole, or whatever... If one always has a skilled helmsman to rely on keeping the boat in control while such chores are performed, then of course it's a bit less of a concern... But I'm still a big believer in the importance of self-steering for typical Mom & Pop cruisers, or any boat being sailed shorthanded, and that anything that might reduce the effectiveness of an AP or vane has a definite detrimental value...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And in any case, if it were as prevalent a problem for cruisers as you (and I guess Harries) make it out to be, all the new boats (both production and high-end) I've listed above would NOT be moving the direction of swept-back spreaders. I just think that, overall, this is a losing argument for you guys...especially with Jeff's point about the old designs' lowers and all the other stays one had to mess with to manage them.


I'm not arguing that these rigs present a "prevalent" problem among cruisers... I very rarely see cruising boats sailing deep downwind employing a downwind pole to begin with, for example. The preferred mode for those who might actually be sailing, seems to be to drop or furl the main completely, and sail under the headsail alone... For sailors who typically do that, obviously deeply swept spreaders present no problems, whatsoever...

All I'm saying is that for the sort of sailing that I have done, the deeply swept rigs like the one on the Trintella have presented some real issues on more than one occasion. That's been _MY_ experience, and others I've sailed those boats with have agreed... And, a few others like Harries, Colin Speedie, and the French guy building the Boreal... I'm guessing there are a few more out there as well, but perhaps we are indeed the only sailors on the planet who feel that way, and that the purported advantages of such rigs aren't great enough to overcome the downsides that we have experienced...

We'll agree to disagree, that's what makes the world go 'round, right? 

You and your boys should definitely get yourselves an asymetrical, your boat is ideally suited for one... you'll have a blast, IMHO playing with free-flying sails is some of the most fun you can have under sail...

Which makes it all the more perplexing, why I see them used so infrequently by cruising sailors, I just don't get it...


----------



## JonEisberg

Jeff_H said:


> I apologize about not finishing my post above. Unfortunately, the Ipad crashed one too many times and I gave up on it. I am including the beginning of the last post that I started so that it reads as a complete thought.


LOL! Yeah, I thought that first post of yours was awfully concise, by your standards...





Jeff_H said:


> Which is my take on the aft spreader issue. As to heading dead downwind, as far as heading DDW, raked spreaders don't come into play in my mind. That is what spreader patches were made for. And as my friend Jon Eisberg would say about now *grin*.


Great stuff, as always, Jeff... I doubt I have _EVER_ read a post of yours, where I didn't learn _something_...

But, you're gonna have to work a bit harder, if you're ever gonna teach me to love deeply raked spreaders on an offshore cruising boat...

(grin, bigtime)



Jeff_H said:


> I have not read Herb's book about the Pardeys but to Herb McCormac's comment, if its any consolation, Herb once told me that I was the biggest internet gasbag he had encountered and somehow I suspect he may have been right that time.
> 
> Cheers.
> Jeff


Herb doesn't have the time to waste reading forums, anymore... However, if he was up to speed, he'd probably choose his words a bit differently...

You might still rate as the top _Gasbag_, I'd probably come in as the #1 _Blowhard_...

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'm not arguing that these rigs present a "prevalent" problem among cruisers... I very rarely see cruising boats sailing deep downwind employing a downwind pole to begin with, for example. The preferred mode for those who might actually be sailing, seems to be to drop or furl the main completely, and sail under the headsail alone... For sailors who typically do that, obviously deeply swept spreaders present no problems, whatsoever...
> 
> All I'm saying is that for the sort of sailing that I have done, the deeply swept rigs like the one on the Trintella have presented some real issues on more than one occasion. That's been _MY_ experience, and others I've sailed those boats with have agreed... And, a few others like Harries, Colin Speedie, and the French guy building the Boreal... I'm guessing there are a few more out there as well, but perhaps we are indeed the only sailors on the planet who feel that way, and that the purported advantages of such rigs aren't great enough to overcome the downsides that we have experienced...
> 
> We'll agree to disagree, that's what makes the world go 'round, right?
> 
> You and your boys should definitely get yourselves an asymetrical, your boat is ideally suited for one... you'll have a blast, IMHO playing with free-flying sails is some of the most fun you can have under sail...
> 
> Which makes it all the more perplexing, why I see them used so infrequently by cruising sailors, I just don't get it...


I definitely won't disagree with your experience. It's yours.

And I totally agree with you that most of the cruisers out there sail with only genny/jib when deep downwind...which is why I was having a hard time seeing the problem you were describing with WoW for most cruisers. So it's all good.

And I _definitely_ will take you up on the asym advice! I can't wait to give it a go. But I promise it will be in ridiculously light conditions! I've got a lot to learn about spins.


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> And I _definitely_ will take you up on the asym advice! I can't wait to give it a go. *But I promise it will be in ridiculously light conditions!* I've got a lot to learn about spins.


No!... No!

It makes no sense to try to figure out how to set and fly a spinnaker in 'ridiculously light conditions'.. it won't behave, be a real B*tch to gybe and generally go badly.

Setting an A sail on a beam reach doesn't need a lot of wind, but trying to run and gybe with any kind of spinnaker needs some reasonable apparent wind so that the sail can be more or less 'flown' through the maneuver. Having 6-8 knots of apparent wind is about right IMO .. Even a bit more is good because once you figure it out your downwind speed will be up to the point that even in 10-12 true you'll only have 4-6 knots apparent.. and your boat should respond well to a properly set kite of any kind.

Do keep in mind, though, that it will be a BIG sail, so have your dousing process thought out well in advance, and maybe do a few dry runs with the sock in 'next to no' wind for starters. But actually flying the sail needs _some_ breeze...


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> No!... No!
> 
> It makes no sense to try to figure out how to set and fly a spinnaker in 'ridiculously light conditions'.. it won't behave, be a real B*tch to gybe and generally go badly.
> 
> Setting an A sail on a beam reach doesn't need a lot of wind, but trying to run and gybe with any kind of spinnaker needs some reasonable apparent wind so that the sail can be more or less 'flown' through the maneuver. Having 6-8 knots of apparent wind is about right IMO .. Even a bit more is good because once you figure it out your downwind speed will be up to the point that even in 10-12 true you'll only have 4-6 knots apparent.. and your boat should respond well to a properly set kite of any kind.
> 
> Do keep in mind, though, that it will be a BIG sail, so have your dousing process thought out well in advance, and maybe do a few dry runs with the sock in 'next to no' wind for starters. But actually flying the sail needs _some_ breeze...


Wait - 10-12 true is ridiculously light in my world. I must be completely whacked.

Seriously - thanks for the feedback Fast. I see what you mean.

Oh, and I will definitely have a sock.


----------



## RTB

JonEisberg said:


> I'm not arguing that these rigs present a "prevalent" problem among cruisers... I very rarely see cruising boats sailing deep downwind employing a downwind pole to begin with, for example. The preferred mode for those who might actually be sailing, seems to be to drop or furl the main completely, and sail under the headsail alone... For sailors who typically do that, obviously deeply swept spreaders present no problems, whatsoever...


I'm afraid that fits me pretty much. The fact is, on our first leg from Texas to George Town, Bahamas, there was almost no downwind sailing at all. However, on the return trip, there was plenty. 15-20 knots out of the east through south, sailing back on the Banks, and up the west coast of Florida.

The genoa does ok most of the time, but if we get pretty deep downwind, not so good without a whisker pole. Our Hunter 36 doesn't have much deck space, and is pretty used up with the dink and a few fuel jugs.










My furling line runs back on the port side, and I keep it clear. I also go forward on the port side if necessary. I really see no place to store a pole when not in use. I guess it can be mounted out of the way, on the mast?

The dink is our life raft, so stays inflated, and on deck if offshore. I do have room for 4 fenders in the lazarette, along with my Honda generator....

I'm open to suggestions that would improve my boat, and sailing tactics. We don't enjoy rolly situations. Like sailing DDW, but with waves coming from the aft quarter, which happens running up the west coast of Florida quite often.

Ok. Let me have it. Jon, thanks for the offer to buy me a BEER one day. I hope to collect in the future.

Ralph


----------



## blt2ski

Ralph, 

A LOT of folks actually store a spin/whisker pole on the mast. So if that is the only place you could store one, do so, makes going down wind a lot easier if you can pole out a jib and main and go down wind this way at times. 

You have not said what size your jib(s) are, but if smaller than say a 135 or so, then a J length spin pole IMHO is a better option than a whisker pole. As they are lighter, one zie only tho, a bad part, but lighter and easier to use with smaller headsails. If you have say two or three from a 155 on down, then a whisker pole helps, as I find a pole that is 80% of the LP is the best size to get max use of a winged out head sail. A 155 in most cases like something in the 130-150% of the J length for best wind catching. 

Marty


----------



## goboatingnow

My experience is that most reasonably made production boats today are more robust then their crews, after that what else really matters.


----------



## Aeon

...wow, finally done! That was the longest thread I have read - ever! Being a - pretty busy - office rat, it took me a few weeks to go through these 1000+ posts of wisdom! Pretty insightful, for which a thank you note to all participants is in order for them sharing their experiences, knowledge and wisdom (with varying percentages on these three!)

To the thread's point now, what about CATS? I have barely noticed a few mentioning them and that only lightly. Why is that? Is it simply because of pricing issues?

I did enjoyed and learned quite much on the last part regarding the rigging! Interesting indeed! Do these writings apply equally to CATS?

//Aeon (Sail4U.net)


----------



## hellsop

Aeon said:


> ...wow, finally done! That was the longest thread I have read - ever! Being a - pretty busy - office rat, it took me a few weeks to go through these 1000+ posts of wisdom! Pretty insightful, for which a thank you note to all participants is in order for them sharing their experiences, knowledge and wisdom (with varying percentages on these three!)


If you read all that, you're a braver soul than I. There was a lot of skimming on my end...



> To the thread's point now, what about CATS? I have barely noticed a few mentioning them and that only lightly. Why is that? Is it simply because of pricing issues?


They're rarer, they are expensive so fewer people have them. They're different to sail and have different flaws, and unless someone's at least spent *a lot* of time reading about them, someone talking about them is usually more bilge water than fact. Clever folks don't speak much to what they don't actually know, and experience speaks louder than study (because study ends up being a matter of sorting out 30% fact from 70% bilge.) I suppose that it sort of does all end up coming around to pricing issues, in that if you could get nice cats for $30k anywhere then the amount of actual knowledge of them would be higher, and more people to talk about them.



> I did enjoyed and learned quite much on the last part regarding the rigging! Interesting indeed! Do these writings apply equally to CATS?


Rigging questions mostly do. With some differences attributable to where you can attach things on catamarans. Cats have corners The bows and sterns are offset 6-10 feet from the centerline. Cats use that to mitigate some of the tremendous strain the rigging gets because cats *don't* heel over and spill wind in gusty conditions. And the thing you really *don't* want to do in a cat is get knocked down, because you're *not* coming back up without help. So smart cat skippers reef early, and reef often. If you're thinking "Wind's picking up. Do I want to reef this?" then the answer is "Yes, and put in two." You'll still probably be getting 6 knots, so who cares that you're not using maximum sail? Cats are also light (even loaded - no ballast) and shallow, so heaving to doesn't work as well for them; the difference between running on bare poles and heaving to isn't nearly as much as it it is with a monohull, so if there's a way out of danger on a running reach instead of trying to stay put, a cat should strongly consider it. Which means a Jordan drogue is an appealing option over a chute sea anchor because 2-3 knots means being able to keep steering and 1 might not. And when things go completely wrong and there's water in everything, what needs to happen to cope is different. Many (I'd say "most" but I'm not sure of this and designers don't talk about it much) are neutrally buoyant with the hulls flooded, the cockpit knee-deep, and the side decks awash. They won't actually sink; again because they don't have three tons of ballast in a keel. So worst case plans typically revolve around "how do I stay with the boat?" rather than "how do I make it after my boat sinks?"


----------



## Aeon

hellsop said:


> I suppose that it sort of does all end up coming around to pricing isthat if you could get nice cats for $30k anywhere then the amount of actual knowledge of them would be higher, and more people to talk about them.


I guess so, but doesn't look like there will be any $30K cats around any time soon! ...at least not *blue water* ones! (for us to be in the spirit of the thread's "deep blue" vibe!)



hellsop said:


> Cats use that to mitigate some of the tremendous strain the rigging gets because cats *don't* heel over and spill wind in gusty conditions. And the thing you really *don't* want to do in a cat is get knocked down, because you're *not* coming back up without help. So smart cat skippers reef early, and reef often. If you're thinking "Wind's picking up. Do I want to reef this?" then the answer is "Yes, and put in two."


Oh, yes! Better safe than sorry!



hellsop said:


> Cats are also light (even loaded - no ballast) and shallow, so heaving to doesn't work as well for them; the difference between running on bare poles and heaving to isn't nearly as much as it it is with a monohull, so if there's a way out of danger on a running reach instead of trying to stay put, a cat should strongly consider it.


An interesting point to which I come across for the first time, to be honest. Until this very point I was considering heaving to as the Holy Grail of weather emergencies!



hellsop said:


> Which means a Jordan drogue is an appealing option over a chute sea anchor because 2-3 knots means being able to keep steering and 1 might not.


The Jordan drogue had entered my equipment list since some time ago 

So, less Cat experience around?! Let me try however to ask you and the community for a * Live Aboard Blue Water Cat!* Opinions & Arguments please?!

//Aeon (Sail4U.net)


----------



## mitiempo

My choice would be Chris White's Atlantic 42



Atlantic 42 Catamaran by Chris White Designs High Performance Comfortable Sailboat

And one for sale: Swiftsure Yachts (Seattle, WA)


----------



## hellsop

mitiempo said:


> My choice would be Chris White's Atlantic 42
> 
> And one for sale: Swiftsure Yachts (Seattle, WA)


They're quite hardy, and certainly discourage overloading, which is easy to do on a cat. I'm not a fan of the forward cockpit, though, and don't really see the need for two heads.

Fountaine Pajot Lavezzi 40 is more my style, with more space and airiness in the bridgedeck salon and having the galley up on the bridgedeck out of the hulls. Shoal keels instead of daggerboards is mildly preferable too. It's one less thing to get stuck or fix. That the Lavezzi is also $100,000 cheaper typically doesn't hurt much either.

But if I'm honest with myself, I'll probably only ever be able to afford a Gemini.


----------



## Aeon

Chris White's boats may be quite into performance and even hardened enough but I am also siding with hellsop on the ergonomics and thus FP's and Lagoon's designs seem more into my taste too! (...not to mention my wife!  )

What about *"decent" production Cats?* We have read a lot on production boats hereby, with - by far - main focus on monohulls. How about production Cats?! Any thoughts you guys?!

//Aeon (Sail4U.net)


----------



## smackdaddy

Aeon said:


> What about *"decent" production Cats?* We have read a lot on production boats hereby, with - by far - main focus on monohulls. How about production Cats?! Any thoughts you guys?!
> 
> //Aeon (Sail4U.net)


I don't see any reason they are generally not suitable to off-shore cruising. Some of the newest ones, like the Alphas, obviously need some breaking in. But what truly separates the "bluewater cats" from the "production cats" in terms of design and build?


----------



## outbound

Climbed all over Chris 's new boat. Two masts. Two jibs like a staysail schooner. Masts are foils and self fleather if you want no thrust from them. They sailed the boat from chile to Annapolis. That's blue water cruising by anyone's definition. 
If I wasn't so in love with my outbound it would be on my short list.


----------



## smackdaddy

I came across these videos while slumming on CF. They show the destruction and sinking of a Beneteau Oceanis 50, called _"Blue Pearl"_ due to failure of the rudder design/construction:











If you look into the account of this particular boat, you'll see that there were issues of a grounding and questionable repair:

The Blue Pearl Sinking - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

Blue Pearl Sinks - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

With this single example, I was skeptical that this was an inherent design/construction flaw across the ~2007 Beneteau fleet.

However, I've now come across some other examples of the exact same failure. This is a Cyclades 43. Look at the rudder problem at around 3:18:






Look familiar?

Now look at yet another example in this video of a Beneteau 43:






Obviously, this design and build is not working out - and has proven to be dangerous enough to sink the boat under the right circumstances.

There was an article written about the Cyclades by Richard Jordan of Jordan Yachts in 2010:

Beneteau Cyclades 43 Review: Moorings Charter Boat - Waves « Jordan Yacht Brokerage

He pointed out the following regarding the Cyclades:



> Beneteau introduced the series to compete directly with Bavaria. They do not have the racing focus of the First or the offshore focus of Oceanis. Instead, the focus is simply on mass production. She takes everything we like and dislike about Beneteaus to the extreme.


This implies that the Oceanis is built differently, and better, than the Cyclades. But, as we see with _Blue Pearl _(which actually had a Cyclades rudder which snapped, and was replaced, prior to the sinking trip) - this doesn't seem to be the case.

This is obviously a big deal if you read the following in the same article:



> She was produced at the French yard of Beneteau in Vendee which is thought of as higher quality, but I do not think so with these Cyclades. *When people disparage Beneteau, this is exactly the type of boat they are referring calling them "bleach bottles" or "disposable boats."* The construction is as inexpensive as possible in every facet from stem to stern, masthead to ballast tip, from gudgeon to gunwale to gooseneck. And while that may sound harsh, there is an important trade-off at play here. *Her value as a liveaboard, coastal cruiser, and island hopper is exceptional. For a first time liveaboard for trips to the Bahamas and Caribbean, I would recommend without question a Cyclades 43.* The Cyclades fits an important market, and my comments are meant to further define that market not to disparage it.


Now, before we look at these issues above, he does make something else very clear in his article:



> The Cyclades 43 is absolutely not a bluewater boat. Other Beneteaus such as the Oceanis series are rated for offshore work. The Cyclades series is not. It is a great coastline sailor. She would be perfect to hop back and forth from the Bahamas and sail around the Caribbean.


Now, you first have to wonder how these first-time buyers are supposed to get that Cyclades from the Med to the Bahamas without getting into blue water. So that's a problem in itself.

I assume he means that the Cyclades is NOT CE Cat A rated. HOWEVER, the Oceanis is. And the steering/rudder assembly appears to be identical if you look at _Blue Pearl_. That's obviously a much, much wider concern.

And that brings us to this part of his article which is, to me, one of the most important questions that needs to be addressed for modern production boats:



> *When people disparage Beneteau, this is exactly the type of boat they are referring calling them "bleach bottles" or "disposable boats."*


Some of these boats do actually appear to be getting to the point of being "disposable boats". And this brings up the question - how do we know how long a modern production boat is "designed and built" to last under typical use?

If the guy at Jordan is recommending these used boats to first-time boat buyers, he could be recommending a time-bomb.


----------



## Kiskadee

As far as I've been told, Catamarans don't heave to. A friend's cat is on the bottom about 200 miles north of Bermuda. After 24 hours in a huge storm, his para-anchor rode parted and she slid backwards down a giant wave, twisting the rudders and tearing his steering linkages apart. He was doing OK steering with engines, until one engine failed. Game over. They were picked up by a Russian container ship and minutes later she went down fast.


----------



## chall03

Interesting Smack,

I would suggest that whether blue water or coastal sailing a rudder that remains attached to ones boat is a desirable quality. 

I am interested in where this goes, however we are talking about a potential issue on a particular model of Beneteau. The Cyclades series was a no frills experiment by Beneteau aimed primarily at charter that was discontinued after a couple of years.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Interesting Smack,
> 
> I would suggest that whether blue water or coastal sailing a rudder that remains attached to ones boat is a desirable quality.
> 
> I am interested in where this goes, however we are talking about a potential issue on a particular model of Beneteau. *The Cyclades series was a no frills experiment by Beneteau aimed primarily at charter that was discontinued after a couple of years.*


Agreed. The concerning issue to me is that this same design and construction showed up on the Oceanis 50 _Blue Pearl_, which sunk. So how far did this no frills experiment go?


----------



## smackdaddy

Kiskadee said:


> As far as I've been told, Catamarans don't heave to. A friend's cat is on the bottom about 200 miles north of Bermuda. After 24 hours in a huge storm, his para-anchor rode parted and she slid backwards down a giant wave, twisting the rudders and tearing his steering linkages apart. He was doing OK steering with engines, until one engine failed. Game over. They were picked up by a Russian container ship and minutes later she went down fast.


Wow. What was the name of the boat? Is there a write-up somewhere about it?


----------



## Kiskadee

Smackdaddy, Let me dust off some brain cells. It was in October 2006. The catamaran was a PDQ 36 called "1 Cool Cat", out of Halifax. I found this on the PDQ forum.
PDQ Owners Forum ? View topic - 1 Cool Cat Sunk
This wass to have been the third or fourth trip to the BVI's for Al and Michelle. He told me he was 'freshening the nip' every twenty minutes to keep the para-anchor rode from chafing. He'd just finished doing it and got back to the cabin when a very large wave swept under them. He heard a loud explosion as the rode parted. The Russian ship used a cargo net on a crane to hoist them off the cat. When almost on board Michelle lost her grip and fell. Al saw her disappear beneath the sinking PDQ. The crew grabbed him and the crane operator dove the cargo net under the sinking boat. Al saw it come back up with Michelle hanging on. He collapsed and cried. When you think you've lost everything, you are handed back the love of your life. The full story was quite interesting, as they sailed all the way to Norway before flying home. Trust me, they could write a book.
Al and Michelle are great people. I now live on the opposite side of the continent, but last I saw them they were shopping for either another PDQ-36 or a 48-50 foot monohull.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> There was an article written about the Cyclades by Richard Jordan of Jordan Yachts in 2010:
> 
> Beneteau Cyclades 43 Review: Moorings Charter Boat - Waves « Jordan Yacht Brokerage
> 
> *I assume he means that the Cyclades is NOT CE Cat A rated.* HOWEVER, the Oceanis is. And the steering/rudder assembly appears to be identical if you look at _Blue Pearl_. That's obviously a much, much wider concern.


I'm surprised how difficult it can be to obtain clarification to what should be a very simple determination to make...

However, according to one of the first listings I came across, the Cyclades _DOES_ carry a CE Category "A" rating...

Beneteau Cyclades 43-3 Beneteau Cyclades 43-3 - Sailingworld


----------



## Don L

don't feed the trolls unless you want them to grow and tell their friends


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Agreed. The concerning issue to me is that this same design and construction showed up on the Oceanis 50 _Blue Pearl_, which sunk. So how far did this no frills experiment go?


Wasn't the issue with Blue Pearl largely due to undiscovered prior damage?
There was clearly major issues specifically with that boat, isn't it more of a case of a lemon in a long production line of Bene's?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'm surprised how difficult it can be to obtain clarification to what should be a very simple determination to make...
> 
> However, according to one of the first listings I came across, the Cyclades _DOES_ carry a CE Category "A" rating...
> 
> Beneteau Cyclades 43-3 Beneteau Cyclades 43-3 - Sailingworld


Agreed. That's what's strange about all this information/disinformation on these models. I don't see why the Cyclades _wouldn't_ be CE Cat A unless the scantlings, etc. are drastically different...which they don't appear to be.

Just because the boat is cheaped-out from a construction perspective doesn't automatically preclude it from the rating.

Again, the bigger concern to me is not the rating - but the construction being the same in the Oceanis - which is definitely marketed for off-shore use.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Wasn't the issue with Blue Pearl largely due to undiscovered prior damage?
> There was clearly major issues specifically with that boat, isn't it more of a case of a lemon in a long production line of Bene's?


Looking through the owner's posts - it certainly seemed to be an issue of prior damage. The troubling thing is that the construction looks to be exactly the same in his Oceanis and the Cyclades.

Maybe all 3 boats in the videos above had groundings/damage. But multiple similar failures is a red flag.


----------



## chall03

We are still entertaining the idea of buying a late model Beneteau in Europe( An Oceanis 43 ?) enjoying it over there and then bringing back down here, so paying attention.


----------



## BryceGTX

Aeon said:


> ...wow, finally done! That was the longest thread I have read - ever! Being a - pretty busy - office rat, it took me a few weeks to go through these 1000+ posts of wisdom! Pretty insightful,


I am amazed that this thread is still around..

An further amazed that many of the "experts" are not owners of the first mentioned production boats..

Bryce


----------



## chall03

For what it is worth someone at CF linked to the below thread that mentions a rudder post recall.

RUDDER POST RECALL/MODIFICATIONS TO 40 & 43 - SeaKnots

and there is also this from Johnno on_ the another bene with broken rudder bits_ thread on CF....



> Had a similar problem with a Bene 43 centre cockpit enroute from Panama to Tahiti. Graunching sounds turned out to be the fact that the rudder tube was glassed to the rear bulkhead without any mechanical fastening and had delaminated off the bulkhead - end result? the rudder tube was 'walking' across the lazarette and would have eventually snapped off at the hull through join. Quick fix was to set up spanish windlasses each side of the tube fastening it to the more solid auto pilot assembly. This restricted sideways movement, we then put the emergency steering rod into the hexed top of the rudder stock which restricted fore and aft movement. This lasted from just west of the Galapagos to Tahiti where more solid mechanical fasteners were fabricated and fitted. Guess I'm not the biggest Bene fan in the world!


Th below is the blog that the owners of _Blue Pearl_ have setup to further their investigation into what may have happened with their boat. 
https://beneteaufailures.wordpress.com

A comment from a reader on their blog reads as follows


> Hi there,
> When my daughter bought a cyclades 50 from Moorings in October 2011 they were advised to strengthen the upper rudder bearing support shelf where it attaches to the bulkhead before going offshore. Moorings said there had been a problem with the bonding between the support shelf and the bulkhead on some boats - the bulkhead was coated before bonding, and sometimes the coating itself failed, not the glue. They carried out strengthening by glassing the shelf to the bulkhead, which cured the problem and there was no sign of movement after 15,000 offshore miles. It sounds like your problem was caused by the failure of that support shelf.
> I saw a technical advice bulletin drawing attention to the problem and advising strengthening work to prevent any failures (from beneteau to moorings, I think, but it could have been between moorings BVI and other Moorings centres.). I can't find a copy of that bulletin on the net, but Moorings BVI might have it? Sorry to hear of your trouble - hopefully resolved by now





smackdaddy said:


> Agreed. The concerning issue to me is that this same design and construction showed up on the Oceanis 50 _Blue Pearl_, which sunk. So how far did this no frills experiment go?


My opinion( and it is just that) is that when considering how many Bene's are out there doing all sorts of weird and wonderful things we are just dealing with a couple of isolated instances here where mitigating factors may have been storngly at play.

Paulo makes a very good point over there about neglect of rudder maintenance. I am not saying it was a factor in the above examples but we have ourselves looked at several boats 10+ years old, Hallberg Rassys through to Beneteau's and are surprised how few have had there rudders dropped/inspected recently or at all.

Whatever boat we eventually settle on we will drop the rudder prior to crossing the Atlantic.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Kiskadee said:


> As far as I've been told, Catamarans don't heave to. A friend's cat is on the bottom about 200 miles north of Bermuda. After 24 hours in a huge storm, his para-anchor rode parted and she slid backwards down a giant wave, twisting the rudders and tearing his steering linkages apart. He was doing OK steering with engines, until one engine failed. Game over. They were picked up by a Russian container ship and minutes later she went down fast.


You can heave to or park a catamaran with just the main on most boats.


----------



## outbound

Would like to learn as only real experience has been on racing tri s. Thought heaving to a cat was not desirable. With boat totally dependent on form stability they are very "stiff". Results in sudden loading unloading of rig. Hard on the boat. Thought sea anchors may not totally prevent falling back,on rudders. Thought in survival storms bare poles and drogues were more commonly used now a days provided you don't have those big glass doors taken off a motor boat.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> I came across these videos while slumming on CF. They show the destruction and sinking of a Beneteau Oceanis 50, called _"Blue Pearl"_ due to failure of the rudder design/construction:


Thanks, those 2 videos are going to give me nightmares.  Hopefully the Nauticat build reputation is as good as they say, and my rudder does have a skeg with a lower pintle. My quadrant is also imminently accessible, though if everything is coming adrift like that, I'm not sure exactly what one could do....

Scary video though... I like to think that I could respond and save a sinking ship, but staring at that mess... I would be trying to save the ship and preparing to abandon at the same time.

MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> Thanks, those 2 videos are going to give me nightmares.  Hopefully the Nauticat build reputation is as good as they say, and my rudder does have a skeg with a lower pintle. My quadrant is also imminently accessible, though if everything is coming adrift like that, I'm not sure exactly what one could do....
> 
> Scary video though... I like to think that I could respond and save a sinking ship, but staring at that mess... I would be trying to save the ship and preparing to abandon at the same time.
> 
> MedSailor


Yeah, I don't think that one was savable. With all that machinery - which is HUGE on a 50' boat - moving around, you'd leave part of you on the boat before you got on the raft.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Would like to learn as only real experience has been on racing tri s. Thought heaving to a cat was not desirable. With boat totally dependent on form stability they are very "stiff". Results in sudden loading unloading of rig. Hard on the boat. Thought sea anchors may not totally prevent falling back,on rudders. Thought in survival storms bare poles and drogues were more commonly used now a days provided you don't have those big glass doors taken off a motor boat.


I always read that the JSD is the best storm device for a cat. Seems to make much more sense than a para-anchor which can do exactly what happened in that story.


----------



## outbound

Probably for those living on a slant as well.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, I don't think that one was savable. With all that machinery - which is HUGE on a 50' boat - moving around, you'd leave part of you on the boat before you got on the raft.


Yup, the forces at play there are massive, one could risk a very serious injury trying to deal with such a failure, especially in such tight quarters... Even for a Superman, that was probably pretty much game over, at that point...

One thing that video illustrates, however, is the argument for having the ability to try to stabilize the rudder externally, usually by having a small hole drilled in the top aft portion of the rudder... Doubtful it would have made any real difference aboard BLUE PEARL, especially in those conditions, but in the event of a breakage or loosening of the rudder assembly, the ability to fix a line to the rudder, then winch it up tight in an effort to stabilize the situation, could be invaluable... Really good way to add additional support to a rudder when heaving-to, as well, and of course such an arrangement could save your bacon in the event of a rudder coming adrift of the shaft, in trying to configure a means of emergency steering... Even with a situation like that experienced with the bent/jammed rudder on the Alpha 42 BE GOOD TOO, having the means at their disposal to easily attach a high modulus rope to the trailing edge of the rudder just might enable one to produce the leverage using cockpit winches to force it back into a more centered position...

Anyone headed off shore should consider making this relatively simple modification, in my opinion... I may even get around to doing it on my own boat, one of these days...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, the forces at play there are massive, one could risk a very serious injury trying to deal with such a failure, especially in such tight quarters... Even for a Superman, that was probably pretty much game over, at that point...
> 
> One thing that video illustrates, however, is the argument for having the ability to try to stabilize the rudder externally, usually by having a small hole drilled in the top aft portion of the rudder... Doubtful it would have made any real difference aboard BLUE PEARL, especially in those conditions, but in the event of a breakage or loosening of the rudder assembly, the ability to fix a line to the rudder, then winch it up tight in an effort to stabilize the situation, could be invaluable... Really good way to add additional support to a rudder when heaving-to, as well, and of course such an arrangement could save your bacon in the event of a rudder coming adrift of the shaft, in trying to configure a means of emergency steering... Even with a situation like that experienced with the bent/jammed rudder on the Alpha 42 BE GOOD TOO, having the means at their disposal to easily attach a high modulus rope to the trailing edge of the rudder just might enable one to produce the leverage using cockpit winches to force it back into a more centered position...
> 
> Anyone headed off shore should consider making this relatively simple modification, in my opinion... I may even get around to doing it on my own boat, one of these days...


With everything I've read about waterlogged rudders and deteriorating inner frames, is intentionally putting a hole in your rudder a good idea?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> With everything I've read about waterlogged rudders and deteriorating inner frames, is intentionally putting a hole in your rudder a good idea?


Assuming it's done properly, I see no reason why not... What's so much harder about sealing a small hole near the trailing edge of a rudder, than maintaining the watertight integrity of a cored deck, for instance? Drill an oversized hole, fill it with epoxy, then re-drill the smaller hole would be one way to do it...

Of course, for those with rudders filled with little more than _FOAM_, there might be a bit more to it...


----------



## bobperry

This hole in the rudder is a common feature of many workboats.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> This hole in the rudder is a common feature of many workboats.


Plenty of workboats up in Maine... I wonder if that's where the guy who built RAW FAITH got the idea for his steering arrangement?

)


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> This hole in the rudder is a common feature of many workboats.


Hey you grumpy bastard!!! What's up????

The boys and I had a great time skiing in New Mexico. Reminds me that life can be pretty damn good.

I hope you and yours are doing well. Happy New Year friend.


----------



## mitiempo

Many boats designed for offshore have a watertight bulkhead ahead of the rudder post. I don't think it is very commonly found on production boats.


----------



## chall03

mitiempo said:


> Many boats designed for offshore have a watertight bulkhead ahead of the rudder post. I don't think it is very commonly found on production boats.


Don't want to put you on the spot, but do you know which offshore boats have this watertight aft bulkhead? I know you would find it on an Amel and probably any Dashew design, but wondering what other boats?


----------



## mitiempo

Not sure really - I know Dashew's boats all have it. Boreal may have. Outbound possibly?

It is a feature I would want.


----------



## Don L

It's not that many if you can not name any!


----------



## jzk

MacGregor 65 has watertight bulkheads fore and aft.


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> It's not that many if you can not name any!


I cannot at this very minute name any french cello players, does that mean there aren't any?

My research so far shows that most if not all of the bigger Hallberg Rassys, The Hylas 46, The Garcia, Dashews( sundeer, deerfoot etc) The larger Farr pilothouse yachts, perhaps Oysters, a option on Alubat/Ovni and I am sure there are more. The above are high end, blue watery, but still 'production' boats. Once you get into semi custom/expedition yachts my guess is they become more common.

Are they necessary or not? Well on _Morgans Cloud_ one of the most blue watery, production boat disliking offshore sailing resources is still not sure about that.

Risk Management and Watertight Bulkheads


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Hey you grumpy bastard!!! What's up????
> 
> The boys and I had a great time skiing in New Mexico. Reminds me that life can be pretty damn good.
> 
> I hope you and yours are doing well. Happy New Year friend.


This post has been reported to the moderators (at CF  ) for name calling. :laugher

MedSailor


----------



## tweitz

With all of the talk about rudder failures, I am curious what people think of twin rudder designs. Obviously if something comes off in such a way that it crashes around or causes a hole in the boat, it will not solve the problem. But in principle, it seems to me that two smaller rudders each take less stress than one big one, and that a failure of one rudder would still leave emergency steerage, though poorly balanced.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> This post has been reported to the moderators (at CF  ) for name calling. :laugher
> 
> MedSailor


Heh-heh. I'm sure it has. But it doesn't matter. They actually permabanned Bob too. Can you believe that?

Chuckleheads.


----------



## smackdaddy

tweitz said:


> With all of the talk about rudder failures, I am curious what people think of twin rudder designs. Obviously if something comes off in such a way that it crashes around or causes a hole in the boat, it will not solve the problem. But in principle, it seems to me that two smaller rudders each take less stress than one big one, and that a failure of one rudder would still leave emergency steerage, though poorly balanced.


I love the concept of twin rudders. What I don't know is at what point they really start to make sense on a cruising boat. Is just hull shape, heel angles, speed?


----------



## Jiminri

When docking, I use prop wash to help steer the boat. How does that work with twin rudders? Since the rudders are offset from the prop.


----------



## mstern

prop walk or prop wash? The prop walk effect is independent of any rudder.


----------



## JonEisberg

Jiminri said:


> When docking, I use prop wash to help steer the boat. How does that work with twin rudders? Since the rudders are offset from the prop.


Not very well, would be my guess.. Especially, when coupled with a saildrive unit that is likely situated well forward of the rudders, to begin with...

But, hey - that's what a $30K option like Beneteau's "Dock 'n Go" 360- docking system is for, no?


----------



## Jiminri

mstern said:


> prop walk or prop wash? The prop walk effect is independent of any rudder.


My question is about prop WASH.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I love the concept of twin rudders. What I don't know is *at what point they really start to make sense on a cruising boat.*


I'd say, at any point less than a day or two of travel beyond one of these, perhaps?

)


----------



## SVAuspicious

Jiminri said:


> When docking, I use prop wash to help steer the boat. How does that work with twin rudders? Since the rudders are offset from the prop.


Poorly.


----------



## MedSailor

tweitz said:


> With all of the talk about rudder failures, I am curious what people think of twin rudder designs. Obviously if something comes off in such a way that it crashes around or causes a hole in the boat, it will not solve the problem. But in principle, it seems to me that two smaller rudders each take less stress than one big one, and that a failure of one rudder would still leave emergency steerage, though poorly balanced.


Not necessarily. I'm no naval architect but I believe their purpose is to take 100% of the steering loads while the boat his heeled over. Their advantage is that when heeled, more of the rudder is in the water, and conversely, the other one is out for reduced drag. Redundancy is certainly welcome, but being outboard instead of centerline they're more vulnerable to being hit and damaged by floating debris.










MedSailor


----------



## outbound

Jon I'm curious why you prefer twin rudders. So far from watching short hauls.
Twice the chance of picking up lines,ports, detritus. 
Twice the chance of hitting that semisubmerse log, container etc.
Twice the chance of bent rudder shaft in a grounding.
Twice the chance of mechanical failure.
I understand the logic in fact necessity with an ultra wide stern just as the Volvo boats or similar racers but do you really think having a triple track to hit things with two of those tracts not in line with the keel is a good thing&#55357;&#56872;?


----------



## mitiempo

outbound said:


> Jon I'm curious why you prefer twin rudders.
> Twice the chance of bent rudder shaft in a grounding.


Not as likely as they are shallower.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Jon I'm curious why you prefer twin rudders. So far from watching short hauls.
> Twice the chance of picking up lines,ports, detritus.
> Twice the chance of hitting that semisubmerse log, container etc.
> Twice the chance of bent rudder shaft in a grounding.
> Twice the chance of mechanical failure.
> I understand the logic in fact necessity with an ultra wide stern just as the Volvo boats or similar racers but do you really think having a triple track to hit things with two of those tracts not in line with the keel is a good thing��?


Perhaps I worded that poorly, and my intent was not clear... It was an attempt at being facetious, I don't like the idea of twin rudders at all - for much the same reasons you mention - on a cruising boat really meant to go places... 

I'm amazed Jimmy Cornell went with twin rudders on his new Garcia Exploration, although looking at how much beam she carries aft, perhaps there was little choice...


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> Not necessarily. I'm no naval architect but I believe their purpose is to take 100% of the steering loads while the boat his heeled over. Their advantage is that when heeled, more of the rudder is in the water, and conversely, the other one is out for reduced drag. Redundancy is certainly welcome, but being outboard instead of centerline they're more vulnerable to being hit and damaged by floating debris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedSailor


No doubt guys like Bob P, or Jeff H, have weighed in on this before, but their take on this would be interesting, for sure...

To my (untrained) eye, that diagram of the Bavaria illustrates how 'unnecessary' they likely are, at least on many of the less extreme boats we're seeing them on today... My guess is that many of these designs are being hatched in the Marketing Departments of some builders, and are being pushed primarily because they represent a feature that is _'Cutting Edge'_, or simply _'Sexy'_...


----------



## weinie

smackdaddy said:


> I love the concept of twin rudders. What I don't know is at what point they really start to make sense on a cruising boat. Is just hull shape, heel angles, speed?


You overlooked the coolness factor.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> I'm amazed Jimmy Cornell went with twin rudders on his new Garcia Exploration, although looking at how much beam she carries aft, perhaps there was little choice...


As Jon knows I sailed Aventura. I was not impressed with the twin rudders. They are beefy. Jimmy managed to hang the boat up on one in ice. The big deal for me was not having the benefit of prop wash in close quarters.


----------



## Faster

Last summer we say a Bavaria 49 at Victoria harbour with only a foot and a half left of the starboard rudder... Highlighting another 'feature'.. a centerline rudder has some protection from logs and other large debris from the keel.. the outboard twins are utterly exposed.

On the fortunately rare occasions we've run over a horizontally floating log, by the time the keel pushed it underwater, the rudder was well past before the log regained the surface, and even if that didn't happen, much of the energy it posed was already dissapated.

They'd 'found' a floating log (that presumably missed the keel) and took the bulk of the rudder clean off.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps I worded that poorly, and my intent was not clear... It was an attempt at being facetious, I don't like the idea of twin rudders at all - for much the same reasons you mention - on a cruising boat really meant to go places...
> 
> I'm amazed Jimmy Cornell went with twin rudders on his new Garcia Exploration, although looking at how much beam she carries aft, perhaps there was little choice...


Aren't you very much a "What Would Jimmy Do?" kind of guy.

He must know something you don't.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> As Jon knows I sailed Aventura. I was not impressed with the twin rudders. They are beefy. Jimmy managed to hang the boat up on one in ice. The big deal for me was not having the benefit of prop wash in close quarters.


Practice.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Last summer we say a Bavaria 49 at Victoria harbour with only a foot and a half left of the starboard rudder... Highlighting another 'feature'.. a centerline rudder has some protection from logs and other large debris from the keel.. the outboard twins are utterly exposed.
> 
> On the fortunately rare occasions we've run over a horizontally floating log, by the time the keel pushed it underwater, the rudder was well past before the log regained the surface, and even if that didn't happen, much of the energy it posed was already dissapated.
> 
> They'd 'found' a floating log (that presumably missed the keel) and took the bulk of the rudder clean off.


That actually sounds like good rudder design/construction to me.


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> That actually sounds like good rudder design/construction to me.


Meaning????

If you mean 'break the blade off rather than tear the rudder out of the boat'.. then there is something to that.

However, a centerline rudder could be similarly conceived, but probably suffer fewer such incidents.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Meaning????
> 
> *If you mean 'break the blade off rather than tear the rudder out of the boat'.. then there is something to that.*
> 
> However, a centerline rudder could be similarly conceived, but probably suffer fewer such incidents.


Yes - that's what I mean. Again, I know there are certainly benefits to twin rudders - otherwise they wouldn't be used on high performance boats. And the better control offered on heel seems to be the big one.

So if there are performance benefits, designing around the potential downsides of that configuration is what's next. And it sounds like Bavaria did that.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Aren't you very much a "What Would Jimmy Do?" kind of guy.


As a rule, yes... But on this particular point, no...



smackdaddy said:


> He must know something you don't.


That's not only possible, but rather quite likely 

On the other hand, I don't think Jimmy does as much cruising in Maine, as I like to do... Twin rudders would certainly add to the 'challenge', up there 










One of the highlights of 2014 for me, was the dinner I shared with Dave/Auspicious, Shawn/T37 Chef, their lovely respective better halves, and Jimmy Cornell in Annapolis during the show...

At one point late in the evening, Jimmy related a harrowing tale that occurred during his retreat from their aborted NW Passage attempt last summer... Back out in the Labrador Sea, they snagged a a castoff fishing net or large mass of rope, and Jimmy had to don a survival suit, and go overboard to cut it free... It was a riveting story, suffice it to say, at one point he literally thought he was going to die, and he simply _WILLED HIMSELF not to_...

We can only guess, of course, whether a single rudder on the boat's centerline just might have been a bit less likely to have created the mess he found himself in, none of us ever thought to ask... 

I ran into Jimmy briefly at Port Annapolis a week before Christmas, we were both getting ready to head south the next day... I asked him if the story was gonna appear in his column in CRUISING WORLD anytime soon, but he said they didn't seem to be interested in it... Go figure, I thought it was one of the best, and most cautionary tales, that I've heard in a _LONG_ time...


----------



## Don L

chall03 said:


> I cannot at this very minute name any french cello players, does that mean there aren't any?


But you didn't made any claims about french cello players now did you? Yet you were perfectly able to make a boat claim even though you can't name any boat to support your position even though you said you knew there were lots.

So are you an ACE or a seagull?


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Originally Posted by *chall03 *
> 
> I cannot at this very minute name any french cello players, does that mean there aren't any?
> 
> 
> 
> But you didn't made any claims about french cello players now did you? Yet *you were perfectly able to make a boat claim even though you can't name any boat to support your position even though you said you knew there were lots.*
> 
> So are you an ACE or a seagull?
Click to expand...

You seem confused...

Seems to me if you are gonna make such an 'accusation', it should at least be directed at the appropriate poster...


----------



## chall03

Thanks Jon.

Ill take the hit....

P.S. Apparently there are also some really good French cello players, who knew.


----------



## RTB

Another lost rudder. Anyone know what kind of boat this is?

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=tr&tl=en&u=http://www.rotaatlantik.com/

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Thanks Jon.
> 
> Ill take the hit....
> 
> P.S. Apparently there are also some really good French cello players, who knew.


Yo Yo Ma is French?

Wow.


----------



## smackdaddy

RTB said:


> Another lost rudder. Anyone know what kind of boat this is?
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=tr&tl=en&u=http://www.rotaatlantik.com/
> 
> Ralph


Keno's Oyster? Heh-heh.


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> But you didn't made any claims about french cello players now did you? Yet you were perfectly able to make a boat claim even though you can't name any boat to support your position even though you said you knew there were lots.


As Jon suggested it wasn't I, but Mitiempo who stated that "_Many boats designed for offshore have a watertight bulkhead ahead of the rudder post. I don't think it is very commonly found on production boats_".

I simply asked whether he knew which ones so I could note it in my boat research spreadsheet.

He was as it turns out pretty correct, with some interesting exceptions. As I mentioned in my last post it may not be something necessary or even desirable for heavy offshore work depending on what/who you believe.



Don0190 said:


> So are you an ACE or a seagull?


Bad week?


----------



## mitiempo

chall03 said:


> As Jon suggested it wasn't I, but Mitiempo who stated that "_Many boats designed for offshore have a watertight bulkhead ahead of the rudder post. I don't think it is very commonly found on production boats_".
> 
> I simply asked whether he knew which ones so I could note it in my boat research spreadsheet.
> 
> He was as it turns out pretty correct, with some interesting exceptions. As I mentioned in my last post it may not be something necessary or even desirable for heavy offshore work depending on what/who you believe.


"...or even desirable..."

Not sure what you mean by this. I think it is as desirable as a forward watertight bulkhead.


----------



## chall03

mitiempo said:


> "...or even desirable..."
> 
> Not sure what you mean by this. I think it is as desirable as a forward watertight bulkhead.


Sorry, I did follow that up with " depending on who/what you believe". My comment was just a reference to THIS article on Morgans Cloud.

Personally I agree they can't be _undesirable_ but I am seeing interesting perspectives including the article above, I am honest enough to admit I don't really know, I am doing the research, I don't have the experience to have an opinion on this, so I really wish people would stop attributing opinions to me


----------



## jerryrlitton

Jiminri said:


> My question is about prop WASH.


I think you can buy prop wash at almost any marine outlet. I think aeventyr uses Joy dish soap.


----------



## Don L

chall03 said:


> As Jon suggested it wasn't I, but Mitiempo who stated that "_Many boats designed for offshore have a watertight bulkhead ahead of the rudder post. I don't think it is very commonly found on production boats_".


I don't take thread notes so just responded to your post.

But I'm still waiting for that big list of boats with watertight bulkheads ahead of the rudder posts.


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> I don't take thread notes so just responded to your post.


Apology? accepted. It can be tricky to follow threads sometimes.



Don0190 said:


> But I'm still waiting for that big list of boats with watertight bulkheads ahead of the rudder posts.


I attempted such a list in one of my last posts and have included it again below, although it is by no means exhaustive or substantiated. If your point is that lots of boats, _bluewater_ included don't have aft watertight bulkheads( is that your point?) then yes you are right. From me you will receive no argument to the contrary.



chall03 said:


> My research so far shows that most if not all of the bigger Hallberg Rassys, The Hylas 46, The Garcia, Dashews( sundeer, deerfoot etc) The larger Farr pilothouse yachts, perhaps Oysters, a option on Alubat/Ovni and I am sure there are more. The above are high end, blue watery, but still 'production' boats. Once you get into semi custom/expedition yachts my guess is they become more common.


Finally I would again suggest a reading of the below article from Morgans Cloud to concerned parties where I believe with good clarity the pros and cons of watertight bulkheads is examined.



chall03 said:


> Risk Management and Watertight Bulkheads


----------



## chall03

As for further examples of production boats out there doing it.

The below is a link to a Beneteau Cyclades 43 that was bought ex charter in Croatia and has sailed to Australia, now for sail in Sydney. The Caribbean to Australia was done singlehanded.

Yacht Bambi A Beneteau Cyclades 43 for sale


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> I attempted such a list in one of my last posts and have included it again below, although it is by no means exhaustive or substantiated. If your point is that lots of boats, _bluewater_ included don't have aft watertight bulkheads( is that your point?) then yes you are right. From me you will receive no argument to the contrary.
> 
> Finally I would again suggest a reading of the below article from Morgans Cloud to concerned parties where I believe with good clarity the pros and cons of watertight bulkheads is examined.


Certainly among what most of us consider to be "Production boats", aft watertight bulkheads are exceedingly rare... I'm pretty certain I've never delivered a boat with such a feature...

Seems to me you really have to get up there in terms of size, before they become practical... In most boats under about 45' or so, such a bulkhead is likely to render the lazarette very difficult to access. I was reminded of this on the Valiant 42 I ran recently, if I ever had to deal with an issue in the back of that boat, it might be all but impossible for me to do so... Same thing with a Crealock 44 I ran last spring, I dreaded having any sort of issue with the steering gear on that boat, it might have required hiring a double-jointed midget to resolve it... 

This issue highlights yet another advantage of tillers over wheels, for me... Having the top of the rudder post pass thru the deck can only lend a substantial additional degree of support to the entire structure... And without the need for steering quadrants and belowdecks autopilot attachments, etc., it's far easier to isolate or 'surround' the rudder post with an oversized watertight rudder tube that might provide a bit of additional security...

Of course, while they may have their downsides, it's pretty tough to beat outboard/transom-hung rudders, in that regard...


----------



## Don L

chall03 said:


> I attempted such a list in one of my last posts and have included it again below, although it is by no means exhaustive or substantiated.


Well I looked at the spec for the Hylas 46 and if it has a watertight bulkhead *forward of the rudder tube* (which was the change that a lot of boats have this) it doesn't say anything about it in the specs. My comment wasn't that there are boats with forward watertight bulkhead, it was about aft ones to protect against sinking if the rudder were to drop out etc.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Certainly among what most of us consider to be "Production boats", aft watertight bulkheads are exceedingly rare... I'm pretty certain I've never delivered a boat with such a feature...
> 
> Seems to me you really have to get up there in terms of size, before they become practical... In most boats under about 45' or so, such a bulkhead is likely to render the lazarette very difficult to access. I was reminded of this on the Valiant 42 I ran recently, if I ever had to deal with an issue in the back of that boat, it might be all but impossible for me to do so... Same thing with a Crealock 44 I ran last spring, I dreaded having any sort of issue with the steering gear on that boat, it might have required hiring a double-jointed midget to resolve it...
> 
> This issue highlights yet another advantage of tillers over wheels, for me... Having the top of the rudder post pass thru the deck can only lend a substantial additional degree of support to the entire structure... And without the need for steering quadrants and belowdecks autopilot attachments, etc., it's far easier to isolate or 'surround' the rudder post with an oversized watertight rudder tube that might provide a bit of additional security...
> 
> Of course, while they may have their downsides, it's pretty tough to beat outboard/transom-hung rudders, in that regard...


Thanks Jon,

I assumed they would be a great thing and then I read the Morgans Cloud article which suggested under 60 ft anything beyond perhaps a forward watertight collision bulkhead makes little sense and highlighted similar practical considerations to the ones you mention above.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> Thanks Jon,
> 
> I assumed they would be a great thing and then I read the Morgans Cloud article which suggested under 60 ft anything beyond perhaps a forward watertight collision bulkhead makes little sense and highlighted similar practical considerations to the ones you mention above.


One thing that has always perplexed me, is that more builders don't bother to configure at least a small watertight crash compartment beneath the forward portion of the vee-berth, to at least guard against a breach of the hull at the very point it might be most likely to occur... Isolating a portion beneath the forward berth is so easily accomplished on the vast majority of boats, after all, seems a no-brainer, to me...

On my boat, I built in my holding tank integral to the hull in that area, with additional supporting bulkeads beneath the vee-berth that turns that whole area between the waterline and the bottom of the forefoot into a mini watertight compartment, but still accessible by watertight inspection ports, making the space between the top of the tank and the underside of the berth available as a small stowage area...

Better than nothing, it seems to me..


----------



## outbound

Would just point out if rudder tube is appropriately constructed and has appropriate supports as part of integral hull construction likelihood of structural failure is quite low. Also if said tube is brought above waterline even if rudder post fell,out flooding would be manageable. Yes there would be up flooding as the boat worked and hobbyhorsed through the waves. However hydrostatic head would be low so a rag bound down or one of those soft plastic rescue plugs should suffice.
BTW-Outbounds have a watertight bulkhead 7' back from bow


----------



## Minnesail

JonEisberg said:


> Of course, while they may have their downsides, it's pretty tough to beat outboard/transom-hung rudders, in that regard...


Sweet, my Catalina 22 is a bluewater boat!


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> Well I looked at the spec for the Hylas 46 and if it has a watertight bulkhead *forward of the rudder tube* (which was the change that a lot of boats have this) it doesn't say anything about it in the specs. My comment wasn't that there are boats with forward watertight bulkhead, it was about aft ones to protect against sinking if the rudder were to drop out etc.


I listed it as it does also have an aft collision bulkhead according to their website. 
_
"A true watertight collision bulkhead forward and another aft define the 46 as a serious offshore yacht"_

Hylas Yachts: Hylas 46


----------



## tweitz

On the twin rudder portion of the thread -- my Beneteau 323 had a twin rudder for a very good reason, unrelated to any of the speculation. it is a keel/centerboard version, which enables very shallow draft with the board up. A centerline rudder would be much deeper than the keel, so they put twin rudders on the keel/centerboard version to keep the draft shallow. Interestingly, in Europe they advertise the boat as suitable for drying out, that the weight of the boat can be taken on the keel stub and rudders. In the event, I find that it tracks exceedingly well, and, although I don't race, I suspect that it would be very difficult for the rudders to become overpowered when heeling, because there is always one deep in the water.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> I listed it as it does also have an aft collision bulkhead according to their website.
> _
> "A true watertight collision bulkhead forward and another aft define the 46 as a serious offshore yacht"_
> 
> Hylas Yachts: Hylas 46


That's for aggressively reversing into icebergs?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> That's for aggressively reversing into icebergs?


Perhaps!

Or in case of mishap as all the Beneteau's start overtaking you in the ARC ??


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> Perhaps!
> 
> Or in case of mishap as all the Beneteau's start overtaking you in the ARC ??


Nah, it's to guard against the battering sustained from Hunters running amok in mooring fields...


----------



## Jeff_H

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, it's to guard against the battering sustained from Hunters running amok in mooring fields...


That looks like a very high speed case of anchor dragging. *grin*


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, it's to guard against the battering sustained from Hunters running amok in mooring fields...


So from the other write-up autumn put up, it seems that bow cleat didn't let go at the mooring. It sounds more like they were trying to get out of there and just screwed up the exit...



> "Harbor patrol, this is Susie Q. We are free and in need of assistance." This family had been next to us an Antonio's. What appeared to be three generations of family. The grandparents, the parents (one with a jacket embroidered with "Susie Q Crew") and grandchildren. I was on the bridge and saw Susie Q, a ~40 foot Hunter sailboat, spiral off her mooring - stern to wind and waves. Her engine was on. She looked in good shape. It looked like she was going to pass the 35' Tiara powerboat on mooring 105, round her stern, then could head out to sea. But instead she turned sharp, attempting to pass in front of the Tiara. The wind and seas were too much. She could not get her bow into the wind. She collided, at speed, with the bow of the Tiara. Susie Q then backed off, tried to go forward but could not. Her propeller was wrapped and the engine useless.
> 
> She seemed stuck to the Tiara, with her stern to the waves. The harbor patrol came by to help. Eventually a line was attached from her bow to the stern of the Tiara. The stern of the sailboat was let go and she floated around - attached by the bow to the stern of the Tiara. The strain on the line was tremendous. When the wave would pass under the Tiara and to the sailboat the line would snap taught, but not break. Then, often, the bow of the sailboat would smash the stern of the Tiara. Eventually back of the Tiara started to disintegrate. The bow of the sailboat developed a huge V-shaped hole. If the rope should break, it was unclear whether Susie Q would go aground on the beach or hit the breakwall. Susie Q was also in danger of sinking.
> 
> The skipper of the Susie Q radioed the harbor patrol. "I'm not sure how long this rope will hold. What do I do if it breaks?" Harbor patrol, "Float into shore." Susie Q, "But what do we do? Jump off? Swim?"
> 
> Harbor patrol, "We don't have much to do with that. There will be people on shore to help. You might want to think about getting off that boat now."
> 
> The harbor patrol sent a boat over and evacuated the Susie Q. The stern was pitching too much to transfer. The harbor patrol vessel pulled up beside the mast, where the pitching was reduced. The crew evacuated.
> 
> For a couple of hours the now abandoned Susie Q battered the stern of the Tiara, which was occupied. The harbor patrol tried to free the Susie Q but it seemed that it was somehow attached beneath the waterline. The Susie Q eventually sank.


They tied the bow off to the other boat and let them beat each other to death. That explains the bow cleat failure - and it makes much more sense in that scenario.


----------



## hellsop

Jiminri said:


> When docking, I use prop wash to help steer the boat. How does that work with twin rudders? Since the rudders are offset from the prop.


Depends on the boat, obviously. Single engine cats are often powered by a long drive leg or extra-long outboard that turns with rudders. Twin engine cats obviously end up being able to apply power differently to each hull and a skilled pilot can spin the thing nearly in place if there's a couple of feet of clearance.


----------



## tweitz

Our set up does not have a sail drive, but a conventional rudder shaft. Although the twin rudders don't get much prop wash, there is definitely prop walk, to starboard forward, and considerably more to port in reverse. Very helpful when turning or docking. I have always regarded predictable prop walk as my friend.


----------



## twinsailor

Where exactly can you take a production boat - Jeanneau / Beneteau ?
Has any of you been to the Caribbean or the Pacific lately? Good god! Beneteau yachts are everywhere, I'm on my second one and will soon buy a third!
Broker of both.


----------



## smackdaddy

twinsailor said:


> Where exactly can you take a production boat - Jeanneau / Beneteau ?
> Has any of you been to the Caribbean or the Pacific lately? Good god! Beneteau yachts are everywhere, I'm on my second one and will soon buy a third!
> Broker of both.


Twin, I'm with you. The fact that anyone is still having this conversation is mystifying. But there are STILL many out there that are convinced production boats don't belong "offshore".

Here's just a few examples that I ran across personally on CF:

BeneHunterLina Bashing Hall of Shame | SmackTalk!

It's not nearly as bad here on SN where people are bit more objective, but you still see it every once in a while.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Twin, I'm with you. The fact that anyone is still having this conversation is mystifying. But there are STILL many out there that are convinced production boats don't belong "offshore".
> 
> Here's just a few examples that I ran across personally on CF:
> 
> BeneHunterLina Bashing Hall of Shame | SmackTalk!
> 
> It's not nearly as bad here on SN where people are bit more objective, but you still see it every once in a while.


I remember a lot of those posts. But really where do you get the time to track all those?


----------



## smackdaddy

You wouldn't believe how fast I am at stuff like that. And anyway - there's tons of them.

Oh - and I'm the boss at work - so I don't really have to do anything. Heh-heh.


----------



## smj

Kiskadee said:


> Smackdaddy, Let me dust off some brain cells. It was in October 2006. The catamaran was a PDQ 36 called "1 Cool Cat", out of Halifax. I found this on the PDQ forum.
> PDQ Owners Forum ? View topic - 1 Cool Cat Sunk
> This wass to have been the third or fourth trip to the BVI's for Al and Michelle. He told me he was 'freshening the nip' every twenty minutes to keep the para-anchor rode from chafing. He'd just finished doing it and got back to the cabin when a very large wave swept under them. He heard a loud explosion as the rode parted. The Russian ship used a cargo net on a crane to hoist them off the cat. When almost on board Michelle lost her grip and fell. Al saw her disappear beneath the sinking PDQ. The crew grabbed him and the crane operator dove the cargo net under the sinking boat. Al saw it come back up with Michelle hanging on. He collapsed and cried. When you think you've lost everything, you are handed back the love of your life. The full story was quite interesting, as they sailed all the way to Norway before flying home. Trust me, they could write a book.
> Al and Michelle are great people. I now live on the opposite side of the continent, but last I saw them they were shopping for either another PDQ-36 or a 48-50 foot monohull.


This is interesting, but I couldn't find such a detailed story on the PDQ site, just a small explanation maybe blaming a 650' Russian cargo ship for running them over. Do you have a link to the longer version


----------



## ianjoub

So, since everyone is so down on the Hunters that appear so nice, I have been investigating other boats.

I am looking at some Garcias. Does anyone have an opinion on these as 'blue water cruisers'?

2007 Garcia Passoa 46 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1996 Garcia Passoa 50 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> So, since everyone is so down on the Hunters that appear so nice, I have been investigating other boats.
> 
> I am looking at some Garcias. Does anyone have an opinion on these as 'blue water cruisers'?
> 
> 2007 Garcia Passoa 46 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> 1996 Garcia Passoa 50 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com


At half-a-mil for an 8 year old boat and $330K for a 19 year old boat - these definitely aren't "production boats" as most people understand that term. They are more limited-run, fast, expedition boats:



















GARCIA PASSOA 47: French Metal Surfboard

Aluminum construction, daggerboards, lift keels, etc.

Cool boat for sure. But, I'll stick with my Hunter, thanks.

(PS - Hunter bashers are goofballs. Just ignore them.)


----------



## Don L

ianjoub said:


> So, since everyone is so down on the Hunters that appear so nice, I have been investigating other boats.
> 
> [/url]


who is this "everyone" you talk about?

hey that was my 1,000 SN post, send me a present


----------



## RTB

smackdaddy said:


> (PS - Hunter bashers are goofballs. Just ignore them.)


I warned you about that when you bought your boat! :laugher

Ralph


----------



## ianjoub

This one looks nice, but they would have to come down 25% for my budget...

1997 Garcia Performance Cutter Rigged Sloop Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> hey that was my 1,000 SN post, send me a present


It's a bobble-head of CruisingDad. I've got 13 of them now.


----------



## Exile1

Yo Smack -- not enough posts to pm you back. All I can say is that she was a ding_BAT_ but clean!:laugher

Polux must be missing you over on CF. He just found 2-3 more Hunters that have circumnavigated, incl. Mike Harker who did it on a Hunter 49 while singlehanded and w/o full use of his legs (he was partially paralyzed). Amazing story -- check it out on the Production Boats thread on CF.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Yo Smack -- not enough posts to pm you back. All I can say is that she was a ding_BAT_ but clean!:laugher
> 
> Polux must be missing you over on CF. He just found 2-3 more Hunters that have circumnavigated, incl. Mike Harker who did it on a Hunter 49 while singlehanded and w/o full use of his legs (he was partially paralyzed). Amazing story -- check it out on the Production Boats thread on CF.


Hey, Ex - welcome to SN dude.

I'm very familiar with Mike H. I've posted about him a few times in threads like these. The guy was _seriously_ tough. No question.

Did you see where he was severely beaten while aboard his Hunter in St. Martin (I think) a few years ago? I'm pretty sure the perpetrator was an insecure Oyster or Hinckley owner.


----------



## travlin-easy




----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Hey, Ex - welcome to SN dude.
> 
> I'm very familiar with Mike H. I've posted about him a few times in threads like these. The guy was _seriously_ tough. No question.
> 
> Did you see where he was severely beaten while aboard his Hunter in St. Martin (I think) a few years ago? I'm pretty sure the perpetrator was an insecure Oyster or Hinckley owner.


Let's hope Keno doesn't read that one! I'm actually good with your Oyster/Hinckley theory, esp. since it takes the suspicion off the Bristol guys. I hear those types can get pretty dang irritated getting passed under full sail by the bolt-on keel crowd.

I wasn't surprised to hear that Hunters have circumnavigated, just surprised that I hadn't been previously informed by the likes of you, RTB, Sailorboy & others. I guess I need to get out more.

Been lurking here on SN for awhile, and have posted a few times over the years. Lately there's been quite a bit more drama over at CF, however, so I guess I got distracted.:clobber


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, as you probably know by now, I don't mind drama as long as things are kept fair across the board. SN's mods are really good about finding that balance. CF's not so much.

Anyway, good to see you around. Tell Keno Oysters are iceberg magnets, will ya? Heh-heh.

(PS - I meant to ask you...you kept saying over on CF that I was "bragging" here and on SA about getting flicked there. Where was I bragging about that exactly?)


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, as you probably know by now, I don't mind drama as long as things are kept fair across the board. SN's mods are really good about finding that balance. CF's not so much.
> 
> Anyway, good to see you around. Tell Keno Oysters are iceberg magnets, will ya? Heh-heh.


Could be a different approach taken by the mods on the two forums, or it could be your style. You seem a bit more laid back over here, so maybe some of the CF guys just ticked you off? A bit ironic, but I never even saw your "dingy" post until after it was put back up the following day. You & the CF mods had been going at it long before that, however, so hard to believe it was just that one post. Either way, there's no denying you started some threads with popular topics! And they continue to bring out remarkable stories, from Oysters getting sunk by icebergs to singlehanded, parapalegic sailors circumnavigating on big production boats! So you made a lasting contribution, even if you couldn't help but be irritating as hell.

Getting back on topic, I had to laugh. I'm reading one of Hal Roth's books right now -- no denying that guy's sailing creds, right? Anyway, he's going on & on about how he prefers bolted-on keels over encapsulated. Keeps talking about how the bolt-ons are stronger & thus safer in a grounding because the lead/iron ballast vs. the fiberglass takes the stress. Go figure! (Where's that beat-head-on-wall smilie??). I guess it's more about the quality/integrity of the construction vs. the type necessarily, and of course it's about everyone having an opinion. Still, after all the debating . . . .


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> (PS - I meant to ask you...you kept saying over on CF that I was "bragging" here and on SA about getting flicked there. Where was I bragging about that exactly?)


First saw this in a post by Minaret early on in one of your CF threads. You never denied or took issue with M.'s post at the time or when me or others repeated it. Your own blog publicizes in a humorous way your various forum bans, incl. the previous one from CF and now the recent permanent one. Curiously, it was only _after_ your permanent ban did I read where you claimed you never intended to get yourself banned from CF.

Based on this record, are you now saying you weren't purposely trying to get yourself banned? Another poster attributes your motivation to exactly this, claims he read about your posts about it on two other forums, and you don't respond? Is this why you're attributing the permanent ban on CF to a mere single post? Given the history of previous bans & warnings, it's _all_ the fault of the CF mods? Or maybe you didn't anticipate the ban being permanent this time?

Let's face it, I've had a few posts deleted over on CF as well, and it's really not very difficult to comply after you've received a warning. If you disapprove of their rules . . . well . . . it's a privately owned website and I guess you can choose to leave -- voluntarily or involuntarily!


----------



## Don L

At CF there definitely is a mod preference on what is allowed, unless it is posted by the mods. And it definitely is allowed to trash production boats and the bashers can say any crap they want, but you aren't allowed to push back using the same insulting tone. And once you go against a couple of the mods they become your stalker and follow you around in wait. I got a 3 day ban and a "strike" for being "snarky". I have been on CF a long time and have over 8000 posts and all of a sudden I'm too "snarky".

But far as production boat limits I still don't think there is any issue with any modern 40'+ boat. The bashers always post the same old same old "issues" that are only problems in their minds. I spend a lot of time researching the topic before I got my Hunter 410. The only real problem I didn't uncover well was that if you get a production boat you need to really stop reading internet forums!

Don, aka Sailorboy1


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> At CF there definitely is a mod preference on what is allowed, unless it is posted by the mods. And it definitely is allowed to trash production boats and the bashers can say any crap they want, but you aren't allowed to push back using the same insulting tone. And once you go against a couple of the mods they become your stalker and follow you around in wait. I got a 3 day ban and a "strike" for being "snarky". I have been on CF a long time and have over 8000 posts and all of a sudden I'm too "snarky".
> 
> But far as production boat limits I still don't think there is any issue with any modern 40'+ boat. The bashers always post the same old same old "issues" that are only problems in their minds. I spend a lot of time researching the topic before I got my Hunter 410. The only real problem I didn't uncover well was that if you get a production boat you need to really stop reading internet forums!
> 
> Don, aka Sailorboy1


Only trouble with your comment Don is that it makes it hard to explain the several CF mods who own production boats themselves & often speak highly of them, the many long-time members like yourself who own & often praise them, and the experienced delivery captains, technical folks, & other seasoned cruisers who frequently & objectively explain the various strengths & weaknesses of these types of boats. Are there those who point out issues with build quality & failures? Of course! That's what forums are about. But there are also others who post about circumnavigations, etc. At the same time there are those who discuss things they don't like about more traditional boats. It's all just information that intelligent readers can then use to draw their own conclusions.

Given how many views from all sides were allowed to be expressed on CF on just Smack's threads alone, it's hard to believe the mods are out to quash opinions they happen not to agree with personally. As I've said, I think it's more about tone than content, and they are probably more inclined to intervene if/when someone complains. But hey -- you're entitled to your opinion too!


----------



## SVAuspicious

ianjoub said:


> I am looking at some Garcias. Does anyone have an opinion on these as 'blue water cruisers'?


I've only sailed one Garcia, on delivery from Newport to Annapolis. There were some oddities, some driven by the owner, but they are very solid boats that I would not hesitate to take anywhere. Look carefully at the routing of running rigging headed aft - the one I was one had a huge number of turns in the lines.



Don0190 said:


> At CF there definitely is a mod preference on what is allowed, unless it is posted by the mods. And it definitely is allowed to trash production boats and the bashers can say any crap they want, but you aren't allowed to push back using the same insulting tone. And once you go against a couple of the mods they become your stalker and follow you around in wait. I got a 3 day ban and a "strike" for being "snarky". I have been on CF a long time and have over 8000 posts and all of a sudden I'm too "snarky".


I got a two-week ban from CF for agreeing with a mod. Figure that out. I can't.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> First saw this in a post by Minaret early on in one of your CF threads. You never denied or took issue with M.'s post at the time or when me or others repeated it. Your own blog publicizes in a humorous way your various forum bans, incl. the previous one from CF and now the recent permanent one. Curiously, it was only _after_ your permanent ban did I read where you claimed you never intended to get yourself banned from CF.


Just because I don't "deny or take issue" with something stupid someone says doesn't automatically mean it's true, now does it? Or is simply reading a posted comment by someone with a grudge proof enough for you to jump on a bandwagon and start repeating it? If so, I'd say your evidential bar is a bit low.

Yeah, Minaret had a thing for me pretty early on. From what I recall, he also trash-talked another good forum friend of mine a bit, Bob Perry. Bob was also perma-banned from CF a couple of years ago while trying to promote a scholarship thing for his late son. That seriously ticked me off, so I went head-to-head with a couple of the mods over that and might have been banned for a couple of weeks at that time - and I probably talked about that here or SA (I honestly don't remember). If that was what Minaret was talking about, then hell yes...I was proud of it. The mods needed to be told off at that point. They were WAY out of line. It was a lame move.



Exile1 said:


> Based on this record, are you now saying you weren't purposely trying to get yourself banned? Another poster attributes your motivation to exactly this, claims he read about your posts about it on two other forums, and you don't respond? Is this why you're attributing the permanent ban on CF to a mere single post? Given the history of previous bans & warnings, it's _all_ the fault of the CF mods? Or maybe you didn't anticipate the ban being permanent this time?


First, no, I was not _purposely trying_ to get banned. I had seen the nasty side of moderation over there during Bob's thing. And I had also seen many really good threads locked simply because a few posters would come in and blow them up. That's not cool. So, as I made clear in my blog post, I wanted to push things a bit to get a peek behind that curtain. Banning is always a possibility when you do that - so I accepted that. But I certainly wasn't _trying_ to get banned. Remember I'd been a member over there since 2008 - same as here.

I don't know exactly why I was perma-banned. As you can see in my blog post on the matter, no reason was given in the notice. I just know that that post joking with you was deleted (for some weird reason as there was nothing bad about it) and twenty minutes later I was perma-banned.

As for what went on behind the scenes, I've put 95% of the back-and-forth up in my blog post (I don't do "behind the scenes" stuff). So you can see for yourself what was going on. And, though I've not put up the actual PMs from the other source talking about what was going on in the mod group itself, it was a lot dirtier behind that curtain than most think.

Finally, I've made it clear that I'm no "forum angel" (as if that's a surprise to anyone). And I won't change my posting personality just to stay on a forum. Period. Especially when "being nice" only applies to certain posters and not others. But, I also usually won't step over reasonable lines...even when baited. As long as things are fair and straight-up, I'm good with it. That's why I stayed around as long as I did. They really didn't have anything to "get me" on.



Exile1 said:


> Let's face it, I've had a few posts deleted over on CF as well, and it's really not very difficult to comply after you've received a warning.


That all depends on what I'm being asked to comply with. In this case, I wasn't going to comply with "being nice" while being targeted by others (especially mods). Sorry.



Exile1 said:


> If you disapprove of their rules . . . well . . . it's a privately owned website and I guess you can choose to leave -- voluntarily or involuntarily!


Agreed. So is this one...so I won't talk about this anymore here on SN. I think all this just goes to show that SN is a damn fine forum. It really has some of the best moderators I've come across in ANY forum.

If you have any other questions about it, feel free to comment on the blog and I'll be happy to answer. But I'm done with it here.

In the mean time, talking about boats, have you checked out Paulo's ("PCP" here and "Polux" over there) thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats.html

It has almost *2 MILLION* views.

THAT, my friend...is just about the best thread on boats - ever.


----------



## RTB

smackdaddy said:


> I think all this just goes to show that SN is a damn fine forum. It really has some of the best moderators I've come across in ANY forum.


I really agree with you smack, but I still miss stuffers. I won't expect to get any likes on this post..._heh-heh._ Sully (another perma-banned at CF) gave us a pretty fun place to hang out. I actually learned more from him and some of the other members there, than at any other forum. Unfortunately, he proves your point - that poor moderation (or dictatorship in his case), can sink a good forum. Too bad really, because I had a ton of PM's saved from i2f. I can't find a sign of Sully anywhere. Maybe saildog finally caught up with him....

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

RTB said:


> I really agree with you smack, but I still miss stuffers. I won't expect to get any likes on this post..._heh-heh._ Sully (another perma-banned at CF) gave us a pretty fun place to hang out. I actually learned more from him and some of the other members there, than at any other forum. Unfortunately, he proves your point - that poor moderation (or dictatorship in his case), can sink a good forum. Too bad really, because I had a ton of PM's saved from i2f. I can't find a sign of Sully anywhere. Maybe saildog finally caught up with him....
> 
> Ralph


I actually enjoyed Stuffers! I came back after my 6-month ban and you were the first to offer me some smokes after getting out of The Hole! Heh-heh.

That was one of the most enjoyable forum melees I've ever been involved in. Good times.

Yeah - dictatorship has sunken a lot of forums. No doubt. Even so, I liked Sully. I hope he's doing okay.


----------



## Don L

Meanwhile;

I notice that semi-custom builders like Morris and Hinckley are now building boats with "modern" flatter bottom, wider stern, bolted on keels, spade rudders.

How does that play into the story normally played out on why production boats can't "do it"?


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Meanwhile;
> 
> I notice that semi-custom builders like Morris and Hinckley are now building boats with "modern" flatter bottom, wider stern, bolted on keels, spade rudders.
> 
> How does that play into the story normally played out on why production boats can't "do it"?


That's a _great _question. First, I think it completely undermines the "traditionalist" view of what a "proper blue water boat" should be (comfort factor, etc.). Design is very quickly moving away from all those features. There's no doubt about that. Just look at that Hinckley 50.

So, that leaves the "quality of construction" distinction between low-end and high-end boats. In that arena, it basically boils down to strength and longevity.

As I said in my thread on this over at CF - the longevity factor is actually far more fascinating to me as a discussion point. In other words, when we are talking used boats in 20 years, what will that market look like? I have a hunch it will be very, very different than what we see now.

Boats are likely becoming more "disposable". So how will that play out? And how will that affect buying decisions and prices for used production boats?


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Boats are likely becoming more "disposable". So how will that play out? And how will that affect buying decisions and prices for used production boats?


I'm not convinced that modern boats are more disposable that the older boats at all! If anything I think the way a lot of the modern boats are assembled lots of them are more refitable that before. I have read lots of stories of basically tearing an older boat apart just to get to the fuel tank.

I think 20 years from now people will looking at getting a 2000-2010 production boat and refitting it. The thinking will be that the hull is still sound and it just needs systems and wiring redo. Internet forums will be talking about the boats that have things like the wiring runs in conduits molded into the boat or the ones with nice easy PVC ones.

I think most of the story will be the same and only some of the names will change.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> I'm not convinced that modern boats are more disposable that the older boats at all! If anything I think the way a lot of the modern boats are assembled lots of them are more refitable that before. I have read lots of stories of basically tearing an older boat apart just to get to the fuel tank.
> 
> I think 20 years from now people will looking at getting a 2000-2010 production boat and refitting it. The thinking will be that the hull is still sound and it just needs systems and wiring redo. Internet forums will be talking about the boats that have things like the wiring runs in conduits molded into the boat or the ones with nice easy PVC ones.
> 
> I think most of the story will be the same and only some of the names will change.


I'm not saying that production boats are _more disposable than_ "blue water boats".

But, taking my Hunter for instance, it's a great boat - no question. Bit it is showing some age in certain areas (e.g. - gel-coat cracks at various stress points, etc.) Granted, it's almost 25 years old and was raced for a while. So I wasn't surprised.

BUT, doing this again in 10 years, I personally would not want to buy my boat at 35-years-old, and start fixing up all these fatigue issues that are common to old boats (both structural and systems). I would DEFINITELY buy the newest production boat I could possibly afford.

Of course, this holds true for "blue water" brands as well. I chose to buy a 25-year-old Hunter that was in great shape as opposed to a 40 year-old Valiant or Morgan 454 that needed some work. To me, that 40-year-old Valiant (yes, one of the greatest cruising boats of all time - huzzah Bob!) is a great boat - but I don't want to take care of 40-year-old stuff. It's not worth it to me. I also much prefer the huge performance benefits of my 25-year-old Hunter over the Valiant.

So, in this regard, to me, the Valiant is disposable. It is past its "best-by" date for me. I'd rather have a newer, faster boat - even though it's undoubtedly much more "lightly built".

Now, many would look at that exactly the opposite of what I've just laid out. So, it's a situation of degrees. But, I honestly don't expect I'll see 45-year-old Hunter 40 Legends holding up just fine and not needing some major work down the line. Then, I'm not sure they would then be worth the investment of time and money like a Valiant might as an "antique boat".

The idea of buying a boat to keep for 40 years is just not on the radar anymore. That's why I think all the builders (including the "blue water brands") are moving toward efficiency and performance - not hand-laid glass and hand-carved furniture. Those days are done. There is no real market for it anymore apart from custom builds.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Meanwhile;
> 
> I notice that semi-custom builders like Morris and Hinckley are now building boats with "modern" flatter bottom, wider stern, bolted on keels, spade rudders.


They've yet to abandon the backstay, however... And, their refrigerators can still be opened on either tack... 










Nor, would I read too much into a single design/prototype from Hinckley primarily intended for racing... I've yet to see a Morris with a stern that would qualify as being "Wide", by today's standards...

[











Don0190 said:


> How does that play into the story normally played out on why production boats can't "do it"?


The importance of _'Quality'_ as an element of yacht construction might be difficult for some to appreciate, it would appear...

)


----------



## jorgenl

JonEisberg said:


> They've yet to abandon the backstay, however... And, their refrigerators can still be opened on either tack...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor, would I read too much into a single design/prototype from Hinckley primarily intended for racing... I've yet to see a Morris with a stern that would qualify as being "Wide", by today's standards...
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The importance of _'Quality'_ as an element of yacht construction might be difficult for some to appreciate, it would appear...
> 
> )


No pilot berths on the Morris?
Forward galley?

Better not leave the ICW in this death trap.


----------



## ramonred

Hi Everyone, 

I'm in the process at looking at an Alberg 30 project boat as a potential offshore candiate - was just curious if anyone here as had any experience with this model. I do understand there is a great amount of info out on the web and have been doing some research there, but I would also be interested in any informed opinions of actual owners or those who have sailed on one. 

Thanks


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> They've yet to abandon the backstay, however...


That the best you can do? I understand you are one of those people only posting on certain threads to just be a hater (otherwise you wouldn't ever be reading this thread). But really now at least come with something new that hasn't already been proven to be a useless point!


----------



## killarney_sailor

I am sure that Morris is gorgeous, but I would like to have the galley in an aft corner, but I guess the people in second cabin don't want to work any further than they have to at night to go for a pee. I wonder if I showed up there with seven figures plus if they would build one for me with a different interior?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> They've yet to abandon the backstay, however... And, their refrigerators can still be opened on either tack...


Enjoy it while it's still there. It won't be for long.



JonEisberg said:


> Nor, would I read too much into a single design/prototype from Hinckley primarily intended for racing... I've yet to see a Morris with a stern that would qualify as being "Wide", by today's standards...
> 
> [


Gaaaaak. What the hell are they thinking????? That thing is a nightmare on many levels.

The slave quarters forward of the settee are a very nice touch. Though the master being stuck in a tiny quarterberth with no head makes little sense. And where is the proper-paper-chart-ready nav table Jon?










It's okay. But it's no Jeanneau. Looks kinda cheap.

PS - Wait, I see, they say this on their site:



> Morris Yachts has been building sailboats by hand, one at a time&#8230;


That makes more sense. Maye they won't screw up the next one.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> That the best you can do? I understand you are one of those people only posting on certain threads to just be a hater (otherwise you wouldn't ever be reading this thread). But really now at least come with something new that hasn't already been proven to be a useless point!


Perhaps I should have bolded the **, huh?

So, whether a boat has a backstay or not has been _PROVEN_ unworthy of mention, huh? Damn, who knew?

Yeah, I'm a true blue HunterHater alright, through and through... 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2225090-post5.html

My apologies if my sharing impressions of certain features, or experience with particular boats, offends the delicate sensibilities of the owners of any particular 'Brand(s)'... Would these discussions really be better served by adhering to the advice we all once heard from Grandma, _"If you can't say something nice, don't..."_ ?

I guarantee you, I've griped far more about some of the features of a single Trintella 50 on sailing forums over the years, than all the Hunters I've delivered put together...

There, feel any better, now?

;-))


----------



## SVAuspicious

killarney_sailor said:


> I am sure that Morris is gorgeous, but I would like to have the galley in an aft corner, but I guess the people in second cabin don't want to work any further than they have to at night to go for a pee. I wonder if I showed up there with seven figures plus if they would build one for me with a different interior?


Given a choice of a head at the base of the companionway and the galley I would definitely choose the head.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Gaaaaak. What the hell are they thinking????? That thing is a nightmare on many levels.
> 
> The slave quarters forward of the settee are a very nice touch. Though the master being stuck in a tiny quarterberth with no head makes little sense. *And where is the proper-paper-chart-ready nav table Jon?*


Starboard side, forward, looks like to me...

And, the "Master" on that boat is forward, I believe...










Agreed, I don't care for that layout at all... Hell, even on a Valiant 42, the galley is too far from the companionway, for me. I only posted that one to illustrate the shape of the hull, after all 

I'll take the 45 RS, instead... the 48 is too big for me, anyway... 










Lots of tradeoffs with a raised salon, that's the primary element that interior is designed around, after all... But at least Morris got it right, and the settees are elevated sufficiently to be able to take in that panoramic view, while remaining seated...

Unlike the Hunter 45 DS, where one would have to stand up every time they might want to look outside those big picture windows...

How stoopid is that?

)

You can have the galley up and the settees below, or vice versa, but not both in a yacht of that size...


----------



## smackdaddy

Dude, when you can see the panoramic view out those windows sitting down, you then need to be a freakin' midget to stand-up in the damn thing. Trade offs. Pffft.

That Hunter looks sweet. As does this Jeanneau 54:










Look at how well that purse fits on the spacious nav table!

These boats make that Morris look...sad. Especially sad when the Master has to do the cooking.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Unlike the Hunter 45 DS, where one would have to stand up every time they might want to look outside those big picture windows...
> 
> How stoopid is that?
> 
> )
> 
> You can have the galley up and the settees below, or vice versa, but not both in a yacht of that size...


The Hunter has a better flower vase......and a nice bottle of red.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> The Hunter has a better flower vase......and a nice bottle of red.


Is that a Morris on the tele screen?


----------



## aeventyr60

Who needs windows when you can just watch it all on TV? I see a sail boat on the TV....Do these new boats come with selfie sticks too?


----------



## Minnesail

aeventyr60 said:


> Who needs windows when you can just watch it all on TV? I see a sail boat on the TV....Do these new boats come with selfie sticks too?


Yeah, duh, it's that big stick that comes out the top.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> Who needs windows when you can just watch it all on TV? I see a sail boat on the TV....Do these new boats come with selfie sticks too?


Absolutely - Hunter thought that one through. Those vertical silver things on each side (in the shelves) can be removed and used as a selfie stick.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Absolutely - Hunter thought that one through. Those vertical silver things on each side (in the shelves) can be removed and used as a selfie stick.


Hunters are crap because their silly BNR swept-back selfie sticks suck!

MedSailor


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Absolutely - Hunter thought that one through. Those vertical silver things on each side (in the shelves) can be removed and used as a selfie stick.


You mean those faux chain plates?


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> You mean those faux chain plates?


Holy crap - those are chain plates?!?!?!?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, when you can see the panoramic view out those windows sitting down, you then need to be a freakin' midget to stand-up in the damn thing. Trade offs. Pffft.


I was aboard that boat in Annapolis... Headroom wasn't a problem for me, and I'm 6' 5"... 

Chromeless Video Player



smackdaddy said:


> That Hunter looks sweet. As does this Jeanneau 54:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at how well that purse fits on the spacious nav table!


Yeah, I especially like all the space that's been dedicated for the installation of stuff like SSB, radar/chartplotter/repeaters, and so on...

And, that electrical panel looks AWESOME... Damn, it appears to have almost as many breakers as the one on my little tub!





smackdaddy said:


> These boats make that Morris look...sad. Especially sad when the Master has to do the cooking.


I dunno, sounds like some of the other boats at Annapolis last fall made Nigel Calder sad... You don't suppose SAIL might be referring to any _PRODUCTION BUILDERS_ here, do you? There are so few of those being exhibited at the Annapolis Show, after all... Of course, we all know they are too 'Polite' to name any names...





> On the one hand, there was no shortage of innovative ideas at this year's Annapolis show. Among them were the Seascape 27's clever outboard motor stowage arrangement, push-button belowdecks reel winches on the Island Packet SP Cruiser MK2 and several full-blown distributed power installations using the CZone system from New Zealand.
> 
> *On the other hand, however, there were also some of the most untidy electrical installations our systems expert, Nigel Calder, had seen in years, several of which did not comply with current ISO and ABYC standards. In fact, Calder suspects some builders laid off too many of their skilled workers during the recession and are now having trouble getting back up to speed.*
> 
> With this in mind, our systems award this year goes to Morris Yachts's Ocean Series 48 GT, not for cutting-edge technology (although there were a couple of lithium-ion batteries at the heart of the installation) but for an excellent application of the best of conventional technology in what Calder likes to call a "DC-based boat." This approach couples a DC generator to a powerful battery bank with a systems monitor that tracks the battery state of charge and automatically starts and stops the generator based on state of charge. All the boat's AC loads are run off DC-to-AC inverters. The generator is from Fischer-Panda. The lithium-ion batteries and electronics package are from Victron Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In such a system the generator is only run at relatively high loads, close to its peak efficiency. If it can't be run at these loads, it is shut down. As a result, the generator run hours and maintenance will be a fraction of those with a conventional AC generator installation, with obvious lifestyle benefits and a substantial reduction in fuel consumption. As Calder puts it, "This is the ideal energy solution for a midsize offshore cruising boat, beautifully executed by Morris Yachts."
> 
> Best Boats 2015: Morris Ocean Series 48 GT | Sail Magazine


----------



## smackdaddy

I do like the swept-back spreaders on that Morris. And carbon rig and rudder? Nice.

I watched the video and see how you get the standing room - the walkthrough between the settees is lowered. Tricky. So you have to climb up to get into the settee? Very bad setup for when you're roaring drunk. You hit your head when you stand up from dinner, then fall down the step into that goofy swivel seat? And due to the nice, airy windows, everyone in the anchorage gets to see the whole thing? No thank you, Mr. Morris.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Holy crap - those are chain plates?!?!?!?


I was relieved to see you're as surprised as I was Smack. I didn't realize Hunter's came standard with chainplates, but were only included if ordered with the "bluewater" package. In fact, I always thought the only standard item on a new Hunter was the flat screen TV with a video of Morris' sailing around. Ah well, live & learn I suppose.

In an effort to avoid another personal nasty-gram from Don, can someone advise whether I'd be guilty of Morris-bashing if I divulged that I really don't care for those doughty looking blue & white salon cushions on their new 48? Since I'm only a newbie poster on SN, I don't wanna come across as being insensitive and start off on the wrong foot.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I watched the video and see how you get the standing room - the walkthrough between the settees is lowered. Tricky. So you have to climb up to get into the settee? Very bad setup for when you're roaring drunk.


Well, speaking of "tricky", and ergonomic features that might be problematic when one is roaring drunk, I doubt any builder will ever top this legendary companionway Fun House ladder from Hunter...












BTW, having to step up to the level of a dinette or settee is not all that uncommon, one sees quite a bit of that on motoryachts, where such a 'split level' often allows tucking in a stateroom or engine room space beneath... But if you can't handle it, looks like you'll have to cross the Oyster 88 off your list...


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I do like the swept-back spreaders on that Morris. And carbon rig and rudder? Nice.
> 
> I watched the video and see how you get the standing room - the walkthrough between the settees is lowered. Tricky. So you have to climb up to get into the settee? Very bad setup for when you're roaring drunk. You hit your head when you stand up from dinner, then fall down the step into that goofy swivel seat? And due to the nice, airy windows, everyone in the anchorage gets to see the whole thing? No thank you, Mr. Morris.


Now this is the most insightful critique of the layout of a new boat I've read to date. I don't mind the roaring drunk/hitting my head/falling down the step program since that would just remind me of being home. But windows that allow the entire anchorage to witness it?! Screw that!! I'm not taking any chances -- _ALL_ Morris' are definitely off the list!


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, speaking of "tricky", and ergonomic features that might be problematic when one is roaring drunk, I doubt any builder will ever top this legendary companionway Fun House ladder from Hunter...


Okay - I TOTALLY agree with you on that. I remember seeing that goofy-ass _spiral-staircase-on-a-boat!_ before - and it is undeniably the stupidest feature I've seen on a sailboat in a LONG time (besides a full keel of course).

This is what we call in the design world a "punt".

Ex - I'm glad you appreciate my deep insight in the REAL problems with so-called "blue water boats".


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> BTW, having to step up to the level of a dinette or settee is not all that uncommon, one sees quite a bit of that on motoryachts, where such a 'split level' often allows tucking in a stateroom or engine room space beneath... But if you can't handle it, looks like you'll have to cross the Oyster 88 off your list...


Oysters were _never_ on my list. I'm just not a fan.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> I was relieved to see you're as surprised as I was Smack. I didn't realize Hunter's came standard with chainplates, but were only included if ordered with the "bluewater" package. In fact, I always thought the only standard item on a new Hunter was the flat screen TV with a video of Morris' sailing around. Ah well, live & learn I suppose.
> 
> In an effort to avoid another personal nasty-gram from Don, can someone advise whether I'd be guilty of Morris-bashing if I divulged that I really don't care for those doughty looking blue & white salon cushions on their new 48? Since I'm only a newbie poster on SN, I don't wanna come across as being insensitive and start off on the wrong foot.


Don't sweat it. Insensitive is a-okay around here. We are sailors after all.

Actually, I think you nailed the adjective when it comes to the Morris - "doughty". I mean, I'm sure she's comfortable in heavy weather, but...you also have to sail her the rest of the time too.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, when you can see the panoramic view out those windows sitting down, you then need to be a freakin' midget to stand-up in the damn thing. Trade offs. Pffft.
> 
> That Hunter looks sweet. As does this Jeanneau 54:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at how well that purse fits on the spacious nav table!
> 
> These boats make that Morris look...sad. Especially sad when the Master has to do the cooking.


y

I don't see an over abundance of hand holds. Maybe it is an ICW affair.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, I think you nailed the adjective when it comes to the Morris - "doughty". *I mean, I'm sure she's comfortable in heavy weather, but...you also have to sail her the rest of the time too.*


Uhhh, I don't think that word means what you think it means... Perhaps you guys are thinking of "dowdy", instead? 

In any event, I'm guessing the choice of upholstery was the owner's, and not the builder's...

But if you mean to ascribe such an adjective to the sailing qualities of the boats of the Morris RS Series, you are obviously unfamiliar with their bloodline...

The boat that started the RS Series was the 48 REINDEER, the Chuck Paine design commissioned by the legendary cruising and racing yachtsman E. Newbold Smith. (His book about his circumnavigation of Spitsbergen in the 70's, DOWN DENMARK STRAIT, is one of my alltime favorites)...



> Every now and then, the stars line up just right and a truly remarkable boat comes on the scene that seems to be enhanced by its compromises, instead of being reduced by them. Such is the new custom sloop Reindeer that Chuck Paine designed and Tom Morris built for longtime high-latitude voyager Newbold Smith, a design that is the basis for the new semi-custom Morris 48.6.
> 
> The client was the driving force here, for Smith is a veteran buoy and offshore racer, CCA member and noted cruising sailor. His book Down Denmark Strait, relating a high-latitude cruise he made 15 years ago on an earlier Reindeer is a classic sea tale told in the matter-of-fact tone of an truly experienced blue water sailor. He has sailed everywhere and raced against the best skippers afloat for nearly four decades.
> 
> It goes without saying, then, that Newbold Smith had a good idea of what he required in his new 48-footer. *The boat had to be light and fast enough to win drifting matches around the buoys in Chesapeake Bay. It had to be seakindly and fast enough to conquer IMS racing and cruiser/racer divisions in offshore event like the Newport-Bermuda Race, Halifax Race and Transatlantic Race. It had to be strong enough to survive a crunch with an iceberg - indicating a plan for more high-latitude cruising. And it had to be comfortable enough for Smith and his family to live aboard for extended periods while cruising in Europe and the Caribbean.*
> 
> A tall order - requiring exacting compromises between sailing performance and cruising amenities.
> 
> The boat that Chuck Paine drew for Smith, incorporating all of the above and more, is elegant in its simplicity on deck and comfortable and beautifully laid out belowdecks. The boat is a real head-turner. Every detail of the design reminds us of the many sea miles Smith has sailed and the vast experience Paine has creating good, seakindly offshore boats.
> 
> ...
> 
> The hull is long and lean and light. Because Smith will be racing under a variety of rules, the only approach was to make the boat as fast as possible in a wide range of conditions, without making specific concession for the IMS, PHRF, or Americap formulas. Thus the waterline is long and the overhangs short, the hull shallow and fairly flat under the water, and the keel and rudder have high-aspect profiles that will produce a lot of lift with as little drag as possible. Yet part of the cruising compromise has been to keep the draft to eight feet, deep by conventional cruising standards, but far less than the 10 or 11 feet you might find in a flat out racing machine.
> 
> *Reindeer's numbers indicate that she will be fast on all points of sail and will be able to maintain very high averages on long offshore runs. With a displacement of 22,217 pounds on a waterline of 41 feet, 8 inches, giving a Displacement/Length Ratio of 137, the boat is no ultralight sled. She was conceived as a capable seaboat, and her displacement - light by cruising boat standards - is very solid when compared to stripped-out racers like the ID 48s that have become popular in the past few years.*
> 
> » Morris 48.6: Reindeer Games


Most recently, REINDEER finished 3rd in her class in last summer's Bermuda race, behind a Swan 45, and a Swan 56... Inexplicably, there were no Hunters among the 164 boat fleet... 

The 45 was the next Paine design to follow in Morris' RS Series, I believe FIREFLY was the first to be built... Obviously, another stodgy, "dowdy" offering from Paine & Morris, good for little else but heavy weather sailing:



> Cuyler Morris and family aboard Morris 45 FIREFLY dominated their class at the 2007 Antigua Race Week. FIREFLY swept the five race series and came away 1st in the Cruising I Division and 3rd Overall in the fleet of more than 200 boats. Firefly earned line honors the last day.
> 
> With easterly breezes of 12- to 16-knots on the water and clear skies overhead, the 40th running of Stanford Antigua Sailing Week held April 29-May 4 attracted a truly international fleet of nearly 200 yachts of all sizes and descriptions. The conditions proved to be more than perfect for Cuyler Morris and wife Cindy and kids Sam, Sofia and Thomas. The Morris Family is enjoying a week of racing sandwiched between a winter-long Caribbean cruise. And they're doing it in style. With the kids on the rail and the bimini up for sun protection, the crew ignored pleas from many skippers in their 16-boat Class to slow Firefly down or to take the kids in to the harbor for ice cream.
> 
> Cuyler Morris and Family Dominate Antigua Race Week Places 3rd Overall - ALL AT SEA


Undoubtedly, the latest 48 GT, with her extra tall carbon fiber rig, a SA/D ratio of 19.5, will prove to be even more of a dog than her predecessors... Hunter 49s will be sailing circles around her for sport...


----------



## chall03

There is silliness and extreme gesturing on both sides in the threads on CF and previously on here, but amongst it all Smack has raised an interesting question.

To elimate the silliness, let me state first that I believe and would like to think there is some general agreement that:

- All boats are compromises, there is no perfect boat.
-Hunters, Bavaria's, Beneteau's etc (the so called production boats) can and do cross oceans regularly without issue. 
-Hallberg Rassy, Hylas, Morris, Oyster, Najad etc (so called 'bluewater' boats) are built at a higher price point and so are arguably 'better' and stronger built. The design choices on these boats are also generally more geared toward the Bluewater set( more tankage, passage friendly layouts, accessibility of systems. They may sail better or be easier to sail in the range of conditions in a circumnavigation, they would probably be more sea kindly. 

So then my real world hypothetical question is that I want to purchase a 40-45ft monohull boat for a circumnavigation. Let's say my budget is about 225k with say 50-60k to update.( US $ is fine). 

At this price I could buy a near new Bene/Hunter/Bavaria or Catalina or I could also buy a 1996 Hallberg Rassy 42f or a 1989 Stevens 47 or similar.

What is the 'safer' boat? 

The newer lighter built boat would be 'ready to go' with some( decent) blue water and safety equipment and some change leftover but it would only ever be as strong as it is. Or the 20- 25 year old 'bluewater' boat with 25 year old chainplates, keel bolts, rudder etc. 

Now with the Bluewater boats you could pretend that you get all this inspected and fixed before you go, but in the real world who does all of this? Can it be done satisfactorily in this budget, how do you know you haven't missed something?

As we have gone through the fun of a part refit with our current boat, I can say it sucks. It stops you sailing and makes you want to take up golf. 

Having said that I would still for us lean towards buying a 1990's Hallberg Rassy. However I am starting to examine more closely why this is..........


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Most recently, REINDEER finished 3rd in her class in last summer's Bermuda race, behind a Swan 45, and a Swan 56... Inexplicably, there were no Hunters among the 164 boat fleet...


Exactly. Why do you think those doughty/dowdy Morrises and Swans finished so well?

Look...I'll help you out here. REINDEER was in the St. David's Lighthouse Division. Let's compare her to a production boat with less water line in the same division:

REINDEER Morris 47 113:42:01 ET (doughty/dowdy)

Beneteau 44.7 110:11:23 ET (smokin' hot)

Did you notice that other Morris that had to retire?

Look, in seriousness, the bigger Morrises are pretty impressive performance-wise. No doubt. Doesn't the 46 rate around 78 or so? They just aren't on the same level of cool as the newer production boats. That's all I'm sayin'. They're kind of like this...










Anyway, I prefer Bob's review of REINDEER:

http://features.boats.com/boat-content/2000/08/perry-design-review-morris-486/

And I agree with him:



> The main cabin appears chopped up. I like a saloon that is an inviting entertainment area, and for me that means opposing, nearly-symmetrical settees or a settee opposite the dinette. It just feels right and friendly. This layout may result in the sense that there is no saloon.


----------



## outbound

Been out cruising so just catching up. Would note.
Hunter now in next slip. It's having chainplates redone. Underlying bulkhead bad so that being redone and layers of glass added. Ports leaked bad and taken out to be rebedding They found house bad so more glass work. Laminate in galley lifted in spots and therefore removed. New laminate cut and being restored. Owner says next haul will replace all thru hulls.
Other side of me Bristol 54. Other that re caulking decks in Bristol condition. Both boats same age -mid 1990s. Bristol has circumnavigated twice. Hunter did thorny path other wise coastal out of Florida.
Just saying smack.
On next pier is bene 55 with pro captain. Owner at work back in the states. Captain is hot for my daughter so we have buddy boated some. Boat came here from SF by way of canal. Brand new as of 2014. Pro captain says already falling apart. They had a beat down the west coast but nothing extreme (30-40 squalls at times). Captain has nothing nice to say about bene other than its pretty and fast in the right conditions. Boat being hauled. He won't discuss other than saying not being done for bottom paint or zincs.
Yes there is a price point difference. Yes it's reflected in basic construction. Yes they age differently and this seems more apparent with more recent boats. Yes given tooling expense per boat is less and automated construction of large runs saves money you do get a lot boat with bhj. Still for beating the crap out of a boat year after year it's like a 20 year old Rolls compared to a twenty year old Chevy. The Cubans keep the Chevy going but the Brits past the Roller down generation to generation.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Exactly. Why do you think those doughty/dowdy Morrises and Swans finished so well?


Here are the 2 boats REINDEER finished behind... "Dowdy", indeed - I'm amazed they even let a slug like a Swan 45 sail in La Copa del Rey:





















smackdaddy said:


> Look...I'll help you out here. REINDEER was in the St. David's Lighthouse Division.


Ah, OK... essentially meaningless achievement, in other words... So, what Division are the Hunters sailing in, again? Come to think of it, does anyone know if a Latter Day Hunter has _EVER_ done the Bermuda Race? 



smackdaddy said:


> Did you notice that other Morris that had to retire?


Yeah, it would be interesting to know the deal on that one... The skipper has done the race several times before, TWICE winning the Phil Weld Doublehanded Trophy in his previous Morris 36.... You know, just the sort of boat your Hunter will beat to any destination, every time... 



smackdaddy said:


> Look, in seriousness, the bigger Morrises are pretty impressive performance-wise. No doubt. Doesn't the 46 rate around 78 or so? *They just aren't on the same level of cool as the newer production boats.* That's all I'm sayin'.


Well, aside from the fact that a boat's "Level of Cool" may not necessarily be the best yardstick when assessing its suitability for sailing offshore, _"COOLNESS"_ is a quality measured by the eye of the beholder... When comparing these 2 modern Raised Salons of roughly equivalent size, looks like we'll just have to disagree on this one...

)


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> So you have to climb up to get into the settee? Very bad setup for when you're roaring drunk. You hit your head when you stand up from dinner, then fall down the step into that goofy swivel seat? And due to the nice, airy windows, everyone in the anchorage gets to see the whole thing? No thank you, Mr. Morris.


I don't mind the level changes, but most boats (well, production ones) could do to come with a set of curtains....


----------



## outbound

Mine does


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> There is silliness and extreme gesturing on both sides in the threads on CF and previously on here, but amongst it all Smack has raised an interesting question.
> 
> To elimate the silliness, let me state first that I believe and would like to think there is some general agreement that:
> 
> - All boats are compromises, there is no perfect boat.
> -Hunters, Bavaria's, Beneteau's etc (the so called production boats) can and do cross oceans regularly without issue.
> -Hallberg Rassy, Hylas, Morris, Oyster, Najad etc (so called 'bluewater' boats) are built at a higher price point and so are arguably 'better' and stronger built. The design choices on these boats are also generally more geared toward the Bluewater set( more tankage, passage friendly layouts, accessibility of systems. They may sail better or be easier to sail in the range of conditions in a circumnavigation, they would probably be more sea kindly.
> 
> So then my real world hypothetical question is that I want to purchase a 40-45ft monohull boat for a circumnavigation. Let's say my budget is about 225k with say 50-60k to update.( US $ is fine).
> 
> At this price I could buy a near new Bene/Hunter/Bavaria or Catalina or I could also buy a 1996 Hallberg Rassy 42f or a 1989 Stevens 47 or similar.
> 
> What is the 'safer' boat?
> 
> The newer lighter built boat would be 'ready to go' with some( decent) blue water and safety equipment and some change leftover but it would only ever be as strong as it is. Or the 20- 25 year old 'bluewater' boat with 25 year old chainplates, keel bolts, rudder etc.
> 
> Now with the Bluewater boats you could pretend that you get all this inspected and fixed before you go, but in the real world who does all of this? Can it be done satisfactorily in this budget, how do you know you haven't missed something?
> 
> As we have gone through the fun of a part refit with our current boat, I can say it sucks. It stops you sailing and makes you want to take up golf.
> 
> Having said that I would still for us lean towards buying a 1990's Hallberg Rassy. However I am starting to examine more closely why this is..........


I think you've nailed it. And outbound has hit on another aspect of this discussion that's even more pertinent...longevity.

I'll address his next...


----------



## outbound

Smack
If it makes you feel better from the boat running captains don't hear nice stuff about Wally's - big day sailors- not meant for long term ocean sailing away from home. Or Oysters below mid seventies - they know the owners will never work on them and the owners want space so working on them is a bear apparently. 
I love Valiants but one of the things that scared me off was how hard it would be to work on stuff inside that canoe stern. Access, quality of electrical panels , clean wire runs, engine install and access are also an issue. Good seaboats are thought out with the knowledge you may need to fix stuff at sea and things should be put together in such a manner that fixing stuff should be an infrequent event. 
Ever look at the wiring etc. in a recent production boat Smack. Every think about life of the tanks and what would be needed to replace them. Ever look at that fancy bene interior after a few years. An really diligent owner can keep those boats up but from going over for drinks many look like they have been ridden hard and put away wet.


----------



## ianjoub

JonEisberg said:


>


I think they are both very good looking boats!


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Been out cruising so just catching up. Would note.
> Hunter now in next slip. It's having chainplates redone. Underlying bulkhead bad so that being redone and layers of glass added. Ports leaked bad and taken out to be rebedding They found house bad so more glass work. Laminate in galley lifted in spots and therefore removed. New laminate cut and being restored. Owner says next haul will replace all thru hulls.
> Other side of me Bristol 54. Other that re caulking decks in Bristol condition. Both boats same age -mid 1990s. Bristol has circumnavigated twice. Hunter did thorny path other wise coastal out of Florida.
> Just saying smack.
> On next pier is bene 55 with pro captain. Owner at work back in the states. Captain is hot for my daughter so we have buddy boated some. Boat came here from SF by way of canal. Brand new as of 2014. Pro captain says already falling apart. They had a beat down the west coast but nothing extreme (30-40 squalls at times). Captain has nothing nice to say about bene other than its pretty and fast in the right conditions. Boat being hauled. He won't discuss other than saying not being done for bottom paint or zincs.
> Yes there is a price point difference. Yes it's reflected in basic construction. Yes they age differently and this seems more apparent with more recent boats. Yes given tooling expense per boat is less and automated construction of large runs saves money you do get a lot boat with bhj. Still for beating the crap out of a boat year after year it's like a 20 year old Rolls compared to a twenty year old Chevy. The Cubans keep the Chevy going but the Brits past the Roller down generation to generation.


To me - this gets to the REAL heart of the matter...that is, _longevity_.

Let's start with the Hunter to Bristol comparison. Both are 20-year-old boats. The 20-year-old Hunter seems to be having real issues, the Bristol is apparently not.
Now, discounting the fact that this kind of anecdotal comparison really doesn't mean much, let's stick with it as a straight-across comparison.

The takeaway would be that _*IF YOU WANT A BOAT THAT YOU WANT TO OWN AND SAIL HARD FOR 20 YEARS*_ - Hunter is not a great choice. Bristol, or Hinckley, or Morris, or IP, or whatever would be a much better choice.

Now, I honestly don't think anyone around here would argue that point. I wouldn't.

*BUT, if owning and sailing a single boat for 20 years is NOT what you're after*, things start to change pretty drastically when you begin to look at shorter-term _value_ (as Chall is talking about above).

*IF you want a boat that you're going to sail for maybe 5-7 years before moving to something "better"* (like most people seem to do) - then the calculus is very different. Why pay a "20-year premium" for something you're not going to derive that value from?

In this case, buying a much, much newer production boat for roughly the same amount as a 20-year-old "bluewater boat" can start to make a lot more sense.

Now, this brings us to the Beneteau example - a new boat gone bad. I see these kinds of anecdotal stories all the time. New boats "falling apart in benign conditions". I'm not saying this guy's Bene isn't falling apart - but I AM saying that that doesn't seem to be a common scenario in the thousands of Benes that are out there plying blue water. They are not all "falling apart".

So, as usual, it just depends on what you want, and what you can afford, when you buy a boat.

If I have the choice between this 27-year-old Bristol 53 at $350K and this 1 year old Jeanneau SO 50 at $399K...I'll take the Jeanneau without hesitation.

So, at the end of the day, maybe the actual lesson here is that modern production boats have a "best-by" date of maybe 10 years or so before they start having problems that outweigh their value. In other words, maybe they are "disposable" to some degree?

I think _that_ is an interesting conversation.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Here are the 2 boats REINDEER finished behind... "Dowdy", indeed - I'm amazed they even let a slug like a Swan 45 sail in La Copa del Rey:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, OK... essentially meaningless achievement, in other words... So, what Division are the Hunters sailing in, again? Come to think of it, does anyone know if a Latter Day Hunter has _EVER_ done the Bermuda Race?
> 
> Yeah, it would be interesting to know the deal on that one... The skipper has done the race several times before, TWICE winning the Phil Weld Doublehanded Trophy in his previous Morris 36.... You know, just the sort of boat your Hunter will beat to any destination, every time...
> 
> Well, aside from the fact that a boat's "Level of Cool" may not necessarily be the best yardstick when assessing its suitability for sailing offshore, _"COOLNESS"_ is a quality measured by the eye of the beholder... When comparing these 2 modern Raised Salons of roughly equivalent size, looks like we'll just have to disagree on this one...
> 
> )


You seem to be very focused on Hunter. There are several other fine production boat brands out there you know.

(PS - I bet the aft cabin in that Hunter is WAY more pimpin' than the aft cabin in that Morris.










If it's an older one, it might even have a bathtub!)


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> So, at the end of the day, maybe the actual lesson here is that modern production boats have a "best-by" date of maybe 10 years or so before they start having problems that outweigh their value. In other words, maybe they are "disposable" to some degree.


Where do you come up with this stuff????? I have a 14 year old Hunter and the biggest hardest to do age problem I've had to do was replace the head hoses?

If anything the only lesson you are really dealing with is that an initial owner of a $500k boat may have taken better care of his boat that an initial owner of a a $200k boat. But that isn't because of the boat, it's because the $500k boat owner had more money to throw at it.

We all know that the condition of a boat is mostly due to the owner! It's kind of like the ability of a boat to be "bluewater" being the skipper.

You want a modern production boat to last 30 years, don't be the 5 owner of the boat!


----------



## smackdaddy

Easy Dono - it's a question - not a proclamation.

Again, I definitely DO think a BeneJeneHunterLina - all things being equal - will not have the longevity of a more heavily built Hinckley.

I just don't think that's as big a deal as most BWCs make it out to be.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Again, I definitely DO think a BeneJeneHunterLina - all things being equal - will not have the longevity of a more heavily built Hinckley.


I have seen no evidence of that in my 8 years of sailing. By that I don't notice a bunch of 1970s Hinckleys etc. out on the water (and I'm in the Northeast).

I had a 1988 Cal-39 as my first boat. It was considered a well built boat in its' day. I was it's second owner and my purchase survey said it had been taken better care of than average (it was owned by a doctor). After years of working on the Cal and on my 2001 Hunter 410, my opinion is that the construction and assembly of that Cal was pretty crappy compared to my Hunter.

I bet the same could probably be said of comparing a 1988 Mercedes Benz to a 2001 Toyota Camry. Now if you compare a 1988 Mercedes to a 1988 Toyota the story is different.

Now I didn't really expect that and got the Hunter for other reasons, but that's my opinion.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> (PS - I bet the aft cabin in that Hunter is WAY more pimpin' than the aft cabin in that Morris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's an older one, it might even have a bathtub!)


Yeah, but the tradeoff for that bordello is sacrificing the comfort and security of a cockpit like this..










...for the precarious perch on a flying bridge better suited to a Sea Ray... 

All those people in this freakin' thing should be thinking about putting on harnesses & tethers... Most definitely not a cockpit suited for offshore, IMHO...


----------



## ianjoub

JonEisberg said:


> All those people in this freakin' thing should be thinking about putting on harnesses & tethers... Most definitely not a cockpit suited for offshore, IMHO...


Interesting thought that I hadn't considered.


----------



## outbound

Smack has been talking about blue water in his original post. I think some posts are clearly not directed in that line of thinking. In prior was trying to point out that if that Bene was used the way the overwhelming way most sail it probably would do just fine. Put going a couple of thousand miles to windward caused issues.
If that Hunter wasn't used as a live aboard in the tropics, didn't deal with Xmas winds and constant humidity it would probably have done just fine.
But a blue water boat is a blue water boat. That immediately implies:
It will be forced to go to weather for days on end, it will be in humid or cold or rough weather for prolonged periods. It is some ones traveling house for months and years. Often in places with little or no support systems such as the electronic guy or the yard monkeys or even a travel lift.
A quality boat will,endure this type of abuse. It was made with that in mind. You can't get around recent production boats are not aimed at the one or two percent of sailors doing this kind of stuff. They are well designed and well executed for their target audience.

BTW- I've done several Marion to Bermuda races in 20+ year old hinckley B40s and have ocean sailed a hank hinckley ocean 38 older than my 30+ year old kids. They did just fine.
Hell wooden Wm. Fife boats older then all of us put together are still crossing oceans. Quality wins out over time.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, but the tradeoff for that bordello is sacrificing the comfort and security of a cockpit like this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...for the precarious perch on a flying bridge better suited to a Sea Ray...
> 
> All those people in this freakin' thing should be thinking about putting on harnesses & tethers... Most definitely not a cockpit suited for offshore, IMHO...


Ah, then you should probably focus on the aft cockpit model Hunter 50:










The aft cabin is much more dowdy like the Morris:


----------



## outbound

Does it have bungle boards or another way to actually be usable in a seaway?

Come on Smack, I've always viewed you as a real BFS sailor. Could you sleep there?


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Does it have bungle boards or another way to actually be usable in a seaway?
> 
> Come on Smack, I've always viewed you as a real BFS sailor. Could you sleep there?


C'mon, out - that's only there for the Boat Shows, you don't think that's actually for _sleeping_, do you?

Looks more like a space to be dedicated to _FENDER STOWAGE_, to me... 

Anyone going out for more than a weekend away from a marina on one of those, you're gonna have to convert one of those aft playpens into a garage...










Hmmm, an _OPENING PORTLIGHT_ in the hull??? Yeah, what could _POSSIBLY_ go wrong...


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> To me - this gets to the REAL heart of the matter...that is, _longevity_.
> 
> Let's start with the Hunter to Bristol comparison. Both are 20-year-old boats. The 20-year-old Hunter seems to be having real issues, the Bristol is apparently not.
> Now, discounting the fact that this kind of anecdotal comparison really doesn't mean much, let's stick with it as a straight-across comparison.
> 
> The takeaway would be that _*IF YOU WANT A BOAT THAT YOU WANT TO OWN AND SAIL HARD FOR 20 YEARS*_ - Hunter is not a great choice. Bristol, or Hinckley, or Morris, or IP, or whatever would be a much better choice.
> 
> Now, I honestly don't think anyone around here would argue that point. I wouldn't.
> 
> *BUT, if owning and sailing a single boat for 20 years is NOT what you're after*, things start to change pretty drastically when you begin to look at shorter-term _value_ (as Chall is talking about above).
> 
> *IF you want a boat that you're going to sail for maybe 5-7 years before moving to something "better"* (like most people seem to do) - then the calculus is very different. Why pay a "20-year premium" for something you're not going to derive that value from?
> 
> In this case, buying a much, much newer production boat for roughly the same amount as a 20-year-old "bluewater boat" can start to make a lot more sense.
> 
> Now, this brings us to the Beneteau example - a new boat gone bad. I see these kinds of anecdotal stories all the time. New boats "falling apart in benign conditions". I'm not saying this guy's Bene isn't falling apart - but I AM saying that that doesn't seem to be a common scenario in the thousands of Benes that are out there plying blue water. They are not all "falling apart".
> 
> So, as usual, it just depends on what you want, and what you can afford, when you buy a boat.
> 
> If I have the choice between this 27-year-old Bristol 53 at $350K and this 1 year old Jeanneau SO 50 at $399K...I'll take the Jeanneau without hesitation.
> 
> So, at the end of the day, maybe the actual lesson here is that modern production boats have a "best-by" date of maybe 10 years or so before they start having problems that outweigh their value. In other words, maybe they are "disposable" to some degree?
> 
> I think _that_ is an interesting conversation.


Well, it is an interesting conversation Smack, but there are a couple of things I would add to your comments. First, the 27-year old Bristol is probably done depreciating in large part, assuming its condition is maintained of course. But according to Polux, new production boats depreciate about 50% after 5 years. So now you're talking about trading in a 5 year-old production boat that might be worth $100K _less_ than what you could get after those same 5 years with the comparably sized Bristol. Of course, new high-end boats will also get hit hard by depreciation, but that's not the comparison you're making. So I don't think it's quite as simple as whatever your time horizon may be for owning the boat.

Here's another example that is also probably on Yachtworld if you're interested in more detail. There's a Bristol 51 or 53 that was on the market for awhile in the mid-$300K range. After not selling, the owner took it off the market, did over _$100K_ worth of upgrades/improvements, and then re-listed it for $20-30 _less_ (as I recall). Leaving aside whether Bristol's are your cup of tea or production boats are mine, I only mention this to demonstrate the opportunities that are out there for buyers, and have been since the 2007-08 recession hit. While I would agree that many of these older boats are projects, many others are lightly used boats that have been well cared for. This should also be reflected in the price, and if not it probably will be with a prospective buyer's due diligence and market-driven leverage.

Secondly, I'm not sure what design or construction properties go into your calculus when it comes to longevity. I'm not questioning it, just saying I don't know. This too may have more to do with owner maintenance as Don points out. Then again, there are 1000's of individual components that go into a boat, and they can all deviate significantly on quality & price. Just take the all-important shackle that secures your chain to your anchor -- do you want the cheaper no-name one on the shelf at WM, or a more expensive one made by Crosby, for example? Well, the reality is that the WM one may last you a year or two before rusting out, so maybe that's good enough. But repeat that for the choices a mfg. makes on the quality of wiring, plumbing, hoses, rigging, paint, gelcoat, etc., etc. and you can see what I mean. Apparently there's a lot of variations on how an original owner can kit out their new production boat, so part of it's ultimate longevity may depend on this variable alone. Personally, I agree with _outbound_ that quality is generally commensurate with price. When it comes to boats, I don't believe price is necessarily _proportional_ to quality, but I believe it is commensurate nonetheless.

But I think the bottom line on longevity probably has more to do with economics than maybe anything else. Production boats are much less expensive to purchase (new or used), are mfg. in much larger quantities, and depreciate more. This makes them less valuable (financially & perhaps otherwise) to many owners as they age. At some point down the line, some owner questions whether replacing an engine, standing rigging, or other big-ticket refit item is worth it as compared to the boat's value, and suddenly the boat may find itself scrapped. Now compare that to the old, well-kept Bristol, Hinckley, Morris, Swan, etc., and you'll find plenty of old ones with new engines, rigging, & Awlgrip, and looking & performing as good as new.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> C'mon, out - that's only there for the Boat Shows, you don't think that's actually for _sleeping_, do you?
> 
> Looks more like a space to be dedicated to _FENDER STOWAGE_, to me...
> 
> Anyone going out for more than a weekend away from a marina on one of those, you're gonna have to convert one of those aft playpens into a garage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, an _OPENING PORTLIGHT_ in the hull??? Yeah, what could _POSSIBLY_ go wrong...


Who cares about an opening portlight in the hull when I just looked it up and discovered you are absolutely correct -- it's "DOWDY" not "DOUGHTY!" In fact, "doughty" means brave & persistent (must be another Brit word) -- character traits I wouldn't necessarily deny Smack's gal from a few posts ago, but clearly doesn't apply to the Morris' salon cushions. (Don't worry Jon, I love Morris' just not those particular cushions.). Just when I thought I had the _pennant/pendant_ thing figured out too. As for Smack's squeeze, she doesn't look _dingy_ but her clothes do seem a tad _dingy_, no? All I can say is I'd be a bit scared to let her ride in my _dinghy_.


----------



## aeventyr60

* "Where do you come up with this stuff????? I have a 14 year old Hunter and the biggest hardest to do age problem I've had to do was replace the head hoses?"*

I understand Hunters age well at the dock. How much sailing have you actually done on your boat. It is going to be a different story once you get offshore. If the the hardest thing you've had to do is replace a head hose then a whole new world of hurt is coming your way.


----------



## jorgenl

JonEisberg said:


> C'mon, out - that's only there for the Boat Shows, you don't think that's actually for _sleeping_, do you?
> 
> Looks more like a space to be dedicated to _FENDER STOWAGE_, to me...
> 
> Anyone going out for more than a weekend away from a marina on one of those, you're gonna have to convert one of those aft playpens into a garage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, an _OPENING PORTLIGHT_ in the hull??? Yeah, what could _POSSIBLY_ go wrong...


So, Jon - what is different with the Morris ? Front cabin / V-berth seems similar.

Oh yeah - the Morris has a forward galley - good for sangers underway isn't it? Especially considering the lack of impossible to retrofit handholds....

Any anectodotal evidence that portlights in the hull are a problem, or just unfounded opinion? (yeah I've seen the picture of the boat in Charleston City Marina, not the boats problem, idjit owner....)


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Does it have bungle boards or another way to actually be usable in a seaway?
> 
> Come on Smack, I've always viewed you as a real BFS sailor. Could you sleep there?


Out, c'mon...seriously. Surely you're not this unimaginative.

If this is the Hunter you mean:










Can you really not see places you can rig a lee cloth in this photo for either tack?

I guarantee you I could rig perfectly good sea berths on this boat for a BFS. AND I would then be super-freakin' comfortable in that pimpin' centerline queen at anchor.

I would absolutely choose a boat like this over one with a coffinesque quarter-berth.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> C'mon, out - that's only there for the Boat Shows, you don't think that's actually for _sleeping_, do you?
> 
> Looks more like a space to be dedicated to _FENDER STOWAGE_, to me...
> 
> Anyone going out for more than a weekend away from a marina on one of those, you're gonna have to convert one of those aft playpens into a garage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, an _OPENING PORTLIGHT_ in the hull??? Yeah, what could _POSSIBLY_ go wrong...


You guys really crack me up.

Are you that lazy of a skipper that you want the boat company to glue all your portlights shut for you so you won't forget to stay afloat while knocked down in an F10? Remember all that Hunter freeboard you like to gripe about? How else are you going to dunk that baby?










What about the portlights in the cockpit? Yet another "deathtrap" awaiting the hapless skipper when boarded by a humongous following sea.

And have you never seen the escape hatches in the bottoms many multis?

I think you guys might need training wheels.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Well, it is an interesting conversation Smack, but there are a couple of things I would add to your comments. First, the 27-year old Bristol is probably done depreciating in large part, assuming its condition is maintained of course. But according to Polux, new production boats depreciate about 50% after 5 years. So now you're talking about trading in a 5 year-old production boat that might be worth $100K _less_ than what you could get after those same 5 years with the comparably sized Bristol. Of course, new high-end boats will also get hit hard by depreciation, but that's not the comparison you're making. So I don't think it's quite as simple as whatever your time horizon may be for owning the boat.


Yeah, this comes up a lot. But, again, you're only focusing on one part of the equation. The amount of money that will go into that 27-year-old Bristol for maintenance and upgrades will be FAR, FAR more than will go into that 1 year old production boat for same.

You're paying either way...or you're neglecting your aging boat. (Your example of the Bristol on YW and the $100K+ bath the dude took illustrates this perfectly.)

As always, I think the smartest money is to buy the 3-5 year-old production boat. That seems to be the sweet-spot value-wise when looking at depreciation vs. maintenance and upgrades.

As for the rest of your post above - I agree.


----------



## JonEisberg

jorgenl said:


> So, Jon - what is different with the Morris ? Front cabin / V-berth seems similar.


Nothing inherently wrong with that berth, not much else that can be done with a quarter cabin... I used that accomodation plan to illustrate the lack or storage space for the sort of gear one typically needs for extended cruising, and how virtually the entire interior volume of that boat is given over to accommodation space...



jorgenl said:


> Any anectodotal evidence that portlights in the hull are a problem, or just unfounded opinion?


Well, despite the fact that numerous vessels have been lost in incidents in which the loss of hatches/ports/windows was one of the critical occurrences in a series of cascading failures (the loss of the Hardin 45 ALMEISAN enroute to Bermuda in 2005 is one that comes to mind)... But, yeah, my opinion that sticking what appears to be an inward-opening portlight secured by plastic dogs in the hull of a fiberglass yacht might not be the best idea, is most likely without any foundation whatsoever.... 

But, since you asked, here's an anecdote, anyway...

About 25 years ago, I was delivering one of these Marine Trader 50s down south, and around to Tampa... You'll notice these things have 3 heavily-constructed Taiwanese bronze opening ports in the transom:










I was sitting off the entrance to St Lucie Inlet on what was basically a flat calm day, but with a moderate long period swell running... St Lucie was pretty dicey in those days, so in that situation it paid to just sit there awhile, observing the pattern of the swell, in an effort to pick the right time to make the run in over the bar...

Suddenly, a series of 3 or 4 much larger and steeper 'rogues' materialized. There was no time to attempt to spin around, only thing I could do was try to square the stern to the sea, and hang on...

The first sea crested and broke squarely on the transom. In an instant, we were surfing in a mass of white water at over hull speed, but with very little rudder control due to the aerated water. It was a miracle we somehow managed to keep the thing pointed straight and avoid laying that pig over on her side. To this day, those 15 seconds or so remain one of the hairiest experiences I've ever had on the water...

After we were over the bar in inside to smooth water, my girlfriend went below for a quick damage assessment... Wasn't long before she called up, "You better come down here, and have a look at this..." 

The aft stateroom was a disaster zone, it looked like a small bomb had gone off... All 3 ports had been completely blown out, there was broken glass everywhere, and the amount of water that had been shipped by that single wave strike was astonishing... So much so, that my first thought was that we had suffered more damage to the rudders or something, and were taking on water... That boat featured a corridor between the engine rooms that led forward to the mid stateroom, which in turn opened to the forward stateroom. There was water, and bits of glass, that had been blown all the way up into that forward stateroom... In addition, the entire swim platform had been bent downward at an angle of 10-15 degrees by the incredible power of the impact...

So, yeah, after that experience, I've always been a bit leery about the wisdom of putting portlights and picture windows in the hulls of sailboats, and then taking them offshore... But, hey, that's probably just me... 



jorgenl said:


> (yeah I've seen the picture of the boat in Charleston City Marina, not the boats problem, idjit owner....)


Certainly, that crew made a very stupid decision to put themselves in that position... but I think you miss the point, with an untimely engine failure, or another vessel dragging anchor or losing control, there are all manner of conceivable scenarios in which any skipper exercising good judgement and proper seamanship - with a bit of bad luck, through no fault of one's own - might easily find himself in a similar type of situation...



smackdaddy said:


> You guys really crack me up.
> 
> Are you that lazy of a skipper that you want the boat company to glue all your portlights shut for you so you won't forget to stay afloat while knocked down in an F10? Remember all that Hunter freeboard you like to gripe about? How else are you going to dunk that baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the portlights in the cockpit? Yet another "deathtrap" awaiting the hapless skipper when boarded by a humongous following sea.


Uhhh, are you referring to those things on the transom? Those are not portlights, but rather appear to be a pair of undersized access hatches to some sort of transom storage locker... Looks like you'd be lucky to squeeze a typical washdown bucket through one of those things, though it had better be 'bendable'... But, getting anything back OUT of those spaces, _that_ would probably be the fun part... 



smackdaddy said:


> And have you never seen the escape hatches in the bottoms many multis?
> 
> I think you guys might need training wheels.


Better add that guy Steve Dashew to the list of sailors who need training wheels, as well... His knowledge and experience re the design, engineering and construction of sailing yachts intended for offshore obviously pales in comparison to that of some of the experts around here... 

From his OFFSHORE CRUISING ENCYCLOPEDIA:


> "In spite of anything you might read in manufacturer's catalogs, there's no such thing as a 100% watertight opening window, unless it is heavily made from cast (not extruded) metal with dogs placed at close centers around the perimeter. *While they may be okay most of the time in a trunk cabin side, used in a hull side they're nothing but trouble."*


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Uhhh, are you referring to those things on the transom? Those are not portlights, but rather appear to be a pair of undersized access hatches to some sort of transom storage locker... Looks like you'd be lucky to squeeze a typical washdown bucket through one of those things, though it had better be 'bendable'... But, getting anything back OUT of those spaces, _that_ would probably be the fun part...


A friend has a Hunter 50. The port one at least was a gas locker. Never went into the starboard one.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Better add that guy Steve Dashew to the list of sailors who need training wheels, as well... His knowledge and experience re the design, engineering and construction of sailing yachts intended for offshore obviously pales in comparison to that of some of the experts around here...
> 
> From his OFFSHORE CRUISING ENCYCLOPEDIA:


We have been looking closely into a Deerfoot 50 in Auckland. Maybe too much boat for us, but a lot to like.

Of course it's 25 year's old though so maybe not as safe a bet as a new Hunter 50? 

Used Deerfoot 50 for Sale | Yachts For Sale | Yachthub


----------



## jorgenl

JonEisberg said:


> Nothing inherently wrong with that berth, not much else that can be done with a quarter cabin... I used that accomodation plan to illustrate the lack or storage space for the sort of gear one typically needs for extended cruising, and how virtually the entire interior volume of that boat is given over to accommodation space...
> 
> Well, despite the fact that numerous vessels have been lost in incidents in which the loss of hatches/ports/windows was one of the critical occurrences in a series of cascading failures (the loss of the Hardin 45 ALMEISAN enroute to Bermuda in 2005 is one that comes to mind)... But, yeah, my opinion that sticking what appears to be an inward-opening portlight secured by plastic dogs in the hull of a fiberglass yacht might not be the best idea, is most likely without any foundation whatsoever....
> 
> But, since you asked, here's an anecdote, anyway...
> 
> About 25 years ago, I was delivering one of these Marine Trader 50s down south, and around to Tampa... You'll notice these things have 3 heavily-constructed Taiwanese bronze opening ports in the transom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was sitting off the entrance to St Lucie Inlet on what was basically a flat calm day, but with a moderate long period swell running... St Lucie was pretty dicey in those days, so in that situation it paid to just sit there awhile, observing the pattern of the swell, in an effort to pick the right time to make the run in over the bar...
> 
> Suddenly, a series of 3 or 4 much larger and steeper 'rogues' materialized. There was no time to attempt to spin around, only thing I could do was try to square the stern to the sea, and hang on...
> 
> The first sea crested and broke squarely on the transom. In an instant, we were surfing in a mass of white water at over hull speed, but with very little rudder control due to the aerated water. It was a miracle we somehow managed to keep the thing pointed straight and avoid laying that pig over on her side. To this day, those 15 seconds or so remain one of the hairiest experiences I've ever had on the water...
> 
> After we were over the bar in inside to smooth water, my girlfriend went below for a quick damage assessment... Wasn't long before she called up, "You better come down here, and have a look at this..."
> 
> The aft stateroom was a disaster zone, it looked like a small bomb had gone off... All 3 ports had been completely blown out, there was broken glass everywhere, and the amount of water that had been shipped by that single wave strike was astonishing... So much so, that my first thought was that we had suffered more damage to the rudders or something, and were taking on water... That boat featured a corridor between the engine rooms that led forward to the mid stateroom, which in turn opened to the forward stateroom. There was water, and bits of glass, that had been blown all the way up into that forward stateroom... In addition, the entire swim platform had been bent downward at an angle of 10-15 degrees by the incredible power of the impact...
> 
> So, yeah, after that experience, I've always been a bit leery about the wisdom of putting portlights and picture windows in the hulls of sailboats, and then taking them offshore... But, hey, that's probably just me...
> 
> Certainly, that crew made a very stupid decision to put themselves in that position... but I think you miss the point, with an untimely engine failure, or another vessel dragging anchor or losing control, there are all manner of conceivable scenarios in which any skipper exercising good judgement and proper seamanship - with a bit of bad luck, through no fault of one's own - might easily find himself in a similar type of situation...
> 
> Uhhh, are you referring to those things on the transom? Those are not portlights, but rather appear to be a pair of undersized access hatches to some sort of transom storage locker... Looks like you'd be lucky to squeeze a typical washdown bucket through one of those things, though it had better be 'bendable'... But, getting anything back OUT of those spaces, _that_ would probably be the fun part...
> 
> Better add that guy Steve Dashew to the list of sailors who need training wheels, as well... His knowledge and experience re the design, engineering and construction of sailing yachts intended for offshore obviously pales in comparison to that of some of the experts around here...
> 
> From his OFFSHORE CRUISING ENCYCLOPEDIA:


Jon, my apologies.

My reading comprehension was obviously not good last night. I missed the key word "OPENING" port lights in the hull.

I agree with you - this seems to be a disaster waiting to happen. Quite easy to forget to close a port light ( I have been known to forget to close hatches, it once cost me a laptop computer while at anchor in a low in the Berries).

I honestly thought you had (you may have?) a problem with (non-opening) port lights in the hull, which I think is quite common (HR has them...).


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> Out, c'mon...seriously. Surely you're not this unimaginative.
> 
> If this is the Hunter you mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you really not see places you can rig a lee cloth in this photo for either tack?
> 
> I guarantee you I could rig perfectly good sea berths on this boat for a BFS. AND I would then be super-freakin' comfortable in that pimpin' centerline queen at anchor.
> 
> I would absolutely choose a boat like this over one with a coffinesque quarter-berth.


Smack, I am sure you could rig up some eye bolts at the head and foot of that birth, and with some creative use of some line, and perhaps padded handcuffs get a person quite secure, or is that more creative (some may say creepy?) than you were thinking? Of course it will require the on watch to come down below and release you before you can go on watch.


----------



## hellsop

Exile1 said:


> Here's another example that is also probably on Yachtworld if you're interested in more detail. There's a Bristol 51 or 53 that was on the market for awhile in the mid-$300K range. After not selling, the owner took it off the market, did over _$100K_ worth of upgrades/improvements, and then re-listed it for $20-30 _less_ (as I recall). Leaving aside whether Bristol's are your cup of tea or production boats are mine, I only mention this to demonstrate the opportunities that are out there for buyers, and have been since the 2007-08 recession hit. While I would agree that many of these older boats are projects, many others are lightly used boats that have been well cared for. This should also be reflected in the price, and if not it probably will be with a prospective buyer's due diligence and market-driven leverage.


Mostly that says that the asking price ain't necessarily the selling price. Everybody's seen a lot of boats out there that are priced at 50-75% more than others that are directly comparable, for the same model. That one's $86k, this one's $135k. Why? A power watermaker and a Garmin radar?


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> Out, c'mon...seriously. Surely you're not this unimaginative.
> 
> If this is the Hunter you mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you really not see places you can rig a lee cloth in this photo for either tack?


That's what those side settees are for. Not for letting laundry pile up. It's not like you and the mate are going to be sharing the queen bunk while making way; you'll be taking watches in turn.


----------



## miatapaul

chall03 said:


> We have been looking closely into a Deerfoot 50 in Auckland. Maybe too much boat for us, but a lot to like.
> 
> Of course it's 25 year's old though so maybe not as safe a bet as a new Hunter 50?
> 
> Used Deerfoot 50 for Sale | Yachts For Sale | Yachthub


Now that is a nice, no NICE looking boat! Seems to be quite a good price on it too. I would have expected it at closer to twice the price.


----------



## mitiempo

chall03 said:


> We have been looking closely into a Deerfoot 50 in Auckland. Maybe too much boat for us, but a lot to like.
> 
> Of course it's 25 year's old though so maybe not as safe a bet as a new Hunter 50?
> 
> Used Deerfoot 50 for Sale | Yachts For Sale | Yachthub


It is an interesting boat and was for sale in Seattle a few years ago. It is not a boat that Steve Dashew had anything to do with though, so not a real "Deerfoot" in that respect. It was designed by Ulf Rogeberg who has designed a few of the early boats for Steve.


----------



## johnshasteen

Hola Smack Daddy, como esta? As I said, years ago, much of survival depends on the crew. We've been through more storms in the Gulf than most people - the last was the Force 10 storm that I posted about sometime back - we ran before the storm and were carried about 200 miles down and 20 miles off of the Mexican coast.
Best advice is check the national weather before you go on a long trip.
...John
s/v Paloma, '79 Bristol 29.9


----------



## JonEisberg

jorgenl said:


> Jon, my apologies.
> 
> My reading comprehension was obviously not good last night. I missed the key word "OPENING" port lights in the hull.
> 
> I agree with you - this seems to be a disaster waiting to happen. Quite easy to forget to close a port light ( I have been known to forget to close hatches, it once cost me a laptop computer while at anchor in a low in the Berries).
> 
> I honestly thought you had (you may have?) a problem with (non-opening) port lights in the hull, which I think is quite common (HR has them...).


Thanks, but certainly no need to apologize... 

As I've often mentioned before, I just don't like trend towards the large windows we're now seeing in many of today's fiberglass production boats, and I have my doubts as to whether some builders are really doing it right... On metal boats, or ones like that beautiful Deerfoot that chall is looking at, I'd have little concern, and I'm guessing that on boats such as Oysters, they're probably pretty close to bulletproof... But as I saw that day in Charleston, they could pose a serious liability on some of the more popular brands built to a price point today... Same with the large deckhouse windows on deck saloons, there's obviously a world of difference between those on that Morris 48, and a Taiwanese Hardin built 30 years ago...

One doesn't need to forget to close a hatch, to trash a computer on a small yacht... No need to ask me how I know this 

2 winters ago I was taking a beautiful little Cape George 31 south, a very impressive boat built to a very high standard... I was racing to beat a SW blow into Norfolk, didn't quite make it by a few hours, and as a result the final miles into Hampton Roads I was motoring into a nasty chop, and taking a lot of water on deck... But everything was staying nice and dry below, no problems at all, all ports and hatches completely dry, a very tight boat...

I finally get into Norfolk around midnight, and pull out my laptop to check the weather, and play around on the internet a bit... When I was done, I left it sitting on the nav desk, plugged into a charger...

When I get up in the morning, the computer is sitting smack dab in the middle of a puddle of water that had formed on the table... No portlight or hatch above it, so WTF? But what had apparently happened was that the water from some leak on deck further forward had taken several hours to finally 'migrate' back to the overhead above the nav desk, where it finally found a path through the joint between the deck and coachroof, and inside the boat... DIRECTLY above my Mac, I doubt it could have been centered any more precisely beneath that drip... ) Even though I had closed the lid, water had migrated inside via the charging port... After attempting to dry it as best I could, when I turned it on later that day, it started _SMOKING_, never a good sign...

Naturally, that was the ONLY topside leak I ever noticed on that boat, throughout the entire 2 week duration of the trip...

On the day I shot those pics of that boat pinned on the Megadock in Charleston? I had just returned from the Apple Store on King Street, with my brand new MacBook...

And, needless to say, I've never been liked the idea of relying on a computer for navigation purposes on a small yacht underway, mine is always tucked away someplace (hopefully) safe and dry...

But again, that's probably just me...

)


----------



## MedSailor

JonEisberg said:


> Better add that guy Steve Dashew to the list of sailors who need training wheels, as well... His knowledge and experience re the design, engineering and construction of sailing yachts intended for offshore obviously pales in comparison to that of some of the experts around here...
> 
> From his OFFSHORE CRUISING ENCYCLOPEDIA:


Larry Pardey, who most would argue is a pretty conservative guy, had opening portlights in the BOW of his boat. He did have little metal storm "plugs" that he used offshore and managed to keep the water out.










MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Nothing inherently wrong with that berth, not much else that can be done with a quarter cabin... I used that accomodation plan to illustrate the lack or storage space for the sort of gear one typically needs for extended cruising, and how virtually the entire interior volume of that boat is given over to accommodation space...
> 
> Well, despite the fact that numerous vessels have been lost in incidents in which the loss of hatches/ports/windows was one of the critical occurrences in a series of cascading failures (the loss of the Hardin 45 ALMEISAN enroute to Bermuda in 2005 is one that comes to mind)... But, yeah, my opinion that sticking what appears to be an inward-opening portlight secured by plastic dogs in the hull of a fiberglass yacht might not be the best idea, is most likely without any foundation whatsoever....
> 
> But, since you asked, here's an anecdote, anyway...
> 
> About 25 years ago, I was delivering one of these Marine Trader 50s down south, and around to Tampa... You'll notice these things have 3 heavily-constructed Taiwanese bronze opening ports in the transom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was sitting off the entrance to St Lucie Inlet on what was basically a flat calm day, but with a moderate long period swell running... St Lucie was pretty dicey in those days, so in that situation it paid to just sit there awhile, observing the pattern of the swell, in an effort to pick the right time to make the run in over the bar...
> 
> Suddenly, a series of 3 or 4 much larger and steeper 'rogues' materialized. There was no time to attempt to spin around, only thing I could do was try to square the stern to the sea, and hang on...
> 
> The first sea crested and broke squarely on the transom. In an instant, we were surfing in a mass of white water at over hull speed, but with very little rudder control due to the aerated water. It was a miracle we somehow managed to keep the thing pointed straight and avoid laying that pig over on her side. To this day, those 15 seconds or so remain one of the hairiest experiences I've ever had on the water...
> 
> After we were over the bar in inside to smooth water, my girlfriend went below for a quick damage assessment... Wasn't long before she called up, "You better come down here, and have a look at this..."
> 
> The aft stateroom was a disaster zone, it looked like a small bomb had gone off... All 3 ports had been completely blown out, there was broken glass everywhere, and the amount of water that had been shipped by that single wave strike was astonishing... So much so, that my first thought was that we had suffered more damage to the rudders or something, and were taking on water... That boat featured a corridor between the engine rooms that led forward to the mid stateroom, which in turn opened to the forward stateroom. There was water, and bits of glass, that had been blown all the way up into that forward stateroom... In addition, the entire swim platform had been bent downward at an angle of 10-15 degrees by the incredible power of the impact...
> 
> So, yeah, after that experience, I've always been a bit leery about the wisdom of putting portlights and picture windows in the hulls of sailboats, and then taking them offshore... But, hey, that's probably just me...


I bet you just LOVE this old blue-water classic:












JonEisberg said:


> Uhhh, are you referring to those things on the transom? Those are not portlights, but rather appear to be a pair of undersized access hatches to some sort of transom storage locker... Looks like you'd be lucky to squeeze a typical washdown bucket through one of those things, though it had better be 'bendable'... But, getting anything back OUT of those spaces, _that_ would probably be the fun part...


No silly. Look at the photo you were critiquing:












JonEisberg said:


> Better add that guy Steve Dashew to the list of sailors who need training wheels, as well... His knowledge and experience re the design, engineering and construction of sailing yachts intended for offshore obviously pales in comparison to that of some of the experts around here...
> 
> From his OFFSHORE CRUISING ENCYCLOPEDIA:


The training wheels comment was based on whether one assumes it's the job of the boat designer and builder to build the boat to protect the owner from doing a poor job of sailing it.

In other words, if the criticism of a boat is based on what might happen if the skipper is negligent or ignorant - then I think you're putting the onus on the wrong party. Sure, boats need to be robust and safe - but I don't want my portlights glued shut...causing me to have to try to sleep in a stifling cabin in the Carib...purely because if I forget to close it, I'll take on water in a storm.

I don't mind taking some responsibility for my boat in return for the comfort.


----------



## JonEisberg

miatapaul said:


> Smack, I am sure you could rig up some eye bolts at the head and foot of that birth, and with some creative use of some line, and perhaps padded handcuffs get a person quite secure, or is that more creative (some may say creepy?) than you were thinking? Of course it will require the on watch to come down below and release you before you can go on watch.


Frankly, I think a bit too much is often made of the unsuitability for aft centerline berths for sleeping underway... It's really not very difficult to configure a reasonably workable solution...

On the Trintellas I've run, they had a vertical stainless rod that would fit into a bracket centered at the foot of the bed... From that, a lee cloth could be tightly strung between it and padeyes on the aft bulkhead... On a tack, it worked about as well as most lee cloths used on a settee situated on the weather side of the boat...

Personally, I think the greater downside to sleeping in an aft stateroom berth under way can often be the noise generated by the autopilot... On many boats, those things can be sawing away in very close proximity to your head... i hate having to listen to that noise, even when exhausted, I've sometimes found it a bit more difficult than it should be to fall asleep...

And of course, if you're running under power, those Bedrooms in the Back of the boat will generally be the worst possible place on the boat to sleep...


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> Larry Pardey, who most would argue is a pretty conservative guy, had opening portlights in the BOW of his boat. He did have little metal storm "plugs" that he used offshore and managed to keep the water out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedSailor


Holy crap! And they pointed those port-lights INTO the waves during storms while hanging off their parachute!!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

johnshasteen said:


> Hola Smack Daddy, como esta? As I said, years ago, much of survival depends on the crew. We've been through more storms in the Gulf than most people - the last was the Force 10 storm that I posted about sometime back - we ran before the storm and were carried about 200 miles down and 20 miles off of the Mexican coast.
> Best advice is check the national weather before you go on a long trip.
> ...John
> s/v Paloma, '79 Bristol 29.9


John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whazzap?!?!?!

Man it's good to see you around!

Check out my blog. We've got a new boat in Kemah and will be headed to the Keys this summer.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, this comes up a lot. But, again, you're only focusing on one part of the equation. The amount of money that will go into that 27-year-old Bristol for maintenance and upgrades will be FAR, FAR more than will go into that 1 year old production boat for same.
> 
> You're paying either way...or you're neglecting your aging boat. (Your example of the Bristol on YW and the $100K+ bath the dude took illustrates this perfectly.)
> 
> As always, I think the smartest money is to buy the 3-5 year-old production boat. That seems to be the sweet-spot value-wise when looking at depreciation vs. maintenance and upgrades.
> 
> As for the rest of your post above - I agree.


I agree with your assessment of 3-5 year-old production boats, assuming modern production boats are your bag that is, and preferably those that have been privately owned vs. the hundreds coming out of charter service each year. On a comparably-sized older boat, however, the additional cost of needed upgrades should be reflected in its overall condition and therefore its selling (vs. asking) price. If not, then either the buyer or the seller was ill-informed, unrealistic, or both, and the boat is unlikely to sell. Especially in the market we have now that has been so consistently lopsided in favor of buyers for so many years.

Take my boat, for example. A 1986 Bristol 47.7 that was 21 years old when I bought it in 2007. It had been well cared for by the original owner, spars removed and stored with the boat inside a shed during Maine winters, near-new sail inventory, 400 total engine hrs., 200 total genset hrs., etc. The PO's care & attention explains in part why it was still in such great shape, but it is also because most of its basic systems were built with the highest quality materials and installed with a high level of craftsmanship. Most of the time & money I've put into the boat have been attributable to personal preference items such as freshwater heads, updated electronics, new dinghy/outboard, etc. But these are the sorts of things a buyer of a 3-5 year-old production might do as well. There have certainly been other needed mechanical repairs & improvements in the past 7-8 years of my ownership, but total costs are far less than a new production boat, and my now 28 year-old boat is likely worth more than that same production boat that is only 5 years old!

I would never suggest that (almost) _any_ boat makes much sense from a purely financial perspective. My only point is that a 3-5 year old production boat is not the only smart way to do it, and if you're looking for a higher quality built alternative, you can own what would be a $1M-plus boat these days for the same or less money than you'd spend to buy a new production boat. Remember that the internet necessarily highlights the horror stories when it comes to refitting old boats. There are many boats out there -- at all different levels -- that have histories closer to mine. In fact, often times people will want or need to sell their boats after the exasperation and financial ruin of a huge refit has just been completed!


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whazzap?!?!?!
> 
> Man it's good to see you around!
> 
> Check out my blog. We've got a new boat in Kemah and will be headed to the Keys this summer.


A _new_ boat?? Did you finally see the light & trade-in your Hunter for that beautiful old Swan?!


----------



## Exile1

hellsop said:


> Mostly that says that the asking price ain't necessarily the selling price. Everybody's seen a lot of boats out there that are priced at 50-75% more than others that are directly comparable, for the same model. That one's $86k, this one's $135k. Why? A power watermaker and a Garmin radar?


Definitely a big disparity b'twn. asking & selling prices these days in light of the large inventories & historically lopsided buyer's market. Lots of times owner/sellers misguidedly think they can recoup costs of refits/improvements, etc. Or they believe their emotional investment can be translated into $$$. On the other side, there are highly selective buyers looking only for "deals." A simple market analysis from any competent broker based on actual _selling_ prices will flush this out and facilitate figuring out what should be paid for a boat depending on age, condition, brand, etc.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Frankly, I think a bit too much is often made of the unsuitability for aft centerline berths for sleeping underway... It's really not very difficult to configure a reasonably workable solution...
> 
> On the Trintellas I've run, they had a vertical stainless rod that would fit into a bracket centered at the foot of the bed... From that, a lee cloth could be tightly strung between it and padeyes on the aft bulkhead... On a tack, it worked about as well as most lee cloths used on a settee situated on the weather side of the boat...
> 
> Personally, I think the greater downside to sleeping in an aft stateroom berth under way can often be the noise generated by the autopilot... On many boats, those things can be sawing away in very close proximity to your head... i hate having to listen to that noise, even when exhausted, I've sometimes found it a bit more difficult than it should be to fall asleep...
> 
> And of course, if you're running under power, those Bedrooms in the Back of the boat will generally be the worst possible place on the boat to sleep...


+100.

On every off-shore race/delivery I've done, we (crew of up to 6 people in a race) sleep in the salon with lee cloths, etc. rigged. It's worked great. Every once in a while with a big crew, someone would end up in the v-berth...but it's usually packed with everyone's gear so that was rare.

It's very easy to rig up good sea berths on virtually any boat with a salon. And most boats have salons. So this long-held argument against centerline beds is pretty weak.

That's another reason I don't completely buy the "stowage" issue either. In most all boats I've been offshore on - including BW boats like a Pacific Seacraft 37 or Pearson 365 - you ALWAYS have stuff piled somewhere...the v-berth, pilot berth, whatever. There's just NEVER enough room to neatly tuck absolutely everything away.

So, again, when I had the option to buy a Hunter 40 with its aft centerline queen - I jumped on it. It's exactly what I wanted...over boats like the PSC37 or P365. It's a much more comfortable boat overall. And I still have a great deal of storage that I've been slowly filling up.


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> Larry Pardey, who most would argue is a pretty conservative guy, had opening portlights in the BOW of his boat. He did have little metal storm "plugs" that he used offshore and managed to keep the water out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedSailor


I dunno, but the ports on TALIESEN look a bit more stout, to my eye... I don't think these dogs are plastic, either... 










In addition, the rectangular shape of the Hunter's portlights is not the ideal configuration, especially in a fiberglass hull:



> Ports are especially vulnerable. The safest design for a cabin port is an elongated ellipse. Rectangular ports may seem more attractive, but they are structurally poor because of the abrupt transition between the gross and the net...
> 
> DESIRABLE & UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS, pg. 107


Ahhh, but no worries, that Hunter is probably built to the vaunted CATEGORY A Standard, no?



> I always carried storm boards, and yes, did once have a window punched in by a breaking wave. It was an opening porthole, with rather pathetic undersized plastic hinges built down to "RCD Cat A" standard. (Prior to RCD, the manufacturer had used decent, but apparently non-compliant metal hinges and catches). In the event I bolted the window back in position rather than fitted a storm board.
> 
> Jordan Series Drogue [Archive] - Yachting and Boating World Forums





smackdaddy said:


> Holy crap! And they pointed those port-lights INTO the waves during storms while hanging off their parachute!!!!


Not exactly... You're overlooking the remarkable effect of the slick that can be produced when hove-to in a full keeled boat in the Pardey's fashion:



> Heaving-to in heavy winds (gale to storm force) when the seas start to build differs from heaving-to in moderate winds; in these conditions you want to use the wake or slick of your boat to confuse the breaking seas. The key to heaving-to in these conditions is to get your boat to drift dead downwind. In this way you stay directly behind your amazingly protective slick. We lay hove-to in Seraffyn 400 miles east of England for thirty hours in a full force 10 storm (50-55 knots of wind). Storm-force winds were reported in all European sea areas from Iceland to northern Spain. *By the second day the waves had built to long over-hanging crests, which were breaking dangerously on either side of our slick. Yet in the afternoon our foredeck was only damp from spray and the side decks had actually dried off in the September sun. No green seas had broken against our hull. Occasionally broken-down white foam would skid across the slick to slap ineffectively against the bow...*
> 
> How to hove-to with a para-anchor by Lin & Larry Pardey


Or, so they claim...

;-))


----------



## smackdaddy

How much do those slicks cost? I gotta get me one of those.


----------



## clmartin0721

Hope its not too late to chime in on this.

This thread is particularly applicable to my situation as I am in the middle of outfitting a boat which is considered to be on the fringe of the vessels normally considered to be true "bluewater" boats. (my boat is a Grampian G26). I say it is on the fringe because it has some definite shortcomings as delivered, but several have undertaken long bluewater voyages without mishap.

As a pilot, this discussion comes up a lot, and it always boils down to a few common points;

1. Preparation of the pilot (captain)
2. Prep of the plane (boat)
3. Route management
4. Having set limits that you wont break. (don't commence a trip in bad conditions, for instance)

I know these seem simplistic, but you would be AMAZED at how often these are overlooked or outright ignored.

Having said that, I think it is important to know the limitations of the craft, and to be realistic concerning what you are willing to invest time and money-wise to shore up some of the shortcomings. I wouldn't be comfortable taking my boat on Gulf passages to Mexico or the Keys without performing the mods I am currently undertaking.

Also, I personally want my skills to match the vessel. For example, in aviation, you aren't allowed to jump from your Cessna trainer right into a jet or turboprop aircraft. I think this applies to boats too. In all areas of operation, things get less forgiving as boat size and complexity increases. And this is relevant to the bluewater discussion, because I always hear that you shouldn't be considering anything other than coastal (in sight of land) cruising in a boat of less than 40 feet or so. So there are probably a LOT of neophyte cruisers out there that really have no business behind the helm of that 40'+ vessel.

Bottom line, comes down to the prep of the captain and the boat, in my opinion


----------



## smackdaddy

+1

Very well said clmart.

And you're also right about neophytes who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a 40-footer. I'm one of them. I went from a 27-footer straight to my current 40. It's a huge jump for sure. But it's not that bad. I'm getting used to it.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> +100.
> 
> On every off-shore race/delivery I've done, we (crew of up to 6 people in a race) sleep in the salon with lee cloths, etc. rigged. It's worked great. Every once in a while with a big crew, someone would end up in the v-berth...but it's usually packed with everyone's gear so that was rare.
> 
> It's very easy to rig up good sea berths on virtually any boat with a salon. And most boats have salons. So this long-held argument against centerline beds is pretty weak.
> 
> That's another reason I don't completely buy the "stowage" issue either. In most all boats I've been offshore on - including BW boats like a Pacific Seacraft 37 or Pearson 365 - you ALWAYS have stuff piled somewhere...the v-berth, pilot berth, whatever. There's just NEVER enough room to neatly tuck absolutely everything away.
> 
> So, again, when I had the option to buy a Hunter 40 with its aft centerline queen - I jumped on it. It's exactly what I wanted...over boats like the PSC37 or P365. It's a much more comfortable boat overall. And I still have a great deal of storage that I've been slowly filling up.


Like you, my aft centerline queen was a big attraction when I first saw the boat at the dock, but once I started doing multi-day passages and anchoring out a lot I'm no longer so sure. If I've overlooked a way to rig lee cloths let me know, but I don't see any way to do it on my boat (or that Hunter in the pic) w/o pad eyes through-bolted on the cabin top. The mattress itself can be folded down the middle fore/aft so no problem on that end. Just no pole or other near-centerline fixtures I can see tying off to. Then again, the amidships salon is a better place to sleep, and the noise from the AP is a problem in the aft cabin as Jon points out.

As for stowage, I much prefer losing some interior space for the sake of secure storage areas. The stuff is going to take up space either way, right? Why not have it properly stowed vs. living on top of it? Having it everywhere might be OK if it's soft stuff like sails & duffle bags, but the more long-distance sailing you do the more hard, heavy parts like tools & engine spares you'll likely accumulate. I don't quite understand this trend towards gunwale to gunwale open space. Don't you guys already have plenty of space in your living & bedrooms at home?


----------



## clmartin0721

To Smackdaddy

You may be one of the neophytes, but you strike me as someone who has a grip on the realities of the requirements of that bigger vessel. I personally believe that experience is ALWAYS the best teacher, but that experience should be gained in controller, measured steps. I actually am looking at making the same sort of transition you did, I am currently in the initial search stages for my next boat, and I am looking in the 40-45' range.

I don't think the size of the boat is the issue (until you try to dock it the first few times) as much a the situations we put ourselves in. I would be perfectly comfortable taking a 40' boat out on Galveston bay in 12-20 kt winds with less than 3' swells. But taking it cross Gulf? No way....not yet. But I'll take my little boat right now, because I know I can handle her if I make a mistake.

For example, If the crew were to accidentally dump the mainsail (because I would NEVER do something like this...)I know I can manhandle it in and get sorted. Not so easy with a much bigger sail. There are tons of examples, but the point is clear.

However...I want a bigger boat too, and will get it when the opportunity presents itself. I am sure I'll be timid in it at first though...


----------



## clmartin0721

As I have been looking at bigger boats, the wife REALLY likes the designs that are a little more open. On a longer cruise of say a year or more, isn't the majority of time spent at anchor in port vs. on passage? I could have that totally backwards.

If that is the case, I could see sacrificing some of the dedicated stowage space to a more comfortable cabin at anchor. Especially if the boat IS your living room and bedroom.....


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> I don't quite understand this trend towards gunwale to gunwale open space. Don't you guys already have plenty of space in your living & bedrooms at home?


That's what sells at the Boat Shows, and looks best in the brochures... Most buyers of new boats today are attempting to _DUPLICATE_ what they have at home, after all - it's the only way many can drag the ladies along for the ride...

Next question?

;-))


----------



## MedSailor

clmartin0721 said:


> As I have been looking at bigger boats, the wife REALLY likes the designs that are a little more open. On a longer cruise of say a year or more, isn't the majority of time spent at anchor in port vs. on passage? I could have that totally backwards.
> 
> If that is the case, I could see sacrificing some of the dedicated stowage space to a more comfortable cabin at anchor. Especially if the boat IS your living room and bedroom.....


This is a belief I've held for a LONG time, that too much is sacrificed for the 1% of the time that you're offshore. If you read Eric Hiscock, for example, everything about the boat design (and I mean EVERYTHING) is designed around what life is like offshore.

As someone who's lived aboard 10 years I have a hard time swallowing the idea of giving up so many comforts (in design compromises) just for the small period of time that you're offshore. In fact my signature used to say that my boat would loose against yours sailing to windward but would "outperform" yours at anchor.

However....

You've no doubt heard lots of stories of people hitting Epirbs in non-life threatening situations and heard the tales of people who sold it all and they (or the crew/family) bailed on the voyage and now the boat sits for sale in Mexico.

If the boat is a total floating gin palace with NO regard paid to the Hiscock-type offshore design characteristics then you risk your offshore passages and foul weather being SO miserable that they might make the crew hate the whole experience and give up on it entirely.

It's also hard for me to ignore the advice of so many that HAVE a lot of sea miles under their belt. Most of them aren't screaming for bigger bunks, but rather are advocating better offshore characteristics. They're living aboard too, and have to live with their compromises, but this is consistently what I hear.

So pick your poison, but as in most things, the answer for most people usually lies somewhere in the realm of moderation rather than at any of the extremes.

MedSailor


----------



## clmartin0721

Med Sailor,



> As someone who's lived aboard 10 years I have a hard time swallowing the idea of giving up so many comforts (in design compromises) just for the small period of time that you're offshore. In fact my signature used to say that my boat would loose against yours sailing to windward but would "outperform" yours at anchor.


That is TOO funny, 
I am afraid I am going to have to steal your old signature line

I am trying to find a balance between the two extremes, which seems to be a bit of a challenge. My approach will ultimately boil down to one of two paths;

1. Buy a boat with the offshore qualifications and rebuild the cabin as required
2. Buy a boat with the cabin layout and keel configuration, and upgrade the offshore
equipment and systems.


----------



## Exile1

clmartin0721 said:


> As I have been looking at bigger boats, the wife REALLY likes the designs that are a little more open. On a longer cruise of say a year or more, isn't the majority of time spent at anchor in port vs. on passage? I could have that totally backwards.
> 
> If that is the case, I could see sacrificing some of the dedicated stowage space to a more comfortable cabin at anchor. Especially if the boat IS your living room and bedroom.....





JonEisberg said:


> That's what sells at the Boat Shows, and looks best in the brochures... Most buyers of new boats today are attempting to _DUPLICATE_ what they have at home, after all - it's the only way many can drag the ladies along for the ride...
> 
> Next question?
> 
> ;-))


clmartin -- as Jon E. points out, what sells at boat shows and looks appealing at the dock may not work out as well if you're intending to cruise full-time or even just do multi-day passages. Even though you'll get better at paring things down, there will be still be a surprising amount of "stuff" you'll want to bring along that has to go somewhere. By making modern boats more beamy & spacious, mfgs. are giving the illusion of more space but you feel differently about how much room you really have once it is filled up with your "stuff." And yes, even when full-time cruising you will generally spend more days at anchor or tied to a dock than out sailing, but that only makes the case for me to have a tidier, more organized interior space. But that's just me, and obviously others find the new designs more attractive. You have to bear in mind, however, that most boats rarely go anywhere, and thus more open space is appealing for those who wish to entertain more at the dock.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Like you, my aft centerline queen was a big attraction when I first saw the boat at the dock, but once I started doing multi-day passages and anchoring out a lot I'm no longer so sure. If I've overlooked a way to rig lee cloths let me know, but I don't see any way to do it on my boat (or that Hunter in the pic) w/o pad eyes through-bolted on the cabin top. The mattress itself can be folded down the middle fore/aft so no problem on that end. Just no pole or other near-centerline fixtures I can see tying off to. Then again, the amidships salon is a better place to sleep, and the noise from the AP is a problem in the aft cabin as Jon points out.
> 
> As for stowage, I much prefer losing some interior space for the sake of secure storage areas. The stuff is going to take up space either way, right? Why not have it properly stowed vs. living on top of it? Having it everywhere might be OK if it's soft stuff like sails & duffle bags, but the more long-distance sailing you do the more hard, heavy parts like tools & engine spares you'll likely accumulate. I don't quite understand this trend towards gunwale to gunwale open space. Don't you guys already have plenty of space in your living & bedrooms at home?


As I said, we don't sleep in the centerline bed while off-shore. We use our proper sea-berths in the salon - and/or the v-berth. The centerline bed, however, is freakin' awesome at the dock and at anchor. Wouldn't trade it for anything. Doing it this way means you have it great both ways - and, anyway, rigging lee-cloths in the salon of my Hunter is WAY easier than knocking out a couple of walls in the back of an older BW boat to enjoy more room...or worse, just living with it.

On the stowage - I haven't run into a problem yet. I'll let you know if it becomes one.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> As I said, we don't sleep in the centerline bed while off-shore. We use our proper sea-berths in the salon - and/or the v-berth. The centerline bed, however, is freakin' awesome at the dock and at anchor. Wouldn't trade it for anything. Doing it this way means you have it great both ways - and, anyway, rigging lee-cloths in the salon of my Hunter is WAY easier than knocking out a couple of walls in the back of an older BW boat to enjoy more room...or worse, just living with it.
> 
> On the stowage - I haven't run into a problem yet. I'll let you know if it becomes one.


Makes sense on the sleeping arrangements. The v-berth is almost as bad as the aft cabin because of the motion so the salon is usually the best choice.

Could be your older Hunter has more stowage space than than the newer designs.


----------



## clmartin0721

> And yes, even when full-time cruising you will generally spend more days at anchor or tied to a dock than out sailing, but that only makes the case for me to have a tidier, more organized interior space


Totally agree with this. Actually, I consider it a safety issue.

I certainly wouldn't even to WANT to try and duplicate lubber life when cruising. I actually have more of a minimalist approach. This is why it's good we are starting on a smaller boat. It forces us to adapt to less and to be smarter concerning storage. Also, we are cruising in an area where spares are easy to come by, so I don't need to get too crazy with those. (Because I will...it's in my nature ) Now if I were cruising in remoter areas, or on longer passages, I would have to rethink this somewhat.

I will use the V berth for overflow storage underway for now, but I am in a little boat  She has a LOT of storage space for her size though.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I bet you just LOVE this old blue-water classic:


It just so happens I have a lot of time on Vagabond 47s... Ran one of the first imported on the East coast down south and back 7 or 8 times, and delivered a couple of others elsewhere... It was a very nice boat to motor up and down the Ditch, which is where I always headed when conditions outside started to make up... Had a bit of a scare out on Lake Erie with one, that transom had me a little nervous 

I've addressed those windows here before, going back and forth with Doug Sabbag when he was looking for his boat, and again recently when someone started a thread about their desire for a boat with such 'Pirate Ship' style windows...



smackdaddy said:


> No silly. Look at the photo you were critiquing:


Ah, silly me... I made the mistake of looking instead at the photo that accompanied your comment 



smackdaddy said:


> You guys really crack me up.
> 
> Are you that lazy of a skipper that you want the boat company to glue all your portlights shut for you so you won't forget to stay afloat while knocked down in an F10? Remember all that Hunter freeboard you like to gripe about? How else are you going to dunk that baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the portlights in the cockpit? Yet another "deathtrap" awaiting the hapless skipper when boarded by a humongous following sea.


OK, I have no problem with such ports, at least on most of the installations I've seen... Hell, I even have one above the quarter berth on my little deathtrap  However, I think most folks probably understand the subtle distinction between a portlight that opens into the cockpit, and one that opens the hull to the sea...



smackdaddy said:


> The training wheels comment was based on whether one assumes it's the job of the boat designer and builder to build the boat to protect the owner from doing a poor job of sailing it.
> 
> In other words, if the criticism of a boat is based on what might happen if the skipper is negligent or ignorant - then I think you're putting the onus on the wrong party. Sure, boats need to be robust and safe - but I don't want my portlights glued shut...causing me to have to try to sleep in a stifling cabin in the Carib...purely because if I forget to close it, I'll take on water in a storm.
> 
> I don't mind taking some responsibility for my boat in return for the comfort.


Just a hunch, but I'll bet that sticker plastered on that hull portlight is one of those ridiculous Warning Labels, instructing the user to "Close Before Leaving Marina", or some such nonsense... 

Hmmm, talk about needing "Training Wheels", eh? Seems like Hunter probably understands the demographic of the end user of their products all too well, no?

)

In fairness, doesn't only happen to Hunter owners:



> We had just sailed in to Opua to clear customs after a fine passage from Tonga and saw a friend from San Francisco standing on the wharf. "Hey Richard,"Larry yelled, "What you doing down here?" Richard, normally a very boisterous type, signaled he'd talk to us later, then climbed down onto what looked like a very new boat where several folks stood around looking more than a bit distressed. It turned out the boat was in fact on its very first sea trials, a million dollar special built in New Zealand for an American owner.
> 
> The designer and builder had paid for the editors of some well-known yachting publications to come along for the very first sail. Unfortunately, no one had thought to close the port lights that lined the hull before they left the dock. A fresh breeze, a short beat to windward and the portlights had gone underwater. Now about $100,000 worth of electronic gear had died, drowned in salt water...
> 
> http://www.landlpardey.com/very-obvious-warning-devices.html


----------



## jorgenl

We cruised and lived on our Catalina 400 for 2 years.

While the C400 does not have the storage space of a Valiant, Passport or Tayana, we felt it had plenty for 2 people. We carried a lot of tools and spare parts. We even managed to have a decent amount of good wine on board...

So, as long as you do not do RTW or high latitude sailing, I feel that a most 40' boats, even the production variety, has enough space for two people.


----------



## outbound

I can only speak from my limited experience.
I have 7 berthes.
The forward centerline quen is never used underway. Even when it's just me and the bride. Hard to sleep when airborne.
I have five berths aft of the stick. Never use the double made by lowering the saloon table rather saloon rigged for two berths with leeclothes.
I clear two lockers for each crew. Nothing and I mean nothing Is left out to fly around. No one hot bunks. The top of the forward queen has nothing on it so we can get to stuff under it if necessary. ( bunk on hydraulic cylinders)
The boat will survive a knock down. No one will be hurt by missiles.

Boat has done passages, seen 60kts, beat to windward for 5 d in 30-45. Nothing is broken and after 1y living on it other than a few dings in the sole looks boat show new.

New boats designed and executed for offshore sailing perform better and are easier to sail. Off shore boats have real storage and accessibility to systems. We stand single watches. 

Compared to the same size older boat VMG is better so day's work is longer. With improved materials and execution voyage is safer. The NAs and builders haven't been sitting on their hands.

Boat is not an investment. It is a money pit. To think otherwise is foolish unless you are going to only stay in one locale. Boat unit is $1k for a reason. If your dream is to sail to distant ports and live( that mean a lot of junk to store)safely and comfortably often the best decision is to leave less for your kids to frit away and buy a new quality boat design for offshore sailing and customized to your liking or do a one off. Yes either choice makes no sense economically just like marriage. Although fewer people get married now a days folks still do it.
Economically best decision is to buy an used one off done to your liking.
If buying production and funds limited a good used PSC, Valiant, hinckley etc. makes more sense. If go small go now a BCC or like boat makes sense. Something where you're not concerned about oilcaning or structural failure because something is glued not glued and bolted or has inadequate safety margin. You only have one life. How much is that worth?


----------



## Exile1

outbound said:


> I can only speak from my limited experience.
> I have 7 berthes.
> The forward centerline quen is never used underway. Even when it's just me and the bride. Hard to sleep when airborne.
> I have five berths aft of the stick. Never use the double made by lowering the saloon table rather saloon rigged for two berths with leeclothes.
> I clear two lockers for each crew. Nothing and I mean nothing Is left out to fly around. No one hot bunks. The top of the forward queen has nothing on it so we can get to stuff under it if necessary. ( bunk on hydraulic cylinders)
> The boat will survive a knock down. No one will be hurt by missiles.
> 
> Boat has done passages, seen 60kts, beat to windward for 5 d in 30-45. Nothing is broken and after 1y living on it other than a few dings in the sole looks boat show new.
> 
> New boats designed and executed for offshore sailing perform better and are easier to sail. Off shore boats have real storage and accessibility to systems. We stand single watches.
> 
> Compared to the same size older boat VMG is better so day's work is longer. With improved materials and execution voyage is safer. The NAs and builders haven't been sitting on their hands.
> 
> Boat is not an investment. It is a money pit. To think otherwise is foolish unless you are going to only stay in one locale. Boat unit is $1k for a reason. If your dream is to sail to distant ports and live( that mean a lot of junk to store)safely and comfortably often the best decision is to leave less for your kids to frit away and buy a new quality boat design for offshore sailing and customized to your liking or do a one off. Yes either choice makes no sense economically just like marriage. Although fewer people get married now a days folks still do it.
> Economically best decision is to buy an used one off done to your liking.
> If buying production and funds limited a good used PSC, Valiant, hinckley etc. makes more sense. If go small go now a BCC or like boat makes sense. Something where you're not concerned about oilcaning or structural failure because something is glued not glued and bolted or has inadequate safety margin. You only have one life. How much is that worth?


Have you read "Sea Trials" by Peter Bourke? Great sea story about sailing the singlehanded OSTAR from Plymouth, England to Newport, RI on an Outbound yacht.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> OK, I have no problem with such ports, at least on most of the installations I've seen... Hell, I even have one above the quarter berth on my little deathtrap  However, I think most folks probably understand the subtle distinction between a portlight that opens into the cockpit, and one that opens the hull to the sea...


Yes, it is pretty subtle really. Because if you leave either open in a storm, you're in for trouble. The sea/rain/etc. will find a way...even into a cockpit.

So, if you remember to close one, you'll probably remember to close both.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yes, it is pretty subtle really. Because if you leave either open in a storm, you're in for trouble. The sea/rain/etc. will find a way...even into a cockpit.
> 
> So, if you remember to close one, you'll probably remember to close both.


Hmmm, it appears you missed the point of my "anecdote" posted above...

It had nothing to do with remembering/forgetting to close those hull portlights on that Marine Trader...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, it appears you missed the point of my "anecdote" posted above...
> 
> It had nothing to do with remembering/forgetting to close those hull portlights on that Marine Trader...
> 
> ;-)


Weren't those in the pretty vertical transom? And weren't you kind of parked on a bar in questionable weather with that transom facing incoming waves?

Again - anything can happen. I just think the Hunter's portlight you were critiquing will probably be okay as long the skipper remembers to close it.


----------



## outbound

Smack,
Pleas listen and LEARN from Jon.

"Probably" doesn't work on a boat.

In the the immortal words of Captain Ron-"If it's going to happen it's going to happen out there"


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - then let's approach the critique of that Hunter's portlight from another angle. Give me a _realistic_ scenario where, _under typical cruising conditions_...even "out there" in a moderate/strong gale...that _aft_ side portlight is going to get blown out.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Smack,
> Pleas listen and LEARN from Jon.
> 
> "Probably" doesn't work on a boat.
> 
> In the the immortal words of Captain Ron-"If it's going to happen it's going to happen out there"


Nah, in fairness, I think he's "probably" right... I doubt a Hunter 50 will ever be lost as a direct result of one those portlights being punched out... 

However, having something like that compromised offshore is PRECISELY the sort of thing that is so often one of the first of a cascading series of failures that build into something more substantial... It might serve as a distraction, contributing to a navigational error or failure of an adequate watch being kept... Or, it could lead to something more serious, perhaps the shorting out of batteries or another critical system that might just happen to be located under that berth...

Bottom line is, _You Never Know..._ Even on something considerably more substantial than a 50' sailboat, the loss of a single portlight can start a chain of events that can ultimately prove to be disastrous:












> Ocean Ranger was a semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit that sank in Canadian waters on 15 February 1982. It was drilling an exploration well on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, 267 kilometres (166 mi) east of St. John's, Newfoundland, for Mobil Oil of Canada, Ltd. (MOCAN) with 84 crew members on board when it sank. There were no survivors.
> 
> ...
> 
> The United States Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation report on the disaster summarised the chain of events as follows:
> 
> A large wave appeared to cause a broken portlight;
> 
> The broken portlight allowed the ingress of sea water into the ballast control room;
> 
> The ballast control panel malfunctioned or appeared to malfunction to the crew;
> 
> As a result of this malfunction or perceived malfunction, several valves in the rig's ballast control system opened due to a short-circuit, or were manually opened by the crew;
> 
> Ocean Ranger assumed a forward list;
> 
> As a result of the forward list, boarding seas began flooding the forward chain lockers located in the forward corner support columns;
> 
> The forward list worsened;
> 
> The pumping of the forward tanks was not possible using the usual ballast control method as the magnitude of the forward list created a vertical distance between the forward tanks and the ballast pumps located astern that exceeded the suction available on the ballast system's pumps;
> 
> Detailed instructions and personnel trained in the use of the ballast control panel were not available;
> 
> At some point, the crew blindly attempted to manually operate the ballast control panel using brass control rods;
> 
> At some point, the manually operated sea valves in both pontoons were closed;
> 
> Progressive flooding of the chain lockers and subsequent flooding of the upper deck resulted in a loss of buoyancy great enough to cause the rig to capsize.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - then let's approach the critique of that Hunter's portlight from another angle. Give me a _realistic_ scenario where, _under typical cruising conditions_...even "out there" in a moderate/strong gale...that _aft_ side portlight is going to get blown out.


I think your "typical cruising conditions" test is rather misguided, Smack, and this goes well beyond this particular example of opening portlights. You've applied it in a myriad number of ways on various threads to try and explain away concerns people have raised about certain features of production boats. Some of your reasoning makes sense, but much of it frankly seems derived from a combo of inexperience & bravado, not really the best duo for undertaking seagoing voyages, no matter how benign you seem to think they may actually be.

I'm not suggesting a "worse-case" test, or that you need an aluminum expedition boat for sailing the Caribbean. But I think more of perhaps a "reasonably forseeable" standard or the "prudent mariner" saying we often hear might serve you better. Just like there are usually some valid reasons why certain boat brands have certain reputations, there are usually good reasons why experienced sailors express opinions. If you haven't put the miles under your keel yourself, then the best way to learn is from guys like Jon who have.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> I think your "typical cruising conditions" test is rather misguided, Smack, and this goes well beyond this particular example of opening portlights. You've applied it in a myriad number of ways on various threads to try and explain away concerns people have raised about certain features of production boats. Some of your reasoning makes sense, but much of it frankly seems derived from a combo of inexperience & bravado, not really the best duo for undertaking seagoing voyages, no matter how benign you seem to think they may actually be.
> 
> I'm not suggesting a "worse-case" test, or that you need an aluminum expedition boat for sailing the Caribbean. But I think more of perhaps a "reasonably forseeable" standard or the "prudent mariner" saying we often hear might serve you better. Just like there are usually some valid reasons why certain boat brands have certain reputations, there are usually good reasons why experienced sailors express opinions. If you haven't put the miles under your keel yourself, then the best way to learn is from guys like Jon who have.


Actually, I'm all about the "reasonably foreseeable" standard. That's precisely why I'm asking how you - or anyone - would consider the blowing out of that aft side portlight in that Hunter to be a "reasonably foreseeable" issue. And I'm still waiting. Thus far we've got one sunken oil rig which doesn't seem to apply here.

Look, it might seem like "inexperience & bravado" for me to not simply accept an experienced sailor's word for something - no questions asked (and I don't just mean Jon, who I respect a lot, but _anyone_ out there). But what ever that sailor is saying should be "reasonably forseeable". Otherwise, it's just hyperbole, and not helpful at all. And I don't let stuff like that slide just because someone has experience - or even just because I consider them a forum friend (as I do Jon). It has nothing to do with "miles" - it has to do with reason and objectivity.

In other words, you guys can't simply demand "respect" for your "miles" if what you're claiming makes no sense. It just doesn't work that way. You're absolutely welcome to your opinion - but remember it's an opinion. Reid Stow has a hell of a lot of "miles" - but I take almost nothing he says seriously.

That said, if _you_ want to take the underlying opinion of this argument to heart yourself and ensure you're being as "prudent" as you possibly can be, why have opening portlights at all in any boat? It's just increasing risk, no? Look what happened to that oil rig.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, I'm all about the "reasonably foreseeable" standard. That's precisely why I'm asking how you - or anyone - would consider the blowing out of that aft side portlight in that Hunter to be a "reasonably foreseeable" issue. And I'm still waiting. Thus far we've got one sunken oil rig which doesn't seem to apply here.
> 
> Look, it might seem like "inexperience & bravado" for me to not simply accept an experienced sailor's word for something - no questions asked (and I don't just mean Jon, who I respect a lot, but _anyone_ out there). But what ever that sailor is saying should be "reasonably forseeable". Otherwise, it's just hyperbole, and not helpful at all. And I don't let stuff like that slide just because someone has experience - or even just because I consider them a forum friend (as I do Jon). It has nothing to do with "miles" - it has to do with reason and objectivity.
> 
> In other words, you guys can't simply demand "respect" for your "miles" if what you're claiming makes no sense. It just doesn't work that way. You're absolutely welcome to your opinion - but remember it's an opinion. Reid Stow has a hell of a lot of "miles" - but I take almost nothing he says seriously.
> 
> That said, if _you_ want to take the underlying opinion of this argument to heart yourself and ensure you're being as "prudent" as you possibly can be, why have opening portlights at all in any boat? It's just increasing risk, no? Look what happened to that oil rig.


It's not so simple Smack, and rarely is it all or nothing as I think you must know by now. It's instead more about a cost vs. benefit/risk vs. reward type of analysis with few absolutes. My steep learning curve on my own boat continues to confirm the mantra I've always heard that there's no substitute for experience. The trouble is that it's hard to understand or maybe accept that fact until you rack up some experience!

I'm not reading Jon's comments that an opening portlight in a hull will absolutely fail and is a deathtrap. What I'm getting from his comments is a heads-up to perhaps lend a critical eye towards a "comfort" item that sells well at a boat show, but could be a potential hazard at sea. Obviously if the thing is left _OPEN_ by a neglectful crew then that's a completely different type of hazard, but also one that isn't all that helpful or relevant to the point being made.

After considering Jon's warning but balancing it against the comfort of having additional ventilation while at anchor or at the dock, you may reasonably decide it's not a big deal. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that it's plastic frame & dogs are built as stout as an escape hatch on the bottom of a multi-hull! 

You credit yourself with being an independent thinker with a critical mind. That's all well & good when questioning experienced sailors, but it should also be applied to boat mfgs. who often have agendas other than just seaworthiness that they are trying to balance. Perceived comfort, convenience, and looking cool is only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure you understand that too -- at least when you're away from the internet!


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> It's instead more about a cost vs. benefit/risk vs. reward type of analysis with few absolutes.


Exactly. That's precisely why I started this thread and the other one on CF.



Exile1 said:


> You credit yourself with being an independent thinker with a critical mind. That's all well & good when questioning experienced sailors, but it should also be applied to boat mfgs. who often have agendas other than just *seaworthiness* that they are trying to balance. Perceived comfort, convenience, and looking cool is only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure you understand that too -- at least when you're away from the internet!


That bold word up there is the crux of the entire debate. I'm saying production boats are seaworthy. Sure, they may not all have the specific features some old, experienced sailor wants, and they may have very different priorities - but that in no way makes them "less seaworthy" in the context of cruising.

If we can agree that THAT is the "cost vs. benefit/risk vs. reward type of analysis" - then I think it's all good.


----------



## smackdaddy

ramonred said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm in the process at looking at an Alberg 30 project boat as a potential offshore candiate - was just curious if anyone here as had any experience with this model. I do understand there is a great amount of info out on the web and have been doing some research there, but I would also be interested in any informed opinions of actual owners or those who have sailed on one.
> 
> Thanks


Hey ramo - I don't if anyone answered this. I personally don't have any experience with the A30. However, I raced with a dude who owns one and does very well in his class in various off-shore races. So they can't be all bad.


----------



## killarney_sailor

This thread has been a bit of lost cause for the last 139 pages because there was never any agreement about what was meant by 'production' since Amels and Oysters by any sensible discussion are production boats, even if the production numbers do not reach the thousands (or likely the hundreds).

I have a solution to the problem. A boat is now anchored behind we that a couple is cruising on. It is close to 60' with the bowsprit and was built in 1904. From the outside it looks to be in great shape with need skylight and deck houses all over. If we use this boat as our comparator, then everything else under about 50' is a johnny-come-lately production boat. And the answer is you will find just about everything in this harbour from about 25 feet to 60' and age from a couple of years to over a hundred. I think you just pick a boat you are comfortable with and go cruising. Either it will be up to it or it won't. You will find out as you go and chances are quite good you will not kill yourself in the process.


----------



## Don L

killarney_sailor said:


> This thread has been a bit of lost cause for the last 139 pages because there was never any agreement about what was meant by 'production' since Amels and Oysters by any sensible discussion are production boats, even if the production numbers do not reach the thousands (or likely the hundreds).


That's not the reason it was a lost cause!


----------



## smackdaddy

Typically in these discussions, BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are the "production boats". It's not that hard, really.


----------



## outbound

I agree with you K
You could call Boreals,Garcias, Hylas, HRs, Outbounds, Oysters, even gunboats all production boats as they are made in series to the same toolings/design for hulls. 
As stated by me and others- there are boats where the target is extended world cruising and boats where that is not the audience. Smack seems to have trouble with the concept - you don't take a chevy Malibu down the baja peninsula . It could be done. In prudent hands perhaps without ruining the machine but -why would you- The Malibu is a great bang for the buck car. New ones are stylish and run well. But they are not tricked out power wagons.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> I agree with you K
> You could call Boreals,Garcias, Hylas, HRs, Outbounds, Oysters, even gunboats all production boats as they are made in series to the same toolings/design for hulls.
> As stated by me and others- there are boats where the target is extended world cruising and boats where that is not the audience. Smack seems to have trouble with the concept - you don't take a chevy Malibu down the baja peninsula . It could be done. In prudent hands perhaps without ruining the machine but -why would you- The Malibu is a great bang for the buck car. New ones are stylish and run well. But they are not tricked out power wagons.


No. I just think you guys have it wrong. BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are not "Chevy Malibus" - and cruising is not exactly the "Baja Peninsula" - unless you're hitting the high lats. The Class A rated boats from these brands are very nice cruising sailboats you can take virtually anywhere safely and comfortably - and are a _very_ good value. That has been proven over and over and over again.

There's absolutely no reason to put them down. And there's really no reason to spend WAY more for a similar cruising sailboat from a "high-end" brand - unless that kind of "affinity" is important to you.

There's nothing wrong with high-end boats. They just aren't necessary.


----------



## elgatosunrise

Well, I know this thread has gone into many directions. I can't comment on much, I only know my experiences. I just returned from doing the Inside Passage - Seattle to Alaska and back. I did this in my 1976 Newport 30, with a tiller and no auto-helm. 
I would not trade this adventure for anything. 
But, it will be my last major journey with this smaller set-up.
The journey was not open seas at all, but the storms I did endure - almost put breaking waves in the cockpit and - the weather helm on the tiller was exhausting. Anyway, I've got my eye on a full keeled Westsail with a wheel in the cockpit.


----------



## smackdaddy

elgatosunrise said:


> Well, I know this thread has gone into many directions. I can't comment on much, I only know my experiences. I just returned from doing the Inside Passage - Seattle to Alaska and back. I did this in my 1976 Newport 30, with a tiller and no auto-helm.
> I would not trade this adventure for anything.
> But, it will be my last major journey with this smaller set-up.
> The journey was not open seas at all, but the storms I did endure - almost put breaking waves in the cockpit and - the weather helm on the tiller was exhausting. Anyway, I've got my eye on a full keeled Westsail with a wheel in the cockpit.


Welcome to the thread elgato. Do you have a write-up and pics somewhere of that adventure? Sounds like a serious BFS!


----------



## outbound

Smack you need to get out more. Yes a friend of mine circumnavigated seeing nothing more than 30 knots. But another friend ( on an outbound) did the SDR last year and got hammered. This year left a day early. Had a fast passage but saw repetitive squalls in 40s and one briefly in 50 s. We had an easy passage but got hammered getting to Hampton. That's hard on a boat . They did fine and headed off to st.martin. We had nothing break either. The stronger boats take a licking and keep on ticking. You are definitely right that expense doesn't translate to better long distance cruising boats. The newer swans seem more aimed at a different market than in the past when many racer/cruisers were built to be heirloom boats. The older swans are said to have been better sea boats. 
That's what I'm saying. There are production boats aimed at long distance cruising ( not just long term) and production boats that are not. Unfortunately the boats designed for long term open water work tend to be more expensive. There's more labor involved and the production runs are a minute fraction of big builders. 
The b,h,c,j boats can do it I don't disagree but given they not designed with that purpose in mind it will show.
+1!for the Pats.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> The b,h,c,j boats can do it I don't disagree but given they not designed with that purpose in mind it will show.


I guess I'm still not following you. Isn't MarkJ doing some very, very "long distance cruising" in his Bene? How exactly are you defining this term of yours? And why can't these boats do it?


----------



## mr_f

This thread has convinced me all boats are terrible. I don't have a BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas. Nor do I have an old classic bluewater boat. This thread has spent 140 pages pointing out the downsides to both approaches. My boat appears to have all the downsides listed for both camps. As a result, now I am terrified to leave the slip. I haven't left the slip in over a month. (Sure, it is winter, but still.) 

Could someone please start a "all boats are awesome" thread to put my mind at ease? I am sure my boat has at least some of the qualities that are awesome.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yo f, you're looking for the "Everyone Gets a Medal" thread on Aisle 5.

Now leave your slip and go sailing for crying out loud.


----------



## chall03

mr_f said:


> This thread has convinced me all boats are terrible. I don't have a BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas. Nor do I have an old classic bluewater boat. This thread has spent 140 pages pointing out the downsides to both approaches. My boat appears to have all the downsides listed for both camps. As a result, now I am terrified to leave the slip. I haven't left the slip in over a month. (Sure, it is winter, but still.)
> 
> Could someone please start a "all boats are awesome" thread to put my mind at ease? I am sure my boat has at least some of the qualities that are awesome.


Let's turn this thread into that thread. ALL boats are awesome.

They all break, they all need a lot of love and attention, they all have their strengths and weaknesses but at the same time they are all awesome if they see you out there sailing and not on here arguing with armchair knuckleheads about why your boat could or couldn't do something someone else's boat could or couldn't.

Killarney has it right(and his armchair has gone places most armchairs wouldn't go without at least 10 GPS enabled Epirbs strapped either side) - You buy a boat, the best you can at the time with what you have. You sail it, you go places you think are nice, you evolve, you improve yourself and the boat and when the excrement hits the air con - you improvise.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - then let's approach the critique of that Hunter's portlight from another angle. Give me a _realistic_ scenario where, _under typical cruising conditions_...even "out there" in a moderate/strong gale...that _aft_ side portlight is going to get blown out.


I'm guessing you've never experienced the stern quarter of a yacht being 'slapped' pretty good underway, often accompanied by a good pooping of the cockpit, and a solid dousing of the crew?

Drake on PARAGON got pooped last summer by a sea that destroyed his cockpit enclosure... Granted, it happened in the far North Atlantic, but in conditions that could still be found on, say, the passage from the East coast to the islands in November... Getting pooped on a boat with as much freeboard and a raised center cockpit like a Westsail 42 is pretty hard to imagine, and yet it happened...










This Trintella 50 pictured with my buddy Glenn at the helm is a great sea boat, the conditions pictured represent some sporty sailing, but nothing extraordinary, a Force 7 with the occasional higher gusts. Typical of being off Hatteras in mid-December, a bit chilly, but certainly nothing out of the realm of possibility to be experienced by any cruising sailor who's gonna actually go places...

We weren't pressing the boat particularly hard, we'd exited the Stream well before dark, and were in for a night of sailing conservatively, and driving the boat rather than trusting the AP which was a bit overwhelmed...

No real drama overnight, except for some wild surfing, and the occasional 'slap' from a feisty cross-sea... But the following morning, that Man Overboard Module mounted on the rail to port had disappeared, and the box that housed the Lifesling had been cracked open by an encounter with a mini-rogue that appeared out of nowhere... The weight of even a comparatively modest amount of water moving at speed can be a surprisingly powerful force...


----------



## aeventyr60

We were pooped three times coming down the Oregon coast in very sporty conditions. Water covered the companion way hatch, luckily all the bin boards were in place and the hatch closed. The force of the wave ripped off the life sling bag and bent the mount for the horseshoe collar. The four cockpit drains worked as advertised. Stuff does happen out here.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'm guessing you've never experienced the stern quarter of a yacht being 'slapped' pretty good underway, often accompanied by a good pooping of the cockpit, and a solid dousing of the crew?
> 
> Drake on PARAGON got pooped last summer by a sea that destroyed his cockpit enclosure... Granted, it happened in the far North Atlantic, but in conditions that could still be found on, say, the passage from the East coast to the islands in November... Getting pooped on a boat with as much freeboard and a raised center cockpit like a Westsail 42 is pretty hard to imagine, and yet it happened...


I've been in a boat that got slapped around a bit. In our last off-shore delivery we were in steep 8'-12' seas. And though we were beating, not running, the hull was definitely getting smacked - when not falling off the backs of the waves and hammering in that is. Remember that Swan that Drake helped deliver - BELLA LUNA - who's speed transducer was blown out when it fell off the back of a wave and it took on over 1' of water? Yep, a lot of force can be generated in that water.

But back to our scenario, getting the cockpit pooped by a following sea is _very_ unlikely to blow out that Hunter's portlight on the lower quarter of the boat. I mean, let's be reasonable here.










Also, having all kinds of things that have been attached to the boat damaged or torn away in a pooping (e.g. - enclosures, MOB modules, Lifeslings/Collars, etc.) isn't at all surprising. They are _attached_ to the boat, not designed/built into it (the Alpha 42 seats notwithstanding).

So, sure, I KNOW waves can overwhelm boats. I know attached stuff can get ripped off. It happens.

Also, I absolutely DO believe that that portlight _could_ possibly be blown out if the boat were to somehow fall backward and sideways...pushing that section of the boat down through the surface with some _real _force (like with BELLA LUNA). I don't see an over-taking wave doing that. So, I'm still having a very hard time imagining that actual scenario - unless we're talking about lying-ahull in a survival storm maybe.

So, if you're still trying to imply that the safety/seaworthiness of that Hunter is compromised for blue water cruising because of that opening portlight - you're still reeaaaaaallllllly stretching.

If it's the problem you're trying to make it out to be, we'll certainly hear about it. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## outbound

Smack
Your scenario is not my only worry. Sh-t happens on pleasant days.
Some years ago was sailing a friends Pearson 424. There was a fresh breeze and it was a sunny pleasant day on Block Island Sound. There was a storm which gone through a few days before with some residual swell but only moderate wind waves ( mares tails) on top. We were reaching when bam a big wave came through and we knocked down. Sprung up like a cork with a small tear in the jib and the LEEWARD port lights blown out.
It's stuff like that that makes me nervous. Hell I don't even like fixed ports in the hull in anything under fifty feet or is not a flush decked monster.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack
> Your scenario is not my only worry. Sh-t happens on pleasant days.
> Some years ago was sailing a friends Pearson 424. There was a fresh breeze and it was a sunny pleasant day on Block Island Sound. There was a storm which gone through a few days before with some residual swell but only moderate wind waves ( mares tails) on top. We were reaching when bam a big wave came through and we knocked down. Sprung up like a cork with a small tear in the jib and the LEEWARD port lights blown out.
> It's stuff like that that makes me nervous. Hell I don't even like fixed ports in the hull in anything under fifty feet or is not a flush decked monster.


Out, look, I know full well crazy stuff happens. But what we are talking about are features that:

a) Someone just prefers or doesn't prefer in a boat.

-or-

b) Obviously jeopardize the seaworthiness/safety of the boat.

If we are going to talk about why various production boats are not really fit for being off-shore, then we need to be very specific about the critique. For example, is Jon saying "A" or "B" above when he critiques that Hunter's portlight? I think he's saying "A" - because the scenario for "B" is very, very unlikely.

Now, to your example, if we stick with the reasoning being used in this thread by some, then _you_ might draw the conclusion that that Pearson 424 is not fit for being off-shore. After all, it sustained major damage on a relatively calm day. OR - you might draw the conclusion that no boat fit for being off-shore should have portlights at all, because they can be blown out (this seems to be your last point in your post).










Now, if you're seriously nervous about these kinds of things, you might fall in either of the camps above. Personally, I wouldn't. The Pearson 424 is definitely fit for off-shore work. And portlights in a boat are a really good idea.

So, that leaves the middle-ground. What is a reasonable expectation of risk? I assume your Outbound has portlights and I'll wager that some of them open - so your very bad first-hand experience with them hasn't convinced you that they are not worth the risk.

Maybe this is because of the placement of them compared to the Pearson, or the materials from which they are made, etc. What is it that makes you trust yours over the Pearson's (I know you said you don't trust any of them - so I'm just asking more for comparison)?









_An Outbound 46_

Oysters sink after hitting icebergs. Pearsons get knocked down and damaged on pleasant days. Moodys sink in the ICW. Crazy stuff happens. At the same time, Oysters and Pearsons and Moodys and BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are great boats to take cruising off-shore - _in spite of crazy stuff_ that might befall a couple of them.

There's not a boat out there, regardless of money, that is designed to thwart all the possible crazy stuff you can dream up. So, to CHOOSE your boat solely based on this kind of crazy stuff is...well...crazy. You obviously compromised to a large degree.


----------



## MedSailor

To my mind, it is easy for me to split this debate into the sections of design and construction. I know I'm being very general here, but that's the idea.

Production boats, (huntalinatoes) have IMHO certain design compromises that favor comfort over seaworthiness. They also are generally less robustly constructed than their non-huntalinatow brethren. 

I decided to err highly on the side of comfort vs seaworthiness in the design realm but chose a boat with a reputation for high build quality. I wanted some of the features of a "production boat" and some of the features of a "bluewater boat." I didn't go 100% in the comfort over seaworthiness direction in the end. Originally I was looking at Nauticat 38s and ended up with a Nauticat 40, which has more design features geared towards seaworthiness than the 38 does.

Clear as mud?

MedSailor


----------



## Exile1

outbound said:


> Smack
> Your scenario is not my only worry. Sh-t happens on pleasant days.
> Some years ago was sailing a friends Pearson 424. There was a fresh breeze and it was a sunny pleasant day on Block Island Sound. There was a storm which gone through a few days before with some residual swell but only moderate wind waves ( mares tails) on top. We were reaching when bam a big wave came through and we knocked down. Sprung up like a cork with a small tear in the jib and the LEEWARD port lights blown out.
> It's stuff like that that makes me nervous. Hell I don't even like fixed ports in the hull in anything under fifty feet or is not a flush decked monster.


Yup. It's more often than not the _leeward_ side that bears the brunt of getting hit hard by a big wave, i.e. the force of the boat falling off a wave & landing after taking a windward hit.

Did I miss something? Haven't read that an opening port in a hull _disqualifies_ a boat for so-called bluewater sailing.

Are the chances of a failure pretty low? Probably.

Is the risk/benefit worth considering? Of course.

Are the chances also pretty low that you'll wind up tossed in the water? Yes.

Is that a reason not to weigh the risk/benefit of wearing a PFD/harness/tether when conditions warrant? No.

Does the thread need to devolve into indignation/bashing/hater mode every time someone points out a potential drawback on a mass-produced production boat, especially when it seems that boat happens to be made by Hunter? Hope not! Isn't the thread topic about the potential limits of production boats? Doesn't that inquiry necessarily entail a comparison to those boats -- "production" or not -- that are widely considered purpose-built for bluewater cruising? Or do some of you prefer more of a pure cheerleading thread for boats that you happen to own/like??


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> To my mind, it is easy for me to split this debate into the sections of design and construction. I know I'm being very general here, but that's the idea.
> 
> Production boats, (huntalinatoes) have IMHO certain design compromises that favor comfort over seaworthiness. They also are generally less robustly constructed than their non-huntalinatow brethren.
> 
> I decided to err highly on the side of comfort vs seaworthiness in the design realm but chose a boat with a reputation for high build quality. I wanted some of the features of a "production boat" and some of the features of a "bluewater boat." I didn't go 100% in the comfort over seaworthiness direction in the end. Originally I was looking at Nauticat 38s and ended up with a Nauticat 40, which has more design features geared towards seaworthiness than the 38 does.
> 
> Clear as mud?
> 
> MedSailor


It is - and it isn't. Before I was Modslammed over at CF, we had a really good discussion about this going on in the Yard Guys thread.

To really answer that question you have to look at how the "high-end" builders are doing their building NOW not 20-30 years ago - and compare that with production boats.

For example, IPs are now using grids/liners.










The Hinckley 50 is using a much more modular/production-boat process and lighter build than ever before (e.g. - "IKEA-like" interior furnishing, etc.)










So, if you're going to define "better built" by looking at old, thick, heavy, hand-laid boats - unless they are still being made that way - they don't really exist any more.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Out, look, I know full well crazy stuff happens. But what we are talking about are features that:
> 
> a) Someone just prefers or doesn't prefer in a boat.
> 
> -or-
> 
> b) Obviously jeopardize the seaworthiness/safety of the boat.
> 
> If we are going to talk about why various production boats are not really fit for being off-shore, then we need to be very specific about the critique. For example, is Jon saying "A" or "B" above when he critiques that Hunter's portlight? I think he's saying "A" - because the scenario for "B" is very, very unlikely.
> 
> Now, to your example, if we stick with the reasoning being used in this thread by some, then _you_ might draw the conclusion that that Pearson 424 is not fit for being off-shore. After all, it sustained major damage on a relatively calm day. OR - you might draw the conclusion that no boat fit for being off-shore should have portlights at all, because they can be blown out (this seems to be your last point in your post).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you're seriously nervous about these kinds of things, you might fall in either of the camps above. Personally, I wouldn't. The Pearson 424 is definitely fit for off-shore work. And portlights in a boat are a really good idea.
> 
> So, that leaves the middle-ground. What is a reasonable expectation of risk? I assume your Outbound has portlights and I'll wager that some of them open - so your very bad first-hand experience with them hasn't convinced you that they are not worth the risk.
> 
> Maybe this is because of the placement of them compared to the Pearson, or the materials from which they are made, etc. What is it that makes you trust yours over the Pearson's (I know you said you don't trust any of them - so I'm just asking more for comparison)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _An Outbound 46_
> 
> Oysters sink after hitting icebergs. Pearsons get knocked down and damaged on pleasant days. Moodys sink in the ICW. Crazy stuff happens. At the same time, Oysters and Pearsons and Moodys and BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are great boats to take cruising off-shore - _in spite of crazy stuff_ that might befall a couple of them.
> 
> There's not a boat out there, regardless of money, that is designed to thwart all the possible crazy stuff you can dream up. So, to CHOOSE your boat solely based on this kind of crazy stuff is...well...crazy. You obviously compromised to a large degree.


Somehow we went from an experienced delivery captain pointing out a _potential_ pitfall of a plastic _opening_ port in a _hull_, to all ports, even if they are fixed and on a cabin top? My boat has sixteen, aluminum opening ports in the cabin top. Anyone wanna buy a somewhat aged but well-maintained Bristol so I can buy something more seaworthy? Seems kinda crazy to keep it, knowing what I know now.


----------



## outbound

Agreed you can't plan for every contingency or you would never leave. But there is a difference between 316 thick stainless with a stainless plate on the outside and ten massive bolts holding it in place compared with fiber reinforced plastic port lights. There is difference between putting six small ones ( more expense and labor) or a few big ones ( more prone to damage and if damage occurs more ingress from a single failure). There is a difference between port lights recessed in the house and flush with the hull or house. There is a difference between deck/house designed to take a boarding sea and one designed to allow good views of the setting sun. There is a difference in the venders and strength/quality of the liwiring, lines, blocks and myriad fittings between the non big run production boats and the H,B,J,C etc. boats. There is a difference between bulkheads tabbed and glassed in on both sides ,furniture built in place and glassed in place and boats built with a linear. You hear this difference every time you fall off a wave. The deafening sound of silence. No creaks or groans from the vessel. First year out and twentieth year out. 
Bye- chasing a small fresh water leak in aft head. Don't have food dye, running out of paper towels.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Does the thread need to devolve into indignation/bashing/hater mode every time someone points out a potential drawback on a mass-produced production boat, especially when it seems that boat happens to be made by Hunter? Hope not!


Where exactly are you seeing this "indignation/bashing/hater mode", Exile? This is the kind of hyper-sensitive hysteria that seems to be so prevalent on CF. I certainly don't see it here. I see disagreement and discussion - not running mascara. So please point this out to me in this thread.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Where exactly are you seeing this "indignation/bashing/hater mode", Exile? This is the kind of hyper-sensitivity stuff that seems to be so prevalent on CF. I certainly don't see it here. I see disagreement and discussion - not running mascara. So please point this out to me in this thread.


Just ask yourself why you are trying to turn Jon E.'s critique of a plastic opening port in the hull of a Hunter into an indictment of all ports -- opening, fixed, and not even in the hull. As you would say -- "crazy?"


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> It is - and it isn't. Before I was Modslammed over at CF, we had a really good discussion about this going on in the Yard Guys thread.
> 
> To really answer that question you have to look at how the "high-end" builders are doing their building NOW not 20-30 years ago - and compare that with production boats.
> 
> For example, IPs are now using grids/liners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hinckley 50 is using a much more modular/production-boat process and lighter build than ever before (e.g. - "IKEA-like" interior furnishing, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you're going to define "better built" by looking at old, thick, heavy, hand-laid boats - unless they are still being made that way - they don't really exist any more.


Interesting.... I guess "they don't make 'em like they used to."  Makes me glad my boat is 30 years old.

MedSailor


----------



## outbound

BTW- that Pearson travelled a lot of miles. She was a sound vessel. She got fixed up ( also had some movement of a chainplates) and was back out there.
I think IPs aren't a good example of current sound design for blue water. A great boat for live aboard and strongly built but not a good example. I do think some of the non production boats coming out of NEB and like houses are as strong or stronger than any of the old school blue water boats production or otherwise sited in prior posts. These boats also perform better. I agree there is little audience hence fewer and fewer builders aimed at the voyaging market. Saying that builders who use to built to this market have not been influence by this I think ignores reality.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Just ask yourself why you are trying to turn Jon E.'s critique of a plastic opening port in the hull of a Hunter into an indictment of all ports -- opening, fixed, and not even in the hull. As you would say -- "crazy?"


Shouldn't Jon and/or Out be the ones to take issue with it if it's an issue?

The reason I'm working this is because there will be potential boat-owners reading this thread. And, if they see a critique about the possibility of this Hunter's portlight being blown out, _especially_ one from an experienced skipper - do you think they'll take that to heart and skip looking at the Hunter 50? I certainly think that's possible.

So, I'm trying to crystallize the criticism and put it in context. Jon (and even Out) has already admitted above that the likelihood of a serious failure with this portlight is pretty low. So I don't think I'm way out of line here.

This is important information. So it needs to be right and it needs to be reasonable. If there actually IS a likely scenario for failure of this thing, I'm interested to know what that is. Otherwise, I think the Hunter 50 is great boat for taking into blue water.

Remember, this ain't CF. So the hyperbolic "bashing/hating" mod-bait stuff some of you guys used over there doesn't work here. We're all reasonable adults and can disagree with each other without crying about it. And I know for a fact that if Jon (or Out) doesn't like something I say - he'll let me know. So relax dude.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Shouldn't Jon and/or Out be the ones to take issue with it if it's an issue?
> 
> The reason I'm working this is because there will be potential boat-owners reading this thread. And, if they see a critique about the possibility of this Hunter's portlight being blown out, _especially_ one from an experienced skipper - do you think they'll take that to heart and skip looking at the Hunter 50? I certainly think that's possible.
> 
> So, I'm trying to crystallize the criticism and put it in context. Jon (and even Out) has already admitted above that the likelihood of a serious failure with this portlight is pretty low. So I don't think I'm way out of line here.
> 
> This is important information. So it needs to be right and it needs to be reasonable. If there actually IS a likely scenario for failure of this thing, I'm interested to know what that is. Otherwise, I think the Hunter 50 is great boat for taking into blue water.
> 
> Remember, this ain't CF. So the hyperbolic "bashing/hating" mod-bait stuff some of you guys used over there doesn't work here. We're all reasonable adults and can disagree with each other without crying about it. And I know for a fact that if Jon (or Out) doesn't like something I say - he'll let me know. So relax dude.


If a potential Hunter buyer is reading this thread, I'm sure they can weigh the pros & cons of the _opening_ port _in the hull_ and make their own call. If they are concerned, it's easy enough to order their new boat with a fixed port, or replace it on their used boat. Hard to believe this would completely sour someone already interested in Hunter's or another brand. That's why your suggesting these concerns are "crazy" seems less about the port light and more about something personal.

It's not about my speaking for you or Jon, it's about your potentially misleading all those newbie boat buyers you're trying to bestow wisdom upon into thinking that all portlights are the same, whether opening, fixed, plastic, metal, in the hull, or up on the cabin top. Who knows, maybe you really believe this, in which case a correction seems appropriate. Pretty sure the same latitude is given to making corrections on both CF & SN. Enough said, I feel much more relaxed now.


----------



## Don L

MedSailor said:


> Production boats, (huntalinatoes) have IMHO certain design compromises that favor comfort over seaworthiness. They also are generally less robustly constructed than their non-huntalinatow brethren.
> 
> Clear as mud?


All I see is clear mud. I have read these type of statements for years. Before I cancelled my Hunter Hater membership I spend a lot of effect in learning about the current Hunter boat construction bones.

So what are all these "comprises" you talk about?

BTW - I believe this takes us back to the start of the thread.


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> If a potential Hunter buyer is reading this thread, I'm sure they can weigh the pros & cons of the _opening_ port _in the hull_ and make their own call. If they are concerned, it's easy enough to order their new boat with a fixed port, or replace it on their used boat.


I just close mine! :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> If a potential Hunter buyer is reading this thread, I'm sure they can weigh the pros & cons of the _opening_ port _in the hull_ and make their own call. If they are concerned, it's easy enough to order their new boat with a fixed port, or replace it on their used boat. Hard to believe this would completely sour someone already interested in Hunter's or another brand. That's why your suggesting these concerns are "crazy" seems less about the port light and more about something personal.


Then you need to re-read my post. Here is what Out himself said:



outbound said:


> Smack
> Your scenario is not my only worry. Sh-t happens on pleasant days.
> 
> It's stuff like that that makes me nervous. Hell I don't even like fixed ports in the hull in anything under fifty feet or is not a flush decked monster.


Would you agree that what happened to that Pearson 424 was pretty "crazy" - as he himself implies?

Furthermore, do you think that designing and building a boat - _specifically for such a scenario _- would be a bit crazy?

The _concerns_ aren't crazy - the implied expectation or conclusion that a boat should somehow be designed to deal with all of them - or it's no good...IS crazy. Not even Out has this expectation. He has reached a compromise with his own boat - even though he has first-hand experience with this very problem. Oh, and I like portlights - ones that open even. So I'm perfectly good with them - even the one on this Hunter.

So, I think you've just misunderstood what I wrote, which is not unusual based on our history. It's not personal, although you always seem to like to beat that drum.

And, you'd definitely be surprised what can sour readers on boats.



Exile1 said:


> It's not about my speaking for you or Jon, it's about your potentially misleading all those newbie boat buyers you're trying to bestow wisdom upon into thinking that all portlights are the same, whether opening, fixed, plastic, metal, in the hull, or up on the cabin top. Who knows, maybe you really believe this, in which case a correction seems appropriate. Pretty sure the same latitude is given to making corrections on both CF & SN. Enough said, I feel much more relaxed now.


Where have I said that "all port lights are the same"?

Look, I'm not trying to "bestow wisdom" on anyone. I'm trying to keep facts straight. If you, or Jon, or Out, or whomever, can provide a plausible scenario (and better yet, an example) where this Hunter's portlight gets blown out (not just some "crazy rogue wave out of nowhere" kind of scenario) - then your point is made. If you can't do that - then the critique is something other than factual - and there's nothing _really_ wrong with the Hunter's portlight. It's really that simple.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> It is - and it isn't. Before I was Modslammed over at CF, we had a really good discussion about this going on in the Yard Guys thread.
> 
> To really answer that question you have to look at how the "high-end" builders are doing their building NOW not 20-30 years ago - and compare that with production boats.
> 
> For example, IPs are now using grids/liners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hinckley 50 is using a much more modular/production-boat process and lighter build than ever before (e.g. - "IKEA-like" interior furnishing, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you're going to define "better built" by looking at old, thick, heavy, hand-laid boats - unless they are still being made that way - they don't really exist any more.


You seem to be making an assumption that IP is now using liners solely because it's more sound from a design/engineering point of view, and that thick, hand-laid up hull construction has been abandoned solely because it is no longer necessary given the strength of new composite materials & techniques. I don't have the qualifications to agree or disagree from that standpoint, but I think you're ignoring the widely known fact that liners make the build process less expensive, and all the hand labor involved in laying up the thicker hulls was more expensive.

So the real (and more interesting) question is whether this change has come about so that high-quality mfgs. like IP can try and stay competitive with the cheaper brands and, if so, at what cost (if any) to the quality of the build construction, access to the hull & components, etc. These were all criticisms & concerns raised by some experienced yard guys & others when you first raised it in your "Yard Guys" thread over at CF.

This goes to the heart of whether the criticism of production boats is valid or not, and why it can be so difficult to reach a consensus. A skeptic looks at things like this and a thousand other things and concludes it's all about cutting costs. A fan, on the other hand, says modern assembly line techniques & new materials make them just as good. Again, I'm not arguing your point one way or the other, but rather suggesting that you don't want to leave out cost as an obvious motivation for a mfg. How that translates into what a buyer is getting for his/her money is the more interesting part of this debate. IMHO that is . . . .


----------



## smackdaddy

Out, as you can see, we have some similarities in the portlight size/configuration of our boats:

My Hunter 40:









An Outbound 46:










Of course, I do have that fixed portlight in the stern quarter. But it does make the aft cabin pretty nice.

BTW - here is the portlight configuration on a 2009 Hunter 49 (very similar to the 50):










And here is the view through one of them (I believe the forward one) when it's underwater while lying-a-hull in an F10-11 in the Southern Ocean:


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> You seem to be making an assumption that IP is now using liners solely because it's more sound from a design/engineering point of view, and that thick, hand-laid up hull construction has been abandoned solely because it is no longer necessary given the strength of new composite materials & techniques. I don't have the qualifications to agree or disagree from that standpoint, but I think you're ignoring the widely known fact that liners make the build process less expensive, and all the hand labor involved in laying up the thicker hulls was more expensive.


There's a lot of assuming in that piece - most of it wrong. I have no idea precisely why IP has chosen to go the liner/grid route. I just know they have (at least according to their website).

I also know that production boats have been criticized for a very long time for being built _exactly_ like this...what has always been labeled by the BWC as "cheap".

So, depending on where you stand, either IP are now sacrificing strength and quality with this "inferior" building method just to save money (while maybe passing the savings on to the buyer?) - or this approach is not as bad as it's been made out to be.

I'm betting the latter.



Exile1 said:


> So the real (and more interesting) question is whether this change has come about so that high-quality mfgs. like IP can try and stay competitive with the cheaper brands and, if so, at what cost (if any) to the quality of the build construction, access to the hull & components, etc. These were all criticisms & concerns raised by some experienced yard guys & others when you first raised it in your "Yard Guys" thread over at CF.


Yeah. That's the question. Where are the real differences now that design and construction is moving toward the Yard-Guy-Lamented production boat methodology - and how big of a gap is there between these various boats - and how much is that difference worth?



Exile1 said:


> This goes to the heart of whether the criticism of production boats is valid or not, and why it can be so difficult to reach a consensus. A skeptic looks at things like this and a thousand other things and concludes it's all about cutting costs. A fan, on the other hand, says modern assembly line techniques & new materials make them just as good. Again, I'm not arguing your point one way or the other, but rather suggesting that you don't want to leave out cost as an obvious motivation for a mfg. How that translates into what a buyer is getting for his/her money is the more interesting part of this debate. IMHO that is . . . .


I NEVER leave out cost. I've been hammering on that this entire thread. The issue is _value_.

*I'll make it clear, yet again, that I have nothing against the higher-end brands of boats.* Nothing. And I absolutely know that they _are_, in many ways, "better built".

BUT, I absolutely still hold that *they are not necessary for cruising off-shore*. Class A production boats are perfectly suited to this. And they are a great value in this regard. Period.


----------



## Exile1

Not sure why you like to change tack so often, but I guess it keeps the thread count up.

Would you agree that what happened to that Pearson 424 was pretty "crazy" - as he himself implies?

Furthermore, do you think that designing and building a boat - _specifically for such a scenario _- would be a bit crazy?

I don't think about all the many risks inherent in going to sea in a small boat in such absolute terms, such as "crazy," for example. I try and become as aware as I can of the many risks, not rely on one source of information or put all my stock in any particular "brand," and buy & prepare a boat with the inevitable trade-offs that I personally think are reasonable. At that point, and as Killairney & others have so well stated, it's time to leave the internet behind and just go sailing.

The _concerns_ aren't crazy - the implied expectation or conclusion that a boat should somehow be designed to deal with all of them - or it's no good...IS crazy. Not even Out has this expectation. He has reached a compromise with his own boat - even though he has first-hand experience with this very problem. Oh, and I like portlights - ones that open even. So I'm perfectly good with them - even the one on this Hunter.

Like you, I wouldn't manage this particular risk by eliminating all my port lights, but I would be a bit wary of any fixed ones on the hull as opposed to the cabin top, and would probably not go for any opening ones on the hull, especially if they were made out of plastic. In striking this balance, I would also look at what benefit, if any, opening ports -- or any at all on the hull -- would offer and whether that outweighs any risk. Others may frown on the 16 aluminum opening ones on my cabin top, but so be it. Maybe my risk/benefit analysis isn't as "simple" as your approach, but it's done me pretty well thus far.

So, I think you've just misunderstood what I wrote, which is not unusual based on our history. It's not personal, although you always seem to like to beat that drum.

And, you'd definitely be surprised what can sour readers on boats.

Fortunately, there are plenty of others for buyers to choose from these days.

Where have I said that "all port lights are the same"?

At a minimum, you seem confused by the higher risk an opening port light in a hull may present vs. one on the cabin top. You also don't seem to understand the difference b'twn an opening one that's kept closed vs. one that is fixed. I agree with you that the risks involved are rather low, but the only point Jon was making was that there was in fact an increased risk. Not hard concepts to understand and appreciate, whether you find the risks acceptable or not.

Look, I'm not trying to "bestow wisdom" on anyone. I'm trying to keep facts straight. If you, or Jon, or Out, or whomever, can provide a plausible scenario (and better yet, an example) where this Hunter's portlight gets blown out (not just some "crazy rogue wave out of nowhere" kind of scenario) - then your point is made. If you can't do that - then the critique is something other than factual - and there's nothing _really_ wrong with the Hunter's portlight. It's really that simple.[/QUOTE]

As I've said, I haven't heard anyone say this is a huge risk or that any boat that has one is somehow deficient, but is rather one a person _may_ want to mitigate given the minor concession to comfort an opening port light in the hull can provide. No absolutes Smack, just as Outbound's Pearson story illustrates.


----------



## outbound

Smack
Done with work so time to smack around .
I'll grant you the "it's not necessary " just like a car or truck is not necessary if you have good wind and good legs. I won't grant you that a vessel built and designed for offshore work in mind is not better suited to do this when compared to a vessel not built with that purpose as the leading principle.
I won't grant that a non opening port light is easier to construct in a fashion to have increased strength and water integrity as compared to an opening light. Nor will I grant that a light frequently immersed is less likely to engender difficulties compared to one which is not. 
With the addition of multiple occurrences of such small details the risk of voyaging increases. Yes, at present many high end boats doing service in open waters have hull port lights. I am unaware of any that open. If you examine the materials and installations they do not present a significant risk. I believe these installations/designs/post build quality controls are of a different order than seen on value boats.
Smack, maybe in a few years we'll meet on the Maldives and again maybe we we won't.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack
> Done with work so time to smack around .


Bring it on porkchop! Heh-heh.



outbound said:


> I'll grant you the "it's not necessary " just like a car or truck is not necessary if you have good wind and good legs. I won't grant you that a vessel built and designed for offshore work in mind is not better suited to do this when compared to a vessel not built with that purpose as the leading principle.


Agreed.

And that's why I hold that production boats with a CE Cat A designation are fine for offshore work.



outbound said:


> I won't grant that a non opening port light is easier to construct in a fashion to have increased strength and water integrity as compared to an opening light. Nor will I grant that a light frequently immersed is less likely to engender difficulties compared to one which is not.
> With the addition of multiple occurrences of such small details the risk of voyaging increases.


I agree. The risk increases with every hole cut. We probably just disagree on the amount. After all, even Hinckley is bringing them in:










And the Swan 60 FD:










And Oyster is kind of crazy about 'em - actually _working_ to get them under:










So, I also agree that the opening portlight in the hull increases the risk. This is very evident in that photo of the immersed center portlight on that 49. Imagine that thing being open at that point. And, that brings up the question of whether the opening portlight aft is any less likely to be immersed. Maybe.

In any case, it definitely puts more responsibility on the skipper to make sure they are closed and dogged before getting underway.



outbound said:


> Yes, at present many high end boats doing service in open waters have hull port lights. I am unaware of any that open. If you examine the materials and installations they do not present a significant risk. I believe these installations/designs/post build quality controls are of a different order than seen on value boats.


As for opening hull portlights on other boats...Oyster seems confident in them:










And Oyster seems to be a fairly well-regarded "blue water boat".

So that brings us to whether the Oyster's is done WAY better than the Hunter's - and is, therefore, FAR safer. I'm betting that there's not a huge amount of difference. So we're back to asking whether this portlight in this Hunter is really a major liability - and/or whether you or Jon or others would also deem the new Oyster 475 as not being fit for off-shore cruising because of the same issue.

I think they are both fine.



outbound said:


> Smack, maybe in a few years we'll meet on the Maldives and again maybe we we won't.


Oh come now. I have no doubt your fine Outbound will still be sailing proudly when we pull into the Maldives in our old Hunter.


----------



## outbound

Just curious as I don't care for the style of recent oysters and particularly don't like the way those three vertical lights look. That plus that the small ones I could hope to own are said to be hard for owners to work on means they were off my list early on. So I know very little about them. 
Do you know what size oyster that stateroom in? Is it the aft or forward one? How high above the waterline?
I understand the "glass" used in the non opening ones is the same plastic used in diving bells or special,glass used in space capsules so is probably as strong as the hull. I understand the engineering involved creates a durable bond with loads on the "glass" appropriately spread into the hull on the boats shown. I've been told with ports there maybe more risk of them blowing out not in if not properly done.
I'm not that familiar with Hunters. Are the same materials and techniques employed?


BTW- that oyster uses the same manufacturer for that port as is used on my vessel. In fact looks the same size -SS not plastic.

Of interest some folks ( including those who run or move boats for a living) think in order to to increase market share features are incorporated in recent high end boats such as Swans which may compromise ultimate seaworthiness. Given improvements in materials and execution these boats are stronger then past boats but in the absence of desire to widen market appeal could be stronger still.

If you and I get there the first round on me. Hell you can down your favorite single malt on my dime and I'll throw in a Cuban. We'd have fun big guy.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> If you and I get there the first round on me. Hell you can down your favorite single malt on my dime and I'll throw in a Cuban. We'd have fun big guy.


It's a deal Out. I'm a Macallan man. I'll buy the second bottle.

I have no doubt we'd have a blast. Seriously.



outbound said:


> Just curious as I don't care for the style of recent oysters and particularly don't like the way those three vertical lights look. That plus that the small ones I could hope to own are said to be hard for owners to work on means they were off my list early on. So I know very little about them.
> Do you know what size oyster that stateroom in? Is it the aft or forward one? How high above the waterline?


That pic is from the new Oyster 475. It's a CC model and the stateroom is aft:

Oyster Yachts | Fleet | 475 | Gallery

The placement of the portlights between the Oyster and the Hunter 50 CC is very similar:



















In fact there are a lot of visual similarities between the two boats.

This is, again, why I think arguments like this are typically a bit hollow. Both of them can't be completely wrong.

Anyway, I'm with you - I'm not a big fan of Oysters.



outbound said:


> I understand the "glass" used in the non opening ones is the same plastic used in diving bells and space capsules so is probably as strong as the hull. I understand the engineering involved creates a durable bond with loads on the "glass" appropriately spread into the hull on the boats shown.
> I'm not that familiar with Hunters. Are the same materials and techniques employed?


I don't know what the material is. Maybe someone else around here does. But I've never seen a review, etc. - that states that Hunter uses any equipment that's inferior. In fact, I've seen the opposite, that they use the good stuff. So I don't think we're talking about "cheap" materials here.



outbound said:


> BTW- that oyster uses the same manufacturer for that port as is used on my vessel. In fact looks the same size -SS not plastic.


Where are you and Exile getting the idea that the Hunter portlights are plastic? It sure doesn't look like it in the photos.

Again, not a lot of information, but if you look on the Hunter Owners' site for 50 CC parts - those ports are SS, not plastic:

50cc Hunter 50cc Ports, Parts and Accessories










Maybe someone around here can tell us for sure. But it seems like you and Exile are guessing quite a bit here about "inferior quality". So maybe now you both will be a bit more impressed with Hunter?



outbound said:


> Of interest some folks ( including those who run or move boats for a living) think in order to to increase market share features are incorporated in recent high end boats such as Swans which may compromise ultimate seaworthiness. Given improvements in materials and execution these boats are stronger then past boats but in the absence of desire to widen market appeal could be stronger still.


Maybe. I guess time will tell.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> There's a lot of assuming in that piece - most of it wrong. I have no idea precisely why IP has chosen to go the liner/grid route. I just know they have (at least according to their website).
> 
> Labor costs are typically the most expensive cost for a mfg. In boat building, the hull has historically been the most expensive component to produce. Grid liners can be produced through an automated process and save considerable labor costs from the more traditional process of building scantlings, tabbing bulkheads, etc. by hand. So is it a safe assumption that using grid liners is less expensive? I think so but will readily stand corrected if need be. Do the use of some grid liners sacrifice overall strength and make components less accessible for servicing? Dunno, but the yard guys you yourself canvassed on CF seem to think so, at least when it comes to production boats.
> 
> I also know that production boats have been criticized for a very long time for being built _exactly_ like this...what has always been labeled by the BWC as "cheap".
> 
> Call me silly, but something tells me that, grid liners or not, mass-produced production boats are not built "exactly" like IP's.
> 
> So, depending on where you stand, either IP are now sacrificing strength and quality with this "inferior" building method just to save money (while maybe passing the savings on to the buyer?) - or this approach is not as bad as it's been made out to be.
> 
> I'm betting the latter.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't presume to know. I'd hazard a guess that they're doing it to try and stay competitive by continuing to produce a boat that is stronger than a production boat for buyers who are willing to sacrifice speed for strength, sea kindliness, and owning a boat that is more than just good enough. Again, I'm not qualified to opine on whether their particular grid liners result in a weaker or stronger hull, but I wouldn't assume they are the same grid liners used on production boats.
> 
> Yeah. That's the question. Where are the real differences now that design and construction is moving toward the Yard-Guy-Lamented production boat methodology - and how big of a gap is there between these various boats - and how much is that difference worth?
> 
> Given the cost of a new production boat vs. a HR, Oyster, Moody, etc., it seems like you're talking about 2.5 to 3 times more money. I tend to agree with you that you're probably not getting 2.5 to 3 times more boat, but much of this is obviously subjective.
> 
> I NEVER leave out cost. I've been hammering on that this entire thread. The issue is _value_.
> 
> Well, you just did leave out cost -- in mentioning IP's use of grid liners. You could be correct that it's all about a better constructed hull, but I think it is probably driven mostly by economics, i.e. saving mfg. costs. Not necessarily a bad thing for the consumer mind you, especially if it helps IP stay in business given the dominance of the production boat market.
> 
> *I'll make it clear, yet again, that I have nothing against the higher-end brands of boats.* Nothing. And I absolutely know that they _are_, in many ways, "better built".
> 
> BUT, I absolutely still hold that *they are not necessary for cruising off-shore*. Class A production boats are perfectly suited to this. And they are a great value in this regard. Period.


Agreed. I've said for a long time that it's more about which boat you want to cruise in and can afford, as opposed to which boat you can cruise in. Lots of great values these days, incl. new production boats as you rightly point out.


----------



## smackdaddy

So I think we are in general agreement Ex. But one thing you said that isn't quite right...



Exile1 said:


> You could be correct that it's all about a better constructed hull...


I've not said that these production boat methodologies such as the liners/grids automatically mean "better constructed hulls" than the older methodologies. Yes, I definitely believe that technology, techniques, and materials have GREATLY improved over the years - and thereby allow for great improvements in cost, performance, build-efficiencies, etc. But I think we are talking degrees - not absolutes in this regard.

As you know, I'm not one who buys into the "if it doesn't have a 6" backing plate and 3" of glass it's 'weak'" mentality that's so prevalent in the BWC (especially the Yard Guys). The definition of "strength", and how it's achieved in boats, has changed DRASTICALLY over the last 30 years. Furthermore, being an ex-architect, I believe something should only be designed and built to it's intended use (with appropriate margin for safety). I don't think simply "overbuilding" stuff "to make it strong" serves any real purpose. But many in the BWC do - so anything less is "inferior".

So I'm not saying this liner/grid technique is "better" - I'm simply countering the long-held argument that it's "inferior". Production boats have been using this method for a long time - and getting hammered for it. And now IP, the stout pig of cruising boats, is using the same method.

Things ain't what they used to be. So the argument has to change.


----------



## Exile1

OK, I think this was the pic showing the now ever-so-notorious opening portlight in the hull. Sure looks like a metal frame to me, but maybe plastic dogs?? Not sure that's any sort of problem either. All depends on their quality and how they were installed.










But again, the concern being raised was over an opening port in a hull. Not a fixed port (although we know they are not infallible), and not an opening port in a cabin top, a component not nearly as exposed or subjected to the stresses & strains on the hull. Just so it's now clear, here's one of the comments that accompanied the pic above:

_OK, I have no problem with such ports, at least on most of the installations I've seen... Hell, I even have one above the quarter berth on my little deathtrap  However, I think most folks probably understand the subtle distinction between a portlight that opens into the cockpit, and one that opens the hull to the sea... _

So while I always appreciate looking at beautiful sailboats, none of these appear to have portlights installed in the hull:




























And of the nice pics of boats with portlights that are actually installed in the hull, we don't know if any of these are actually the opening types (vs. fixed) which raised the initial concerns:





































And of course this one, from a Hunter 49 apparently sailing in and around Cape Horn, is obviously fixed:










So it seems the only example thus far of an _*opening*_ portlight installed *in the hull* was that first pic of a Hunter 50. No doubt there are others, of course. And assuming quality materials and installation, I'm assuming we know that even if one heeds the warning label and properly closes an opening port, it is still generally not as strong as one that is fixed? This isn't any sort of deal-breaker mind you, just a heads-up so a buyer can properly manage risks.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh goodness. Exile...look a bit more closely before hitting the blue button. Here, I'll strip down your post to the two pics that count:



Exile1 said:


> So while I always appreciate looking at beautiful sailboats, none of these appear to have portlights installed in the hull:
> 
> And of the nice pics of boats with portlights that are actually installed in the hull, we don't know if any of these are actually the opening types (vs. fixed) which raised the initial concerns:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems the only example thus far of an _*opening*_ portlight installed *in the hull* was that first pic of a Hunter 50. No doubt there are others, of course. And assuming quality materials and installation, I'm assuming we know that even if one heeds the warning label and properly closes an opening port, it is still generally not as strong as one that is fixed? This isn't any sort of deal-breaker mind you, just a heads-up so a buyer can properly manage risks.


That first pic is the Oyster 475 interior, aft cabin, with the opening portlight in the hull. And that second pic is the Oyster 475 exterior, with the opening portlight in the hull. Here's another view:










To be clear, this is _*in addition to*_ the Hunter 50, with the opening portlight in the hull.

Bueno?


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Oh goodness. Exile...look a bit more closely before hitting the blue button. Here, I'll strip down your post to the two pics that count:
> 
> That first pic is the Oyster 475 interior, aft cabin, with the opening portlight in the hull. And that second pic is the Oyster 475 exterior, with the opening portlight in the hull. Here's another view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, this is _*in addition to*_ the Hunter 50, with the opening portlight in the hull.
> 
> Bueno?


Yes, yes -- you're right. I got jammed up by the one under the winches in the 2nd pic, but that's too far fwd. OK, so that's two.

No comment on those obviously cheap-ass plastic knobs on the opening, in-hull port on the Oyster?! Hard to imagine that even passing survey!


----------



## Exile1

Well, this ought to settle the portlight debate once & for all. I mean who better to manage risks than Admiral Lord Nelson on his own flagship? Certainly didn't seem to be a disqualifier at Trafalgar anyway.

Clearly _*in-hull*_ and *opening*:


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> And here is the view through one of them (I believe the forward one) when it's underwater while lying-a-hull in an F10-11 in the Southern Ocean:


It's so you can look for dolphins, obviously...


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> And here is the view through one of them (I believe the forward one) when it's underwater while lying-a-hull in an F10-11 in the Southern Ocean:


You forgot to mention that, as Jon noted, after this storm the owners decided to abandon their planned circumnavigation, put their Hunter up for sale, and replaced her with a barge on the canals of Europe.


----------



## ianjoub

Ok, I can't find Smack's list. Where does Bavaria fall in his charts?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> The reason I'm working this is because there will be potential boat-owners reading this thread. And, if they see a critique about the possibility of this Hunter's portlight being blown out, _especially_ one from an experienced skipper - do you think they'll take that to heart and skip looking at the Hunter 50? I certainly think that's possible.


Yeah, I suppose I should just quit citing DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS as a good reference/starting point for all those newbs out there looking for advice on which 40-50 foot Bluewater Boat they should select as their first boat ;-) Wouldn't want to put the thought in anyone's head that the occupants of the cockpit on this Hunter 50CC, for example, would be anything less than 1000% safe and secure in the event of a knockdown...










Uh-oh, looks like the opening portlight situation on that Oyster 475 is even worse than first thought... They've even placed them well forward in the hull, at a point that will definitely be submerged snd subject to some pressure, as well... Oh, well - I suppose if Oyster is doing it, it's all good...










Gotta admit, I do like the color of that ultrasuede, however... And, it does look like a very cozy seaberth, at least for Short People... ;-)

Smack, you really have to try to move away from your belief that just because a design feature or characteristic appears on a high-end boat, that alone necessarily makes it acceptable, or desirable... With most of today's boats being designed around their accommodations below, even on very high quality boats, that can lead to some very unfortunate consequences...

The Trintella 50 I used to run is a classic example. A magnificent boat in virtually all respects, built to an exceedingly high standard... And yet, that boat has some of the dumbest, most aggravating features I've ever had to deal with... Due to the aft cabin configuration, the steering cockpit was one of the most awkward setups I've ever sailed offshore... For instance, within 5-6 feet of that helm, there are _SEVEN _ levels of decking that might be walked upon... I was still tripping or stepping off that stupid little hump in the center even after _YEARS_ of sailing the damn thing... ;-)










If you look closely at the top left of that shot, you will see that there is _NO TOERAIL WHATSOEVER_ at the edge of that deck, they were going for the Mini-Wally look, I suppose... The only toerail on that boat was on the foredeck, everything aft was flush to the edge... Thanks to that little 'feature', the closest I've ever come to slipping overboard occurred on that boat...

I'm sorry, but for me, it's the lack of accounting for stuff like this that makes your absurdly broad assertions that any production boat built to Category A standard are "fine" for offshore simply laughable, and essentially meaningless...


----------



## outbound

Thank you Jon. You said it well,from the voice of experience. It's all those little details that makes or breaks a boat offshore. Don't care if it's an oyster, Wally or Hunter. Just seems fewer boats are being made with those details in mind. Some are fairly radical like Chris Whites new cat or the boreals with aft daggerboards for running. Some incorporate the best features of recent years like my beloved outbound. Some move the tried and true a few steps further like recent HRs. But they are purpose built and it shows. 
To me an example of market forces taking a very desirable offshore boat in a new direction is the most recent Amel.alwYs thought they were strange but you could never deny they worked. Now they seem just strange. I guess time will tell.
Btw smack 15-22k today, beautiful sun and in the low 80s in the islands. Stop being a boss, playing on the Internet and move that Hunter down here. Interesting Mac is my fave as well but the bottle is getting 1/2 empty as I type. Better hurry.


----------



## ianjoub

In my humidor to compliment good cigars:


----------



## outbound

Ian
You're invited as long as that stuff travels with you.


----------



## ianjoub

outbound said:


> Ian
> You're invited as long as that stuff travels with you.


Why thank you, I hope to be out there in 2020!


----------



## MedSailor

ianjoub said:


> Why thank you, I hope to be out there in 2020!


Sailnet rendezvous 2020 in the Maldives? Sounds good to me! 

MedSailor


----------



## outbound

Let's make it happen. Woo hoo


----------



## ianjoub

MedSailor said:


> Sailnet rendezvous 2020 in the Maldives? Sounds good to me!
> 
> MedSailor


We are leaving in 2020, it may take a couple of years to get that far. How about 2022 or2023?


----------



## MedSailor

ianjoub said:


> We are leaving in 2020, it may take a couple of years to get that far. How about 2022 or2023?


Why is it going to take you that long? You sailing a Hunter?

MedSailor


----------



## ianjoub

MedSailor said:


> Why is it going to take you that long? You sailing a Hunter?
> 
> MedSailor




I'm sailing whatever 5 year old 50'+ sailboat I can buy for 1/2 of the asking price


----------



## ianjoub

ianjoub said:


> Ok, I can't find Smack's list. Where does Bavaria fall in his charts?


I asked about these because they are priced well under most others for age/size....


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, I suppose I should just quit citing DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS as a good reference/starting point for all those newbs out there looking for advice on which 40-50 foot Bluewater Boat they should select as their first boat ;-) Wouldn't want to put the thought in anyone's head that the occupants of the cockpit on this Hunter 50CC, for example, would be anything less than 1000% safe and secure in the event of a knockdown...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, looks like the opening portlight situation on that Oyster 475 is even worse than first thought... They've even placed them well forward in the hull, at a point that will definitely be submerged snd subject to some pressure, as well... Oh, well - I suppose if Oyster is doing it, it's all good...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta admit, I do like the color of that ultrasuede, however... And, it does look like a very cozy seaberth, at least for Short People... ;-)
> 
> Smack, you really have to try to move away from your belief that just because a design feature or characteristic appears on a high-end boat, that alone necessarily makes it acceptable, or desirable... With most of today's boats being designed around their accommodations below, even on very high quality boats, that can lead to some very unfortunate consequences...
> 
> The Trintella 50 I used to run is a classic example. A magnificent boat in virtually all respects, built to an exceedingly high standard... And yet, that boat has some of the dumbest, most aggravating features I've ever had to deal with... Due to the aft cabin configuration, the steering cockpit was one of the most awkward setups I've ever sailed offshore... For instance, within 5-6 feet of that helm, there are _SEVEN _ levels of decking that might be walked upon... I was still tripping or stepping off that stupid little hump in the center even after _YEARS_ of sailing the damn thing... ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look closely at the top left of that shot, you will see that there is _NO TOERAIL WHATSOEVER_ at the edge of that deck, they were going for the Mini-Wally look, I suppose... The only toerail on that boat was on the foredeck, everything aft was flush to the edge... Thanks to that little 'feature', the closest I've ever come to slipping overboard occurred on that boat...
> 
> I'm sorry, but for me, it's the lack of accounting for stuff like this that makes your absurdly broad assertions that any production boat built to Category A standard are "fine" for offshore simply laughable, and essentially meaningless...


Well, we learned on a couple of these threads that the CE/RCD "A" rating is a bare minimum standard and was never geared towards consumers in any event. But I suppose the mfgs. will continue to use it as a marketing tool, and consumers will continue to put undue stock in it. In theory anyway, it does serve as a way to differentiate b'twn. certain boats, but as others have pointed out, it's easy for the mfgs. to insure that any boat over 33' will qualify.

Your many posts pointing out negatives with the higher end boats are most helpful. Among other things, it helps dispel the increasingly mindless notion that many of the criticisms of the lower end production boats are motivated by bias, snobbery, or something other than the merits. The stereotypes you always hear is that the production boats have successfully appealed to cruising couples because the guys like that they're "fast" -- thanks to increased waterlines, high-aspect deep keels, and lightweight hulls -- and the gals because of the spacious interiors & amenities. I think this is fine if it gets more people out sailing, but I find it troubling should these attributes take away from basic sea-going attributes. Why not an inexpensive mass-produced boat that's primarily built for strength, with amenities that are purely optional? John Harries is cooking one up that he sounds confident can be produced to sell at $200,000. I wonder if he's planning to use a grid liner? You know, one "exactly" like the ones the mass-produced boats use.

Between the recession and the sales success of the various brands of mass-produced boats, I suppose the higher end mfgs. are under a lot of financial pressure to also go with what sells at the boat shows. I'm sure they recognize the realities of how the vast majority of boats are used (i.e. not used), and are starting to go with what looks more "comfortable" and "convenient" at the dock. It's kinda troubling, but I'm more of a "form follows function" sorta guy I suppose. It's kind of like seeing a politician you don't approve of get elected to office. Do you blame the politician or all the people who voted for him/her?

Hmmm . . . I wonder if Smack owned a Trintella he would be lining up a bunch of reasons why those multi-level decks and no toerail were "perfectly fine for offshore cruising."


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> Sailnet rendezvous 2020 in the Maldives? Sounds good to me!
> 
> MedSailor


The Maldives??? You guys may have to re-think this thing...



> *Alcohol in the Maldives *
> 
> Bringing alcohol in to the Maldives is strictly forbidden. The Maldives are Muslim islands and this is why alcohol is forbidden. All bags are scanned as you depart the alcohol in the Maldivesairport and any alcohol found is confiscated. This includes any duty free you have purchased whilst in the airport or on the Plane. You will usually get your alcohol back when you leave the Maldives, but technically you are smuggling and they have the right to put you in jail. However, nearly all resort islands and live aboard boats are licensed to serve alcohol in the Maldives, often with a steep mark up.
> 
> There used to be an expatriate alcohol permit that allow expats living in the Maldives to buy alcohol for their own use, but this is no longer in existence. The only exception, where people can drink alcohol is at the Hulhule Island Hotel, known locally as HIH or the airport hotel. Tourists are very much insulated from everyday Maldives life, where alcohol is banned and skimpy beachwear very much frowned upon. This is because they are taken straight to the resort from the airport and are immediately able to start drinking alcohol in the Maldives. They will then spend the rest of the week relaxing in blissful ignorance of the country around them. It has been this way for many years, the result of a deliberate policy of keeping the wealthy holidaymakers, most of them Westerners and many newlyweds, on uninhabited islands keeping them separated from the local Muslim population. To completely ban alcohol in the Maldives would be a disaster for the tourist industry, which along with fishing, is the main source of income for the Maldives.


Might I suggest a BYOB gathering in the Chagos Archipelago, instead?

;-))


----------



## ianjoub

JonEisberg said:


> The Maldives??? You guys may have to re-think this thing...
> 
> Might I suggest a BYOB gathering in the Chagos Archipelago, instead?
> 
> ;-))


Whatever, wherever .... let's just meet up and drink!


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> The Maldives??? You guys may have to re-think this thing...
> 
> Might I suggest a BYOB gathering in the Chagos Archipelago, instead?
> 
> ;-))


No, they will get stuck in Thailand, swilling duty free Langkawi spirits.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> You forgot to mention that, as Jon noted, after this storm the owners decided to abandon their planned circumnavigation, put their Hunter up for sale, and replaced her with a barge on the canals of Europe.


What has that got to do with anything?

And in any case, did you read what Michael himself said about why they made the choice? He made it very clear.

This is the problem I have with Jon making these kinds of implications on the forums. It insinuates that Michael is being dishonest with the reasons he put down in his blog. I don't think that's cool. Unless Jon has specific evidence that shows Michael is not being truthful - he really should retract his implications.

Your post illustrates why.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> W.


Screw all this fluff, where is that list of bluewater boats ... I want to know about the Bavarias.


----------



## aeventyr60

ianjoub said:


> Screw all this fluff, where is that list of bluewater boats ... I want to know about the Bavarias.


There is a Bavaria 39 sitting in the anchorage that was dis masted two weeks ago, maybe you could get that deal your looking for?


----------



## outbound

Aw phuket.


----------



## hellsop

ianjoub said:


> I asked about these because they are priced well under most others for age/size....


Hah! I figured you were suggesting that they sailed that slowly....


----------



## aeventyr60

ianjoub said:


> I asked about these because they are priced well under most others for age/size....


That was the reason why the guy bought the Bavaria here...

The new mast, boom, rigging, roller furling and sails from Rolley Tasker will be 32,000.00 USD.

The bargain he thought he was getting doesn't seem so good now.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, I suppose I should just quit citing DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS as a good reference/starting point for all those newbs out there looking for advice on which 40-50 foot Bluewater Boat they should select as their first boat ;-) Wouldn't want to put the thought in anyone's head that the occupants of the cockpit on this Hunter 50CC, for example, would be anything less than 1000% safe and secure in the event of a knockdown...
> 
> Uh-oh, looks like the opening portlight situation on that Oyster 475 is even worse than first thought... They've even placed them well forward in the hull, at a point that will definitely be submerged snd subject to some pressure, as well... Oh, well - I suppose if Oyster is doing it, it's all good...


Well, you're never going to find ANY boat that is "1000% safe and secure in the event of a knockdown". So we should probably go ahead and lower that bar right now.

I have no problem with you, or anyone, citing desirable/undesirable characteristics of a yacht. Do it all day long. I just think it's important, especially in a thread about the pros/cons of production boats, to evaluate those characteristics (especially when undesirable) as seen on _multiple brands/types_ - not just one brand/type.

If your Hunter portlight comment was left to stand as it was, the general consensus quickly becomes (you can see it in the thread above) that only "cheap production boats" like Hunters would do something "unseaworthy" like this - and that it is especially bad because those are "cheap plastic portlights" that these cut-rate boats use - etc. Though none of that was really true, it snowballs pretty quickly.

Oyster, for better or worse, is a very highly regarded "blue water boat" that people hold up as _much more seaworthy_ than a Hunter. And they've exactly done the same thing with the same "undesirable characteristic". So it's a valid comparison.

And this leads us to your next point...



JonEisberg said:


> Smack, you really have to try to move away from your belief that just because a design feature or characteristic appears on a high-end boat, that alone necessarily makes it acceptable, or desirable... With most of today's boats being designed around their accommodations below, even on very high quality boats, that can lead to some very unfortunate consequences...


As I explained above, the issue is/was not my "belief that just because a design feature or characteristic appears on a high-end boat, that alone necessarily makes it acceptable, or desirable". It was that people can assume your critique is indicative of _the problems with "cheap production boats"_. That's clear by the posts in this thread that follow yours. Granted, yours was just a comment about the photo that was in the thread - so I certainly don't think you were just targeting Hunters. But you can see how quickly it can take on a life of its own.

I DON'T believe that just because it's in a high-end yacht, it's awesome. NOR do I believe that just because it's in a production boat, it sucks. But some people think that way. So I try to look for and show both sides of the coin.

As for this particular portlight issue - I just don't think it's as big a deal (from a safety perspective) as you seem to. I trust the design and engineering. And I absolutely do take comfort in seeing the same feature on an Oyster that is on the Hunter. It tells me that it can't be all bad....and that it's not a cut-rate cost issue, or blatant compromise of seaworthiness.

That said, I understand _you _think this portlight design is a bad feature - regardless of the make of boat. And I respect that. There are plenty of boats out there that don't have this feature - so you'll easily be able to find what you want.



JonEisberg said:


> The Trintella 50 I used to run is a classic example. A magnificent boat in virtually all respects, built to an exceedingly high standard... And yet, that boat has some of the dumbest, most aggravating features I've ever had to deal with... Due to the aft cabin configuration, the steering cockpit was one of the most awkward setups I've ever sailed offshore... For instance, within 5-6 feet of that helm, there are _SEVEN _ levels of decking that might be walked upon... I was still tripping or stepping off that stupid little hump in the center even after _YEARS_ of sailing the damn thing... ;-)
> 
> If you look closely at the top left of that shot, you will see that there is _NO TOERAIL WHATSOEVER_ at the edge of that deck, they were going for the Mini-Wally look, I suppose... The only toerail on that boat was on the foredeck, everything aft was flush to the edge... Thanks to that little 'feature', the closest I've ever come to slipping overboard occurred on that boat...


Yeah - this is a _great example_ of what this thread SHOULD be about: Comparing good and bad features between production boats AND "high end boats". Too often it just becomes focused on hammering the "deficiencies" of the "low-end production boats". Seeing similar "deficiencies" on an Oyster or a Trintella puts things in a much better perspective. It then becomes about the features and the boat - not the brand or type of boat.

That's what I'm trying to do here.



JonEisberg said:


> I'm sorry, but for me, it's the lack of accounting for stuff like this that makes your absurdly broad assertions that any production boat built to Category A standard are "fine" for offshore simply laughable, and essentially meaningless...


Dude, you are DEFINITELY one of the _pickiest _boat critics I have _ever_ seen on any of the forums. I'm sure this is because you've got so many miles under your keel and have "seen it all". You have your way of viewing everything. And you've certainly earned it.

But, there are also other viewpoints out there...from Oyster, from Hunter, from Trintella, from CE, whomever...that have a great deal of experience as well. So it's good to hear all sides.

Oh, and the CE Category A standard is not my assertion. It's the industry's. Sure, it's pretty broad - but it says that these boats are intended for offshore use. You might laugh at that - but it is what it is.

As I said, it's good to hear all sides.

(PS - Remember, you still use a sextant. 'Nuff said.)


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Thank you Jon. You said it well,from the voice of experience. It's all those little details that makes or breaks a boat offshore. Don't care if it's an oyster, Wally or Hunter. Just seems fewer boats are being made with those details in mind. Some are fairly radical like Chris Whites new cat or the boreals with aft daggerboards for running. Some incorporate the best features of recent years like my beloved outbound. Some move the tried and true a few steps further like recent HRs. But they are purpose built and it shows.
> To me an example of market forces taking a very desirable offshore boat in a new direction is the most recent Amel.alwYs thought they were strange but you could never deny they worked. Now they seem just strange. I guess time will tell.
> Btw smack 15-22k today, beautiful sun and in the low 80s in the islands. Stop being a boss, playing on the Internet and move that Hunter down here. Interesting Mac is my fave as well but the bottle is getting 1/2 empty as I type. Better hurry.


I'm retiring as fast as I can.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> I'm sailing whatever 5 year old 50'+ sailboat I can buy for 1/2 of the asking price


Definitely a Hunter then. Heh-heh.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> Definitely a Hunter then. Heh-heh.


I still want a link to that lit of yours, to see where that Bavaria falls.


----------



## bljones

ianjoub said:


> I still want a link to that lit of yours, to see where that Bavaria falls.


Start here, post #6: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...fshore-cruising-boat-list-january-2008-a.html

and then go here... Full List of Sailboats

No Bavarias. Bavarias are a vanilla boat- average perforamnce, average seakeeping, average build quality, average accomodations, they are largely just.... average.

Buy the best boat you can get for 80% of your budget, not the most boat you can get for 100% of your budget.

I'd rather have a 30 year old corbin 39 than a 15 year old Bavaria 38 for the same money. I know which one is going to do what i want it to do, and which one will hold it's value better.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> I still want a link to that lit of yours, to see where that Bavaria falls.


I think we tried to start a list very early on in this thread - but no one could agree on it. So, I've just taken the liberty to narrow it down to the:

BeneJeneHunterBavaLina

I'd actually never even heard of Bavarias until a year or two ago. I think I found out about them from one of Paulo's posts.

So, I don't know how they rate compared to the other leading brands. But if you check out the wildly popular thread I started on this subject over at CF before I was mod-jumped, you'll see Paulo is posting LOTS of examples of people taking Bavarias all over the world:

Production Boats Fit For Blue Water - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## ianjoub

Thanks Smack, but I was moderated on CF and chose to not return.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> Thanks Smack, but I was moderated on CF and chose to not return.


Heh-heh. Welcome to the club brother!

We'll cry in our Macallan together in the Maldives. You in your cheap-ass Bavaria and me and my deathtrap Hunter.

Here is a great comparison video that Paulo posted that shows the Bavaria up against a couple of other boats:






Then you've also got this:



> Originally Posted by Polux View Post
> And changing subject a hot new: For the first time Bavaria won the title of best mass production of the year (family boat) on the European contest with the Cruiser 46 but more important than to have won is why it has won. The comments are from the jury composed by test sailors from many of the best European sailing magazines:
> 
> "In a highly competitive class Cruiser 46 won in the end because it is among the many strong candidates the boat with the highest solidity and robustness. She sails very well balanced with lots of space and many different layouts. Like all Bavaria's it offers excellent value for money - and raised respect in what refers workmanship and equipment standards."







(Credit to PCP for this info.)


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. Welcome to the club brother!
> 
> We'll cry in our Macallan together in the Maldives. You in your cheap-ass Bavaria and me and my deathtrap Hunter.


Or both of you in an alcohol-free jail that I'm sure is much more secure than either of your boats or mine!


----------



## ianjoub

Nothing set in stone for me boat wise except preying on someone down on their luck and taking advantage of their desperation.... I can pay $250k or pay less and retrofit...


----------



## ianjoub

Exile1 said:


> Or both of you in an alcohol-free jail that I'm sure is much more secure than either of your boats or mine!


Alcohol will be the least of their worries. They will be far more concerned with the lead headed their way at 2650 ft/sec...


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> What has that got to do with anything?
> 
> And in any case, did you read what Michael himself said about why they made the choice? He made it very clear.
> 
> This is the problem I have with Jon making these kinds of implications on the forums. It insinuates that Michael is being dishonest with the reasons he put down in his blog. I don't think that's cool. Unless Jon has specific evidence that shows Michael is not being truthful - he really should retract his implications.
> 
> Your post illustrates why.


I could do without your condescension.

Your post implies that I am some kind of Jon Eisberg groupie and not capable of drawing my own conclusions. I mentioned Jon because I wanted to give him credit for posting this observation

I just stated the facts. Which are:

1) Michael and Edi had always stated on their blog that they were out for a "slow and thorough circumnavigation." I suppose you did read the original blogs. Now, they have retro-actively changed this to "a slow, thorough exploration of the globe."

2) They abandoned the circumnavigation some time after experiencing a bad storm close to the Falklands. After some varigation, visit in Uruguay etc they decided to put up the Hunter for sale in Florida and give up on a circumnavigation on that boat. They bought a canal boat in Europe instead (and Michael just published another book on that adventure).

In the original blog, they said they did not feel comfortable crossing an ocean in their Hunter. The reasons they stated in the blog had to do with the dealer-installed systems on the boat which, they said, they did not want to have fixed in the Falklands. Michael is an experienced mariner. Whether you want to believe that it was just the problems with the electronics (radio/AIS, radar etc) that made him abandon the circumnavigation and, in fact, the whole boat, is up to you.

These are the facts. You can make of them what you want. You can accuse Jon (or me) of accusing Michael of whatever you want or imagine. But you should allow others to draw their own conclusions from these facts.


----------



## Exile1

ianjoub said:


> Alcohol will be the least of their worries. They will be far more concerned with the lead headed their way at 2650 ft/sec...


For their sake, let's hope it's not encapsulated lead for cryin' out loud. That stuff's supposed to be bombproof. If it's the cheap-ass bolt-on type -- you know, like what Oyster uses -- then the bullets might just fall off before hitting their targets.


----------



## bljones

ianjoub said:


> Nothing set in stone for me boat wise except preying on someone down on their luck and taking advantage of their desperation..


I love it when greenhorns think like this.... Its always entertaining in a schadenfreude sorta way, because it almost always ends up with somebody in over his head because he thinks he has figured out how to beat the house. Getting into old boats is like going to a casino- take a look around- if you can't spot the sucker... it's you.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I could do without your condescension.
> 
> Your post implies that I am some kind of Jon Eisberg groupie and not capable of drawing my own conclusions. I mentioned Jon because I wanted to give him credit for posting this observation
> 
> I just stated the facts. Which are:
> 
> 1) Michael and Edi had always stated on their blog that they were out for a "slow and thorough circumnavigation." I suppose you did read the original blogs. Now, they have retro-actively changed this to "a slow, thorough exploration of the globe."
> 
> 2) They abandoned the circumnavigation some time after experiencing a bad storm close to the Falklands. After some varigation, visit in Uruguay etc they decided to put up the Hunter for sale in Florida and give up on a circumnavigation on that boat. They bought a canal boat in Europe instead (and Michael just published another book on that adventure).
> 
> In the original blog, they said they did not feel comfortable crossing an ocean in their Hunter. The reasons they stated in the blog had to do with the dealer-installed systems on the boat which, they said, they did not want to have fixed in the Falklands. Michael is an experienced mariner. Whether you want to believe that it was just the problems with the electronics (radio/AIS, radar etc) that made him abandon the circumnavigation and, in fact, the whole boat, is up to you.
> 
> These are the facts. You can make of them what you want. You can accuse Jon (or me) of accusing Michael of whatever you want or imagine. But you should allow others to draw their own conclusions from these facts.


I simply choose to believe what _Michael said_. It's that simple.

He had, specifically, very high praise for the Hunter. He was fed up with the screwed-up systems and shoddy workmanship of the Specialty Yachts yard guys that commissioned and outfitted the boat for him. Most importantly, he and Edi were tired (which I think is perfectly understandable).

But he can speak for himself - *it's all on his blog*:



> 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.
> 
> In the afternoon we took long hot showers and then, for the first time in well over a year, we allowed the sun and warm breeze in the cockpit to dry us. We had left the Roaring Forties.
> 
> *At 1014 we secured alongside the south float at Saint Augustine Marine. We had come 9375 miles from Puerto Montt, Chile in a little under six months with 47 ports and 111 days at sea. Sequitur, our Hunter 49 had safely and comfortably brought us through one Force 12 storm, three Force 11s and several Force 10s and 9s. We had bucked adverse winds, currents and bureaucracies. We were tired.*
> 
> On Monday the 4th of June we had secured alongside a float at Saint Augustine Marine Center on the northeast coast of Florida, USA. We had come 9375 miles from Puerto Montt, Chile through Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego and around Cape Horn in a little under six months. In the three years since we left Vancouver on our shakedown cruise, we had made 20,044 miles. Both we and Sequitur were in need of a refit.
> 
> This month marks six years since I ordered Sequitur, and five years since I took possession. For the past four years Edi and I have enjoyed many superb adventures in Sequitur as she safely and confidently took us in grand comfort and style to some very remote and wild corners of the planet. I turn 68 this summer and Edi's first old age security deposit has just arrived in her bank account. We are ready for some more sedate and gentle boating. As a part of our change in direction, we have listed Sequitur for sale with Hunt at SouthEast Sailing & Yachts.
> 
> We caught a flight to Montreal and connected to Vancouver, where we arrived in the early evening, tired, beat-up and thoroughly drained emotionally from having left our dear Sequitur behind.
> 
> We had arrived back in Vancouver on Thursday evening, the 5th of July emotionally drained and grieving from having left Sequitur behind in St Augustine, Florida. She had for the past four years taken Edi and me safely, confidently and in grand comfort and style to some very remote and wild corners of the planet. We were still addicted to boating, and we were suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Realizing that we are approaching our best-before-dates for the type of cruising we had been doing, we have decided to look for a more sedate and gentle style of boating.


Those are the facts.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

According to their blog, all the problems with electronics etc had been fixed by the Hunter factory. They decided to sell the boat anyways. 

Maybe they just had enough. No problem with that. But neither of their stated reasons (that M. turned 68 and that E. received her first social security check) could have come exactly as a surprise. 

If they had felt comfortable in crossing an ocean in that boat, they would have. Something told them that was not a good idea. Michael had A LOT of experience at sea.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> According to their blog, all the problems with electronics etc had been fixed by the Hunter factory. They decided to sell the boat anyways.
> 
> Maybe they just had enough. No problem with that. But neither of their stated reasons (that M. turned 68 and that E. received her first social security check) could have come exactly as a surprise.
> 
> If they had felt comfortable in crossing an ocean in that boat, they would have. Something told them that was not a good idea. Michael had A LOT of experience at sea.


Again, depending on what you mean by your post, you are potentially putting words in Micheal's mouth regarding the boat. If you actually think that after 20K+ miles and the fact that "Sequitur, our Hunter 49 had safely and comfortably brought us through one Force 12 storm, three Force 11s and several Force 10s and 9s." he was questioning whether the Hunter 49 was up for "crossing an ocean", as you put it, you have a great imagination.

Again, you guys are welcome to insert whatever you want into his narrative to try to fit it to your own. I'll just choose to believe him.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

We just know precious little about the reasons why they decided to abandon the circumnavigation and get rid of the Hunter, when an ocean crossing would have been required next. If you believe that after planning a circumnavigation for decades (reading his early blogs), Michael woke up one morning and said to himself 'oops, I just turned 68 today, time to sell the boat,' you are not taking him very seriously. 

Excuse me for believing that he had better reasons than that.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> We just know precious little about the reasons why they decided to abandon the circumnavigation and get rid of the Hunter, when an ocean crossing would have been required next. If you believe that after planning a circumnavigation for decades (reading his early blogs), Michael woke up one morning and said to himself 'oops, I just turned 68 today, time to sell the boat,' you are not taking him very seriously.
> 
> Excuse me for believing that he had better reasons than that.


How about the reasons he listed?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> How about the reasons he listed?


Yes, excellent idea. You actually cited the reasons he listed in your post #1468:

"This month marks six years since I ordered Sequitur, and five years since I took possession. For the past four years Edi and I have enjoyed many superb adventures in Sequitur as she safely and confidently took us in grand comfort and style to some very remote and wild corners of the planet. I turn 68 this summer and Edi's first old age security deposit has just arrived in her bank account. We are ready for some more sedate and gentle boating. As a part of our change in direction, we have listed Sequitur for sale with Hunt at SouthEast Sailing & Yachts."

(In Pt Stanley, they stated they were not comfortable with the Hunter crossing an ocean because they did not trust its electronics. All these problems had been resolved by the Hunter factory, according to their blog, so they were not part of their decision to put the boat up for sale)

If you believe that the circumstances listed above were not known to Michael and Edi before the storm, when they were on course to crossing the Atlantic, you insult their intelligence as well as ours.


----------



## SVAuspicious

If you were selling a boat would you dump on it?


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Yes, excellent idea. You actually cited the reasons he listed in your post #1468:
> 
> "This month marks six years since I ordered Sequitur, and five years since I took possession. For the past four years Edi and I have enjoyed many superb adventures in Sequitur as she safely and confidently took us in grand comfort and style to some very remote and wild corners of the planet. I turn 68 this summer and Edi's first old age security deposit has just arrived in her bank account. We are ready for some more sedate and gentle boating. As a part of our change in direction, we have listed Sequitur for sale with Hunt at SouthEast Sailing & Yachts."
> 
> (In Pt Stanley, they stated they were not comfortable with the Hunter crossing an ocean because they did not trust its electronics. All these problems had been resolved by the Hunter factory, according to their blog, so they were not part of their decision to put the boat up for sale)
> 
> If you believe that the circumstances listed above were not known to Michael and Edi before the storm, when they were on course to crossing the Atlantic, you insult their intelligence as well as ours.


I'm not insulting Michael's intelligence at all. More importantly, _neither am I insinuating that he is being dishonest_ - as are you, Jon and now Ausp. This I find really strange and can only assume it's because it's a Hunter and you guys can't accept that it did what it did as well as Michael said it did it.

Beyond the issue of the deteriorating electronics, Micheal said they were cold, they were tired, they were getting a bit old for the serious rigors of expeditioning, and they were ready for something more sedate than rounding another Cape.

Now, had they turned around and bought an Oyster or a HR and hung out in the Carib or Med - it would be a different conversation. But that didn't happen.

So, what's so hard to understand? It's right there. It really doesn't take that much intelligence.


----------



## ianjoub

bljones said:


> I love it when greenhorns think like this.... Its always entertaining in a schadenfreude sorta way, because it almost always ends up with somebody in over his head because he thinks he has figured out how to beat the house. Getting into old boats is like going to a casino- take a look around- if you can't spot the sucker... it's you.


It is laughable that you think I am a greenhorn. as far as your insult, stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

As far as old boats, we will be getting into something in the 5 year old range.


----------



## MedSailor

I find Michael's comments to be somewhat conflicting when trying to figure out his motives for selling Sequitur. On one hand, he says Sequitur (a Hunter) took them safely and comfortably to where they are. On the other hand, he says they are now tired and ready to give up boating. I find this example a very interesting case study. 

I can think of 2 main motives for buying an Erick Hiscock type traditional "bluewater boat". 1. Safety at sea in extreme conditions. 2. Comfort at sea in moderate and extreme conditions. 

The arguments for the production boats are 1. Cheaper (read: attainable for many) 2. Comfort at anchor and in costal/inland conditions. 

I've always favored the comfort at anchor over a Hiscock-type tomb with few creature comforts, but I fear what I appear to see over and over, which is that people give up cruising when the going gets tough. Perhaps if they were on a Pardey or Hiscock boat when things got rough, they wouldn't be so tired as to give up boating all together. 


The facts are that the Hunter 50 survived major storms in one of the worst spots on Earth with little/no damage to the boat or crew. The couple also gave up their planned circumnavigation shortly after this event. It's not clear that there is a causal relationship here to their choice of boat, but there may be.

We're all trying to read Michael's mind through his posts. I don't think it's unfairly accusatory to assume there is some editing on his part of what he chooses to publicly share. All blogs, even the "honest ones" editorialize. There is also the very likely scenario of changing the personal narrative on his part. We all do it, and it helps us justify our decisions to ourselves, especially the hard ones. 

Would they have not been so tired, and felt too old (all of a sudden) to continue if they had weathered their storms on a boat built comfort during the extremes in mind? Or would the Southern Ocean have talked them out of cruising even if they were on a SwOysterMel? We'll never know....

MedSailor


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> This is the problem I have with Jon making these kinds of implications on the forums. It insinuates that Michael is being dishonest with the reasons he put down in his blog. I don't think that's cool. Unless Jon has specific evidence that shows Michael is not being truthful - he really should retract his implications.


Well, I'm not sure what I said exactly that needs to be retracted, but I have little doubt you'll be able to produce it at a moment's notice... ;-)

Best I can figure is, probably a smart-aleck remark hinting that IF indeed Michael had any doubts about the suitability of that boat that contributed to their abrupt cancellation of their plan to circumnavigate, he MIGHT have left certain concerns unsaid, considering the fact that the boat was gonna be put up for sale...

Not intended as an "accusation" or an indictment against Michael, but simply an observation about how things appear to work in The Real World... Glowing praise often seems to accompany efforts to sell an expensive item...

Take a look at Gunboat's marketing, for instance ;-) Would I be insinuating that Peter Johnstone is guilty of "dishonesty", by merely suggesting that the CG rescue video is unlikely to be posted front and center on Gunboat's website, or a pic of the dismasted/damaged RAINMAKER being brought back to Wanchese under tow by a fishing trawler probably won't featured in a future double-page ad in the glossy sailing rags?

Shame on Mr. Johnstone, for not featuring _The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth_ in Gunboat's marketing, right?...

;-))


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> I'm not insulting Michael's intelligence at all. More importantly, _neither am I insinuating that he is being dishonest_ - as are you, Jon and now Ausp. This I find really strange and can only assume it's because it's a Hunter and you guys can't accept that it did what it did as well as Michael said it did it.


Sure, it's all the fault of the well-known international anti-Hunter conspiracy.



smackdaddy said:


> Beyond the issue of the deteriorating electronics, Micheal said they were cold, they were tired, they were getting a bit old for the serious rigors of expeditioning, and they were ready for something more sedate than rounding another Cape.


The electronics had been fixed and the comment about being cold was in the Falklands, not in Florida. All that is left is that M. was turning 68 that summer and that E. received a social security check. None of this was an issue before the storm.

See, I am just going by their blog.



smackdaddy said:


> Now, had they turned around and bought an Oyster or a HR and hung out in the Carib or Med - it would be a different conversation. But that didn't happen.


Many things didn't happen. What *did* happen is that before the storm they did not even question that they would continue across the Atlantic. After the storm, they sold the boat.



smackdaddy said:


> So, what's so hard to understand? It's right there. It really doesn't take that much intelligence.


Getting into condescension mode again?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> Best I can figure is, probably a smart-aleck remark hinting that IF indeed Michael had any doubts about the suitability of that boat that contributed to their abrupt cancellation of their plan to circumnavigate, he MIGHT have left certain concerns unsaid, considering the fact that the boat was gonna be put up for sale...
> 
> Not intended as an "accusation" or an indictment against Michael, but simply an observation about how things appear to work in The Real World... Glowing praise often seems to accompany efforts to sell an expensive item...


Precisely.

Note to Smack: It's a _blog_ (written when they had decided that they were going to sell the boat), not a court deposition.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> I find Michael's comments to be somewhat conflicting when trying to figure out his motives for selling Sequitur. On one hand, he says Sequitur (a Hunter) took them safely and comfortably to where they are. On the other hand, he says they are now tired and ready to give up boating. I find this example a very interesting case study.
> 
> I can think of 2 main motives for buying an Erick Hiscock type traditional "bluewater boat". 1. Safety at sea in extreme conditions. 2. Comfort at sea in moderate and extreme conditions.
> 
> The arguments for the production boats are 1. Cheaper (read: attainable for many) 2. Comfort at anchor and in costal/inland conditions.
> 
> I've always favored the comfort at anchor over a Hiscock-type tomb with few creature comforts, but I fear what I appear to see over and over, which is that people give up cruising when the going gets tough. Perhaps if they were on a Pardey or Hiscock boat when things got rough, they wouldn't be so tired as to give up boating all together.
> 
> The facts are that the Hunter 50 survived major storms in one of the worst spots on Earth with little/no damage to the boat or crew. The couple also gave up their planned circumnavigation shortly after this event. It's not clear that there is a causal relationship here to their choice of boat, but there may be.
> 
> We're all trying to read Michael's mind through his posts. I don't think it's unfairly accusatory to assume there is some editing on his part of what he chooses to publicly share. All blogs, even the "honest ones" editorialize. There is also the very likely scenario of changing the personal narrative on his part. We all do it, and it helps us justify our decisions to ourselves, especially the hard ones.
> 
> Would they have not been so tired, and felt too old (all of a sudden) to continue if they had weathered their storms on a boat built comfort during the extremes in mind? Or would the Southern Ocean have talked them out of cruising even if they were on a SwOysterMel? We'll never know....
> 
> MedSailor


I think this is a reasonable post. But I think you have to look at the broader context of his blog.

If Hiscock-type "comfort/security" at sea was an issue with the boat itself, you'd see that throughout the blog. You don't. In fact, you continually see the opposite. This is why I think people blaming the Hunter is seriously reaching.

That brings up the 2nd point. Anyone who has been off-shore for several days or weeks knows it can be very exhausting. Just the work of 24-hour watches wears you down.

Add to this the kind of anchoring they were doing down there, the fact that Michael was doing most of the work of sailing, the cold, the damp, the grey - and all of this over years...and why is it surprising to _anyone_ that they got tired?

And then the next step was the freakin' Cape of Good Hope? Remember, these guys were not "cruising" - they were "expeditioning". It's different.

That's my point about all this. You have to overlook a lot of perfectly reasonable explanations that he's given to arrive at some hidden agenda to "hide a problematic Hunter" (exactly the opposite of what he actually said). Why is that necessary?

Mastund said it's an insult to Micheal's intelligence to accept what Micheal has written at face value because of his maritime experience. I think it's an insult to his intelligence and integrity to imply that:

1. He's being dishonest about the boat.

2. With his experience and all the research he did before buying the Hunter - that he was a sucker and chose the wrong boat...then stuck with it _for so many years_ when it was obviously uncomfortable and unsafe.

So - I guess these guys can keep trying to put their own words in between Micheal's. I don't feel the need to.

In any case, they didn't give up boats. They couldn't. They said they wanted boating that was more sedate. And that's what they've done. I find that perfectly understandable.


----------



## JonEisberg

Uh-oh, sounds like someone is getting tired of fixing stuff on a "typical modern production boat", and spending more $ than they'd figured on maintaining her... Should have gone for the 'Bluewater' chain on the sink drain stopper, I suppose... ;-) So, is this a case of a boat getting close to Smack's point of becoming "disposable"?

;-)

Posted over on CF, the boat is a Beneteau 473:



> I'm not really sure exactly what I am asking. We spent nearly 6 months outfitting, working our butts off to make Smart Move a cruising boat. We spent one full season cruising and are now into our second.
> 
> Our family finally figured out we were really serious about this after the first year. I don't know, I guess they thought we would get tired of the lifestyle quickly. When we didn't, by their standards, now some of them have gotten 'needy' (for lack of a better term) and want us to move back to land -- there is a lot of guilt being sent our way.
> 
> *This year, after working so hard on the boat and replacing everything that was at or nearly at the end of its life so we wouldn't have to worry about them, all of the things we are fixing/repairing/replacing is a bit demoralizing.* Please don't tell me that is boat life, I know it and expected it, it is mostly the things we couldn't do ourselves that we had to rely on others for that has had problems.
> 
> The other day the chain broke off the plug for the kitchen sink and it was nearly my undoing. I was so ready to sit down and just have a good cry, but I didn't I got my pliers I use for making jewelry and fixed it as best I could.
> 
> I can honestly say I love the life, the freedom, the boat, our cruising friends, everything -- but I seem a little off this year and sometimes I wonder why it has to be so hard. Now I'm whining, sorry. But has anyone else experienced anything like this? Maybe it is just the guilt from the kids, but money plays into it too. *I really didn't expect to be spending much money on the boat this year after putting so much into it over the last 1-1/2 years.*
> 
> Is There Such A Thing As The 'Sophomore Blues' In Cruising? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Uh-oh, sounds like someone is getting tired of fixing stuff on a "typical modern production boat", and spending more $ than they'd figured on maintaining her... Should have gone for the 'Bluewater' chain on the sink drain stopper, I suppose... ;-) So, is this a case of a boat getting close to Smack's point of becoming "disposable"?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Posted over on CF, the boat is a Beneteau 473:


I honestly think this "disposable" thing is an issue. I have absolutely no data on it - and am completely guessing...but it essentially HAS to be true. The question is - what is the timeframe? And what are our expectations that that timeframe should be?

It's an interesting issue. It would be nice to have some info on it.


----------



## Exile1

I've only read the excerpts from their blog posted above, but I gather this couple chose a Hunter because, as an experienced mariner, Michael decided he understandably wanted to start a multi-year circumnavigation on a new boat in an effort to mitigate problems & failures, and a Hunter was the most affordable new boat option for him based on whatever his criteria was. After 5 years & 24,000 miles, any boat would obviously have problems, but it's disappointing to read that they were mostly attributed to the yard (by Michael) where presumably Hunter authorized its boat to be commissioned. Btw, isn't the mfg. responsible for the final installation of components, whether it's radars, windlasses, or keels? Never bought a new boat so just asking.

Once again, I'm continually amazed how Smack & others can love their particular boat brand so dearly but at the same time get so defensive whenever _somebody else_ renders any sort of negative opinion. Are they stockholders, employees, principals, or getting sponsorship bucks or benefits to tout the brand?? Maybe trying to offset a big depreciation hit when it's time to sell?? It's not just Hunter specifically or boats in general, of course. I see this all the time with the Ford v. Chevy guys, Mercedes vs. BMW, Yamaha vs. Kawasaki, Timex vs. Rolex. There's apparently some deep-seated need to identify with certain brands. I can certainly appreciate loyalty if a particular brand has provided good performance/value, etc., but I don't get the rest of it. My theory all along is that it's some sort of insecurity, but I don't want to get accused of psychoanalysis. I'm sure Smack will tell us he just wants to do a public service to all those uninformed potential newbs who may be unduly influenced by this thread. Personally, I have more faith in the intelligence & common sense of the newbs.

It does make me wonder, however, if we'd get the same reaction if Michael & Idi set off on a Trintella but then abandoned their plans because they were tired of almost slipping off the decks due to the absence of a toerail. Or maybe if they had bought one of those new Oysters but couldn't get adequate sleep because they couldn't make the truncated settee into a comfortable sea berth. Or God forbid they were concerned about an in-hull, opening port up at the bow! If I bought one of these boats because I thought such features were "cool" at the boat show or at the dock, but then found out after 24,000 sea miles they amounted to significant drawbacks, I'm not sure I would necessarily highlight these issues either when it came time to sell. But now we're back to my thinking more highly about the intelligence & common-sense of potential boat buyers.

For this particular couple, maybe it was just more about what I've been saying from the beginning of many of these similarly-themed threads, namely it's not about whether certain boats _CAN_ make extended voyages like these, but whether you _WANT TO_ given the many alternatives? It might be hard for Smack to believe, but mass-produced production boats, along with every other kind of floating device, have been used to cross oceans long before he started these threads. So if one of those yet-to-be-identified curmudgeons on the dock says "that [insert name of mass-produced boat] is a Clorox bleach bottle & doesn't belong offshore," it's pretty easy to interpret that as someone expressing an unfavorable _opinion_ about its seaworthiness or maybe seakindliness -- well-founded or not -- as opposed to somebody who hasn't yet gotten the news that such boats have and do in fact actually sail offshore & beyond. One might conclude the guy's full of crap, but hard to imagine getting personally offended.

Should I say "it's just that simple," "what's hard to understand," or "there's nothing more to argue about?" No, that could be provocative or maybe even condescending, and I like to try and be friendly towards my fellow sailors. Wait, I know, how about just letting readers decide for themselves?


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I honestly think this "disposable" thing is an issue. I have absolutely no data on it - and am completely guessing...but it essentially HAS to be true. The question is - what is the timeframe? And what are our expectations that that timeframe should be?
> 
> It's an interesting issue. It would be nice to have some info on it.


Well, the stereotype as you probably know is 4-5 years, i.e. the avg. length of time the charter cos. use them before putting them up for sale. I don't think it's that simple. I do think the frequent model changes contribute to the depreciation, and that is done deliberately to encourage buyers to trade in. As for mechanical issues, that's hard to say given how differently the boats can be spec'd out, although with so many built for charter service . . . .

It's a good question I'd like to learn more about too.


----------



## Don L

this thread is really just basically a 6 person head banging


----------



## MedSailor

Don0190 said:


> this thread is really just basically a 6 person head banging


7 if we're allowed to include you. 

Seriously, why do you keep trying to be the sheepdog of sailnet? 

If you want everything on topic to your liking all the time, there is a place called CF. Thread drift and our own strange brand of discourse some of what makes this place great. BTW, there's a great sailing related thread on squirrels going on right now. 

MedSailor


----------



## Don L

MedSailor said:


> Thread drift and our own strange brand of discourse some of what makes this place great.


some thread drift on this one would be great

but I think I was wrong - 8


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Uh-oh, sounds like someone is getting tired of fixing stuff on a "typical modern production boat", and spending more $ than they'd figured on maintaining her... Should have gone for the 'Bluewater' chain on the sink drain stopper, I suppose... ;-) So, is this a case of a boat getting close to Smack's point of becoming "disposable"?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Posted over on CF, the boat is a Beneteau 473:


I'm not sure this proves much Jon.

The post you quote could have been just as easily written by me, about my 30 year old solidly built, 'bluewatery' boat.

As I type, my rudder is off the boat being split in half  All boats need necessary maintenance at varying stages. Old boats regardless of lineage require money spent.

It's boat owner syndrome.

Age for age a 'cheaper' built production might cost more money earlier sure, but in the _real _world, the _real _choice people face when purchasing is between a newer production boat and an older 'bluewatery' boat.

In the perfect world, with a perfectly fat wallet sure we would all probably buy the brand new high end boat over the 'production boat'.


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> And then the next step was the freakin' Cape of Good Hope? Remember, these guys were not "cruising" - they were "expeditioning". It's different.


"Expeditioning"? In a 27' Vega you could call it that. And it has been done.
In a 49" Hunter with every convenience including electronics it is cruising.


----------



## ianjoub

On this whole Cape Horn thing: There is an inside passage down there. Would it be safe to assume that is a much less dangerous sail?


----------



## JonEisberg

ianjoub said:


> On this whole Cape of Good Hope thing: There is an inside passage down there. Would it be safe to assume that is a much less dangerous sail?


Seems you might be confusing continents - Africa, with South America... ;-)

i believe the sailing in the 'inside passages' of Patagonia such as the Beagle Channel, and the Strait of Magellan, can be about as challenging and demanding as one can find just about anywhere...


----------



## ianjoub

JonEisberg said:


> Seems you might be confusing continents - Africa, with South America... ;-)


Yes, I am. Cape horn.


----------



## ianjoub

Punta Arenas area ... looks relatively isolated from the open oceans...


----------



## JonEisberg

mitiempo said:


> "Expeditioning"? In a 27' Vega you could call it that. And it has been done.
> In a 49" Hunter with every convenience including electronics it is cruising.


Having seen dozens of photos of what passed for a typical lunch served aboard SEQUITUR, and what seems to typify the modern "Expedition Yacht" these days, I think your point is well taken...

;-)


----------



## aeventyr60

ianjoub said:


> Yes, I am. Cape horn.


You suggested earlier you were not a green horn?


----------



## ianjoub

aeventyr60 said:


> You suggested earlier you were not a green horn?


Yes. Are you suggesting that because I misspoke about a cape name I am?

Why don't you tell us all how many times you sailed around Cape horn.


----------



## aeventyr60

ianjoub said:


> Yes. Are you suggesting that because I misspoke about a cape name I am?
> 
> Why don't you tell us all how many times you sailed around Cape horn.


Well a simple understanding of geography, especially of the great capes might indicate at least a bit knowledge for the average arm chair sailor.

I haven't bought a Hunter yet, so am not equipped to sail around any horns.:laugher


----------



## ianjoub

ianjoub said:


> Why don't you tell us all how many times you sailed around Cape horn.





aeventyr60 said:


> Well a simple understanding of geography, especially of the great capes might indicate at least a bit knowledge for the average arm chair sailor.
> 
> I haven't bought a Hunter yet, so am not equipped to sail around any horns.:laugher


I'll assume by your answer that you meant that you never have sailed around Cape Horn.

I will when I get there. Unless, of course, I can sneak through that inside passage down there


----------



## outbound

Was that a production boat on the hard.

THREAD DRIFT ( as asked for)
So we determined smacks Hunter can sail the ocean blue ( I stay on my boat thank you) but assuming no limitations except boat must function for typical cruising couple ? What boat would you want?

I'd like a professionally made Al boat of 45-55 ft.
I'd like integral tanks creating double bottom and water tight bulkheads for and aft.
I'd like bulbed keel on hydraulics to allow < 5 ft when keel is up and so constructed as to survive a grounding without damage to canoe body.
I'd like aft cockpit with hard dodger and or pilot house 
I'd like Solent rig although Jeff makes a good case for a fractional rig. If boat was 55' add a mizzen to make it yawl.
I'd like a queen forward, a pilot berth in the saloon, a double quarter berth on one side and a work room on the other side aft.
The Bestevers come closest to this vision.
What's yours?


----------



## aeventyr60

The Ovni's come pretty close.

Alubat Chantier Naval Home | Alubat | des bateaux en aluminium à vos mesures


----------



## outbound

Nope
Off my list. Has those damn hull port lights:laugher


----------



## ianjoub

I'd certainly consider one of those.


----------



## aeventyr60

outbound said:


> Nope
> Off my list. Has those damn hull port lights:laugher


They are factory equipped with curtains.


----------



## outbound

Oops so do some of the dystra K+M boats. Look at Anabel. Sweet.


----------



## aeventyr60

outbound said:


> Oops so do some of the dystra K+M boats. Look at Anabel. Sweet.


Where do I buy a lottery ticket?

Bestevaer / KM Yachtbuilders


----------



## hellsop

ianjoub said:


> On this whole Cape Horn thing: There is an inside passage down there. Would it be safe to assume that is a much less dangerous sail?


The weather's a little calmer than taking the Drake Passage south of Tierra Del Fuego, but the currents are horrible; there's a lot of pretty narrow straits that build up 4-5 foot tides on the Pacific end and 20-foot tides on the Atlantic end. It's 300 miles of dodging cruise and container ships, sometimes through passages no more than a mile wide, with rocky shores, and only one real resting point, at Punta Arenas.


----------



## mitiempo

I'd take this one:





45' Waterline.

I met a couple on a sistership just over a year ago. They had just arrived in Victoria from London - through the Northwest Passage. I commented that they had a bit more adventure than the Panama Canal. The reply was that they wouldn't have gone through the Canal, but would have rounded Cape Horn - again - as they love it down there.

This past summer they had their boat repainted in Mexico and returned to Victoria by way of Hawaii and Alaska.

They are a retired couple in their 70's.

Alternatively a Boreal 47 would do nicely.


----------



## JonEisberg

ianjoub said:


> Punta Arenas area ... looks relatively isolated from the open oceans...


"Relative" is, well, _relative_ in that part of the world... I've never seen weather so violently changeable, as what I experienced down there...

Google "katabatic winds", it will give you a sense of why this is the typical means of 'anchoring' in Patagonia...

Photo is Peter Smith's, of Rocna anchor fame:


----------



## Don L

I would also like a Waterline steel boat!!!!

In the meantime I'm going to have to cruise on my Hunter.


----------



## ianjoub

JonEisberg said:


> Google "katabatic winds", it will give you a sense of why this is the typical means of 'anchoring' in Patagonia...


I have done that already. I was watching some sailing videos of Skip Novack down there and the term came up.


----------



## bljones

ianjoub said:


> It is laughable that you think I am a greenhorn. as far as your insult, stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
> 
> As far as old boats, we will be getting into something in the 5 year old range.


 "Insult"? Nah, it was an honest appraisal of how you present yourself. When I insult a mouthbreathing boxerstain, it's far more apparent, since I generally am not real subtle about it.
Although I am no fan of the geriatric, enforced-Stepford-happyland that is CF, i can see their point in pitching you.

Since what you hear apparently hurts your sensitive feelings, feel free to block me.


----------



## chall03

Perfect boat......

Hey I would settle for any boat _with_ a rudder right now....even a Hunter ( ducks).


----------



## smackdaddy

bljones said:


> geriatric, enforced-Stepford-happyland that is CF


Oh that's good.


----------



## ianjoub

bljones said:


> Although I am no fan of the geriatric, enforced-Stepford-happyland that is CF, i can see their point in pitching you.


I wasn't pitched. I chose to not spend my time there.


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> "Relative" is, well, _relative_ in that part of the world... I've never seen weather so violently changeable, as what I experienced down there...
> 
> Google "katabatic winds", it will give you a sense of why this is the typical means of 'anchoring' in Patagonia...
> 
> Photo is Peter Smith's, of Rocna anchor fame:


Your groupies want to know how the breakfast was on that expedition ship?
Just hashtag us on: allIeverwantedtoknowonthegreatcapessailingfantasy


----------



## bljones

ianjoub said:


> I wasn't pitched. I chose to not spend my time there.


So, their gain is our loss. Terrific.


----------



## ianjoub

bljones said:


> So, their gain is our loss. Terrific.


*Edit*

I'll be the bigger man.


----------



## bljones

ianjoub said:


> Wow, you really are a piece of ****. **** you too.


Been told worse by better. 
In 5th grade.


----------



## ianjoub

bljones said:


> Been told worse by better.
> In 5th grade.


*Edit*


----------



## bljones

Sorry, smack, didn't mean to cause your thread to drift. 
Carry on.


----------



## mitiempo

To get back on track here are a few more pics of that Waterline 45





And yes it does have hull ports.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> To get back on track here are a few more pics of that Waterline 45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes it does have hull ports.


And where are all the handholds and sea berths? What the hell??

Heh-heh.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And where are all the handholds and sea berths? What the hell??
> 
> Heh-heh.


I dunno, those look like pretty sweet sea berths, to me... And I'm gonna guess that fiddle on the shelf above those lockers probably makes for a decent handrail...


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> I'm not sure this proves much Jon.
> 
> The post you quote could have been just as easily written by me, about my 30 year old solidly built, 'bluewatery' boat.
> 
> As I type, my rudder is off the boat being split in half  All boats need necessary maintenance at varying stages. Old boats regardless of lineage require money spent.
> 
> It's boat owner syndrome.
> 
> Age for age a 'cheaper' built production might cost more money earlier sure, but in the _real _world, the _real _choice people face when purchasing is between a newer production boat and an older 'bluewatery' boat.
> 
> In the perfect world, with a perfectly fat wallet sure we would all probably buy the brand new high end boat over the 'production boat'.


Sure, I don't disagree at all...

Probably the only thing that post "proves", is the improbability of being able to sustain "voyaging" on $500/month over time...

;-))


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I dunno, those look like pretty sweet sea berths, to me... And I'm gonna guess that fiddle on the shelf above those lockers probably makes for a decent handrail...


Well _I_ agree with you. A lot like my Hunter:










But others certainly don't.


----------



## aeventyr60

Smakky those cushions look a little hard and not well slept in, you'll be bouncing out of em and sleeping on the sole...


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> Smakky those cushions look a little hard and not well slept in, you'll be bouncing out of em and sleeping on the sole...


Ahm - even over the lee cloths?


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Ahm - even over the lee cloths?


Of course, you know all kinds of things happen when you get past the horn:laugher


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Well _I_ agree with you. A lot like my Hunter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But others certainly don't.


Those look pretty good, alright...

The last Hunter I ran was identical to the one below... Decent seaberth to port, but to starboard, not so much... Fetal position only, at least for most average sized adults...

Not sure if that was coordinated somehow, with the inability to open the fridge on port tack, or not... ;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Those look pretty good, alright...
> 
> The last Hunter I ran was identical to the one below... Decent seaberth to port, but to starboard, not so much... Fetal position only, at least for most average sized adults...
> 
> Not sure if that was coordinated somehow, with the inability to open the fridge on port tack, or not... ;-)


Wait - you didn't realize that's a pull-out couch with massage? Dude, those are awesome!

I'm thinking you didn't read the owner's manual before you shoved off.

At least they have a "paper chart" on the bulkhead.


----------



## MedSailor

JonEisberg said:


> Having seen dozens of photos of what passed for a typical lunch served aboard SEQUITUR, and what seems to typify the modern "Expedition Yacht" these days, I think your point is well taken...
> 
> ;-)


John, that CAN'T be an expedition yacht. Look how many portlights it has in the hull!


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Sure, I don't disagree at all...
> 
> Probably the only thing that post "proves", is the improbability of being able to sustain "voyaging" on $500/month over time...
> 
> ;-))


No disagreement there either and I do consider myself a 'cost conscious cruiser'.

I guess it depends on what risks you are willing to take.......

In my case I made the decision to split my rudder in a perfectly good boatyard, rather than allowing the Tasman Sea the opportunity to do it for me while say on a beat to windward in the middle of the night.

No it was not the cheaper of the options.


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> John, that CAN'T be an expedition yacht. Look how many portlights it has in the hull!


Nah, hull windows are no problem in superyachts... ;-)










The sinking of the 199' YOGI in the Aegean was attributed to the flooding that began in the opening "Beach Club" compartment similar to the ones pictured below... Yup, cutting openings in hulls is not entirely without some risk, but no doubt a production fiberglass boatbuilder always gets it right... It's those builders of a $40 million yacht like YOGI who are far more likely to screw it up somehow... 










There's a reason many superyachts choose to cross oceans on Dockwise... Especially, the ones that look like they won top honors from the Wedding Cake School of Naval Architecture... ;-)


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> I'd like a professionally made Al boat of 45-55 ft.
> I'd like integral tanks creating double bottom and water tight bulkheads for and aft.
> I'd like bulbed keel on hydraulics to allow < 5 ft when keel is up and so constructed as to survive a grounding without damage to canoe body.
> I'd like aft cockpit with hard dodger and or pilot house
> I'd like Solent rig although Jeff makes a good case for a fractional rig. If boat was 55' add a mizzen to make it yawl.
> I'd like a queen forward, a pilot berth in the saloon, a double quarter berth on one side and a work room on the other side aft.
> The Bestevers come closest to this vision.
> What's yours?


Interesting questions.

My experience with recreational metal boats has been disappointing. I have not been impressed with the welding or metal finish work.

I sailed a Moody with a hydraulic lifting keel. Very cool.

My center cockpit boat was a surprise to me. I won't go back on a cruising boat.

I don't like Solent rigs. I much prefer a more conventional cutter. If I'm going for multiple masts it will be a ketch or schooner.

Center island queen aft w/ lee clothes and bundle board. Get up around 48' and a convertible office/workshop/guest room starts looking real good. Pilot berths take space that would otherwise be storage. I think I'd opt for storage. If the boat is big enough for both that is a huge bonus. I like pilot berths; too good for pilots. *grin*


----------



## travlin-easy

I must really be lucky - never been pooped, beat up a bit, but never pooped in more than 50 years of offshore boating and fishing. The only time I recall having any water in the cockpit was when we were backing down on a big bluefin tuna into a nasty sea. A freak wave slammed the stern, the water shot 15 feet into the air, and some dumbass (me) gunned the engine a bit too hard in reverse. Everyone got soaked, the water drained out immediately and we landed a 150-pounder. Thankfully, it was a hot summer day.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## smackdaddy

travlineasy said:


> I must really be lucky - never been pooped, beat up a bit, but never pooped in more than 50 years of offshore boating and fishing. The only time I recall having any water in the cockpit was when we were backing down on a big bluefin tuna into a nasty sea. A freak wave slammed the stern, the water shot 15 feet into the air, and some dumbass (me) gunned the engine a bit too hard in reverse. Everyone got soaked, the water drained out immediately and we landed a 150-pounder. Thankfully, it was a hot summer day.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gary


That's been my thinking as well. Are you _really_ going to want a boat that is specifically designed to be completely bomb-proof to _every imaginable occurrence_ - even those that never happened in 50 years of sailing and boating?

At some point, this kind of stuff just starts getting a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> That's been my thinking as well. Are you _really_ going to want a boat that is specifically designed to be completely bomb-proof to _every imaginable occurrence_ - even those that never happened in 50 years of sailing and boating?
> 
> At some point, this kind of stuff just starts getting a bit ridiculous.


He qualified his comment by saying he had been "lucky" not to have been pooped in 50 years. He also has a solid boat, presumably because he's cognizant of the potential hazards. I'm sure others can cite the same sorta good luck, along with plenty of others still who have experienced the opposite.

So I would suggest that "ridiculous" isn't really the best label for those who understand the need for some sort of margin when venturing off on long passages. Among other things, it implies an absolute in a venue fraught with sometimes unpredictable variables. But neither would I necessarily go with the old clichè of "preparing for the worst, hoping for the best." It's that not so "simple" grey area in b'twn., and a big part of that is knowing what the risks are to begin with.


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> That's been my thinking as well. Are you _really_ going to want a boat that is specifically designed to be completely bomb-proof to _every imaginable occurrence_ - even those that never happened in 50 years of sailing and boating?
> 
> At some point, this kind of stuff just starts getting a bit ridiculous.


Buying better insurance will protect you from more things going wrong than buying a better boat for the same money.


----------



## Don L

Who here has one of the mythical bluewater take anything boats? What is it?


----------



## JonEisberg

hellsop said:


> Buying better insurance will protect you from more things going wrong than buying a better boat for the same money.


Don't forget those EPIRBs and Satphones, as well...

;-))


----------



## ianjoub

I'm sure the B&R rig has nothing to do with your choosing to post that pic...


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Who here has one of the mythical bluewater take anything boats? What is it?


Off the top of my head, Auspicious and outbound are a couple that come to mind, no doubt there are many more...

For the record, I don't subscribe to the notion that a "Bluewater Boat" is a "mythical" concept... ;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

ianjoub said:


> I'm sure the B&R rig has nothing to do with your choosing to post that pic...


That's a Beneteau, pretty sure that's not a B&R rig... And, most any rig might have suffered damage after banging into the side of a merchant vessel, to the best of my knowledge that's how that failure occurred...

Perhaps it was the extremely wide side decks that caught my eye... ;-)


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Off the top of my head, Auspicious and outbound are a couple that come to mind, no doubt there are many more...
> 
> For the record, I don't subscribe to the notion that a "Bluewater Boat" is a "mythical" concept... ;-)


No at least 1 of those boats has a spade rudder. It will never be accepted by the hard core.

Try again.


----------



## outbound

Like to think I have one of those mythical boats. My sisterships have been everywhere but high latitudes. Although she's new to the game she's done me well so far. I hope everyone venturing offshore has the same feeling about the vessel under them. It's a vessel because it holds your life in its hands.
Have a smattering of knowledge about MIG and TIG. Did a commercial course for kicks and giggles as it was the opposite of what I did for a living. Agree the metal work on Cornells boat may have not passed your muster but what I've seen of Dutch work, waterlines, Puffins etc. I think there are metal boats out there that would. Was invited aboard a 80'er out of New Zealand. She was Al with no evidence of a burn through having been fixed anywhere. Nor a patch. Every weld was uniform, no distortion, welds in common sight ground down beautifully and polished. Even close up thought she was glass. Plates were cad cam plasma cut and even where bear couldn't pick up the junctions. Looked like she was one piece. 
Saw the same kind of work in steel on a Puffin I thought about buying. Even in non exposed places welds were perfect. Someone really knew how to run a puddle. Even the ones upside down. Boat was over a decade old. Not a speck of rust. Not even near the tanks, limber holes or in the bilge. Limber holes done just right. Well thought out for maintaince. Had its original paint on. Even in the bilge. Zinced the right way.
It can be done.
Just like wood boats can be built of cold molded wood epoxy and be stronger and less maintenance than GRP.
Sad in the US no market for metal or wood. Maybe better materials for voyaging boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> No at least 1 of those boats has a spade rudder. It will never be accepted by the hard core.
> 
> Try again.


Obviously, my personal criteria does not match that of "the hard core"...


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> Who here has one of the mythical bluewater take anything boats? What is it?


Portland Pudgy. Supposed to be unsinkable and no portlights, but a high probability of getting pooped.


----------



## outbound

Too cute. Put an electric outboard on the back and your all set.


----------



## aeventyr60

hellsop said:


> Buying better insurance will protect you from more things going wrong than buying a better boat for the same money.


No, better insurance just means more folks sailing offshore with less experience and calling up the coast guard when conditions get sporty. Insurance never protected anyone.


----------



## mitiempo

This boat is close to Outbound's list of wishes:













And mine as well.


----------



## outbound

Yes, at the end it was between the boreal and the outbound . Then did analysis of annual maintenance , difficulty of build process, reworking European galley ( they since done that), respec- ing boat to US standards, taxes, importation, potential difficulty with resale. Finally the wife did not like the aesethetics of the boat. Did not feel like "home". Felt too "French". Whereas she liked the warmth the inside of outbound imparts. We both like the special hard dodger Phil created for us. I can look over and she through. I like being inside and outside at the same time.

A friend of my wife did get the boreal and I hear he and his wife are delighted with her. They are great boats and deserve being European boat of the year.


----------



## Faster

I wonder what's become of "hannah2"... Recently commissioned a new Boreal.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> I wonder what's become of "hannah2"... Recently commissioned a new Boreal.


Did it have portlights in the hull?


----------



## SVAuspicious

Don0190 said:


> No at least 1 of those boats has a spade rudder. It will never be accepted by the hard core.


Hard core what? Hard core armchair sailors without subject matter expertise? Who are you going to believe and why?



outbound said:


> Agree the metal work on Cornells boat may have not passed your muster but what I've seen of Dutch work, waterlines, Puffins etc. I think there are metal boats out there that would. Was invited aboard a 80'er out of New Zealand. She was Al with no evidence of a burn through having been fixed anywhere.


I've been on a lot of metal boats. Hull work has, with one or two exceptions, been very well done. It's the hard work like in cockpit cuddys and overhand work inside that have been a disappointment. The welding on commercial and military platforms where aesthetics are less important has been better. If I were to build a metal boat I'd want unilateral ability to say "grind it out and do it again."

I don't remember seeing burn throughs or patches, certainly not on the two very well known boats I have sailed. The exposed welds were not nearly as nice as they should have been. Finishing was often incomplete. What does that mean about the attention to detail elsewhere?

Given improved QA and QC I would buy boats from any of the manufacturers of metal boats I have sailed. I would not take delivery of boats as I saw them, and I would be concerned about other systems. YMMV.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Did it have portlights in the hull?


I realize it may be a difficult notion to grasp, but I would assert that maybe - just _MAYBE_ - there might be more than a subtle distinction between the integrity of the portlights on that Boreal, or the Pardey's TALIESIEN, and the picture window placed in the broad expanse of fiberglass, at the point of her maximum beam, on this slab-sided Average Euro White Boat...

;-))


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I realize it may be a difficult notion to grasp, but I would assert that maybe - just _MAYBE_ - there might be more than a subtle distinction between the integrity of the portlights on that Boreal, or the Pardey's TALIESIEN, and the picture window placed in the broad expanse of fiberglass, at the point of her maximum beam, on this slab-sided Average Euro White Boat...
> 
> ;-))


I would say the only real difference would be the placement of the portlight. What kind of boat is that?

Do you think I should start a new thread: "Production Portlights and the Limits"?

Anyway, even if it's a questionable placement on the Average Euro White Boat, I think the primary design and construction of the portlights on the Boreal and/or TALIESIEN are geared toward letting light in and keeping water out...not crashing and grinding against a lee dock. Those "above-average" portlights will break too in that scenario. Or are you saying this boat, without the hull portlight, or even the Boreal in that exact same precarious scenario would be just fine? Bashing and grinding against hard bits is what it's designed for - so you can do stuff like this and not worry?

I don't think so. That's why they invented good judgement - and fenders.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> If I were to build a metal boat I'd want unilateral ability to say "grind it out and do it again."


You always have that unilateral ability...if you have the money.


----------



## MedSailor

outbound said:


> Too cute. Put an electric outboard on the back and your all set.


I have a Portland pudgy, and just secured a gently used electric outboard. Can't wait to try it out! Of course, I really need one of those hats before I attempt any voyages...

MedSailor


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I would say the only real difference would be the placement of the portlight. What kind of boat is that?
> 
> Do you think I should start a new thread: "Production Portlights and the Limits"?
> 
> Anyway, even if it's a questionable placement on the Average Euro White Boat, I think the primary design and construction of the portlights on the Boreal and/or TALIESIEN are geared toward letting light in and keeping water out...not crashing and grinding against a lee dock. Those "above-average" portlights will break too in that scenario. Or are you saying this boat, without the hull portlight, or even the Boreal in that exact same precarious scenario would be just fine? Bashing and grinding against hard bits is what it's designed for - so you can do stuff like this and not worry?
> 
> I don't think so. That's why they invented good judgement - and fenders.


I'm pretty sure I'm seeing 3 dark-colored fenders b'twn the boat & the dock when I zoom in on that pic, and it looks like it could be a fuel dock. How do you know the wind didn't pipe up _after_ the boat came in for fuel, for example? You've never found yourself in a situation where the wind is pushing you against a dock? Concluding it's bad judgement on the skipper's part seems rather bold, but maybe there's more to the story.

And yes, sailboats are designed to sail through water not concrete docks -- I'm pretty sure that's a given. But it's equally obvious they are also designed to sail in water at least slightly deeper than their draft but, as anyone who's been out there for awhile knows, stuff can happen and much of it is reasonably foreseeable.

And now more grist for your upcoming new portlight thread: You think it's only about placement? Both the quality of the portlight and the integrity of its installation are exactly the same on an AWEB vs. an expedition boat like a Boreal? Hmmmm . . . I can't cite a definitive answer either so I won't! But common sense does suggest to me otherwise.


----------



## Exile1

MedSailor said:


> I have a Portland pudgy, and just secured a gently used electric outboard. Can't wait to try it out! Of course, I really need one of those hats before I attempt any voyages...
> 
> MedSailor


Yea, gotta love the hat, along with that modified sailing rig! I've admired the PP for awhile now, especially the idea that it could double as both a liferaft and a dinghy. I've never been wild about either of those two items on my own boat, so the PP seems appealing. Of course, the theory may be quite different from the practice, which is partly why I haven't pulled the trigger on one. Post a pic on how you've got it stowed on your NC!


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> And now more grist for your upcoming new portlight thread: You think it's only about placement? Both the quality of the portlight and the integrity of its installation are exactly the same on an AWEB vs. an expedition boat like a Boreal? Hmmmm . . . I can't cite a definitive answer either so I won't! *But common sense does suggest to me otherwise*.


No, _assumption_ suggests to you otherwise. That's the problem.

Show me where the quality and integrity of the installation of the hull portlight are, in fact, vastly different between the two. If you can't do that, you're just guessing...using the "if it's more expensive it's got to be better" analysis. We've already determined that that mentality has little to do with "common sense" for the most part.

As for the Pudgy, I think they are awesome. But I also think you'd be _insane_ trusting one of those as a liferaft.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> As for the Pudgy, I think they are awesome. But I also think you'd be _insane_ trusting one of those as a liferaft.


I think you're insane for trusting a packaged inflatable contraption. 

MedSailor


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> No, _assumption_ suggests to you otherwise. That's the problem.


What do you think is the bigger "problem?"

1. My _suggesting_ that a mfg. of a high quality aluminum expedition boat built to withstand extreme conditions at high latitudes may just choose higher quality portlights and a more robust installation (at a higher cost, obviously),

_OR_,

2. Your _stating_ -- on several occasions -- that portlights between various boats are likely to be "exactly" the same.

In my comment, you are correct that I am making an _assumption_ based on common sense and not any specific experience or expertise, but I readily acknowledge that & believe it's an assumption that's reasonable (although certainly refutable). In your case, you are stating your comparison as a _fact_ in an effort to demonstrate the lack of any meaningful difference in quality b'twn. AWB's & more expensive bluewater brands, even a highly reputable aluminum expedition boat! Now b'twn. the Hunter 50 & Oyster 475 you previously pointed out? Dunno. But maybe you should consider supporting _your_ assertions that they are "exactly" the same, as opposed to asking _me_ to explain the widely-held, common-sense belief that many components on highly regarded BW boats are built to a higher standard that yes, surprise-surprise, come at a higher cost.

Now your previous acknowledgment that certain brands are in fact "built better," but it may not matter given how most boats are used, is well-taken. How being "built better" translates to qualities that are pertinent to most sailors (e.g. the longevity issue you raised) is the more interesting (and debatable) question that makes threads like this worthwhile.

You may or may not be right about the PP as a liferaft, but I believe they do have the required CG & SOLAS certifications and can be purchased with all the associated gear, incl. the canopy & boarding ladder. Unlike the conventional inflatable liferafts, they are hard to tip over & easy to get righted (they are double-hulled w/an air pocket). And the mfg. at least touts the idea of using the sail rig to be a more active participant in your own rescue, i.e. (theoretically) being able to move yourself towards the shipping lanes vs. sitting around waiting for someone to come to you. You can even get them with a built-in magnetic compass! Like MedSailor, I find shortcomings with the conventional liferaft set-up so I find this novel idea intriguing, although not necessarily the best answer (for me). No need to take sides on this one Smack, just another one of those risk/cost/benefit deals that are not so "simple!"


----------



## chall03

MedSailor said:


> I think you're insane for trusting a packaged inflatable contraption.
> 
> MedSailor


A packaged, _might_ inflate contraption..... 
but hey it's ISAF approved.


----------



## mr_f

As for using the PP as a liferaft, I only have this anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't look good.

I am not sure exactly what events led up to this situation. Did they die from exhaustion/exposure trying to row to safety? Would they have been better off if they had the exposure canopy? Why did they have to abandon the safety of their larger vessel in the first place? What happened to their buddy?

We probably can't say definitely whether they would have been safer waiting in one of those inflatable contraptions without answers to some of these question. But the PP didn't work out well as a liferaft in this case.


----------



## MedSailor

mr_f said:


> As for using the PP as a liferaft, I only have this anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't look good.
> 
> I am not sure exactly what events led up to this situation. Did they die from exhaustion/exposure trying to row to safety? Would they have been better off if they had the exposure canopy? Why did they have to abandon the safety of their larger vessel in the first place? What happened to their buddy?
> 
> We probably can't say definitely whether they would have been safer waiting in one of those inflatable contraptions without answers to some of these question. But the PP didn't work out well as a liferaft in this case.


More importantly, why did they have to abandon their Hunter in the first place?

(They're deer, so clearly a Hunter was involved)

MedSailor


----------



## chall03

oh dear.


----------



## Exile1

mr_f said:


> As for using the PP as a liferaft, I only have this anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't look good.
> 
> I am not sure exactly what events led up to this situation. Did they die from exhaustion/exposure trying to row to safety? Would they have been better off if they had the exposure canopy? Why did they have to abandon the safety of their larger vessel in the first place? What happened to their buddy?
> 
> We probably can't say definitely whether they would have been safer waiting in one of those inflatable contraptions without answers to some of these question. But the PP didn't work out well as a liferaft in this case.


Hard to say why the liferaft failed to save them, especially with all those required certifications. Maybe the PP lacks the all-important CE/RCD "A" rating? Or maybe it's another one of those risk/benefit analyses they failed to properly weigh. You know, the one where only a 30-30 came b'twn. them and survival.


----------



## desert rat

Groan ----------. LOL


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> I think you're insane for trusting a packaged inflatable contraption.
> 
> MedSailor












4 people in this thing in big seas? Especially with this guy in his short shorts? You'll be rolling all over him for days.

If being insane is wrong - I don't wanna be right.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> 4 people in this thing in big seas? Especially with this guy in his short shorts? You'll be rolling all over him for days.
> 
> If being insane is wrong - I don't wanna be right.


Have you ever seen your "4-person" inflatable liferaft deployed? It's kinda like buying a tent for camping. No guys with short-shorts welcome there either.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Now b'twn. the Hunter 50 & Oyster 475 you previously pointed out? Dunno. But maybe you should consider supporting _your_ assertions that they are "exactly" the same, as opposed to asking _me_ to explain the widely-held, common-sense belief that many components on highly regarded BW boats are built to a higher standard that yes, surprise-surprise, come at a higher cost.


Sure. Let's start with you pointing out where I said that 'they are "exactly" the same' in terms of build and quality.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> More importantly, why did they have to abandon their Hunter in the first place?
> 
> (They're deer, so clearly a Hunter was involved)
> 
> MedSailor


Wrong genus.

You're thinking of sheep.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Sure. Let's start with you pointing out where I said that 'they are "exactly" the same' in terms of build and quality.


Is this another one of these word-games, or do you now believe that the opening ports on the Oyster are one of the things about purpose-built BW boats that are built "better" as you acknowledged here?

"I'll make it clear, yet again, that I have nothing against the higher-end brands of boats. Nothing. And I absolutely know that they are, in many ways, _'better built'"_.

As I've said, when it comes to the portlight issue you seem to find so controversial, I think an assumption that they are likely built stronger on a high-end expedition boat is reasonable, but as b'twn. a Hunter 50 and Oyster 475, I've also acknowledged that I frankly don't know the answer. The difference I'm pointing out is that you have consistently stated and/or implied that you do in fact know the answer, namely that they are similar if not the same:

"So that brings us to whether the Oyster's is done WAY better than the Hunter's - and is, therefore, FAR safer. I'm betting that *there's not a huge amount of difference.*"

In response to Outbound's comments pointing out varying levels of materials & methods, you then stated the following:

"The placement of the portlights between the Oyster and the Hunter 50 CC is *very similar* . . . In fact there are a lot of *visual similarities between the two boats* . . . This is, again, why I think arguments like this are typically a bit hollow. Both of them can't be completely wrong . . . I don't know what the material is. Maybe someone else around here does. But *I've never seen a review, etc. - that states that Hunter uses any equipment that's inferior.* In fact, I've seen the opposite, that *they use the good stuff.* So I don't think we're talking about 'cheap' materials here."

And as part of your response to Jon E., you claim Oyster has done _"exactly the same thing"_ as Hunter, that is installing an opening portlight in the hull:

"Oyster, for better or worse, is a very highly regarded 'blue water boat' that people hold up as much more seaworthy than a Hunter. And *they've exactly done the same thing* with the *same* 'undesirable characteristic'. So it's a valid comparison."

And finally, in an effort to emphasize the direct comparison you now seem to be backing away from, you summed it up by stating this:

"I absolutely do take comfort in seeing *the same feature on an Oyster that is on the Hunter*. It tells me that it can't be all bad....and that it's not a cut-rate cost issue, or blatant compromise of seaworthiness."

So which is it Smack? Superficially looking at the "same feature" on the two different boats and concluding they must be the "exact same thing," or recognizing there may be differences in quality but they don't matter? Or alternatively, is this one of many things that you agree are "built better" on more expensive brands but aren't really necessary? As I've repeatedly said, I don't know the answer but it's becoming increasingly clear that neither do you.


----------



## MedSailor

Exile,

I think you did a nice job lining up Smack's arguments but I view this debate by looking at design compromises and build quality similarities/differences as different groups for comparison. 

I'm not sure if Smack separates things the same way, but if so, things really don't line up as nicely (argument wise) as you make them out to.

Medsailor


----------



## smackdaddy

Good lord, man. Either you don't read well, or you're in a hurry, or you just like to argue, or you're slow. I'm going to go with in a hurry and like to argue, because you spell pretty well. And you do have a history of saying things very confidently, then backing off of them when they prove to be different than what you said (like the fact that the Oyster did indeed have an opening port light - look at your previous posts).

Now, this is not a word game - it is simply countering your assertion that I mean something that I don't mean. In other words, I'm not letting you put words in my mouth - which you seem to love to try to do.

So, let's take this very slowly...because I'm a nice guy and I want you to get this right. You'll sleep better, not worrying all night about a freakin' portlight and semantics.

Here is what _you_ said I said:



Exile1 said:


> 2. Your _stating_ -- on several occasions -- *that portlights between various boats are likely to be "exactly" the same.*
> 
> In my comment, you are correct that I am making an _assumption_ based on common sense and not any specific experience or expertise, but I readily acknowledge that & believe it's an assumption that's reasonable (although certainly refutable).
> 
> In your case, you are stating your comparison as a _fact_ in an effort to demonstrate the lack of any meaningful difference in quality b'twn. AWB's & more expensive bluewater brands, even a highly reputable aluminum expedition boat! Now b'twn. the Hunter 50 & Oyster 475 you previously pointed out? Dunno. *But maybe you should consider supporting your assertions that they are "exactly" the same, as opposed to asking me to explain the widely-held, common-sense belief that many components on highly regarded BW boats are built to a higher standard that yes, surprise-surprise, come at a higher cost.*


Now, in this statement, you've defined two things: First, there is "exactly the same" in terms of similar portlights simply being on various boats. This sameness can mean the very presence of portlights in the hull, the shape of them, whatever. Then in your second statement, you're further qualifying "exactly the same" _with the quality and cost_ of those portlights.

These two definitions are NOT "exactly the same". And you're getting them confused. Here's what I mean...



Exile1 said:


> Is this another one of these word-games, or do you now believe that the opening ports on the Oyster are one of the things about purpose-built BW boats that are built "better" as you acknowledged here?
> 
> "I'll make it clear, yet again, that I have nothing against the higher-end brands of boats. Nothing. And I absolutely know that they are, in many ways, _'better built'"_.


The overall boat is generally "better-built". I have no problem with that. But that certainly doesn't mean that the _portlight_ is one of those things. For example, remember that you and Out assumed those portlights in the Hunter were plastic. Then were surprised to learn that they were, indeed, SS just like in the Oyster.

So, the Oyster may be more heavily built over all, but that opening portlight is likely very much the same as the one on the Hunter in terms of its intended purpose.

If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to trot it out.



Exile1 said:


> As I've said, when it comes to the portlight issue you seem to find so controversial, I think an assumption that they are likely built stronger on a high-end expedition boat is reasonable, but as b'twn. a Hunter 50 and Oyster 475, I've also acknowledged that I frankly don't know the answer. The difference I'm pointing out is that you have consistently stated and/or implied that you do in fact know the answer, namely that they are similar if not the same:
> 
> "So that brings us to whether the Oyster's is done WAY better than the Hunter's - and is, therefore, FAR safer. I'm betting that *there's not a huge amount of difference.*"


As always, you are welcome to assume whatever you want. You guys seemed to assume the Hunter's were plastic. You were wrong.

And, this is EXACTLY what I mean - there is not a huge amount of difference from a quality perspective. Now, as I pointed out above with your quality/cost qualifier - *I've not said that they are "exactly the same" in terms of quality and cost*. Again, you're wrong.

They may very well be "exactly the same" in this regard - but I don't know that...though I'm pretty sure the mark-up will be quite a bit higher on the Oyster. I am, however, very comfortable that they are not too far apart in terms of quality for their intended use.



Exile1 said:


> In response to Outbound's comments pointing out varying levels of materials & methods, you then stated the following:
> 
> "The placement of the portlights between the Oyster and the Hunter 50 CC is *very similar* . . . In fact there are a lot of *visual similarities between the two boats* . . . This is, again, why I think arguments like this are typically a bit hollow. Both of them can't be completely wrong . . . I don't know what the material is. Maybe someone else around here does. But *I've never seen a review, etc. - that states that Hunter uses any equipment that's inferior.* In fact, I've seen the opposite, that *they use the good stuff.* So I don't think we're talking about 'cheap' materials here."


So, again, where have I said that they are "exactly the same". Hunter's equipment is from respected, high-quality brands. Do you really think Selden, Lewmar, Barient/Barlow, etc. are "cheap"?

You're still failing miserably at this. No word games required.



Exile1 said:


> And as part of your response to Jon E., you claim Oyster has done _"exactly the same thing"_ as Hunter, that is installing an opening portlight in the hull:
> 
> "Oyster, for better or worse, is a very highly regarded 'blue water boat' that people hold up as much more seaworthy than a Hunter. And *they've exactly done the same thing* with the *same* 'undesirable characteristic'. So it's a valid comparison."


Did you look at the photo of the Oyster with the opening portlight in the hull in the aft cabin? How is that different from the opening portlight in the hull in the aft cabin in the Hunter?

The _presence_ of that opening portlight is _exactly_ the same in both boats. And this _presence_ is precisely what Jon was critiquing in the Hunter. It's just that no one seemed to know that it was also a feature on the vaunted Oyster until I pointed it out.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?



Exile1 said:


> And finally, in an effort to emphasize the direct comparison you now seem to be backing away from, you summed it up by stating this:
> 
> "I absolutely do take comfort in seeing *the same feature on an Oyster that is on the Hunter*. It tells me that it can't be all bad....and that it's not a cut-rate cost issue, or blatant compromise of seaworthiness."
> 
> So which is it Smack? Superficially looking at the "same feature" on the two different boats and concluding they must be the "exact same thing," or recognizing there may be differences in quality but they don't matter? Or alternatively, is this one of many things that you agree are "built better" on more expensive brands but aren't really necessary? As I've repeatedly said, I don't know the answer but it's becoming increasingly clear that neither do you.


Again, I've not said what you said I said. You are wrong.

So to be very clear, _yet again_, *BOTH* the Oyster ("high-end blue water boat") and Hunter ("production boat") have what Jon apparently thinks is a feature that compromises seaworthiness. There is no getting around this. Furthermore, I _ABSOLUTELY DO NOT THINK_ that there is a significant difference in safety/quality/seaworthiness between those opening portlights. It seems that you need to assume that just because that portlight is on the Oyster it _must be_ better and more seaworthy than the one on the Hunter. Because if it's not, it shakes your faith in the whole boat. How could that portlight possibly be in the same ballpark as the one on the Hunter?

Look, in the end, you are welcome to spend 2-3 times more for that Oyster if it makes you feel better.

I won't.


----------



## Exile1

MedSailor said:


> Exile,
> 
> I think you did a nice job lining up Smack's arguments but I view this debate by looking at design compromises and build quality similarities/differences as different groups for comparison.
> 
> I'm not sure if Smack separates things the same way, but if so, things really don't line up as nicely (argument wise) as you make them out to.
> 
> Medsailor


I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your comments, other than I would agree that I tend to be somewhat narrowly focused on traditional seagoing qualities, along with quality construction, a high level of workmanship, & purpose-built integrity. In fact, I've never quite bought into the idea of a bluewater vs. coastal boat, etc. In my mind, a boat can just as easily sink in 10' of water as it can in 10,000' and so should be built accordingly. And I don't see it as a choice only for those who can afford/not afford certain types of boats, at least not in the current used market. In fact, I don't understand why boat strength seems to be a feature somewhat limited to the higher-end brands these days. That's why I find the "Adventure 40" being designed by John Harries for an anticipated base selling price of $200,000 rather intriguing.

I do appreciate that there are other factors in play for many people, but the marketing seems to play on the naiveté & inexperience of first-time buyers. Rather than what _looks_ comfortable, convenient, or "cool" at the boat show, I just assume that what would work well in rough conditions at sea would be more than adequate back at the dock. But this is and always has been my bias which I freely admit. Beyond that, I don't have any special allegiance to any particular brand, other than maybe when it comes to aesthetics that is.

Having said that, I've come a long way in seeing the virtues of so-called production boats, especially the older ones which seem to have been built more solidly. It's admittedly hard for me to relate to some of the newer designs -- production or higher-end boats -- if I see more marketing than substance. Nothing wrong with wanting a large, comfortable living space, but a boat should be designed primarily for its intended purpose, imho. I just see a lot of buyers new to the arena seemingly getting seduced by more superficial factors. But maybe that's why production boats seem to have a lot of turnover! I've also run into an awful lot of "yard guys" with bad stories, but I recognize much of this is anecdotal and so hard to draw firm conclusions from. I _really_ hope we don't continue to hear more horror stories about keel & rudder failures, but I fear it may be inevitable as the fleet ages.

_BUT MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY,_ how does your Pudgy do while rowing?  The idea of a dinghy that rows decently, an electric motor, and maybe even a sail rig sounds appealing. If nothing else, no longer any need to carry gasoline onboard. I imagine your Nauticat might be better than most 40'ers as far as deck space for storing, unless you use davits. With all the bells & whistles, incl. the liferaft components, the PP's get pretty pricey. Ah well, life rafts & dinghies -- could be two areas even more contentious than production vs. bluewater boats (but not as bad as anchors & guns).


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Good lord, man. Either you don't read well, or you're in a hurry, or you just like to argue, or you're slow. I'm going to go with in a hurry and like to argue, because you spell pretty well. And you do have a history of saying things very confidently, then backing off of them when they prove to be different than what you said (like the fact that the Oyster did indeed have an opening port light - look at your previous posts).
> 
> Now, this is not a word game - it is simply countering your assertion that I mean something that I don't mean. In other words, I'm not letting you put words in my mouth - which you seem to love to try to do.
> 
> So, let's take this very slowly...because I'm a nice guy and I want you to get this right. You'll sleep better, not worrying all night about a freakin' portlight and semantics.
> 
> Here is what _you_ said I said:
> 
> Now, in this statement, you've defined two things: First, there is "exactly the same" in terms of similar portlights simply being on various boats. This sameness can mean the very presence of portlights in the hull, the shape of them, whatever. Then in your second statement, you're further qualifying "exactly the same" _with the quality and cost_ of those portlights.
> 
> These two definitions are NOT "exactly the same". And you're getting them confused. Here's what I mean...
> 
> The overall boat is generally "better-built". I have no problem with that. But that certainly doesn't mean that the _portlight_ is one of those things. For example, remember that you and Out assumed those portlights in the Hunter were plastic. Then were surprised to learn that they were, indeed, SS just like in the Oyster.
> 
> So, the Oyster may be more heavily built over all, but that opening portlight is likely very much the same as the one on the Hunter in terms of its intended purpose.
> 
> If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to trot it out.
> 
> As always, you are welcome to assume whatever you want. You guys seemed to assume the Hunter's were plastic. You were wrong.
> 
> And, this is EXACTLY what I mean - there is not a huge amount of difference from a quality perspective. Now, as I pointed out above with your quality/cost qualifier - *I've not said that they are "exactly the same" in terms of quality and cost*. Again, you're wrong.
> 
> They may very well be "exactly the same" in this regard - but I don't know that...though I'm pretty sure the mark-up will be quite a bit higher on the Oyster. I am, however, very comfortable that they are not too far apart in terms of quality for their intended use.
> 
> So, again, where have I said that they are "exactly the same". Hunter's equipment is from respected, high-quality brands. Do you really think Selden, Lewmar, Barient/Barlow, etc. are "cheap"?
> 
> You're still failing miserably at this. No word games required.
> 
> Did you look at the photo of the Oyster with the opening portlight in the hull in the aft cabin? How is that different from the opening portlight in the hull in the aft cabin in the Hunter?
> 
> The _presence_ of that opening portlight is _exactly_ the same in both boats. And this _presence_ is precisely what Jon was critiquing in the Hunter. It's just that no one seemed to know that it was also a feature on the vaunted Oyster until I pointed it out.
> 
> Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Again, I've not said what you said I said. You are wrong.
> 
> So to be very clear, _yet again_, *BOTH* the Oyster ("high-end blue water boat") and Hunter ("production boat") have what Jon thinks is a feature that compromises seaworthiness. There is no getting around this. Furthermore, I _ABSOLUTELY DO NOT THINK_ that there is a significant difference in safety/quality/seaworthiness between those opening portlights. It seems that you need to assume that just because that portlight is on the Oyster it _must be_ better and more seaworthy than the one on the Hunter. Because if it's not, it shakes your faith in the whole boat. How could that portlight possibly be in the same ballpark as the one on the Hunter?
> 
> Look, in the end, you are welcome to spend 2-3 times more for that Oyster if it makes you feel better.
> 
> I won't.


Nah, I've already spent way less to buy & get my Bristol in top condition than I would have spent on a brand new production boat! And after 29 years, it's worth more than that production boat was worth after only 5 years. But prices on nicely maintained used Oysters are pretty enticing these days. I know, I know . . . like seriously not your style, dude.

It's too bad this latest lil' tif is only over portlights, especially since it's something which neither Jon nor I _ever_ said rendered a boat unseaworthy. Otherwise it might be worth pursuing, but I'm afraid it's devolved to the point where we are arguing over what I said about what you said about what you meant to say but I shoulda said. Oh, and I almost forgot -- who's putting words in the other's mouth, who said which words, and who's mouth were they improperly put into? Still with us Don?? But hold on -- wasn't my post mainly comprised of _your_ statements, not mine? Oh I know -- I quoted them out-of-context. Yea, that must be it. 

Btw, I appreciate your concern over my getting a restful night's sleep, but I'm on Mountain Time so no need to fret. So anyway, let's see now . . . I can't read well, I'm slow, maybe careless, there's that centuries-old history of my making bogus statements, failing miserably, and being just plain wrong. Yeah, you're right, it was definitely all the fault of those mean ol' CF mods that got you permanently banned over there.  As you yourself like to point out, you otherwise seem to be such a nice guy. 

Yes, I saw those plastic, quick-release dogs on that Hunter 50 opening portlight and didn't look closely enough at its surrounding metal frame. What is it I'm now supposed to say? Oh I know -- "my bad," right? But truth be told, I almost got away with it, and now I'll have a lot of splainin' to do back at the clubhouse for the Society of Hunter Conspiracists. I'm actually fine with you or anyone else pointing out my mistakes and in fact always welcome being corrected. I'm pretty sure it's called _learning_. But I'm not a big internet personality with an image to protect. Besides, I always try and abide by the old adage that it's better to look stupid on occasion & learn, than always try to look smart & remain stupid forever. And according to Ron White, "stupid _IS_ forever." 

Speaking of, I wish you wouldn't continue to try and assert your surely well-founded opinion that the portlights in question on the Hunter 50 & Oyster 475 are similar in quality/integrity/seaworthiness by just looking at them from photographs. I'll give you a hint on why they just may differ, but it's _not_ because the Hunter one has quick-release dogs and the Oyster has the screw-in type (both plastic, btw). Rather, how about we consider the thickness of the respective hulls, whether the hulls are cored or not, what type of fasteners were used to hold the inner & outer frames together and are they through-bolted, are they made from the type of bullet-proof glass Outbound spoke of or is it another type of tempered glass, safety glass, Lexan or some other polycarbonate? How about whether some sort of conventional goop for a sealant was used or the more labor-intensive, infinitely durable butyl tape? Are they recessed on the outside of the hull or flush? As I've repeated again & again, you could be absolutely correct with your opinion or absolutely wrong -- the fact remains is that you don't know, and neither do I. And certainly not from a couple of photographs!

So rather than continuing this rather meaningless diversion (and for Don's sake for crying out loud!:laugher), why don't we get back to the thread topic by your telling us what you think makes a higher-end boat "better built." I know you believe production boats are more than adequately built for their intended purpose, but I'd like to know why you think more expensive boats are better built. If you don't believe it's the portlights or other components you listed above, then what exactly is the difference? You mentioned the Oyster was more "heavily-built," but I thought you & Paulo have already taken great pains to explain that more heavily-built does not mean better built, your premise being that modern composite materials, etc. are now more than sufficient and boats no longer have to be "over-built." As always, tell me if I'm misquoting, misstating, misinformed, misguided, or have just plain missed it. 

In other words, if it's not the components, the type of build, the hull & scantlings, or the rig, does it just come down to fancy interiors and a brand name?


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> Still with us Don??
> 
> Not really
> 
> So rather than continuing this rather meaningless diversion (and for Don's sake for crying out loud!:laugher), why don't we get back to the thread topic by your telling us what you think makes a higher-end boat "better built."


Yes it is about time to move on to important issues. Things like the sink faucet fittings and toilet paper holders.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Btw, I appreciate your concern over my getting a restful night's sleep, but I'm on Mountain Time so no need to fret. So anyway, let's see now . . . I can't read well, I'm slow, maybe careless, there's that centuries-old history of my making bogus statements, failing miserably, and being just plain wrong. Yeah, you're right, it was definitely all the fault of those mean ol' CF mods that got you permanently banned over there.  As you yourself like to point out, you otherwise seem to be such a nice guy.
> 
> So rather than continuing this rather meaningless diversion...


Cool. We're done with the portlight inquest.

As for CF, the proof is in the pudding. Go over there and see how many of the mods that were trolling me are still mods. As I've always said, I'm no forum angel - I don't pretend to be - but this one's on them.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I would say the only real difference would be the placement of the portlight. What kind of boat is that?


What difference does it make? It's a glossy sailing magazine Boat of the Year built to the CE Category A standard, they're all the same, and "perfectly fine" for bluewater sailing, right?

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Anyway, even if it's a questionable placement on the Average Euro White Boat, I think the primary design and construction of the portlights on the Boreal and/or TALIESIEN are geared toward letting light in and keeping water out...not crashing and grinding against a lee dock. Those "above-average" portlights will break too in that scenario. Or are you saying this boat, without the hull portlight, or even the Boreal in that exact same precarious scenario would be just fine? Bashing and grinding against hard bits is what it's designed for - so you can do stuff like this and not worry?


You don't seem to comprehend the vulnerability of placing such a window amidships, at the point of the boat's maximum beam. THAT is the section of the hull most likely to come into contact with a dock, or another boat rafted alongside, where the fenders will be placed, whatever... That's a world of difference from the placement of the portlights on the Boreal, in comparison...

The Boreal would likely have been fine in that situation, other than perhaps some scuffing of the bare aluminum... Harder to say about the boat pictured without the window, but beyond some scratching of the gelcoat, I'm gonna guess it would have fared pretty well, despite the amount of visible deflection of the topsides. How much the cutout in the hull at that point is difficult for me to guess, but one of the most sobering aspects of what I observed that day, was how much deflection was noticeable, particularly in such close proximity to the chainplates...

Furthermore, if a builder is gonna place such windows flush with the topsides on such a slab-sided hull, a stout rubrail in proximity to them could be of great benefit... But, as we see on so many modern production boats, rubrails have become so passe', these days...



smackdaddy said:


> I don't think so. That's why they invented good judgement - and fenders.


When you get a bit more experience out there, you may come to appreciate that "Good Judgement" may not always trump 'Bad Luck', or a similar unforeseen misfortune... Certainly, this was an example of a very poor decision on the part of the crew, but even the most prudent skipper might only be one ill-timed mechanical failure, or any number of possibly calamities beyond his control, away from finding himself in a similar situation... And sometimes, not even fenders will be sufficient to save the day...


----------



## aeventyr60

If you happen to make a passage across the Pacific, one of those sides and ports is gonna be buried in the deep blue Pacific for a couple of weeks... it's most likely gonna leak...you don't have to go around cape horn to figure this out...


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> If you happen to make a passage across the Pacific, one of those sides and ports is gonna be buried in the deep blue Pacific for a couple of weeks... it's most likely gonna leak...you don't have to go around cape horn to figure this out...


I saw a post recently on another forum, I believe it was CF... the owner was complaining that the sealant used to bed the hull portlights on his catamaran appeared to contain some residue, or whatever, that was 'oozing' out, and creating a dark stain on his topsides that was difficult to remove... UFB...

Can't seem to locate the thread, perhaps I saw it elsewhere, but in searching for it I did happen to come across this one...



> I have a Lewmar Fixed Portlight about 34" long on my Hunter38 which has started leaking. I need to rebed but I am not sure which bedding goo to use...


The Hunter 38 is not a very old boat, and of course that portlight is above deck level...

;-)


----------



## aeventyr60

The saving grace on arrival in Fatu Hiva, Marquessa, French Polynesia was all of our fellow cruiser who said " We won" on the most goose neck barnacles up the beam of the boat...it was a funny tradition as each "new" boat won the award. A few Hinano's quickly assauged all those who though they had the "leak proof' boat.. 

It doesn't matter much if it's a leaky teaky, Hunter or the famed greatest boat of the year...it's just a matte of time before it leaks...right on top of your lee cloth bullet proof rack...


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Cool. We're done with the portlight inquest.
> 
> As for CF, the proof is in the pudding. Go over there and see how many of the mods that were involved in the trolling of me are still mods. As I've always said, I'm no forum angel - I don't pretend to be - but this one's on them.


Of course it is, Smack. Just like it's the fault of every mod who banned you on all the _other_ forums, temporarily or otherwise. Of course when they reinstate you it's only because they've come to their senses, no? I'd like to take you up on your suggestion to go uncover which CF mods who "trolled" you are still serving as mods, but it might cut into my lineup of daytime soap opera viewing so I think I'll pass.

So in another effort to get the thread back on track, I'm still waiting for you to follow-up with your statement that higher-end brands are built better, even though that presumed higher quality is not necessary for safe bluewater cruising. Thus far we only know -- thanks to your boatbuilding expertise and a couple of photographs -- that portlights on two boats are built to the same or similar standards, along with the other components you listed. It might even be the _exact_ same standards, depending on whether we're talking about placement or frame material? But there's no sense looking into it further when they "look" the same, after all.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> I saw a post recently on another forum, I believe it was CF... the owner was complaining that the sealant used to bed the hull portlights on his catamaran appeared to contain some residue, or whatever, that was 'oozing' out, and creating a dark stain on his topsides that was difficult to remove... UFB...
> 
> Can't seem to locate the thread, perhaps I saw it elsewhere, but in searching for it I did happen to come across this one...
> 
> The Hunter 38 is not a very old boat, and of course that portlight is above deck level...
> 
> ;-)


I could be wrong, but my understandng is that the various sealants & adhesives used in production boatbuilding these days has a finite lifespan, especially if there's any UV exposure. Not sure about underwater fittings like through-hulls, though. Many "old-school" boats used butyl tape which is more labor intensive & therefore expensive, but seems to stay pliable indefinitely. My understanding is that Morris, for example, still uses this method, and I see it on all of the deck fittings on my Bristol which have never leaked. Mainesail has a great online tutorial on how to use the stuff, and it's not difficult. Just requires some extra time and a bit more precision than using the conventional goops.

It seems the problem is that, once the goop dries out, water penetrates the fasteners, and then it's a downward spiral until the portlight or whatever is replaced. Probably just one of 100's of other unseen details which go into the mfg. of higher end boats, even though it was probably just the standard for most boats -- high-end or not -- in an earlier era. But who cares, just trade your boat in before any such problems arise, right?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> What difference does it make? It's a glossy sailing magazine Boat of the Year built to the CE Category A standard, they're all the same, and "perfectly fine" for bluewater sailing, right?


Yeah, the Cat A boats are perfectly fine for bluewater sailing. I was just interested in seeing the layout of the portlights you keep harping on - so I was just asking which brand/model it was. No biggie.



JonEisberg said:


> You don't seem to comprehend the vulnerability of placing such a window amidships, at the point of the boat's maximum beam. THAT is the section of the hull most likely to come into contact with a dock, or another boat rafted alongside, where the fenders will be placed, whatever... That's a world of difference from the placement of the portlights on the Boreal, in comparison...


I get it. But as is shown in your photo here...










The portlight itself is not being compromised by the hard bits - it's not coming into contact with anything. That's what I thought you were saying earlier - that the portlight was slamming into the dock due to its placement

Overall, it looks to be in good shape. So, I'm not seeing the big deal here.



JonEisberg said:


> The Boreal would likely have been fine in that situation, other than perhaps some scuffing of the bare aluminum... Harder to say about the boat pictured without the window, but beyond some scratching of the gelcoat, I'm gonna guess it would have fared pretty well, despite the amount of visible deflection of the topsides. How much the cutout in the hull at that point is difficult for me to guess, but one of the most sobering aspects of what I observed that day, was how much deflection was noticeable, particularly in such close proximity to the chainplates...


So are you saying that this boat in the pic only came away from this situation with some gelcoat scratches? If so, sounds like it held up like a Boreal.

I certainly would expect some real flex when a boat is being bashed against a hard surface. Flex is not a bad thing as long as it holds together. Sounds like this one did.



JonEisberg said:


> Furthermore, if a builder is gonna place such windows flush with the topsides on such a slab-sided hull, a stout rubrail in proximity to them could be of great benefit... But, as we see on so many modern production boats, rubrails have become so passe', these days...


A rubrail wouldn't help much in this situation would it?










I'm with you though - I love the rubrail on my Hunter. Our slip is seriously tight. On a windy day, I'll sometimes pivot around a piling backing in and the boys aren't always spot on with the fender. So far so good.



JonEisberg said:


> When you get a bit more experience out there, you may come to appreciate that "Good Judgement" may not always trump 'Bad Luck', or a similar unforeseen misfortune... Certainly, this was an example of a very poor decision on the part of the crew, but even the most prudent skipper might only be one ill-timed mechanical failure, or any number of possibly calamities beyond his control, away from finding himself in a similar situation... And sometimes, not even fenders will be sufficient to save the day..


I'm not picking on the crew. I'm just saying that what's happening in that pic is not the sign of a poorly designed or built boat. Not at all.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> The saving grace on arrival in Fatu Hiva, Marquessa, French Polynesia was all of our fellow cruiser who said " We won" on the most goose neck barnacles up the beam of the boat...it was a funny tradition as each "new" boat won the award. A few Hinano's quickly assauged all those who though they had the "leak proof' boat..
> 
> It doesn't matter much if it's a leaky teaky, Hunter or the famed greatest boat of the year...it's just a matte of time before it leaks...right on top of your lee cloth bullet proof rack...


Bingo.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah. the Cat A boats are perfectly fine for bluewater sailing. I was just interested in seeing the layout of the portlights you keep harping on - so I was just asking which brand/model it was. No biggie.
> 
> I get it. But as is shown in your photo here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The portlight itself is not being compromised by the hard bits - so it's not coming into contact with anything. That's what I thought you were saying earlier - that the porlight was slamming into the dock.
> 
> It looks to be in good shape. So, I'm not seeing the big deal here.
> 
> So are you saying that this boat in the pic only came away from this situation with some gelcoat scratches? If so, sounds like it held up like a Boreal.
> 
> I certainly would expect some real flex when a boat is being bashed against a hard surface. Flex is not a bad thing as long as it holds together. Sounds like this one did.
> 
> A rubrail wouldn't help much in this situation would it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you though - I love the rubrail on my Hunter. Our slip is seriously tight. On a windy day, I'll sometimes pivot around a piling backing in and the boys aren't always spot on with the fender. So far so good.
> 
> I'm not picking on the crew. I'm just saying that what's happening in that pic is not the sign of a poorly designed or built boat. Not at all.


It's a floating dock. They are typically set low to the water. What about the more common fixed dock with pilings? Or is this too obvious a question?


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Of course it is, Smack. Just like it's the fault of every mod who banned you on all the _other_ forums, temporarily or otherwise. Of course when they reinstate you it's only because they've come to their senses, no? I'd like to take you up on your suggestion to go uncover which CF mods who "trolled" you are still serving as mods, but it might cut into my lineup of daytime soap opera viewing so I think I'll pass.


Three of the four were apparently "fired" from the mod team. And rightly so.

As I've always said, I love a good fight as long as it's fair. That one, obviously, wasn't. Otherwise, they would still be mods.

So, I'll let the facts speak for themselves. And if you want to discuss it any more, you can do so on my blog. Not here.


----------



## Exile1

aeventyr60 said:


> The saving grace on arrival in Fatu Hiva, Marquessa, French Polynesia was all of our fellow cruiser who said " We won" on the most goose neck barnacles up the beam of the boat...it was a funny tradition as each "new" boat won the award. A few Hinano's quickly assauged all those who though they had the "leak proof' boat..
> 
> It doesn't matter much if it's a leaky teaky, Hunter or the famed greatest boat of the year...it's just a matte of time before it leaks...right on top of your lee cloth bullet proof rack...


You're probably right about the inevitably of leaks, especially after crossing the Pacific! But quality construction to begin with, proper sealants, & routine maintenance can do an awful lot to mitigate. Thus far I've only had one leak through a lazarette hatch where I neglected to replace the gasket in time. AFAIK, all of my (opening!) portlights are original (1986). Of course, I could very well be one of those consoling myself on thinking I had a "leak-proof" boat upon arrival in Fatu Hiva! :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> It's a floating dock. They are typically set low to the water. What about the more common fixed dock with pilings? Or is this too obvious a question?


No - you're right. Tide does happen, after all.

But again, the portlight is recessed - and if it's a good material, is properly sized and secured, it's going to create a composite skin for that area at least as strong as the glass skin itself. Still, I'd want plenty of big fenders.

If these hull portlights were such a compromise of strength and seaworthiness - we wouldn't be seeing them in virtually all the new boats from every brand.


----------



## Don L

1,000s and 1,000s of boats with port lights and windows in the hull that are in slips etc. Yet I rarely read of problems. Both boats I have owned had both fixed windows and opening portlights in the hull and neither had any issue. Now that is only 2 boats, but is 37 years of boat years so if it was a big problem I would think it would have shown up.

Come on guys move on to something else that does have obvious real world operational use to disprove.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> 1,000s and 1,000s of boats with port lights and windows in the hull that are in slips etc. Yet I rarely read of problems. Both boats I have owned had both fixed windows and opening portlights in the hull and neither had any issue. Now that is only 2 boats, but is 37 years of boat years so if it was a big problem I would think it would have shown up.
> 
> Come on guys move on to something else that does have obvious real world operational use to disprove.


If this is all they have left to pick on, I'd say that's a good thing. The point is proven.


----------



## hellsop

MedSailor said:


> I have a Portland pudgy, and just secured a gently used electric outboard. Can't wait to try it out! Of course, I really need one of those hats before I attempt any voyages...


Easy enough. They're about $20 from Very Large Internet Retailers.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Three of the four were apparently "fired" from the mod team. And rightly so.
> 
> As I've always said, I love a good fight as long as it's fair. That one, obviously, wasn't. Otherwise, they would still be mods.
> 
> So, I'll let the facts speak for themselves. And if you want to discuss it any more, you can do so on my blog. Not here.


I'm good with letting facts speak for themselves, to the extent you are correctly citing them that is. It's funny, I heard at least a couple of the mods you speak of left voluntarily well before your permanent ban. I would accept your invite to discuss further on your blog, except that's where you claimed it was only your "dingy" post that was wholly responsible. Now whatever your other defenses may be, we both know that one just isn't true. The problem is there's not much accountability for the veracity of statements on someone's private blog. They're not even subject to the relatively mild vetting that can (occasionally) happen on forums. It's generally all just cheerleading with some drama thrown in to keep the hit count up.

So rather than publicly debate purported facts about other people's motives & actions on another forum, let's assume hypothetically that your position is correct, namely that someone got justly disciplined while in the process of disciplining you. But if true, then why were you nevertheless permanently banned? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to get disciplined for your behavior, and the person disciplining you to get disciplined independently for his? Otherwise, and if (as you claim) some big injustice was done, you would have been let off the hook, especially if it only came down to a few mods who were in favor of a ban. And if, as you claim, those particular mods are now gone, why haven't you been reinstated??

C'mon Smack, martyrdom doesn't become you. Your logic is akin to someone getting arrested, charged, and convicted for disorderly conduct, but in the process of arrest the cop is found to have used excessive force. The cop hopefully gets disciplined, but the conviction for the offense still stands. Of course here, I suspect (and have reason to believe) there is a completely different set of facts, not least of which your _other_ bans from _other_ forums, along with the previous _temp ban_ and _repeated warnings_ from CF.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> No - you're right. Tide does happen, after all.
> 
> But again, the portlight is recessed - and if it's a good material, is properly sized and secured, it's going to create a composite skin for that area at least as strong as the glass skin itself. Still, I'd want plenty of big fenders.
> 
> If these hull portlights were such a compromise of strength and seaworthiness - we wouldn't be seeing them in virtually all the new boats from every brand.


I don't think the port light is recessed. In fact, I think this is what Jon meant when he said they were "flush with the topsides." But he can let us know if need be.










We're seeing such hull portlights in new boats from various brands because they're comfortable & convenient, and thus sell well. Whether they are the "same" portlights between brands or just "look the same" remains an open question. For starters, many are recessed and not placed amidships as has already been shown.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> 1,000s and 1,000s of boats with port lights and windows in the hull that are in slips etc. Yet I rarely read of problems. Both boats I have owned had both fixed windows and opening portlights in the hull and neither had any issue. Now that is only 2 boats, but is 37 years of boat years so if it was a big problem I would think it would have shown up.
> 
> Come on guys move on to something else that does have obvious real world operational use to disprove.


Fair point Don, and like Paulo's many examples of AWB's voyaging all over the world, it is persuasive. My only hesitancy when seeing posts like Jon's is that the vast majority of boats sit at the dock, there's no DOT or FAA enforcement of standards, and no regulatory reporting regime when it comes to repairs. It's only the reputation of builders and consumer feedback which compels compliance, along with the occasional failure that happens to get reported and publicized. This is why I give more weight than perhaps others to experienced mariners and/or the "yard guys" who are immersed in the construction of boats in ways I never will.

So you & Smack may be entirely correct about the safety of portlights, for example, but thanks to Jon pointing it out we are more aware of any potential risk regarding this and other potential issues, and can therefore more properly assess them.


----------



## Don L

I get the feeling that people don't know the difference between a portlight and piece of lexan etc glued into an opening.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> I get the feeling that people don't know the difference between a portlight and piece of lexan etc glued into an opening.


So why don't you explain it? Is one inherently stronger? Is there only one way to do it so it is in fact the same type of build on different boats?

Don't hold us in suspense like Smack not telling us why more expensive brands are "better built."


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> So why don't you explain it? Is one inherently stronger? Is there only one way to do it so it is in fact the same type of build on different boats?
> 
> Don't hold us in suspense like Smack not telling us why more expensive brands are "better built."


One opens! The other is just a glued in window. People keep commenting on pictures of windows and calling them portlights. If you lookup the breaking strength of lexan etc you will it is pretty strong and if a wave breaks it you probably have much bigger problem.

The opening portlight strength is really going to be a function of the frame and latches.

The window strength is mostly about what is used to glue it in.

But I would bet that the ones installed in the hull for a berth area see a lot less danger than the ones installed in the deck.

Far as more expensive being built "better" I think people confuse better with fancy/nicer.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> One opens! The other is just a glued in window. People keep commenting on pictures of windows and calling them portlights. If you lookup the breaking strength of lexan etc you will it is pretty strong and if a wave breaks it you probably have much bigger problem.
> 
> The opening portlight strength is really going to be a function of the frame and latches.
> 
> The window strength is mostly about what is used to glue it in.
> 
> But I would bet that the ones installed in the hull for a berth area see a lot less danger than the ones installed in the deck.
> 
> Far as more expensive being built "better" I think people confuse better with fancy/nicer.


Except there are the common types you see in cabin tops that also don't open but have frames. But I guess you're talking only about the "in-hull" ones.

Yea, Lexan is plenty strong but I guess it comes down to thickness, surrounding hull strength, overlap, and a lot of other factors I haven't thought of I'm sure. It would be interesting to see how they do it in metal boats.

As far as expensive being built "better" vs. just "fancier," that's what I'm trying to nail down! Although I've since learned that there are plenty of new boats priced in-between the AWB's & the fancy brands. Some of these are the Boreal's & other aluminum "expedition" boats, and it makes sense these would cost more to produce and therefore be priced higher for the consumer. Not so sure about the really high-end ones, and agree that many of the AWB's are great values.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I get it. But as is shown in your photo here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The portlight itself is not being compromised by the hard bits - it's not coming into contact with anything. That's what I thought you were saying earlier - that the portlight was slamming into the dock due to its placement
> 
> Overall, it looks to be in good shape. So, I'm not seeing the big deal here.
> 
> So are you saying that this boat in the pic only came away from this situation with some gelcoat scratches? If so, sounds like it held up like a Boreal.
> 
> I certainly would expect some real flex when a boat is being bashed against a hard surface. Flex is not a bad thing as long as it holds together. Sounds like this one did.


Well, a video would have been more illustrative...

Look again at the first pic I posted. The wave height is sufficient to have caused the boat to heave considerably at that dock, and the wind powerful enough to cause the boat to heel noticeably... The hull was regularly coming into contact with the dock almost precisely at the lower edge of that window, producing the disconcerting 'cracking' noises I have alluded to previously... Based upon what I observed that day, I have little doubt the integrity of that window was compromised to some extent as a result...



smackdaddy said:


> A rubrail wouldn't help much in this situation would it?


No, but a rubrail would certainly help protect such a window in the event such a boat might ever venture beyond a succession of stays in manicured marinas with nicely padded floating docks, where fenders wrapped in fleece diapers are de rigueur...;-)






























smackdaddy said:


> I'm not picking on the crew. I'm just saying that what's happening in that pic is not the sign of a poorly designed or built boat. Not at all.


I'll just have to take you word for it, I suppose, and simply try to forget what I saw with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, that day in Charleston...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Don0190 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1,000s and 1,000s of boats with port lights and windows in the hull that are in slips etc. Yet I rarely read of problems. Both boats I have owned had both fixed windows and opening portlights in the hull and neither had any issue. Now that is only 2 boats, but is 37 years of boat years so if it was a big problem I would think it would have shown up.
> 
> Come on guys move on to something else that does have obvious real world operational use to disprove.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is all they have left to pick on, I'd say that's a good thing. The point is proven.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there can be little doubt those guys on the assembly line step it up several notches, taking their craftsmanship to a whole 'nuther level, when it comes to the installation of windows or portlights _BELOW_ deck level:



> Portlight Poses Pertinacious Problem
> 
> Spent the morning leak seeking.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I took the plastic surround off a portlight and found all 16 securing screws loose. Truly amazed to find the same problem on all of the 5 others, so that is 96 screws not fitted properly on a 3 year old boat.
> 
> Whether it's from temperature change, vibration or whatever, I reckon it's well shoddy.
> 
> You may wish to check yours if it is a Lewmar portlight as fitted to most Bavaria yachts.
> 
> If it turns out I am not allowed to mention trade names, the portlight comes from a place with 2 syllables, first rhymes with phew, second with tar. Boat builder has a reputation for its staff slapping each others leather trousered bottoms to music.
> 
> Read more at Portlight Poses Pertinacious Problem


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, there can be little doubt those guys on the assembly line step it up several notches, taking their craftsmanship to a whole 'nuther level, when it comes to the installation of windows or portlights


Well I assume you really are trying to say something negative:

You just come off as a bitter person with the highlight of your day to post stuff like this. Is this all you have to do, make up statements like this to try to support your position? You have any facts or anything? What other industries with "assembly lines" are on your list.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Well I assume you really are trying to say something negative:
> 
> You just come off as a bitter person with the highlight of your day to post stuff like this. Is this all you have to do, make up statements like this to try to support your position? You have any facts or anything? What other industries with "assembly lines" are on your list.


OUCH... Damn, good thing it wasn't Hunter that I maligned... ;-)

Uhhh, what statement did I "make up", exactly?


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> I'm good with letting facts speak for themselves, to the extent you are correctly citing them that is. It's funny, I heard at least a couple of the mods you speak of left voluntarily well before your permanent ban. I would accept your invite to discuss further on your blog, except that's where you claimed it was only your "dingy" post that was wholly responsible. Now whatever your other defenses may be, we both know that one just isn't true. The problem is there's not much accountability for the veracity of statements on someone's private blog. They're not even subject to the relatively mild vetting that can (occasionally) happen on forums. It's generally all just cheerleading with some drama thrown in to keep the hit count up.
> 
> So rather than publicly debate purported facts about other people's motives & actions on another forum, let's assume hypothetically that your position is correct, namely that someone got justly disciplined while in the process of disciplining you. But if true, then why were you nevertheless permanently banned? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to get disciplined for your behavior, and the person disciplining you to get disciplined independently for his? Otherwise, and if (as you claim) some big injustice was done, you would have been let off the hook, especially if it only came down to a few mods who were in favor of a ban. And if, as you claim, those particular mods are now gone, why haven't you been reinstated??
> 
> C'mon Smack, martyrdom doesn't become you. Your logic is akin to someone getting arrested, charged, and convicted for disorderly conduct, but in the process of arrest the cop is found to have used excessive force. The cop hopefully gets disciplined, but the conviction for the offense still stands. Of course here, I suspect (and have reason to believe) there is a completely different set of facts, not least of which your _other_ bans from _other_ forums, along with the previous _temp ban_ and _repeated warnings_ from CF.


You can spin it all you want. But all the _actual_ info is right there on the blog. I don't hide anything. You'll see _exactly_ who said what and who of those people are now gone from the mod team.

For example...here's some BS:



Exile1 said:


> I'm good with letting facts speak for themselves, to the extent you are correctly citing them that is. It's funny, I heard at least a couple of the mods you speak of left voluntarily well before your permanent ban. I would accept your invite to discuss further on your blog, except that's where *you claimed it was only your "dingy" post that was wholly responsible*. Now whatever your other defenses may be, we both know that one just isn't true.


What we know "just isn't true" is what you just typed. If it's there, cut that quote out and post it here. Otherwise, tone down the BS.

Like I said, I'm happy to discuss it there if you can't leave it alone. But I can assure you - your guessing is wrong. I have that on very good authority.

That's enough about it here.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'll just have to take you word for it, I suppose, and simply try to forget what I saw with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, that day in Charleston...
> 
> ;-)


You're still confused. What you saw and heard was a sailboat getting crunched because it was being bashed against a dock by some big, nasty chop.

I've yet to see a Boreal or Oyster or _any other boat_ claim that they are designed and built to be bashed against a dock by some big, nasty chop.

They are usually designed and built to sail.

Let that bashing happen long enough and virtually ANY boat is going to see some significant damage. Well, except for a BS Yacht. They _are_ actually designed and built for that very thing. Maybe you and Exile should look into those. It would assuage your fears I think.

So, if you're really judging the design and build of this boat by this one incident - you're doing it wrong. That's been my point all along.


----------



## smackdaddy

For you guys who like to hit stuff, I think you'll really like the Hunter 50. This review from Zuzanna Prochazka has some good info:

http://marlow-hunter.com/wp-content/uploads/Latitudes-Attitudes.pdf

Like this...



> A watertight bulkhead backs up the sail locker which is just aft of the deep, divided anchor locker, and the whole bow section is Kevlar reinforced for extra strength in case of a collision.


That's not cheap construction.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You're still confused. What you saw and heard was a sailboat getting crunched because it was being bashed against a dock by some big, nasty chop.
> 
> I've yet to see a Boreal or Oyster or _any other boat_ claim that they are designed and built to be bashed against a dock by some big, nasty chop.
> 
> They are usually designed and built to sail.
> 
> Let that bashing happen long enough and virtually ANY boat is going to see some significant damage. Well, except for a BS Yacht. They _are_ actually designed and built for that very thing. Maybe you and Exile should look into those. It would assuage your fears I think.
> 
> So, if you're really judging the design and build of this boat by this one incident - you're doing it wrong. That's been my point all along.


OK, you win... there's little point in trying to argue the point with someone who apparently can't see the difference between a yacht "designed and built to be bashed against a dock", and a yacht _built to be able to WITHSTAND such a bashing without suffering structural damage_... Any number of other production boats would have come through that ordeal fine, with nothing more than a bit of cosmetic gelcoat damage, at the most...

It wasn't _THAT_ much of an intense situation, after all... But, I'm sure you're right, nothing a sailing yacht might encounter say, during a gale halfway to Bermuda, could possibly match those sort of forces, right?

;-)


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> You can spin it all you want. But all the _actual_ info is right there on the blog. I don't hide anything. You'll see _exactly_ who said what and who of those people are now gone from the mod team.
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy to discuss it there if you can't leave it alone. But I can assure you - you're guessing is wrong. I have that on very good authority.
> 
> That's enough about it here.


Before I do, is there any new info reported on your blog? When I say new, I mean newer than a few days after the incident when you so triumphantly reported your "Perma-Ban?" And does it address my question why others leaving as mods has anything to do with your getting banned, or why 2-3 people leaving hasn't gotten you an invite back? There are what, a dozen or so mods over there? Lemme guess, something about CF's rule on not discussing mod actions publicly? Nah, that couldn't be right since YOU don't approve of the rule.

If there's nothing new, then I wish you well with your publicity & marketing venture, but I'm really not interested in reading juvenile stuff about how a single post ended it for you on some forum, how various forums "rate," how you've been so unfairly victimized notwithstanding all your _other_ bans, or how "big" some stranger's sailing adventures were.  If there is something new & worth commenting on, I'll respond further via pm.

Finally, I can read your blog without having to buy something from the "SmackShop" can't I?


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Finally, I can read your blog without having to buy something from the "SmackShop" can't I?


Well, everyone else in the world can. But you? No.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> OK, you win... there's little point in trying to argue the point with someone who apparently can't see the difference between a yacht "designed and built to be bashed against a dock", and a yacht _built to be able to WITHSTAND such a bashing without suffering structural damage_... Any number of other production boats would have come through that ordeal fine, with nothing more than a bit of cosmetic gelcoat damage, at the most...


Was there actually structural damage to this boat? You've mentioned hearing "crunching" and that you assumed there would be an issue with the portlight, but I hadn't seen where you actually verified structural damage.

What was the damage?


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Well, everyone else in the world can. But you? No.


Shall I also take that "no" as the answer to my question whether there's anything new on your blog about your perma-ban? Or is that yet another question you'd rather ignore rather than answer?


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Shall I also take that "no" as the answer to my question whether there's anything new on your blog about your perma-ban? Or is that yet another question you'd rather ignore rather than answer?


Exile, dude - what part of "I'm not going to talk about it anymore here" do you not understand? Move on. It's a different forum.

Now, this thread is about how awesome Production Boats are.

Keep up brother. You seem fixated.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Was there actually structural damage to this boat? You've mentioned hearing "crunching" and that you assumed there would be an issue with the portlight, but I hadn't seen where you actually verified structural damage.
> 
> What was the damage?


Fine, you win yet again...

You're correct, I never "verified" any structural damage... In fact, the entire episode was probably just something I dreamed, and no doubt that boat is just as good as the day it rolled out of the factory, despite what I (imagined) I had seen, and heard...

;-)


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Exile, dude - what part of "I'm not going to talk about it anymore here" do you not understand? Move on. It's a different forum.
> 
> Now, this thread is about how awesome Production Boats are.
> 
> Keep up brother. You seem fixated.


Yup, just as I thought -- nothing new. But checked your blog just to confirm. With your track record, I suppose I wouldn't want to talk about it either.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Fine, you win yet again...
> 
> You're correct, I never "verified" any structural damage... In fact, the entire episode was probably just something I dreamed, and no doubt that boat is just as good as the day it rolled out of the factory, despite what I (imagined) I had seen, and heard...
> 
> ;-)


Oh, okay. Cool.

I'm just trying to keep the facts straight here.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> ... there's little point in trying to argue the point with someone who apparently can't see the difference between a yacht "designed and built to be bashed against a dock", and a yacht _built to be able to WITHSTAND such a bashing without suffering structural damage_...


This sums it up perfectly, and demonstrates why trying to have an adult, informative discussion with a personality like this has become a complete waste of time.

Unsubscribed.


----------



## westsailpatti

Some Westsail folk lore , in the beginning and this is after the Kendall. The first few Westsail 32's were laid up pretty thick , so thick in fact they checked it out and it was decided the hull didn't need to be that thick . So a meeting was held , it was decided to keep the thickness as is so that it would not be found out that there was a change and all the rest of the Westsails would be called the flimsy ones . It was a marketing thing , Lynn Vic was a marketing type and coined the phrase Westsail The World . She got the mag Sports Illustrated to do a big write up and the rest is history .


----------



## smackdaddy

westsailpatti said:


> Some Westsail folk lore , in the beginning and this is after the Kendall. The first few Westsail 32's were laid up pretty thick , so thick in fact they checked it out and it was decided the hull didn't need to be that thick . So a meeting was held , it was decided to keep the thickness as is so that it would not be found out that there was a change and all the rest of the Westsails would be called the flimsy ones . It was a marketing thing , Lynn Vic was a marketing type and coined the phrase Westsail The World . She got the mag Sports Illustrated to do a big write up and the rest is history .


Great story. Thanks wsp.

How do they do pinned up against a dock in 30 knots and 4' chop?

Heh-heh.


----------



## travlin-easy

i can't believe you guys are still beating this dead horse. 

Gary


----------



## smackdaddy

travlineasy said:


> i can't believe you guys are still beating this dead horse.
> 
> Gary


I'm with you.

But there does seem to be a small handful of people out there who actually believe production boats don't belong in blue water.

Go figure.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> I'm with you.
> 
> But there does seem to be a small handful of people out there who actually believe production boats don't belong in blue water.
> 
> Go figure.


What makes it "production" anyway? When at least two were made?


----------



## mitiempo

jerryrlitton said:


> What makes it "production" anyway? When at least two were made?


Good point. Boreal must be a production boat with over 20 sailing currently. Semi-custom but still production.

The only boats not "production" are the one-offs.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I'm with you.
> 
> But there does seem to be a small handful of people out there who actually believe production boats don't belong in blue water.
> 
> Go figure.


Well, I hope you aren't including me in that "small handful"...

'Cause if I actually believed that, I would hardly have managed to ever do any offshore sailing at all...

;-)


----------



## Minnewaska

My boat is as "produced" a "production" boat as they come. As best I know, she still represents the highest number of hulls ever made over 50ft. Something like 800 or 900. And the newer 53 is practically the same boat, but inferior in many ways. At least, IMO.

The only two characteristics that are not perfect for bluewater are the spade rudder and flat bottom. As long as you don't manage to rip the rudder off and can stand the pounding in steep waves, she's perfectly capable. The large cockpit would turn many off, but I say that's as much personal preference, as a bonafide issue for offshore. If the furling main give you the pucker factor, just run a traditional up the alt slot instead. 

Yes, she has port lights below the gunnel. Best I can tell, they are bedded and then held in with bolted down aluminum framing. Again, I would agree they are not ideal, but I don't get too concerned either.

She's clearly not the most bulletproof boat around, not by a long shot. But, I know several sister ships that have made dozens of trips back forth from NE to BVI.

Ironically, (and painfully), my boat was ground into the dock in 35+kt winds with 2 ft chop in the marina. We were fully exposed to a mile of fetch and the fenders jumped the rickety floating dock we were tied to, while away. Those docks would wobble like potato chips in a small breeze. Scratched the heck out of the topside paint job, but zero structural damage. Not even a question of real damage. Insurance put a new paint job on her.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I hope you aren't including me in that "small handful"...
> 
> 'Cause if I actually believed that, I would hardly have managed to ever do any offshore sailing at all...
> 
> ;-)


Whew. I'm glad to know you ain't in that group.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> This sums it up perfectly, and demonstrates why trying to have an adult, informative discussion with a personality like this has become a complete waste of time.


It _is_ difficult when a "personality" insists that you provide facts for your claims. It's definitely a lot more pleasant to just spew BS and not get challenged.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> My boat is as "produced" a "production" boat as they come. As best I know, she still represents the highest number of hulls ever made over 50ft. Something like 800 or 900. And the newer 53 is practically the same boat, but inferior in many ways. At least, IMO.
> 
> The only two characteristics that are not perfect for bluewater are the spade rudder and flat bottom. As long as you don't manage to rip the rudder off and can stand the pounding in steep waves, she's perfectly capable. The large cockpit would turn many off, but I say that's as much personal preference, as a bonafide issue for offshore. If the furling main give you the pucker factor, just run a traditional up the alt slot instead.
> 
> Yes, she has port lights below the gunnel. Best I can tell, they are bedded and then held in with bolted down aluminum framing. Again, I would agree they are not ideal, but I don't get too concerned either.
> 
> She's clearly not the most bulletproof boat around, not by a long shot.  But, I know several sister ships that have made dozens of trips back forth from NE to BVI.
> 
> Ironically, (and painfully), my boat was ground into the dock in 35+kt winds with 2 ft chop in the marina. We were fully exposed to a mile of fetch and the fenders jumped the rickety floating dock we were tied to, while away. Those docks would wobble like potato chips in a small breeze. Scratched the heck out of the topside paint job, but zero structural damage. Not even a question of real damage. Insurance put a new paint job on her.


Very good run-down, Minne. Thanks.


----------



## aeventyr60

* My boat is as "produced" a "production" boat as they come. As best I know, she still represents the highest number of hulls ever made over 50ft. Something like 800 or 900. And the newer 53 is practically the same boat, but inferior in many ways. At least, IMO.*

Wait a minute here, so the newer production models are the flimsier ones?


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> Wait a minute here, so the newer production models are the flimsier ones?


They always are dude.


----------



## Minnewaska

aeventyr60 said:


> * My boat is as "produced" a "production" boat as they come. As best I know, she still represents the highest number of hulls ever made over 50ft. Something like 800 or 900. And the newer 53 is practically the same boat, but inferior in many ways. At least, IMO.*
> 
> Wait a minute here, so the newer production models are the flimsier ones?


In around 2009, the Beneteau Group made significant cost reductions in building their boats, in order to lower prices in the declining economy. It was a very smart move for their business, but nothing is for nothing. The interior fake wood is probably the biggest downgrade, so that's got nothing to do with blue water capability. I believe they also went from bronze thru hulls to plastic. I know its some fancy plastic that some like, but I don't. Old school, perhaps. Most things seemed to get smaller, like winches and stays, but I never measured. We have tons of brass and chrome, where the newer have plastic. Even our subflooring seems more substantial, while newer models seem squishy. When they built the 54, it was their flagship, so it's possible they put a bit more into her than even the other models of her time ('04-'08)

We were actually in the process of configuring a brand new 50 ft Jeanneau, when it became apparent that a used 54 had what we really wanted. We actually paid more for our 4 year old (at the time) 54, than it would have cost to have a brand new 50. We paid about 60% what her originally owner put into her, maybe a bit less.


----------



## Don L

Just to be sure I really know, what's this thread about?

I mean I read the beginning and all, but ...........


----------



## MedSailor

Exile1 said:


> _BUT MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY,_ how does your Pudgy do while rowing?  The idea of a dinghy that rows decently, an electric motor, and maybe even a sail rig sounds appealing. If nothing else, no longer any need to carry gasoline onboard. I imagine your Nauticat might be better than most 40'ers as far as deck space for storing, unless you use davits. With all the bells & whistles, incl. the liferaft components, the PP's get pretty pricey. Ah well, life rafts & dinghies -- could be two areas even more contentious than production vs. bluewater boats (but not as bad as anchors & guns).


The case for the pudgy was made before, here on Sailnet. Smackdaddy was even present. 

The case for the pudgy is well made by the company here Pudgy FAQ.

She's not expensive when compared to life-rafts. There is little point in considering the pudgy if you aren't interested in the life raft feature. She's roomier than a 4 man USCG liferaft and she has an insulated floor (hypothermia anyone?), can't sink (double hull with internal foam and positive buoyancy) and you can propel her, so you can actively participate in your own rescue.

She rows pretty darn well actually. Not as well as a purpose-built rowing boat, and I wish the oarlocks were a little better, the oars a little longer, and with each stroke she doesn't glide for 10 boat lengths but, she does row quite well.

I've rowed my Portland Pudgy all over creation and she's been our (engineless) tender for years now. A couple of examples of her rowing ability come to mind. First is rowing 2 regular sized adults and 2 overweight adults about 1/2 mile into a 15kt wind back to the boat. Wasn't difficult at all (much to my surprise) and there was (barely) enough room for all of us and for me to swing full rowing strokes. The second time was rowing ashore about 1/2 miles in another harbor to buy some supplies. Upon arrival we realized we had forgotten out wallets so I had to row back to the boat. Total rowing milage that day was 2 miles in a short period of time. She made short work of the distance and it wasn't a big deal.

MedSailor


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

MedSailor said:


> The case for the pudgy was made before, here on Sailnet. Smackdaddy was even present.
> 
> The case for the pudgy is well made by the company here Pudgy FAQ.
> 
> She's not expensive when compared to life-rafts. There is little point in considering the pudgy if you aren't interested in the life raft feature. She's roomier than a 4 man USCG liferaft and she has an insulated floor (hypothermia anyone?), can't sink (double hull with internal foam and positive buoyancy) and you can propel her, so you can actively participate in your own rescue.
> 
> She rows pretty darn well actually. Not as well as a purpose-built rowing boat, and I wish the oarlocks were a little better, the oars a little longer, and with each stroke she doesn't glide for 10 boat lengths but, she does row quite well.
> 
> I've rowed my Portland Pudgy all over creation and she's been our (engineless) tender for years now. A couple of examples of her rowing ability come to mind. First is rowing 2 regular sized adults and 2 overweight adults about 1/2 mile into a 15kt wind back to the boat. Wasn't difficult at all (much to my surprise) and there was (barely) enough room for all of us and for me to swing full rowing strokes. The second time was rowing ashore about 1/2 miles in another harbor to buy some supplies. Upon arrival we realized we had forgotten out wallets so I had to row back to the boat. Total rowing milage that day was 2 miles in a short period of time. She made short work of the distance and it wasn't a big deal.
> 
> MedSailor


How does she sail? (do you have the sailing rig?)


----------



## westsailpatti

smackdaddy said:


> Great story. Thanks wsp.
> 
> How do they do pinned up against a dock in 30 knots and 4' chop?
> 
> Heh-heh.


Because you asked , more Westsail folk lore . Not pinned at the dock , but here goes . A Westsailor got caught in some nasty conditions , he was demasted . He wanted off , so he beached it . He walked a few miles and came to a farm house and asked for help . The farmer asked if he wanted help with the boat the sailor said "no you can have it". After the farmer got rid of the sailor he drove his tractor down to the beached Westsail he hooked a chain to it and started to drag it to the barn . Half way home he decided to roll it over and drag it on the other side . He got it all propped up in the barn, fixed some minor scrapes and sold it .


----------



## MedSailor

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> How does she sail? (do you have the sailing rig?)


Not bad. I want more performance, so I plan to make deeper leeboards and put a bowsprit and a jib on her, but as-is she sails pretty well. I can easily sail her all over an anchorage, including upwind, to any destination I desire. The entire sail kit, including rudder, leeboards, mast, boom and sail all stow in the boat, firmly secured.










Actually, that's another major selling point IMHO with the Pudgy, the integral and internal storage. Even if you prefer your deflatable liferafts, they aren't packed with a VHF or EPIRB. Your abandon ship bag is luggage that you are trying to load into your waterbed-raft under adverse conditions and CAN be lost. If you're in your deflatable raft with nothing but the stock supplies that are packed in the raft, and no way to summon help, your odds aren't very good.

With the pudgy you can have your VHF, Epirb, First aid kit, desalinator etc all contained within the double walls of the boat. If you make it into the boat, you have all your supplies.

MedSailor


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> One opens! The other is just a glued in window. People keep commenting on pictures of windows and calling them portlights.


Hmmm, someone should probably inform Lewmar that portlights, by definition, are of the opening variety...

http://www.lewmar.com/products.asp?id=8011

Maybe let the editor of SAIL magazine know, as well, he seems to be under the impression there's such a thing as a "frameless portlight"... ;-)

Replacing Tired Old Portlights | Sail Magazine


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> The case for the pudgy was made before, here on Sailnet. Smackdaddy was even present.
> 
> The case for the pudgy is well made by the company here Pudgy FAQ.
> 
> She's not expensive when compared to life-rafts. There is little point in considering the pudgy if you aren't interested in the life raft feature. She's roomier than a 4 man USCG liferaft and she has an insulated floor (hypothermia anyone?), can't sink (double hull with internal foam and positive buoyancy) and you can propel her, so you can actively participate in your own rescue.
> 
> She rows pretty darn well actually. Not as well as a purpose-built rowing boat, and I wish the oarlocks were a little better, the oars a little longer, and with each stroke she doesn't glide for 10 boat lengths but, she does row quite well.
> 
> I've rowed my Portland Pudgy all over creation and she's been our (engineless) tender for years now. A couple of examples of her rowing ability come to mind. First is rowing 2 regular sized adults and 2 overweight adults about 1/2 mile into a 15kt wind back to the boat. Wasn't difficult at all (much to my surprise) and there was (barely) enough room for all of us and for me to swing full rowing strokes. The second time was rowing ashore about 1/2 miles in another harbor to buy some supplies. Upon arrival we realized we had forgotten out wallets so I had to row back to the boat. Total rowing milage that day was 2 miles in a short period of time. She made short work of the distance and it wasn't a big deal.
> 
> MedSailor


I love the pudgy. In fact, I even _started_ a thread on them when I first came across them:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship-navigation/64077-wow-im-gettin-pudgy.html

But after looking into it and thinking about it a lot - I just couldn't bring myself around to the life-raft aspect of the the thing. And it was this dual purpose that really attracted me to it in the first place.

Part of this was reading Callahan's and Butler's books on being adrift for weeks, then watching some videos of liferafts in really bad conditions...where I'd expect to be in a real emergency. The pudgy just didn't look like a good platform for bad conditions (even though, yes, you can sail it).

So, in the end, I've gone with an inflatable dinghy and dedicated 6-man LR. I can stow both below and keep my decks clean.

We'll see how it all works out. I may still yet "get a raging pudgy".


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, someone should probably inform Lewmar that portlights, by definition, are of the opening variety........


Huh. I've always used port light for the version that had no opening, ie deadlight. I've said port hole for those that open.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Minnewaska said:


> Huh. I've always used port light for the version that had no opening, ie deadlight. I've said port hole for those that open.


What I learned in naval arch'y school is they are all lights, including those interior to the ship (like the common "window" between a chart room and the bridge, or the captains watch cabin and the bridge). If they don't open they are fixed or dead lights. If they open they are opening lights.

It is more likely than not that recreational boating vendors take great liberties and set their own "standards."

I think there is some connection between port holes and (lame) pirate flags. *grin*. Seriously, I believe the port hole terminology dates back to when all opening lights were round.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, someone should probably inform Lewmar that portlights, by definition, are of the opening variety...
> 
> http://www.lewmar.com/products.asp?id=8011
> 
> Maybe let the editor of SAIL magazine know, as well, he seems to be under the impression there's such a thing as a "frameless portlight"... ;-)
> 
> Replacing Tired Old Portlights | Sail Magazine


Thanks for the Lewmar link. Judging by the appearance and listing of Lewmar equipment, it appears that that dreaded Hunter 50 portlight is the Lewmar stainless:

Stainless Portlight

Then if you look at the Lewmar catalog, it talks about the ratings of the various portlights - based on the Area of the boat (topsides/hull, decks, house sides, etc.).

http://www.lewmar.com/\assets\img\d...atch Portlight Fitting Guide from Web2010.pdf

The SS Atlantic Portlights (Opening), sizes 10, 30, 32 are rated CE Category A for Area 1 (the hull installation seen in the Hunter 50 and the Oyster).

Now, if you look at the specs for the Oyster 475, they list quite a bit of Lewmar gear. They don't specifically mention Lewmar portlights - only "Hull and coachroof ports" - but I think it would be pretty safe to assume that those portlights are Lewmar as well since much of the other gear on the Oyster is from the same maker.

***EDIT***

Actually, I think we now have the proof we needed on what portlights the Oysters use:



> World leading deck equipment manufacturer Lewmar has for many years enjoyed a successful partnership with Oyster, supplying winches, anchoring systems, hardware, hatches and portlights to these prestige sailing yachts


http://www.oysteryachts.com/documents/oyster_news/ON53.pdf

SO, I think this indicates that, indeed, the Hunter 50 portlight is likely every bit as good as the Oyster 475 portlight in terms of quality and strength (CE Category A for Area 1). You'll just pay "a bit more" for the Oyster's.

So - that's good to know.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

MedSailor said:


> Not bad. I want more performance, so I plan to make deeper leeboards and put a bowsprit and a jib on her, but as-is she sails pretty well. I can easily sail her all over an anchorage, including upwind, to any destination I desire. The entire sail kit, including rudder, leeboards, mast, boom and sail all stow in the boat, firmly secured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another major selling point IMHO with the Pudgy, the integral and internal storage. Even if you prefer your deflatable liferafts, they aren't packed with a VHF or EPIRB. Your abandon ship bag is luggage that you are trying to load into your waterbed-raft under adverse conditions and CAN be lost. If you're in your deflatable raft with nothing but the stock supplies that are packed in the raft, and no way to summon help, your odds aren't very good.
> 
> With the pudgy you can have your VHF, Epirb, First aid kit, desalinator etc all contained within the double walls of the boat. If you make it into the boat, you have all your supplies.
> 
> MedSailor


Yes, the concept makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the first-hand info.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> But after looking into it and thinking about it a lot - I just couldn't bring myself around to the life-raft aspect of the the thing. And it was this dual purpose that really attracted me to it in the first place.
> .


Can you elaborate? What were the problems you were seeing?



smackdaddy said:


> Part of this was reading Callahan's and Butler's books on being adrift for weeks, then watching some videos of liferafts in really bad conditions...where I'd expect to be in a real emergency. The pudgy just didn't look like a good platform for bad conditions (even though, yes, you can sail it).
> .


Why not? What were your concerns? On the Pudgy website, they actually quote Callahan saying at least at one point in his ordeal he wished he could have sailed his liferaft.

I have been in a liferaft, for training purposes only, and I would not look forward to spending time in one for real.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Thanks for the Lewmar link. Judging by the appearance and listing of Lewmar equipment, it appears that that dreaded Hunter 50 portlight is the Lewmar stainless:
> 
> Stainless Portlight


Hmmm, I don't think so... The shape of that Lewmar you linked to looks far more 'elliptical', to my eye, not even close, really... that's not to say it still might not be a Lewmar of another series, but as best I can tell, those hinges and dogs don't look like any Lewmar ports I've seen lately...












smackdaddy said:


> ***Actually, I think we now have the proof we needed on what portlights the Oysters use:
> 
> http://www.oysteryachts.com/documents/oyster_news/ON53.pdf
> 
> SO, I think this indicates that, *indeed, the Hunter 50 portlight is likely every bit as good as the Oyster 475 portlight in terms of quality and strength* (CE Category A for Area 1). You'll just pay "a bit more" for the Oyster's.
> 
> So - that's good to know.


Well, if you think that what appear to be some sort of plastic 'quick lock' dogs on that Hunter port are the equal of the 'screw down' style pictured on the Oyster, keep dreaming... 

I've had that type of plastic dog break off in my fingers. I've never seen a screw in dog (mostly seen on older Bomars, it seems) fail... But in fairness, it's really difficult to assess the quality of that Hunter port from that pic, without seeing it firsthand...

Furthermore, while Lewmar makes some pretty good stuff, don't read too much into the name alone... Their quality has been all over the map in recent years with several changes in ownership and management of the brand.... Most of their gear is fine, some of it not so great. In particular, some of their flush deck hatches are somewhat crappy. A buddy of mine in the industry has branded them as being "Designed to Fail"... ;-)

All my deck hatches are Lewmar Ocean Series, their top of the line at the time of their manufacture... I've had one handle break, and had to replace the hinges on two, and I've had the aluminum rivets that secure both the hinges, and the locks for the dogs, fail due to corrosion... Since replacing the failed rivets with stainless machine screws, no problems... Overall I'm still fairly happy with them, but they haven't been bulletproof, by any means... Nowhere near the quality of the cast aluminum stuff from Bomar, for instance...

Just my opinion, as always... ;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Can you elaborate? What were the problems you were seeing?
> 
> Why not? What were your concerns? On the Pudgy website, they actually quote Callahan saying at least at one point in his ordeal he wished he could have sailed his liferaft.
> 
> I have been in a liferaft, for training purposes only, and I would not look forward to spending time in one for real.


It's kind of a complicated thing because there are LOTS of pros and cons, but I'll try to explain where I've come down on it personally.

As Med says (and as Callahan says) - being able to actively sail the thing is _huge_. This means that if you are in the middle of nowhere without communication, you don't have to simply drift and hope like Callahan and the Butlers did for a couple of months each. You have propulsion to move to where you want to go - and thereby potentially shorten your exposure. You're not a passive victim. Again...huge.

A downside concern on it, however, is size and rolling. First, I understand a 4-man life-raft is tiny. So is this thing:










I imagine me and my two boys - plus a potential crew member in this...then I cover it with the lift-raft enclosure:










And it gets very, very small indeed. But more than that, is the issue of rolling in rough seas.

The Pudgy is amazingly tilt resistant. That's clear in the videos. But simply due to its elongated shape and lack of ballast, I can see that thing rolling down a 20' wave fairly easily. Have you ever seen Dom Mee's video in his tiny boat in the hurricane. It's a very scary roll-fest. And, again, a storm is where you're most likely to get into an abandon-ship situation.

Also, if the thing does roll with 4 inside, those hard surfaces are going to seriously leave a mark. Granted...the thing will not sink...but it's going to be a hairy ride if you can actually stay in it I think. Will the enclosure itself survive such rolling? If it all stays together and you stay inside until things calm down, then yes, the sailing aspect comes in very, very handy. But you have to get to that point first.

So, I think I prefer a softer platform with ballast. And this brings up another aspect of being in the raft/Pudgy...time.

How long do you expect to realistically be in it?

One of the things that stood out to me in both adrift stories above, is the intense discomfort you have after several days in the raft (soreness, blisters, etc.). And both of these were essentially in a soft waterbed. So, imagine being in a small, hard plastic boat for weeks on end.

So, as always, there are tons of trade-offs. And I honestly don't think one is full-sale better than the other. But, in considering it for us...considering all the technology we now have AND the area in which we will be sailing for the next few years, I don't think we'll be long in the raft if we ever have to abandon ship. There are just too many communication possibilities now to be in the Callahan situation these days..."All Is Lost" notwithstanding.

This time factor takes some emphasis off the sailing benefit of the Pudgy. If you're not out there long, and if you're awaiting rescue, you don't need to sail.

So, with all this, and the ability to stow the inflatable life-raft below, and it's roll resistance in bad weather, the inflatable platform just makes more sense to me overall.

Now if it will just inflate. We may be begging Med to let us into his Pudgy as he sails happily by us in the water.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, I don't think so... The shape of that Lewmar you linked to looks far more 'elliptical', to my eye, not even close, really... that's not to say it still might not be a Lewmar of another series, but as best I can tell, those hinges and dogs don't look like any Lewmar ports I've seen lately...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you think that what appear to be some sort of plastic 'quick lock' dogs on that Hunter port are the equal of the 'screw down' style pictured on the Oyster, keep dreaming...
> 
> I've had that type of plastic dog break off in my fingers. I've never seen a screw in dog (mostly seen on older Bomars, it seems) fail... But in fairness, it's really difficult to assess the quality of that Hunter port from that pic, without seeing it firsthand...
> 
> Furthermore, while Lewmar makes some pretty good stuff, don't read too much into the name alone... Their quality has been all over the map in recent years with several changes in ownership and management of the brand.... Most of their gear is fine, some of it not so great. In particular, some of their flush deck hatches are somewhat crappy. A buddy of mine in the industry has branded them as being "Designed to Fail"...
> 
> All my deck hatches are Lewmar Ocean Series, their top of the line at the time of their manufacture... I've had one handle break, and had to replace the hinges on two, and I've had the aluminum rivets that secure both the hinges, and the locks for the dogs, fail due to corrosion... Since replacing the failed rivets with stainless machine screws, no problems... Overall I'm still fairly happy with them, but they haven't been bulletproof, by any means... Nowhere near the quality of the cast aluminum stuff from Bomar, for instance...
> 
> Just my opinion, as always... ;-)


Yeah - good point. You're right, the shape is different. I'll keep digging.

I have an email into Hunter asking about it.

EDIT: Actually, it does look more like the Bomar:










With these plastic "quick dogs" (stainless as an option if you don't want the plastic):










http://www.pompanette.com/pomp.nsf/0/A3AFD4004CD2ED7D8525762400165D68?Open

And it looks like most all the Bomars (both the Premier and Flagship Series) use these "quick dogs" over knobs.

So - Hunter seems to use the Bomars you like, and Oyster uses the Lewmars - which is better?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - good point. You're right, the shape is different. I'll keep digging.


I have no doubt you will... 

I must say, on that Hunter 41 I ran awhile back, I was very favorably impressed with some of the gear aboard... No shortage of high quality stuff from Harken, etc, they don't skimp on that sort of thing, for sure... I have no recollection of the hatches, the trips were make in cold weather so I doubt I ever actually ever opened one... I could be wrong about this, but I even seem to recall it might have had a Whitlock steering system, which is very impressive... There really was plenty to like about that boat, I really enjoyed running it, just not my style... Sorry, but I could just never learn to love The Arch...

Or, those deeply swept spreaders...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I have no doubt you will...
> 
> I must say, on that Hunter 41 I ran awhile back, I was very favorably impressed with some of the gear aboard... No shortage of high quality stuff from Harken, etc, they don't skimp on that sort of thing, for sure... I have no recollection of the hatches, the trips were make in cold weather so I doubt I ever actually ever opened one... I could be wrong about this, but I even seem to recall it might have had a Whitlock steering system, which is very impressive... There really was plenty to like about that boat, I really enjoyed running it, just not my style... Sorry, but I could just never learn to love The Arch...
> 
> Or, those deeply swept spreaders...
> 
> ;-)


It's okay. You don't have to love it. I understand.

Although I think the 50 is pretty damn impressive - it's still not quite my style. Close - but not quite "sporty" enough. Overall, I like the Beneteaus/Jeanneaus from a style perspective. But I think the Hunter is probably a bit better quality overall.


----------



## smackdaddy

I just heard back from Greg at Hunter (was that quick or what?)...and they use Lewmar hatches and portlights. Same as Oyster.

I assume that if you want knob-dogs as opposed to the quick-dogs, and stainless as opposed to the plastic - it's not a big deal. Just options.

He also ran me through some FURTHER improvements in their building process and materials since Marlow took over. Let's just say that the idea of "inferior quality with a Hunter" is completely out the window - or portlight.

Oyster should probably be nervous.


----------



## mitiempo

westsailpatti said:


> Because you asked , more Westsail folk lore . Not pinned at the dock , but here goes . A Westsailor got caught in some nasty conditions , he was demasted . He wanted off , so he beached it . He walked a few miles and came to a farm house and asked for help . The farmer asked if he wanted help with the boat the sailor said "no you can have it". After the farmer got rid of the sailor he drove his tractor down to the beached Westsail he hooked a chain to it and started to drag it to the barn . Half way home he decided to roll it over and drag it on the other side . He got it all propped up in the barn, fixed some minor scrapes and sold it .


Don't forget Satori.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> It's kind of a complicated thing because there are LOTS of pros and cons, but I'll try to explain where I've come down on it personally.
> 
> As Med says (and as Callahan says) - being able to actively sail the thing is _huge_. This means that if you are in the middle of nowhere without communication, you don't have to simply drift and hope like Callahan and the Butlers did for a couple of months each. You have propulsion to move to where you want to go - and thereby potentially shorten your exposure. You're not a passive victim. Again...huge.
> 
> A downside concern on it, however, is size and rolling. First, I understand a 4-man life-raft is tiny. So is this thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine me and my two boys - plus a potential crew member in this...then I cover it with the lift-raft enclosure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it gets very, very small indeed. But more than that, is the issue of rolling in rough seas.
> 
> The Pudgy is amazingly tilt resistant. That's clear in the videos. But simply due to its elongated shape and lack of ballast, I can see that thing rolling down a 20' wave fairly easily. Have you ever seen Dom Mee's video in his tiny boat in the hurricane. It's a very scary roll-fest. And, again, a storm is where you're most likely to get into an abandon-ship situation.
> 
> Also, if the thing does roll with 4 inside, those hard surfaces are going to seriously leave a mark. Granted...the thing will not sink...but it's going to be a hairy ride if you can actually stay in it I think. Will the enclosure itself survive such rolling? If it all stays together and you stay inside until things calm down, then yes, the sailing aspect comes in very, very handy. But you have to get to that point first.
> 
> So, I think I prefer a softer platform with ballast. And this brings up another aspect of being in the raft/Pudgy...time.
> 
> How long do you expect to realistically be in it?
> 
> One of the things that stood out to me in both adrift stories above, is the intense discomfort you have after several days in the raft (soreness, blisters, etc.). And both of these were essentially in a soft waterbed. So, imagine being in a small, hard plastic boat for weeks on end.
> 
> So, as always, there are tons of trade-offs. And I honestly don't think one is full-sale better than the other. But, in considering it for us...considering all the technology we now have AND the area in which we will be sailing for the next few years, I don't think we'll be long in the raft if we ever have to abandon ship. There are just too many communication possibilities now to be in the Callahan situation these days..."All Is Lost" notwithstanding.
> 
> This time factor takes some emphasis off the sailing benefit of the Pudgy. If you're not out there long, and if you're awaiting rescue, you don't need to sail.
> 
> So, with all this, and the ability to stow the inflatable life-raft below, and it's roll resistance in bad weather, the inflatable platform just makes more sense to me overall.
> 
> Now if it will just inflate. We may be begging Med to let us into his Pudgy as he sails happily by us in the water.


Thank you. I have a different opinion on some of these points but I can understand them.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I just heard back from Greg at Hunter (was that quick or what?)...and they use Lewmar hatches and portlights. Same as Oyster.
> 
> I assume that if you want knob-dogs as opposed to the quick-dogs, and stainless as opposed to the plastic - it's not a big deal. Just options.
> 
> He also ran me through some FURTHER improvements in their building process and materials since Marlow took over. Let's just say that the idea of "inferior quality with a Hunter" is completely out the window - or portlight.


Well, that's good to hear... Doesn't entirely surprise me, I've always been very favorably impressed with David Marlow's motoryachts, they're on a par with Outbound IMHO, as an example of the sort of quality the Chinese are capable of...



smackdaddy said:


> Oyster should probably be nervous.


Well, I'm not so sure about that one... I doubt I'll live long enough, to see the day when Hunter and Oyster are sharing the same demographic of potential buyers...

;-))


----------



## ianjoub

We went sailing on our Mac 25 today. No portlights in the hull. It must be a bluewater boat .


----------



## MedSailor

Portlight. n. Any opening or non-opening transparent or translucent penetration into a boat's hull or superstructure.

Deadlight. n. Any window installed on a Hunter. 

MedSailor


----------



## Don L

MedSailor said:


> Deadlight. n. Any window installed on a Hunter.
> 
> MedSailor


almost genius :thewave:


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> It's kind of a complicated thing because there are LOTS of pros and cons, but I'll try to explain where I've come down on it personally.


What Smack says here is true. It's so different from the traditional paradigm that it's actually hard to compare the two at times.

To my mind, the further away from rescue you are, and the colder the water is, the more the pudgy starts to shine. In Maine or the PNW you can die of hypothermia IN your raft in a very short time. In some parts of the world, there is no real SAR service, so when you press your EPIRB button the call my be heard, but help may not be on the way so being able to propel the boat is a major plus.

In addition, my co-worker that hit an object off Hawaii and sunk his boat said that the only time he thought he was going to die was when the AMVER ship approached his raft and he realized that he was powerless to steer his boat at all to help the approach. If the boat overshot and he missed the ladder, he would be Cuisinarted by the propellor. If undershot, he would be run over. In order to increase his chances of reaching the ladder, he actually jumped from the raft and swam at a critical moment, placing himself "all in.". I would much prefer the ability to row my boat and help position the boat for an amver rescue than to be in a position where "swimming for it" seems like a good idea!

For plying the warm waters of the gulf, where there is land in all directions, oil rigs and boats aplenty, the advantages of the pudgy are not as great. I can see the logic of Smack's thinking. I'm a pudgy evangelist myself, but even so, I know it's not for everybody.

It is one size fits all, and while technically a smidge bigger than a 4 man raft, that's pretty small. I wish they made a 10-11ft model myself.

As for the stability issue, that's a good question. I had a nice chat with Zack Smith of Fiorentino Sea Anchor Co about the Pudgy. He sat in an open one and tested it in a gale with 12ft waves outside the golden gate bridge. When I asked him about it he got this glazed, far away look in his eye and a ship-eating grin.  He said it was wonderfully stable and he was having fun but the 40ft trawler support boat feared to be sustaining damage from the same conditions and the test was ended early. Are rafts more stable? I'm not sure....

You see, ballast bags are filled with water, which weighs.... the same amount as the water they are displacing UNTIL they are lifted OUT of the water, at which point they act as ballast. One major problem with this is that once the raft does lift partially out of the water, the wind is now funnelling under it and the entire raft acts like a sail. Not good.... (video of this particular brand of not good). You will note though, that there was no pudgy included in this test, so we can't directly compare.

MedSailor


----------



## aeventyr60

I have an insulated floor in my life raft, an optional extra....I'd trust Viking Life rafts offshore a lot more then a converted dinghy. Just my 2 baht.


----------



## paulanthony

There is manual redundancy everywhere with Amel's. Four watertight bulkheads also. Not overly fast but a perfect blue cruiser. Ketch philosophy for ease of sail handling. It is a definitive modern blue cruiser.


----------



## smackdaddy

paulanthony said:


> There is manual redundancy everywhere with Amel's. Four watertight bulkheads also. Not overly fast but a perfect blue cruiser. Ketch philosophy for ease of sail handling. It is a definitive modern blue cruiser.


Welcome to the thread Paul - and to SN.

I actually do find it interesting that someone is still making ketches:










Are they the only one?

It's definitely beautiful. But the BWC sure aren't going to like the "lack of handholds"...


----------



## paulanthony

There are are not many production yachts that offer Ketch rigs and those that do are generally at least 50 foot plus. Nauticat does one. Will pass the others over as I remember them. It is Amel's trademark. I don't think they have ever done another type of rig. They make a lot of sense but just very expensive and hard to design for.


----------



## smackdaddy

paulanthony said:


> There are are not many production yachts that offer Ketch rigs and those that do are generally at least 50 foot plus. Nauticat does one. Will pass the others over as I remember them. It is Amel's trademark. I don't think they have ever done another type of rig. They make a lot of sense but just very expensive and hard to design for.


Cool. Thanks.

If the ketch rig is geared toward better sail control, do you think the auto-furlers on the modern sloops are biting into that justification/market?


----------



## hellsop

travlineasy said:


> i can't believe you guys are still beating this dead horse.
> 
> Gary


It's still dead, ain'ah?


----------



## hellsop

westsailpatti said:


> Because you asked , more Westsail folk lore . Not pinned at the dock , but here goes . A Westsailor got caught in some nasty conditions , he was demasted . He wanted off , so he beached it . He walked a few miles and came to a farm house and asked for help . The farmer asked if he wanted help with the boat the sailor said "no you can have it". After the farmer got rid of the sailor he drove his tractor down to the beached Westsail he hooked a chain to it and started to drag it to the barn . Half way home he decided to roll it over and drag it on the other side . He got it all propped up in the barn, fixed some minor scrapes and sold it .


Bottom's cleaned off -- might as well finish the job and paint it?


----------



## MedSailor

hellsop said:


> It's still dead, ain'ah?


Whoever said there was anything wrong with a little equine necro-flagellation? 

MedSailor


----------



## paulanthony

smackdaddy said:


> Cool. Thanks.
> 
> If the ketch rig is geared toward better sail control, do you think the auto-furlers on the modern sloops are biting into that justification/market?


Electric furlers are more about one button sailing. The ketch rig is more of a philosophy. It has the advantage of being able to resolve static and velocity pressures over two smaller areas as opposed to one big one. It means that you have greater options for finding a balanced trim and can manage sail loads and subsequent handling better because the loads are not as dramatic/large as those found in one single but very large sail. The ketch rig will typically not experience the same heeling as a single mast rig and reefing can be left later. Downside of a ketch is that you are not catching the wind that is often found at single mast height because they are taller so light wind sailing can be compromised a bit. Ketch rigs are regarded as being safer than sloop rigs but slower. Oh.. They are also more bridge friendly which is a big consideration when you get to a 60 feet or more boat. There are many places off limits to tall rigs.


----------



## mitiempo

paulanthony said:


> Downside of a ketch is that you are not catching the wind that is often found at single mast height because they are taller so light wind sailing can be compromised a bit. Ketch rigs are regarded as being safer than sloop rigs but slower.


I don't think everyone agrees with those 2 statements.



A ketch that is materially slower than a similar hull with a sloop rig is not very well designed. I would bet Bob Perry would agree.

Ketches have for the most part gone out of favor as sailhandling equipment has improved. Hiscock's Wanderer IV was a ketch, built at a time that it was thought that a sloop's sails were too large to handle easily. Today there are sloops over 100' built.

The rigging of a ketch is more expensive than that of a sloop as well for a similar size boat.


----------



## SVAuspicious

paulanthony said:


> Electric furlers are more about one button sailing. The ketch rig is more of a philosophy. It has the advantage of being able to resolve static and velocity pressures over two smaller areas as opposed to one big one. It means that you have greater options for finding a balanced trim and can manage sail loads and subsequent handling better because the loads are not as dramatic/large as those found in one single but very large sail. The ketch rig will typically not experience the same heeling as a single mast rig and reefing can be left later. Downside of a ketch is that you are not catching the wind that is often found at single mast height because they are taller so light wind sailing can be compromised a bit. Ketch rigs are regarded as being safer than sloop rigs but slower. Oh.. They are also more bridge friendly which is a big consideration when you get to a 60 feet or more boat. There are many places off limits to tall rigs.





mitiempo said:


> I don't think everyone agrees with those 2 statements.
> 
> A ketch that is materially slower than a similar hull with a sloop rig is not very well designed. I would bet Bob Perry would agree.
> 
> Ketches have for the most part gone out of favor as sailhandling equipment has improved. Hiscock's Wanderer IV was a ketch, built at a time that it was thought that a sloop's sails were too large to handle easily. Today there are sloops over 100' built.
> 
> The rigging of a ketch is more expensive than that of a sloop as well for a similar size boat.


I think mitiempo hit the real issues spot on. Even before mainsail furling, low friction tracks and cars changed the value proposition of ketches. As boats get really big (Dashew big) multiple masts start making sense again.

Y'all have missed the true beauty of a ketch or schooner on a broad reach with spinnaker and mizzen staysail flying.


----------



## paulanthony

SVAuspicious said:


> I think mitiempo hit the real issues spot on. Even before mainsail furling, low friction tracks and cars changed the value proposition of ketches. As boats get really big (Dashew big) multiple masts start making sense again.
> 
> Y'all have missed the true beauty of a ketch or schooner on a broad reach with spinnaker and mizzen staysail flying.


I did mention in an earlier post that ketch rigs are harder to design for and impose higher initial cost. However - like for like they run top end slower than a sloop which can be seen if you request the polars for the flagship Nauticat which offers both configurations. The ketch is able to manage a broader range of wind conditions and can maintain longer periods without reefing and in better trim so from a distance covered perspective it could out perform a sloop if you knew what you were doing but it can not provide faster upwind hull speeds over the sloop because investment in a single mast provides for a greater concentrated surface area when considered with respect to permissible boom length and when coupled with the optimum sail ratio/shape desired. If it could we would see the ketch as the preferred choice in racing which we do not.


----------



## SimonV

I just read this from start to finish. I am just as confused as I was at the start, but now have a sore head.


----------



## hellsop

SimonV said:


> I just read this from start to finish. I am just as confused as I was at the start, but now have a sore head.


Heh. I admire your dedication, if not necessarily your judgement. 

It's a long, long slog...


----------



## smackdaddy

SimonV said:


> I just read this from start to finish. I am just as confused as I was at the start, but now have a sore head.


Here, I'll give you the condensed version:

*Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.*

Now, it's just about picky little things like whether or not you like portlights in the hull.


----------



## FirstCandC

But I don't like portlights in the hull. Oh well, guess I will start back on Page 1..


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> Here, I'll give you the condensed version:
> 
> *Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.*
> 
> Now, it's just about picky little things like whether or not you like portlights in the hull.


And production means at least two were made.


----------



## jzk

I went to the Miami Boat show the last couple of days. 

I went to the Leopard Catamaran booth.  I asked if there was any concern about all the windows fore and aft. You would think I insulted his mother. The anger that came was unbelievable. I think it is a legitimate question. Then they said they went out one day and took a bunch of waves like that was supposed to be the end of it. They also told me that they have so many millions of sea miles and they never had a window fail. I don't think that is quite true. All of the leopard 47s need window re-sealing. And, I am certain i heard about a failure at sea on a 46. 

I was more interested in hearing some kind of engineering explanation as to why the windows were strong or something like that. But instead, I got a "these sail across oceans all the time" nonsense. Many crappy boats sail across oceans and are just fine. But what about when they are not?

The outrememer was one sweet ride. I love the tillers. The gunboat was very cool. I really liked the Beneteau 60. Plenty of handholds on that one.


----------



## smackdaddy

I think he was pissed because you're calling them "windows". They're portlights ya big dufus.

What about when they are not? Really?

PS - Tillers suck...unless you're on a beachcat.


----------



## jzk

smackdaddy said:


> I think he was pissed because you're calling them "windows". They're portlights ya big dufus.
> 
> PS - Tillers suck.


No, they are definitely not portlights. Big giant windows. And, the Outremer has a helm, but also tillers on each rudder post. They make for sweet driving when you have the desire, and they are great backup steering.


----------



## jzk

Check out these "portlights."

http://static4.www.leopardcatamaran...pg,qitok=DwGIK52p.pagespeed.ic.ppN3JJ6MET.jpg



smackdaddy said:


> I think he was pissed because you're calling them "windows". They're portlights ya big dufus.
> 
> What about when they are not? Really?
> 
> PS - Tillers suck...unless you're on a beachcat.


----------



## jzk

This is the outremer tiller:

http://www.sailmagazine.com/sites/default/files/outremer49top.jpg

Sweet.


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> I went to the Miami Boat show the last couple of days.
> 
> I went to the Leopard Catamaran booth. I asked if there was any concern about all the windows fore and aft. You would think I insulted his mother. The anger that came was unbelievable. I think it is a legitimate question. Then they said they went out one day and took a bunch of waves like that was supposed to be the end of it. They also told me that they have so many millions of sea miles and they never had a window fail. I don't think that is quite true. All of the leopard 47s need window re-sealing. And, I am certain i heard about a failure at sea on a 46.
> 
> I was more interested in hearing some kind of engineering explanation as to why the windows were strong or something like that. But instead, I got a "these sail across oceans all the time" nonsense. Many crappy boats sail across oceans and are just fine. But what about when they are not?


Seems to be plenty of 'chatter' about the breakage of windows factoring heavily in the decision to abandon RAINMAKER...

Boy, if true, what a shocker that would be, eh?


----------



## chall03

SimonV said:


> I just read this from start to finish. I am just as confused as I was at the start, but now have a sore head.


Meh. I'll just watch the movie.


----------



## jzk

I think that, on the GB, both hulls have sliding doors that keep the water out if water were to come onto the main deck.



JonEisberg said:


> Seems to be plenty of 'chatter' about the breakage of windows factoring heavily in the decision to abandon RAINMAKER...
> 
> Boy, if true, what a shocker that would be, eh?


----------



## Minnewaska

jzk said:


> .....They also told me that they have so many millions of sea miles and they never had a window fail. I don't think that is quite true. All of the leopard 47s need window re-sealing. And, I am certain i heard about a failure at sea on a 46.......


For the average bloke to offer the argument that oceans have been crossed in any particular boat, is understandable. It's just bar chatter. For the factory rep or sales rep to have no better argument is telling.


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> I think that, on the GB, both hulls have sliding doors that keep the water out if water were to come onto the main deck.


Ahhh, then it's all good... "Sliding doors" are renowned for their watertight integrity, after all... ;-) As are overhead engine compartment lids that allow access only from the back porch, that's a superb setup in storm conditions, worked great for the guys aboard the Alpha 42... Well, until one of their starters was shorted out, anyway... ;-)










So, did Mr Johnstone offer any further clues as to what happened, the presumed source of the rig failure, or why a professional crew elected to abandon such a safe, "unsinkable platform"? Or, did obtaining a Boarding Pass in Miami require the signing of some sort of Non-Disclosure agreement?

;-)


----------



## jzk

My girlfriend and I spoke to Peter for a bit, but not about Rainmaker.



JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, then it's all good... "Sliding doors" are renowned for their watertight integrity, after all... ;-) As are overhead engine compartment lids that allow access only from the back porch, that's a superb setup in storm conditions, worked great for the guys aboard the Alpha 42... Well, until one of their starters was shorted out, anyway... ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, did Mr Johnstone offer any further clues as to what happened, the presumed source of the rig failure, or why a professional crew elected to abandon such a safe, "unsinkable platform"? Or, did obtaining a Boarding Pass in Miami require the signing of some sort of Non-Disclosure agreement?
> 
> ;-)


----------



## SimonV

smackdaddy said:


> Here, I'll give you the condensed version:
> 
> *Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.*
> 
> Now, it's just about picky little things like whether or not you like portlights in the hull.


We are seriously thinking about a Bavaria 44/46/47/48/49 or 50 from Greece or Croatia. Ex charter.


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Here, I'll give you the condensed version:
> 
> *Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.*


I don't believe that is an accurate statement. I think that the case has been made that some well maintained, and upgraded, value oriented, coastal cruising oriented, production boats, those with more seaworthy designs, can do offshore passages with a relatively acceptable degree of safety especially if care is taken and luck holds out long enough to avoid the most unfavorable weather windows.

But I don't think the case has been successfully made that these boats are suitable for distance voyaging, especially to the more remote and storm tossed corners of the planet. If that type of voyaging is the goal, the extensive use of slurry glued liners and structural grids, glued in structural bulkheads, fiberglass and light gauge aluminum tankage, outward flange hull to deck joints, lighter weight rigging, and so on will be more prone to fatigue failures, and so over time at sea make these types of boats less reliably safe.

Neither has been shown that as built these boats have particularly well laid out cabins or deck plans for the more extreme weather that might be encountered during long distance voyaging.

What has been shown is that few long distance cruisers do more than island hopping with little more than 3 weeks at sea at a time, and most passages being a day or two, and in that regard a value oriented coastal cruiser may work for most folks.

Jeff


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> I think he was pissed because you're calling them "windows". They're portlights ya big dufus.
> 
> What about when they are not? Really?
> 
> PS - Tillers suck...unless you're on a beachcat.


Tillers are way cool. Easy to mount a windvane and autopilot. Simple, not many moving parts. Easier to repair. Very fast response time. Drive with your knees as you reach for something forward. Easy to rig a main sheet to tiller steering (try that with your wimp wheel) And you can fold them out of the way when not in use giving you even more ballroom dancing area in your Benehuntalinas.


----------



## Don L

Jeff_H said:


> But I don't think the case has been successfully made that these boats are suitable for distance voyaging, especially to the more remote and storm tossed corners of the planet.


Hardly any boats are and few sailors are interested in going to those places. Which is why it always amazes me that this is the "standard" used in production boat trashing all the time.


----------



## Minnewaska

Jeff_H said:


> ....I think that the case has been made that some well maintained, and upgraded, value oriented, coastal cruising oriented, production boats, those with more seaworthy designs, can do offshore passages with a relatively acceptable degree of safety especially if care is taken and luck holds out long enough to avoid the most unfavorable weather windows.


I'll take it.



> What has been shown is that few long distance cruisers do more than island hopping with little more than 3 weeks at sea at a time, and most passages being a day or two, and in that regard a value oriented coastal cruiser may work for most folks.


Exactly.


----------



## aeventyr60

*" But I don't think the case has been successfully made that these boats are suitable for distance voyaging, especially to the more remote and storm tossed corners of the planet. safe. "*

What we are continually reading here is that those boats are increasingly getting into trouble close to home. Not sure one has to go the corners of the earth to experience storm tossed seas.


----------



## Minnewaska

aeventyr60 said:


> *...What we are continually reading here is that those boats are increasingly getting into trouble close to home. Not sure one has to go the corners of the earth to experience storm tossed seas.*


*

That's like the statistic that says you're most likely to get in a car accident in your neighborhood. Why? Because statistically, that's where you are more often than any other place.

99+% of boats stay close to home.

As for increasingly getting into trouble, I'm not sure I've noticed that. We get all kinds in trouble around here. Bluewater and coastal alike.*


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Here, I'll give you the condensed version:
> 
> *Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.*


I can't help but feeling that this debate was over for you before it started


----------



## smackdaddy

I'll grant you that my declaration has a tinge of hyperbole in it. But not that much. And, as usual, your post is very level-headed and measured. So, let me point out areas where we agree and where we don't.



Jeff_H said:


> I think that the case has been made that some well maintained, and upgraded, value oriented, coastal cruising oriented, production boats, those with more seaworthy designs, can do offshore passages with a relatively acceptable degree of safety especially if care is taken and luck holds out long enough to avoid the most unfavorable weather windows.


Level of maintenance ALWAYS affects the success of a passage - regardless of make of boat. So that's really not a comparative factor. In other words, you don't have to maintain your new BeneJeneHunterBavarLina SUBSTANTIALLY MORE than your older MoodBristOysSwanHansHinck in order for it to not sink.

Also, not watching the weather is NEVER a good idea regardless of boat. In fact, if you think that you can relax this vigilance because you don't need the "luck" because you have your HansMoodOysBristSwaHinck - you're making a much bigger and more dangerous mistake.

So, yes, as long as you take care of the boat and watch the weather, BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas can do offshore passages safely. In fact, they do it all the time.



Jeff_H said:


> But I don't think the case has been successfully made that these boats are suitable for distance voyaging, especially to the more remote and storm tossed corners of the planet. If that type of voyaging is the goal, the extensive use of slurry glued liners and structural grids, glued in structural bulkheads, fiberglass and light gauge aluminum tankage, outward flange hull to deck joints, lighter weight rigging, and so on will be more prone to fatigue failures, and so over time at sea make these types of boats less reliably safe.


I'm certainly not making the case that these boats are fit for voyaging/expeditioning in the "storm tossed corners of the planet". But, as pointed out above, hardly anyone equates this kind of "greenwater voyaging" with "bluewater cruising".

So we agree on this one. Although, _Sequitur_ was pretty impressive in that greenwater - you have to admit.



Jeff_H said:


> Neither has been shown that as built these boats have particularly well laid out cabins or deck plans for the more extreme weather that might be encountered during long distance voyaging.


Can you point out some examples? And as you do, pull imagery of the newer high-end "bluewater" brands and compare.

From my comparisons, many of the features the BWC feels are missing and/or doesn't like in the BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are now showing up or going away in these high-end brands as well (e.g. - liners in IPs, far fewer dedicated handholds in salons, centerline berths, etc.)



Jeff_H said:


> What has been shown is that few long distance cruisers do more than island hopping with little more than 3 weeks at sea at a time, and most passages being a day or two, and in that regard a value oriented coastal cruiser may work for most folks.


I think this is exactly right. It's pretty much the definition of "bluewater cruising" for the vast majority of cruisers. And it easily fits the definition of what "bluewater" (not "greenwater") is. Ergo,



> Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.


----------



## jerryrlitton

In aviation (private/military and commercial) well over 90% of accidents are direct cause of pilot error. Seriously. I have the feeling that many of not over half of boating accidents are sailor related. It would be very difficult to figure out and separate experience of sailors and boat design. For instance would an inexperienced owner (because he did not know or care of boat quality) take a Benehuntalina in questionable but doable conditions but mucked it up? As opposed to a very experienced sailor who knows and cares in the same conditions but with his superior skill takes his Islander 44 or Cape Dory 36 and arrives on the other side intact? How do you quantify this? How do you separate the boat falling apart because it exceeded structural limitations due to the sailor being stupid or the boat not being designed/built to handle the conditions? 

Personaly I like a boat that is better than me because I am not a coastal cruiser and I know I will muck it up.


----------



## jzk

Most boats are better than you/us. A large number of boats that get abandoned end up floating around just fine for months.

But that doesn't mean that all boats are equally suitable for blue water. Not in the least.



jerryrlitton said:


> Personaly I like a boat that is better than me because I am not a coastal cruiser and I know I will muck it up.


----------



## Minnewaska

jerryrlitton said:


> In aviation (private/military and commercial) well over 90% of accidents are direct cause of pilot error. Seriously. I have the feeling that many of not over half of boating accidents are sailor related. ......


Given the relative training requirements, I'm certain there are even more sailing accidents caused by the boat's skipper, as you rightly point out are caused by pilot error.


----------



## jzk

One thing I like about the boat shows is listening to the different brokers try to sell the features of their particular brand. It ranges from enthusiastic to outright fraud. 

The Leopard experience, unfortunately was closer to the fraud. It is a shame because I think they are fine boats. Why lie about them?

So we were on the Outremer which is, I think, one of the sweetest boats in the show. So the Outremer dealer was talking to this very cool Russian woman about the different features of the catamarans at the show. So he pointed out the window at this catamaran with the big arch and proceeded to make fun of it. It does have a big unusual arch that either you are going to love or hate. 

Well, it turns out that it was the Russian lady's boat. She and her husband live on it. Man, this guy put his foot into it. The look on his face was priceless. The he spent the next ten minutes backpedaling. We went over to the Russian lady's boat, and it is a sweet boat also. The arch is not for me though, but still a very nice boat.


----------



## SVAuspicious

jzk said:


> Most boats are better than you/us. A large number of boats that get abandoned end up floating around just fine for months.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that all boats are equally suitable for blue water. Not in the least.


Which gets back to my often offered suggestion that vocabulary is important. Just what does "bluewater" mean? If we can agree on that the discussion becomes more straightforward (the first person to start talking about ratios like "comfort" sits in the corner).

The second step is to be realistic about where you plan for your boat to go. An ICW/Bahamas snowbird doesn't need a boat that can comfortably cross oceans. You don't need to be ready to cross the Pacific to do the Baja HaHa.


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> But that doesn't mean that all boats are equally suitable for blue water. Not in the least.


This is something that gets thrown out in this debate a lot. But remember, the point is NOT that BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are BETTER for bluewater cruising than the high-end brands.

CE Cat A-rated BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are simply fit for bluewater cruising. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are there better boats out there for this endeavor? Of course. But that's not the point of this debate.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> This is something that gets thrown out in this debate a lot. But remember, the point is NOT that BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are BETTER for bluewater cruising than the high-end brands.
> 
> CE Cat A-rated BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are simply fit for bluewater cruising. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Are there better boats out there for this endeavor? Of course. But that's not the point of this debate.


Can I bring a Cessna 172 to South Africa? (Made in Whitchita KS) Sure it can be done. It has been done often. BUT the weather window is picked with extreme care, the aircraft is very highly modified with extra fuel and some extra nav gear. Survival raft and some classes on the optimum routes and techniques. A little luck Would be welcome. Is it the ideal aircraft? Nope. But it is possible. 
Can I bring my Benehuntalina across an ocean? Sure. Is it ideal? Probably not. I can bring a kayak, it has been done. Is it ideal? No. Are you trying to justify the Hunter you bought to the masses? You don't have to do that.


----------



## smackdaddy

jerryrlitton said:


> Can I bring my Benehuntalina across an ocean? Sure. Is it ideal? Probably not. I can bring a kayak, it has been done. Is it ideal? No. Are you trying to justify the Hunter you bought to the masses? You don't have to do that.


These production boats are EASILY crossing oceans all the time. Look at our own MarkofSeaLife. He's circumnavigated in his Bene and is still going. He's never complained that he "barely made it" and would have chosen a "better boat".

Look at the ARC rally:

ARC

How many production boats do you see (even a Hunter)?

Again, you're making it way more extreme than the reality actually is. No one is arguing that these boats can easily tackle high-latitudes - but they are, without question, crossing oceans all the time - far better than the Cessna or kayak ever will.

I'm not trying to justify my Hunter. I'm trying to keep the conversation based in reality.

PS - if you want some stats that are hard to explain with this flawed BWC logic, look at the boats that retired in the 2014 ARC. Far more high-end "bluewater brands" than production boats:

XC-50
Beneteau First 345
Hanse 505
Starlight 39
Swan 44
Oyster 575
Discovery 57
Moody 47

Remember, these were boats that were ACTUALLY "out there doing it". And failing.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Hell man, lets sum up these 43' pages of BS saying they are all Blue Water capable and no child shall be left behind. Let us all join hands and sing Kumbaya.


----------



## jzk

Some of them are better. Some of the high-end brands have serious design faults. The point is that all boats are not equal. All hunters are not equal. There are Hunters that are pretty nice, and others that are absolute garbage.



smackdaddy said:


> This is something that gets thrown out in this debate a lot. But remember, the point is NOT that BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are BETTER for bluewater cruising than the high-end brands.
> 
> CE Cat A-rated BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are simply fit for bluewater cruising. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Are there better boats out there for this endeavor? Of course. But that's not the point of this debate.


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> I think he was pissed because you're calling them "windows". They're portlights ya big dufus.
> 
> What about when they are not? Really?


I thought we established that portlights opened. I suppose that means things wot a guy looks through that don't are in fact windows.



> PS - Tillers suck...unless you're on a beachcat.


They do seem kind of silly on anything big enough to have a head in it.


----------



## smackdaddy

hellsop said:


> I thought we established that portlights opened. I suppose that means things wot a guy looks through that don't are in fact windows.
> 
> They do seem kind of silly on anything big enough to have a head in it.


On the portlight thing - I honestly don't care. From what I understand, they are all portlights. The ones that don't open are deadlights. The ones that do are just opening portlights.

But you can call them windows if you want. When I'm trying to tell non-sailors about my boat, I just say it's a 2-bed/2-bath and they get it. Why work harder than that?


----------



## hellsop

jerryrlitton said:


> In aviation (private/military and commercial) well over 90% of accidents are direct cause of pilot error.


And STUPID stuff too. Like 1/4 of those are things are literally "running out of fuel". Not because of getting lost or trying to go too far but just forgetting to gas up before taking off. Or forgetting all about that there's a switch to change fuel tanks. Probably another 1/4 is just "pilot being distracted". A friend tells a story about being at an Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association meeting and seeing a video of two FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS getting so busy chatting during a landing that they were not paying attention to the "WHAAAAT WHAAAT WHAAAT' alarm horn telling them that they were below 50 feet above the ground and the landing gear was not down. And it keep WHAAAT-WHAAAT-WHAAATing right until they smashed all the propeller blades off on the runway and bellyflopped onto the concrete.

Boats at least usually give you time to fix your screw-up. And if you're far from shore, exactly how things happened is between you and Poseidon. Was it really a rogue wave that dumped over your stern, broke your portlight, and flooded the aft cabin or were you having so much fun surfing that you weren't really paying attention to how big the seas were getting and that you'd left the thing unlatched from airing it out that morning after Chili Night? Who'll say otherwise?


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Here, I'll give you the condensed version:
> 
> *Production boats - specifically BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas - are fit for bluewater. Period. That debate is over.*
> 
> Now, it's just about picky little things like whether or not you like portlights in the hull.


SimonV mate, Smack may think he's got it all figured out but he hasn't fully explored the pros and cons of microwave cookery on Eriksons while crossing oceans.

Nice to see you posting again and who exactly is the "we" in "we're considering x boat...."??


----------



## mr_f

MedSailor said:


> SimonV mate, Smack may think he's got it all figured out but he hasn't fully explored the pros and cons of microwave cookery on Eriksons while crossing oceans.
> 
> Nice to see you posting again and who exactly is the "we" in "we're considering x boat...."??


I don't have an Ericson, but I would have to be very cautious using my microwave on a port tack.


----------



## SimonV

MedSailor said:


> SimonV mate, Smack may think he's got it all figured out but he hasn't fully explored the pros and cons of microwave cookery on Eriksons while crossing oceans.
> 
> Nice to see you posting again and who exactly is the "we" in "we're considering x boat...."??


I met this lovely lady, very salty baits her own hooks, spear fishes cooks in bad weather and loves cruising so December 2013 I married her. we have been chasing the warm weather averaging 5000 miles per year its now time for a bigger boat and a new adventure. its all in the blog.


----------



## smackdaddy

Congrats Simon!!!!


----------



## travlin-easy

Damned, the horse is still kicking!  

I'm reading a neat book about cruising ladies, and it's got a huge amount of information pertaining to bluewater boats and what designates them as such. Essentially, bluewater boats, whether custom built or production, have full keels, sail slower, are very stable in rough weather, don't pound when sailed close to the wind, don't heel much, have smaller sail plans, and lots of interior room, plus a spacious cockpit. Now, that pretty much describes a lot of older boats, including my broad-assed 33 Morgan Out Island. 

All other boats described in the book were considered performance boats, racers, etc... They heeled a lot, had narrow beams, beat you up in nasty weather, slammed when sailed close to the wind, lacked in storage, interior space, and cockpit space, but sailed a bit faster than bluewater boats, but not a lot faster. Sure, you could make maybe an extra 10 to 15 miles a day, but cruisers don't really give a **** about 10 to 15 miles a day more. They're primarily looking for a place to honker down in relatively secure and comfortable surroundings each night, and if offshore, the ability of the boat to track well just on trimmed sails and an auto-pilot that doesn't have to work hard to maintain course. 

What constantly amazes me is the folks that continuously talk about nasty offshore weather, when the vast majority of those who spend a lot of time offshore tell me that they only encounter a few days a year when the weather is really nasty, and most of those could have been avoided had they not been impatient to reach some destination at a particular time. That's kinda like when I worked for the state police, endless hours of boredom interspersed with a few seconds of breathtaking excitement and danger. 

Now, will someone please put this horse out of it's misery! 

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## outbound

Smack
I think Jeff summed it up well in post 1689. Many average people:
Snow bird back and forth between eastern caribbean and north east.
Do the canal from west coast to caribbean and back.
Do the canal or leave from west coast to South Pacific.
Do the ARC to Europe to eastern Med.
Go from Northern Europe to eastern med.
Universal to all these scenarios is voyages of greater time than even good weather prediction allows.
From what I've seen and heard first hand your level of production boat is trashed after just a few years of this level of abuse. Talking with owners and crew to date they all hanker for that next level up of production boat- HR, Outbound, Oyster, Morris, Valiant, PSC. It's not even about size with those wanting small hunger for. BCC, middle an Outbound or Boreal and large a one off or big Oyster or HR or Amel.
Yes for all your dancing Smack look in the harbors of the world and realize there are hundreds of quality production boats built but more of them actually voyaging and long term distance cruising than the untold thousands of your "production" boats. Reason - they get there and keep getting there year after year.
You're right it's not about port lights. It's about the totality of the vessel. From design, scantlings and execution.
With apologies will get personal. I think I'm an average cruiser. I think my boat in the last 2 years has done more open water miles than yours has in its lifetime. My looks boat show new except dings in the sole from dropped harnesses. Was on hull #2. It looks the same after a decade. Go on just about all quality production boats that actual travel be it a Hylas or Hinckley and it's the same. This is typical. The boats you reference- not so much.


----------



## outbound

Gary
Not ONE of the boats I mentioned fit your definition. Time has moved on.


----------



## hellsop

travlineasy said:


> What constantly amazes me is the folks that continuously talk about nasty offshore weather, when the vast majority of those who spend a lot of time offshore tell me that they only encounter a few days a year when the weather is really nasty, and most of those could have been avoided had they not been impatient to reach some destination at a particular time.


Bingo. At-sea weather forecasts are one of biggest things that COULD be making cruising safer. An SSB radio ought to be safety equipment right after flares and PFDs.


----------



## RTB

hellsop said:


> Bingo. At-sea weather forecasts are one of biggest things that COULD be making cruising safer.


not if sailors ignore the forecasts.....

Australia-Bound Sailors Rescued At Sea During Blizzard « CBS Boston

5 boaters rescued from sailboat 200 miles off NC coast - Richmond.com: Ap

WECT TV6: News and Weather for Wilmington, NC; WECT.com - WECT TV6-WECT.com:News, weather & sports Wilmington, NC

Update video available: Coast Guard rescues 5 people from sinking sailing vessel off the coast of Monterey

SO.....that's 4 rescues in about 2 weeks. One EBAY boat, one 2.5M catamaran, one trimaran, and one homebuilt accident waiting to happen. Funny, I don't see much prejudice in what kind of boat the ocean is willing to destroy. Hopefully, there are some humbled sailors out there. Then again, maybe they are too dense to realize their errors.

Ralph


----------



## killarney_sailor

hellsop said:


> Bingo. At-sea weather forecasts are one of biggest things that COULD be making cruising safer. An SSB radio ought to be safety equipment right after flares and PFDs.


The value of offshore forecasts can be easily overstated. A forecast suggesting that it is going to hit the fan in the next 48 hours is of limited value when you are a thousand miles for anywhere. A barometer is likely to be about as useful.


----------



## JonEisberg

killarney_sailor said:


> The value of offshore forecasts can be easily overstated. A forecast suggesting that it is going to hit the fan in the next 48 hours is of limited value when you are a thousand miles for anywhere. A barometer is likely to be about as useful.


Well, unless you're sailing a Gunboat, with their vaunted ability to _"Sail AROUND Storms..."_

;-)


----------



## travlin-easy

Outbound, it was not my definition, it was the definition by a book author in her book on cruising women. I thought it was pretty darned accurate, though. 

Gary


----------



## Stagger

killarney_sailor said:


> The value of offshore forecasts can be easily overstated. A forecast suggesting that it is going to hit the fan in the next 48 hours is of limited value when you are a thousand miles for anywhere. A barometer is likely to be about as useful.


Hi Killarney Sailor,
New to this forum...just registered today actually. My wife and I just bought a Beneteau 461 Oceanis here in BVI. We are planning to sail her through Caribbean to Trinidad, then to Panama....and up west coast to BC Canada. After reading some of these posts....you would think we are crazy!
Any advice...

Thanks


----------



## outbound

My bad Gary. Just think given other than IP( not really a voyager although a solid boat) and BBC Cape George( ninch boats) there aren't folks building Colin Archer derivatives or any full keeled boats. Bulbed keels or centerboards with balanced spade rudders seem to be what's in production and I thought we are discussing production boats.


----------



## outbound

Have the Ssb,satphone,tough book and recording barometer and agree with K(no surprise). Even in my limited travels once you're 4-5 days out you deal with what God gives you. The weather charts and access to smart routers is very helpful in knowing which side of the low to aim for and whether to rig the running backs, storm jib and heaven forbid get out the JSD but beyond that just tells you you aren't eating pancakes and fried eggs for breakfast for awhile.


----------



## Don L

The most dangerous cruising/sailing a production boat does in on an internet forum. Just this weekend 13 sunk!


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> With apologies will get personal. I think I'm an average cruiser. I think my boat in the last 2 years has done more open water miles than yours has in its lifetime.


Maybe - but I can absolutely guarantee your Outbound (and the other Outbounds) has/have NOT done more open water miles than Hunters, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Catalinas, and Bavarias combined. Hell, even MarkofSeaLife's Bene alone likely has you beat by a fair margin. Add to that the 22k miles of _Sequitur_ and your personal jab starts sounding pretty hollow. So it really doesn't bother me a bit. Because it doesn't hold water.

Again, to be clear, your Outbound is an awesome boat. Just as are the HR, Oyster, Morris, Valiant, PSC brands that your delivery friends hanker for. Not dissing them at all.

They are just _not necessary_ for the blue water cruising we've been talking about. That's all I've been saying for the length of this thread. And it's still absolutely right.

As for this part:



outbound said:


> My looks boat show new except dings in the sole from dropped harnesses. Was on hull #2. It looks the same after a decade. Go on just about all quality production boats that actual travel be it a Hylas or Hinckley and it's the same. This is typical. The boats you reference- not so much.


So these boats will some day make a _great used boat for someone else_. Okay. I suppose that's valuable. Just not to me.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Has anyone in these 44 pages summed up the qualities/attributes of the _ideal_ "blue water" boat? Sleeping arrangements; do you have any quarter berths, or lee clothes configured? The ability to configure them? Maybe tankage, protected rudder, three reeling points, small cockpit as opposed to a swimming pool you can do laps in, (you could end up really having a pool if you very small scuppers don't drain rapidly) can you reach everything from one position in the cockpit? Is your main halyard next to the reefing line? The ability to go below and find an abundance of hand holds instead flying off into some immovable object when things turn rough, no swept back spreaders, sturdy, well bedded chainplates, no "windows" the size of some fish tanks at Sea World, lifelines with sturdy stanchions/Handrails that won't break when your body smacks into them at speed thus helping you not leave the boat, decent toe rails, port lights without the cheap plastic bedding, sissy/granny bars at the main mast, batteries and the like that won't shift when inverted, decent and many self tailing two speed winches, do you have cleats in the walking areas, and finally but not least important does your boat have a good "row away factor"? (probably not too common with the Benehuntalina crowd) etc etc etc then compare this to "production". You all know who you secretly are.

Do you have a proper sailing boat or a floating gin palace?

Besides, has anyone figured out what "production" is anyway? Who cares.


----------



## jzk

Just to be fair, the top enclosure of the Gunboat isenglass aft. So, I do think the boat is designed to stop water ingress at the sliding doors.



JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, then it's all good... "Sliding doors" are renowned for their watertight integrity, after all... ;-) As are overhead engine compartment lids that allow access only from the back porch, that's a superb setup in storm conditions, worked great for the guys aboard the Alpha 42... Well, until one of their starters was shorted out, anyway... ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, did Mr Johnstone offer any further clues as to what happened, the presumed source of the rig failure, or why a professional crew elected to abandon such a safe, "unsinkable platform"? Or, did obtaining a Boarding Pass in Miami require the signing of some sort of Non-Disclosure agreement?
> 
> ;-)


----------



## Minnewaska

jerryrlitton said:


> .....Do you have a proper sailing boat or a floating gin palace?.....


You can't make me choose between the two.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Minnewaska said:


> You can't make me choose between the two.


Without a doubt this has to be the best reply in 44 pages. Straight and to the point with no BS.


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> Just to be fair, the top enclosure of the Gunboat isenglass aft. So, I do think the boat is designed to stop water ingress at the sliding doors.


Are you saying that a 'semi-rigid' sheet of clear vinyl or polycarbonate will keep water from ever making its way into that greenhouse?


----------



## jzk

Quite the opposite. That entire bridge area is open. It can take waves and drain. The sliding doors keep the water out of the hulls.

That those big forward windows might have broken might be very inconvenient, like a dodger blowing out, but would not put the boat in peril.



JonEisberg:2582465 said:


> jzk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be fair, the top enclosure of the Gunboat isenglass aft. So, I do think the boat is designed to stop water ingress at the sliding doors.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that a 'semi-rigid' sheet of clear vinyl or polycarbonate will keep water from ever making its way into that greenhouse?
Click to expand...


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> Quite the opposite. That entire bridge area is open. It can take waves and drain. The sliding doors keep the water out of the hulls.
> 
> That those big forward windows might have broken might be very inconvenient, like a dodger blowing out, but would not put the boat in peril.


Ahh, got it...

And, those engine compartmant hatches are undoubtedly watertight, as well... Nor, would a boarding wave ever choose an "inconvenient" time to sweep aboard, such as while one of those hatches might have to be opened, right?

Obviously, the 55 appears to be a virtually bulletproof configuration for offshore, no question...

;-)


----------



## hellsop

JonEisberg said:


> Are you saying that a 'semi-rigid' sheet of clear vinyl or polycarbonate will keep water from ever making its way into that greenhouse?


*eyeing bridgedeck clearance* I'm not sure that the windows are the biggest of that one's issues with weather.


----------



## jzk

I really don't know the answers to those questions not having ever sailed on one. Just adding information to the discussion, namely broken windows wouldn't be a reason to abandon.

Not sure the doors need to be "water tight" to be safe. Just mostly is probably acceptable.



JonEisberg:2582697 said:


> jzk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite. That entire bridge area is open. It can take waves and drain. The sliding doors keep the water out of the hulls.
> 
> That those big forward windows might have broken might be very inconvenient, like a dodger blowing out, but would not put the boat in peril.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, got it...
> 
> And, those engine compartmant hatches are undoubtedly watertight, as well... Nor, would a boarding wave ever choose an "inconvenient" time to sweep aboard, such as while one of those hatches might have to be opened, right?
> 
> Obviously, the 55 appears to be a virtually bulletproof configuration for offshore, no question...
> 
> ;-)
Click to expand...


----------



## killarney_sailor

Stagger said:


> Hi Killarney Sailor,
> New to this forum...just registered today actually. My wife and I just bought a Beneteau 461 Oceanis here in BVI. We are planning to sail her through Caribbean to Trinidad, then to Panama....and up west coast to BC Canada. After reading some of these posts....you would think we are crazy!
> Any advice...
> 
> Thanks


Have fun! I am not familiar with the parameters of Panama to BC. I think a lot of people head far west and then come in again. I have a friend who did it in an overloaded Ericson 29 (4 people) 30 years ago, so I imagine you should be fine. Get your seasons right. If you need to do work on the boat go to St. Martin. Fabulous provisioning in Panama City. Don't believe all the nonsense you read about the canal.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Should I cancel my Gunboat order?


----------



## outbound

Yes
Get the new Chris White cat with the funky rigs ( two rotating masts with roller furling jibs in front of them). She sailed to the east coast boat shows from Chile on her own bottom.


----------



## RandyonR3

jerryrlitton said:


> Has anyone in these 44 pages summed up the qualities/attributes of the _ideal_ "blue water" boat? Sleeping arrangements; do you have any quarter berths, or lee clothes configured? The ability to configure them? Maybe tankage, protected rudder, three reeling points, small cockpit as opposed to a swimming pool you can do laps in, (you could end up really having a pool if you very small scuppers don't drain rapidly) can you reach everything from one position in the cockpit? Is your main halyard next to the reefing line? The ability to go below and find an abundance of hand holds instead flying off into some immovable object when things turn rough, no swept back spreaders, sturdy, well bedded chainplates, no "windows" the size of some fish tanks at Sea World, lifelines with sturdy stanchions/Handrails that won't break when your body smacks into them at speed thus helping you not leave the boat, decent toe rails, port lights without the cheap plastic bedding, sissy/granny bars at the main mast, batteries and the like that won't shift when inverted, decent and many self tailing two speed winches, do you have cleats in the walking areas, and finally but not least important does your boat have a good "row away factor"? (probably not too common with the *Benehuntalina* crowd) etc etc etc then compare this to "production". You all know who you secretly are.
> 
> Do you have a proper sailing boat or a floating gin palace?
> 
> Besides, has anyone figured out what "production" is anyway? Who cares.


 You are right, if you chose a heavy weight, low aspect rig, you'll need everything you say, 
On my Beney, no large tankage, but I have a watermaker, .....
No Lee Cloths, as I have sea berths, 
Protected rudder, Nope, rudder post is a 4 inch cross section piece of SS...
Small cockpit, again nope, but I do have a life-raft compartment under the cockpit grate large enough to be a bath tub.. for drainage..
chain plates, nope, my rigging is run through the boat to a for-aft beam under the settee..
Halyard next to the reefing line..... I'd have to check as ours has ALL LINES LEAD AFT into the cockpit..
and the HAND HOLDS.... we have them but they are rarely used as our boat sails stable without rocking......
And winches, I think I count 16........ most are self tailing.........
The reason I bring this up is because while the oceans have stayed the same, the boats have become smarted designed, and we as cruisers have gone to newer products as radar, chart plotting, weather fax, AIS and the such..
And Mixing up all the different brands like you do.. I'll put my benny up against any for comfort and speed of any old heavyweight pig............


----------



## mr_f

In the recently revived ancient Morgan OI thread, I encountered this tidbit posted by Jeff nearly 14 years ago. Seems quite relevant (and seems the internet has made little progress in this time).



JeffH said:


> My point is telling that story was to talk about a phenomina I have been running into a lot lately, especially on the internet, where there will be a discussion of some boat and its offshore capability. As the conversation proceeds inevitably, no matter what the boat (be it a Folkboat, Flicka,Gemini Catamaran, Hunter, Island Packet, Laser 28, Macgregor, Morgan OI, steel frameless boat, Rhodes Swiftsure, or what ever) some one cites the example of one of these boats that has successfully made a safe offshore voyage, or some owner tells us how seaworthy and well built his particular example of that breed seems to him. And because of that, we are expected to automatically think that the boats are designed for extended offshore use.
> 
> I just plain don''t buy that arguement. While these boats may or may not be truely offshore capable the fact that some have gone offshore does not prove their capabilities. That was the point of my citing of the Plywood boat story.
> 
> Today we know a whole lot more about safety and comfort at sea than we did even a couple decades ago. Its not that hard to quantify many of the factors that suggest that a boat is indeed offshore capable.


----------



## outbound

Thank you Mr F and Jeff. It might help Smack to read this months practical sailors review of current production boat construction. Prior post concerning a 1983 bene misses the point of the current increase in hull perforations, cored construction and current layouts. Also I think it reasonable to assume hull is not off current shape of current boats. 
I'm glad his boat sails flat. I wonder how flat in 10-12' seas corkscrewing on a far reach in a fresh breeze let alone storm conditions. 
One furthers notes on occasion going too fast on race boat derived hulls destroys comfort and decreases safety of boat and crew.


----------



## smackdaddy

mr_f said:


> In the recently revived ancient Morgan OI thread, I encountered this tidbit posted by Jeff nearly 14 years ago. Seems quite relevant (and seems the internet has made little progress in this time).


Well, Jeff is still here so he can (and has already) chime in here to build on that 14 y.o. thought.

As for me I totally agree with this:



JeffH said:


> As the conversation proceeds inevitably, no matter what the boat (be it a Folkboat, Flicka,Gemini Catamaran, Hunter, Island Packet, Laser 28, Macgregor, Morgan OI, steel frameless boat, Rhodes Swiftsure, or what ever) *some one cites the example of one of these boats that has successfully made a safe offshore voyage*, or some owner tells us how seaworthy and well built his particular example of that breed seems to him. *And because of that, we are expected to automatically think that the boats are designed for extended offshore use.*
> 
> I just plain don''t buy that arguement. *While these boats may or may not be truely offshore capable the fact that some have gone offshore does not prove their capabilities.*


What he is saying is exactly right. And it cuts both ways - whether we are talking about a Bene or a Hinckley or a Morgan. Just saying it and citing an example or two doesn't make it true.

On the other hand, when you look at the sheer number of production boats out there doing the ARC (as one example) - it goes well beyond a boat owner or two citing a successful passage. So, yes, you should follow Jeff's argument through. When this many production boats have done it over and over and over again over many years - it certainly DOES prove their capabilities.

Yes, Jeff is absolutely right.


----------



## outbound

I don't understand your review of rally boats. Looking at the various ARCs and SDR I see a gross over representation of high end production boats, a few one offs and a small number of what you call production boats considering number of hulls made. Seems many folks prefer to be on a boat constructed for use in open waters when contemplating those kind of trips or defer the voyage.


----------



## smackdaddy

Just go through the 2014 results and count the number of production boats. How exactly do you define "small number"?

Then also look at the boats that had to retire. How many production boats are on that list compared to "high-end boats".

If you can't understand this number - the ratio of production boats vs. "high-end boats" in 2014 and over the last 7-8 years of the ARC...then you're being willfully blind to the fact that these production boats are doing very well in blue water right along side the "high-end boats"...year in and year out. And far fewer of them are retiring.

It's really not that complicated - unless you just don't want to believe it.


----------



## RandyonR3

outbound said:


> Thank you Mr F and Jeff. It might help Smack to read this months practical sailors review of current production boat construction. Prior post concerning a 1983 bene misses the point of the current increase in hull perforations, cored construction and current layouts. Also I think it reasonable to assume hull is not off current shape of current boats.
> I'm glad his boat sails flat. I wonder how flat in 10-12' seas corkscrewing on a far reach in a fresh breeze let alone storm conditions.
> .


 didnt say it sails flat, I said it dosent roll.......... and we've had our share of big water ..


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> On the other hand, when you look at the sheer number of production boats out there doing the ARC (as one example) - it goes well beyond a boat owner or two citing a successful passage. So, yes, you should follow Jeff's argument through. When this many production boats have done it over and over and over again over many years - it certainly DOES prove their capabilities.


I think while this wonderful theoretical discussion is occurring on here about what boats are _designed_ for and the pros and cons of such designs, what matters and is most telling is what sailors are actually doing with their money and what is happening in oceans in the real world.

One off examples aside, for better or worse more and more 'production boats' are going offshore.

My take on it is this - What is missing from the marketplace and has been for several years is an _affordable_ bluewater boat. New 'Bluewater' boats are quite expensive and increasingly aimed at the well heeled yachtsman not necessarily the average bluewater cruiser.

So the rest of us have a choice, old and getting ever older Bluewater boats or more modern productions boats for the same coin and learn to live with the design limitations.

Once again for better or worse, most are doing the latter.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> My take on it is this - *What is missing from the marketplace and has been for several years is an affordable bluewater boat.* New 'Bluewater' boats are quite expensive and increasingly aimed at the well heeled yachtsman not necessarily the average bluewater cruiser.
> 
> So the rest of us have a choice, old and getting ever older Bluewater boats or more modern productions boats for the same coin and learn to live with the design limitations.
> 
> Once again for better or worse, most are doing the latter.


Well, there are some folks still around who believe that _QUALITY_ remains one of the important components that define a boat's suitability for offshore sailing... And, Quality rarely comes cheap... ;-)

Ironically, it may have been the Westsail that did more than any other brand that started the ball rolling to create the confluence of events and trends that resulted in the ultimate demise of the "Affordable Bluewater Boat", and why there is so little demand for such a thing in today's market...



















The burgeoning appeal of 'world cruising' as a lifestyle began to attract non-sailors to sailing, many of whom failed (and continue to do so today) to fully appreciate that a cruising boat is more than a floating house, and the array of characteristics that might make one type of boat more suitablet for offshore sailing than another. Then, the proliferation of Boat Shows made side-by-side comparison shopping so easy, and further reinforced the trend towards boats being designed from the inside/out, and the modern focus on accommodation as opposed to much of the 'stuff outside' that can really matter offshore... Finally, the popularity of charter vacations as a means of introducing less experienced sailors and 'reluctant partners' to the notion of extended cruising only reinforces the desire for much of today's market boats more suitable for comfortable living at anchor in temperate climates, and daysailing in protected waters...


----------



## outbound

Thank you Jon.
You said what I've try to impart to smack so well. Believe the trend in the last 10-15yrs. demonstrates quite well the truth of your statement. Look at the cheribini designed Hunter of years ago and compare with current offerings. This is also true for bene, jennies, etc. 
undoubtedly there have been improvements in materials and design to improve speed and anchored comfort. Smack is right these boats do make successful voyages. But I still believe the current direction of boat manufactorers is to construct boats at a price point designed to function well for their common usage not to construct vessels for long term service in arduous open water passages.
I've had opportunities to discuss refits with folks at Spanish town,nanny cay etc. and you can see the difference in the nature of the issues between the two types of vessels.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Well, there are some folks still around who believe that _QUALITY_ remains one of the important components that define a boat's suitability for offshore sailing... And, Quality rarely comes cheap... ;-)
> 
> .


No argument.

I didn't say cheap, I said affordable....

I would pay for the build quality, but the teak decks and the custom handmade high grade wood interiors do not make a boat more seaworthy and these and other adornments betray the fact that they (so called 'Bluewater' boats) are not purely aimed at offshore sailors, but rather blazer wearing, well heeled yachtsmen.

The Adventure 40 is along the lines of what would change the situation. More Bluewater, less Blazer.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, there are some folks still around who believe that _QUALITY_ remains one of the important components that define a boat's suitability for offshore sailing... And, Quality rarely comes cheap... ;-)
> 
> Ironically, it may have been the Westsail that did more than any other brand that started the ball rolling to create the confluence of events and trends that resulted in the ultimate demise of the "Affordable Bluewater Boat", and why there is so little demand for such a thing in today's market...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burgeoning appeal of 'world cruising' as a lifestyle began to attract non-sailors to sailing, many of whom failed (and continue to do so today) to fully appreciate that a cruising boat is more than a floating house, and the array of characteristics that might make one type of boat more suitablet for offshore sailing than another. Then, the proliferation of Boat Shows made side-by-side comparison shopping so easy, and further reinforced the trend towards boats being designed from the inside/out, and the modern focus on accommodation as opposed to much of the 'stuff outside' that can really matter offshore... Finally, the popularity of charter vacations as a means of introducing less experienced sailors and 'reluctant partners' to the notion of extended cruising only reinforces the desire for much of today's market boats more suitable for comfortable living at anchor in temperate climates, and daysailing in protected waters...


So how does any of this make the production boats we've been talking about empiracally ill-suited to bluewater cruising?

That's Chall's point, I think. You may personally not like ANY of the features of these boats...YET, they are out there cruising bluewater pretty safely and easily.

Then they ALSO have the benefit of being "more suitable for comfortable living at anchor in temperate climates". Kind of a nice bit of both worlds I'd say.

Again, there's nothing wrong with "purism" per-se. You guys are welcome to it. But there is plenty of evidence that clearly shows it's much more mindset than necessity.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> No argument.
> 
> I didn't say cheap, I said affordable....
> 
> I would pay for the build quality, but the teak decks and the custom handmade high grade wood interiors do not make a boat more seaworthy and these and other adornments betray the fact that they (so called 'Bluewater' boats) are not purely aimed at offshore sailors, but rather blazer wearing, well heeled yachtsmen.
> 
> The Adventure 40 is along the lines of what would change the situation. More Bluewater, less Blazer.


Wow! A 40'er for $200K new????










Adventure 40, An Overview

I definitely like this point he makes - and people who are considering old, heavy "Blue Water Boats" should pay heed:



> Used Boats
> 
> But the reality is that the vast majority of second hand boats will require an extensive refit to be ocean capable that will push the total cost way over the Adventure 40 price (even if the owner does most of the work him/herself) and take many years to complete.
> 
> Worse still, such a refit has an intrinsic Catch-22: It takes years of offshore sailing and boat ownership experience to learn what you need to know to perform, or even supervise, an extensive refit efficiently&#8230;and how do you get that experience without owning an offshore boat?


Interestingly, he calls it a "voyaging boat" - which implies something far more robust than a "blue water cruising boat". Yet, it has an un-skeg'd spade rudder off the transom, fin keel, swept-back spreaders, cored hull above the WL, etc. Again, many "purists" would say these features are "not fit for blue water". So whaddayagonnado?

I think it's a pretty cool boat. Reminds me a lot of my Hunter (though I prefer having the lines running aft to keep us in the cockpit). And at $200K all-in - it's pretty damn compelling...even if the lockers only have zippered-cloth over them (is that "bluewater"?) - and it has no shore-power, electronics, etc.

It will be interesting to see how it sells. I assume you're getting one Jon?


----------



## chall03

I think it is a great concept. I am following closely, however I feel it may not be quite right layoutwise for a family.

If not _the _answer to threads like this, it is _an_ answer.

I think the refit trap he outlines is very real and underemphasized on here.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So how does any of this make the production boats we've been talking about empiracally ill-suited to bluewater cruising?


It doesn't ... But, in my opinion, some production boats _ARE_ ill-suited to offshore sailing, and many display features that are less than desirable in a bluewater boat...



smackdaddy said:


> That's Chall's point, I think. You may personally not like ANY of the features of these boats...YET, they are out there cruising bluewater pretty safely and easily.
> 
> Then they ALSO have the benefit of being "more suitable for comfortable living at anchor in temperate climates". Kind of a nice bit of both worlds I'd say.


Agreed... No reason whatsoever why a 'Bluewater Boat' cannot be comfortable and practical for living at anchor, or in port...



smackdaddy said:


> Again, there's nothing wrong with "purism" per-se. You guys are welcome to it. But there is plenty of evidence that clearly shows it's much more mindset than necessity.


Again, my opinion differs, but my experience in the yacht delivery trade has afforded me "plenty of evidence" that there's more to it than just a "mindset"


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Wow! A 40'er for $200K new????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how it sells. I assume you're getting one Jon?


Nah, I'll pass...

That windvane will be worthless once the apparent wind comes further aft than about 70-80 degrees, the air vane will start banging into that arch... ;-)

I've really gotta wonder about such a fundamental error in the presentation, that's a total rookie mistake, at least as it's drawn...

The concept is interesting, certainly, but that particular design doesn't interest me at all, many other existing boats I'd choose, for considerably less money... Frankly, I'll be surprised if this project really goes much of anywhere, beyond perhaps a handful of boats eventually built...


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> that particular design doesn't interest me at all, many other existing boats I'd choose, for considerably less money...


I'm interested in what those boats would be.....seriously.

My experience(and for us this isn't just academic) is that there is a distinct shortage of 'bluewater' less than 10/15 year old boats of about 40ft under this price point.


----------



## aeventyr60

* That windvane will be worthless once the apparent wind comes further aft than about 70-80 degrees, the air vane will start banging into that arch... ;-)*

They could spec in a much better windvane, such as the Monitor, which will be mounted a bit further further back, allowing for the odd protuberances seen on many cruising boats these days.


----------



## bobperry

The concept might be good but I think the design is very crude and amateurish. Are you actually able to read a set of lines and know what shape you are seeing? I can. I do it every day. This is one odd shaped boat.


----------



## Aeon

So, this Mega-Thread keeps going on! 1750+ posts and still counting! &#8230;how about establishing some award to recognize the commitment of the readers that really made it through all these 1750+ posts?! (i.e. reading all of them!). Respect to Smack for the establishment and the periodic refueling! Respect also towards the ones pulling Smack's chain(!), especially the ones doing so with proper arguments, adding value to the thread itself.

To the point now, for me to put my 2c worth of thoughts (hopefully!). We've read a lot in the lasts posts on risks. Portlights risks, The Boat Vs. The Dock Vs. structural integrity risks, etc, which risks call me naive but I believe are the exception of the rule instead of the rule per se. The rule looks to be that the "Production Boats" can/should do fine for all but the hard-core expeditioner (typical "production boats" are expected not to be iceberg friendly!), provided proper maintenance and some common sense on route/weather/etc. Thus, the *"Limits"* part of the thread's title looks more applicable to *financial limitations/considerations* (&#8230;and of course as always to each one's state of mind!).

So how about considering what is the *TOTAL COST of a "production boat" VS. * the *TOTAL COST of a "blue-water boat"?* In other words, how much it costs to acquire one (Capital Expense), to bring it to the state you want her to be (Capital Expense) and, last but not least, maintaining her year-to-year (Operational Expense).

Why I propose this? For being able to make sense whether "production boats" are *more "disposable"* than "blue-water" ones! I do believe that such a debate can add value for all of us towards deciding between a newer "production boat" versus some older "blue-water" one for a similar buying price. All things being equal, we have to consider fairly the maintenance (OPEX) involved on both candidates over an adequate time-frame, possibly 10 years. Following this, looking into the potential remaining value along with all the costs incurred, we may be able to have a better understanding if "production boats" might be *more "disposable"* than "blue water" ones, and *to what extent*.

//Aeon (Sail4U.net)


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> The concept might be good but I think the design is very crude and amateurish. Are you actually able to read a set of lines and know what shape you are seeing? I can. I do it every day. This is one odd shaped boat.


And it looks like the customer service department will be very small - and grumpy:



> I can tell you after a career in small business that the single biggest destroyer of profit, after lack of customers (I think we have that one cracked), is ambiguity. And what have we done with this plan? Removed most (you never get rid of all) of the ambiguity that bankrupts boat builders.
> 
> Examples
> 
> Warranty claim: Does the boat conform to the published and public specification? Yes: claim denied.
> 
> Missing piece of gear from delivered boat: Did the QC inspector sign off on the packing list when the boat was shipped? Yes: claim denied, call the insurance company that covered the boat in shipping.
> 
> No options and changes, the biggest killer of boat builders.


I'm starting to think this isn't a study in great bluewater boat design as much as it is a study in making a cheap boat.

No thanks. I'll keep my Hunter.

Jon - like Chall I too would like to see your list. I actually thought you'd be all over this Adventure 40 think since you and Harries seems to agree on an awful lot when it comes to critiquing boats.


----------



## chall03

bobperry said:


> The concept might be good but I think the design is very crude and amateurish. Are you actually able to read a set of lines and know what shape you are seeing? I can. I do it every day. This is one odd shaped boat.


The concept is what I like.

Whining about boats on the interwebs is one thing - harassing Hunters on Sailnet doesn't really take much in the way of imagination or balls.

Putting your thoughts out there however and turning it into a boat does take balls.

If only we knew a yacht designer who could design pretty boats


----------



## smackdaddy

I do admire the in-your-face-marketing:



> Trying to find a really good voyaging sailboat that won't break the bank? *Don't want to spend years of your life on an interminable refit? Disgusted with the marina queens that are being passed off as ocean capable?* Wouldn't it be great if there was *a real voyaging sailboat that was ready to take you around the world in safety and comfort* for less than US$200,000?


Disgusted! Heh-heh.

I can't find anything on the tankage capacity of the A40, but I assume it's enough to not have to carry fuel/water in jerry cans strapped to the deck.

And with the windvane in the way, you can't hang your dingy on the Hunteresque arch. So no "unsightliness" there either.

It will be hilarious though when one of these shows up in Bermuda with all of the above - plus a full enclosure. Cameras will definitely come out.


----------



## smackdaddy

Continuing to research this A40, here is the list that is guiding the design. You may, or may not, feel that this list captures the essence of "what a blue water boat should be":



> So I resolved to make myself a cheat sheet to make sure I stayed focused. And then it struck me that I should share that. So here we go:
> 
> 1. The Adventure 40 is an offshore voyaging boat. Everything else will follow from that.
> 
> 2. The boat will be fast, and comfortable when going fast.
> 
> 3. The boat will be as safe offshore as we can make her.
> 
> 4. The goal is low ten year cost of ownership, not a low sticker price.
> 
> 5. We are aiming at a ready to sail away price of US$200,000.
> 
> 6. The boat will be trouble free for at least ten years with only routine maintenance required-quality control trumps all.
> 
> 7. The boat is designed for a couple to live on and voyage, possibly with a child or two. It will be possible to have guests or crew for a passage but they probably won't stay long.
> 
> 8. Storage is more important than the number of berths.
> 
> 9. It is always better to have a few big spaces, both below and on deck, than a lot of cramped ones.
> 
> 10. Simple and elegant will always win over complex, even if the simple answer involves some inconvenience.
> 
> 11. The boat will be built super-strong and forgive mistakes like running aground.
> 
> 12. There will be no options. Every boat will be identical when delivered. Buyers will not even be able to specify that a piece of standard gear should be left off. However, you can have the boat in any colour you like&#8230;as long as it's white.
> 
> 13. The builder will provide gear as standard, like an arch and chain plates for a Jordan Series Drogue, that would be difficult and expensive for the owner to install.
> 
> 14. We will make the boat easy to customize and add gear to: Mounting space, cable ways, spare breakers, places for additional seacocks, etc.
> 
> 15. The boat will be delivered with no electronics. The last thing the builder needs is to be distracted by 50 new owners with software problems with the latest whiz-bang plotter.
> 
> 16. The boat will be delivered with a robust engine and basic electrical system. No other mechanical or electromechanical gear will be provided as standard, although provision for adding things like refrigeration and watermakers will be made.
> 
> 17. We will spend the money on great gear, rather than a lot of gear.
> 
> 18. Nothing will be fitted to the production boats that was not exhaustively tested on the prototype.
> 
> 19. No gear will be fitted to the boat that has not been in general use for at least ten years, and twenty would be better.
> 
> 20. Wants won't make it onto the boat as delivered, but all the needs will.
> 
> As I reread the above I do have to admit that some of it sounds a bit dogmatic, perhaps even arrogant. That is not my intent. Rather the assertiveness of this list reflects my concern that it would be very easy to inadvertently build just another bad boat, if we let any ambiguity creep into the core concepts.


I do find it interesting that it seems this is being designed as a "disposable boat" with a 10-year shelf-life. Maybe this production boat approach isn't all bad then?


----------



## smackdaddy

Bob,

I found the lines for the hull:




























The site says they modeled the shape somewhat from the The McCurdy and Rhodes Custom 38:


----------



## outbound

Would be interested in seeing Jon's list of desirable and undesirable features as well. For me they included:
Solid hull- didn't care Al,Fe, wood epoxy,,grp.or other. Think,I,don't have the expertise to know did that whack on the dock or bump from the idiot on his power cat cause the core to crush or the skin(s) to delaminates. Did a freeze thaw cycle cause that leak to work on the hull or deck. Know I'm a troglodyte but want a hull unlikely to be damaged and if damaged can be fixed most anywhere back to original strength.

Bulkheads- want them tabbed and glassed fully on both sides. No liners. Want to be able to see everything and be able to get to it with no destruction of the structure.

No exterior wood. Want to sail not pull varnish.

Everything up a rule be it Lloyds, American bureau, norsk veritas, etc. don't care but not EU-A
Performance-that means bulbed fin and balanced spade. So that means well engineered keel attachment or better yet no keelboat worries and encapsulated keel. It also means hull rudder support extends above waterline and is really beefy. 

Designed from scratch to be singled without power. Even with crew 90% of passagemaking means single watches. That means small enough it will function when power is out but has those convenient powered winches, bow thrusters etc. However still want hull speed of 8.5 or better. So boat in mid forties LOA and low to mid forties LWL.
Exterior and interior that allows safe, comfortable activities of daily living offshore, in the slip or on the hook. Many of the double wheeled production boats cockpits look like a nightmare to a clumsy old man like me when it gets bouncy. Many galleys would you have you putting on your foulies bibs to prevent burns cooking underway even on calm days.

Real berthes. Should be aft of the mast, singles or if doubles with a bundle board. Real leeclothes. Lockers and storage that works offshore.

No caves. Want light and vision down below. Have too many friends with twisted ankles and bruised ribs from those "stairway to heaven" companion ways. Want natural ventilation. Want a dedicated place for tools and to work.

Able to prevent down flooding. Don't care if bridge decks or boards. Don't care if solid transom or solid heavy glass/metal duck boards to close aft section. Even open aft ok depending on cockpit and companion way set up. But if pooped or swept don't want the pumps going on.

I could go on and on but these features are designed into a boat from scratch. I spent hundreds on hours looking for them in the current crop of boats. Crawled around too many yards and boat shows. Ended up with a very short list.
I have no intention of high latitude sailing but even in this setting quality wins out. I tend to like the destination as much as the voyage. Maybe Smack is right production boats can do it. But my boat is my last boat. I intend to not have west or budget marine down the street. I intend to survive and fully enjoy my travels. When ended to regretfully hand off my vessel to the next cruising maniac with her being bristol fashion.


----------



## outbound

Thanks smack for the a40 list. It's great. Sure like to see one.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Thanks smack for the a40 list. It's great. Sure like to see one.


No worries. Isn't it interesting though how much that "ideal boat" looks like a Hunter? Heh-heh.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon - you know how you like to hammer production boats whose nav tables are too small for paper charts? The A40 solved that problem - no nav table at all. You can just lay in the v-berth and do your thing...










But you do have a pimpin' shower!

And this part validates what we've been talking about in this thread for ages:

http://www.morganscloud.com/2014/11/12/adventure-40-interior-design/



> But before we get into the details, let's all step back a moment and think about the fundamental conflict in offshore voyaging boat design:
> 
> -The interior must work well at sea.
> 
> *-But even the most dedicated voyaging couple probably spends less than 10% of their cruise actually offshore. The rest is spent living on the boat at anchor or alongside.*


Hmmm.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Adventure 40 Interior Design


Wait, where's the sauna?

MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> Wait, where's the sauna?
> 
> MedSailor


Didn't you read the manifesto? NO OPTIONS FOR YOU!!!!!


----------



## Don L

sleeping on the cabin sole underway, such a step backwards

kind of reminds me of an old IOR that someone blew into the exhaust pipe a little


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> 4. The goal is low ten year cost of ownership, not a low sticker price.
> 
> 5. We are aiming at a ready to sail away price of US$200,000.
> 
> 6. The boat will be trouble free for at least ten years with only routine maintenance required-quality control trumps all.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting that it seems this is being designed as a "disposable boat" with a 10-year shelf-life.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt many others read it that way, but it certainly doesn't surprise me that you do...


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


>


Hey isn't he a mod at CF?


----------



## bobperry

"6. The boat will be trouble free for at least ten years with only routine maintenance required–quality control trumps all."

Like I said, too much hype involved.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> "6. The boat will be trouble free for at least ten years with only routine maintenance required-quality control trumps all."
> 
> Like I said, too much hype involved.


Yeah, I'd love to know what kind of sails they'll be using, that will be good to go for a decade of continuous use...

I'm pretty sure they won't be North 3DL Marathon... ;-)


----------



## Minnewaska

Very strange manifesto for that 40. 

First, they claim it will be an offshore voyaging boat and everything else will follow. But then say that being trouble free (if that was remotely possible) trumps all. Which is it? An offshore feature that isn't bullet proof doesn't make the cut?

A provision will be made for refrigeration, but apparently not included. How many offshore voyaging couples don't have refrigeration? I thought all else followed. I know there are some, but really. Maybe they figure refrigeration hasn't proven itself over the 10 or 20 yr horizon they use as a filter.

While they tried to say they didn't intend to be arrogant, it was too late.

I would never want to deal with the tone of these dudes. I give their brand near zero odds for success. How many voyagers, with $200k of coin in their pocket, want to be treated like a school kid, when others would pamper you.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Hey isn't he a mod at CF?


Yeah - that's Janet H.

Heh-heh.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I seriously doubt many others read it that way, but it certainly doesn't surprise me that you do...


Okay, then let me re-frame the point: Knowing the stated design/construction goal in #4 and #6, would you buy this boat once it's 10-years-old?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon - you know how you like to hammer production boats whose nav tables are too small for paper charts? The A40 solved that problem - no nav table at all. You can just lay in the v-berth and do your thing...


Looks to me like that 'desk' in the fore cabin, with the Electronics cabinet on the main bulkhead adjacent to it, is supposed to serve as the nav station and comms center... That arrangement is one of several things I find about this boat that are 'curious', to say the least...

I do like the basic concept, and I applaud Mr Harries for giving this thing a go, and I wish them well with the project... It's just not a boat, as drawn, that appeals to me aesthetically... That's a very personal issue, of course, others may love the look... I like the look of many other similar style boats - Beth & Evans' HAWK, for instance - but this particular one doesn't turn me on... I do think that 40' is generally pushing the lower limit a bit when it comes to a truly functional hard dodger, and I don't understand the reason for the stepped coach roof in this case, although I haven't seen a side plan of the interior... But to my eye, it appears that when a watchstander is seated in the cockpit, if you actually want to look forward thru those narrow windows forward, most people are gonna have to stand up to be able to see over that raised deck house... That will get old pretty quickly, if that indeed turns out to be the case...



smackdaddy said:


> And this part validates what we've been talking about in this thread for ages:
> 
> Adventure 40 Interior Design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But before we get into the details, let's all step back a moment and think about the fundamental conflict in offshore voyaging boat design:
> 
> -The interior must work well at sea.
> 
> *-But even the most dedicated voyaging couple probably spends less than 10% of their cruise actually offshore. The rest is spent living on the boat at anchor or alongside.*
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
Click to expand...

What do you find perplexing about that? That _IS_ a fundamental challenge for the designers of offshore yachts, after all...

What's amusing is that you seem to believe that the fact that many cruisers supposedly spend 90% of their time at anchor might somehow "validate" that disposable production boats are perfectly fine for offshore sailing...

That point _MIGHT_ have some relevance, I suppose, if cruisers were actually calling for CG rescues, and abandoning their boats while at anchor, or while in port, as well...


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> "6. The boat will be trouble free for at least ten years with only routine maintenance required-quality control trumps all."
> 
> Like I said, too much hype involved.


Yeah, the more I read through the book, the more even MY eyes start to roll.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> What do you find perplexing about that? That _IS_ a fundamental challenge for the designers of offshore yachts, after all...
> 
> What's amusing is that you seem to believe that the fact that many cruisers supposedly spend 90% of their time at anchor might somehow "validate" that disposable production boats are perfectly fine for offshore sailing...
> 
> That point _MIGHT_ have some relevance, I suppose, if cruisers were actually calling for CG rescues, and abandoning their boats while at anchor, or while in port, as well...


My point is that if you're putting 90+% of the design/feature emphasis on that "less than 10%" function - you're probably doing it wrong. For a boat to be successful, it has to do _both things_ well.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, then let me re-frame the point: Knowing the stated design/construction goal in #4 and #6, would you buy this boat once it's 10-years-old?


Well, if I actually _LIKED_ the boat, why not? I bought a production boat that was almost 25 years old at the time, and she's still going strong 20 years later, so a 10 year old boat would seem essentially brand new, to me 

If it does indeed turn out to be a boat where the "quality of the build trumps all", and it is "immensely strong" in order to survive hard groundings, and so forth, it's not likely it will suddenly start falling apart at the 10 year mark...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> My point is that if you're putting 90+% of the design/feature emphasis on that "less than 10%" function - you're probably doing it wrong. For a boat to be successful, it has to do _both things_ well.


And my point - repeated for the umpteenth time - is that there is no reason why a boat designed for offshore cannot also afford comfortable and practical living while at rest, as well...

And, anyone who is under the delusion that _"less than 10% function"_ does not carry an importance _FAR GREATER_ than that comparatively miniscule percentage would seem to indicate, might be in for a major surprise some day...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, if I actually _LIKED_ the boat, why not? I bought a production boat that was almost 25 years old at the time, and she's still going strong 20 years later, so a 10 year old boat would seem essentially brand new, to me
> 
> If it does indeed turn out to be a boat where the "quality of the build trumps all", and it is "immensely strong" in order to survive hard groundings, and so forth, it's not likely it will suddenly start falling apart at the 10 year mark...


I wouldn't. If the boat is specifically designed and built for a low ten year cost of ownership, and to be trouble free for at least ten years...the implication is that after that 10-year window, all bets are off. Have you seen the "warranty"?

I'll take my chances with a different production boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> And my point - repeated for the umpteenth time - is that there is no reason why a boat designed for offshore cannot also afford comfortable and practical living while at rest, as well...
> 
> And, anyone who is under the delusion that _"less than 10% function"_ does not carry an importance _FAR GREATER_ than that comparatively miniscule percentage would seem to indicate, might be in for a major surprise some day...


Yeah - like I said, it's a balance. And though it _claims_ to be "perfect", I just don't think the A40 has found it.


----------



## Don L

:chainsaw


I don't know what that has to do with anything, but seemed as good a place as any to use a cool emotion .


Wait I got it, that blue guy is the 10 year life boat. :batter


----------



## Neilhoh

Hi there. I think this is my first post in THIS forum and thread. Congrats to all on a great discussion. It's almost as if you are sitting around the bbq, fire , ..., having a chat it is so civil compared to others. I must admit I have only read the first 25 pages; a mere 150 or so to go. However, my point, am about to purchase our first yacht after messing about on others' boats, bareboating, tallship crewing to Antarctica , yardayarda. main envisaged purpose, cruising, short term, a few days here and there, then a few weeks within striking distance of marinas, a few weeks within a long day to a good safe anchorage (north east coast of Australia), then who knows. best sub 40 footer available that I can discern right now is a cruising optioned Bene 393. Not ex charter, 2 cab, good Nick generally, water maker, good power generation and storage, oversized winches, davits, and importantly the seller is a gent and a scholar. I recall a post refering to a B393 tragety but can't find it. Is ther e fundamentally something amiss with this model? A lot have been sailed across the BW It seems. All thoughts gratefully received and respected, even if rehashing. Others that are on the radar:
- 1977 Morgan 38 cruiser
- Etat 37, have never heard of these before but specs suggest could be an option..unsinkable, really?
- Catalina Morgan cc 44. The most expensive and possibly too large for a relatively inexperienced duo crew. But looks the goods otherwise except for mast furing main.
- Jeaunneau DS 40, if it ever makes it to the market.


----------



## outbound

Concerning the A40 you note a dichotomy. 10 year horizon but blue water bulletproof. Several have pointed out quality wins out and quality costs money.
I would add one of the major contributors to safety is crew comfort. It maybe the 10k upgrade from a bulkhead mounted heater to a wesbasco. Or separate frig/freezers. Or no green water in your lap and a place to truly hid from the wind from a hard dodger. Or true sea berthes. 
Whatever the feature is it will need to be done strongly, with the right materials and in a fashion as to be serviceable. All these features are best done at inception. All cost money. All are more expensive and usually inferior if done as a retrofit.
Think think good sea boats are designed from,scratch to be good sea boats. Good sea boats cost money. Smackdaddy s production boats of today do not seem to be designed with that as the top priority. Nothing he has posted to date belies that simple assertion.


----------



## smackdaddy

Neilhoh said:


> Hi there. I think this is my first post in THIS forum and thread. Congrats to all on a great discussion. It's almost as if you are sitting around the bbq, fire , ..., having a chat it is so civil compared to others. I must admit I have only read the first 25 pages; a mere 150 or so to go. However, my point, am about to purchase our first yacht after messing about on others' boats, bareboating, tallship crewing to Antarctica , yardayarda. main envisaged purpose, cruising, short term, a few days here and there, then a few weeks within striking distance of marinas, a few weeks within a long day to a good safe anchorage (north east coast of Australia), then who knows. best sub 40 footer available that I can discern right now is a cruising optioned Bene 393. Not ex charter, 2 cab, good Nick generally, water maker, good power generation and storage, oversized winches, davits, and importantly the seller is a gent and a scholar. I recall a post refering to a B393 tragety but can't find it. Is ther e fundamentally something amiss with this model? A lot have been sailed across the BW It seems. All thoughts gratefully received and respected, even if rehashing. Others that are on the radar:
> - 1977 Morgan 38 cruiser
> - Etat 37, have never heard of these before but specs suggest could be an option..unsinkable, really?
> - Catalina Morgan cc 44. The most expensive and possibly too large for a relatively inexperienced duo crew. But looks the goods otherwise except for mast furing main.
> - Jeaunneau DS 40, if it ever makes it to the market.


Look up the member MarkofSeaLife. He has a Bene 393. He's taken it around the world and is now hanging out in the Carib.

http://ourlifeatsea.com/boat.html

I'd say the answer to your question is right there.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Think think good sea boats are designed from,scratch to be good sea boats. Good sea boats cost money. Smackdaddy s production boats of today do not seem to be designed with that as the top priority. *Nothing he has posted to date belies that simple assertion.*


Actually I beg to differ. I've provided PLENTY of evidence that these Cat A production boats are "good sea boats". Maybe they don't cost as much as YOU think a "good sea boat should cost", or have features YOU (or Harries) think are necessary - but they're out there sailing right along side you in water that is just as blue. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you personally to spend _less_ on a blue water boat, Out. That's not the point. They don't fit your subjective tastes. I get it. And you already have your Cat A boat anyway, so no amount evidence is going to likely sway you. But Cat A _production boats_ are, indeed, crossing that good sea you seem to think they shouldn't be. Just for a lot less. That's empirically true.


----------



## jerryrlitton

A lot of noise but still no answer to what is a production boat? What is a non production boat? Anyone?


----------



## MedSailor

jerryrlitton said:


> A lot of noise but still no answer to what is a production boat? What is a non production boat? Anyone?


Smackdaddy's Hunter is the Schrodinger's cat of production boats. At the same time it is AND is not a production boat. It also is AND is not a blue water boat.

This ends your moment of Zen. Ohhhmmmmmm...........

MedSailor


----------



## Don L

jerryrlitton said:


> A lot of noise but still no answer to what is a production boat? What is a non production boat? Anyone?


Production boat is any boat that is pre-designed and offered in set standard layouts. If the builder does not offer an option where you can change the boat's basic layout etc, it is a production boat.


----------



## jerryrlitton

MedSailor said:


> Smackdaddy's Hunter is the Schrodinger's cat of production boats. At the same time it is AND is not a production boat. It also is AND is not a blue water boat.
> 
> This ends your moment of Zen. Ohhhmmmmmm...........
> 
> MedSailor


Ok I get it. It is a production bluewater boat to Smack but to the rest of us it is not. It can't be a blue water and a non blue water at the same time, however perception can be reality. Quite the paradox.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Don0190 said:


> Production boat is any boat that is pre-designed and offered in set standard layouts. If the builder does not offer an option where you can change the boat's basic layout etc, it is a production boat.


So the Islanders 44 (which I am looking at) and a Freya 39 would be considered non production boats? Thanks.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> Smackdaddy's Hunter is the Schrodinger's cat of production boats. At the same time it is AND is not a production boat. It also is AND is not a blue water boat.
> 
> This ends your moment of Zen. Ohhhmmmmmm...........
> 
> MedSailor


Yes, but even Heisenberg is certain it's an awesome boat.


----------



## MedSailor

jerryrlitton said:


> Ok I get it. It is a production bluewater boat to Smack but to the rest of us it is not. It can't be a blue water and a non blue water at the same time, however perception can be reality. Quite the paradox.


Yes you are getting it. We believe it can not both be and not be a blue water boat, but actually any boat can. You see, just like schrodinger's cat is both dead AND alive at the same time until he is observed, all boats remain in the state of both bluewater and non-bluewater capability until such time as the sea tests them.

Then, just like when you open the box and observe a stench of death, or hear a meow, the boat remains in both states until it is observed (i.e. smacked) by the gods of the sea. At that point it either is or is not bluewater. Before that point, it can be both...










MedSailor


----------



## chall03

MedSailor said:


> Smackdaddy's Hunter is the Schrodinger's cat of production boats. At the same time it is AND is not a production boat. It also is AND is not a blue water boat.
> 
> This ends your moment of Zen. Ohhhmmmmmm...........
> 
> MedSailor


Hunters, Beneteaus and the like can't do bluewater sailing, everyone knows that. 
Except that they do, alot. Which is quite inconvenient of them.

However it is true to say that they are not primarily designed for the purpose...

So if a Hunter makes a noise while crossing an ocean and no one hears it did it make a noise or indeed cross the ocean?


----------



## Don L

jerryrlitton said:


> So the Islanders 44 (which I am looking at) and a Freya 39 would be considered non production boats? Thanks.


I don't know. Unlike other internet forum experts I don't pretend to know all boats. But near as I can tell those are just old boats.

I feel lots of people get old boats and use these type of threads as part of their mental justification process.


----------



## Don L

MedSailor said:


> Yes you are getting it. We believe it can not both be and not be a blue water boat, but actually any boat can. You see, just like schrodinger's cat is both dead AND alive at the same time until he is observed, all boats remain in the state of both bluewater and non-bluewater capability until such time as the sea tests them.
> 
> Then, just like when you open the box and observe a stench of death, or hear a meow, the boat remains in both states until it is observed (i.e. smacked) by the gods of the sea. At that point it either is or is not bluewater. Before that point, it can be both...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedSailor


So if I'm understanding, whether one does or doesn't have a "bluewater boat" depends to a degree on whether they secretly want to have sex with their Mom. In the end it really isn't about boats at all :thewave:


----------



## outbound

Blue water boats follow the Hegelian dialectic. Thesis,antithesis,synthesis. They evolve until the next paradigm shift while following the Darwinian biologic quotient to determine their offspring. This allows for shapes and forms in concert to current chaos and string theory.
Sometimes a rose is a rose is a rose.
Going back to boat chores. Cruising next week. Woo hoo.
According to Schopenhauer I have just one boat.


----------



## outbound

But the point is same good one I tried to make repetitively. Except for one offs they are all production boats. 
There is a continuum as to how well they are suited for repetitive cycles of open water passagemaking.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> I don't know. Unlike other internet forum experts I don't pretend to know all boats. But near as I can tell those are just old boats.
> 
> *I feel lots of people get old boats and use these type of threads as part of their mental justification process.*


You mean, like the poster who actually started this thread?


----------



## ccriders

MedSailor said:


> Yes you are getting it. We believe it can not both be and not be a blue water boat, but actually any boat can. You see, just like schrodinger's cat is both dead AND alive at the same time until he is observed, all boats remain in the state of both bluewater and non-bluewater capability until such time as the sea tests them.
> 
> Then, just like when you open the box and observe a stench of death, or hear a meow, the boat remains in both states until it is observed (i.e. smacked) by the gods of the sea. At that point it either is or is not bluewater. Before that point, it can be both...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedSailor


Hold it. Are you saying that a blue water boat cannot fail when smacked by the gods of the sea? Clearly then, there are no blue water boats.
John


----------



## MedSailor

ccriders said:


> Hold it. Are you saying that a blue water boat cannot fail when smacked by the gods of the sea? Clearly then, there are no blue water boats.
> John


Actually, it's more like this:










:laugher

MedSailor


----------



## ccriders

I've ben slowly plowing through this discussion hoping to find some of the specifics that make a blue water boat, or sea boat, whichever term you prefer. Also, it seems to me in reading some of the crash (SAR) reports here on sailnet that there are five main categories of failure that result in loss of a boat:
1. Crew fatigue, illness or injury.
2. Loss of rudder.
3. Loss of rig. 
4. Loss of keel.
5. Taking on water.
So the boat should be designed to support the crew at sea as well as at anchor. I believe several have made this point. Also crew should be able to administer advanced first aid and treat common ailments like infections, strains, burns, cuts and scrapes, and be equipped to do so.
I would have hoped to read more about rudder design to eliminate this as a single point of failure, but did not.
I would have hoped to read more about rig design and sizing, but did not. Issues like "to back stay or not to back stay. Dual lower shrouds vs singles. Swept back shrouds or squared to centerline. Double spreaders or split rigs.
I still have a hard time getting my head around loss of keel given the state of materials and manufacturing processes, but no one has described an indestructible keel, or atleast one that stays with the boat through thick and thin (no pun intended).
Additionally, I believe that some, like Smack, are arguing from the point that given the state of technology and information services available to Mariners today one does not need the gnarliest of gnarly sea boats, that they are overkill and that pursuit of such designs gets in the way of, well sailing and cruising.
Others focus on the importance of self reliance, well found knowledge and skill and one truly gnarly boat. 
It end up being the same argument found in the "I paid a Dude and Enjoyed it" thread.
I find it really interesting to walk around the boat yard looking at underwater bodies, tri's, Cats, fatties like Westsails, flatties like Santana's, etc. I think you can get a visceral take on what this boat will feel like in rough weather. But which hull design will respond best with a drogue deployed. Anyone want to take that issue on? I think it is important as this is important for conserving the crew when it I'd too difficult to carry on. 
Great discussion. Let's go deeper.
John


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> So if a Hunter makes a noise while crossing an ocean and no one hears it did it make a noise or indeed cross the ocean?


If the noise is the rudder falling off...hell yes everyone hears it!


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, then let me re-frame the point: Knowing the stated design/construction goal in #4 and #6, would you buy this boat once it's 10-years-old?


I don't think they are saying the boat will only last 10 years, but that by the end of 10 years of blue water cruising you should expect it to not have had any major rigging issues, or deck hardware leaking, or keel issues. No reason to believe it would not last another 80 years. How long is the Hunter warranted for? That is likely how long it is designed to last without major overhaul, would you buy a hunter after that time period(I think you already did)? I believe they used to have a 5 year warranty, but could not find on there web site how long the current one is.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Blue water boats follow the Hegelian dialectic. Thesis,antithesis,synthesis. They evolve until the next paradigm shift while following the Darwinian biologic quotient to determine their offspring. This allows for shapes and forms in concert to current chaos and string theory.
> Sometimes a rose is a rose is a rose.
> Going back to boat chores. Cruising next week. Woo hoo.
> According to Schopenhauer I have just one boat.


Oh, please, you're being as didactic as Heidegger after a bender.


----------



## smackdaddy

miatapaul said:


> I don't think they are saying the boat will only last 10 years, but that by the end of 10 years of blue water cruising you should expect it to not have had any major rigging issues, or deck hardware leaking, or keel issues. No reason to believe it would not last another 80 years. How long is the Hunter warranted for? That is likely how long it is designed to last without major overhaul, would you buy a hunter after that time period(I think you already did)? I believe they used to have a 5 year warranty, but could not find on there web site how long the current one is.


Have any been built yet?


----------



## Neilhoh

Maybe, maybe not, you guys have beentaklking.about this for too long. From newbie point of view, I think the question is not what is a productiOn boat unless youre prepared to accept an answer like a boat that is not produced in a production line factory. Now, some have pointed out that even true bw cruisers are in fact produced in a factory type process. I will leave it to others, for now , to point out what makes a boat bw capable safely under likely or possible conditions provided the crew is just as capable and prepared. And this had been done over and over in previous posts. It would be interesting to read a compilation of boat owner comments or questionaire responses about how their boat rates. Just needs someone to write the questionnaire, weight each of the criteria as to importance and thus score each particular model. Somewhere in these pages this is probably already done.


----------



## outbound

N- good idea
My list would be
Ergonomics- above and below decks
Sailing ability- light air and storm conditions as well as typical wind sailing polar.
Miles per gallon under power at cruising speed 
Maneuverability under power i.e. docking 
Serviceability- systems and cosmetics 
Durability- hull,deck,fittings and infill
Comfort- motion,sleeping, environment ( airflow,temperature, exposure to sun,wind,noise,wet) above and below decks
Quality of life at anchor and underway e.g. Ease of ADLs, accessability of storage, amount of storage, amount of tankage etc.
Ease and expense of maintenance 
Ease and expense of repair 
Survivability- passive and active in storms, down flooding, collisions,systems failures
Ease of assessment of integrity before passage i.e. hull, rigging, fittings, appendenages 
Quality of life at anchor and underway
I used a list close to this when boat shopping. Concerns when living aboard and traveling are different then when I was a weekend sailor. Regardless of Smackdaddy diatribes I think this is reflected in the offerings of the various production boats in current manufacture.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> N- good idea
> My list would be
> Ergonomics- above and below decks
> Sailing ability- light air and storm conditions as well as typical wind sailing polar.
> Miles per gallon under power at cruising speed
> Maneuverability under power i.e. docking
> Serviceability- systems and cosmetics
> Durability- hull,deck,fittings and infill
> Comfort- motion,sleeping, environment ( airflow,temperature, exposure to sun,wind,noise,wet) above and below decks
> Quality of life at anchor and underway e.g. Ease of ADLs, accessability of storage, amount of storage, amount of tankage etc.
> Ease and expense of maintenance
> Ease and expense of repair
> Survivability- passive and active in storms, down flooding, collisions,systems failures
> Ease of assessment of integrity before passage i.e. hull, rigging, fittings, appendenages
> Quality of life at anchor and underway
> I used a list close to this when boat shopping. Concerns when living aboard and traveling are different then when I was a weekend sailor. Regardless of Smackdaddy diatribes I think this is reflected in the offerings of the various production boats in current manufacture.


I also took those into consideration when boat shopping. Except I was more open minded and once I opened the door a Hunter answered all of them excellently.

In the end people who buy more expensive boats are going to use the same old story on why they needed to do so. And they will probably say just how ridiculous people who spent more than they did are (those people probably used the same story).


----------



## aeventyr60

*" I feel lots of people get old boats and use these type of threads as part of their mental justification process."*

No, it's the ones who are trying to justify buying a good coastal cruising boat and expecting it to perform like a purpose built blue water boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> *" I feel lots of people get old boats and use these type of threads as part of their mental justification process."*
> 
> No, it's the ones who are trying to justify buying a good coastal cruising boat and expecting it to perform like a purpose built blue water boat.


Nah, you don't get it...

The reason a buyer of a popular coastal cruising boat _STARTS_ a thread like this is born solely from a generosity pf spirit, in order to provide a platform that will _ENABLE_ the buyers of "old boats" to work out their "their mental justification process"...


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> I also took those into consideration when boat shopping. Except I was more open minded and once I opened the door a Hunter answered all of them excellently.
> 
> *In the end people who buy more expensive boats are going to use the same old story on why they needed to do so.* And they will probably say just how ridiculous people who spent more than they did are (those people probably used the same story).


Seems to me that your continuing focus on _PRICE_ completely misses the point of this discussion...

Outbound's criteria listed above seems a most excellent baseline... It's very much along the lines of the reference I have cited here repeatedly, the work DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS...

It is primarily _CHARACTERISTICS_ of design and constuction that define the suitability of any sailing yacht for offshore work... There is absolutely no reason why such a vital feature such as safe and practical deck and cockpit ergonomics should cost more, or are likely to be found only on more expensive boats...

The primary problem is that most modern production boats are conceived from the inside out, and designed around the accomodation plan and the goal of maximizing interior volume... Unfortunately, that usually comes at the expense of making compromising exterior characteristics that make boats better for sailing offshore... That has nothing to do with the price point any particular boat is being built to, but rather simply reflects the choice(s) made by a builder, and what segment of the market they've decided to target...

Pretty much the whole point of a project of the ADVENTURE 40, after all, there's no inherent reason why a boat designed for offshore and more rigorous cruising should have to be _EXPENSIVE_...


----------



## MedSailor

JonEisberg said:


> Seems to me that your continuing focus on _PRICE_ completely misses the point of this discussion...
> 
> Outbound's criteria listed above seems a most excellent baseline... It's very much along the lines of the reference I have cited here repeatedly, the work DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS...
> 
> It is primarily _CHARACTERISTICS_ of design and constuction that define the suitability of any sailing yacht for offshore work...


Has anyone written the book DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVEABOARD YACHTS AT ANCHOR?










It would be fascinating to compare the two treatises see where the overlap is and where the painful compromises are.

MedSailor


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> Has anyone written the book DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVEABOARD YACHTS AT ANCHOR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be fascinating to compare the two treatises see where the overlap is and where the painful compromises are.
> 
> MedSailor


LOL! Hell, any Beneteau SenseBoat brochure pretty much cuts to the chase...

It's all about the swim platform/open stern... Why watch the sunset and drink your wine while lounging on those nice cockpit cushions, when you can cuddle up on bare teak substitute, and have your pick of 2 wheels to use as your backrest?












What amazes me about some of these New Wave open transom designs, is how much actual _STRUCTURE_ has been removed from the hull... I mean, a boat's transom is a pretty vital component of the overall structure/strength/integrity of the hull, no?

Hell, that seems to me the equivalent of removing a boat's main bulkhead, no?

Oh, wait...










Oh, well... I suppose as long as they've kept the mast compression post, it's all good...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, you don't get it...
> 
> The reason a buyer of a popular coastal cruising boat _STARTS_ a thread like this is born solely from a generosity pf spirit, in order to provide a platform that will _ENABLE_ the buyers of "old boats" to work out their "their mental justification process"...


This thread really seems to bother you. Why?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> N- good idea
> My list would be
> Ergonomics- above and below decks
> Sailing ability- light air and storm conditions as well as typical wind sailing polar.
> Miles per gallon under power at cruising speed
> Maneuverability under power i.e. docking
> Serviceability- systems and cosmetics
> Durability- hull,deck,fittings and infill
> Comfort- motion,sleeping, environment ( airflow,temperature, exposure to sun,wind,noise,wet) above and below decks
> Quality of life at anchor and underway e.g. Ease of ADLs, accessability of storage, amount of storage, amount of tankage etc.
> Ease and expense of maintenance
> Ease and expense of repair
> Survivability- passive and active in storms, down flooding, collisions,systems failures
> Ease of assessment of integrity before passage i.e. hull, rigging, fittings, appendenages
> Quality of life at anchor and underway
> I used a list close to this when boat shopping. Concerns when living aboard and traveling are different then when I was a weekend sailor. *Regardless of Smackdaddy diatribes* I think this is reflected in the offerings of the various production boats in current manufacture.


Now, Out, let's not get carried away. They are not diatribes. They are _facts_. Yes, diatribes would be easier for you in your line of thinking - but, alas, they are facts.

I've been very clear as to what "production boats" are in terms of this debate: CE Cat A BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas. And I (and others) have provided plenty of factual evidence - both here and at CF - for precisely what these boats are capable of.

Now as to your most excellent list above - I completely agree. Though I'm currently addressing 2 leaks in two of the many hatches on my Hunter 40, every other box is very nicely ticked. Well except "survivability". That's a tough one to quantify until it actually survives. However, I do have direct evidence that Hunters have indeed survived "survival" storms very well. So, let's go ahead and tick that one too.


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> Have any been built yet?


No, and I doubt they ever will be. I think it is more of an opportunity to discuss what an ideal offshore boat is. I do like the idea of a strongly built bare-bones boat, but I doubt there is enough market for it. But it is out of my current price range anyway, though after the divorce is settled, kids get out of college and I have a few more years of working I might be able to consider it. Oh hell, that puts me at about 80 years old, so at that point if it does not matter if it lasts much more than 10 years I guess!

What I could see happening is a company like Outbound, Passport, or another "limited production" company seeing the interest and offer one of there boats with a "laminate interior" but keep the strong built offshore features. Seems they could offer the boat at a much lower price point and they are not driven by volume like the big guys. They would have limited expenses as they could perhaps use an older model if they still have the molds and base it on that.


----------



## outbound

On the Outbounds owners chat room seems Phil is in the process of doing hull # 60. He is long pass paying off his tooling. Same of the Passports which are built in the same yard. The materials and man hours make up the expense. When I had some involvement with a small boat building company in Wareham MA. was educated as to,how builders work out price. As Chinese labor costs go up I don't expect outbounds or passports price to go down.
As the bits used are the usual lewmar,harken, New England rope etc. don't expect supplying venders costs to go down. Chemical costs may decline with fall in oil price but I doubt this will have much impact.
Having solid wood and other construction details mean Hylas,outbound,passport etc. at a much lower price point than Morris, Hinckley, NEB etc. means these boats wil look good for decades and a refit means refinishing not replacing. Doubt builders will change as it would hurt their primary target market.
Things have changed since " desirable and undesirable....." But the ocean hasn't. Judging between an old boat like a v40 or V50 (with minimal interior volume for loa ) and the headaches of inheriting someone else mistakes or a new production boat aimed at coastal cruising not set up for passagemaking I opted out. Many do. That's why Phil is on #60, HR is going strong and Bene keeps on buying out its smaller competitors. The market continues to evolve coastal v. offshore production v. one offs v. high latitude v. high tech racers. And so forth. Even Bene offers different lines. It continues to consolidate as well.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> This thread really seems to bother you. Why?


Undoubtedly, it's due to my bitterness over my lack of the cash sufficient to buy a late model production boat - much less a Boreal, or an Outbound - and my resentment at being stuck with an "old boat", instead...

Nah, this thread doesn't "bother" me...

_"Amuses me"_, is more like it...


----------



## outbound

Jon
You can have mine at a good price when I'm done.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Undoubtedly, it's due to my bitterness over my lack of the cash sufficient to buy a late model production boat - much less a Boreal, or an Outbound - and my resentment at being stuck with an "old boat", instead...


Oh. Well you shouldn't worry about stuff like that. You have a nice boat. Just enjoy it.


----------



## jzk

Check out the tiller steering on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pem-4H1qg0#t=206


----------



## Aeon

...no port for plugging your PS/Xbox joystick?! (...yet!)

//Aeon (Sail4U.net)


----------



## outbound

Interesting to see how boats have evolved. Now so dependent on technology. Need to call the IT guy when something breaks. Hard to do on passage.
Broadblue started out as Prout. Prout made some great blue water cats like their 39'. No resemblance to current offerings.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Finally, after a bunch of years lurking on here I did it. I finally bought THE boat. (Not e Benehuntalina) After many years of searching I found my boat. It is a Lapworth designed Islander 44. Very well equipped and in the perfect location. Has plenty of spares and with a little tweaking it will be perfect....for me. And knowing if there is not a picture it is not real so here you go. Also I need to give special thanks to Aeventyr who helped make this adventure possible. Now the straight up learning curve commences.


----------



## outbound

Good on you


----------



## killarney_sailor

Named "Temptation", seems appropriate for a cruising boat.


----------



## jerryrlitton

killarney_sailor said:


> Named "Temptation", seems appropriate for a cruising boat.


Thank you. I thought so also so I left it as is.


----------



## JonEisberg

jerryrlitton said:


> Finally, after a bunch of years lurking on here I did it. I finally bought THE boat. (Not e Benehuntalina) After many years of searching I found my boat. It is a Lapworth designed Islander 44. Very well equipped and in the perfect location. Has plenty of spares and with a little tweaking it will be perfect....for me. And knowing if there is not a picture it is not real so here you go. Also I need to give special thanks to Aeventyr who helped make this adventure possible. Now the straight up learning curve commences.


Congratulations, sweet looking boat, and best of luck with her... Pretty hard to go wrong with a design by Bill Lapworth, and a build by Islander/Wayfarer...

Hope you plan on swapping out that 'obsolete' anchor ASAP, however...

)


----------



## jerryrlitton

Yes, that one is a 45LB CQR which for here is fine and I will keep that one however the other roller will have a next generation 60LB.


----------



## smackdaddy

Congrats Jer!!!! Really glad to see you finally made the leap.

She looks like a great boat.


----------



## snodawg

Congrats on your purchase, she looks like a beauty, enjoy your cruising.


----------



## Faster

Finally looks like a consensus on this thread, Jerry!! Thanks for that and congrats...


----------



## outbound

Fair winds and following seas
Looking good


----------



## chall03

Great looking boat.

Whack a Mantus on that bow roller and you'll be set to go.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler

jerryrlitton said:


> Yes, that one is a 45LB CQR which for here is fine and I will keep that one however the other roller will have a next generation 60LB.


The next generation? Have they come out yet?


----------



## aeventyr60

The next question, mantus or rocna next gen for Jerry. Temptation has a 90 lb fisherman, anybody want to trade?


----------



## mitiempo

Rocna, unless there is a good reason for a take-apart anchor.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> Congrats Jer!!!! Really glad to see you finally made the leap.
> 
> She looks like a great boat.


Thanks Smack, you were a big help also.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Pamlicotraveler said:


> The next generation? Have they come out yet?


They call it "next generation" anyway. I don't know why though. 
http://www.chainsropesandanchors.co.nz/catalog/view/theme/newa/images/PDF/Anchors%20-%20The%20Next%20Generation.pdf

I will probably get the Rockna.


----------



## chall03

At the risk of screwing this thread completely by starting to talk anchors....

We looked at Rocna, Mantus and Manson Supreme all very similar anchors design wise.
We choose Mantus. Now if you look with an open mind at the actual engineering of the Mantus you will be impressed. 

But hey if bolts freak you out, your superstitious, or you like to choose anchors based on something some guy told you once in a bar then thats ok too. 

As for customer service/support Mantus were fantastic. Greg got back to me straight away with answers and the local distributor here in Australia have gone out of their way to make sure we are happy. Really good folk. 

As for Rocna? Well I emailed them as well and also mentioned vaguely that I had been discussing anchors in forums and reading what people were using on blogs and I received an arrogant, sarcastic reply decrying the internet and also informing me that if I was fishing for a discount for a review I could get stuffed, and that all there was to know about their anchors was available on their website and basically I would be best to go annoy someone in a chandlery somewhere (This last statement is more my interpretation, not their actual words).

So I bought an Mantus and I have supported a couple of small businesses( one in the US and one here) ran by really nice people.


----------



## Don L

chall03 said:


> As for Rocna? Well I emailed them as well and also mentioned vaguely that I had been discussing anchors in forums and reading what people were using on blogs and I received an arrogant, sarcastic reply


I was all ready to buy a Rocna when I got my current boat. But right when I about to do it Craig Smith was working overtime trash posting on forums and that resulted in my getting a 60 lb Manson Supreme instead because I decided I wasn't to support such an a-hole.

Back on topic, my production boat has been happy with a Manson Supreme and has had no limits to its use..


----------



## chall03

Ahh well you see that's because it's a _production_ anchor 

If you crossed an ocean it would disintegrate.


----------



## tdw

chall03 said:


> At the risk of screwing this thread completely by starting to talk anchors....
> 
> We looked at Rocna, Mantus and Manson Supreme all very similar anchors design wise.
> We choose Mantus. Now if you look with an open mind at the actual engineering of the Mantus you will be impressed.
> 
> But hey if bolts freak you out, your superstitious, or you like to choose anchors based on something some guy told you once in a bar then thats ok too.
> 
> As for customer service/support Mantus were fantastic. Greg got back to me straight away with answers and the local distributor here in Australia have gone out of their way to make sure we are happy. Really good folk.
> 
> As for Rocna? Well I emailed them as well and also mentioned vaguely that I had been discussing anchors in forums and reading what people were using on blogs and I received an arrogant, sarcastic reply decrying the internet and also informing me that if I was fishing for a discount for a review I could get stuffed, and that all there was to know about their anchors was available on their website and basically I would be best to go annoy someone in a chandlery somewhere (This last statement is more my interpretation, not their actual words).
> 
> So I bought an Mantus and I have supported a couple of small businesses( one in the US and one here) ran by really nice people.


CH ... out of interest where the Rocna people you spoke to the Australian Distributors ?


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> Have any been built yet?





miatapaul said:


> No, and I doubt they ever will be. I think it is more of an opportunity to discuss what an ideal offshore boat is. I do like the idea of a strongly built bare-bones boat, but I doubt there is enough market for it. But it is out of my current price range anyway, though after the divorce is settled, kids get out of college and I have a few more years of working I might be able to consider it. Oh hell, that puts me at about 80 years old, so at that point if it does not matter if it lasts much more than 10 years I guess!
> 
> What I could see happening is a company like Outbound, Passport, or another "limited production" company seeing the interest and offer one of there boats with a "laminate interior" but keep the strong built offshore features. Seems they could offer the boat at a much lower price point and they are not driven by volume like the big guys. They would have limited expenses as they could perhaps use an older model if they still have the molds and base it on that.


Looking at this months Sail magazine reminded me of this thread. Here is a similar thing but instead of one of the above it is a Hanse Hull that is more heavily reenforced while being built then a relatively bare bones interior put in and a "simplified" rig put on. So you end up with a super strong boat but with little frills for around $155,000. Kind of more set up for one class racing, but would work for no frills cruising.


----------



## MedSailor

miatapaul said:


> . So you end up with a super strong boat but with little frills for around $155,000. Kind of more set up for one class racing, but would work for no frills cruising.


$155,000 for no-frills and bare bones? I'll stick with the used market thanks.

MedSailor


----------



## miatapaul

MedSailor said:


> $155,000 for no-frills and bare bones? I'll stick with the used market thanks.
> 
> MedSailor


Well there ate some that insist on new heck I am a bottom feeder so I won't be buying new any time soon.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## chall03

tdw said:


> CH ... out of interest where the Rocna people you spoke to the Australian Distributors ?


No it wasn't.


----------



## mitiempo

chall03 said:


> No it wasn't.


Was it Canada Metals? They now own Rocna.


----------



## SVAuspicious

chall03 said:


> As for Rocna? Well I emailed them as well and also mentioned vaguely that I had been discussing anchors in forums and reading what people were using on blogs and I received an arrogant, sarcastic reply decrying the internet and also informing me that if I was fishing for a discount for a review I could get stuffed, and that all there was to know about their anchors was available on their website and basically I would be best to go annoy someone in a chandlery somewhere (This last statement is more my interpretation, not their actual words).


Golly. While I understand that lots of people in the marine industry get asked for discounts quite often good customer service includes remaining polite while being firm.

I have two Rocna anchors (one NZ and one Canada) from the original administration of the company. While Craig Smith certainly put a lot of people off on Internet fora I found his customer service to be exemplary. I have no personal experience with the two subsequent administrations of the company.

I have yet to anchor with a Mantus. Construction seemed very good on the couple I have seen. Mantus would certainly be in the mix if I were in the market for another anchor. I suspect you'll be quite pleased with it.


----------



## chall03

mitiempo said:


> Was it Canada Metals? They now own Rocna.


It was early last year if I recall correctly so maybe prior to their ownership?

I am sure they are good anchors and I know they had enough bad press in the past(some perhaps unfairly) so maybe what I was reading in the tone of the email was some caution/fatigue over these issues.


----------



## Minnewaska

chall03 said:


> ...But hey if bolts freak you out, your superstitious, or you like to choose anchors based on something some guy told you once in a bar then thats ok too.......


The bolts on the Mantus themselves don't freak me out, although, I find them unattractive. I have asked, in the Mantus thread itself, how the mating surfaces were tested for wear of the galvanized surfaces. Presumably, they wear against each other by slight flexing over time, as would the bolt threads. That would seem to introduce a corrosion issue, but they haven't been in the fleet long enough for us to know. I'm suspicious and find the best use for one as a stowable spare that isn't used much, therefore, little wear. If there engineering were truly superior over Rocna/Manson (which I also doubt), I would expect to see a welded version in the future. JMO.


----------



## smackdaddy

This ain't a production boat. It's a bluewater boat - but it definitely hit the limits by experience mast and rudder issues "caused by some sort of wave action":

S&S 42: _Nirvana Now_










Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

Thanks to JonE for the heads up. Just another example of how ALL boats - even the blues - have serious failures...with no reason to condemn the brand or type because of it.

S&S Yachts...a lot like Beneteaus.


----------



## pikesbayone

I've noticed that a common failure on boats sailing from the mainland to Hawaii is steering. Often rudder post breaks away. But this can be corrected by adding reinforcement. Also, chainplates on any older production boat must be regarded with suspicion. Likewise swages.

I am skeptical of the structural integrity of some newer lightly built production boats. I have some doubts about strength of the hull where the keel joins. Also longitudinal strength of long wide after sections many older production boats were more stoutly built.


----------



## Classic30

pikesbayone said:


> I've noticed that a common failure on boats sailing from the mainland to Hawaii is steering. Often rudder post breaks away. But this can be corrected by adding reinforcement. Also, chainplates on any older production boat must be regarded with suspicion. Likewise swages.


It can also be corrected by displaying some seamanship and being aware of the boat's limits, instead of just pushing the thing until it breaks 1000 miles from the nearest land. 

AISI, one contributing factor is the size/power of wheel steering these days - at customer's request, of course. Back when boats had smaller wheels, it simply wasn't possible to snap the rudder post by human effort alone.



pikesbayone said:


> I am skeptical of the structural integrity of some newer lightly built production boats. I have some doubts about strength of the hull where the keel joins. Also longitudinal strength of long wide after sections many older production boats were more stoutly built.


Again, there's no point blaming the manufacturer of a Mediterranean Cocktail Cruiser if the boat can't stand up to an ocean crossing. Everything is made to a price point these days - boats included.

..and, personally, I'm glad it is that way. If it wasn't, there'd be no market for older 'stoutly built' boats..


----------



## smackdaddy

Yep - this vaunted bluewater boat fell apart and sank. So when you read the relentless criticism about production boats and their "inferior" quality - remember this was an S&S 42 that definitely hit its limits (thanks to MarkC for the update)...

(Can someone repost this over at CF. Those chuckleheads really need to know before someone gets hurt.)


----------



## aeventyr60

Sounds like a bit more then the build quality, design or type of boat, maybe maintenance or lack there of played a part? Two major system failures at once?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> S&S Yachts...a lot like Beneteaus.


Uhhh, you know that Sparkman & Stephens doesn't actually _BUILD_ boats, right?

I can assure you of one thing, no one at S&S was responsible for those clunky deckhouse windows, that's for sure 










I'd be really curious to know who actually built that boat... I can find no other "S&S 42" that looks remotely like it, it sure as hell isn't a Commanche, or a Gulfstream...

It's listed in the Pacific Puddle Jump as an "S&S North American 42"... Google draws a blank on that one... And, SailboatData.com, in their index of all S&S designs by year, shows nothing...

Sailboat designs of Â*Sparkman & Stephens by year

The hull, however, bears a strong resemblance to the Lacoste 42, S&S Design #2482, of which a total of 12 were built by Dufour:

(Uh-oh, Dufour is a production builder, right? _"A lot like Beneteau"_, in fact, no?)

Sparkman & Stephens: Design 2482 - Lacoste 42/Defour 42

But clearly, that clunky deckhouse on NIRVANA NOW bears little resemblance to the sleeker Lacoste...

I wonder if perhaps someone obtained an unfinished hull from Dufour, and built the rest of the boat themselves? That's about the best I can figure... That coachroof, the windows, that hard dodger - they have all the hallmarks of a Backyard Special, to my eye...

In which case, of course, any and all bets about the quality of the build are off...



perhaps someone else can do some better detective work than I... Sounds like a mission for Jeff H, perhaps...


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey take it up with Sparkman - or Stephens. I'm just reporting the facts baby.

They _definitely_ would have been better off in a Hunter.


----------



## smackdaddy

Big thunderstorm moving through. Found a few leaks and just saw 52 knots. Glad I'm in the slip!

(PS - My bimini didn't blow off and I didn't sink BTW.)


----------



## Faster

The Ortiz' blog is pretty bare bones, no info on the boat at all.. or their preparation. Agree with Jon that if it's an S&S design it was not likely built, or finished, by any of their usual clients. The fact that the deck was peeling back off the stem is a pretty major engineering (or deferred maintenance) faux pas!!


----------



## smackdaddy

Did you have something you wanted to say _directly to me_ Jon?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Did you have something you wanted to say _directly to me_ Jon?


Huh? You're referring to a recent comment made over on CF, perhaps?

Well, that was nothing that hasn't been said before... 

But why not address it over there? Oh, wait, I forgot... 

Damn, smack, why are you still paying any attention to what those chuckleheads on CF have to say, anyway? I thought you long ago "settled" the Production/Bluewater debate once and for all over there, no?


----------



## smackdaddy

Weak, dude.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Weak, dude.


Well, as the kids say today...

_Whatever..._


----------



## souljour2000

Weird-lookin boat in a way...After some bit of research, I also noticed that it doesnt look at all like the S&S 42...and more like the Lacoste in the Puddlejump listing after surfing the other day for an hour of MY life I'll never get back....carry on...


----------



## Classic30

souljour2000 said:


> Weird-lookin boat in a way...After some bit of research, I also noticed that it doesnt look at all like the S&S 42...and more like the Lacoste in the Puddlejump listing after surfing the other day for an hour of MY life I'll never get back....carry on...


Awww give them a break.. lots of people want others to think their boat is designed/built by someone really special (particularly around sale-time) because no-one wants to actually *admit* they own a lemon, designed by a no-hoper and built by a backyard amateur.. right?

I'm sure they thought it looked at least a bit like an S&S 42, so maybe it was. I mean, who would actually check?? 

EDIT: A case in point: After a few years in a trailer-sailer, one of my old crew got himself all enthused about sailing the oceans and thought he found a "good deal" sitting neglected on a mooring up Bent's way. Ignoring countless warnings from those of us he showed pictures to, including the warning to get a survey before handing over any cash, he purchased this monster that anyone here would run from for far too much money and proceeded to spend even more getting it seaworthy enough to leave harbour. Having done that and nearly penniless by this stage, one near-shipwreck later (and a $1,000 bill for the rescue) and having knocked back an good offer of $20k for the scrap steel, I hear he's now trying to sell the boat for up around the price of a good Beneteau... It's sad, really. Very sad.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Did you have something you wanted to say _directly to me_ Jon?


Fightclub

:gunner


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> Fightclub
> 
> :gunner


Lol too funny but seriously, after seeing all the crap that goes on here (this thread)it is amazing it has not been regulated to the same place the nug threads go. Wait a minute, let me put this thing on pause while I get the popcorn..........................ok carry on.


----------



## Solar54

I did the unthinkable this past weekend. I took my 1985 C36 production boat out into the Gulf Stream. I had a wonderful time. Rudder did not fall off, mast and rigging still intact, weather was absolutely beautiful.


----------



## smackdaddy

Solar54 said:


> I did the unthinkable this past weekend. I took my 1985 C36 production boat out into the Gulf Stream. I had a wonderful time. Rudder did not fall off, mast and rigging still intact, weather was absolutely beautiful.


Obviously you were very fortunate....

...to have not fallen for the BWC hype.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Solar54 said:


> I did the unthinkable this past weekend. I took my 1985 C36 production boat out into the Gulf Stream. I had a wonderful time. Rudder did not fall off, mast and rigging still intact, weather was absolutely beautiful.


That you are still here could be attributed to the beautiful weather.....


----------



## Aaron42

I have not read all 188 pages of this thread and I'm a fairly new sailor, but I'd like to suggest maybe it's that it's up to you to decide whether a boat is well equipped enough to be an acceptable blue water boat rather than any specific things about the boat?

For example: could I load up my engineless 1984 Hunter 23 with water & ramen noodles and sail east until I hit Africa or Europe? Sure. But everything in the world would have to go right in order for me to make the journey alive and no one would be shocked to hear that it didn't go well. On the other hand we sometimes hear of well equipped ocean going vessels not surviving a journey and think "how did that happen?!" 

So are you the more adventurous type who would sail off into the sunset without too much worry about having the latest and greatest boat and equipment? Or are you more meticulous about having everything you could possibly need in order to make the journey.


----------



## bobperry

54: you are truly a courageous fellow. My hat is off to you.


----------



## Brent Swain

This is an interesting post a professional engineer posted on the origami boats site. Kinda undermines the proposal of a cheap plastic boat being the answer for low budget cruisers. I'm sure with today's cost of material, this is more prevalent than ever with new production boats. This is why a lot of more experienced cruisers end up building their own boats, after putting enough miles in their wakes.



> Further, about testing and quality control. I have read anecdotes of how fibreglass yacht outfits on the verge of bankruptcy in the 70's and 80's had unskilled labourers spraying and laying the hulls up, anything to get them out the door cheap and fast. With the price of resin going up fast (oil crisis of the early 1970s) there was a lot of economic pressure to get it done and out the door with as little material cost as possible. Yes, a lot of those boats sailed for a while, but, that era left a real stain on the reputation of fibreglass. Even if one buys a boat originally made by a financially solvent builder who valued not making crap hulls, and never used a chopper spray gun, what was the quality control? What kept the material defects out? Constant human vigilance as the laminate was made. There is nothing more fallible. Once it was laminated, there was no economical way to go back and make sure it was right, no way to detect "good enough for Friday" work when the constant vigilance turned their back for a moment. Did they ever scrap a hull that failed quality control? What did they do with hulls that did not meet their standards? Perhaps they laid in more fibreglass and made a slightly heavier boat that met their standards. There are worse things, like just installing the interior panelling and sticking a price tag on it.


----------



## chall03

Oh hey there Brent....


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> This is an interesting post a professional engineer posted on the origami boats site.


What's an origami boat? Is it a production boat too?



















Anyway - this is all you really need to know regarding the relevancy of that guys' thoughts to this discussion:



> *I have read anecdotes* of how fibreglass yacht outfits on the verge of bankruptcy *in the 70's and 80's* had unskilled labourers spraying and laying the hulls up...


I don't make decisions based on anecdotes. I like actual evidence.


----------



## bobperry

Unfortunately you have one guy, BS, who knows zero about production boats and has never done any work in that field, quoting another guy who obviously knows zero about production boats. If nothing else BS has myopia down pat.


----------



## IStream

smackdaddy said:


> What's an origami boat? Is it a production boat too?
> 
> Anyway - this is all you really need to know regarding the relevancy of that guys' thoughts to this discussion:
> 
> I don't make decisions based on anecdotes. I like actual evidence.


Haven't you heard, Smack? The plural of "anecdote" is "data".


----------



## bobperry

The plural of "anecdote" is BS.


----------



## chall03

If only there was someone on here who had actual experience designing fiberglass production boats and who had spent decades visiting and working with several fiberglass boat builders in North America, Taiwan and elsewhere.....

Until then I think we should take the regurgitated word of Brent about what some guy said once on some site about something he heard somewhere.


----------



## bobperry

Fact is that most of us like out production boats and use them frequently and SURVIVE! We do not want rusty, aesthetically challenged BS steel boats. But if that's your bag, Knock yourself out. Lots of room for different ways of gong sailing. Doesn't seem that many chose the BS method though. I've never seen one of his boats on the water.


----------



## chall03

bobperry said:


> Fact is that most of us like out production boats and use them frequently and SURVIVE! .


I am anchored next to a Nordic 40 now.

I am eyeing it suspiciously.....you never know with these plastic boats........ you will be glad to know it looks to be doing ok( and it is now half a world away from where it was launched).

I will go and get my bucket and keep it on deck just in case I need to swim over and bail them out though....


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Fact is that most of us like out production boats and use them frequently and SURVIVE! We do not want rusty, aesthetically challenged BS steel boats. But if that's your bag, Knock yourself out. Lots of room for different ways of gong sailing. Doesn't seem that many chose the BS method though. I've never seen one of his boats on the water.


Wish I had a pic to illustrate this Bob, but it was a bit sloppy that day...

Last Friday I was putting the finishing touches on a delivery of a V-42 back up from Antigua to Annapolis... Fantastic trip, as those on a Valiant seem to invariably turn out to be 

The last day up the Chesapeake turned out to be the only hard slog of the trip. A cold front had passed over the area the night before, when we cleared Hampton Roads early Fri AM it was blowing pretty good out of the NNW, and we started out motorsailing under a deep reefed main and staysail, making decent speed, but it was a brutal ride for a few hours...

Crystal clear morning, but there was only one other boat to be seen, a bit behind us having just come out of Salt Ponds... As soon as I saw it, far too distant to identify, but I said to my crew "I'll bet that's a Bob Perry boat"...

Sure enough, turned out to be a Saga 48, Hull #4... They were sailing to their Solent jib, and a reef in the main... They were too far away, and it was too rough for pics, but she was a beautiful sight, making easy work of a nasty wind over tide shallow Chesapeake chop... They were returning from a winter in the Bahamas, and were pressing her hard, "The Admiral" aboard anxious to see her grandchildren... She was the real deal, and they were a family obviously very much in love with the boat...

So, at least for a few hours last Friday morning at the start of Memorial Day weekend, there may have only been 2 idiots out on the lower Chesapeake headed north into that crap... And they were both on PerryBoats...

Tonight, sitting in the restaurant at Coinjock Marina on a different trip south, I raise my glass to you... 

Cheers, Bob... And that anecdote is no BS...


----------



## bobperry

Holy cow, an endorsement from Jon Eisberg. That means a lot to me. You are one sailor I admire truly. You manage to keep that scary Chance design on the top side of the water. I could say, "I don't know how you do it" but I do know. It's a great boat and you know how to sail it well. It just happens to be a real looker too.

Nothing makes me happier ( except when my dog licks my nose) than seeing families enjoy my boats. So I take it, both Perry boats are safe and snug in harbor. Amazing.

Chall:
Heat up some soup for those poor ignorant (and courageous) sailors in their death defying Perry boat. You never know when it's going to go straight down.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonE rocks.


----------



## bobperry

I'm with you there Smackers.


----------



## MedSailor

Bob,

I have to know. Why is John's Chance a "scary design"? 

Apart from it having some IOR features of course...

MedSailor


----------



## aeventyr60

^Probably because it was a "production boat" at one time.

Maybe another thread should be "post production boat" and what I did to make it a voyaging vessel.


----------



## chall03

aeventyr60 said:


> ^Probably because it was a "production boat" at one time.
> 
> Maybe another thread should be "post production boat" and what I did to make it a voyaging vessel.


Yep. Thats a thread I would read....


----------



## bobperry

Med : I was trying to be funny.


----------



## smackdaddy

In another thread, I just saw Billy Ruffin's link to John Harries' post on _Cheeki Rafiki_.

Looking at John's article, I honestly think he's off-base on a couple of his views. That is, what boats are designed to do - and what they aren't. I bring this up because I think it's very relevant to this thread - and, potentially, an elephant in the room for modern boats (both production and otherwise).

The bottom line is this statement:



> Not only do *these boats get damaged easily in a grounding or even from just hard sailing, it's almost impossible to fix them properly at a reasonable cost.*


Now, hard sailing? No, that shouldn't be an issue in way whatsoever. Grounding on the other hand? Why in the hell do boats need to be _designed_ for grounding? That is not what _sail_boats are supposed to do.

Now, I know this statement will get a lot of blowback...but, fundamentally, it's true. Sure - it would be great if your boat was built so that you could hit anything you wanted (think a Brent Swain Steeler) - but you're giving up so much everywhere else in performance. So what is the balance here?

Furthermore, just to be clear, this is not only a problem with production boats. As John mentions, a Swan 45 suffered the same type failure. So this is an issue with modern performance cruisers - not just "cheaply built production boats".

Now, why is this "built to ground" issue important? Because John goes on to say this:



> So let's summarize. We are building boats and *classing them as ocean capable* that:
> 
> -Will be dangerously damaged by something we know happens frequently: grounding.
> 
> -Said damage can't be reliably detected and accessed with practical methods that are readily available.
> 
> -Said damage can't be properly repaired to original strength at a cost that makes sense in relationship to the value of the boat.


It's this classing issue that he's focused on (i.e. - a change in the industry standard) - and he lists that ISO classing (from the MAIB report) as follows:



> ISO 12215-9 defines Design Category A as: 'category of craft considered suitable to operate in seas with significant wave heights above 4m and wind speeds in excess of Beaufort Force 8, but excluding abnormal conditions such as hurricanes.
> 
> With reference to the hindcast weather data for 0300 on 16 May 2014, it is concluded that Cheeki Rafiki was operating within its design category criteria at the time of its loss.


You'll recognize this language as it's the Cat A designation I've mentioned in all these production boat threads (here and elsewhere). Cat A production boats are currently built to this standard - and that is precisely why I fully believe they are fit for bluewater cruising - despite the protestations of the chuckleheads.

NOW - the problem comes in John's recommendations:



> So here are my recommendations based on the findings of the report:
> 
> -The keel attachment construction technique used on Cheeki Rafiki-glued in matrix-is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed and should be specifically banned under classing regulations like ISO and ABS.
> 
> -These scantling regulations must be upgraded so that the keel to hull attachment will *maintain integrity in a hullspeed grounding and also withstand pounding and slamming while sailing over the life of the boat.*
> 
> -Said upgraded scantlings should be a requirement for Class A (Offshore) classification.
> 
> Or to put it another way, I strongly believe that we must return to the time when keel to hull joints were built not only to be strong enough the day the boat was launched, but also to withstand common abuse, such as groundings and slamming up-wind-people make mistakes and safe offshore boats forgive mistakes.


So - he's saying we need to ensure boats must adhere to the bolded part above in order to be offshore capable?

First, what does "maintain integrity" mean? If it means staying afloat after such an occurrence and bringing the sailors home safely - CR, apparently, did exactly that in both her groundings. Or does he mean that a boat should not experience any damage in such a grounding?

This is a very grey area that I don't see being fit for a category standard.

The second part is just as important. What exactly is "the life of the boat"? CR performed her duties to John's standard right up until her life was over. So what is that standard for that life span?

Again, these are issues we've discussed regarding BOTH production and "traditional blue water" boats.

I certainly don't think *grounding* needs to be a part of a SAILboat's offshore categorization. The boat is designed to SAIL - not hit stuff. That said, consumers should know much more about what a grounding at hull speed means for their boat. If, like the Beneteau First 40.5, a couple of these groundings means the boat should be condemned - we should know that. No one expects these boats to last forever - but neither does anyone know what that lifespan realistically is. And for those of us buying and sailing used production boats (Swans now included) - it's a very important question.

Finally, there's the "hard to fix at a reasonable cost" issue. As John points out, the liner method (being adopted by even Island Packet these days) is a cost savings issue, which has its longevity downsides. BUT saving money is a pretty important thing for the 95% of us out there looking to buy a boat. Many don't mind the "hard to fix" in the future, for the savings now. And most boat builders are in it to sell new boats. That's the market. So what's "reasonable"?

*SO*, the elephant in the room question is this - modern production boats (Swans included) are, to some degree, *disposable*. Yes, *disposable*. The expectation that these boats should be perfectly fine for 50 years like an old Alberg - even with repeatedly bashing them into hard bits - is simply misguided. That's not what they are built for.

But, knowing that, what does it mean for the production boat market (new, and especially used)? What are our expectations? And are they realistic - or are they dangerous?

Unless we have a good idea of the estimated usable life of these modern boats - and the types of occurrences that can shorten that span - we're buying and sailing blind.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Now, hard sailing? No, that shouldn't be an issue in way whatsoever. Grounding on the other hand? Why in the hell do boats need to be designed for grounding? That is not what sailboats are supposed to do.


It is, however, the most common damage likely to be suffered by boats that actually go places...



smackdaddy said:


> Now, I know this statement will get a lot of blowback...but, fundamentally, it's true. Sure - it would be great if your boat was built so that you could hit anything you wanted (think a Brent Swain Steeler) - *but you're giving up so much everywhere else in performance.* So what is the balance here?


Yeah, just imagine how much greater their margin of victory might have been, if the recent overall winners of both the Bermuda 1-2 and Marion-Bermuda Races hadn't had their designs compromised by keels able to withstand a hard grounding...

Damn, who'd a thunk it? Looks like even _Hunter_ is guilty of 'sacrificing performance' in their desire to engineer their keels to withstand a grounding at hull speed...

Or, perhaps they simply know their customers all too well?

;-)








smackdaddy said:


> You'll recognize this language as it's the Cat A designation I've mentioned in all these production boat threads (here and elsewhere). Cat A production boats are currently built to this standard - and that is precisely why I fully believe they are fit for bluewater cruising - despite the protestations of the chuckleheads.


I'd guess that John H himself would get a good chuckle, being branded a "chucklehead" by a sailor perhaps best known for a string of "Hall of Fame Threads" he's started on various sailing forums...

;-)

https://www.cruisingclub.org/awards/far-horizons/2008/harries-nickel


----------



## outbound

Smack
You can have NO hull keel joint and still have performance of bulbed fin keel. (outbound).
You can have NO hull keel joint and have modern high performance full keel ( Bob Perry cutters).
You can have NO hull keel joint and run the thing on the beach a thousand times without injury (Boreal).
Not an issue for many non steel boats.
Seems to me the big deal is not having the keel fall off but the damage done to the canoe body at the trailing edge of the keel. Often its takes a very skilled surveyor to detect damage. 
Similarly, on balanced spade rudders the stock could be bent and then rebent back to spec but weakened. From what I'm told this is sometimes hard to detect.
I've had two light touches. One in sand and one in mud. But I know it's only a matter of time before I really run aground. To think otherwise is hubris. So yes I think this does need to be considered in a cruising boat. 
Think the older boats with low aspect fins and a big lump of soft lead redundantly mounted with many bolts such as a V40 or psc or many others have advantage in this regards.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'd guess that John H himself would get a good chuckle, being branded a "chucklehead" by a sailor perhaps best known for a string of "Hall of Fame Threads" he's started on various sailing forums.


Where exactly in his article did John say that production boats were not fit for blue water? I guess I missed that. Or are you makng stuff up again?



JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, just imagine how much greater their margin of victory might have been, if the recent overall winners of both the Bermuda 1-2 and Marion-Bermuda Races hadn't had their designs compromised by keels able to withstand a hard grounding...
> 
> Damn, who'd a thunk it? Looks like even _Hunter_ is guilty of 'sacrificing performance' in their desire to engineer their keels to withstand a grounding at hull speed...
> 
> Or, perhaps they simply know their customers all too well?
> 
> ;-)


As I pointed out above Cheeki Rafiki "withstood" numerous hard groundings. The problem was not necessarily that it wasn't built strong enough for purpose. The problem was that it wasn't "disposed of" at the right time.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Where exactly in his article did John say that production boats were not fit for blue water? I guess I missed that. Or are you makng stuff up again?


Sure sounds to me like he disagrees with your contention that boats built to _*CURRENT*_ Ocean Category A standards are "perfectly fine" for bluewater sailing...



> So let's summarize. We are building boats and classing them as ocean capable that:
> 
> Will be dangerously damaged by something we know happens frequently: grounding.
> 
> Said damage can't be reliably detected and accessed with practical methods that are readily available.
> 
> Said damage can't be properly repaired to original strength at a cost that makes sense in relationship to the value of the boat.
> 
> ...
> 
> So here are my recommendations based on the findings of the report:
> 
> The keel attachment construction technique used on Cheeki Rafiki-glued in matrix-is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed and should be specifically banned under classing regulations like ISO and ABS.
> 
> These scantling regulations must be upgraded so that the keel to hull attachment will maintain integrity in a hullspeed grounding and also withstand pounding and slamming while sailing over the life of the boat.
> 
> Said upgraded scantlings should be a requirement for Class A (Offshore) classification.
> 
> Or to put it another way, I strongly believe that we must return to the time when keel to hull joints were built not only to be strong enough the day the boat was launched, but also to withstand common abuse, such as groundings and slamming up-wind-people make mistakes and safe offshore boats forgive mistakes.





smackdaddy said:


> As I pointed out above Cheeki Rafiki "withstood" numerous hard groundings. The problem was not necessarily that it wasn't built strong enough for purpose. The problem was that it wasn't "disposed of" at the right time.


Ooops, I think your argument for the economic sense of buying a series of later-model production boats and unloading them before their 'Sell By' dates might have just just flown out the window... ;-)

If indeed CHEEKY RAFIKI was an example of a boat that should have been "disposed of " properly, what percentage of owners of such boats do you suppose would have Done the Right Thing, by chopping it up and carting it off to a landfill, rather than listing it for sale?


----------



## rgscpat

Maybe keels and rudders need their own ratings?
Cat A keel, New England rock ledge capable in a noreaster... Cat D allowed one gentle coral sand grounding per year at Key West low tide...


----------



## Don L

Far as I'm concerned all this thread proves is the age old "there's nothing wrong with boats that the proper application of cash can not fix".


----------



## Capt Len

An integral crush panel with sensors in strategic locations. Records bad stuff and sends it to the cloud in real time.Know your best sell before date. Buyers have access. Artificial drill islands have something like that now. But they are blue water steel contraptions designed to live out side a marina.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sure sounds to me like he disagrees with your contention that boats built to _*CURRENT*_ Ocean Category A standards are "perfectly fine" for bluewater sailing...


Again, you've missed the point both ways. Yes - he thinks the standard should be modified - but as I said, I think his premise is very flawed in trying to make the case that hard groundings need to be part of that offshore standard.

So he's not saying what you are trying to make him say (that production boats are not fit for bluewater) - and he's not a chucklehead as you're trying to make me label him.

Sorry - no soup for you.



JonEisberg said:


> Ooops, I think your argument for the economic sense of buying a series of later-model production boats and unloading them before their 'Sell By' dates might have just just flown out the window... ;-)


Again, there's no way right now to know the balance in that financial equation. There's no doubt you get more "immediate value" in a newer used production boat - if it fits your criteria - than in a much older, "traditional blue water" boat that costs more. No question at all.

The obvious catch in this, as pointed out by John and evidenced with CR, is where exactly that boat is in terms of it's "life span". Knowing more about this is the most critical point in all this - though it's not being discussed.

And this "shelf-life" thing is what I've held in these arguments for a good while now. So, nothing has flown out my window.

So, you're right, production boats might just require WAY more pre-purchase surveying than is generally being given them. But the sailing community really should know more about this from top to bottom. Because it's very clear that CR was a ticking time-bomb...despite the fact that she had done her job very well to that end-of-shelf-life moment. Lots of people involved in that chain of events missed that simple fact. She should have been pulled. Period.



JonEisberg said:


> If indeed CHEEKY RAFIKI was an example of a boat that should have been "disposed of " properly, what percentage of owners of such boats do you suppose would have Done the Right Thing, by chopping it up and carting it off to a landfill, rather than listing it for sale?


Don't know. But it's a question that definitely needs some exploration. Because spending effort changing classifications and design/build scantlings is certainly not going to save those buyers' lives if they are unknowingly getting into a Cheeki Rafiki.


----------



## smackdaddy

rgscpat said:


> Maybe keels and rudders need their own ratings?
> Cat A keel, New England rock ledge capable in a noreaster... Cat D allowed one gentle coral sand grounding per year at Key West low tide...


Exactly. How on earth do you quantify this in a classification?


----------



## killarney_sailor

Gee Smack, you generally are much more closely grounded to reality than in this case. You are saying that a 'production boat' (whatever the hell that is) needs to be cut up after a serious grounding and that such boats are throwaways after xx years of sailing. Groundings are just part of cruising unless you only sail in the open ocean. So you are suggesting that someone buy a boat for, say, $400,000 knowing that it will have zero value or be a very dangerous vessel to rely on after 15 (or whatever) years of use? Seems like you are providing the strongest evidence possible for buying a 30 year old boat that was over-built because structural engineering of boats was in its infancy then. Not many of us can afford to buy a disposable six-figure boat every so often.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Gee Smack, you generally are much more closely grounded to reality than in this case. You are saying that a 'production boat' (whatever the hell that is) needs to be cut up after a serious grounding and that such boats are throwaways after xx years of sailing. Groundings are just part of cruising unless you only sail in the open ocean. So you are suggesting that someone buy a boat for, say, $400,000 knowing that it will have zero value or be a very dangerous vessel to rely on after 15 (or whatever) years of use? Seems like you are providing the strongest evidence possible for buying a 30 year old boat that was over-built because structural engineering of boats was in its infancy then. Not many of us can afford to buy a disposable six-figure boat every so often.


No, kill - the question that John's article is bringing up - is _how much damage can these boats take before they are not worth fixing_, either for safety or financial reasons.

Again, Cheeki Rafiki took the damage and kept sailing - to a point.

But, you hit the nail on the head...is it 15 years (or whatever)? And if so, how does one hard grounding shorten that life span? Two?


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> No, kill - the question that John's article is bringing up - is _how much damage can these boats take before they are not worth fixing_, either for safety or financial reasons.
> 
> Again, Cheeki Rafiki took the damage and kept sailing - to a point.
> 
> But, you hit the nail on the head...is it 15 years (or whatever)? And if so, how does one hard grounding shorten that life span? Two?


It most probably depends on the design, and also most likely will never be listed. I'd posit that the old fashioned encapsulated keels would be essentially indefinite, with the newer style bolt ones being less, and the much newer "glue on" (shiver) being even less. Then you get into hull supports, scantlings, etc, etc. What you eventually end up with is enough expanding variables that you come right back to where this thread is. If you want a boat where the keel is least likely to fall off, buy one that can't. If you are willing to take the risk for improved performance, then do so and survey appropriately. And in a free market (and what market is freer than the used boat market), it is caveat emptor.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Again, you've missed the point both ways. Yes - he thinks the standard should be modified - but as I said, I think his premise is very flawed in trying to make the case that hard groundings need to be part of that offshore standard.
> 
> *So he's not saying what you are trying to make him say (that production boats are not fit for bluewater)* - and he's not a chucklehead as you're trying to make me label him.
> 
> Sorry - no soup for you.


You're free to believe what you want to believe, I'm content to let whoever might be reading this decide for themselves whether or not he believes these boats are fit for bluewater:



> *The loss of Cheeki Rafiki is just the tip of the iceberg. Several of her sister ships have suffered from the same problems.* The fundamental issue seems to be that these boats rely on a structural liner to take the loads of the keel. The matrix-as it is called throughout the report-is fabricated outside of the boat and then glued in.
> 
> *Now I understand that modern adhesives are incredibly strong, but clearly something is wrong. Over and over again we see boats with this construction technique suffer separation of the matrix from the hull in a grounding as well as damage to the laminate in the way of the keel bolts.*
> 
> ...
> 
> And it gets worse. Not only do these boats get damaged easily in a grounding or even from just hard sailing, it's almost impossible to fix them properly at a reasonable cost.
> 
> ...
> 
> So let's summarize. *We are building boats and classing them as ocean capable that:
> 
> Will be dangerously damaged by something we know happens frequently: grounding.*
> 
> Said damage can't be reliably detected and accessed with practical methods that are readily available.
> 
> Said damage can't be properly repaired to original strength at a cost that makes sense in relationship to the value of the boat.
> 
> ...
> 
> So here are my recommendations based on the findings of the report:
> 
> *The keel attachment construction technique used on Cheeki Rafiki-glued in matrix-is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed and should be specifically banned under classing regulations like ISO and ABS.*
> 
> These scantling regulations must be upgraded so that the keel to hull attachment will maintain integrity in a hullspeed grounding and also withstand pounding and slamming while sailing over the life of the boat.
> 
> Said upgraded scantlings should be a requirement for Class A (Offshore) classification.
> 
> Or to put it another way, I strongly believe that we must return to the time when keel to hull joints were built not only to be strong enough the day the boat was launched, but also to withstand common abuse, such as groundings and slamming up-wind-people make mistakes and safe offshore boats forgive mistakes.


So, yeah, other than that, he is in no way questioning the suitability of certain production boats carrying the CE Class A sticker for bluewater voyaging...

;-)

As usual, we'll just have to agree to disagree... In this case, it would seem to stem from what we view as the qualities inherent in the mythical 'Bluewater Boat'...

You appear to envision bluewater voyaging as some sort of endless journey, practiced by latter day Flying Dutchmen, who only sail in the open ocean, never arriving at a destination, or venturing into waters shallow enough to run aground... Others like myself and John, however, see a true bluewater boat as being one capable of safely transporting her crew across oceans to distant, and often unfamiliar, poorly charted and remote cruising _Destinations_, and yet still be further capable of withstanding the sort of accidental grounding or other mishap that can easily ensue while exploring those cruising grounds you've crossed the Big Blue to get to...

Can't help but note the irony of your declaration that the prospect of grounding should be irrelevant to this discussion, when there appears to be little doubt that 2 of the most conspicuous losses of production boats in mid-ocean within the last year (CHEEKI RAFIKI, and BLUE PEARL), can be directly attributable to damage they'd suffered from prior _groundings..._

;-)


----------



## travlin-easy

I can't believe this thread is still alive! 

Gary


----------



## seaner97

travlineasy said:


> I can't believe this thread is still alive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary


Smack basically resurrects it every so often and Jon and others have trouble ignoring him either for purposes of posterity or just because it's fun to have semi intelligent arguments about boat design.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> You appear to envision bluewater voyaging as some sort of endless journey, practiced by latter day Flying Dutchmen, who only sail in the open ocean, never arriving at a destination, or venturing into waters shallow enough to run aground... Others like myself and John, however, see a true bluewater boat as being one capable of safely transporting her crew across oceans to distant, and often unfamiliar, poorly charted and remote cruising _Destinations_, and yet still be further capable of withstanding the sort of accidental grounding or other mishap that can easily ensue while exploring those cruising grounds you've crossed the Big Blue to get to...


No. I agree that accidental grounding is inevitable. But remember, even Cheeki Rafiki and Blue Pearl withstood a couple of these and still safely transported their crews home - until they couldn't anymore. So that's not the question.

The question is, _exactly how many_ significant groundings is your and John's "true bluewater boat" supposed to endure - to qualify for your standard - before it becomes unsafe and/or irreparable? 100? 1000?

We need to know this number from you and him to really get anywhere.



JonEisberg said:


> Can't help but note the irony of your declaration that the prospect of grounding should be irrelevant to this discussion, when there appears to be little doubt that 2 of the most conspicuous losses of production boats in mid-ocean within the last year (CHEEKI RAFIKI, and BLUE PEARL), can be directly attributable to damage they'd suffered from prior _groundings..._
> 
> ;-)


I'm not at all saying that groundings are irrelevant. On the contrary. I don't know how you're reading that. I'm saying that it's misguided to put the emphasis on _designing sailboats specifically to ground_ and take whatever number of those you and John come up with above as the standard for the ISO classification of an _*offshore*_ boat.

Again, my point is when groundings happen to these more modern production boats (Swans included), it's a much bigger deal than people seem to be aware of and/or are making of it...precisely because of the build processes and life-span issues for these boats.

Just as we need to know the number of hard groundings acceptable to you and John to get that "true blue water" designation, we need to know roughly how many years of sailing these boats are designed and built for - and how much a hard grounding shortens that span. And we need to know more about what to look for in a survey to detect these kinds of problems that seem to even elude the yard guys who worked on Cheeki Rafiki.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> The question is, _exactly how many_ significant groundings is your and John's "true bluewater boat" supposed to endure - to qualify for your standard - before it becomes unsafe and/or irreparable? 100? 1000?
> 
> We need to know this number from you and him to really get anywhere.


LOL! Well, if you really believe one can provide an answer to such a silly question, your lack of understanding of the myriad factors in assessing a boat's suitability for bluewater sailing or extended voyaging is even more profound than I had suspected...

;-))

Sorry, but you're asking the wrong person if you think I have the ability to provide simple answers to such complex problems, or _define_, with such specificity, some 'threshold' that makes an offshore boat... We'll agree to disagree yet again, you believe a CE sticker can define a particular boat's suitability for offshore, but I don't buy that notion...

Best I can do, is to follow the lead of SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, and trust that I can know one, when I see one...

Call it _'Boat Porn'_, if you will...

;-)


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> No. I agree that accidental grounding is inevitable. But remember, even Cheeki Rafiki and Blue Pearl withstood a couple of these and still safely transported their crews home - until they couldn't anymore. So that's not the question.
> 
> The question is, _exactly how many_ significant groundings is your and John's "true bluewater boat" supposed to endure - to qualify for your standard - before it becomes unsafe and/or irreparable? 100? 1000?
> 
> We need to know this number from you and him to really get anywhere.
> 
> I'm not at all saying that groundings are irrelevant. On the contrary. I don't know how you're reading that. I'm saying that it's misguided to put the emphasis on _designing sailboats specifically to ground_ and take whatever number of those you and John come up with above as the standard for the ISO classification of an _*offshore*_ boat.
> 
> Again, my point is when groundings happen to these more modern production boats (Swans included), it's a much bigger deal than people seem to be aware of and/or are making of it...precisely because of the build processes and life-span issues for these boats.
> 
> Just as we need to know the number of hard groundings acceptable to you and John to get that "true blue water" designation, we need to know roughly how many years of sailing these boats are designed and built for - and how much a hard grounding shortens that span. And we need to know more about what to look for in a survey to detect these kinds of problems that seem to even elude the yard guys who worked on Cheeki Rafiki.


I think you're missing the most salient point (and Jon is as well) that was made. It is that there is not a decent way to inspect and repair at a reasonable cost in most of these newer designs. In an Alberg, you know if you've got a problem as the glass around the encapsulated keel will tell you. A heck of a lot harder in the fin keel spade rudder designs.


----------



## Don L

I think it is a big mistake for everyone to talk about how the keel on Cheeki Rafki as being some type of standard for production. On my lowly 2001 production boat that keel is bolted to a pretty serious deep stub. I feel it is pretty hard to define those thin long blade keels for a cruising boat.


----------



## bobperry

Yeah, what they all said.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Where exactly in his article did John say that production boats were not fit for blue water? I guess I missed that. Or are you makng stuff up again?


Smack do some reading around John's site. I think you will find that is very much his view.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> ...there is not a decent way to inspect and repair *at a reasonable cost* in most of these newer designs.


I understood this point from his article - and it seems to be spot on. But the bold part is the critical part in my view. This goes back to the "disposable" aspect. You can't have low up-front cost AND boats with infinite life. So where is the trade-off where it IS worth the cost of fixing it - instead of writing it off and getting the next boat? They certainly got it wrong on Cheeki Rafiki.

At the same time, remember that even Island Packet is starting to go the liner route. So it's becoming a far more widespread issue than JUST in the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Well, if you really believe one can provide an answer to such a silly question, your lack of understanding of the myriad factors in assessing a boat's suitability for bluewater sailing or extended voyaging is even more profound than I had suspected...
> 
> Sorry, but you're asking the wrong person if you think I have the ability to provide simple answers to such complex problems, or define, with such specificity, some 'threshold' that makes an offshore boat...


Yet John seems to want to create an ISO standard for just this thing. From his post...



> -These scantling regulations must be upgraded so that the keel to hull attachment will maintain integrity in a hullspeed grounding and also withstand pounding and slamming while sailing over the life of the boat.
> 
> -Said upgraded scantlings should be a requirement for Class A (Offshore) classification.


So as you point out, how is that done exactly? Maybe I have a silly, profound misunderstanding of things - but this sure seems to be what John is calling for in his article. And this is exactly what I'm saying makes no sense...just like you.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> I understood this point from his article - and it seems to be spot on. But the bold part is the critical part in my view. This goes back to the "disposable" aspect. You can't have low up-front cost AND boats with infinite life. So where is the trade-off where it IS worth the cost of fixing it - instead of writing it off and getting the next boat? They certainly got it wrong on Cheeki Rafiki.
> 
> At the same time, remember that even Island Packet is starting to go the liner route. So it's becoming a far more widespread issue than JUST in the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas.


I thought an IP was a winnebago on water 

And yes- you can. Buy an old boat and put that extra 40K into making her live forever.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Buy an old boat and put that extra 40K into making her live forever.


No thanks.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> No thanks.


Exactly. We all have choices. But I think you are confusing CAN'T and WON'T. My philosophy RE: boats is and always will be- it is all a sunk cost (no pun intended). Don't put money out that you can't afford for sailing as it is NOT coming back if you do. It is all disposable income, from the boat to the electronics to the sails to the rigging, to the whatever new do dad bangle you want hanging off your aft. So find a boat you like and trust that you can afford, decide what your safety vs comfort tradeoffs are, and sail her. And pay for the upkeep. Even a 1965 you could hand off to your grandkids if you keep pouring money into her. Will you ever get out what you put in? Can you sell her for anywhere near the investment? Hell no. But you can't do that with your Hunter 40, either. And Jon can't do that with whatever he just took to Lab. The only person who can sell a boat for more than they bought it for is Bob Perry, because it's built into his commission. But those of us with old designs CAN tell when they're in trouble because the inspection of them is easier to do, and the repairs are, by and large, cheaper to do.


----------



## outbound

Problem is you should be talking about specific designs built by specific yards. Even with the V40 there are some were blisters where a real issue and some later boats not.
I would think Bobs most recent boats make use of his ever increasing knowledge, experience and availibity of new materials. To say his recent designs are not as good as earlier ones seems unlikely. So this bit old boats were better is foolish. There were a lot of older boats which were junk then are are junk now. There are boats in current production which are great open water cruising boats. There may be more boats being produced for charter or casual use then in the past but that doesn't change the fact that what Paulo calls voyaging boats are being made in production runs today that will sail the pants off the vaulted old time blue water boat while being safer, more comfortable and even more durable.
So there are good old boats and good new boats for open water cruising. Production or one off also has nothing to do with it.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yet John seems to want to create an ISO standard for just this thing. From his post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -These scantling regulations must be upgraded so that the keel to hull attachment will maintain integrity in a hullspeed grounding and also withstand pounding and slamming while sailing over the life of the boat.
> 
> -Said upgraded scantlings should be a requirement for Class A (Offshore) classification.
> 
> 
> 
> So as you point out, how is that done exactly? Maybe I have a silly, profound misunderstanding of things - but this sure seems to be what John is calling for in his article. And this is exactly what I'm saying makes no sense...just like you.
Click to expand...

"Upgrading scantlings" is in the professional realm of what engineers and naval architects do, day in, and day out...

On the other hand, putting a number on how many groundings a particular boat will survive before being consigned to the scrap heap (a premise necessarily based on the laughable presumption that all groundings are equal), that seems more the province of Fortune Tellers, and Tarot Card Readers...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> "Upgrading scantlings" is in the professional realm of what engineers and naval architects do, day in, and day out...
> 
> On the other hand, putting a number on how many groundings a particular boat will survive before being consigned to the scrap heap (a premise necessarily based on the laughable presumption that all groundings are equal), that seems more the province of Fortune Tellers, and Tarot Card Readers...


Okay - so you're finally seeing my point.

"Upgrading the scantlings" to what exactly? If you insist on an "upgrade", mustn't you have some benchmark - especially if you're going to make this an ISO standard?

Or is this all really just Tarot?


----------



## chall03

Smack - I think you've lost me. What exactly is your point here? John Harries seems to be advocating for changed regs, I am unsure what your advocating?

- That boats over time degrade and need maintenance? Well yes.

-Even Bluewatery branded ones? Well yes. But when put into long term, long distance cruising some parts of them degrade slower, with lower risk equations for critical components such as rudder and keel than on a mass market, charter aimed so called "production" boat IMHO. But I think we have covered this though haven't we?

- That some boats degrade to the point of becoming disposable? Well as you've stated that is a financial equation and who defines what is financially _reasonable_ and _unreasonable _when it comes to the maintenance of a owning a boat? Give me a break. Everything about boat ownership is financially unreasonable. The term disposable doesn't work for me, I'm not buying the premise whether we are talking Hunter, Bene, IP, Oyster, Swan or Brent.

-That Island packet(among others) are using modern more economic boat building practices? Yes and perhaps it will make the harder to maintain down the road. I must admit I am not in general an Island Packet fan.

- That boats shouldn't be designed to withstand grounding? Really? Outside of purist forms of the sport you have lost me there.


----------



## smackdaddy

Chall - to simplify...change the regs to what exactly?

How many *hard groundings* must a "true bluewater boat" sustain without damage to qualify? And what exactly is the timeframe of "the life of the boat" (Harries' words) for this "true bluewater boat".

If you are going to make this a measure of the classification - these need to be defined - _*categorically*_. Yet, as JonE points out above, how can they?

This is where I think his argument is misguided. In principle it sounds good - but I think the vaguery of it is exactly why these recommendations were not in the MAIB report.

So this leaves the issue, as you point out, of degradation. I ABSOLUTELY DO believe that "production boats" degrade more rapidly than Hinckleys. I just don't think that's a bad thing _*overall*_, as long as we the buying public are informed as to what that means.

So, to your points...



chall03 said:


> - That boats over time degrade and need maintenance? Well yes.


Right.



chall03 said:


> -Even Bluewatery branded ones? Well yes. But when put into long term, long distance cruising some parts of them degrade slower, with lower risk equations for critical components such as rudder and keel than on a mass market, charter aimed so called "production" boat IMHO. But I think we have covered this though haven't we?


Yes. Agreed. The risk equation is different. And I think that equation boils down to this: lower cost up-front, shorter shelf-life.



chall03 said:


> - That some boats degrade to the point of becoming disposable? Well as you've stated that is a financial equation and who defines what is financially _reasonable_ and _unreasonable _when it comes to the maintenance of a owning a boat? Give me a break. Everything about boat ownership is financially unreasonable. The term disposable doesn't work for me, I'm not buying the premise whether we are talking Hunter, Bene, IP, Oyster, Swan or Brent.


I think we can agree that Cheeki Rafiki should have been "disposed of" (or at least completely rebuilt at considerable cost) prior it final run, yes? Would chucking CR on the heap have been "reasonable"? For those aboard that night...absolutely.

THAT is the equation we're all wagering on (even those with the old, traditional bluewater boats).



chall03 said:


> -That Island packet(among others) are using modern more economic boat building practices? Yes and perhaps it will make the harder to maintain down the road. I must admit I am not in general an Island Packet fan.


I'm not either. But when "The Tank" (or "The Pig") of the ocean is going down this road...you have to pause and wonder what's going on.



chall03 said:


> - That boats shouldn't be designed to withstand grounding? Really? Outside of purist forms of the sport you have lost me there.


Of course they should be. CR was designed to withstand grounding - and it did so. But it wasn't designed to withstand multiple (4-6+) groundings _and_ racing _and_ long passages, etc. So again, back to that standard and the numbers that define it. What does John want exactly?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> How many *hard groundings* must a "true bluewater boat" sustain without damage to qualify? And what exactly is the timeframe of "the life of the boat" (Harries' words) for this "true bluewater boat".
> 
> If you are going to make this a measure of the classification - these need to be defined - _*categorically*_. Yet, as JonE points out above, how can they?


If you can send me over that piece of string, i'll let you know long it is 



smackdaddy said:


> I think we can agree that Cheeki Rafiki should have been "disposed of" (or at least completely rebuilt at considerable cost) prior it final run, yes? Would chucking CR on the heap have been "reasonable"? For those aboard that night...absolutely.THAT is the equation we're all wagering on (even those with the old, traditional bluewater boats).


While it is difficult to frame these discussions given the tragedy that occurred I think we can agree that CR had a critical issue that would of been a considerable fix.

Having said that I am coming close now within a 5 year window of pouring the purchase price of my boat back into it as rebuilds/upgrades. This has included a rudder rebuild, standing rigging, seacocks etc. It is part of taking on an old boat and I think the next generation of old boats will have different and yes perhaps harder maintenance issues.



smackdaddy said:


> I'm not either. But when "The Tank" (or "The Pig") of the ocean is going down this road...you have to pause and wonder what's going on.


On this John Harries and you seem to be agreed. 
https://www.morganscloud.com/2014/10/22/where-do-we-go-from-here/


----------



## mitiempo

seaner97 said:


> I'd posit that the old fashioned encapsulated keels would be essentially indefinite, with the newer style bolt ones being less, and the much newer "glue on" (shiver) being even less.


I don't think any keels are just "glued on".


----------



## aeventyr60

seaner97 said:


> I thought an IP was a winnebago on water
> 
> And yes- you can. Buy an old boat and put that extra 40K into making her live forever.


Yes Indeed, and if you know the right spot it won't come close to 40K.

For about 10 K in yard bills we are refitting Jerry Litton's Islander 44.

For that kind of dosh this is what will be done:

Remove cap rail and SS Track, renew 26 feet of teak rail, refasten, prove watertight. A little under 200 bolts/screws/nuts were taken off.

Polish old SS track like new, re chrome cars and deck cleats. Rebed and install.

Pull Rudder, sleave post and renew/glass rudder tube.

Pull prop shaft and renew. New cutlass bearing and renew shaft housing.

New Fiberglass water tank (80 gallons) under salon floor.

New teak and Holly sole.

New Counter tops through out boat. New ring pulls.

Custom captain chair seating area replacing dated Pullman berth.

New stanchion base and increased stanchion height.

A few other jobs too. A tremendous value in refitting older boats in places outside the Western world.
BTW- We decided to repaint the topsides and non skid. 500 bucks should cover it.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Not to mention re bedding 6 chain plates and installing more hand holds in the companionway, in addition to four very substantial hand holds already in the cabin. Did I mention very non production?


----------



## aeventyr60

jerryrlitton said:


> Not to mention re bedding 6 chain plates and installing more hand hold in the companionway, in addition to four very substantial hand holds in the cabin.


Forgot to mention the new salon table, teak veneer covered bulkheads. The custom console between the captains chairs will hold many bottles of Bombay, Single malt and a few other special libations. A true Gin Palace in the making.


----------



## jerryrlitton

A very non production gin palace.


----------



## Don L

Seems really you guys are just talking money really and using CR as a reason when the keel on it was designed for a different purpose than what it is being used as an example of.

I don't think boats are being built to be any more disposable now than in the past, even ago the "production" boats. But you have to pick the right boat for your use.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Seems really you guys are just talking money really and using CR as a reason when the keel on it was designed for a different purpose than what it is being used as an example of.


Not _that much_ money, necessarily... Your own Hunter appears to be an example that it's not only high-end builds that can have a robustly engineered and constructed hull/keel attachment... Perhaps you missed this comment from Harries:



> What about cost and practicality of my proposed changes to construction standards? Well, that's the tragic thing. I'm reliably informed that it is perfectly practical to engineer and build a hull to fin keel-yes, even modern deep narrow keels-joint that will withstand multiple hull-speed groundings without serious damage.
> 
> And the cost of said upgrade at build of a boat like the First 40.7 would be less than 1% of the original price tag.





Don0190 said:


> I don't think boats are being built to be any more disposable now than in the past, even ago the "production" boats. But you have to pick the right boat for your use.


Nah, it's not that complicated... The Beneteau 40.7 carries the CE Ocean Category A sticker, after all... Ergo, it is perfectly capable of, and ideally suited for, bluewater passagemaking...

At least, according to some ...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> ah, it's not that complicated... The Beneteau 40.7 carries the CE Ocean Category A sticker, after all... Ergo, it is perfectly capable of, and ideally suited for, bluewater passagemaking...
> 
> At least, according to some ...
> 
> ;-)


The Beneteau 40.7 is perfectly capable of this. Many are out there proving that. Cheeki Rafiki even proved that several times.

What it's obviously NOT "capable of and ideally suited for" is 1) multiple hard groundings resulting in structural damage, 2) questionable repairs, AND 3) continual bluewater passagemaking on top of that. I don't think the Cat A classification covers this whole scenario.

And I'm pretty sure ANY boat with the first two occurrences, even blue water Moody's in the ICW, or Swans in the UK, Hans Christians in the Pacific (minus the hard groundings), etc. will suffer similar failures.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Smack, I could have gone (you too) two routes and possibly three if I were rich. Depending on what I want to ultimately use the boat for. However since I am neither rich nor wanting to stay close to shore I chose a non production older boat with an offshore pedigree. Knowing that when I started in on this endeavor I would be spending beau coup boat bucks. However in the interest of safety, utility and awesome enjoyment (not to mention the much understated row-away factor)I would have no problem with that. Of course it helps to have all my kids through college and married off for sure. I was at the time looking casually for two years while trying to figure out my ultimate goal and this last year looking in earnest with my sights narrowed. 

I found this one on the web, made several enquiries and asked Aeventyr to sail down and look. A week later he said if the bottom and inside look as good as the outside this is your boat. So I flew to Langkawi, next day we saw the boat. Motored it to the dry dock and proceeded to look. Soon discovered the rudder was a might loose, no soft spots nor voids and thought the prop shaft seal may look a bit iffy. However the pedigree was there so we took it out. I bought the boat the next day figured the plan to get it into shape. Remember I knew what I wanted and knew what I would be using it for so I had no problem making it happen. 

Of course if I was in the USA this may not have happened since the cost of skilled labor here in Thailand is so much more reasonable. First step was to make it sea worthy, this meant dropping the rudder and rebidding it with a bronze collar and laying up a heavier join of glass. Then to pull the shaft. A new one was made there on site, no imported made in China, new cutless bearing made on site. I could have sailed the boat after this however I wanted so much more out of her, remember this is non production and most importantly is I wanted non production.
Step two was pull the cap rails, add new teak, re bed and fix and polish the stainless rails. Added several cars to the rails which were also polished on site. Since we were there the stanchion base place were made on site and made about two inches taller to better support the stanchions themselves which were lengthened to just bellow hip height. The lockers were all tabbed/glassed and painted, bulkheads were re glassed. New dividers were added and glassed in the aft lazzerette to accommodate the chain and rode for the stern anchor that is mounted on the rail, ready to and a second Fortress that is disassembled with chain and rode also in the aft lazzerette, the forward anchor locker initially held 250' of 3/8 BB however added another 250' of rode to that. The original anchor is a 45 CQR on the right side bow roller however this will be shifted to the left as a secondary anchor with 50' 3/8 with 250 rode. The rig will accommodate 55 Rocna on the right so the non production boat with have three anchors ready to deploy with a fourth on standby. All of this powered by a Muir horizontal windless. Aeventyr60 already hinted at the gin palace details so I won't bore you with that. All for about 10 boat bucks.

Step three will be to sail her down to Langkawi where there is no import tax for yacht owners. Here we will install 360 watts of solar, LED mast light with anchor light, stove/oven/broiler. Another LPG bottle to be mounted to the rail with two sniffers in the cabin, new VHF with AIS, the new Rocna, AM/FM stereo with blue tooth imputs so I can use my iPad for music, new vang by Garhauer, another Yamaha 5hp outboard to mount along side on the rail the existing 15hp. The 15 weighs in at 85 lbs, the five is so much lighter for when you need to mount the thing on your dinghy during not so smooth seas. More wire for rigging as spare, Flare kits, hand held VHF, spare GPS, EPIRB, multimeter, tools bags etc etc etc. all in all about 10 more boat bucks. 

However when it is done late August it will be a very fine offshore boat and it will be mine. So undoubtably I have no problem buying a older boat and spending what needs to be spent, after all my life and more importantly other lives depend on it. That is why I went non production where I could have easily and cheaper went the benehuntalina route.

BTW when the boat sailed across the a Pacific from Mexico to the Marqueasas it averaged 7.59 knots. 182 mile average a day with several of 200 so the speed is there. And that was sans vang.


----------



## smackdaddy

Cool. I'm definitely happy to see you've gotten a boat you love. That's what it's all about.

And I'm really happy we were part of your timeline in that sail in Lake Travis a few years ago!


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> Cool. I'm definitely happy to see you've gotten a boat you love. That's what it's all about.
> 
> And I'm really happy we were part of your timeline in that sail in Lake Travis a few years ago!


Yes you were thanks Smack


----------



## outbound

Jerry elegantly makes the point I've been trying to impress on you all along. He started with a good boat. Did a good restoration. Ends up with a good boat. You start out with poor design made poorly you can do what you want and you still have a poor boat for voyaging.
Whoever got Steves Mason could do the same thing. And yes for some boats the safe service life is longer than your own. 
Given this is reflected in cost going in and return going out cost of ownership may not be that much higher when getting a good boat either new, newish, or old.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> You start out with poor design made poorly you can do what you want and you still have a poor boat for voyaging.


No argument there. But those kinds of boats are not what we're talking about in this thread.


----------



## outbound

Smack you're right but that has nothing to do with whether it's a production boat or not. Your basic premise seems to not acknowledge this fact.
It is true that the features and construction methods involved cost money so old,new or in between quality boats tend to be more expensive. It is also true the market for these boats is quite limited further driving up the price for the few long term, long distance cruisers. Unfortunately as the market shifts fewer new designs in production aimed at this market are made.
Given we Americans are wimps compared with our European cousins not having to deal with bay of biscay or the North Sea or seasonal winds of the med most of the new voyaging boats are coming from small European houses or old designs made in the U.S. This includes Hunter and I.P.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> No argument there. But those kinds of boats are not what we're talking about in this thread.


With all due respect I think this is exactly what we are talking about.


----------



## smackdaddy

jerryrlitton said:


> With all due respect I think this is exactly what we are talking about.


I know some are. But if that's the judgement being placed on modern production boats across the board, I (and the vast majority of the current boating industry) obviously don't agree.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> I know some are. But if that's the judgement being placed on modern production boats across the board, I (and the vast majority of the current boating industry) obviously don't agree.


Granted I have no background in statistics however I have always believed in the "lies, damn lies and statistics" thing i would guess that SN would represent quite well the boating industry............


----------



## Minnesail

seaner97 said:


> it's fun to have *semi* intelligent arguments about boat design.


Semi.


----------



## PCP

jerryrlitton said:


> Smack, I could have gone (you too) two routes and possibly three if I were rich. Depending on what I want to ultimately use the boat for. However since I am neither rich nor wanting to stay close to shore I chose a non production older boat with an offshore pedigree. Knowing that when I started in on this endeavor I would be spending beau coup boat bucks. However in the interest of safety, utility and awesome enjoyment (not to mention the much understated row-away factor)I would have no problem with that. Of course it helps to have all my kids through college and married off for sure. I was at the time looking casually for two years while trying to figure out my ultimate goal and this last year looking in earnest with my sights narrowed.
> 
> I found this one on the web, made several enquiries and asked Aeventyr to sail down and look. A week later he said if the bottom and inside look as good as the outside this is your boat. So I flew to Langkawi, next day we saw the boat. Motored it to the dry dock and proceeded to look. Soon discovered the rudder was a might loose, no soft spots nor voids and thought the prop shaft seal may look a bit iffy. However the pedigree was there so we took it out. I bought the boat the next day figured the plan to get it into shape. Remember I knew what I wanted and knew what I would be using it for so I had no problem making it happen.
> 
> Of course if I was in the USA this may not have happened since the cost of skilled labor here in Thailand is so much more reasonable. First step was to make it sea worthy, this meant dropping the rudder and rebidding it with a bronze collar and laying up a heavier join of glass. Then to pull the shaft. A new one was made there on site, no imported made in China, new cutless bearing made on site. I could have sailed the boat after this however I wanted so much more out of her, remember this is non production and most importantly is I wanted non production.
> Step two was pull the cap rails, add new teak, re bed and fix and polish the stainless rails. Added several cars to the rails which were also polished on site. Since we were there the stanchion base place were made on site and made about two inches taller to better support the stanchions themselves which were lengthened to just bellow hip height. The lockers were all tabbed/glassed and painted, bulkheads were re glassed. New dividers were added and glassed in the aft lazzerette to accommodate the chain and rode for the stern anchor that is mounted on the rail, ready to and a second Fortress that is disassembled with chain and rode also in the aft lazzerette, the forward anchor locker initially held 250' of 3/8 BB however added another 250' of rode to that. The original anchor is a 45 CQR on the right side bow roller however this will be shifted to the left as a secondary anchor with 50' 3/8 with 250 rode. The rig will accommodate 55 Rocna on the right so the non production boat with have three anchors ready to deploy with a fourth on standby. All of this powered by a Muir horizontal windless. Aeventyr60 already hinted at the gin palace details so I won't bore you with that. All for about 10 boat bucks.
> 
> Step three will be to sail her down to Langkawi where there is no import tax for yacht owners. Here we will install 360 watts of solar, LED mast light with anchor light, stove/oven/broiler. Another LPG bottle to be mounted to the rail with two sniffers in the cabin, new VHF with AIS, the new Rocna, AM/FM stereo with blue tooth imputs so I can use my iPad for music, new vang by Garhauer, another Yamaha 5hp outboard to mount along side on the rail the existing 15hp. The 15 weighs in at 85 lbs, the five is so much lighter for when you need to mount the thing on your dinghy during not so smooth seas. More wire for rigging as spare, Flare kits, hand held VHF, spare GPS, EPIRB, multimeter, tools bags etc etc etc. all in all about 10 more boat bucks.
> 
> However when it is done late August it will be a very fine offshore boat and it will be mine. So undoubtably I have no problem buying a older boat and spending what needs to be spent, after all my life and more importantly other lives depend on it. That is why I went non production where I could have easily and cheaper went the benehuntalina route.
> 
> BTW when the boat sailed across the a Pacific from Mexico to the Marqueasas it averaged 7.59 knots. 182 mile average a day with several of 200 so the speed is there. And that was sans vang.


Well maybe you do that and end up with a fine boat but most don't have the possibility of having the boats refitted on Thailand where the labor is cheap and even so I bet that in the end you are going to spend more than what you had estimated but that is not the normal panorama.

Most that buy old boats that where once bluewater boats (when in new condition) do that convinced that once a bluewater boat always a bluewater boat and forget that the only thing that really lasts is the hull and that's less than 30% of the cost of the boat, all the rest, all metal parts and systems have to be changed after 20 years or so and vary rarely that has been done by the previous owner. The cost of making it as seaworthy as new will be huge.

Some years ago it makes the news a guy that wanted a HR but liked better the older models so he picked up a 42/45? foot boat and recovered it completely. In the end he was very happy becaues the boat had costed less than 175000 euros of a new boat (650 000 euros to 475 000 euros).

In fact he did not only managed to get a worse boat by design as he had lost an huge amount of money because the resale value of the old 25 years recovered boat was much inferior to the value of the new HR.

I guess that Smacks point is about comparing the seaworthiness of a new or almost new mass production boat of 40ft or over in pristine condition with the seaworthiness of a 30 year old boat on the general condition they are normally kept and regarding that I would take the new production boat for bluewater sailing over the old shoe, not only because I think it would be safer but because it just would sail better and faster.

Off course there are some exceptions and some few maintain their old boats in pristine condition but those will tell you that is a very expensive thing to do and they are a small minority.


----------



## seaner97

Out: I should have said "good" old boat, but thought it was implied.



mitiempo said:


> I don't think any keels are just "glued on".


I was referencing the above article that referred to them that way.
No idea what it is or what it would look like, but sounds like a bad idea to me.



PCP said:


> Well maybe you do that and end up with a fine boat but most don't have the possibility of having the boats refitted on Thailand where the labor is cheap and even so I bet that in the end you are going to spend more than what you had estimated but that is not the normal panorama.
> 
> Most that buy old boats that where once bluewater boats (when in new condition) do that convinced that once a bluewater boat always a bluewater boat and forget that the only thing that really lasts is the hull and that's less than 30% of the cost of the boat, all the rest, all metal parts and systems have to be changed after 20 years or so and vary rarely that has been done by the previous owner. The cost of making it as seaworthy as new will be huge.
> 
> Some years ago it makes the news a guy that wanted a HR but liked better the older models so he picked up a 42/45? foot boat and recovered it completely. In the end he was very happy becaues the boat had costed less than 175000 euros of a new boat (650 000 euros to 475 000 euros).
> 
> In fact he did not only managed to get a worse boat by design as he had lost an huge amount of money because the resale value of the old 25 years recovered boat was much inferior to the value of the new HR.
> 
> I guess that Smacks point is about comparing the seaworthiness of a new or almost new mass production boat of 40ft or over in pristine condition with the seaworthiness of a 30 year old boat on the general condition they are normally kept and regarding that I would take the new production boat for bluewater sailing over the old shoe, not only because I think it would be safer but because it just would sail better and faster.
> 
> Off course there are some exceptions and some few maintain their old boats in pristine condition but those will tell you that is a very expensive thing to do and they are a small minority.


Boats are expensive. For the same price, you can restore a "good" old boat in the US to better than new (assuming good hull and decks) for less than purchasing a new Hunter 40. I've put less than 15K into mine and have basically replaced or gone over every major system except the boom and the mast at this point, and that includes an overhaul of the engine (well, at least pulling it and doing a compression test and a once over by a diesel mechanic). The only things I've got left on my checklist of need to dos are to replace the lifelines and the standing rigging- both of which will be done for under 4k. Most of the expense I see is in electronics- Autopilot, Radar, GPS chart plotter etc. But I'm relatively certain that you could restore an old boat for less than a new one costs.
And see my "sunk cost" post about what I think about resale value of boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Jerry elegantly makes the point I've been trying to impress on you all along. He started with a good boat. Did a good restoration. Ends up with a good boat. You start out with poor design made poorly you can do what you want and you still have a poor boat for voyaging.
> Whoever got Steves Mason could do the same thing. And yes for some boats the safe service life is longer than your own.
> Given this is reflected in cost going in and return going out cost of ownership may not be that much higher when getting a good boat either new, newish, or old.


It's amazing, the number of folks out there who appear to believe that most any Average White Boat can simply be _"beefed up"_ with a few modifications, and _VOILA'_ - be magically transformed into a Bulletproof Globe Girdler... ;-)

There's a thread over on CF, started by a guy who wants an Outbound or its "Blue Water Equivalent", but apparently can't afford one, so he's looking for 'alternatives'... He's limited himself to North American built boats of recent vintage, and has pretty much shot down every suggestion thrown his way... He finally conceded he's just window shopping anyway, and really doesn't need such a boat, since all his sailing is coastal cruising, anyway...

Whereupon I asked him why the need for the Mythical Blue Water Boat? Why not consider something that might better suit the sort of sailing he actually does, that might fall within his budget? I tossed out the suggestion of a J-46, a boat I've always liked the look of, somewhat similar to the Outbound in certain respects, obviously a blast to sail, that could likely be found at a fraction of the cost of a new Outbound...

The guy currently owns a Catalina 36, and here was his reply:



> After having experienced my Catalina for several years, I would really like to move to something that is substantially stronger and I believe that means "blue water"
> 
> I am tired of severely limited storage, fuel that barely gives a 400 mile range (without reserves) and a damn liner. I also want to move up a couple of steps in the quality department.


Hmmm, sounds like he doesn't buy the notion that a larger Catalina might be "beefed up" to better suit even his coastal cruising plans, no?

;-)


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> I guess that Smacks point is about comparing the seaworthiness of a new or almost new mass production boat of 40ft or over in pristine condition with the seaworthiness of a 30 year old boat on the general condition they are normally kept and regarding that I would take the new production boat for bluewater sailing over the old shoe, not only because I think it would be safer but because it just would sail better and faster.


Well.. coming from someone with an old clunker who enjoys reading the opinions of the "old boys" (Adlard Coles, Maurice Griffiths, Uffa Fox, Donald Street, etc. etc. ad infinitum) I, for one, would agree with them when they say "safety" and "better, faster" are actually the same thing.

It seems somewhere, sometime late last century people forgot that being able to beat off a lee shore, get out of the way of a storm or simply arrive at your destination before nightfall is actually far more sea-worthy than plodding along out there and putting up with it.


----------



## mitiempo

seaner97 said:


> I was referencing the above article that referred to them that way.
> No idea what it is or what it would look like, but sounds like a bad idea to me.


It was referring to keels bolted to glued in liners, not glued on keels. They don't exist.


----------



## seaner97

mitiempo said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referencing the above article that referred to them that way.
> No idea what it is or what it would look like, but sounds like a bad idea to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It was referring to keels bolted to glued in liners, not glued on keels. They don't exist.
Click to expand...

Hey- I learned something!


----------



## chall03

Smack I think there is maybe another elephant in the room....Or at least a very big gazelle.

That is what role has improved weather forecasting/routing along with GPS(and data via pactor/sat) played in changing/influencing people's boat choices for 'bluewater' sailing?

The 'bluewater' boats often referenced here were made at a time when if you went across an ocean you assumed you would at some stage get the snot beaten out of you by mother nature coupled with a uncertainty about just how far away that reef to leeward might be because you can't get an accurate fix in the conditions. Given this you could easily forgive the sailors of the 70's-80's for wanting boats built firstly strongly and solidly before anything else.

To put it another way, the only thing you could trust in( other than yourself) was the boat....

Now we can debate how much all this technology can be relied on and trusted( and we should) but I wonder whether _real_ or _imagined_ if perhaps the modern day sailor feels safer, he thinks he can avoid a lot of bad weather through good planning and he has a pretty good idea where just about everything on the face of the planet might be in relation to his boat.

The question remains then is he right or deluded?


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> Smack I think there is maybe another elephant in the room....Or at least a very big gazelle.
> 
> That is what role has improved weather forecasting/routing along with GPS(and data via pactor/sat) played in changing/influencing people's boat choices for 'bluewater' sailing?
> 
> The 'bluewater' boats often referenced here were made at a time when if you went across an ocean you assumed you would at some stage get the snot beaten out of you by mother nature coupled with a uncertainty about just how far away that reef to leeward might be because you can't get an accurate fix in the conditions. Given this you could easily forgive the sailors of the 70's-80's for wanting boats built firstly strongly and solidly before anything else.
> 
> To put it another way, the only thing you could trust in( other than yourself) was the boat....
> 
> Now we can debate how much all this technology can be relied on and trusted( and we should) but I wonder whether _real_ or _imagined_ if perhaps the modern day sailor feels safer, he thinks he can avoid a lot of bad weather through good planning and he has a pretty good idea where just about everything on the face of the planet might be in relation to his boat.
> 
> The question remains then is he right or deluded?


We are seeing much of the same thing in aviation. Technology has advanced so far that the industry is now using pilots with less hands on experience then twenty years ago. I kid with an Xbox background can fly you from NY to Paris. No problem. However there is very little or no understanding of the basic concept. It works great until the technology goes away or does not cover that particular problem. I don't think the aircraft are less airworthy though, just the pilots. Nobody flies with charts out anymore. It's all in the FMS...until it is not then they scramble and try to remember basic DR IF they were taught that in the first place. Technology can be a double edged sword. Give me a strong boat, I don't fully trust technology.


----------



## aeventyr60

Deluded for sure. Sailors still hitting reefs. Sailors still getting pounded by the weather. Sailors still fixing boats in boat yards. Maybe it's gotten easier to get out here, but mother nature doesn't seem to give a rat's ass.


----------



## jerryrlitton

I don't think Mother Nature much appreciates trailer parks nor Hunters....
However these new house trailers are taking advantage of this new technology, titanium and carbon fiber construction. Much lighter..new hull I mean body design helping it slip through the air just an eensy bit easier. This way you can pull them faster and farther using less fuel thus avoiding those pesky thunderstorms rolling across I10. With your onboard GPS and weather radio there is no excuse to be caught unawares. Access to better insulation in case you need to visit the arctic......


----------



## outbound

You gentlemen may wish to read the most recent PS. Ralph Naranjo makes very good points. 
There is another reality. Just like Tip said " all politics are local" so is weather. Have already experienced getting sat phone/ssb downloads from three sources and having a weather router on hire all telling me 20-30 for the next two days then experiencing one after another squalls with gusts into the fifties. Even the metereoman was of no help.
As said by others here elsewhere weather forecasts are truly reliable for 2-3 days. Of less help for a passage longer then that. Also systems may move faster than your hull speed. So it's not if but rather when it will get bumpy.
Don't give up on a recording barometer and radar as a good friends when talking weather routing. They tell you what's happening near you.
Those thinking they will outrace weather are foolish. On the very fast boats once it gets bumpy you will need to slow down for the integrity of the boat or crew comfort. On fast boats it will still move faster then you all too often. And there will always be white squalls, pop up T storms and the like.


----------



## aeventyr60

^ The proliferation of downloading just the "grib files" is adding to the delusion too.


----------



## outbound

Yup. Have learned the hard way. Now learning the 500mb. But even this and looking at both the European and U.S. models doesn't tell you what's going to happen right where you are. All this stuff gives you probabilities.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Probably a case for a strong boat.


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> You gentlemen may wish to read the most recent PS. Ralph Naranjo makes very good points.
> There is another reality. Just like Tip said " all politics are local" so is weather. Have already experienced getting sat phone/ssb downloads from three sources and having a weather router on hire all telling me 20-30 for the next two days then experiencing one after another squalls with gusts into the fifties. Even the metereoman was of no help.
> As said by others here elsewhere weather forecasts are truly reliable for 2-3 days. Of less help for a passage longer then that. Also systems may move faster than your hull speed. So it's not if but rather when it will get bumpy.
> Don't give up on a recording barometer and radar as a good friends when talking weather routing. They tell you what's happening near you.
> Those thinking they will outrace weather are foolish. On the very fast boats once it gets bumpy you will need to slow down for the integrity of the boat or crew comfort. On fast boats it will still move faster then you all too often. And there will always be white squalls, pop up T storms and the like.


I personally agree with all of this.

I was wondering though whether _en mass_ the thinking has ever so subtlety has changed?

Like Jon E has mentioned how many modern sailors practice heaving to?


----------



## smackdaddy

jerryrlitton said:


> Probably a case for a strong boat.


A strong, newer boat that hasn't been through so many stress cycles over decades?


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> A strong, newer boat that hasn't been through so many stress cycles over decades?


I really don't know, not an engineer. Certainly not nautical. Aviation I know a bit about and they do stress cycles. Boeing has time/life/cycle on componates. Douglas made them rebuild able. Not sure about Airbus since a lot of plastic goes in there.....loads of old Boeings and Douglas still doing their thing in the world. But first you need a good, solid design. You can dress a pig in a suit but underneath it is still a a pig.


----------



## seaner97

chall03 said:


> I personally agree with all of this.
> 
> I was wondering though whether _en mass_ the thinking has ever so subtlety has changed?
> 
> Like Jon E has mentioned how many modern sailors practice heaving to?


Practice- not many I bet. From what I've seen and experienced, the vast majority of modern (and older) sailors are day or weekend. When you get 6-10 days/year on the water, you don't practice much other than tacking and running.


----------



## smackdaddy

jerryrlitton said:


> Aviation I know a bit about and they do stress cycles. Boeing has time/life/cycle on componates.


Exactly, this is what I've been getting at in this thread with the "disposable" thing. Everything has a time/life/cycle. It would be good to know some of that with boats.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> Exactly, this is what I've been getting at in this thread with the "disposable" thing. Everything has a time/life/cycle. It would be good to know some of that with boats.


Yes but Boeing just replaces THAT componate and they keep on truckin. Everything has a life limit, your car, you, me, the sun etc. I just like a strong, proven design. I know where to look and I found it.


----------



## ScottUK

smackdaddy said:


> Exactly, this is what I've been getting at in this thread with the "disposable" thing. *Everything has a time/life/cycle*. It would be good to know some of that with boats.


Not so sure about that since this thread is still going.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm not really talking about _your_ boat Jer. I'm talking about the general type/age of boat.

Again, though you don't want to accept it, there are TONS of examples of modern production boats sailing bluewater all over the world very safely. Our very own Mark's Bene is one great example. And Paulo has put many more examples in my production boats thread over on CF. There is no disputing these facts.

Obviously, these boats are plenty strong, and without question, proven. So that's not really the point here.

The point is - what is the "time/life/cycle" of these newer production boats - as well as older boats like yours? If you don't know the answers to this, you're really taking more of a gamble with any boat the older it is. Of course, everyone knows this. It's just the way it is.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> A strong, newer boat that hasn't been through so many stress cycles over decades?


I think that some definition of a stress cycle would be needed to answer that, and then some manner of determining how much flex is tolerable would also be needed.
I don't build sailboats, but have done some in kayaking. Some of the skin on frame and kevlar boats flex more, but that is tolerable and does not lead to structural failures (although the flaking of gelcoat on the kevlar ones is a *****). Same is true in some but not all fibreglass. Same is NOT true in Carbon. Now, sailboats are different, but also the scantlings, bulkheads and reinforcing structures are also different and translate the physical forces differently. But many of the principals are the same. 
The hard part about this is that without knowing all the variables, the whole question of this thread is unanswerable. If you take two specific boats (ie- a 1987 Hunter 40 or whatever Smack has and an Alberg 35 or a Bristol 35.5 or a Pearson 35 etc.) you can answer it for them, but this is way too generic to answer production vs bluewater or production vs one off. Even the HunJenBenLina amalgam isn't doable as each of them have production runs of different boats with different designs.
Now that I'm aware of the governmental stamp of approval that Smack repeatedly references and that Jon E repeatedly disses and have had some time to skim it, I'd say that a boat built to those specs may be a decent boat, but probably not the equal in strength, longevity or overall quality to many of the older CCA boats that people are comparing them to if those older boats were well kept (ie- parts replaced at appropriate intervals). That being said, if you buy a new boat that meets those standards, you do, theoretically know what you're getting. Althougth I'd agree with John that they seem to be what most politcal stuff is- a compromise that maybe is a lowest common denominator of safety. A sort of "what can you get by with if things go OK" standard. 
What I WOULDN'T do is exactly what Smack did- buy a boat that is older and built to those standards rather than one that is a bit older an built like a tank. But that is strictly an economic call (and I will admit, something of an aesthetic call). I think I'd need to replace all the same stuff on the 80s or 90s Hunter that I would in the 60s or 70s CCA and the 60s or 70s CCA hull and deck should last longer based solely on construction methods and thickness of hull material if all else is equal and equally well found. And in both cases I'd be looking for the best designed boat I could afford. Pretty much everything else can be replaced and if you start out with a smaller outlay it leaves more to work with for replacing stuff, and the older "stick built" or no liner construction methods allow you to replace or rebuild stuff easier. But it is a choice, not an edict.
Hell, if I had all the money in the world I'd get Bob Perry or Bruce King to design me a scaled down version of King's Hinkley Souwester, but I don't, so I've got an old Pearson 35 that gets me there and that I really like, and was an economical call for me. And despite what Jeff H has said about some of the centerboard CCA designs I like the motion of them every bit as much as the larger and newer boats I've been on, but I've never found chop or confused seas much fun to be on in any boat.


----------



## Don L

I bet more boats are given up over styling, layout, and comfortably way before they are disposable due to material fatigue etc. I just looked at the local Yacthworld listings for 1970-1980 boats, I wouldn't chose to cruise on any of them. And there are lots of them for sale and most are what I consider a premium price, so it doesn't matter if they are "disposable" as in the most part no one really wants them.


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> I bet more boats are given up over styling, layout, and comfortably way before they are disposable due to material fatigue etc. I just looked at the local Yacthworld listings for 1970-1080 boats, I wouldn't chose to cruise on any of them. And there are lots of them for sale and most are what I consider a premium price, so it doesn't matter if they are "disposable" as in the most part no one really wants them.


Just because there are many for sale doesn't mean no one wants them, just that there may be more on the market than people that want to get into sailing, and many of them may be less good designs.
What did you find that you WOULD cruise in? That would be a more meaningful comment.


----------



## seaner97

Further: regarding the keel grounding regs that were discussed- 
I'd be suspect that any quasi regulatory language surrounding this would be similar to the rigging replacement stuff, whereby you would have so much disagreement that you'd get a blanket "20 years" to protect insurance companies and boat companies and then everyone's boat that is over that age is instantly worthless. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Don L

seaner97 said:


> Just because there are many for sale doesn't mean no one wants them, just that there may be more on the market than people that want to get into sailing, and many of them may be less good designs.


Yeah you are right, all it really means is there are more people looking to get rid of them than want them.


----------



## jerryrlitton

seaner97 said:


> Further: regarding the keel grounding regs that were discussed-
> I'd be suspect that any quasi regulatory language surrounding this would be similar to the rigging replacement stuff, whereby you would have so much disagreement that you'd get a blanket "20 years" to protect insurance companies and boat companies and then everyone's boat that is over that age is instantly worthless. Be careful what you wish for.


I agree, we already have too many people looking out for us. What we can eat, drink, buy, sell, where to fish, etc.... For instance, I went to St. John's, NL. Lovely place. I seem to remember this place just out of town. An observation point. A cliff overlooking the ocean. Beautiful place. And there was no fence, no roped off area. You could just walk off to oblivion. In the USA we would have ropes, fenced off areas where unless you were real stupid or determined you would stay off the rocks. I kinda thought the Canadian way was refreshing. Sometimes you just have to look out for yourself or become a Darwin hero.

BTW Don, about those 1090 1970 boats that are for sale, how many more 1970 boats are out there sailing and being enjoyed?


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> Yeah you are right, all it really means is there are more people looking to get rid of them than want them.


No, it means YOU don't want them. There are 467 1970-1980 sailboats on Yachtworld.com in North America and 1088 sailboats in North America listed from 2000-2015. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I think 1088 > 467, so by your logic, no one seems to want the new boats more than no one wants the 70-80s boats.


----------



## Don L

jerryrlitton;2884817
BTW Don said:


> I don't know, do you???? But I bet it is less than 2000-2010 boats!


----------



## seaner97

jerryrlitton said:


> I agree, we already have too many people looking out for us. What we can eat, drink, buy, sell, where to fish, etc.... For instance, I went to St. John's, NL. Lovely place. I seem to remember this place just out of town. An observation point. A cliff overlooking the ocean. Beautiful place. And there was no fence, no roped off area. You could just walk off to oblivion. In the USA we would have ropes, fenced off areas where unless you were real stupid or determined you would stay off the rocks. I kinda thought the Canadian way was refreshing. Sometimes you just have to look out for yourself or become a Darwin hero.
> 
> BTW Don, about those 1090 1970 boats that are for sale, how many more 1970 boats are out there sailing and being enjoyed?


That's Signal Hill. Awesome place. I miss it.


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> I don't know, do you???? But I bet it is less than 2010-2010 boats!


I'll take that bet. An entire decade of high volume production vs one year of new production!? :eek

But I know that was a typo.:angel

But I wouldn't be surprised if there were still more from 1970-1980 than there were from 2000-2010 as there were more companies all producing more boats back then and many of the companies produced high quality designs that have lasted, so I think you aren't as safe in that bet as I think you think you are.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Ok let's forget about structural integrity for a moment, blue vs coastal, fast vs maybe not quite as fast and let's talk about looks. The raked bow, wine glass stern, sloping and not boxed coach roof. Teak and warm woods inside, real brass and not simulated chrome, a real ships bell. I know beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder and all but damn, I like the looks of my boat. A superior row away factor. Not to be found in too many places. 200 mile days are almost secondary to this. Face it guys, so many of the modern designs have the leading edge of the bow going darn near vertically into the water, not a real pretty sight for sure. The stern is chopped off to give you more interior space, personally I think that is ugly. 
It has to look good.


----------



## Minnesail

jerryrlitton said:


> Face it guys, so many of the modern designs have the leading edge of the bow going darn near vertically into the water, not a real pretty sight for sure. The stern is chopped off to give you more interior space, personally I think that is ugly.


I love the vertical look. To me the long overhangs of old boats look pretty, but kind of quaint like you'd find in a Kincade painting.

The modern vertical bows look aggressive and fast. I like 'em.

But again, eye of the beer holder and all.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Minnesail said:


> I love the vertical look. To me the long overhangs of old boats look pretty, but kind of quaint like you'd find in a Kincade painting.
> 
> The modern vertical bows look aggressive and fast. I like 'em.
> 
> But again, eye of the beer holder and all.


I liked the swept back, guillotine look. That looks fast. And the overhangs. Honestly how many of us liked our wives or girlfriends primarily how they cooked or chopped firewood? I see a hand waaay back there however I won't name names.


----------



## miatapaul

chall03 said:


> Smack I think there is maybe another elephant in the room....Or at least a very big gazelle.
> 
> That is what role has improved weather forecasting/routing along with GPS(and data via pactor/sat) played in changing/influencing people's boat choices for 'bluewater' sailing?
> 
> The 'bluewater' boats often referenced here were made at a time when if you went across an ocean you assumed you would at some stage get the snot beaten out of you by mother nature coupled with a uncertainty about just how far away that reef to leeward might be because you can't get an accurate fix in the conditions. Given this you could easily forgive the sailors of the 70's-80's for wanting boats built firstly strongly and solidly before anything else.
> 
> To put it another way, the only thing you could trust in( other than yourself) was the boat....
> 
> Now we can debate how much all this technology can be relied on and trusted( and we should) but I wonder whether _real_ or _imagined_ if perhaps the modern day sailor feels safer, he thinks he can avoid a lot of bad weather through good planning and he has a pretty good idea where just about everything on the face of the planet might be in relation to his boat.
> 
> The question remains then is he right or deluded?


Not to mention that now they have a button on an eperb they can just push and a helicopter comes and picks you up if you get to tired.


----------



## jerryrlitton

You guys do know the term "row away factor" right?


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> I don't build sailboats, but have done some in kayaking.


Nuff said.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't build sailboats, but have done some in kayaking.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuff said.
Click to expand...

When's the last boat of any kind you've built? You do know you can sail a kayak, right?


----------



## seaner97

BTW- you do know your avatar was a psychotic racist who thought he was right all the time but was demonstrably incorrect and refused to acknowledge it, right? Just saying.


----------



## JonEisberg

jerryrlitton said:


> You guys do know the term "row away factor" right?


Yeah, but that's become an archaic notion, very few sailors _"row away"_ from their boat at anchor these days...


----------



## jerryrlitton

Yes however it sounds way cooler than "motoring away in my 3M rib with my 15HP Yamaha belching a blue haze" any day.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> I personally agree with all of this.
> 
> I was wondering though whether _en mass_ the thinking has ever so subtlety has changed?
> 
> Like Jon E has mentioned how many modern sailors practice heaving to?


I'm gonna guess my personal notion of what constitutes the mythical "Blue Water Boat" might be quite different from some 

3 of the most important criteria in a boat suitable for extended voyaging for me are:

1) Ability to heave-to easily and comfortably...

2) Ability to make decent progress to weather when necessary, i.e the classic ability "to claw off a lee shore"...

3) The ability to be 'nimble' in light airs, to be able to keep moving thru the light stuff... And, to have the ability to sail out of a jam in light air and close quarters, to deal effectively with the sort of situation smackdaddy found himself in recently, for example...

Problem is, most boats only manage to combine 2 of these 3 attributes in one package ;-)

Many modern boats will resist heaving-to with ease or without constant management from the crew, or might be very punishing to both man and machine while sailing to weather... While many more traditional/heavier boats might struggle to keep off a lee shore, or require the assist of the engine to complete a tack in light air...

Choosing a boat is in many respects little different than ordering from a Chinese menu...

_'Moderation'_ in all proportions and design elements would seem to offer the best chance of winding up with a balanced meal...


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, but that's become an archaic notion, very few sailors _"row away"_ from their boat at anchor these days...


I've missed my rowing dingy...and have wanted another for a long time. Since I'm deep up a river in thailand in a shipyard with lots of talented carpentersirateraft:, and we will miss the tide to get out on the 15th of July, there is some time to "mess about on boats"...could loft two dinghys..... one for Temptation one for Aeventyr...need to be less then 9 feet, row like a MOFO, look good, fast build, stable and have the ability to add a small mainmast with tiller and center board. Any ideas for this?


----------



## UPHILL

Jelly Bean



Might be a little tough to get it "deep up a river"


----------



## Capt Len

Jerry, It's pretty obvious that "way cool' is in the eye of the beholdee, not the beholder. Sometimes ,rarely, a gaggle of onlookers will honk approval. Worth working for.


----------



## jerryrlitton

So true, Len.


----------



## miatapaul

aeventyr60 said:


> I've missed my rowing dingy...and have wanted another for a long time. Since I'm deep up a river in thailand in a shipyard with lots of talented carpentersirateraft:, and we will miss the tide to get out on the 15th of July, there is some time to "mess about on boats"...could loft two dinghys..... one for Temptation one for Aeventyr...need to be less then 9 feet, row like a MOFO, look good, fast build, stable and have the ability to add a small mainmast with tiller and center board. Any ideas for this?


The D4 is pretty popular and should not take long to put together, stitch and glue and the plans are free. I think I will make one out of cheap luan plywood for fun.
Free boat plans from Bateau

But if you are deep up the creek, make sure you have some extra paddles!


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> I'm gonna guess my personal notion of what constitutes the mythical "Blue Water Boat" might be quite different from some
> 
> 3 of the most important criteria in a boat suitable for extended voyaging for me are:
> 
> 1) Ability to heave-to easily and comfortably...
> 
> 2) Ability to make decent progress to weather when necessary, i.e the classic ability "to claw off a lee shore"...
> 
> 3) The ability to be 'nimble' in light airs, to be able to keep moving thru the light stuff... And, to have the ability to sail out of a jam in light air and close quarters, to deal effectively with the sort of situation smackdaddy found himself in recently, for example...
> 
> Problem is, most boats only manage to combine 2 of these 3 attributes in one package ;-)
> 
> Many modern boats will resist heaving-to with ease or without constant management from the crew, or might be very punishing to both man and machine while sailing to weather... While many more traditional/heavier boats might struggle to keep off a lee shore, or require the assist of the engine to complete a tack in light air...
> 
> Choosing a boat is in many respects little different than ordering from a Chinese menu...
> 
> _'Moderation'_ in all proportions and design elements would seem to offer the best chance of winding up with a balanced meal...


Thanks Jon, as always good advice, well put.

Our current boat does well at 1, reasonably at 2 and poorly at 3. Like you alluded ticking all 3 boxes is difficult.

Nonetheless we will try to get as close as we can with the next boat.

Meanwhile I am suddenly craving spring rolls and Peking Duck :laugh


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> 3 of the most important criteria in a boat suitable for extended voyaging for me are:
> 
> 1) Ability to heave-to easily and comfortably...
> 
> 2) Ability to make decent progress to weather when necessary, i.e the classic ability "to claw off a lee shore"...
> 
> 3) The ability to be 'nimble' in light airs, to be able to keep moving thru the light stuff... And, to have the ability to sail out of a jam in light air and close quarters, to deal effectively with the sort of situation smackdaddy found himself in recently, for example...


I've hove to in _Dawn Treader_, but only in about 15 knots of wind on the bay, with full sail. She was very stable - but we had no sea state to speak of. I'll try again next time we're offshore. I'm a big fan of heaving to.

As for 2 and 3, we faced both of those in the shipping channel. Fortunately when the engine died, we had the SSE wind at our back and could pick it up quickly with the genny. But as you can see by the angle of the ship channel, we had to pinch very tight to that SSE to get back toward the marina to pick up our tow (right at the southerly dog leg).










Our Hunter can point very close to the wind if I have the right amount of sail up. Of course, as everyone knows, it really has a lot to do with the skipper and crew and how awesome they are.


----------



## outbound

Think to some extent sailing polars are wishful thinking not taking into account sea state, loading, need for constant trimming ( wife- sit down already), effect of partially rolled head sails etc. 
I'm happy I can sail at 32 degrees without pinching too bad, have no issue in light air but still haven't figured out heaving to. We've tried it in 35-45. Boat heads up in the strong gusts then falls off when the gust goes by and fore reaches. Do 1-2 knots. Can brake helm and turn off AP. but I'm a wimp and still feel the need to have someone at the wheel. Perhaps with more experience will gain confidence.
Have found actually more comfortable to just go to 60-65 degrees after reefing to handkerchiefs and keep sailing. Helm remains very light ( one finger). Have yet to deploy jsd in anger. But have dragged a line on windward stern quarter with good effect downwind. 
Think this behavior is common in bulb fin with balance spade boats.


----------



## jerryrlitton

I too have a balanced spade however with a modified full keel. I am looking forward to try it also.


----------



## travlin-easy

I found it very difficult to heave to properly, with no forward movement unless I used a small parachute off the bow and harnessed it. Once I mastered this, I was able to achieve a 50 degree angle into the wind, but not make any forward progress. The boat settled down, the waves fell apart and the drift was about .2 mph, which I felt was acceptable. This was in a 40 knot breeze and 8 foot waves near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay.

Because I only sail with a 100 percent jib, I can only get as tight as 35 to 40-degrees on a good day, however, because of the balance of the boat, I rarely heel more than 10 degrees at most, even in a 20 knot wind. My progress into the wind, especially a very light wind, will be painfully slow. 

Now, when I have a light wind at a more favorable angle, beam reach, etc..., I do just fine. Not breakneck speeds, mind you, but at my age I'm no longer in a hurry to do anything. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## outbound

Think new direction of the thread speaks to a failing of many recent production boats.

If you are going to do passages you will see heavy air. In fact to shorten transit times you may even weather route to seek heavy air in a favorable direction to improve vmg. 

You see many recent production boats rigged as pure sloops. Once aws exceeds a certain point the only option is roll the genny past the ~20% reduction where it still serves as an effective foil. 
Rigging storm sails either by having hanks go around rolled genny or in the absence of a fully tensioned and supported dedicated inner stay is dangerous to crew, time consuming and runs the risk of inefficiency due to head stay sag or difficulties with mast pumping. 
Few true cutters remain in production. To my knowledge is no U.S. based production of ketches or yawls any longer.
My boat leaves for offshore with 3 fore stays . It is run as a Solent coastal. There is no issue reducing sail and maintaining a balance sail plan due to tws. It can and is done by one person.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Think new direction of the thread speaks to a failing of many recent production boats.


Just curious what you paid for for your Outbound all fit-out? Bet whatever it was it is nice to be able to afford to be able to not have a lowly "production boat".

I'll type it once again, there isn't any boat problem that can not be corrected with the proper application of cash!


----------



## Jeff_H

jerryrlitton said:


> I too have a balanced spade however with a modified full keel. I am looking forward to try it also.


Jerry,

You have said some things in this thread that leave me a little perplexed. Earlier you said that your boat was not a production boat, which is why you bought her. My recollection is that you have an Islander 44. Although your particular model was built in limited numbers, it was every bit a quintessential 1960's era production boat, and Islander was one of the more budget oriented builders of that era, using building techniques which were not all that highly regarded, resin rich and non-directional laminate and all. It wasn't until the 1970's when Islander improved its design and build quality.

Similarly, the standard version of your boat has a Lapworth designed fin keel. There was nothing "modified full keel" about the standard keel that came on that boat, and it had all of the assets and liabilities of those early fin keels. Is essentially the same keel that made the Cal 40 famous, although the Cal 40's proportionately longer waterline might have given them a little better tracking.

So, I guess I am asking whether your boat has been extensively modified at some point along the line.



outbound said:


> You see many recent production boats rigged as pure sloops. Once aws exceeds a certain point the only option is roll the genny past the ~20% reduction where it still serves as an effective foil.
> Rigging storm sails either by having hanks go around rolled genny or in the absence of a fully tensioned and supported dedicated inner stay is dangerous to crew, time consuming and runs the risk of inefficiency due to head stay sag or difficulties with mast pumping.
> Few true cutters remain in production. To my knowledge is no U.S. based production of ketches or yawls any longer.


I think that your comment is mostly true as far as it went but is missing several key portions of the equation.

Most of the better designed newer boats are not simply 'pure sloops', they are fractionally rigged sloops with minimally or non-overlapping headsails. These new designs often have enormous stability relative to their drag. Often these types of boats shift to high modulus sail cloth allowing a lighter weight sail cloth to hold its shape into much higher wind speeds.

Set up that way these boats are already flying a sail plan they can carry well up into the mid-to high 30 knot wind range. That is a much handier rig that does not require them to tack one sail across another rolled up sail or to have to deal with all of the excessive weight and drag of carrying multiple rolled up sails forward of their masts. They do have to reef their mainsails, but that happens quickly, on all points of sail, and results in a nicely shaped sail for the conditions. In the next wind range they will generally end up sailing under reefed mainsail alone, and in my experience, these boats balance surprisingly well like that, and can also hove to nicely like that.

The real unspoken heavy weather shortcoming of having all of those rolled up sails (even on a boat as offshore capable as yours) is that at some point in a major storm, those rolled up sails have enough windage to knockdown a boat, and at that point you are wrestling to take down some very large sails in some very heavy conditions. With modern low stretch materials, there is no need to have a stay for the storm jib permanently rigged offshore. That is old school or round the world racer with a big crew technologies.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## outbound

Interesting post Jeff. I can see why you are enamored by fractional rigs. I have only low stretch materials for all my sails except the parasailor which is not reverent to this conversation. Still I know from experience at least for my boat she is faster, is more balanced and I believe safer with the Solent up then a reefed Genny. I know as I go to the storm jib /running back stays set up there is no mast pumping and seems to be less stress on the rig. Of course when you reef the headsails in high winds they roll tighter. Given the physics of my boat I think the contribution to a knock down from your true analysis of the existence of windage from rolled headsails is not a major issue. Having two rolled sails instead of one seems negliable ( storm jib is soft hanks). 
At those wind speeds having no interest in having BFSs I would have no sail up and be on the JSD. I still fail to understand given shape is built into a sail ( especially true for the new fabrics and laminates) how an effective foil is maintained once the sail is furled to a significant degree. I know changing headsails even with a racing sail tract/ feeder or on a conventional furler can be a terrifying experience. 
I'm surprised you did not mention the one deficiency I have found with my set up. Given its a mast head rig when you employ the hydraulic back stay you tension the stay carrying the genny but increase jib stay sag on the Solent. I have tuned the rig to decrease this effect but find offshore I routinely use the windward running back stay which decreases this even more.


----------



## outbound

Jeff I apologize and may be mis guided not owning one of the current generation of fractional sloops.
I know at high wind speeds I just drop the main and proceed under a jib when the wind is abaft the beam to a significant degree. Much less risk of rounding up and easier to reef further as sail shape is pretty much irrelevant at that point of sail. Suspect many fractional sloops do the same.
What I've seen is to allow decent light air performance a light or medium weight cloth is used for the genny or 90-100% jib even on fractional sloops. Even with the newer construction I think it help keeps Doyle Tortola in the black.


----------



## outbound

Oh forgot to mention. The storm jib stay is removable. It allows me a baby stay to further shape / support the mast even with no sail hanked on. The storm jib is hanked on but left on deck and sheets run until needed only when major weather is expected. Then if needed reletively easy to release sail ties. Go back to cockpit and raise the sail and trim. One man job.
Guest I'm old school but feel safe and haven't blown out a sail yet ( knock on wood). Like the idea of three head stays and three back stays instead of one of each. Think some what better chance of hanging onto the rig. Then even if "all is lost" with a bit of dyneema and a block have a better chance of not triggering the epirb.


----------



## mitiempo

Jeff

I think Jerry has this Islander 44, first built in 1966. They built 10.

I would call it a production boat though.


----------



## aeventyr60

^Think Jerry is just having a little fun with Smakkdaddy on the production boat thing...a little sense of humor here.


----------



## GeorgeB

I might be quibbling little here but the Islander has a little bit more fore-foot than the ol' Cal 40










The Cal does have a pretty thick cord but that keel and undersides lets her track like she is on rails in the open ocean.

Outbound, how exactly is your boat rigged? Does your baby stay tie into the mast at the runners? Is this the same height as the head card when the sail is at reef 2? Installing detachable after market baby stays is pretty common for ocean racers out here.


----------



## outbound

Just about matches second reef and and a bit below upper spreaders. Thought it a fairly standard placement. Intermediates tension it well as well as runners. Stick has pre bend and is very stiff. Not like a race boat. Storm jib is a handkerchief. It's rigged to fly with tack about 5-6' off the deck so as not to be hit by boarding waves. Boat balances with storm jib and third reef or Solent rolled about 2' past mark for second reef and triple reefed main. Have Dutchman so thought third reef was better option than try sail. Understand others have rigged solents with more of a blade Solent sail, no storm jib per say, and just two reefs. The second as deep as my third. Simpler and gets the job done.
Jeff's right more string, more complexity,more weight aloft, more stuff to deal with and adjust for little gain but less dependency on any single element. 
Bergstrom rigs scare me as well. Just too old school. Still if I could have afforded it would have liked a cf stick. 
In practice find rolling up the genny to tack is a non issue. Boat loses less than a knot going from genny to Solent up wind in the range I would otherwise use the genny. Also fortunately not called on to do much short tacking as of yet.


----------



## Jeff_H

outbound said:


> Interesting post Jeff. I can see why you are enamored by fractional rigs. Still I know from experience at least for my boat she is faster, is more balanced and I believe safer with the Solent up then a reefed Genny. I know as I go to the storm jib /running back stays set up there is no mast pumping and seems to be less stress on the rig.
> 
> Given the physics of my boat I think the contribution to a knock down from your true analysis of the existence of windage from rolled headsails is not a major issue. Having two rolled sails instead of one seems negliable ( storm jib is soft hanks). At those wind speeds having no interest in having BFSs I would have no sail up and be on the JSD.
> 
> I still fail to understand given shape is built into a sail ( especially true for the new fabrics and laminates) how an effective foil is maintained once the sail is furled to a significant degree. I know changing headsails even with a racing sail tract/ feeder or on a conventional furler can be a terrifying experience.
> 
> I'm surprised you did not mention the one deficiency I have found with my set up. Given its a mast head rig when you employ the hydraulic back stay you tension the stay carrying the genny but increase jib stay sag on the Solent. I have tuned the rig to decrease this effect but find offshore I routinely use the windward running back stay which decreases this even more.





outbound said:


> Jeff I apologize and may be misguided not owning one of the current generation of fractional sloops.
> I know at high wind speeds I just drop the main and proceed under a jib when the wind is abaft the beam to a significant degree. Much less risk of rounding up and easier to reef further as sail shape is pretty much irrelevant at that point of sail. Suspect many fractional sloops do the same.
> 
> What I've seen is to allow decent light air performance a light or medium weight cloth is used for the genny or 90-100% jib even on fractional sloops.


First of all, I did not mean to give you the impression that I was trying to suggest that you had the wrong rig on your boat. Most of your observations about your rig are relevant to your rig but not more generally. The purpose of my post was to address your statement which (to paraphrase) suggested that there was a problem with modern production boat designs which are a 'pure sloop'. It is not so much that I personally am enamored with fractional rigs as it is the direction that the science seems to be returning cruising rigs (fractional rigs were the prevalent cruising rig when cruising started before the race rules changed that). And while I personally do prefer a fractional rig, the point of my post was trying to explain that your post was an incomplete statement that perhaps did not acknowledge the changes in sail and rig design that have become more of the norm in the past decade or so.

I was trying to point out that modern designs are no longer 'your grandfather's pure sloop'. The idea behind a modern fractionally rigged sloop is that you don't use genoas, and you don't count on sailing with headsails partially rolled up.

Instead these fractional rigs use a small enough jib that size wise it can be carried efficiently in winds from somewhere down around 2-5 knots and up to somewhere over 30 knots.

This broad range is accomplished in a number of ways. The way that shape is built into these broad windspeed range headsails is that they are constructed with hollow-cut luffs (designed to have good shape with a lot of headstay sag in light air) so that they can quickly flatten out the sail as headstay tension increases and go from a powered up sail to a blade with only an adjustment of the backstay and perhaps more halyard tension. As a result they maintain a great shape across the entire wind range.

The sails are cut so that in light air, when the backstay is eased, the luff is full like the leading edge of Genoa. Since most of the drive of a genoa comes from its leading edge (except when deep reaching) not much performance is given up at the low end. Using high modulus fibers minimize stretch, but more significantly allows a lighter weight sail cloth so that the weight of the cloth does not collapse the sail shape in light going.

In heavier air, the tensioned forestay pulls fabric out of the luff and flattens the sail. The low stretch fabrics minimze stretch so the sail does not blow into a powered up shape. Effectively you have gone from a genoa to a heavy air jib with one or two quick adjustments.

At some point it does become necessary to reduce sail area, but that is typically handled by furling or dropping the jib (depending on how bad things are expected to get). The mast forward position means that these boats ballance and will hove to under reefed mainsail alone. But if things build futher, they transition to low stretch storm jibs that use spectra strops instead of hanks and which are hung on a low stretch luff and stay that gets locked at the mast and which is tensioned and locked down at the deck when needed. On a modern fractional rig, the rig geometry that prevents pumping when under normal headsails also prevents pumping when flying storm sails. That said some fractional rigs use check stays or runners when flying storm sails.

Like you, most fractionally rigged sloops use their mainsails with perhaps 2-3 reefs in winds into the 40 knots range, and then at some point switch over to dedicated storm trisails on their own tracks.

This is not the thread to debate storm tactics but I would respectfully suggest that your proposed tactic of "I know at high wind speeds I just drop the main and proceed under a jib when the wind is abaft the beam to a significant degree." and "At those wind speeds having no interest in having BFSs I would have no sail up and be on the JSD." only work when you have the luxury of either clairvoyance and perhaps hundreds of miles sea room. The last time I spent days at sea being pounded in those conditions we did not have those luxuries and had to try to set up the boat to make slightly to weather.

I would also suggest that even a single furled sail can and will heel a boat very far over in heavy going, and when you talk about the windage of multiple rolled headsails, it can be much worse than you are imagining. Before a mutual friend of Bob Perry (and myself) was heeled until her rail was in the water on one of the Bob Perry designed Norseman 447's with just two tightly furled jibs and a bare pole, I would not have believe that the wind could do this either.

But that is another topic. Speaking of other topics, I amd not a fan of the B&R rig either and have never have understood why the B&R makes sense in most applications.

I once had a chance to ask Lars Bergstrom about the advantages of the B&R rig. His answer was that in boats with backstays it allowed all of the bending loads to be supported by the spar and diamonds, so the verticals only had to deal with the rig side force relative to the hull. I asked what was he saw as the advantage of that, but he did not answer in part because he paused and then we were interupted.

He did mention in a lecture that I was at that he saw the combination of the backstay less version of the B&R and a Fractional rig as self-depowering and allowing a larger roach for better reaching power. In my mind, that may work for inshore use, but loses the other advantages of a fractional rig.

Anyway those are my long responses to the issues that you raised so succinctly. Kumbayah and a group hug?

Jeff


----------



## outbound

Group hug is returned. 


As stated I have no personal experience of modern fractional sloops so truly appreciate your insights and how you educate me. We are colored by our history so it's hard to trust things we haven't personally experienced.
I have experienced my boat in 50s gusts in 60s. So far so good. Lasted less than two watches and we didn't break anything. She's done four days when it never got below 40s and that was ok as well.
Agree now having sailed with no Dacron on the boat would not go back. Still there are high quality Dacron cloths that make sense and give excellent service. It's nice to know the sails will hold their shape until they fail.


----------



## bobperry

****ski!
I missed out on a group hug?

Damn.


----------



## outbound

Jeff I should mention I see the logic of your analysis but this evening we are sitting in cockpit in a marina. I see many fractional production sloops of varying vintage. Many have 7/8 rigs or even higher. Many seem supported by four wires ( not counting intermediates or jack stays) with no apparent runners. Most all have swept back spreaders to varying degrees. Sails seem to be Dacron but can't really tell. Masts don't seem that much forward of center of effort.
Of course you have greater knowledge than me but think there's a lot more then meets the casual eye to do a fractional rig correctly and suspect many would not meet your standards.


----------



## davidpm

Jeff_H said:


> Anyway those are my long responses to the issues that you raised so succinctly. Kumbayah and a group hug?
> 
> Jeff


So can you give a few examples of cruising boats that have rigs that you see as nearly optimal?


----------



## Jeff_H

outbound said:


> Jeff I should mention I see the logic of your analysis but this evening we are sitting in cockpit in a marina. I see many fractional production sloops of varying vintage. Many have 7/8 rigs or even higher. Many seem supported by four wires ( not counting intermediates or jack stays) with no apparent runners. Most all have swept back spreaders to varying degrees. Sails seem to be Dacron but can't really tell. Masts don't seem that much forward of center of effort.
> Of course you have greater knowledge than me but think there's a lot more then meets the casual eye to do a fractional rig correctly and suspect many would not meet your standards.


This is a great segway back to the topic of this thread. One of the realities of mass production boats is that they often will parrot some design trend without necessarily doing so with the rigor that is required to properly exploit that design strategy. It may be a little unfair to think of this as a 'tailfins' approach to yacht design since these mass production boats are targeted at a certain market, with the goal of being optimized at a price point as it relates to the manner that the perceived end user actually uses their boats.

In that regard, the more commonly seen mass production fractional rigs are targeted towards coastal cruising, and are not optimized for offshore use. And this gets to a part of the discussion about fractional rigs which was not relevant to yesterday's discussion but is relevant here.

To be frank, just having a fractional rig is not a be-all-end-all answer in itself for offshore work. While there can be advantages to fractional rigs for most types of sailing (smaller jibs to handle, quicker adaptation to changing conditions and so on), it takes a more disciplined effort to design, engineer, build and provide an appropriate sail inventory for a fractional rig intended for offshore use than to build a multiple headsail sloop (like yours) or a simple masthead rig. And to a very great extent that rig needs to be paired with an appropriately easily driven hull form as well.

To really work well, the fractional rig designer has to balance conflicting demands. The rig needs to be robust enough to withstand the abuses of being offshore, but still be bendy enough to allow the backstay to bend the mast and flatten the mainsail (reducing the need to reef).

That typically adds the cost to taper the mast, and it eliminates such popular features as in-mast furling since the benefits of mast bend are lost since the luff of the sail is decoupled from the mast by the furler foil. Plus in mast furling requires a stiffer heavier spar than is ideal on a fractional rig. Hunter's backstay-less fractional rigs make little to no sense to me since you give up the ability to control sail shape that is one of the biggest advantages to a fractional rig. similarly Catalina's use of a non-tapered mast, does not allow the kind of controlled curvature that really helps make bending a spar on a fractional rig all the more useful. And generally the mass production coastal cruising frac's tend to use spars and fraction ratios that do not permit enough mast bend to be strategically useful.

To take full advantage of a fractional rig, the sail inventory needs to be optimized as well, and that is not as easy as it is for a masthead rig. In my case, North Sails couldn't (or wouldn't) get it right when I was trying to develop a wide wind range set of sails for my boat. Quantum eventually made some really great sails each with an extremely broad windspeed range.

But that took extraordinary measures. Staff from Quantum came out and sailed with me. They took photos that allowed them to quantify the shape and dimensions of the mastbend and forestay sag while underway at the full range of adjustments, and then developed sails whose flying shapes (accounting for stretch) were computer designed to work with the range of curves on the spar and stay.

The resulting sails have been extraordinarily durable, and have done what they needed to do across the type of wind range I was looking for. But that kind of attention to detail usually is reserved for race boats and would not make sense unless the boat owner is willing to go through the expense and effort to have sails developed in that fashion, and to understand how these sails work with the rig, and use these tools to their full advantage.

That kind of thinking (and cost) is not for everyone. It can be argued that in and of itself, even an optimized fractional rig does not need to be more expensive than some other form of offshore capable rig since the number of sails, and the sail area of these sails is generally smaller than the inventory for a multi-headsail sloop, or a cutter rig. There is typically less standing rigging as well. But the individual components are generally more expensive since these rigs heavily dependent on low stretch components, carefully designed and fabricated sails, tapered spars, backstay adjusters and vangs with enough power to easily do their job and so on.

So getting back to the boats in your marina, while many of the newer boats may have fractional rigs, I would suspect that few if any within your sight have fractional rigs which were optimized for offshore use. That is probably okay since most mass production boats will spend very little time offshore, and in coastal cruising, most casual sailors will roll in their sails and motor to safety.

Jeff


----------



## outbound

Jeff you are always a education. Thank you. If I ever have the resources to do a one off from what I've learned from you and Bob at least I'll know some of the right questions to ask. I now know why fractionals have made me so nervous in the past. But also know if done right it can be a great rig. It would be great fun to have you two involved. 
Perhaps a numb question but here it goes. When I went to engineering school I was taught what elasticity really means and how Brent's steel or even Al is really more elastic than a rubber band as it returns to just about original shape when distorted.
What I don't understand is how cf works in a mast for a fractional boat. I thought cf is phenomally strong but fairly brittle. I thought epoxy is also somewhat brittle as well. I don't understand how the mast will survive the bending/unbending and various degrees of bending imposed on it. Clearly it does but I don't understand the physics.
You commonly see sticks as old as the boat on other rigs doing just fine even through multiple changes in standing rigging. Is the same true for fractional boats? Is the service life of cf masts effected by rig type? Obviously cf masts bend. Which side is the concern? The front in extension or as I suspect the back in compression?


----------



## outbound

Just curious. Did you go with vectran, twaron, aramid cloth or laminates? What went into your choice?


----------



## jerryrlitton

aeventyr60 said:


> ^Think Jerry is just having a little fun with Smakkdaddy on the production boat thing...a little sense of humor here.


That's exactly what I was doing. It almost worked.


----------



## Jeff_H

davidpm said:


> So can you give a few examples of cruising boats that have rigs that you see as nearly optimal?


We don't see a lot of newer performance cruiser production boat designs coming out of the States these days, (the exception might be the J-122 which arguably is aimed at the European market) but the Europeans seem to be moving the needle. If I had to name a few examples of offshore capable fractional rigged sloops, and while some of these are heavier boats than I personally like, they might include boats like the XC series from X boats, Sweden Yachts 40, 42, and 45, Comar Comet 41 and 45s, Elan E5 or E6, or the Halberg-Rassy 412 and to a lesser extent the Halberg-Rassy 43 Mk III. Maybe on the small, really high performance side, boats like the M.A.T. 10.10. An older design might include something like the Aerodyne 38 or 43.

But that should give you a rough idea.

Jeff


----------



## davidpm

Jeff_H said:


> But that should give you a rough idea.
> 
> Jeff


Wow those boats are considered racer, cruser?

That big destroyer wheel and open back makes me immediately think racer. 
Do people really live on a boat like that for an extended amount of time and cruse. I'll have to check into that. I love the idea of making good time especially to weather.

Is the Farr 395 in the same class?

Any other older boats that approach the ideal? I thinking closer to 100+ rather than 300-400+


----------



## Jeff_H

davidpm said:


> Wow those boats are considered racer, cruser?
> 
> That big destroyer wheel and open back makes me immediately think racer.
> Do people really live on a boat like that for an extended amount of time and cruse. I'll have to check into that. I love the idea of making good time especially to weather.
> 
> Is the Farr 395 in the same class?
> 
> Any other older boats that approach the ideal? I thinking closer to 100+ rather than 300-400+


I tried to pick a list which varied from the serious cruiser end like the Hallberg Rassy's and the XBoats to the nearly full blown racers like the M.A.T. These boats represent a recent design trend and the examples have only been built for the past decade so they do tend to be expensive like any new offshore cruiser. There are older examples which are not as well rounded as these boats which can be bought for closer to $100 k, boats like the Farr 44 but they are rare.

I think the 395 is not a great candidate for a distance cruiser. 
Jeff


----------



## davidpm

Jeff_H said:


> I tried to pick a list which varied from the serious cruiser end like the Hallberg Rassy's and the XBoats to the nearly full blown racers like the M.A.T. These boats represent a recent design trend and the examples have only been built for the past decade so they do tend to be expensive like any new offshore cruiser. There are older examples which are not as well rounded as these boats which can be bought for closer to $100 k, boats like the Farr 44 but they are rare.
> 
> I think the 395 is not a great candidate for a distance cruiser.
> Jeff


The Farr 44 is rare. I found one but it seems to be a really serious boat.

1989 Farr 44 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

The Farr 395 I only mentioned because I raced on one and was on a couple deliveries with it. It is quite clearly a race mostly boat.

What examples of older boats comes to mind and in what way are they not as rounded?

It is pretty cool that with a hundred years of engineering and new materials and manufacturing methods the machine can be improved so much.


----------



## bobperry

Jeff: 
Ifvthis guy is really after an offshore passage maker you may want to address the subject of tankage with more modern performance oriented designs. There is a reason a H-R does not look like a Farr 38.


----------



## aeventyr60

For a third of the price for that Farr 44 you could have a lot of fun on this:

1970 Cal 40 sailboat for sale in Alabama


----------



## outbound

Just wondering if the paradigm is changing. Now on passage people seem to depend on reverse osmosis instead of tankage and the AP instead of vanes.
We have 200g but still buy galleon jugs of water and store 1 &1/2 g per day per day per person. Have two 100 g tanks.
Was asked why so conservative. In the 80s did a transport on a hinkley pilot 35. Flooded the boat when the engine intake through hull sheared at the flange. Lost all electricity, fresh water and battery for engine start. Ended up straining the sugar water peaches were packed in, broth, anything to wet lips. Was miserable. 
Remain vulnerable to electrical failure as no vane yet. Still trying to sort out how to do it without losing sugar scoop use due to wife's desires. In the racer cruisers suspect vanes won't work well. They are just too fast. Especially when going downwind in a fresh breeze.


----------



## aeventyr60

Not sure why you think a monitor won't steer a modern production cruiser racer....from the monitor website:

*" Everyone always asks about the down wind performance and my answer is always this : Airco Distributor's best 24 hour mileage was 240 miles and this happened during the qualifier when the boat was not equipped with an electric auto-pilot. To average 10 knots a 50 footer has to spend a good deal of the time surfing. The MONITOR obviously performed well under these conditions, the proof is in the mileage."*

I get confused with your posts, Outbound. You've got one of the best modern offshore cruising boats built! Yet, you continue to voice doubts as to it's abilities. Catastrophic electrical failure, rig failure and losing your AP from some of your latest posts. Does a 750 K modern production cruiser/racer warrant such concern?


----------



## bobperry

That Cal 40 is a steal.


----------



## davidpm

bobperry said:


> Jeff:
> Ifvthis guy is really after an offshore passage maker you may want to address the subject of tankage with more modern performance oriented designs. There is a reason a H-R does not look like a Farr 38.


Yes I was just talking to my wife about the tankage issue.

Another issue I thought of is my ability to sail it by myself. While a husband wife sailing team is pretty much the norm I'm well aware that much of the time that means one person is doing most of the sailing. I'm concerned that a performance design might be too much for me to handle.


----------



## outbound

Love my boat. Feel secure on it in anything which is 3/4 of the battle. Delight in its performance and creature comforts. In just two years have done just under 10k offshore including some nasty stuff.
Still you don't learn anything if you have a smug attitude. Mines the best, there's nothing to learn, I know better are all thoughts that get in the way of learning.
We are fortunate in having people on this site that have done hundreds of thousands of offshore miles, who have been designing boats for decades, who have study yacht design or have specialized knowledge in yacht systems. I realize they know much more then me. I learn by picking their brains but I'm self referenced enough I use my boat as the yardstick. For that I apologize.
Still think surfing in double digits on a light boat or planing for any length of time are situations where vanes don't function well. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so educate me.


----------



## bobperry

David
I always caution people about generalizing but here I go head first:

I think you have it backwards. The "low performance boat" may in fact be the harder boat to sail. If you figure crew calories required per mile I think you'd come out ahead with a more high performance boat. The slow boat may,,,, may require more crew effort to keep it plodding it's way upwind and you will end up sailing far more miles due to low VMG. And be realistic, none of the boats mentioned in this thread qualify for "high performance" buy today's standards. The Outbound is a nice sailing boat but hardly high performance. I'd say you want a "performace oriented " boat or as a smart ass young punk once called them, a "performance cruiser", i.e. a boat that puts a high value on good performance while retaining the pragmatic qualities that make it suitable for comfortable offshore cruising.


----------



## aeventyr60

You won't see many cruiser/racers doing double digits out here. Not smug, just just wondered about your concerns. Always enjoy your posts.


----------



## outbound

Bob- of course you are right. The outbound has a phrf of 90 in New England where as other boats we considered would rate in single digits or even negative numbers. But there was a jump of 1/2-3/4 m in price by the time the boat splashed and the cost of yearly ownership went up as well. If I had deeper pockets ........ Oh well. 
Still we've had multiple 200+ days and can pretty much count on 175 for route planning. People don't talk much about trim. My reality both coastal with the bride or on passage is to my chagrin is there's hours of set them and forget them.more interested in chatting and listening to tunes as the world goes by. Once or twice a day she still says - sit down already. Boat still tracks well and AP doesn't work hard. Using a stock raymarine not a NKE or anything fancy. I think that was what Dave was talking about.
Believe we Americans are a day late and a dollar short compared to the Europeans. Way too slow to embrace new concepts and too conservative as regards boats.


----------



## bobperry

60:
My biggest concern right now is finding my black rubber dairy bucket so I can wash my car.
Not exactly sure I understood your question. Could you please re-state it. I'm a bit thick.


----------



## davidpm

bobperry said:


> David
> I always caution people about generalizing but here I go head first:
> 
> I think you have it backwards. The "low performance boat" may in fact be the harder boat to sail. If you figure crew calories required per mile I think you'd come out ahead with a more high performance boat. The slow boat may,,,, may require more crew effort to keep it plodding it's way upwind and you will end up sailing far more miles due to low VMG. And be realistic, none of the boats mentioned in this thread qualify for "high performance" buy today's standards. The Outbound is a nice sailing boat but hardly high performance. I'd say you want a "performance oriented " boat or as a smart ass young punk once called them, a "performance cruiser", i.e. a boat that puts a high value on good performance while retaining the pragmatic qualities that make it suitable for comfortable offshore cruising.


Thanks for making that good point.

I've been reading up on the Aerodyne 38 and read your review.
Aerodyne 38

And hope to see one in my neighborhood.
2000 Aerodyne 38 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

And read another review:
http://www.bellamer.com/aerodyne/press-aerodyne38.pdf

I am appreciative of Jeff turning me on to a boat that I would not have even looked at.

It is however a scary looking boat to me. I did a return delivery from Bermuda to CT on a Farr 395 and we got nailed in the gulf stream. It sounded like someone was breaking up the fiberglass with a sledge hammer. In the bunk you were at zero gravity half the time. We were bailing by hand with buckets. The leak we finally found was the water being pushed into the bowsprit tube. We almost ran out of fuel.

In short it was very uncomfortable for two days and that was with a crew of 7. I have no real interest in doing that again.
I know my limitations. I'm 64 and reasonably fit but not what I used to be.

We weathered out a terrible overnight storm that knocked down buildings in Annapolis a few years ago at anchor in a small creek. It was no big deal. To your point of calories per mile I would be inclined to park a boat and wait it out if that was an acceptable solution. Obviously the boat would have to be capable of that.

The reason is that I know I can actively sail a boat by myself in really bad weather for 6 hours or so. I've done it and figure I could do it again if I had to. I can not ask my wife to take the helm in those conditions. I figure Valium will be on the dinner menu. 
I know when I'm on watch in bad weather in a multi-day delivery I count the minutes until my 3 or 4 hours shift is over. If there was no one to take over?? Hopefully I would have pickup crew but everyone knows the pitfalls of that. The only thing you can depend on is yourself and the boat.

So I guess I have a series of questions.
Would a rough trip in the A38 be significantly better than in the Farr 395?
In the A38 could someone just heave too and wait it out for a couple days in reasonable comfort.
Would a less high-performance boat like maybe the outbound be more comfortable trying to make way.
How about hove too?

I wouldn't consider doing any cruising without good ground tackle and a way to handle it.
In a boat like the A38 is it possible/ reasonable to add this?

The draft I'm worried about, maybe the shoal draft model.
The tankage I might be willing to deal with. Don't know about that.

We can't decide where to retire to. My daughter lives in Guatemala. We checked out the Rio Dulse and that is not for us. Our son is in Annapolis so we are figuring somewhere south. My wife's newest plan is to get a boat and start at Annapolis head down and around to the Pan-Handle. Take and year or two and find out if someplace calls to us. of course Bermuda and the Islands and Beliese etc might end up on the itinerary. We did a bare boat charter in the Pan-handle and loved it. So I'm thinking tankage is not going to be a big deal.

I know just about any boat from a Pearson 38, Catalina 36+, Hunter (xx), Bene (xx) would do the job. And frankly until Jeff messed things up that's what I was expecting.

I really love the idea of fast however. I'll probably never race but I do like a fast boat with a good design. Sailing in light wind and good pointing would be heaven.

So maybe you are thinking of some other boat that I should look at. 
Maybe it gives up a 1/4 knot of speed for a 5.6" draft, 50 gals of diesel and Dodger and Bimini.
Of course the budget is 100+ but less than 200.

So what other boats might be good candidates.

Sorry Bob. I typed this all up and just realized you get paid for this kind of advice. Sorry again.
I'll leave it posted. Maybe someone else can pitch in for me. I'm sure whatever I get will need some refits and I'll need your official help for that.


----------



## outbound

Interesting how congruent your thinking has been to mine. Maybe we're twins by different mothers (we are the same age). I think our wives are related as well. She says" nothing goes to weather like a airplane". But she has been in the snot with me and does fine. I'm blessed. 
I've learned a lot from Jeff and Bob but still love my Outbound. Paulo is a big fan of the boats you mentioned. Be interesting if he chimed in.
Btw the Outbound fore reaches at 0.5-2kts depending on windspeeds in my hands. Maybe others do better. Found it more comfy to just keep going and reef down. If going to windward ride has a sweet spot at 55-65 degrees. Have not been in really bad stuff but have seen 50s gust to low 60s. In situation you describe probably go to jsd and lie on the saloon sole.
Found 9-12d passages fine with three. Boat sleeps nice and every one snug with no hot bunking. Five is a crowd imho for anything under 50'. Several of my sisters hips do passages with four and some with two.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
You have a great boat. My kind of boat. Carl was a friend of mine.


----------



## bobperry

David: Yes I get paid for my advice. Your hobby is my business. But I participate on these sites for my own entertainment and pleasure so I would be happy to address your questions if I were not leaving for NC in two hours and I have a ****load to do before I leave.

But I'll leave you in the capable hands of Jeff and Out. I'm in about 99.2% agreement with those two guys on everything concerning sailing.


----------



## GeorgeB

David, the Aerodyne brings back sweet memories.  I used to race on one a dozen years ago. The fastest I’ve ever gone on a sailboat was on that 38. Aerodynes were on my dream list of 40 footers ever since then. They are rare here on the west coast and we even contemplated making an offer on American Girl when she went on the market. A couple of years ago one of our broker friends put me in touch with an Aerodyne that was “gentrified” for an older cruising couple. The anchor roller, deck mounted windlass and boom furler kind of took away from the aesthetics but were probably needed for an older cruising couple. I was still willing to live with the maintenance issues of the sail drive unit and (still) massive sail plan. But what really killed the deal was the way too small tankage (50 gal water, 25 gal fuel) and the also total lack of storage and living space below as our plans are to cruise the Pacific side of Mexico. Mrs. B did love the Corian counter tops though!


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> We don't see a lot of newer performance cruiser production boat designs coming out of the States these days, (the exception might be the J-122 which arguably is aimed at the European market) but the Europeans seem to be moving the needle. If I had to name a few examples of offshore capable fractional rigged sloops, and while some of these are heavier boats than I personally like, they might include boats like the XC series from X boats, Sweden Yachts 40, 42, and 45, Comar Comet 41 and 45s, Elan E5 or E6, or the Halberg-Rassy 412 and to a lesser extent the Halberg-Rassy 43 Mk III. Maybe on the small, really high performance side, boats like the M.A.T. 10.10. An older design might include something like the Aerodyne 38 or 43.
> 
> But that should give you a rough idea.
> 
> Jeff


A fractional rig will allow a better control of sail shape and that can worth half a knot speed and a better pointing ability. Some would say that is just for racers but that is about what you gain with a folding propeller and lots of cruisers have them.

Half a knot seems very little but in 24 hours sailing it means more 12k done. On a boat making 6K on an Atlantic crossing made in 20 days it would mean almost two days less.

But for me it is worth just for the fun to sail properly the boat and to make the most of it.


----------



## davidpm

bobperry said:


> David: Yes I get paid for my advice. Your hobby is my business. But I participate on these sites for my own entertainment and pleasure so I would be happy to address your questions if I were not leaving for NC in two hours and I have a ****load to do before I leave.
> 
> But I'll leave you in the capable hands of Jeff and Out. I'm in about 99.2% agreement with those two guys on everything concerning sailing.


Thanks for the note. I will be using your services when the time is right. Even with all the "free" general advice I get here I'm fully aware that once you get past the design generalities and model specifics at the end of the day it ends up being a specific boat for a specific family with specific plans and budget.

So even with the best of intentions of all the folks willing to help I'm not going to get to the real bottom line trolling the internet. At least not with more risk than I'm willing to take.

I'll check internet but I still see a doctor.


----------



## JonEisberg

davidpm said:


> Would a rough trip in the A38 be significantly better than in the Farr 395?
> In the A38 could someone just heave too and wait it out for a couple days in reasonable comfort.


Sorry, but if you have to actually ask that question, I don't think an Aerodyne is the boat for you...

;-)


----------



## aeventyr60

^Really baffling, these folks have no freaking idea....a rough trip, ma and pa kettle gonna get their asses handed to them...


----------



## davidpm

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but if you have to actually ask that question, I don't think an Aerodyne is the boat for you...
> 
> ;-)


Sounds like your answer would be no then.

The reason I asked is that I experienced a very rough Gulf Stream crossing in a Farr 395. The F395 is flat on the bottom and pounded very hard even on a broad reach.

Folks are saying what a nicely rounded hull the Aerodyne is so I was hoping it would be better behaved.

Sadly most of my experience has been with older boats so I'm still learning about performance boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but if you have to actually ask that question, I don't think an Aerodyne is the boat for you...
> 
> ;-)





davidpm said:


> Sounds like your answer would be no then.
> 
> The reason I asked is that I experienced a very rough Gulf Stream crossing in a Farr 395. The F395 is flat on the bottom and pounded very hard even on a broad reach.
> 
> Folks are saying what a nicely rounded hull the Aerodyne is so I was hoping it would be better behaved.
> 
> Sadly most of my experience has been with older boats so I'm still learning about performance boats.


Well, I've never seen the underbody of an Aerodyne, so I'll take Bob's word for it on the 'roundness' of the hull sections that will make her well mannered under sail...

However, you asked about heaving-to "in comfort" for a couple of days in heavy weather offshore. I see little in the line drawings or pictures of that boat that indicate a likely tendency of that boat to be made to heave-to naturally, the ability to 'set it and forget it, go below and let the boat take care of you' characteristic that - for me - is one of the hallmarks of any voyaging boat intended to be sailed shorthanded... I could be wrong, of course, but looking at that boat I see one that will require a great deal of active management, and time spent in the cockpit or at the helm by the crew to heave-to, or ride out heavy weather offshore...

Which after a day or two, tends to stretch most people's notion of doing so "in relative comfort"...



Again, I could be completely wrong... but in my experience, boats that can be made to heave-to and left to their own devices with relative ease seem to share one design characteristic: namely, a substantial amount of underbody that will afford a significant degree of resistance to drift... Such an extremely light displacement skimming dish with a massive rig, way more freeboard than underbody, and extremely narrow foils, certainly doesn't possess those features, at least to my eye ;-)

If you had the sea room, the deployment of a series drogue might be your best bet... And, if your companionway drop boards are Lexan, you could even watch from the comfort of the cabin as any breaking seas from astern sweep right thru that open transom...

Come to think of it, you might want to pack an extra set of drop boards...

;-)

Earlier this summer, I ran a smaller Beneteau Oceanis down to Lauderdale... The transom wasn't nearly as open as this, but it did share the same complete absence of any sort of stern rail or pushpit, the only thing between the helmsman and the ocean was a 3/16" coated lifeline wire strung from one quarter, to the other... I'm just a wimp, I suppose, but I found that arrangement _EXTREMELY_ disconcerting, to say the least...

;-)


----------



## GeorgeB

How much “pounding” is too much? I always attributed the “pounding” on the Aerodyne to its plumb bow albeit, it does have an open class style hull form. Very broad and flat in the stern. It would launch off waves and land with a solid thwack. Jon, funny you should mention the gate across the stern – One of the few times that I came close to leaving a boat was when I was shifting driving positions to the upper cleat when the boat took a lurch and I went down, partially under the life line. The only thing that kept me on was a grip like grim death onto the lower wheel spoke. I honestly don’t think that the Aerodyne could heave-to with much success. That high aspect rudder was really, really easy to stall. It took me a while to get into the micro movements instead of “horsing” the rudder. It took a lot of concentration going down wind and very counter intuitive to steer into a round up before bringing the boat back down. I did my share of rounding up due to rudder stalls before I got the hang of it. But damn! That boat is like a crack cocaine addiction! Just reminiscing makes me want go out and buy one!


----------



## travlin-easy

Jon, looking at that wide open transom I can see why you had reservations transporting this boat. I'll stick with my old tub of a Morgan OI. It heaves to beautifully, it's by no means a racer, but I always seem to make my destinations in relative comfort and safety. Now, I have not logged the offshore sailing miles that many on this forum have, but I have spent many years offshore fishing the canyons in small boats, so I know just how nasty it can get. That open transom looks, IMO, an invitation to disaster in heavy following seas.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## davidpm

Thank you gentleman.

So now I will wait and hope the Jeff or Bob or someone else who understands these new fast boats will weigh in on how they would behave hove-to of if there is some other passive way to deal with a multi-day storm.


----------



## davidpm

I'm supposed to see this boat tomorrow.

2007 Elan Impression 434 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

I saw a sister ship a couple days ago.

It is not true mast head sloop but the jib attaches about a foot below the top of the mast so their will be no mast bend. It is an in-mast furler anyway.

So obviously not as fast as a true racer cruiser but should be faster than some of the 1980's models with shorter masts and overlapping jibs yes?


----------



## smackdaddy

davidpm said:


> I'm supposed to see this boat tomorrow.
> 
> 2007 Elan Impression 434 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> I saw a sister ship a couple days ago.
> 
> It is not true mast head sloop but the jib attaches about a foot below the top of the mast so their will be no mast bend. It is an in-mast furler anyway.
> 
> So obviously not as fast as a true racer cruiser but should be faster than some of the 1980's models with shorter masts and overlapping jibs yes?


If you want "fast", it looks like this boat rates around a 96...about the same as my '89 Hunter 40. So it's fast for a cruising boat. But that Elan is crazy nice. A great boat.

It just comes down to what you want and what you want to spend.

As for the rig - I'll tell you, I don't want to be messing with the sails any more than I have to when I'm cruising with my kids (racing is another matter). Running backstays and hydraulics - screw that. I want to sing shanties with the boys. Period.


----------



## JonEisberg

GeorgeB said:


> Jon, funny you should mention the gate across the stern - One of the few times that I came close to leaving a boat was when I was shifting driving positions to the upper cleat when the boat took a lurch and I went down, partially under the life line. The only thing that kept me on was a grip like grim death onto the lower wheel spoke.


Yikes...

Last summer, sailing down the west coast of Newfoundland, I poured a glass of rum over the side in the general vicinity where Ned Cabot was lost overboard a year or 2 previously, when returning from another of his impressive voyages to the Arctic...

He was lost in gale conditions, during a change of the watch, when his J-46 CIELITA was knocked down just as he had come up into the cockpit, and was in the process of taking his turn at the helm...

I've got to believe the size of that wheel, and the awkward maneuver required to take one's place behind it, must have contributed to his death...

Sure, it can be a blast to steer a high performance boat like that... But I firmly believe such massively oversized wheels have no place on a Mom & Pop Cruising Boat, likely to be sailed shorthanded by older and less agile sailors... Never saw the value in having to step up, practically OUT of the cockpit, to be able to drive the damn boat...










Remembering the laughter of a bluewater sailor | Soundings Online


----------



## JonEisberg

davidpm said:


> I'm supposed to see this boat tomorrow.
> 
> 2007 Elan Impression 434 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> I saw a sister ship a couple days ago.
> 
> It is not true mast head sloop but the jib attaches about a foot below the top of the mast so their will be no mast bend. It is an in-mast furler anyway.
> 
> So obviously not as fast as a true racer cruiser but should be faster than some of the 1980's models with shorter masts and overlapping jibs yes?


Hope you'll give careful consideration to that ridiculous 'two-tiered' deck/step arrangement outboard of the cockpit coaming... A classic example of a boat designed from the inside/out, deck ergonomics being dictated and highly compromised by the interior design, and the need to maximize the volume of the accommodation space below...

The riskiest maneuver one routinely makes on a sailing yacht underway, or even at anchor or dockside, is stepping out of the cockpit onto the deck... That arrangement is laughable, potentially VERY dangerous to my eye, and not an issue that can be easily remedied...

Other than by never setting foot out of the cockpit, I suppose...

;-)


----------



## travlin-easy

To me, those massive, oversized wheels have no place in any boat, that is unless you have a massive, oversized rudder that requires lots of torque in order to move it. Cmon, the world's largest sailboat is steered with a joystick - not a wheel at all. I have a friend that has a Morgan 32.5 that has a wheel so large that you damned near need to climb out of the boat to take your place behind the wheel. To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all, but I guess someone here that is a racer will ague this point, claiming minute changes in the wheel can make a huge difference in a race. If this was really true, then why don't race cars or hydro-planes have huge steering wheels?

Duck - INCOMING! 

Gary


----------



## Scotty C-M

Jon has a good point about the "step" out of the cockpit, but I think that it has some mitigations. On the boat in his picture there are no handholds. I agree that is a recipe for trouble. The boat for sale, on the other hand, has a bimini support just forward of the step. It seems that if that support is strong, it would make a very good handhold. With that in mind, steping in or out of the cockpit of that particular boat should not be a real problem. Yes, clear decks are best, but on a boat there are always compromises. In this case the interior benefits are made possible by the step. An able bodied sea(wo)man should be able to handle that. I've not stepped aboard this boat, so this is pretty theoretical on my part.


----------



## IStream

travlineasy said:


> To me, those massive, oversized wheels have no place in any boat, that is unless you have a massive, oversized rudder that requires lots of torque in order to move it. Cmon, the world's largest sailboat is steered with a joystick - not a wheel at all. I have a friend that has a Morgan 32.5 that has a wheel so large that you damned near need to climb out of the boat to take your place behind the wheel. To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all, but I guess someone here that is a racer will ague this point, claiming minute changes in the wheel can make a huge difference in a race. If this was really true, then why don't race cars or hydro-planes have huge steering wheels?
> 
> Duck - INCOMING!
> 
> Gary


I'll bite. First of all, that joystick is connected to some serious electromechanical grunt, so I'll just call that a red herring.

A large wheel gives you leverage and reach. On a boat with anything but a barn door rudder, you don't need the leverage, though I would argue that it gives you better rudder feel than putting the leverage elsewhere. However, the reach is handy for being able to steer while standing or sitting at the windward quarter of the cockpit. Yes, you could go with dual wheels to do the same thing but at the expense of greater complexity and cost.


----------



## travlin-easy

The wheel on my Morgan 33 OI is not much larger than the steering wheel on my old Ford, full-sized van. I have no hydraulics, just standard cable steering and it's not at all difficult to steer under any condition. I sincerely believe that those larger wheels are just for esthetic purposes only. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see outside spokes on them. As for the joystick steered boats, which includes most commercial vessels, they are primarily steered with hydraulics, which is the case with a growing number of recreational fishing boats. While in the past hydraulic steering had it's problems with leakage, this has long since been overcome with new, stainless steel reinforced webbing on the tubing that can withstand incredible pressures without fear of rupture. Plus, it's pretty much impervious to a saline environment as well.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## smackdaddy

I've sailed and raced on various cruising boats - both production and "blue water". I prefer a larger wheel just because it's easier to handle in bigger seas when hand-steering.

I don't like the ginormous wheels like in that J-boat above (and other racing boats I've seen) - for exactly the reasons mentioned above...you shouldn't have to leave the cockpit sole to get to the helm. But I also don't like the small wheels because they require a lot more work in heavier seas. For example, this PSC 37's wheel was a bit small for my taste...










On the other hand, you might find the larger wheel on my Hunter 40 to be bigger than you like...










It's all preference I suppose. BUT, I'd much rather have a dual helm than a ginormous wheel any day of the week.


----------



## bobperry

I like a nice big wheel but I'd keep it at 40" dia., maybe as much as 44" dia.. I've sailed with duel wheels starting in 1974 on the Carter 39. It was a novelty then. I think twin wheels are fine too. A lot of cruising boats have wheels too small in dia., for me. I would not go less than 30". But if we are talking boats under 40' I'd still go with a tiller anyway.


----------



## JonEisberg

Scotty C-M said:


> Jon has a good point about the "step" out of the cockpit, but I think that it has some mitigations. On the boat in his picture there are no handholds. I agree that is a recipe for trouble. The boat for sale, on the other hand, has a bimini support just forward of the step. It seems that if that support is strong, it would make a very good handhold. With that in mind, steping in or out of the cockpit of that particular boat should not be a real problem. Yes, clear decks are best, but on a boat there are always compromises. In this case the interior benefits are made possible by the step. An able bodied sea(wo)man should be able to handle that. I've not stepped aboard this boat, so this is pretty theoretical on my part.


To me, security on deck is more about where you're gonna put your _FEET_, rather than if there's a handy bimini support strut nearby to grab onto ;-) Furthermore, those bimini support bars are attached to the upper portion of the stanchions, you're a braver man than I if you're gonna trust that arrangement for your security...

;-)

Like you, I've never been aboard the boat in question, I'm just going from the pics... But from what I can tell, the ergonomics of that deck are pretty bad, and represent what I feel are one of the worst trends in many of today's Euro-style decks: namely, the gently sculpted and faceted surfaces, where the distinction between a flat surface, and one that becomes curved or bulbous, that result in one literally having to 'feel' oneself about the deck, especially in the dark...

Sadly, we just lost a member of our community who fell off a comparatively _FLAT_ foredeck of a Catalina 445... Picture yourself having to deal with a problem with the furler in sporty conditions on a sculpted deck like this one, instead:










Put aside the fact that there's nothing to hold onto forward of the shrouds (lifelines don't count, in my book) If you look closely at the pic, you will see that the only 'flat' surface on that foredeck is the extreme outer perimeter between the toerail and a line drawn from the shroud bases and the outboard/forward edges of those 3 hatches. The rest is gently sloped or crowned, and I'm guessing devoid of a non-skid surface, save for perhaps the center portion between the hatches, where the Bimbo Pad will go ;-) I sailed a number of Trintellas for years with a comparable arrangement, and even though they had teak on the flat surfaces, to me that barely noticeable faceting and melding of the deck/coachroof surfaces made for an incredibly dangerous foredeck to work on...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> ...ave for perhaps the center portion between the hatches, where the Bimbo Pad will go...


Every boat is a compromise. Long live the Bimbo Pad.


----------



## bobperry

Side decks are over rated,,,,apparently.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Side decks are over rated,,,,apparently.


When everything on them is SUPPOSED to be automated (I've never seen so many references to push button automation as in SAIL mag), and we know those electronic furlers will never fail, who needs them?


----------



## outbound

I would be much more concerned about any sort of cable steering. Have had cables jump off pulleys (blocks). It's a night mare when offshore. Cables stretch especially when new. Tightening them underway is difficult. There is nearly as little feel as hydraulics and always some play.
Current direct drive systems have little or no play nor friction and are foolproof. Twins add some friction but of more concern more to break. Also engine controls are usually only at one station so you are farther away from the action if docking on the "wrong" side.
With balanced spade forces are decreased so agree with Bob that 40" is a good size.
K&M s at 53' can come with a tiller. Tiller has the best feel. Worm gear or hydraulics the worse. Just my thoughts.others may view things differently.


----------



## outbound

Like hanging out on the high side side deck with the AP on when it's hot. When on passage walk up one side and down the other with the watch change checking stuff and for chafe. Even when there's no pressing need for going forward in weather big open side decks are important to me.


----------



## Scotty C-M

Jon makes good points about the need for clear footing, and that hand holds are also important. As he points out, the foredecks of many boats would be safer with hand holds. My Catalina 400 is a good example. One of my "To Do List" projects is to install handrails on the cabin trunk forward of the mast. On my boat the deck is pretty well deliniated from the cabin side. I can see in the picture of the Aeriodyne that there is quite a slope on the cabin side forward of the mast, but that might actually help if the boat is heeling! Again I look at handholds as very important. On my dodger and bimini, the metal supports are really stiff. I'll have to give some thought (and tug on them a bit) to examine if they really are up to the job of supporting me in a seaway. So far they seem to be up to the job.


The Catalina 400 has two wheels. I've never had a boat with that feature before, and I am very impressed with it. It makes getting fore and aft of the steering station very easy. In fact, we all pass throught the area with no problem, and it makes sailing the boat easier. I can easily go back and forth in the cockpit to handle sails or other tasks. Crew can come aft just to sit, or to take the wheel or whatever. Very comfortable. I also have a tendency to "walk the bridge" like an old time captain. I go from one side to the other, sitting on the cockpit coming or tooking forward. One reason why this feels so good is that the stern has a nice enclosed feel. I have the two stern seats and rig a removable center seat, which I remove when at anchor or dock. I'm not comfortable with the compleatly open "feel" of the Aeriodyne. I have a tendency to like to steer from leeward, so that I can see the jib. I can also walk up to weather to check forward - the visibility is great, and a wheel is always at hand. I find that the feel of the two wheels is just fine. I haven't had the boat out in real bad weather yet (and actually hope not to!), but in 30+ knot winds and 8-10 foot seas she handles fine. My typical sailing wind is about 20+ knots. The wheels are very responsive. Each wheel is on a seperate cable, so that should allow some redundancy in case of breakage. The advantages at anchor are enormous. It opens up the entire cockpit for ease of use.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ... I could be wrong, of course, but looking at that boat I see one that will require a great deal of active management, and time spent in the cockpit or at the helm by the crew to heave-to, or ride out heavy weather offshore...
> 
> ...
> Earlier this summer, I ran a smaller Beneteau Oceanis down to Lauderdale... The transom wasn't nearly as open as this, but it did share the same complete absence of any sort of stern rail or pushpit, the only thing between the helmsman and the ocean was a 3/16" coated lifeline wire strung from one quarter, to the other... I'm just a wimp, I suppose, but I found that arrangement _EXTREMELY_ disconcerting, to say the least...
> 
> ;-)


Hum, one lifeline? Normally there are three are you sure it was only one? Those lifelines can take several tons so I guess you are a bit wimp:devil I guess it is more a question of being used at it and not a safety question. Besides that with bad weather you will be clipped to the boat and will not go overboard anyway.

But that arrangement that will not diminish security will increase it in heavy situations when waves pass over the boat: Not a flooded cockpit, the waves just passes through.

Regarding the type of boat that is similar to mine you will be right if the boat was racing and max speed on bad weather was the objective. There you will have the need of a crew and lots of work.

Going in bad weather with a cruising rhythm on a boat of that type is very easy. That type of boats are very powerful (that means a huge stability) and very light. That means that with big winds you will only need a very small amount of sail to have the boat sailing at a comfortable speed, with the big stability allowing for a big control and lots of reserve stability to prevent a capsize.

Going upwind on dificult seas with 30k wind I only need a furling jib and I will be doing 35º of apparent wind at 6/6.5k. With heavier winds even less sail is required and the boat will have the power and stability to keep on sailing safely.

I think using a drogue with this type of boat makes no sense. This type of boat will sail carefully through a storm and if things come really incredibly bad, a sea anchor is a better solution.


----------



## outbound

Instead of wire have SS tube on drop down hinges as part of push pulpit to get to sugar scoop. Nice to lean against as you watch the horizons,sails and AP. don't lose ease of ingress/egress from the swim platform.
Guess the bride and I are different than Paulo. Still find motion easier in boats that float somewhat in the water than on the water such as ultra lights and fast multis. True we give up speed but being more comfortable means we can push more so don't seem to give up much on passage. So far , with admittedly little experience,we and sister ships end in the front of the pack in rallies. Trade off but think for most cruising boats dwl remains the biggest determinant. 
Agree with Paulo having the cockpit drain aft and not being dependent on scuppers is a good safety feature.


----------



## bobperry

As someone who has had the pleasure of actually designing numerous "perfect" boats for a wide range of clients I can tell you with certainty that the idea that there is one type that works best for everyone is a myth. I just gave a talk at a club where my theme was "the perfect cruising boat". I used three of my current projects that could NOT be more different. Te "perfect" boat is very subjective and depends on a wide variety of factors and personal choices. I might as well tell all of you to wear my dress shirts. They are perfect,,,for me. Hey Out,,,how are you going to look in a 17.5" neck and 36" sleeves?

I have a client now that is convinced that this is the perfect cruising boat.

I have another current client that thinks this is the perfect cruisng boat.

The two clients are 20 years apart in age and have very different family situations. Their needs are totally different. The good news is that this wide variety of tastes is what keeps my in business. I love designing diverse types.


----------



## outbound

Spot on Bob as usual. Sometimes hear the same silliness about what's a 10/10 woman or handsome man. 
I love my wife. She is forever beautiful in my eyes even as she ages. That's all that counts. She displays strengths I never knew she had. Even as a old fart she shows me new things. In some respects I think a good boat is like a loved one. It opens new horizons, tests your will, shows you its strengths and your own. 
I have great respect for Jeff and Paulo. They clearly have divergent views of things from me. But I like to test the validity of my opinions. That's how I learn. Apologize if it seems abrasive .


----------



## bobperry

Out:
If I were using a boat the way I normally do, cruising the PNW I'd favor a lighter, performance oriented Paulo style boast. But I'd have to have some distinct styling so I could avoid the "me too" look.
If I were going to do some passage making I'd favor a boat just like yours with the volume required for the necessary tankage, stores and batteries. The style of your boat would suit me just fine.

If money were no object and given how I'd use the boat I'd have to go for another FRANCIS LEE. That is one sweet sailing, very fast boat. The only change I would make is that I would add pulpits and lifelines for my own security. I like the idea of sailing something that is a very distinct styling statement.

Tomorrow I may have a different idea.


----------



## outbound

You have very good taste.

Now if I can just find a builder and N.A. Who puts ALL the service points of the auxiliary where you can get to them without losing skin I just might take a look at that boat.

Your bloody admirer .


----------



## bobperry

Thanks Out:
I'm a fan of Carl's work.

In fact I have been putting a hatch right over the top of the engine in most of my custom boats lately. It's not always possible but I have a half dozen custom boats with that hatch. It is an additional access to a door from the interior but it is right over where you need to be to service your daily items. In the carbon cutter we have port and stbd WT access doors in the saloon, a big hatch capable of allowing the engine to be removed and a smaller flush hatch ni the big hatch for maintenance. We have this concern very well covered. You can see this in the beginnings of the eng room mock up.


----------



## Nancyleeny

Don0190 said:


> I bet more boats are given up over styling, layout, and comfortably way before they are disposable due to material fatigue etc. I just looked at the local Yacthworld listings for 1970-1980 boats, I wouldn't chose to cruise on any of them. And there are lots of them for sale and most are what I consider a premium price, so it doesn't matter if they are "disposable" as in the most part no one really wants them.


I'm still in love with his boat. I'm hoping it's still available when we are ready to buy in the fall!

Bruce Hill Yacht Sales, Inc. (Shelburne, VT)

I think it's a good old boat, very well built - so I want it!


----------



## seaner97

Nancyleeny said:


> Don0190 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet more boats are given up over styling, layout, and comfortably way before they are disposable due to material fatigue etc. I just looked at the local Yacthworld listings for 1970-1980 boats, I wouldn't chose to cruise on any of them. And there are lots of them for sale and most are what I consider a premium price, so it doesn't matter if they are "disposable" as in the most part no one really wants them.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still in love with his boat. I'm hoping it's still available when we are ready to buy in the fall!
> 
> Bruce Hill Yacht Sales, Inc. (Shelburne, VT)
> 
> I think it's a good old boat, very well built - so I want it!
Click to expand...

In the world according to Don it will be, because no one wants it.


----------



## JonEisberg

seaner97 said:


> In the world according to Don it will be, because no one wants it.


LOL!

Nah, it will be because they can't _afford_ something newer, or 'fancier'...

;-)


----------



## outbound

Great idea Bob with the hatches.
Carl gave me the steps going up on hydraulics and a large hatch on either side. So I have three sided full access and the top exposed.
The problem is Yanmar puts things in funny places. For instance, the salt water impeller is on the port side with access facing aft. I didn't have an impeller puller ( now on order). There isn't enough room to get a screwdriver in from all angles to ease it out. An hour and skinned knuckles for a 10m job. My bad- tools make the worker- just venting.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> I think using a drogue with this type of boat makes no sense. This type of boat will sail carefully through a storm and if things come really incredibly bad, a sea anchor is a better solution.


Well, I can't find a good photo of the bow cleats on the Aerodyne, but I can't help but wonder whether they'd be up to the task of handling the potential forces of lying to a parachute...

Sort of like whether those stupid folding cleats on the bows of the Gunboat 55 would have lasted very long into a salvage tow...

;-)


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> LOL!
> 
> Nah, it will be because they can't _afford_ something newer, or 'fancier'...
> 
> ;-)


Nah, they just need wonder woman to bring that GOB back to life....


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> Nah, they just need wonder woman to bring that GOB back to life....


Damn, I could have used her help today... It was blowing pretty good here in the Mohawk River Valley...

Takes a pair of big balls to bring a 45-footer thru the Erie Canal solo, after all... 21 inches is just about right...

;-)

And, speaking of cleats, if there's one thing that pretty much defines most production boats, it's the inadequacy of their deck cleats... On this Freedom, one spring line, and one fender, and that midship cleat is _done..._ Fully occupied, no more room at the inn...










Doesn't really matter, however, as midship cleats on production boats are _ALWAYS_ located in the wrong spot, anyway...



If you're going the production route, make up plenty of Amsteel loops, is all I can say...

;-)

And, as long as we're on the subject of questionable deck ergonomics... But, hey, at least there's something here to grab onto...


----------



## outbound

Jon. Was taught ideally should have loops in your dock lines. Those loops should be placed over your cleats. Length of line adjusted from the dock. That way if the fecal matter hits the fan ( fire on next boat, dock detaches from piling etc.) you can get out of dodge in a N.Y. second.
How do you do that with amsteel loops? Do you agree with above technique?


----------



## Minnewaska

outbound said:


> Jon. Was taught ideally should have loops in your dock lines. Those loops should be placed over your cleats. Length of line adjusted from the dock. That way if the fecal matter hits the fan ( fire on next boat, dock detaches from piling etc.) you can get out of dodge in a N.Y. second.
> How do you do that with amsteel loops? Do you agree with above technique?


I also place spliced loops over my deck cleats (then through a closed chock, which keeps the load parallel to the deck) and tie a cleat hitch to the dock cleat. I leave my lines on the dock, so this keeps them at the right length, when I return. Unless a transient messes with them.

However, I'm trying to imagine why one way or the other would be faster when running from a fire.


----------



## IStream

outbound said:


> Great idea Bob with the hatches.
> Carl gave me the steps going up on hydraulics and a large hatch on either side. So I have three sided full access and the top exposed.
> The problem is Yanmar puts things in funny places. For instance, the salt water impeller is on the port side with access facing aft. I didn't have an impeller puller ( now on order). There isn't enough room to get a screwdriver in from all angles to ease it out. An hour and skinned knuckles for a 10m job. My bad- tools make the worker- just venting.


If you've got a 4JHT variant you may not have room for the puller due to the starter being right behind the water pump. I had good luck with these:
IRWIN Tools VISE-GRIP Locking Pliers, Original, Long Nose, 4-Inch (1602L3) - Locking Jaw Pliers - [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@31UUrcdXV4L


----------



## outbound

Start engine, throw loops off, gone.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Jon. Was taught ideally should have loops in your dock lines. Those loops should be placed over your cleats. Length of line adjusted from the dock. That way if the fecal matter hits the fan ( fire on next boat, dock detaches from piling etc.) you can get out of dodge in a N.Y. second.
> How do you do that with amsteel loops? Do you agree with above technique?


Sorry, I was referring to the utility of smaller diameter dyneema loops that can be run through cleats that are too small to accept multiple docklines fixed to them... Additional lines can simply be tied or cow-hitched to the loops, as necessary...

I also carry 4 of these larger diameter strops (got a steal on Pink Amsteel ;-)) for dealing with stuff like shorelines or docklines taken to very rough attachment points, very handy to have...










Not sure I could live with a boat without a perforated aluminum toerail... it's a pity more production boats don't have them these days, they can help cover a multitude of the builder's sins, such as poorly placed and inadequate deck cleats 

As far as leaving the ability to adjust lines from the dock, or the boat, I'll go with my One Size Fits All reply to virtually everything discussed on a sailing forum:

Namely, _'It Depends'..._

;-)

For a slip in a nice marina with floating docks, sure, adjusting lines from the dock I think is the way to go...

In locales a bit more 'rustic', however, when moored to piers not really intended for a puny little tub like mine, taking the opposite approach of being able to adjust lines on deck can save you a lot of aggro...










I once rode out the passage of a pretty intense tropical storm on a boat I was delivering alongside a commercial fish dock in North Carolina... Naturally, it all came through during the middle of the night ...

This was years before I had ever seen or heard of a Petzl headlamp. And when the power went out, everything went black, and the storm surge put the dock underwater, I was quite pleased with myself for having decided to to rig the lines to be adjustable from on board...

;-)


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Namely, _'It Depends'..._


I think you just managed to sum up the entire sordid 5 year/ 2000+ post history of this thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> *Depends*...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just managed to sum up the entire sordid 5 year/ 2000+ post history of this thread.
Click to expand...

Only if you're talking about the brand of undergarment. The closer one is to wearing those things, the more one eschews the benefits of newer designs.


----------



## GeorgeB

"Son of a B!", Jon, that white Aerodyne is "Kira" and I was looking at it on the sales dock just last Saturday. That was the same boat that MrsB and I passed on a few years ago. I don't know if it sold between then and now but the asking price is about the same. It is a very, very, clean boat. The cleats are mounted on the hull side of the deck-hull joint. But like any boat, you would need to beef up the backing if you were considering hanging on a parachute (I wouldn't).

The reason for the big wheel is so you can stand (or sit) to one side and see around. The Aerodyne is quite beamy and if you stand directly behind the wheel you have tunnel vision and can only see directly fore and aft (the windward deck blocks the view on one side and the mainsail on the other. My personal preference is to drive on the high side, but because we mostly raced, I would occasionally steer from the low side if we had a tactical situation with other boats. The nice thing about the big wheel is relatively large movements translate to minor rudder adjustments which is important on a boat with a easy to stall, high aspect rudder.

I race on a Cal40 these days that has a tiller and you need to use a tiller extender or you'll never see much more than the cockpit. It really gives me an isometric workout and it takes a lot of practice not to over steer. I have sailed on other Cal40's with a wheel conversion, and frankly, I like the tiller better on this boat.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> Only if you're talking about the brand of undergarment. The closer one is to wearing those things, the more one eschews the benefits of newer designs.


I think I'm younger than you, yet don't share your enthusiasm for newer designs. I think it more different strokes rather than age, dude.


----------



## davidpm

Since we are on the subject of production boats how do you feel about the Volvo sail-drive.
I looked at two almost identical Elan Impression's about two years apart. One had shaft drive one sail-drive.

One broker said out of dozens of boats he almost never gets a clean bill of health on the boot of the sail drive. He tells the seller to expect to discount by 10g when the survey comes in unless the boot was replaced in the last 7 years.

The other broker said the sail-drives are perfect because he had someone completely neglect the zincs and the whole leg replacement only cost a couple thousand.

I'm pretty sure both stories thought well told are not true. What has been your experience?


----------



## Jaramaz

davidpm said:


> Since we are on the subject of production boats how do you feel about the Volvo sail-drive.
> I looked at two almost identical Elan Impression's about two years apart. One had shaft drive one sail-drive.
> 
> One broker said out of dozens of boats he almost never gets a clean bill of health on the boot of the sail drive. He tells the seller to expect to discount by 10g when the survey comes in unless the boot was replaced in the last 7 years.
> 
> The other broker said the sail-drives are perfect because he had someone completely neglect the zincs and the whole leg replacement only cost a couple thousand.
> 
> I'm pretty sure both stories thought well told are not true. What has been your experience?


Saildrive is complex but faster to install when building the boat (in an article I read some time ago it was claimed Bav complete mounting time for an engine is lower than 1 hour). The rubber thing is recommended to be replaced every 7th year (this is just the recommendation, the rubber thing seems to last forever). That is a huge operation ... ie saildrive requires much more maintenance.
Two areas are somewhat risky with the saildrive: The complex mechanics and the rubber thing. Seems to be rather few problems with either, however.
Propeller is mounted on a shaft with splines, these are easily destroyed is mounting is not made fully correct (which may happen) resulting in expensive replacements.

Shaft drive is far more simple, then also to maintain. It is possible to install an vibration damping solution (as the aqua-drive), and then use softer feet for the engine mount which all will result in much lower vibrations, and hopefully lower sound levels. 
With the flat bottoms of many sailboats of today, very long shafts are needed, which then often requires a so called P-bracket - its mounting is often a weak point.

All in all, most often a shaft drive it preferred by the users, but the boat builders use saildrive to keep building costs down.

/J


----------



## PCP

davidpm said:


> Since we are on the subject of production boats how do you feel about the Volvo sail-drive.
> I looked at two almost identical Elan Impression's about two years apart. One had shaft drive one sail-drive.
> 
> One broker said out of dozens of boats he almost never gets a clean bill of health on the boot of the sail drive. He tells the seller to expect to discount by 10g when the survey comes in unless the boot was replaced in the last 7 years.
> 
> The other broker said the sail-drives are perfect because he had someone completely neglect the zincs and the whole leg replacement only cost a couple thousand.
> 
> I'm pretty sure both stories thought well told are not true. What has been your experience?


That makes sense since the seal on the sail drive should be changed each 7 years. Insurance companies would not pay if the seal is older than that. It is not a very costly operation (I changed mine this year).


----------



## davidpm

PCP said:


> That makes sense since the seal on the sail drive should be changed each 7 years. Insurance companies would not pay if the seal is older than that. It is not a very costly operation (I changed mine this year).


may i ask what it cost to replace


----------



## Jaramaz

davidpm said:


> may i ask what it cost to replace


Hmpf! May I suggest you two gents to read my earlier posting .... Ahhh, good. So then we do not need to repeat, do we?

Replacing the rubber thing (it is partly a seal) requires some work, so it depends on if you do it yourself or the hourly rate of the one doing it.

The parts costs ... some few houndreds $. Max $1000 (looking on local prices, then all parts are included but all doesn't have to be replaced).

The work ... usually takes about a day. Boat has to be hauled. Time needed depends on the boat, engine and engine mount. The saildrive has to be taken off it's mount and tilted somewhat. Sometimes the engine has to be dismounted and shifted somewhat. Old rubber removed, new is mounted. Some glue on the underside. 
(simplified version of course. )

It is simple work, anyone can do it. Thus, if you pay for it to be done, you can expect some extra charge according to the normal rule.

As said earlier, ther rubber is high quality. It does last far longer than 7 years, at least where I am sailing 

/J


----------



## Jeff_H

There is a bunch from the past week above that I want to respond to but have not had the time. I have had a Buhk Saildrive in one of my boats, and dealt peripherally with Volvo in a boat that I raced on. I strongly disagree that they are less maintenance. 

To replace the 'bellows' on the Buhk was over $1,600 in parts, plus shipping but then there is also a separate hull cover that was more than $1,000. My recollection was that the lower drive had to be removed from the engine to remove the old bellows and that there was not room to get the bellows out and the new bellows in without pulling the whole engine. All that had to be done out of the water. Its not a small cheap job. 

The Volvo was a little easier, but it required enough room above and aft of the engine to be able to rotate the saildrive out of the engine compartment. The mechanic apparently said that there is rarely adequate room above the sail drive to rotate them out of place. I seem to recall the Volvo owner saying his parts were worse than the Buhk parts, but I could have that wrong. 

And its not just the seals between the hull and saildrive leg. There is also a proprietary seal at the propshaft, which is not all that expensive but has a short life and which requires the leg to be opened so you end up with the transmission exposed and needing to buy a gasket kit and make sure it all goes together water tight. If the shaft or case seals fail the transmission is toast. Additionally there is a very short run time between transmission fluid changes and the boat needs to be hauled to replace the transmission fluid. 

Then there is the proprietary propeller issue. Outdrives require specialized props with isolators and splines that are machined to match the prop shaft splines. These things are short lived and wildly expensive, and leaves you stuck dealing with a company who does not care about customer service because they also know that you can't go anywhere else. 

Jeff


----------



## PCP

Jaramaz said:


> ...
> 
> Replacing the rubber thing (it is partly a seal) requires some work, so it depends on if you do it yourself or the hourly rate of the one doing it.
> 
> The parts costs ... some few houndreds $. Max $1000 (looking on local prices, then all parts are included but all doesn't have to be replaced).
> 
> The work ... usually takes about a day. Boat has to be hauled. Time needed depends on the boat, engine and engine mount. The saildrive has to be taken off it's mount and tilted somewhat. Sometimes the engine has to be dismounted and shifted somewhat. Old rubber removed, new is mounted. Some glue on the underside.
> (simplified version of course. )
> 
> It is simple work, anyone can do it. Thus, if you pay for it to be done, you can expect some extra charge according to the normal rule.
> 
> As said earlier, ther rubber is high quality. It does last far longer than 7 years, at least where I am sailing
> 
> /J


Regarding taking the engine out I believe that is not by accident that seven period interval because on most cases it is when it is convenient to take also the engine out to have a more complete revision (each seven years).

Most will time the change of the saildrive seal with the bigger work on the engine (that's what I have done) so the cost of replacing it is practically the one of the piece because taking the engine out is a very fast and easy work.


----------



## PCP

davidpm said:


> may i ask what it cost to replace


You may but I don't know. I paid for the overall of the engine (new water pump and a complete overall -
about 7500 work hours), the engine was taken out. The saildrive was also completely dismounted and reviewed. I don't remember the price of the seal but I know that the hours for mounting were almost neal.

If I can remember right all the work and pieces costed about 2500 euros but as I have paid it with the year boat storage on the hard and more some works and bits I cannot be sure.


----------



## davidpm

So while we are on the subject of engines I'm getting wildly different opinions regarding Volvo. Many of the cool kids boats seem to have Volvo's. Every European boat I have seen recently has a Volvo. I've been looking at the Euro boats because as Jeff has mentioned they seem to be doing more modern rigs.

One guy said that the Volvo had a reputation of having very expensive parts but that has changed and now they are comparable. At the same time he said he can order a new boat with Volvo or Yanmar and the Volvo costs several K more.

I'm thinking that the Volvo really does cost significantly more to repair. Am I wrong.

Combine with sail-drive and I'm thinking it is especially expensive.


----------



## Minnewaska

davidpm said:


> .........I'm thinking that the Volvo really does cost significantly more to repair. Am I wrong.
> 
> Combine with sail-drive and I'm thinking it is especially expensive.


By significantly more, I assume you are referring to significantly more than a Yanmar. I don't know, I think it depends.

First, if you have a modern Volvo, parts are going to be readily accessible online. Older, outdated models are more difficult in all manufacturers. I have a Volvo and generally, I don't find routine parts all that much more of a rip off than any other "marine" thing. Yanmar is still a "marine" thing.

Some odds parts do get your attention. I needed to replace my turbo, which was 3k. First, try not to have a sailboat motor with a turbo at all. Second, if you do, take care of them. I don't think my PO every cleaned it or checked the wastegate. Ever. The wastegate was frozen open and the turbo coked up.

For my boat, you could get either a V or Y. The advantage of the V was that it ran at a lower RPM and is much quieter. It's impeller is in the front and incredibly easy to access. The Y impeller is on the side and you have to change it blindly. Finally, my V is SOLAS rated. I have no idea what make a motor SOLAS rated and my blown turbo really has my head scratching over that one. Although, the motor never stopped running, I will give it that.

As for a saildrive.... Personally, I would never have a sailboat with a saildrive, no matter the manufacturer. That's one huge hole in the bottom of the boat that is essentially irreparable at sea, if it presents a serious problem. They can make the boat more maneuverable at the dock, but get a bow thruster instead.


----------



## Jeff_H

I don't find saildrives as easy to use in a docking maneuver. They have almost no propwalk and and are often further from the rudder so you can't back and fill with them. 

Jeff


----------



## bobperry

I find saildrives EASIER to use docking. I think they back better. I am a fan of sail drives. My last boat was built in 1978 with a Volvo and sail drive. I owned that boat for 15 years and I never had a single problem with it.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

PCP said:


> Regarding taking the engine out I believe that is not by accident that seven period interval because on most cases it is when it is convenient to take also the engine out to have a more complete revision (each seven years).
> 
> Most will time the change of the saildrive seal with the bigger work on the engine (that's what I have done) so the cost of replacing it is practically the one of the piece because taking the engine out is a very fast and easy work.


You take the engine out every 7 years as part of routine maintenance? Wow! You take preventive maintenance much more serious than I do.

I put less than than 50 hours on my motor per year (mainly to get in and out of the slip). Doing a complete rebuild of the engine after less than 350 hours? Not for me.


----------



## robert sailor

Builders love saildrives because it doesn't take highly skilled person to install them and they are cheaper. Designers love them because they take less room and are very easy to design around. Given a choice I would avoid sail drives.


----------



## bobperry

I have designed lots of boats with sail drives and I have owned a boat for 15 years with a sail drive. So I am not your typical dockside "expert". Given the choice I would go saildrive in a heartbeat. I like the horizontal shaft. I like the compact installation. I like the performance. I like the low drag.


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> I don't find saildrives as easy to use in a docking maneuver. They have almost no propwalk and and are often further from the rudder so you can't back and fill with them.
> 
> Jeff


It all depends on the distance from the propeller to the rudder. Typically a saildrive is considerably more far away from the rudder so generally I agree with you.

On my boat, for good weight distribution, the engine is particularly forward and the propeller is at the vertical of the beginning of the cockpit (and that is a long one). For good efficiency the rudder is as far back as possible so as you can imagine practically no rudder/propeller thrust effect. Happily the boat is light the rudder effective and the boat turns in a boat length using the side effect of the propeller.

Regarding propwalk I disagree. It seems to me that it has more with the propeller design than with being a saildrive or not. I changed two year ago the propeller and the new one has a much bigger propwalk, not just a bit more but maybe over two times more.


----------



## bobperry

On the Andrews 70's that Dennis Choate built the saildrive was right behind the trailing edge of the fin. It could hardly have been further from the rudder. You could not have asked for a better behaved boat under power, at any speed or direction. I was doing a cruising version of the Andrews 70 so I wanted to try one out to see how it performed. It was perfect! I never worry about the distance between the rudder and the prop unless I am worried about it being TOO CLOSE!

I agree with PCP, prop walk has nothing to do with the installation being a saildrive.


----------



## robert sailor

I agree on the prop walk. Had an Autoprop 3 blade and very little prop walk just installed a Flexofold 3 blade, lots of prop walk.


----------



## JonEisberg

Jeff_H said:


> I don't find saildrives as easy to use in a docking maneuver. They have almost no propwalk and and are often further from the rudder so you can't back and fill with them.
> 
> Jeff


I'm with you on that, Jeff - I'm way too spoiled by the effectiveness of using propwash against my rudder, and a couple of the saildrives I've run have virtually required the addition of a bow thruster in close quarters...

IMHO, it's tough to beat the simplicity of a straight drive propulsion system, keeping the shaft inline with the engine's crankshaft... In theory, at least, I don't like the added complexity of introducing _NOT ONE, BUT *TWO RIGHT ANGLE BENDS*_ into a boat's propulsion system... There has to be some additional loss of horsepower between the engine and the prop as well, although probably no more - and quite likely less - than the loss of drive due to the non-horizontal angle of most conventional shaft drives...

Couple of other downsides I see...

I would be VERY concerned about the potential corrosion issues on a saildrive on a boat that lives in a marina, where the possibility of stray current issues can be very real...

For anyone intending to venture to places like New England, or the Keys, it seems to me (just a hunch, I don't know for sure) that if you wanted to fit a set of Spurs or other line cutters, that could involve a rather expensive modification to the shaft of a standard saildrive...

The major issue for me is one you've already mentioned, the requirement to haul the boat on some units to change the gear oil... I generally try to change the fluid in my little Hurth gearbox every 250-300 hours... My last interval happend to come last summer when I was about as far north as I had gotten in Labrador, I think the closest travel lift was about 400 miles south ;-) I simply can't imagine having to haul the boat every time to perform such a matter of routine maintenance...

Finally, there's the matter of the seal, which of course seems to be the primary concern... Just happened to read this today in the Letters of the latest LATITUDE 38:



> DON'T NEGLECT YOUR SAILDRIVE'S SEALS
> 
> I really enjoyed the May issue detail on the saildrive cone clutch rebuild the Wanderer and his friends did on Profligate.
> 
> Just so everyone knows, many of those saildrives are reaching an age where major work will be needed. Quite a few years ago we had to do a major repair on Pendragon 4's saildrive, as the rubber seals were over 90% wasted. It would have been catastrophic if they'd failed, as that would have left a 12-inch hole in the bottom. *I don't think most owners of boats with saildrives are aware how the double seals age, and that it's almost impossible to inspect the outside seal.*
> 
> Mike Priest
> Marina del Rey


For anyone who's intrested, scroll down to the cautionary tale of an issue with Yanmar saildrives from LATITUDE's May issue:



> THE CONE CLUTCH CONUNDRUM -
> 
> Yanmar designs and manufactures
> excellent diesel engines, which are ubiq-
> uitous on sailboats. Unfortunately, we
> think that many boat owners and marine
> mechanics would agree that the same
> can't be said for the reliability of Yanmar
> saildrives, be they SD-30s, 40s or 50s.
> 
> For many years
> Yanmar denied there was
> a design or manufactur-
> ing problem with their
> saildrives. More recently
> they have all but admit-
> ted there was a problem
> by announcing that the
> checking, lapping or re-
> placing of the cone drive
> every 500 hours is now
> a 'standard maintenance
> item' as opposed to a re-
> pair. Five hundred hours
> is a ridiculously short
> time to call for such heavy
> 'maintenance', particu-
> larly when compared with
> straight shafts. Further-
> more, Yanmar now calls
> for the cone drives to be replaced every
> 2,000 hours...
> 
> http://www.latitude38.com/eBooks/2015/L38201505-2.pdf


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Only if you're talking about the brand of undergarment. *The closer one is to wearing those things, the more one eschews the benefits of newer designs.*


I dunno, seems to me there are still some Young Punks out there who appreciate the value of moderation in design, and quality of builds which have stood the test of some time...

Take these 2 young ladies, one choose wisely, the other not quite so well...

2 guesses whose boat was likely fitted with a saildrive...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I dunno, seems to me there are still some Young Punks out there who appreciate the value of moderation in design, and quality of builds which have stood the test of some time...
> 
> Take these 2 young ladies, one choose wisely, the other not quite so well...
> 
> 2 guesses whose boat was likely fitted with a saildrive...
> 
> ;-)


What's that boat that Abby is on? That definitely doesn't look like an Open 40.


----------



## chall03

FWIW - Jessica then skippered a Sydney 38 in the Sydney to Hobart.










The Sydney 38 is anything but moderate, has an huge wheel and a sail drive  
My wife was bow chick on a very successfully campaigned Sydney 38 for a number of years BC including a lot of the offshore calendar. She loved that boat, an absolute bucket of fun.

Now though she is as set on a moderate 'bluewater' design as I am for our voyaging with the kids.

So i guess..........it depends.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> So i guess..........it depends.


Agreed... I'd say quite a bit depends upon whether you're sailing non-stop around the world via the Great Capes singlehanded, or doing a 600 mile race with a crew of 8...

;-)


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Agreed... I'd say quite a bit depends upon whether you're sailing non-stop around the world via the Great Capes singlehanded, or doing a 600 mile race with a crew of 8...
> 
> ;-)


Well......yes.

Unless the 600 mile race_ is across Bass Strait_ then I would also personally be happier on the S & S 34 there as well....


----------



## outbound

Always wondered why you rarely see boats with jack shafts. Then could put engine dab smack in the middle of the boat. And have a horizontal shaft to the screw. Have screw near rudder. Even could have long tube inside the bilge with internal bearings and grease fittings like on a ship. That way do away with PSS or stuffing box. 
Was on a steel Puffin done up that way. Add a dry stack and nearly foolproof.


----------



## Capt Len

An application of form following function. When boats needed a cargo/fish hold, the engine had to go foreward or .squeezed into the stern. Some older classics sailers had the engine in the bow where the buoyancy was and a long jack shaft on pillow bearings Most of our west coast fish boats were like that and were capable of flopping over unless loaded low with fish .With 'modern' designs with a fat stern section and a priority for big living space ,not so good . Besides, engine access is the job of the hired help and most boaters would say 'what's that?' if it were under the saloon table.


----------



## outbound

I'm the hired help most times.


----------



## PCP

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> You take the engine out every 7 years as part of routine maintenance? Wow! You take preventive maintenance much more serious than I do.
> 
> I put less than than 50 hours on my motor per year (mainly to get in and out of the slip). Doing a complete rebuild of the engine after less than 350 hours? Not for me.


I was assuming cruising boats that cruise. I make about 3000nm a year and even if I use the engine 1/3 of the time (and that includes motorsailing) that will give about 200 hours a year. Not counting the hours that the engine is working on anchorages to charge the batteries, but if one cruises for several months a year only that could be more than the 50 hours you are talking about

Most will use the engine half the time (including motorsailig) and that will give about 300 hours a year. In seven years you will have about 1400 to 2100 hours on the engine and yes it is time to make a first serious inspection on the engine with substitution of some parts, like the water pump (not the sea water one) that in some cases need the engine to be lifted.

Of course I am not talking about daysailers but about cruising boats that do what they were designed for: cruising


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> On the Andrews 70's that Dennis Choate built the saildrive was right behind the trailing edge of the fin. It could hardly have been further from the rudder. You could not have asked for a better behaved boat under power, at any speed or direction. I was doing a cruising version of the Andrews 70 so I wanted to try one out to see how it performed. It was perfect! I never worry about the distance between the rudder and the prop unless I am worried about it being TOO CLOSE!
> 
> I agree with PCP, prop walk has nothing to do with the installation being a saildrive.


I guess you are talking about a completely different thing. Jeff was not talking about a behaved boat under power in any direction but about *docking maneuvers* and in what regards that a propeller near the rudder is an added help.


----------



## JonEisberg

davidpm said:


> So while we are on the subject of engines I'm getting wildly different opinions regarding Volvo. Many of the cool kids boats seem to have Volvo's. Every European boat I have seen recently has a Volvo. I've been looking at the Euro boats because as Jeff has mentioned they seem to be doing more modern rigs.
> 
> One guy said that the Volvo had a reputation of having very expensive parts but that has changed and now they are comparable. At the same time he said he can order a new boat with Volvo or Yanmar and the Volvo costs several K more.
> 
> I'm thinking that the Volvo really does cost significantly more to repair. Am I wrong.
> 
> Combine with sail-drive and I'm thinking it is especially expensive.


Once again, a question with no simple answer, and the best of which might yet again be _"It Depends"..._ ;-)

In this instance, upon _which particular model Volvo_ you're referring to...

The Volvo 2030 was a very popular installation in many Euro boats back in the 90's, for example... It's actually the same engine as mine, a Perkins 100 Series M-30 Perama that Perkins sold to Volvo, who painted it their own color, added a few of their own accessories, and re-branded it a Volvo...

Turns out the engine is made by a Japanese outfit named Shibauhara (sp?), and is one of the most popular light industrial/tractor engines in the world, the same one used by companies like Massey-Ferguson and New Holland in many of their products... Once one has figured that out, and done the research in cross checking part numbers, you could order parts from a tractor supply house at a fraction of the cost of same from Volvo, or Perkins...

For instance, Trans-Atlantic Diesel wants almost $700 for the starter for my Perkins. I can get the same Hitachi starter from Budda's Auto & Marine Electric on eBay ( a GREAT vendor, btw, highly recommended) for something like $170...

So, in order to determine the answer to your question, you have to do some digging... A Volvo 2030 could be one of the most affordable diesels you would ever own... But a different model entirely of Volvo's own manufacture and using their proprietary parts, might easily be the most expensive...

As always, _It Depends..._

;-)


----------



## davidpm

JonEisberg said:


> So, in order to determine the answer to your question, you have to do some digging... A Volvo 2030 could be one of the most affordable diesels you would ever own... But a different model entirely of Volvo's own manufacture and using their proprietary parts, might easily be the most expensive...
> 
> As always, _It Depends..._
> 
> ;-)


Wow I knew Universal uses Kuboto blocks but didn't know that Volvo didn't make all their blocks.

Is their a central repository of that knowledge or does one have to just do random searching?

What about the newer Volvo's after 2000 for example?

You seem pretty knowledgeable what is your take on the sail-drive?


----------



## JonEisberg

ir


davidpm said:


> Wow I knew Universal uses Kuboto blocks but didn't know that Volvo didn't make all their blocks.
> 
> Is their a central repository of that knowledge or does one have to just do random searching?
> 
> What about the newer Volvo's after 2000 for example?
> 
> You seem pretty knowledgeable...


LOL! Once again, _That Depends..._ ;-)

I'm not aware of any "central repository" of this sort of info, but that's not so say one might not exist... My knowledge of Volvos is not very extensive, I basically only know the 2030 that is the equivalent of mine, and the fact that I don't care at all for the older 2003 series, I've had some problems with those, and they don't seem to enjoy the best reputation...

Oh, and that the air filter Volvo supplies for their 2030 is a total piece of crap, some chintzy piece of foam that falls apart very quickly (Where it quickly gets ingested into the air intake, of course)... And, they want an obscene amount of money for the assembly... With a 3" diameter silicone hose elbow off eBay for $9, and a nice filter from K&N, I have a far superior setup for a fraction of the price...



davidpm said:


> ...what is your take on the sail-drive?


I'm not a big fan... I thought I made that pretty clear in Post #2105, no?

;-)


----------



## miatapaul

outbound said:


> Always wondered why you rarely see boats with jack shafts. Then could put engine dab smack in the middle of the boat. And have a horizontal shaft to the screw. Have screw near rudder. Even could have long tube inside the bilge with internal bearings and grease fittings like on a ship. That way do away with PSS or stuffing box.
> Was on a steel Puffin done up that way. Add a dry stack and nearly foolproof.


Some of the Yamaha's had motors up under the v-birth and had a long shaft. .


----------



## Capt Len

I think the Yamaha's were prone to hydro locking in the least following sea. Could it be the long exhaust hose and the effect of surging the full length? I just tow 'em in.


----------



## bobperry

Nope Paulo, wrong. Rudder has it's own job. Some of the very best behaving boats under power I know have the the prop a long distance from the rudder. This goes for very slow speed manouvering. Reality. I have proven this over and over with my designs. But don't let me stop you from guessing.


----------



## mitiempo

outbound said:


> Always wondered why you rarely see boats with jack shafts. Then could put engine dab smack in the middle of the boat. And have a horizontal shaft to the screw. Have screw near rudder. Even could have long tube inside the bilge with internal bearings and grease fittings like on a ship. That way do away with PSS or stuffing box.
> Was on a steel Puffin done up that way. Add a dry stack and nearly foolproof.


You still need a stuffing box or pss seal. The shaft has to exit somewhere.


----------



## jerryrlitton

PCP said:


> I guess you are talking about a completely different thing. Jeff was not talking about a behaved boat under power in any direction but about *docking maneuvers* and in what regards that a propeller near the rudder is an added help.


Yes Paulo, you are correct despite what the _experts_ say. I am sure there are a few more factors however generally the closer the prop wash is to the control surface the more effective the control surface is especially during docking. You can have the rudder so far from the prop wash that unless the boat/rudder is moving relative to the water there will be no lift/thrust from the control surface. Bob mentioned low speed maneuvering and we can only imagine by low speed he meant through the water as opposed to over ground. With low speed through the water there is some control however without any movement through the the water you are SOL as far as rudder effectiveness UNLESS you have some prop wash. Prop wash induces relative flow. There are as in life exceptions. However you are correct.


----------



## outbound

M- maybe be wrong but thought if you have a long tube filled with heavy wt. grease and space between tube inside and shaft is small there is no need for stuffing box or PSS.


----------



## jerryrlitton

outbound said:


> M- maybe be wrong but thought if you have a long tube filled with heavy wt. grease and space between tube inside and shaft is small there is no need for stuffing box or PSS.


Eventually the grease will be replaced with water.


----------



## outbound

Thought you have grease fittings and just pump in more grease time to time. Didn't think ships had PSS.
I have PSS. New one needing no burping. Still makes me nervous. Have retainer so shaft can't fall out. Still makes me nervous. Still makes me less nervous than a sail drive. Worry about grounding, electrolysis, splines, greasing and a big hole in the boat with leaks I can't plug with those. 
Don't know why anyone goes to sea. .


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> Don't know why anyone goes to sea. .


Because......


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Nope Paulo, wrong. Rudder has it's own job. Some of the very best behaving boats under power I know have the the prop a long distance from the rudder. This goes for very slow speed manouvering. Reality. I have proven this over and over with my designs. But don't let me stop you from guessing.


You mean in what regarding *Docking manoeuvers*?

I guess that's why all motorboats have the rudder far away from the propeller.:wink A sailboat while doing docking maneuvers is just another motorboat.


----------



## PCP

jerryrlitton said:


> Yes Paulo, you are correct despite what the _experts_ say. I am sure there are a few more factors however generally the closer the prop wash is to the control surface the more effective the control surface is especially during docking. You can have the rudder so far from the prop wash that unless the boat/rudder is moving relative to the water there will be no lift/thrust from the control surface. Bob mentioned low speed maneuvering and we can only imagine by low speed he meant through the water as opposed to over ground. With low speed through the water there is some control however without any movement through the the water you are SOL as far as rudder effectiveness UNLESS you have some prop wash. Prop wash induces relative flow. There are as in life exceptions. However you are correct.


Yes I know:smile

Many years ago when I was trying to dock the first boat with saildrive (after many years sailing boats with conventional drives) trying using the engine flow on rudder to control the boat (almost with no effect) my neighbor at the marina, a very experienced British cruiser said to me:

"New to saildrives I bet!!!"

I said yes and he give me an advise that had served me well since then: "With a sail drive it is better to maneuver as if you don't have an engine to help."

No use on most saildrives to try to use engine rudder effect even if a propeller with a considerable prope walk, well used, can be a big help,I mean in what regards using the engine.


----------



## jerryrlitton

PCP said:


> Yes I know:smile


I knew that you know, I just wanted to help Bob out. After all, he just thought you were "guessing".


----------



## Jeff_H

I rarely disagree with Bob, but I have to say that I am on the 'prop-walk, and prop thrust against the rudder camp is a good thing' in this discussion. To me prop-walk, and prop thrust against the rudder can be a very useful in slow speed maneuvering, even if it is less efficient than an outdrive when motoring. With the rudder hard over, using back and fill, I can spin my boat in a circle to starboard in a space with a diameter just a half a dozen feet longer than her length. 

I had a similar experience with getting on the helm of a boat with a saildrive for the first time in years that was similar to Paulo's story. Last year, I ended up as the helmsman for the bulk of the Governor's Cup on a Beneteau First 44.7 and I so ended up on the helm when we brought her in. 

It was a tight parallel spot on the dock and so before approaching the dock I experimented with trying to maneuver at slow speed. I approached a mooring buoy to use as a gauge of changes in speed and direction. I put the boat in reverse and upped the throttle and while the boat slowed to a stop, it did not change direction. I tried backing and filling a few times before I realized that I only had a small amount of 'spin' in forward from the rudder hard over and that this spin was pretty much the same turning either way. It took me a little while to realize this was a saildrive with a maxprop. I think that you get used to what you know, and I know prop walk. It made for a very nervous docking maneuver; one that made me glad to have 8 crewmates, big fenders, and a quickly placed bow breastline and stern spring, to help make it look perfectly executed. 

Jeff


----------



## bobperry

I totally agree that some prop walk can help IN SOME docking or tight maneuvers. 

But I think I'd rather have no prop walk. On the P'winkle with a sail drive pretty much as far from the big outboard rudder as possible I had pretty much no prop walk that I ever noticed. But I could spin that boat on a dime and it backed like a champ and went where I pointed it. That was very comforting. I'd go with that any day over prop walk. For every time that prop walk can help you there is a time when prop walk fights you. I never needed any help from prop walk on the P'winkle.

FRANCIS LEE is the same way and Kim loves to show off the maneuverability around the dock. With a big spade rudder FL is certainly NOT a powerboat and does not need prop walk for any assist. It's exactly the same with ICON. Prop well forward and big spade rudder well aft. The boat is a pussycat to maneuver and certainly not ever a "powerboat" with dinky little low aspect ratio rudders. Same with ELYSIUM the modified Andrews 70 I did. It's a pussycat under power and maneuvers like a champ with no prop walk. I like the comfort of not having to deal with prop walk and I can assure you that many of my traditional shaft installation boats have had prop walk and some too much.


----------



## Jaramaz

Hm, this was interesting ...

from saildrive to prop walk to rudders. Dependences everywhere!

So we agree now that saildrive and prop walk are rather independent? With the rather free position of the prop in a saildrive then that should give minimum propwalk. The rest is up to the prop itself and such. 

Good, then we move on to if prop walk is a good quality or not. Clearly, prop walk decreases efficiency, moving some of the engine power off course instead of directly on course. From that perspective, prop walk is not a good quality.
Is prop walk good when manoeuvring in tight quarters? May be so, sometimes. Can also cause some issues now and then - OK, to that some always says: never happens me. However, when studying how most boats move around in a harbour - for most prop walk is not good. 

Rudder function should be separated from the prop. That is obvious. A carefully designed rudder, correctly placed - it is possible to fully control the boat. If not, it is not correctly designed. (Yes, I have also been sailing on these nice long keeled things with the rudder attached at the end. That is a good example of "design by tradition". ).

The arguments that it is good with a dependence rudder - prop just stems from badly functioning rudders (as the long keeled things). 

/J


----------



## Jeff_H

Jaramaz said:


> Hm, this was interesting ...
> 
> from saildrive to prop walk to rudders. Dependences everywhere!
> 
> So we agree now that saildrive and prop walk are rather independent? With the rather free position of the prop in a saildrive then that should give minimum propwalk. The rest is up to the prop itself and such.
> 
> Good, then we move on to if prop walk is a good quality or not. Clearly, prop walk decreases efficiency, moving some of the engine power off course instead of directly on course. From that perspective, prop walk is not a good quality.
> Is prop walk good when manoeuvring in tight quarters? May be so, sometimes. Can also cause some issues now and then - OK, to that some always says: never happens me. However, when studying how most boats move around in a harbour - for most prop walk is not good.
> 
> Rudder function should be separated from the prop. That is obvious. A carefully designed rudder, correctly placed - it is possible to fully control the boat. If not, it is not correctly designed. (Yes, I have also been sailing on these nice long keeled things with the rudder attached at the end. That is a good example of "design by tradition". ).
> 
> The arguments that it is good with a dependence rudder - prop just stems from badly functioning rudders (as the long keeled things).
> 
> /J


With all due respect, I think that is a bit of an oversimplification. I think that Bob makes a good case that with a properly shaped rudder and a familiarity with not having propwalk, then maneuverability should not be an issue. And I will defer to Paulo's point that the choice of propeller influences propwalk as much than having a saildrive.

But I am less comfortable with the idea that separating the prop from the rudder is a good thing in low speed maneuvers. It is still very helpful in turning the boat to be able to send a blast of propwash over the rudder and spin the stern. I have come think that the current trend towards installing bow thrusters on ever smaller boats, is in part a response to the wider spread use of saildrives, along with the philosophy of making things easy for someone who has not learned the techniques and who is not willing to expend the energy to do things the more traditional ways.

Jeff


----------



## JonEisberg

Jeff_H said:


> With all due respect, I think that is a bit of an oversimplification. I think that Bob makes a good case that with a properly shaped rudder and a familiarity with not having propwalk, then maneuverability should not be an issue. And I will defer to Paulo's point that the choice of propeller influences propwalk as much than having a saildrive.
> 
> But I am less comfortable with the idea that separating the prop from the rudder is a good thing in low speed maneuvers. It is still very helpful in turning the boat to be able to send a blast of propwash over the rudder and spin the stern. I have come think that the current trend towards installing bow thrusters on ever smaller boats, is in part a response to the wider spread use of saildrives, along with the philosophy of making things easy for someone who has not learned the techniques and who is not willing to expend the energy to do things the more traditional ways.
> 
> Jeff


As usual, I completely agree... But all I'm ever good for might be an 'anecdote' as to what works best _FOR ME_, so I'll offer my latest example... 

Just returned from running a Freedom 45 out to Vermillion, Ohio (what a beautiful spot, btw) and as a result much of last week was spent on the Erie Canal... I love that trip, but it's definitely far better done on a stinkpot, without that irreplaceable bit of carbon fiber dangling off each end... That can make for a bit of 'delicate' maneuvering from time to timed during the course of transiting 36 locks, or docking in some funky spots unaccustomed to dealing with boats of this size... ;-)










Running the Barge Canal is not especially difficult, but the occasional tricky situation can be magnified a bit when doing it alone, and with a deck somewhat littled with parts of the rig ;-) But the only thing that can make it a bit dicey when singlehanded, is _WIND_... And while I was blessed with a week of beautiful weather last week, seeming more like September than July in upstate NY, I did have to contend with a good amount of breeze... by every afternoon, it would be honking out of the west, and my crossing of Oneida Lake was about as sporty as you'll likely ever see...

One can often find a surprising amount of swirling wind effect when entering an empty lock chanber, often exacerbated by side currents from dams adjacent to the lock, all while entering the chamber at a snail's pace... You definitely want a boat responsive to the helm, especially one without a bow thruster... But the real challenge during windy conditions when the lock is filled, and the boat is fully exposed to the effects of the breeze...

So, all I can say is, when it came time to jump back aboard this boat with relatively high freeboard and a fair amount of windage, and maneuver that beautifully Awlgripped hull out from between the confines of those steel and concrete lock walls, with a good breeze swilrling about, no assistance from a bow thruster, _from a dead stop_, well.... I was damn thankful the prop on that boat was _closer_ to the rudder, as opposed to being _further away_... I rarely had the _Time_, or the _Room_, to wait for the boat to get some way on before getting some water flowing over the rudder, and thus gaining some directional control as a result...

;-))


----------



## bobperry

But Jon, you have no idea how that particular boat would have behaved if the prop had been farther away. All you can do is speculate. Of course I recognize you have a lot of experience to speculate with. But so do I.

I do not believe in generalizing on these things. It's just silly. I treat each boat as an individual.
For instance, what is "father away"? How are you measuring that? As a percentage of DWL? Or are you even measuring it at all? We are swimming, some are dog paddling, is a sea of undefined variables here. Does not work for me.


----------



## Capt Len

An afternoon hanging around any dock will tell you of the handling skills of the modern sailor. Entertainment. using prop wash off the rudder means you don't need the bow thruster .If there's wind, prop walk only makes it a bit easier one way over the other. Skilled bursts of wash .Thane could go around and around slow inside a 55 ' circle just left in foreward at idle ,turn a 180 in her length at full sp and power and move sideways into a slip with a few back and fill. Only 22 tons but I knew where the pivot point was . Seems most now just get a stern line ashore and hope some one will pull on it.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> But Jon, you have no idea how that particular boat would have behaved if the prop had been farther away. All you can do is speculate. Of course I recognize you have a lot of experience to speculate with. But so do I.


I suppose you're right, I'm just guessing....

But my initial guess would be, that in order to get some water flowing past that rudder from a dead stop, I might have had to apply a hell of a lot more _throttle_ to a prop placed further forward...

;-)


----------



## Capt Len

Close to rudder is relative. When I changed to a Max prop I had to cut an arc out of the leading edge of the rudder to allow for the fatter blades.Rudder was balanced some 8% leading the pivot .Even cutting out a little sliver made a huge difference (negative) on ease of steering when using the prop wash to kick the stern about.


----------



## Jeff_H

I have a bunch of questions directed at me that I have not answered.

Starting with Outbound's question about my sail cloth, it is panel constructed Aramid with sheet polyester skins (Mylar), stick on sun screens, and lots of sacrificial wear patches.



davidpm said:


> Wow those boats are considered racer, cruser?
> 
> That big destroyer wheel and open back makes me immediately think racer.
> Do people really live on a boat like that for an extended amount of time and cruse. I'll have to check into that. I love the idea of making good time especially to weather.
> 
> Is the Farr 395 in the same class?
> 
> Any other older boats that approach the ideal? I thinking closer to 100+ rather than 300-400+


To begin with, (working backward) I do not consider the Farr 395 in the same class as the Aerodyne 38. I have not sailed the 395 in dicey conditions, but I understand that they have a pretty poor motion. I had a chance to discuss this with someone who had sailed both boats, and he considered the Farr 395 to be more reliably faster than the Aerodyne 38, but thought that the Aerodyne was definitely better built and a much nicer boat for offshore use. He commented negatively on the motion of the 395 in certain conditions, but said that the Aerodyne had a much nicer motion.

I understand why you might look at a boat like the Aerodyne and ask the questions that you did. To some extent, the answer your question, "Do people really live on a boat like that for an extended amount of time and cruise? is "yes" but with some qualifications. Questions like these lie in the eyes of the beholder and while there are people who would cruise and live on a boat like this, not everyone would. Whether this is the right boat for you lies in your own personal philosophy on sailing, cruising and performance.

There is no doubt that cruising on boats like these take a different mindset than someone choosing to cruise a more conservative design. It takes making performance a priority that overrides the need for 'all of the comforts of home'. While these boats are not exactly Spartan (look at a 1960's era similar displacement boat if you want to see Spartan), they do require a certain discipline that would not necessarily be demanded by a more cruising oriented design.

There is a financial commitment as well as these boats cost more to buy (for a given displacement or volume) and potentially can cost more to maintain than similar displacement boats lower performance designs. That said, they tend to be a bargain compared to similar vintage, similar displacement blue-water oriented cruisers.

And while the Aerodyne 43 would be a boat that I personally would love to own and distance cruise (with the 38 being okay as well) frankly, in stock form these are not particularly set up to be cruisers. I personally would want to modify the boat to be a better cruiser.

Personally, I do not consider any retracting bowsprit to be suitable for offshore use. No matter how well conceived, when things get really bad they will leak, and that is not acceptable. I would probably add a fixed prod with proper anchor handling gear. I would also add a windlass in the so-called anchor well, and install better cleats, chocks, etc.

I would probably construct a light weight, and removable locker that would close off the transom, and provide storage for line, fenders, and fuel storage. It would not extend fully to the cockpit sole so large amounts of water could run out, but would have a hinged flap to minimize water coming into the cockpit from an overtaking wave.

The large destroyer wheel is a topic for another post, but that, or tiller steering, is actually an ideal solution for offshore sailing since it allows a very low friction steering system, which in turn is less wearing on the crew, and on self-steering devices, and which allows you to move around the cockpit to see, stay dry or make adjustments. I'll discuss that further later.

There are similar things that I would do to make the cabin more useful, but I think you should get the general thrust of my comments. I would also note that some of the boats that I listed earlier are 'no compromise' cruisers (the X boat and Halberg for example) while others are much closer to being full blown racers.

Jeff


----------



## bobperry

Len:
Everything is relative! Einstein taught us that. Weren't you listening? 

How about some definitive numbers that can reduce the amount of guessing going on here and distill this discussion down to a level of good old objective science? You guys can spout your theories all day long with zero accountability, just friendly chat. That's fine. I have no problem with it. But what I think gets built and can cost more than $2,000,000. I can't guess. I have to measur, quantify and evaluate all the variables the best I can so I am not guessing. As you brought up, the prop is a huge variable as is the rudder, the skeg, the aperture, the hull and the keel. I will continue to go with what I know. 

The fact is that once you get done theorizing in the real world the choice of where the prop goes in relation to the rudder is pretty much laid out for you given the other design features aft and where the engine is located which is a function of interior layout. Talk without including all those variables is just talk.


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> The fact is that once you get done theorizing in the real world the choice of where the prop goes in relation to the rudder is pretty much laid out for you given the other design features aft and where the engine is located which is a function of interior layout. Talk without including all those variables is just talk.


Actually, Bob, by using a modern hybrid drive (electric motor, controller and generator) designers like yourself have an enormous amount of flexibility with these variables. Being able to stick the maintenance-free shoe-box sized motor down in the bilge with a straight run to the prop and the engine/generator where you can actually get at it (not just in line with the prop) makes life a heck of a lot easier than it used to be..


----------



## Capt Len

Bob, sorry if I wasn't detailed enough in my calculations regarding placement of my galley sink relative to the precise length of my shaft and whether I offset it to allow for prop walk . My comments were meant to be chatty and pertaining to my vessel specifically ,which is as it is. I personally designed and built and modified the shape and size of my stuff .My comments were based on my personal take on what works for me and how little modifications affected operational handling of my vessel. This is not theorizing in the real world This IS the real world.


----------



## bobperry

Classic: 
I'd like that degree of flexibility. In the 70's we tried it with hydraulic drive. It was kinda sorta successful. But the hydraulics brought some problems with it. I had one of those boats myself. I could tell you a very funny story about that some day.

Len: No problem at all. I listen to you. I wish I had your job. If you could teach me the fine points. I have to go with what I know and what will serve my clients best. They will sail or motor away on my boat. I do this time after time. My clients depend on me to get it right. And I am very happy to say,,,,,I do manage to get it right. Maybe I'm just lucky. I'm very anxious to see how the new carbon cutters will behave under power. I hope to have cured the "misery of the aperture". That said, I'm fine with a slight amount of prop walk.


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> ...
> But I am less comfortable with the idea that separating the prop from the rudder is a good thing in low speed maneuvers. It is still very helpful in turning the boat to be able to send a blast of propwash over the rudder and spin the stern. I have come think that the current trend towards installing bow thrusters on ever smaller boats, is in part a response to the wider spread use of saildrives, along with the philosophy of making things easy for someone who has not learned the techniques and who is not willing to expend the energy to do things the more traditional ways.
> 
> Jeff


Regarding bowthrusters I fully agree and I will add that the more efficient type of rudders used on modern beamy boats with large transoms (twin rudders) are a lot less effective on docking maneuvers than the classic single deep rudder and in this case it will be irrelevant to be a classic transmission or a sail drive one.


----------



## Jeff_H

PCP said:


> Regarding bowthrusters I fully agree and I will add that the more efficient type of rudders used on modern beamy boats with large transoms (twin rudders) are a lot less effective on docking maneuvers than the classic single deep rudder and in this case it will be irrelevant to be a classic transmission or a sail drive one.


Very good point that had not occurred to me.

Jeff


----------



## bobperry

You have two stubby little rudders not vertical with no chance of prop wash even if you do want it. It's not going to work very well at all.


----------



## seaner97

Bob- somewhere in here you said you'd throw yourself across the dock to keep someone from buying a Ty37 (and some other boat I can't remember). Care to tell us why?


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
I don't recall that outburst. I can imagine myself saying it. It could have been the Tayana Bingham FANTASIA double ender. I would feel comfortable saying that about that boat. I just think it's an awful design,,,,by my criteria. Which I trust.

If someone out there owns one I'm really sorry I said that. But I feel obliged to be honest in the world of never ending BS.


----------



## Brent Swain

Classic30 said:


> Actually, Bob, by using a modern hybrid drive (electric motor, controller and generator) designers like yourself have an enormous amount of flexibility with these variables. Being able to stick the maintenance-free shoe-box sized motor down in the bilge with a straight run to the prop and the engine/generator where you can actually get at it (not just in line with the prop) makes life a heck of a lot easier than it used to be..


On my boats , if I could put the motor anywhere I wanted, the best place for it would still be where it is , under the front end of the cockpit.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Seaner:
> I don't recall that outburst. I can imagine myself saying it. It could have been the Tayana Bingham FANTASIA double ender. I would feel comfortable saying that about that boat. I just think it's an awful design,,,,by my criteria. Which I trust.
> 
> If someone out there owns one I'm really sorry I said that. But I feel obliged to be honest in the world of never ending BS.


Oh damn, you're going to make me find it?! It was in reference to some young buck considering a Ty37 with thin teak decks with many plugs missing. Maybe Mike O can help out, as I think he chimed in. Considering you designed it, I thought it might be enlightening to see what you thought the issues are and what you learned from it that would have you say that.


----------



## seaner97

seaner97 said:


> bobperry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seaner:
> I don't recall that outburst. I can imagine myself saying it. It could have been the Tayana Bingham FANTASIA double ender. I would feel comfortable saying that about that boat. I just think it's an awful design,,,,by my criteria. Which I trust.
> 
> If someone out there owns one I'm really sorry I said that. But I feel obliged to be honest in the world of never ending BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh damn, you're going to make me find it?! It was in reference to some young buck considering a Ty37 with thin teak decks with many plugs missing. Maybe Mike O can help out, as I think he chimed in. Considering you designed it, I thought it might be enlightening to see what you thought the issues are and what you learned from it that would have you say that.
Click to expand...

Here you go:
http://tracker.sailnet.com/forums/b...ite/20526/topics/171786?page=2&postid=2936138


----------



## hellsop

JonEisberg said:


> Turns out the engine is made by a Japanese outfit named Shibauhara (sp?), and is one of the most popular light industrial/tractor engines in the world, the same one used by companies like Massey-Ferguson and New Holland in many of their products...


Shibaura, a cooperative venture between Toshiba and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, a ship-building firm. They build a LOT of rebadged engines.


----------



## hellsop

Classic30 said:


> Actually, Bob, by using a modern hybrid drive (electric motor, controller and generator) designers like yourself have an enormous amount of flexibility with these variables. Being able to stick the maintenance-free shoe-box sized motor down in the bilge with a straight run to the prop and the engine/generator where you can actually get at it (not just in line with the prop) makes life a heck of a lot easier than it used to be..


Reliable thrust bearings are the tricky parts with those. Remember all the issues cruise ships have had with azipods? Most of them are thrust bearing failing FAR earlier than expected. Obviously, a sailboat's going to put a lot less time and strain on them in general, but most motors are designed for the rotational twist and lateral force, not force up the axis.


----------



## Classic30

Hmmm... fair point, but I'm not sure that's really a big issue on an auxiliary sailboat where larger bearings can be spec'd no problem.



bobperry said:


> Classic:
> I'd like that degree of flexibility. In the 70's we tried it with hydraulic drive. It was kinda sorta successful. But the hydraulics brought some problems with it. I had one of those boats myself. I could tell you a very funny story about that some day.


I do remember the old hydraulic drives - 'orrible bloody things they were. A Peterson I used to crew on still has one.. and uses the same hydraulic circuit for the anchor winch and backstay/babystay tensioners.

Cleaning hydraulic oil out of the bilges was not a fun pastime.. and fixing the leaks from the hydraulic motor was even worse.


----------



## PCP

*price of changing saildrive main seal*

Recently I had the boat out of the water in Corfu, Greece (expensive marina) to have the sail drive repaired. In italy they forget to mount a piece on it:| and the results were really bad, with lots of water entering the sail drive and mixing with the oil (they paid for the repair in Greece).

So, even on my boat that has a very tight engine casing there is no need to take out the engine...it is just needed to take away the silent blocks and move it a bit. I asked and they said that on almost all cases no need to take the engine out.

For removing the saildrive and the seal a mechanic and a helper needed about half a day. To do the full repair that included to mount again the seal, a new saildrive end, the propeller, the oil and test everything it was a full working day.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now Robert - this is just silly...



> *robert sailor* View Post
> 
> Yes being a good yacht builder, offering good quality at a fair price usually will not work these days unless you catch the market place just right.
> Beneteau and all the similar builders understand that they are really not in the yacht building business, they are in the "fashion business". Their buyers do very little due diligence when buying and rely on the feelings they got when they walked through the boat at the boat show and other advertising and video presentations on the internet. Most of their buyers could never explain exactly how the boats are built and how one method of attaching a rudder was better than another.
> Open spaces and site lines as well as features like hidden TV screens are considered Wow factors and are designed to attract attention and get a strong positive emotional response.
> Our hearts do the buying, our brains kick in later and question the hearts decision but the formula for generating large numbers of sales is all about emotion and that is the reason we see features like built in retractable TV's and construction details like chines on cruising boats. It gives us something to get excited about and we all like the little buzz, its what keeps the whole consumerism thing going.


You're starting to sound a bit like Exile or Keno.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Now Robert - this is just silly...
> 
> You're starting to sound a bit like Exile or Keno.


Well, it will probably come as no surprise, that I don't think he sounds "silly", at all... ;-)

So, then, how many 'consumers' do you suppose noticed the _interesting_ manner in which this lifeline was rigged for the debut of Hunter's answer to the Beneteau SenseBoats at Annapolis?

What really boggles the mind, is that this pic is _from Hunter's own website !_

LMFAO!










And, as far as the title of this thread goes, I'd say the "Limit" to these laughable stern cleats on that 47 will occur pretty early on... Hell, I'm not sure those pieces of crap, mounted as stupidly as they are, could manage to withstand the stress of towing an RIB the full length of the ICW... ;-)

And, the placement of the fuel vent in such a fashion as to enhance the possibility of admitting a bit of rain or seawater is a nice added touch, don't you think?


----------



## mitiempo

JonEisberg said:


> Well, it will probably come as no surprise, that I don't think he sounds "silly", at all... ;-)
> 
> So, then, how many 'consumers' do you suppose noticed the _interesting_ manner in which this lifeline was rigged for the debut of Hunter's answer to the Beneteau SenseBoats at Annapolis?
> 
> What really boggles the mind, is that this pic is _from Hunter's own website !_
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as far as the title of this thread goes, I'd say the "Limit" to these laughable stern cleats on that 47 will occur pretty early on... Hell, I'm not sure those pieces of crap, mounted as stupidly as they are, could manage to withstand the stress of towing an RIB the full length of the ICW... ;-)
> 
> And, the placement of the fuel vent in such a fashion as to enhance the possibility of admitting a bit of rain or seawater is a nice added touch, don't you think?


Jon, that's priceless - especially the lifeline.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


>


Okay, I'm with you. My ass has also just fallen off due to laughter. That's ridiculous.

But I'm not quite willing to buy that it's a fleet-wide issue vs. boat show moronics.

As for the cleat - I won't judge until I know the specs. You're a visual guy. I like facts.

In any case, this still has nothing to do with "fashion". I don't know of one single woman who thinks that lifelines inside the shrouds equals Louboutin. They're smarter than that.

As for this part...



JonEisberg said:


> And, the placement of the fuel vent in such a fashion as to enhance the possibility of admitting a bit of rain or seawater is a nice added touch, don't you think?


Once again, I've lost my ass due to hysterical laughter. So you're saying that a near vertical deckplate is more prone to rain leakage than a horizontal deckplate?

Robert - you have a compatriot.


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> As for the cleat - I won't judge until I know the specs. You're a visual guy. I like facts.


As far as I know there isn't a cleat designed for that direction of load. Wonder how large the backing plate is - if any?


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> As far as I know there isn't a cleat designed for that direction of load. Wonder how large the backing plate is - if any?


If you don't know - how can you laugh?

What direction, exactly, is any cleat "designed for"?


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> If you don't know - how can you laugh?
> 
> What direction, exactly, is any cleat "designed for"?


Shear. It is not how the cleat is designed really but how it is attached. Cleats are not attached for an upward (in this case aft) load.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Now Robert - this is just silly...
> 
> You're starting to sound a bit like Exile or Keno.


I'm not so sure. I was just talking with a boater who just bought a nice ajenneau 40 DS. He wants to put a 135 on it and when I started talking about fractional rigs I got a blank stare. Once i explained the concept he said "nope. I'm sure the headstay goes all the way to the top of the mast."

He wasn't buying on performance and design trade offs obviously....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> Shear. It is not how the cleat is designed really but how it is attached. Cleats are not attached for an upward (in this case aft) load.


Really? The designers of these boats never thought about tides and docklines?

Dude - please.

If you really think that cleats are designed for only 1 single load vector - you're seriously underestimating modern naval architecture. Either that - or they are all stupid.


----------



## capttb

Smacky, I believe Jon was referring to the recessed fuel tank vent above the vertical deck fill plate as being prone to water egress. And I got to wonder if they ran the lifelines like that on the starboard side too ? I mean when I screw up it always looks better if you can at least make it symmetric.


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> I'm not so sure. I was just talking with a boater who just bought a nice ajenneau 40 DS. He wants to put a 135 on it and when I started talking about fractional rigs I got a blank stare. Once i explained the concept he said "nope. I'm sure the headstay goes all the way to the top of the mast."
> 
> He wasn't buying on performance and design trade offs obviously....
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


What year was it?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Really? The designers of these boats never thought about tides and docklines?
> 
> Dude - please.
> 
> If you really think that cleats are designed for only 1 single load vector - you're seriously underestimating modern naval architecture. Either that - or they are all stupid.


Wow...

You have much to learn about proper deck and mooring cleats, is all I can say...

They just might be commonly known as "deck cleats" for a reason, no?

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Wow...
> 
> You have much to learn about proper deck and mooring cleats, is all I can say...
> 
> They just might be commonly known as "deck cleats" for a reason, no?
> 
> ;-)


Proper?

Okay, then teach me. What is the acceptable load vector range for your deck cleats? When is that range exceeded?


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> Really? The designers of these boats never thought about tides and docklines?
> 
> If you really think that cleats are designed for only 1 single load vector - you're seriously underestimating modern naval architecture. Either that - or they are all stupid.


It is not the cleat, but the attachment. I am sure the cleat is stronger than the fiberglass it is attached to. Did Hunter use fender washers over a large backing plate? Is the hull cored in that location?

Based on the pictures there seems to be a few items the "designers" did not think of.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> It is not the cleat, but the attachment. I am sure the cleat is stronger than the fiberglass it is attached to. Did Hunter use fender washers over a large backing plate? Is the hull cored in that location?


Why are you asking me? I thought you already knew these things. You're the one saying outright it can't handle the intended loads.


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> Why are you asking me? I thought you already knew these things. You're the one saying outright it can't handle the intended loads.


Meh. At some point someone is bound to hook a mooring line on it, forget to untie it and motor off the dock at full speed and tear it out of the hull regardless of any "intended load"... That's just the way it is these days.


----------



## smackdaddy

Classic30 said:


> Meh. At some point someone is bound to hook a mooring line on it, forget to untie it and motor off the dock at full speed and tear it out of the hull regardless of any "intended load"... That's just the way it is these days.


Heh-heh. Not even Hinckley can fix that problem.


----------



## Noelex

Weak cleats are a common problem, especially in this part of the world. When "Med moored" the cleats can be subject to very high loads. Unfortunately, if they let go the boat can sustain some serious damage.

In my view those stern cleats are totally inadequate.

This is from a similar sized (but expensive) boat designed for serious cruising. Overkill, probably but very reassuring if leaving your boat:










Overall I think there is far too much "Hunter bashing", but if we shame manufacturers on forums like this, hopefully in the next generation of boats they will fix these problems. Most of these issues would be very easy and inexpensive for the manufacturer to put right, but they can have quite serious consequences.

If we can get manufacturers to produce inexpensive boats, but get the important stuff right (and cleats are important) everyone benefits.


----------



## robert sailor

noelex77 said:


> Weak cleats are a common problem, especially in this part of the world. When "Med moored" the cleats can be subject to very high loads. Unfortunately, if they let go the boat can sustain some serious damage.
> 
> In my view those stern cleats are totally inadequate.
> 
> This is from a similar sized (but expensive) boat designed for serious cruising. Overkill, probably but very reassuring if leaving your boat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall I think there is far too much "Hunter bashing", but if we shame manufacturers on forums like this, hopefully in the next generation of boats they will fix these problems. Most of these issues would be very easy and inexpensive for the manufacturer to put right, but they can have quite serious consequences.
> 
> If we can get manufacturers to produce inexpensive boats, but get the important stuff right (and cleats are important) everyone benefits.


Good thought but highly unlikely to happen. The game is never played that way. You begin by "engineering" everything down to the last dime and once you have your costs where you want them you start to put back a small amount. The items you put back will be what we call "perceived value", these are items that will catch the eye of the purchaser and give them a sense that they are buying something of quality. Could be anything from cut glass doors on a liquor cabinet, fancy counter tops or built in TV, special lighting, that sort of stuff normally aimed at the ladies. Builders want good sight lines through the boats, volume that doesn't do anything but it does feel good. These are all marketing decisions and are very important to the success of that particular model and unfortunately for many folks here all these decisions actually work. So proper cleats and details like this are left for the builders who build boats "not" for the masses. I know it sounds silly but its reality.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> what year was it?


2006. I couldn't find a good line drawing on short notice, but I did find what appeared to be the yacht sales video of the boat for sale. It looked fractional in the video. I could easily be wrong here, but the point about the buyer not knowing what a fractional rig is still stands. Then again, he was a former Nauticat 40 owner, so you shouldn't expect much from him. hehe


----------



## Faster

Got your back, Med.... definitely frac in the video


----------



## PCP

What is the problem with normal cleats. I don't see any problem with the cleats:wink


----------



## Faster

PCP said:


> What is the problem with normal cleats. I don't see any problem with the cleats:wink


Years ago we saw a CT41 hanging off the dock in Victoria the same way... impressive.... It would seem HR uses decent backing plates.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

PCP said:


> What is the problem with normal cleats. I don't see any problem with the cleats:wink


There is no problem because they are used in shear, as they should


----------



## jorgenl

PCP said:


> What is the problem with normal cleats. I don't see any problem with the cleats:wink


He needs to tighten the port bow line ....:wink


----------



## smackdaddy

MedSailor said:


> 2006. I couldn't find a good line drawing on short notice, but I did find what appeared to be the yacht sales video of the boat for sale. It looked fractional in the video. I could easily be wrong here, but the point about the buyer not knowing what a fractional rig is still stands. Then again, he was a former Nauticat 40 owner, so you shouldn't expect much from him. hehe


Yeah - that's definitely a fractional rig. I did the same thing though - bought our first C27 having no idea about anything except how to generally put the sails out to catch wind - at least certain angles. I had to get schooled on the whole fractional/masthead thing here on SN.


----------



## Capt Len

Ahha, that happens all the time here on the coast. Designers even take into account that when the tide changes , those taut lines push against the cleats .The fastening screws need special backing plates thru the balsa core to handle the vector shift.


----------



## smackdaddy

noelex77 said:


> Overall I think there is far too much "Hunter bashing"...


Don't say that over at CF. No one will know what you're talking about and will call you a troll for even suggesting it. Heh-heh.


----------



## Don L

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> There is no problem because they are used in shear, as they should


that's crap, that whole boat is being hung from the cleats backing plates and the deck attachment to the hull


----------



## Minnewaska

Don0190 said:


> that's crap, that whole boat is being hung from the cleats backing plates and the deck attachment to the hull


The angle of the boat itself does look like the cleats are in shear. I can't zoom the pic to see if the lines are going through chocks, which themselves could be taking other loads, but they direct the lines for the cleats to be in shear.

The hull hanging from the gunwale attachment is true enough.


----------



## smackdaddy

Did you guys stop to think about the various force vectors between the starting and ending points in that pic? All shear, huh?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Did you guys stop to think about the various force vectors between the starting and ending points in that pic? All shear, huh?


Did you stop to notice the smiley in my post?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Proper?
> 
> Okay, then teach me. What is the acceptable load vector range for your deck cleats? When is that range exceeded?


I can't give you a precise answer to that, and I imagine that would very from one style of cleat to the next... But as mitiempo has said, all horned cleats are designed - and when mounted properly - to take the load in shear...

There are so many things wrong with that POS that Hunter is using there, I hardly know where to begin... ;-)

Mooring cleats are definitely one of those things that should adhere to the KISS principle... They should not rely on 'hinges', or 'pins' to perform their function... I've used a variety of folding cleats, and every one of them has sucked, bigtime. The one I have the most experience with, which I see is now being used on boats like the Jeanneau 64, is this style pioneered by Nomen:










These stupid things are among the worst for holding a cleated line I've ever seen. One quickly learns to finish off your figure 8 locking hitch with a couple of half-hitches for added security ;-) They have fairly sharp 'corners', so the line changes shape and tends to 'migrate' when under increasing tension. Moreover, cleats should not require _maintenance_, but these things definitely do... The internal rubber 'ball' which performs the function of snapping them into an open or closed position, began to degrade and break down very quickly on the earliest versions I used, and their 'smooth operation' could also be impaired by salt crystals gunking up the works. Replacement of the rubber balls was a PITA, and surprisingly expensive, as the part was proprietary to the manufacturer... However, they sure look _SEXY_, and are touted as something 'New & Improved to the buyer who will fall for such BS, and for that reason I think their appearance on many production boats today is a prime example of the sort of 'Shiny Object' approach Robert describes that many builders are taking to catch the eye of the consumer...

A proper cleat design will keep the load as low as possible to the base and mounting bolts of the cleat... My favorite style is similar to this from Schaefer or Wilcox-Crittenden...










4-hole base (I'm guessing the Hunter version is affixed with only 2 bolts), as wide as it is long&#8230; In contrast, note how high the line is riding on this one, greatly increasing the torque that might be applied to the base of that cleat&#8230; When a heavy or snatching load is applied to that line, seems as tossup as to whether the cleat will be bent, or the hinges will fail, or the entire POS will simply be ripped from the transom ;-)










That cleat actually MIGHT function a bit better, if the stern lines were crossed, and the load would cause the cleat to 'fold' somewhat in the direction of the load&#8230; However, in their infinite wisdom, Hunter has chosen to orient all their deck cleats to fold inboard&#8230; As a result, the bow cleat - the one on the boat which will invariable ALWAYS see the load exerted outboard - is oriented in a fashion most likely to produce a failure&#8230; Brilliant, eh?

;-)

Additionally, until you've actually seen these cleats, it's difficult to appreciate how 'sharp' the corners of that cleat can be&#8230; I presume you are familiar with the concept of _CHAFE_, correct?

Moreover, deck cleats can often serve a function similar to winches, in terms of being put to use for sweating or snubbing mooring lines under a heavy load&#8230; The Schaefer/Wilcox-Crittenden style cleats serve this purpose especially well, with their smooth, rounded surfaces&#8230; (There's a reason winches are cylindrical, instead of box-shaped, after all ) For this all-important function of mooring cleats, the absurdity of the arrangement on the Hunter 47 can only be fully appreciated by looking at the bigger picture...










Sorry, but it's hard to picture a more awkward arrangement than that setup&#8230; How would one even begin to place oneself in a position to exert the force to sweat a mooring line under heavy tension, with those cleats placed in such a position? Would you try to lie on top of the stern perch seat? Or somehow wriggle yourself beneath it ?

To me, it seems the only way you could further enhance the stupidity of this arrangement for dealing with stern lines, is to slap a full-cockpit enclosure on that thing&#8230; ;-)

Such a setup does at least serve one useful purpose, in the context of this thread, however&#8230; If nothing else, it helps to clearly define "'the Limits" of this particular vessel, as a boat that might actually be intended to go places&#8230;

From one Waterway Guide endorsed marina to the next, that's what this thing was built for&#8230;


----------



## outbound

Other thing I've found of interest is where the cleats are placed. Find spring lines helpful. Actually more helpful if placed amidships at maximum beam. Then can power against them to get boat off the dock in a crosswind. Think bow and stern cleats should have a free run in any near horizontal direction. Was surprised to see neighboring boats needing chafing gear to prevent chafe from THE BOAT when secured for the threat of hurricane J.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well, then, we should start seeing the huge cascade of failures and complaints pouring in in the next week or two. I'll wait....

...still waiting...

....

And what's with this Tesla guy tinkering with the perfect electric car: The Flocken Elektrowagen?










Who on earth would buy something like this dangerous Tesla deathtrap - with its full cockpit enclosure and little wheels!!










How do you even light the headlanterns? Crawl out on the hood in Ludicrous Mode? Morons.


----------



## Capt Len

Just goes to show that 'stylin' take precedence over everything including common sense. A cleat that can't do faithfully what it needs to do is worse than useless. Even a too big cast cleat can eventually fail by losing a horn . Better that than finding the weak link of inadequate bolting ,backing plates, poor hull/deck strengths and poorly thought out stylish fair leads. Seen so many stylish turnbuckles bent with duty as spring lines because mid ship cleats clutter a clean deck.??


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> Well, then, we should start seeing the huge cascade of failures and complaints pouring in in the next week or two. I'll wait.........


A buddy has a Hunter 45DS, with aft cleats on the transom. Not folding, but still incredibly difficult to access. He actually has to crawl under his dinghy on its davits, stand on the small transom step and reach over. They are actually so low on the transom, that it's not possible to reach them from the aft helm seat. Wow.

He's not here to register his complaint, so I thought I would share.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> Well, then, we should start seeing the huge cascade of failures and complaints pouring in in the next week or two. I'll wait....
> 
> ...still waiting...
> 
> ....
> 
> And what's with this Tesla guy tinkering with the perfect electric car: The Flocken Elektrowagen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on earth would buy something like this dangerous Tesla deathtrap - with its full cockpit enclosure and little wheels!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you even light the headlanterns? Crawl out on the hood in Ludicrous Mode? Morons.


Boats aren't cars. But, to follow your analogy, if you take that tesla off road into the woods (the land equivalent if offshore) you'll be in a pile of trouble. Very cool car and tech when used FOR WHAT IT WAS BUILT FOR. The equivalent of fast marina hopping. Sorry- I couldn't resist. I do have a really good acorn squash recipe from a now defunct Vermont restaurant I used to frequent, if you would like.


----------



## Noelex

At least it looks like adding a couple of decent cleats on deck where the load is taken in sheer should not be too difficult. The area is quite clear so there is not a great problem with a reasonable fairlead. Presumably there is under deck access to around these winch bolts so there is probably enough access to fit a backing pad.

In the mean time using these rear winches (although they may be optional spinnaker winches) would I think be better.

It is worth working beforehand about what strong points you would use if your boat ever needs pulling off after grounding (both forwards and backwards). Or if you were to tow another boat. In this case a bridle type arrangement on a couple of winches would be needed to avoid damaging the arch.










Incidentally Hunter are not alone with this problem. Google will show many hits often with cleats ripping out even when they are correctly placed so they are in sheer, but here is a thread about a cat with the same silly placement issue

Helia 44 Aft cleats warning !! - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## robert sailor

The mind set that can compare an electric car to a poorly designed cleat setup on a sailboat to try and make a point is at the very least "special".


----------



## robert sailor

noelex77 said:


> At least it looks like adding a couple of decent cleats on deck where the load is taken in sheer should not be too difficult. The area is quite clear so there is not a great problem with a reasonable fairlead. Presumably there is under deck access to around these winch bolts so there is probably enough access to fit a backing pad.
> 
> In the mean time using these rear winches (although they may be optional spinnaker winches) would I think be better.
> 
> It is worth working beforehand about what strong points you would use if your boat ever needs pulling off after grounding (both forwards and backwards). Or if you were to tow another boat. In this case a bridle type arrangement on a couple of winches would be needed to avoid damaging the arch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally Hunter are not alone with this problem. Google will show many hits often with cleats ripping out even when they are correctly placed so they are in sheer, but here is a thread about a cat with the same silly placement issue
> 
> Helia 44 Aft cleats warning !! - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


My opinion is that its not as easy as you make it out to be...you would need not only a cleat but a proper fairlead that would work fore and aft plus you would have to position it in such a way as to not have the gelcoat ruined on the side decks. I think the designer was very aware of this but simply chose the path of least resistance in that part of the design. Personally I don't see this as a big issue as the buyers won't pick up on it until they actually try operating things and most of these boats won't leave the marina that often to begin with.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Well, then, we should start seeing the huge cascade of failures and complaints pouring in in the next week or two. I'll wait....


Likewise, I shall await your explanation of how those particular cleats Hunter has used, and where they have been placed, are _SUPERIOR_ in their design or offer any sort of _IMPROVEMENT_ over a simpler, more traditional Herreschoff-style cleat, mounted on deck...

;-)


----------



## eko_eko

I don't think the poor placement of those cleats is enough to indict the designer.

For all you know, the designer intended owners to tie off to the well-placed arch tubing and some marketing type told the builder that the boat didn't look right without a stern cleat.

My boat didn't come with a good place to put an anchor. Oh well. Know the issues and address them. Done.

Is that cleat in a bad spot? Yes. Does that mean the rest of the boat is no good? No. It would cause me to look a little harder at other choices.

*EDIT: this is probably wrong, based on poor recollection of a long-ago physics class*_
I don't think that the force direction issue can be as lightly tossed aside though. When the force is perpendicular to the cleat the it passes through the width of the bolts. This is good. When the force is normal to the mounting surface, the it only passes though the threads. This is bad.

Do we have any photos of the back of the cleat? Are these really simple straight bolts mounted so that they depend on just the grip of the threads to resist the load?
_

*EDIT: Better resource: https://www.fastenal.com/en/69/bolted-joint-design.

I'd love it if one of our MechE's would chime in and clarify this.*


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Well, then, we should start seeing the huge cascade of failures and complaints pouring in in the next week or two. I'll wait....
> 
> ...still waiting...
> 
> ....
> 
> And what's with this Tesla guy tinkering with the perfect electric car: The Flocken Elektrowagen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on earth would buy something like this dangerous Tesla deathtrap - with its full cockpit enclosure and little wheels!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you even light the headlanterns? Crawl out on the hood in Ludicrous Mode? Morons.


It is all a question of taste and as someone said recently about boat design:" Priorities vary. For many speed and what you define as as efficiency is just one factor. ... The aesethetics are timeless to many. ... A sense of warmth. A sense of beauty ..."

A pity that you cannot find similar cars now on the market, you know how mass production designers are, all trendy and not providing none of the timeless beauty and comfort of the older good ones, but you can always have it custom made. Happily there are still some that will be able to design a car like that for you and built it would be expensive but not difficult.


----------



## Don L

talk about silly


----------



## robert sailor

If this model of Hunter was being sold to a large number of the folks in the Med this type of cleat arrangement would certainly not go over very well because of the large loads that can be placed during sloppy weather while Med moored however it is mostly a North American product and we use 95% side ties so not as big an issue.


----------



## seaner97

In general (I realize I'm probably in the minority here) a product that is supposedly designed to travel the world should be designed to work in the environs it may find itself. The reasons people probably don't complain is that the vast majority aren't doing much more than daysailing or marina hopping in them and they work adequately for the purchasers intent. Totally fine, but, again, not the argument presented as the thread has been stated and evolved.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ..
> Mooring cleats are definitely one of those things that should adhere to the KISS principle... They should not rely on 'hinges', or 'pins' to perform their function... I've used a variety of folding cleats, and every one of them has sucked, bigtime. The one I have the most experience with, which I see is now being used on boats like the Jeanneau 64, is this style pioneered by Nomen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These stupid things are among the worst for holding a cleated line I've ever seen. One quickly learns to finish off your figure 8 locking hitch with a couple of half-hitches for added security ;-) They have fairly sharp 'corners', so the line changes shape and tends to 'migrate' when under increasing tension. Moreover, cleats should not require _maintenance_, but these things definitely do... The internal rubber 'ball' which performs the function of snapping them into an open or closed position, began to degrade and break down very quickly on the earliest versions I used, and their 'smooth operation' could also be impaired by salt crystals gunking up the works. Replacement of the rubber balls was a PITA, and surprisingly expensive, as the part was proprietary to the manufacturer... However, they sure look _SEXY_, and are touted as something 'New & Improved to the buyer who will fall for such BS, and for that reason I think their appearance on many production boats today is a prime example of the sort of 'Shiny Object' approach Robert describes that many builders are taking to catch the eye of the consumer...
> 
> A proper cleat design will keep the load as low as possible to the base and mounting bolts of the cleat... My favorite style is similar to this from Schaefer or Wilcox-Crittenden...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,


Cleats on small yachts (less than 60ft) are a problem when you go forward, specially those amidships: You can trip on them or hit them violently with the feet with nasty effects particularly if you are barefoot. That's dangerous. also they can caught lines, particularly the lines of the forward sails and that can be a problem with bad weather. I, like many and like you probably, had to go forward on bad weather more than one time to untangle lines that were caught on the cleats.

The retractile ones completely erase these problems. Regarding its resistance and suitability you are making a generalization. The retractile ones that you have posted seem to me of very good quality and their suitability or not depends of the charges that they can sustain that are probably bigger then their attachment points.

One thing is certain: Even if they are of good quality and fit for the job they are certainly more expensive than no retractile ones but then they offer considerable advantages.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> Cleats on small yachts (less than 60ft) are a problem when you go forward, specially those amidships: You can trip on them or hit them violently with the feet with nasty effects particularly if you are barefoot. That's dangerous. also they can caught lines, particularly the lines of the forward sails and that can be a problem with bad weather. I, like many and like you probably, had to go forward on bad weather more than one time to untangle lines that were caught on the cleats.
> 
> The retractile ones completely erase these problems. Regarding its resistance and suitability you are making a generalization. The retractile ones that you have posted seem to me of very good quality and their suitability or not depends of the charges that they can sustain that are probably bigger then their attachment points.
> 
> One thing is certain: Even if they are of good quality and fit for the job they are certainly more expensive than no retractile ones but then they offer considerable advantages.


There are many things about sailing that can be dangerous if you don't use some common sense. You can be hit with a boom or have your leg wrapped in a sheet, the list is endless. That is no reason to design a product that while idiot proof does not work in a proper manner or is not strong enough in extreme conditions. There are many people that should not be setting foot on a sailboat and cleats that fold flat aren't going to help these individuals. I trust you have proper cleats on your boat and have managed to not put yourself in harms way because of them.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> In general (I realize I'm probably in the minority here) a product that is supposedly designed to travel the world should be designed to work in the environs it may find itself.


Agreed. The funny thing is - most of these guys have no idea if these cleats will do the above. They just know what they know and think anything outside that is rubbish.

Of course, when Hinckley is starting to build sled-type cruisers out of carbon, and IP is starting to use interior liners - I just smile and pat them on the head.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general (I realize I'm probably in the minority here) a product that is supposedly designed to travel the world should be designed to work in the environs it may find itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The funny thing is - most of these guys have no idea if these cleats will do the above. They just know what they know and think anything outside that is rubbish.
> 
> Of course, when Hinckley is starting to build sled-type cruisers out of carbon, and IP is starting to use interior liners - I just smile and pat them on the head.
Click to expand...

Hinkley and Morris are high end production lines that are certainly not immune to market induced trends (poor ones included). They do tend to be less likely to do the 'shiny object' thing, but a B40 certainly is different than a sou'wester, and not all of it is improvement in NA. Some of it is chasing rich dude's (and dudette's) money, and some of that is bling. 
In general, Jon has usually USED all this crap and while some of it is opinion on his part, much of his opinion is well founded (and photographically backed- which is, in itself, fing amazing). It's also why I usually stay out of this unless I've used it or we are talking 50,000 foot views on stuff.


----------



## smackdaddy

I usually wait for facts. If we see lots of failures of features/components like this - we know. Otherwise, we don't.


----------



## seaner97

No real disagreement there, but as someone who operates in the biological/medical world, we also do a ton of tolerance testing and are hyper conservative about it (for good reason). Sometimes your eye and intuition will tell you more than data will because the data gathered is imperfect. An example is that the data is biased by not leaving the dock in this case, or a whole bunch of people saying- that looks flimsy, I'm not going to chance it, etc. Putting your faith in data without critically looking at it is just as bad as putting your faith in intuition. There are roles for both, and often when you look at something and say "that isn't going to work" you're right more than not. Again, Jon has individual data (probably more than anyone else posting here), so, while I'm sure he's wrong on some counts, I generally eat less salt with his opinions than those of others.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> No real disagreement there, but as someone who operates in the biological/medical world, we also do a ton of tolerance testing and are hyper conservative about it (for good reason). Sometimes your eye and intuition will tell you more than data will because the data gathered is imperfect. An example is that the data is biased by not leaving the dock in this case, or a whole bunch of people saying- that looks flimsy, I'm not going to chance it, etc. Putting your faith in data without critically looking at it is just as bad as putting your faith in intuition. There are roles for both, and often when you look at something and say "that isn't going to work" you're right more than not. Again, Jon has individual data (probably more than anyone else posting here), so, while I'm sure he's wrong on some counts, I generally eat less salt with his opinions than those of others.


That's very true. But it's precisely because of the use case scenario you point out that the criticism should also be contextual. Judging a cleat on a cruising boat as "too weak" needs some context doesn't it? For example, being too weak to carry a drogue for days in the Southern Ocean is only a valid criticism if that's what the boat and cleat are proposed to do.

Back to facts - if these cleats start failing in typical use cases for the boat and its market - they are every bit the POS Jon (or anyone else) is implying. If not, the criticism might be misguided.

No salt required.

PS - As PCP pointed out, these cleats are far more expensive than the old-style "proper" cleat Jon posted the image of. First of all, this alone undermines robertcsailors' arguments that these boats have "cheap" as the primary, driving force behind design and construction. Second, which boats had retractable cleats before these production boats started implementing them? See a trend?


----------



## outbound

S- been a doc for many years and have done phase two and three trials. Issues of bias are well know and to extent possible excluded. That said for a new drug regardless of how well studied prior to release it is understood you will not be able to pass "final" judgement on safety/ efficacy, or risk/ benefit until a hundred thousand patient years have passed (100,000 pt/yrs means any permutations of years and number of patients using the drug equaling that amount).
Translating to boats and boat equipment until it has been tested in the field by a sufficient number of people you just don't really know how well it will work and survive in usage. We blew up the tang fitting for the vang where it attaches to the boom. Weld failed and plate above weld cracked. On same passage sistershipdid the same. Called vendor. They were very responsive and shipped out fully casted replacement. It has yet to fail. Vendors said " we like Outbounds and J boats.... You owners sail your boats hard. The Outbounds get sailed a lot. We've been making this part for awhile. This is the first failure. Seeing it fall on two boats tells us we need to re engineer. Nothing like field testing."


----------



## Faster

outbound said:


> ....Nothing like field testing."


Which, back in 'the day' manufacturers undertook themselves. Seems the consumer is the new beta tester for many things.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> There are many things about sailing that can be dangerous if you don't use some common sense. You can be hit with a boom or have your leg wrapped in a sheet, the list is endless. That is no reason to design a product that while idiot proof does not work in a proper manner or is not strong enough in extreme conditions. There are many people that should not be setting foot on a sailboat and cleats that fold flat aren't going to help these individuals. I trust you have proper cleats on your boat and have managed to not put yourself in harms way because of them.


Nothing to do with good sense. If it can be dangerous and can be avoided without inconvenient it should be. That's why on modern cruising boats the boom is higher than the heads of the crew.

Yes I have what you call proper cleats but I would change them for good quality retractile ones in a heartbeat if they were not so expensive. Yes a few times running in a hurry over the deck to do something urgent I had hit hard the midships cleat, sometimes barefoot and I had the line of the jib stuck on the forward cleat with bad weather one or two times.

That's because they offer advantages in sailingboats that high quality boats started to use retractile cleats.

Very expensive dough, the good ones. Maybe I would not have the money to put them if they were an option, but that's me that have not much money, doesn't mean they have no advantages and that if the boat come with them standard I would not be happy.

I believe they are now an extra on my boat.


----------



## mstern

JonEisberg said:


> From one Waterway Guide endorsed marina to the next, that's what this thing was built for&#8230;


Another convert to Waterway Guide for Smack! In your face Active Captain!:wink


----------



## robert sailor

Smack no cleat mounted on FG is strong enough to carry a drogue in the southern ocean. You might get by with using your winch as long as the loads are on the lighter side but drogues, at least the effective ones, just put more force than a cleat can be expected to carry. You need a proper chain plate attached to the hull sides.
Personally I really don't care to much about the strength or location of this particular Hunters deck cleats, they are a bit silly for a 50 footer but they will do the job for 95% of the owners who use these boats as they were intended.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> Nothing to do with good sense. If it can be dangerous and can be avoided without inconvenient it should be. That's why on modern cruising boats the boom is higher than the heads of the crew.
> 
> Yes I have what you call proper cleats but I would change them for good quality retractile ones in a heartbeat if they were not so expensive. Yes a few times running in a hurry over the deck to do something urgent I had hit hard the midships cleat, sometimes barefoot and I had the line of the jib stuck on the forward cleat with bad weather one or two times.
> 
> That's because they offer advantages in sailingboats that high quality boats started to use retractile cleats.
> 
> Very expensive dough, the good ones. Maybe I would not have the money to put them if they were an option, but that's me that have not much money, doesn't mean they have no advantages and that if the boat come with them standard I would not be happy.
> 
> I believe they are now an extra on my boat.


If the hideaway cleats are just as strong as a proper deck cleat then like you I would have no problem in having them on my boat. Having said that I don't think the shiny folders on the Hunter are in the same league.


----------



## Don L

saw just the other day of 1,000s of cleats tearing out of boats .................................. on an internet forum


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> A buddy has a Hunter 45DS, with aft cleats on the transom. Not folding, but still incredibly difficult to access. He actually has to crawl under his dinghy on its davits, stand on the small transom step and reach over. They are actually so low on the transom, that it's not possible to reach them from the aft helm seat. Wow.


It would be a long reach, on the Hunter 47...










I thought one of the primary reasons for a walk-thru transom was to afford a marvelous swim platform, no? Well, that thing has to rate as one of the most piss-poor swim platforms I've ever seen on a boat of that size... And, for a builder apparently so concerned about eliminating all hazards such as someone tripping over a deck cleat, you'd think they might have rounded off those corners just a tad, no?

And, what's up with that stern "garage"? Looks like instead of going for the "Dinghy Garage" that's all the rage now, Hunter has opted for a "Stand-Up Paddleboard Garage", instead...

Hell, looks like a small child could get trapped in that thing ;-) Could we someday witness a Hunter 47 being featured in Breaking News Coverage on CNN, similar to the prolonged drama of the extrication of Baby Jessica from a well?

;-)

Also, I could detect no provision made for closing up that transom opening, a la the "board" that Beneteau offers on the SenseBoats... Looks like they're pretty confident, how this boat is likely to be used... The "Furling Rig" - which will be the overwhelming choice of most buyers - is "ICW-capable", after all...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> talk about silly


Hmmm, says the guy who recently started _THIS _ thread?

;-)

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ted/223802-pirate-wg-user-wind-generator.html


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Cleats on small yachts (less than 60ft) are a problem when you go forward, specially those amidships: You can trip on them or hit them violently with the feet with nasty effects particularly if you are barefoot. That's dangerous. also they can caught lines, particularly the lines of the forward sails and that can be a problem with bad weather. I, like many and like you probably, had to go forward on bad weather more than one time to untangle lines that were caught on the cleats.


There's a pretty simple solution to that 'problem', actually... My little tub is most definitely in the "under 60 foot" category, after all - by about 30 feet, as a matter of fact... 










But what's particularly ironic in this instance, is that Hunter has long been in the habit of placing their deck cleats into cutouts of that bulbous toerail arrangement they've favored on many of their models over the years... So, unless one is in the habit of going forward by _Tip-Toeing On Top of the Toerail_, the likelihood of kicking a deck cleat on a Hunter seems pretty slim, to begin with...










However, if one actually _WAS_ attempting to design a cleat with the maximum potential for inflicting injury in mind, you've gotta admit this one would be tough to beat...

;-)


----------



## Minnewaska

Went out to find a Hunter 45DS for sale that had a pic of her transom. Look how far down the vertically mounted aft cleat is located. Can't be access from the helm seat, you have to crawl down on the transom step. Horrible design. Might have been another thread, where I first pointed this out.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I usually wait for facts. If we see lots of failures of features/components like this - we know. Otherwise, we don't.


In other words, you can offer no argument for the inherent superiority of those cleats - or the manner in which they have been mounted - over a simpler, more traditional approach...

;-)

_"Lots of failures"_, eh? So, how many more keels have to fall off of Beneteau 40.7s, for instance, before one might rightfully begin to question their engineering?


----------



## Bleemus

Wow. Pages of people poking fun at cleat placement. You guys don't have cable I am guessing. I wouldn't have them on my boat and will wait for photos of them ripping out of sterns. Until then better things to worry over. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## outbound

I would have issue.
Inorderto to use the damn things you first have to deploy them. Taught the bride if she ever had trouble holding or pulling a dock line or other line to loop it under the horn of a standard cleat and pull up with her legs. Also taught her to quickly loop under a horn and hold on to line with one hand and pull up outbound of the cleat with the other. Then quickly take up slack. If getting away from her take a quick wrap. All can be done while standing. 
Usually you don't know you are having trouble until you are having trouble. Having to kneel down and use one hand to deploy a cleat and try to maintain control of the line with the other is a bit much for 100lb. 60+ year old. Old style cleats work just fine. When at the toe rail not at snub your toe issue. When mounted with adequate backing plate on solid glass at junction of stern, deck and hull you can pull the boat from one. More than adequate for a JSD.

Bah- humbug.


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, says the guy who recently started _THIS _ thread?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ted/223802-pirate-wg-user-wind-generator.html


Yes, but that was suppose to be a silly thread.

I'm always amazed at the level of note taking you do in order to post.


----------



## robert sailor

Its sort of interesting to see what some of the builders are doing these days, even if its just lousy cleats, its still interesting. Remember the same guy who made the decision on the use and placement of these cleats also made hundreds of other decisions in the design. In the end its just interesting that the buying public are getting just what they are asking for and like politics, the people are always right.


----------



## XSrcing

I'm going to install a different cleat at every corner of my boat.


----------



## Capt Len

X ,does that mean you can have your archaic and eat it too.?


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> Went out to find a Hunter 45DS for sale that had a pic of her transom. Look how far down the vertically mounted aft cleat is located. Can't be access from the helm seat, you have to crawl down on the transom step. Horrible design. Might have been another thread, where I first pointed this out.


I have to say I agree. Nothing to do with the cleat itself, that can be well made and up to the job or not (not enough information to say) but the position does not make sense. When I saw that on another picture thought it was a suplementar cleat and that the boat had cleats also on the "right" place.


----------



## XSrcing

Capt Len said:


> X ,does that mean you can have your archaic and eat it too.?


Preferably with rust spots.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> I would have issue.
> Inorderto to use the damn things you first have to deploy them. Taught the bride if she ever had trouble holding or pulling a dock line or other line to loop it under the horn of a standard cleat and pull up with her legs. Also taught her to quickly loop under a horn and hold on to line with one hand and pull up outbound of the cleat with the other. Then quickly take up slack. If getting away from her take a quick wrap. All can be done while standing.
> Usually you don't know you are having trouble until you are having trouble. Having to kneel down and use one hand to deploy a cleat and try to maintain control of the line with the other is a bit much for 100lb. 60+ year old. Old style cleats work just fine. When at the toe rail not at snub your toe issue. When mounted with adequate backing plate on solid glass at junction of stern, deck and hull you can pull the boat from one. More than adequate for a JSD.
> 
> Bah- humbug.


Do you think this would take less time to take away then to open a foldable cleat?










I don't think so.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Other thing I've found of interest is where the cleats are placed. Find spring lines helpful. Actually more helpful if placed amidships at maximum beam. Then can power against them to get boat off the dock in a crosswind.


Hmmm, yet _ANOTHER_ of my pet peeves... ;-)

For the purposes of the use of an aft spring to assist in coming alongside, it's astonishing in my experience how few builders get the placement of a single midship cleat right... They are virtually ALWAYS placed too far forward, and serve to tend to pull the bow in rather sharply as soon as one powers ahead on the spring... The placement amidships, at the point of maximum beam, on most boats results in being too far forward, _for that particular purpose_... Which, in my opinion, is one of the most important usages of a midship cleat, particularly for a single or shorthanded crew, or anyone who might not have some assistance from the dock...

A rough guestimate for most boats, is that the ideal placement is back around Station 6 or 7... And on many boats, even a spring from a cockpit winch can be a better alternative than a midship cleat placed poorly relative to the boat's pivot point...

Yet another reason perforated toerails can come in handy... On boats with a single poorly placed midship cleat, you can simply shackle your spring to the spot where the builder should have put the cleat to begin with... ;-)

Also, midship cleats - no matter how big they are - are never big enough if you're rigging for a real blow at dockside  For no other single cleat will have as many lines made fast to it...

On larger boats, of course, 2 or more midship cleats are the way to go, then the chance of the after one being in a good position are pretty good...

On this Freedom 45, for example, this midship cleat was WAY too far forward, should have at least been back by the lifeline gate, even then it probably would have been further forward than I would have liked, back around the second black fender probably would have been about right...


----------



## outbound

Jon - you're right ( as usual). Took a look and it's just a bit in front of boarding gate.


----------



## outbound

Paulo where did you get those. Never seen something like that. My ignorance. Have never put something like that on the cleats. I'm very clumsy to point it's a running joke but have yet to stub my toe. Then again wear keens when sails go up. Find get better traction. Have zebra feet.


----------



## seaner97

I


outbound said:


> S- been a doc for many years and have done phase two and three trials. Issues of bias are well know and to extent possible excluded. That said for a new drug regardless of how well studied prior to release it is understood you will not be able to pass "final" judgement on safety/ efficacy, or risk/ benefit until a hundred thousand patient years have passed (100,000 pt/yrs means any permutations of years and number of patients using the drug equaling that amount).
> Translating to boats and boat equipment until it has been tested in the field by a sufficient number of people you just don't really know how well it will work and survive in usage. We blew up the tang fitting for the vang where it attaches to the boom. Weld failed and plate above weld cracked. On same passage sistershipdid the same. Called vendor. They were very responsive and shipped out fully casted replacement. It has yet to fail. Vendors said " we like Outbounds and J boats.... You owners sail your boats hard. The Outbounds get sailed a lot. We've been making this part for awhile. This is the first failure. Seeing it fall on two boats tells us we need to re engineer. Nothing like field testing."


Which is why I didn't comment on the cleat. It looks stupid and chafe inducing, and anything that moves in a marine environment needs maintenance, lubricants and is more likely to fail at the least opportune time, but if you want one, go for it. Me? Give me the old fashioned ones. I'm pretty good at watching where I step.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> In other words, you can offer no argument for the inherent superiority of those cleats - or the manner in which they have been mounted - over a simpler, more traditional approach...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> _"Lots of failures"_, eh? So, how many more keels have to fall off of Beneteau 40.7s, for instance, before one might rightfully begin to question their engineering?





seaner97 said:


> I
> Which is why I didn't comment on the cleat. It looks stupid and chafe inducing, and anything that moves in a marine environment needs maintenance, lubricants and is more likely to fail at the least opportune time, but if you want one, go for it. Me? Give me the old fashioned ones. I'm pretty good at watching where I step.


Hinckley anyone?










Go get 'em Chicken Little(s).


----------



## overbored

smackdaddy said:


> Hinckley anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go get 'em Chicken Little(s).


Seasmart Cleat. I have installed and used these cleats. they are very High quality, very strong and have not seen any chafing from them. expensive about $270 for the 7" Aluminum cleat. pull hard enough and you will get the cleat off but you will be getting a lot of deck with it.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Hinckley anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go get 'em Chicken Little(s).


Well, to my eye that looks substantially more robust and well engineered than that crap on the Hunter, but only marginally less stupid than the clamshell variety from Nomen... ;-)

They sure _LOOK_ sexy, I'll give them that...

;-)

I sure hope they pop up in perpetuity, whenever needed...

Unlike the fancy-schmancy recessed 'window shade' drop boards on a $1.3 million CW Boat of the Year I used to run...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, to my eye that looks substantially more robust and well engineered than that crap on the Hunter, but only marginally less stupid than the clamshell variety from Nomen...


Of course it does - it's a Hinckley.

And it has those nice, non-traditional sharp edges that'll chafe a line or skewer small children in a heartbeat and is only there to cater to the dock-hugging, boat-showing Hunteresque crowd that doesn't know any better...blah, blah... (I think that was the general consensus?)

Hinckleys and Hunters. Gotta love 'em.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Of course it does - it's a Hinckley.
> 
> And it has those nice, non-traditional sharp edges that'll chafe a line or skewer small children in a heartbeat and is only there to cater to the dock-hugging, boat-showing Hunteresque crowd that doesn't know any better...blah, blah... (I think that was the general consensus?)
> 
> Hinckleys and Hunters. Gotta love 'em.


Well, all I can say is, when you're fixing your dock lines ashore and adjusting them from onboard your Hinckley 50, you'd better finish off that Figure 8 locking hitch with a couple of half-hitches, as well...



Hmmm, another folding/pop-up cleat mounted atop the cap rail, in this case closely guarded by stanchion bases... Yup, countless foot injuries will be saved by that 'precaution', no doubt...

;-)


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can offer no argument for the inherent superiority of those cleats - or the manner in which they have been mounted - over a simpler, more traditional approach...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> _"Lots of failures"_, eh? So, how many more keels have to fall off of Beneteau 40.7s, for instance, before one might rightfully begin to question their engineering?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> Which is why I didn't comment on the cleat. It looks stupid and chafe inducing, and anything that moves in a marine environment needs maintenance, lubricants and is more likely to fail at the least opportune time, but if you want one, go for it. Me? Give me the old fashioned ones. I'm pretty good at watching where I step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hinckley anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go get 'em Chicken Little(s).
Click to expand...

I think I already stated Hinkley isn't above some bad design decisions to chase a market, no? I would also point out- that ain't the cleat in question. I agree that it looks slippery, but significantly less chafe inducing. You still have to deploy it, and I bet there is maintenance. I'd rather varnish than oil my friggin cleats. But if I've got Hinkley money, I guess I can afford to add that to the yard bill. I think your bait and switch kind of made our point for us. Better designs cost (although the best option here still seems cheaper). Poorer ones that are imitations are put on as eye candy to sell boats.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> I think I already stated Hinkley isn't above some bad design decisions to chase a market, no? I would also point out- that ain't the cleat in question. I agree that it looks slippery, but significantly less chafe inducing. You still have to deploy it, and I bet there is maintenance. I'd rather varnish than oil my friggin cleats. But if I've got Hinkley money, I guess I can afford to add that to the yard bill. I think your bait and switch kind of made our point for us. Better designs cost (although the best option here still seems cheaper). Poorer ones that are imitations are put on as eye candy to sell boats.


Yes, bad design decisions like making contemporary designed sailboats. Those cleats look very well made.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, yet _ANOTHER_ of my pet peeves... ;-)
> 
> For the purposes of the use of an aft spring to assist in coming alongside, it's astonishing in my experience how few builders get the placement of a single midship cleat right... They are virtually ALWAYS placed too far forward, and serve to tend to pull the bow in rather sharply as soon as one powers ahead on the spring... The placement amidships, at the point of maximum beam, on most boats results in being too far forward, _for that particular purpose_... Which, in my opinion, is one of the most important usages of a midship cleat, particularly for a single or shorthanded crew, or anyone who might not have some assistance from the dock...
> 
> A rough guestimate for most boats, is that the ideal placement is back around Station 6 or 7... And on many boats, even a spring from a cockpit winch can be a better alternative than a midship cleat placed poorly relative to the boat's pivot point...
> 
> Yet another reason perforated toerails can come in handy... On boats with a single poorly placed midship cleat, you can simply shackle your spring to the spot where the builder should have put the cleat to begin with... ;-)
> 
> Also, midship cleats - no matter how big they are - are never big enough if you're rigging for a real blow at dockside  For no other single cleat will have as many lines made fast to it...
> 
> On larger boats, of course, 2 or more midship cleats are the way to go, then the chance of the after one being in a good position are pretty good...
> 
> On this Freedom 45, for example, this midship cleat was WAY too far forward, should have at least been back by the lifeline gate, even then it probably would have been further forward than I would have liked, back around the second black fender probably would have been about right...


I don't understand your point. That has nothing to do with old versus new, cheap versus expensive materials, but with a boat being well designed or not. Almost all modern mass production boats are very well designed (by the best NA) and the middle cleats are where they are supposed to be. I have no doubt that Farr, Finot or Marc Lombard now exactly were the cleats should be positioned to be effective.

Very few mass production boats are not designed by top NA, wit the notable exception of some American brands and that may explain for instance those Hunter cleat oddities, not to mention the hull shape of some of the last designed boats.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> I don't understand your point. That has nothing to do with old versus new, cheap versus expensive materials, but with a boat being well designed or not. Almost all modern mass production boats are very well designed (by the best NA) and the middle cleats are where they are supposed to be. I have no doubt that Farr, Finot or Marc Lombard now exactly were the cleats should be positioned to be effective.
> 
> Very few mass production boats are not designed by top NA, wit the notable exception of some American brands and that may explain for instance those Hunter cleat oddities, not to mention the hull shape of some of the last designed boats.


P my friend, don't give these designers too much credit. There are many examples of poor design features that these guys have come up with. The Europeans designers are no better and brighter than the NA ones. I will give them credit for being market leaders over the last several years but these things ebb and flow. When they include huge areas of fixed deck skylites that leak almost when they leave the factory and owners spending gobs of money trying to achieve a dry interior to no avail I don't consider it good design. When they design boats with the Euro look of square corners on the interior finish I don't consider that good design. The complete removal of a proper bilge is not good design. Designing boats where they put wiring in between the liner and hull making any future repairs or modification almost impossible is not good design.
Their designs have great sight lines and a very bright open feel but few places to really be able to grab on to when underway are not great designs.
They have been the leader in designing boats that are OK sailors and look great at rest and the most important thing is that they sell in large numbers but so do cheap watches.


----------



## JonEisberg

overbored said:


> Seasmart Cleat. I have installed and used these cleats. they are very High quality, very strong and have not seen any chafing from them. expensive about $270 for the 7" Aluminum cleat. pull hard enough and you will get the cleat off but you will be getting a lot of deck with it.


Hmmm...

_*"Bollard opens and shuts with an O-ring which keeps the pistons watertight."*"_

_"Pistons?" "O-Rings?"_ Sure, nothing to possibly go wrong there, right? After all, we all know things like O-Rings on the exterior of a yacht sailed in salt water or the harsh sun of the tropics will rarely, if _EVER_, be compromised, eh?

;-)

Putting the KISS principle aside, I still have 2 main problems with that sort of cleat, and fail to see how they are an improvement over a style like this:










As I mentioned earlier, mooring cleats can often be pressed into service as a sort of 'winch', when sweating or snubbing a line, and often under more extreme circumstances... There's a reason winches are cylindrical, rather than square, with sharp 'corners' ;-) I found on the Nomen style cleats - with the rather sharp turn the line makes over and under the horns of the cleat - that it was difficult to ease the line smoothly, particularly when using a knobbier brait rope... The line would tend to hang up or 'grab' the corners to some extent, then suddenly jump free... Under a heavy load, smoothness of operation is critical, and the opposite might lead to a loss of control, or even potential injury, on a larger boat in a challenging situation...

But the larger problem with that design, is that the Sea Smart will have greater integrity in the strength of its attachment to the deck in a 'lengthwise' direction, than it will when subjected to a loading from a direction more perpendicular to the 3 mounting bolts placed inline...










Especially, as a side load from the cleated line will be transferred up towards the horns of the cleat, and away from the base, inducing a force that will want to 'pry' the base from the deck, or at least bend the pistons...

The 4 bolt _SQUARE_ mounting pattern of the Less Sexy But Lower Maintenance cleat I've pictured, offers the same resistance to any load, no matter from which direction it is applied...


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Yes, bad design decisions like making contemporary designed sailboats. Those cleats look very well made.












Ok, we've established you are using that word incorrectly, so I would encourage you to find another one that you think is similar.
As I stated above- that IS NOT THE CLEAT or the ORIENTATION that was being discussed, and I clearly stated that it looked well made but had MOVING parts that I thought were a bad idea. Outbound added another I hadn't thought of with the idea that they have to be deployed, which is another step in an emergency. 
But the Sea Dog looking, vertically oriented, flip out POS on that HUNTER is not, in almost any way other than sharing a category of being retractable/flush mounted, analogous to the cleat on that, clearly superior, Hinkley. 
I also stated that even that Sea Dog POS looking thing might actually be ok even though I think it's a bad idea. I was pretty freaking clear it was an opinion.
I've got an old boat. I plan on keeping it. If I bought a new boat, I'd plan on handing it down to my kids (it's a half a million to a million bleeping dollars or euros after all- it should outlive me!) so I'd want the stuff to keep working. My experience is that in a marine environment, without constant maintenance, these sort of parts corrode or gum up in about 5-7 years, max. Oil/lubricants attract dirt, somehow even if you attempt to protect them with covers or some such.
If you (PCP) want to drop 500K-750K or more every 5 years because you think the contemporary (which means produced now and nothing more than that) technology is inherently better, go for it. But new does not equal better. Some things new are truly improvements, but not all are. 
Something tells me you were first in line for these
100 Worst Cars of All Time
Because they were all contemporary designs at one time.


----------



## seaner97

outbound said:


> S- been a doc for many years and have done phase two and three trials. Issues of bias are well know and to extent possible excluded. That said for a new drug regardless of how well studied prior to release it is understood you will not be able to pass "final" judgement on safety/ efficacy, or risk/ benefit until a hundred thousand patient years have passed (100,000 pt/yrs means any permutations of years and number of patients using the drug equaling that amount).
> Translating to boats and boat equipment until it has been tested in the field by a sufficient number of people you just don't really know how well it will work and survive in usage. We blew up the tang fitting for the vang where it attaches to the boom. Weld failed and plate above weld cracked. On same passage sistershipdid the same. Called vendor. They were very responsive and shipped out fully casted replacement. It has yet to fail. Vendors said " we like Outbounds and J boats.... You owners sail your boats hard. The Outbounds get sailed a lot. We've been making this part for awhile. This is the first failure. Seeing it fall on two boats tells us we need to re engineer. Nothing like field testing."


Out, as you know, but for the others, a biological system is infinitely more complex than a mechanical one if for only the reason that you can't really fully limit your variables. Mechanical testing can be done to extremes prior to field testing and design to (more expensive) tolerances far in excess of what you would ever see at sea. That can't be done in biological systems (at least not ethically). 
In a value market driven boat (the Benehunterlinas) they are forced into tradeoffs that sell, regardless of if they sail or function well. In general, they've done fairly well in the sail well category (probably because bad sailing boats wouldn't get repeat customers in 5-10 years when they want the 'contemporary design' upgrades), but they do cut some corners that wouldn't be on your outbound. Different horses. And that's ok Smack. But your Hunter- a Hinkley it is not.


----------



## XSrcing

We can all agree that moving parts = failure points, as such require routine maintenance to ensure proper operation in time of need.


----------



## Noelex

Those retractable cleats on the Hinckley are beautiful so I can see the market appeal. They also have some potential advantages in reducing the snagging of sheets especially for the spring cleats. Importantly they are placed so they are in sheer and look to have better quality and engineering than the Hunter equivalent (which you would expect from the price difference between the yachts).

Many of the disadvantages have already been mentioned. I also would be concerned about two extra holes drilled through the deck and core to accommodate the pins when they are retracted. The better boatbuilders will use a solid laminate over the cleat area, but I suspect not all. Even with a solid laminate will this be deep enough to seal the pins or are O rings necessary? What about crevice corrosion of the pins that will sit in in salt water? 

Are they strong enough? Probably for most applications, but what about in a storm holding the anchor rode, or pulling the boat off a sandbank, or deploying a drogue?

Anyway, I would not tick the option box.

I am reminded of the Porsche option list where FOR NO EXTRA COST you could leave out air conditioning, sound system etc. The idea was to make the car lighter and simpler which ultimately, for some, made it the better car.

Simple, strong, reduced maintenance. KISS. That is what I want from a cruising boat. It seems I may be in a minority.


----------



## overbored

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> _*"Bollard opens and shuts with an O-ring which keeps the pistons watertight."*"_
> 
> _"Pistons?" "O-Rings?"_ Sure, nothing to possibly go wrong there, right? After all, we all know things like O-Rings on the exterior of a yacht sailed in salt water or the harsh sun of the tropics will rarely, if _EVER_, be compromised, eh?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Putting the KISS principle aside, I still have 2 main problems with that sort of cleat, and fail to see how they are an improvement over a style like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, mooring cleats can often be pressed into service as a sort of 'winch', when sweating or snubbing a line, and often under more extreme circumstances... There's a reason winches are cylindrical, rather than square, with sharp 'corners' ;-) I found on the Nomen style cleats - with the rather sharp turn the line makes over and under the horns of the cleat - that it was difficult to ease the line smoothly, particularly when using a knobbier brait rope... The line would tend to hang up or 'grab' the corners to some extent, then suddenly jump free... Under a heavy load, smoothness of operation is critical, and the opposite might lead to a loss of control, or even potential injury, on a larger boat in a challenging situation...
> 
> But the larger problem with that design, is that the Sea Smart will have greater integrity in the strength of its attachment to the deck in a 'lengthwise' direction, than it will when subjected to a loading from a direction more perpendicular to the 3 mounting bolts placed inline...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially, as a side load from the cleated line will be transferred up towards the horns of the cleat, and away from the base, inducing a force that will want to 'pry' the base from the deck, or at least bend the pistons...
> 
> The 4 bolt _SQUARE_ mounting pattern of the Less Sexy But Lower Maintenance cleat I've pictured, offers the same resistance to any load, no matter from which direction it is applied...


your engineering analysis is flawed. you are only looking at the top of the Seasmart cleat. when mounted properly the cleats bollards extend below the deck and increase the resistance to a side load which will far exceed the four bolt model which is held in by smallish countersunk head machine screws. In actuality either of these cleats will work as intended if the deck is designed properly for the mounting of the corresponding cleat. 
So far the Seasmart cleat has performed far better then the old simple cleats for us. we have never gotten a spinnaker sheet or any other line caught on the cleat unless we wanted it to. they have held the boat to the slip or dock when needed. To us docking is something we only do when we can't stay out sailing. That is why we bought a sailboat. if I wanted a docking boat I would get a steel tugboat. 
so it depends on the intended purpose of the cleat that is selected as to which one works the best. there is no perfect cleat and no perfect boat.


----------



## Noelex

The makers of the Hinckley retractable cleats have a great catalogue here:

http://www.seasmart.it/public/files/Catalogue_2015.pdf

If you have the money you can get some top of the line custom cleats in titanium. Retractable cleats are only for those that cannot afford a full custom cleat like this .










Now that looks cool, strong and functional. Nothing to go wrong and no maintenance, although a few years ago I would have never thought I would use "cleat" and "maintenance" in the same sentence.

I would be honoured to stub my toe on this titanium beauty .

For a small extra fee you can have your boat name engraved on the cleat. I think that is for those that might otherwise forget their boat name when tying up .

I love well made gear. I don't mind paying for better equipment, but on a boat it has to be functional and well engineered as a first priority.


----------



## robert sailor

noelex77 said:


> The makers of the Hinckley retractable cleats have a great catalogue here:
> 
> http://www.seasmart.it/public/files/Catalogue_2015.pdf
> 
> If you have the money you can get some top of the line custom cleats in titanium like this. Retractable cleats are only for those that cannot afford a full custom cleat like this .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that looks cool, strong and functional. Nothing to go wrong and no maintenance.
> 
> I think I would be honoured to stub my toe on this titanium beauty .


Went through the website....male jewelry !!


----------



## seaner97

Certainly some nice bling in there.


----------



## Minnewaska

overbored said:


> ....will far exceed the four bolt model which is held in by smallish countersunk head machine screws....


You don't really think the typical traditional cleat is held down by screws? Through bolted, albeit with a countersunk head, through a backing plate would be more common. Other than the smallest of vessels, just screwing any cleat into the deck would qualify as a real POS.


----------



## robert sailor

Minnewaska said:


> You don't really think the typical traditional cleat is held down by screws? Through bolted, albeit with a countersunk head, through a backing plate would be more common. Other than the smallest of vessels, just screwing any cleat into the deck would qualify as a real POS.


Agreed although these days only the better builders use backing plates. The bigger production builders use fender washers.


----------



## Jeff_H

You guys still arguing about cleats? Jon is right, anything attached to fiberglass works best in shear. Keeping the lines running close to the parallel to deck minimizes the bending and withdrawal strain on the deck. It is the reason that lines generally are lead through chocks which are intended to deflect the direction of the line so they experience less load and can tolerate more vertical loads.

I work part time at West Marine for the employee discounts, Last spring a fellow came in with one of those retracting cleats from a French built production boat. He had wintered in the Caribbean and after the trip back to Annapolis, it was frozen solid and would not move. He said the others were merely stiff. He was looking for a penetrating oil. I suggested soaking it in a bucket of vinegar to see whether the problem was salt, which he did and it freed up the cleat. I don't care how strong a cleat may be, if you can't count on it opening reliably, it is not a great idea.

Frankly, I am old school preferring the four-bolt Merriman or Herreshoff style cleats for the reasons that Jon has stated.

I see the cleats on the transom of the Hunter as being useless for anything other than tying up a dinghy when coming back to the boat, or a dinghy steadying line when the dinghy is in the davits. But even so, that has little to do with the title of the thread.



robert sailor said:


> Agreed although these days only the better builders use backing plates. The bigger production builders use fender washers.


From the very beginning of fiberglass only the very best builders used backing plates. The production yards of the 1960's like Pearson, Columbia and Bristol did not use backing plates on anything. We installed plates on the cleats and winches of our Vanguard, and I did plates on both Columbias and Bristols when I worked in boat yards as a kid.

Today, the majority of production yards embed aluminum or SS plates in the glass work which are then drilled and tapped. That is all that is holding the deck hardware. The better builders seem to beef up the glass and use through bolts with fender washers. I am not sure that any non-custom builder uses true backing plates anymore.

Jeff


----------



## Minnewaska

Jeff_H said:


> ....From the very beginning of fiberglass only the very best builders used backing plates. The production yards of the 1960's like Pearson, Columbia and Bristol did not use backing plates on anything. We installed plates on the cleats and winches of our Vanguard, and I did plates on both Columbias and Bristols when I worked in boat yards as a kid.
> 
> Today, the majority of production yards embed aluminum or SS plates in the glass work which are then drilled and tapped. That is all that is holding the deck hardware. The better builders seem to beef up the glass and use through bolts with fender washers. I am not sure that any non-custom builder uses true backing plates anymore.
> 
> Jeff


Well, my 2004 Jeanneau has 1/4" SS backing plates on the cleats, through bolted with a locking nut and washers, as well. The chocks are backed by only washers, but they are form fitted between the toe rail teak, so get some shear strength there as well.


----------



## mitiempo

Minnewaska said:


> You don't really think the typical traditional cleat is held down by screws? Through bolted, albeit with a countersunk head, through a backing plate would be more common. Other than the smallest of vessels, just screwing any cleat into the deck would qualify as a real POS.


A machine screw is a bolt with either a flat, pan, or round head.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh dear, Oyster is getting in on the cheap death cleat action too...



















Obviously fooled by Hunter.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> I think I already stated Hinkley isn't above some bad design decisions to chase a market, no?


You might have said - but I certainly don't think it's true - especially in this case. Hinckley is not going to move in a direction this significant to its brand and bottom line without making sure it's a good decision. You make it sound like this 50 is a lark. I don't think so. I just think you're holding on to yesteryear a bit to tightly.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> P my friend, don't give these designers too much credit. There are many examples of poor design features that these guys have come up with. The Europeans designers are no better and brighter than the NA ones. I will give them credit for being market leaders over the last several years but these things ebb and flow....


So you're a designer who can give such credit?


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon - I'm starting to think your dockside research is pretty half-assed. Did you happen to look in the anchor locker of the Hunter like Mark Pillsbury from Sail magazine did?



> Marlow Hunter has you covered too, with twin offset bow rollers, a large anchor locker and a windlass. *I liked the heavy cleat placed in the locker for making off a snubber.* Elsewhere on deck, fold-down cleats are used to eliminate toe-stubbers.


You're just not engendering much credibility here.


----------



## Minnewaska

mitiempo said:


> A machine screw is a bolt with either a flat, pan, or round head.


Doh. Didn't read... machine. My bad.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh dear, Oyster is getting in on the cheap death cleat action too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously fooled by Hunter.


Yeah, but they got it all wrong, by not mounting them on the transom, no?

Damn, I sure hope they don't get fooled by Hunter into using that cheesy "Faux Teak" _CARPET_ that they stuck - literally - on the deck of that 47...










It's the weirdest stuff, very soft and spongy... As best I can tell, it's this stuff:

Teak Swim Platform Pads ? SeaDek Marine Products

*"Made from soft yet durable, closed-cell, EVA material our faux teak pads consist of two different colored sheets of non absorbent material, laminated together, 3mm on top and 3mm on the bottom. The surface is brushed for texture and then the pads are cut and beveled on CNC machines exposing the color beneath and creating a very realistic teak effect. The beveled edges provide a finished look and feel while helping to prevent peeling up of the pads.

The finished pads are easily installed using our robust pressure sensitive adhesive backing specifically tested and designed for the demanding marine environment. Just peel, stick and press the pads in place. It's that easy."*

And then, they bolt the jib lead track down on _TOP_ of that stuff? LMAO!

Hmmm, anyone want to hazard a guess as to how well that will have held up 10 or 15 years down the road? I'll bet that lovely young thing will age _FAR_ more gracefully than that stuff...

_"Disposable Boats"_, indeed...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

Now I totally agree with you on the artificial turf thing. That's just stupid.

PS - On that Oyster cleat location, weren't you and Minne furious that one would have to reach the one on the Hunter from the stern platform - or worse under the perch seats? Oyster seems to like the idea too.


----------



## amwbox

Glue it down. FINE.

Just don't punch 10,000 holes through the deck with screws like they did back in the day. Real teak or not...the holes are still idiotic.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon - I'm starting to think your dockside research is pretty half-assed. Did you happen to look in the anchor locker of the Hunter like Mark Pillsbury from Sail magazine did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marlow Hunter has you covered too, with twin offset bow rollers, a large anchor locker and a windlass. *I liked the heavy cleat placed in the locker for making off a snubber.* Elsewhere on deck, fold-down cleats are used to eliminate toe-stubbers.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not engendering much credibility here.
Click to expand...

Mark Pillsbury is the editor of CRUISING WORLD, actually, I suppose I may have to bow to his wisdom ;-) And, he actually wrote that in a review of the Marlow-Hunter *37*, but carry on...

However, that comment would seem to imply that the folding bow cleats themselves are may not be considered sufficient to take the load of an anchor snubber, no?

;-)

And, speaking of bow rollers, nobody else _'leverages'_ them quite like Hunter does, eh?

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Mark Pillsbury is the editor of CRUISING WORLD, actually, I suppose I may have to bow to his wisdom ;-)
> 
> However, that comment would seem to imply that the folding bow cleats themselves are may not be considered sufficient to take the load of an anchor snubber, no?


I know very well who Mark is. Great guy...who published my AMVER article.

Again, from a design perspective - I think it would be better to infer that the bow cleats themselves are not *INTENDED* to take the full load of an anchor snubber....that's why said designers and builders added the cleat that Mark speaks of that IS intended and sufficient to do so - _in the best place to do it_. It's called good design. But you can't see that by merely snapping photos and making assumptions from the dock and throwing stones in forums. You actually have to understand the boat.


----------



## Capt Len

Actually pretty neat design. A flexible fair lead for the anchor rode when it gusts up . wonder if as much thought was put into fairleads for the snubber cleat in the locker. pictures?


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ....On that Oyster cleat location, weren't you and Minne furious that one would have to reach the one on the Hunter from the stern platform - or worse under the perch seats? Oyster seems to like the idea too.


You certainly have a way with words. That is, changing people's words. I'm not furious and I was specifically referring to having to climb down on the platform. I think it's just idiotic and I'll accept all explanations of why not being able to reach your Hunter stern cleat, from inside the cockpit makes sense. Anything?

Those on the Oyster appear reachable from the aft deck, without climbing down on the transom step, if not clumsy being below the seat.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Now I totally agree with you on the artificial turf thing. That's just stupid.
> 
> PS - On that Oyster cleat location, weren't you and Minne furious that one would have to reach the one on the Hunter from the stern platform - or worse under the perch seats? Oyster seems to like the idea too.


Uhhh, if I hated those clamshell cleats on a Trintella, I imagine I'd hate them just as much on an Oyster... ;-)

And, yes, their placement appears to be rather awkward, as well - though it still pales in comparison to the stupidity exhibited on that Hunter... Not sure where you're getting the idea that I endorse every single thing a higher-end builder like Oyster does, either...


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> You might have said - but I certainly don't think it's true - especially in this case. Hinckley is not going to move in a direction this significant to its brand and bottom line without making sure it's a good decision. You make it sound like this 50 is a lark. I don't think so. I just think you're holding on to yesteryear a bit to tightly.


Not a lark, but you have also changed the discussion to a different cleat. I think the pop ups are probably OK for someone who wants to do maintenance on them. I'm not hanging onto yesteryear- I just like simple and durable, and, as I said, I'm pretty fing good at not stepping on crap I shouldn't. 
Again, however, these are not the cleats that started this discussion. How about quitting the Jedi mind tricks ("these are not the cleats you are looking for") and go back to those horribly stupid, vertically mounted POS that started this. Find them on a Hinkley or a Morris and then you've got a case. Otherwise, admit defeat.


----------



## JonEisberg

overbored said:


> your engineering analysis is flawed. you are only looking at the top of the Seasmart cleat. *when mounted properly the cleats bollards extend below the deck and increase the resistance to a side load *which will far exceed the four bolt model which is held in by smallish countersunk head machine screws. In actuality either of these cleats will work as intended if the deck is designed properly for the mounting of the corresponding cleat.


Thanks, that's something I had not considered...

However, to obtain the maximum degree of additional resistance to side loading the bollard might afford, the cleat would have to be mounted into a solid material of a thickness approaching the depth of the bollards, correct? Depending on the size of the cleat, we might be talking about a laminate or similar solid structure 2-3" thick, perhaps? Otherwise, if those bollards are simply 'floating in air' below whatever backing material the mounting bolts are fixed through, their additional depth is not gonna provide much in the way of additional strength, right?

While I would trust a builder like Hinckley to go to that extent, can't say as I'd assume a builder like Bavaria, or Hunter, to do the same...

;-)



overbored said:


> So far the Seasmart cleat has performed far better then the old simple cleats for us. *we have never gotten a spinnaker sheet or any other line caught on the cleat* unless we wanted it to.


Me neither... 

Even with teak as expensive as it is these days, this simple solution works fine for me, and I probably come out about $500 ahead of the SeaSmart solution, in the end...












overbored said:


> they have held the boat to the slip or dock when needed. To us docking is something we only do when we can't stay out sailing. That is why we bought a sailboat. if I wanted a docking boat I would get a steel tugboat.


Well, that's nice, but I'd have to say that such a mindset is in the minority among owners of larger boats, these days... I'm pretty sure the market research of production builders like Catalina and Hunter would indicate that most of their larger boat buyers keep their boats in marinas, and actually dock their boats regularly... Hell, it's somewhat rare for me to run a late model boat not equipped with a bow thruster these days, and I doubt most end users are primarily using them while underway...

Although, I have heard a certain Beige-colored Brand can sometimes benefit from a heavy dose of thruster, to bring the bow thru a tack in a breeze less than 10 knots...

;-)


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

I agree with everything you say. But I also noticed something in this picture beyond the anti-snagging device:



JonEisberg said:


> ;-)


And that is the round thing on the ventilated toe rail. What is it and what is its purpose? And so you use the black pieces of line to hold it in place? Tell us more, please!

(actually, I have an inkling that it has to do with chafe reduction but I don't want to speculate)


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> I don't understand your point. That has nothing to do with old versus new, cheap versus expensive materials, but with a boat being well designed or not. Almost all modern mass production boats are very well designed (by the best NA) and the middle cleats are where they are supposed to be. I have no doubt that Farr, Finot or Marc Lombard now exactly were the cleats should be positioned to be effective.


Well, if by "effective" you mean that they will pull the bow sharply into the dock as soon as a strain is taken on an aft spring line, I would have to agree...

;-)

Paulo, you obviously are way more familiar with European boats than I am... Most of my deliveries here on this side of the pond involve American or Asian-built boats. And, all I can say, speaking from my experience, that for the purpose of using a spring line to come alongside a dock when being blown off by a breeze, or a side-setting current, the placement of midship cleats is rarely ideal, it is almost always too far forward...

Since I do so much singlehanded sailing, this is important to me... I'm often coming into places late at night, having to fend for myself, etc.... After I manage to toss a loop on a dock cleat or piling, then jump back to the helm, I don't want to have to apply a massive amount of opposite rudder to counteract the bow being pulled in sharply as soon as I start to power ahead on the spring... _IN MY OPINION_, on boats where a single midship cleat is used, it should be placed at a point where a relatively neutral rudder position can be maintained to keep the boat parallel to the dock while powering forward to ease the boat alongside...

Now, that's just me... Perhaps others don't mind their boats becoming skewed while attempting to perform this sort of maneuver... ;-)

You may be right, perhaps the Euros tend to get this better, though I'm not so sure about that... But I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised this summer, when I ran a Beneteau Oceanis 34 down to Florida... Turned out the midship cleat placement was close to ideal, right around Station 6, perhaps a bit further aft...










That boat was a pleasure to handle around the dock, and the use of an aft spring worked fine...

Which was fortunate, since the designer and builder - in their infinite wisdom - chose to leave any sort of rubrail whatsoever off that slab-sided hull...

;-)

As a result, it was either floating docks, or only fixed piers with the cleanest, most well-padded pilings, that were in play on that trip..


----------



## JonEisberg

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I agree with everything you say. But I also noticed something in this picture beyond the anti-snagging device:
> 
> And that is the round thing on the ventilated toe rail. What is it and what is its purpose? And so you use the black pieces of line to hold it in place? Tell us more, please!
> 
> (actually, I have an inkling that it has to do with chafe reduction but I don't want to speculate)


You're right, it's to guard against chafe... those aluminum "Canadian Picket Fences" pioneered by C&C can be surprisingly rough on rope... Especially, when they're 45 years old... ;-)

That's just a length of electrical conduit material, with about a 3/8" wide slit cut the length of it... A bit smaller than the diameter of the top 'bead' of the toerail, it simply snaps into place, and the light lines prevent it from migrating out of position...

I don't have chocks on my foredeck, so I have a shorter set that gets used up there, as well...

Now, if I were sailing a Hinckley, I'd have to figure out some way to cover them with elkhide... But, that can wait...

;-)


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

JonEisberg said:


> You're right, it's to guard against chafe... those aluminum "Canadian Picket Fences" pioneered by C&C can be surprisingly rough on rope... Especially, when they're 45 years old... ;-)
> 
> That's just a length of electrical conduit material, with about a 3/8" wide slit cut the length of it... A bit smaller than the diameter of the top 'bead' of the toerail, it simply snaps into place, and the light lines prevent it from migrating out of position...
> 
> I don't have chocks on my foredeck, so I have a shorter set that gets used up there, as well...
> 
> Now, if I were sailing a Hinckley, I'd have to figure out some way to cover them with elkhide... But, that can wait...
> 
> ;-)


Elkhide! That's a good one!

Nice solution, thanks!


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> Since I do so much singlehanded sailing, this is important to me... I'm often coming into places late at night, having to fend for myself, etc.... After I manage to toss a loop on a dock cleat or piling, then jump back to the helm, I don't want to have to apply a massive amount of opposite rudder to counteract the bow being pulled in sharply as soon as I start to power ahead on the spring... _IN MY OPINION_, on boats where a single midship cleat is used, it should be placed at a point where a relatively neutral rudder position can be maintained to keep the boat parallel to the dock while powering forward to ease the boat alongside...
> 
> Now, that's just me... Perhaps others don't mind their boats becoming skewed while attempting to perform this sort of maneuver... ;-)


Jon, maybe I'm missing something, but why use a midships cleat for this at all? Any reason you don't simply throw the other end of your dock-loop around the jib sheet winch and control it from inside the cockpit??

Depends on the boat I suppose, but I do find a heavy-weight full-keeler doesn't pull in sharply like that.. unless I've applied far too much throttle. ;-)

Lead-foot.. ... :grin


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> ......on boats where a single midship cleat is used, it should be placed at a point where a relatively neutral rudder position can be maintained to keep the boat parallel to the dock while powering forward to ease the boat alongside.......


What if you had to back into the slip with a forward spring?


----------



## Minnewaska

Classic30 said:


> ......Any reason you don't simply throw the other end of your dock-loop around the jib sheet winch and control it from inside the cockpit??.....


I've always been told that winches are not designed to be cleats. Knowing the loads they carry, I've been suspicious of that. However, if you look up your winch's specification, they do give a range of angles that the lines are intended to exit the drum. Running a dockline could be outside that range. I'm not certain if that range is due to design leverage limitations or if exceeding it would only cause overrides or a tailer to malfunction.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> P my friend, don't give these designers too much credit. There are many examples of poor design features that these guys have come up with. The Europeans designers are no better and brighter than the NA ones.....


I did not say that. I said that European brands use the best NA, including the best American NA firms (Farr and Reichel & Pugh, among others). What I said was that mass production American brands don't use the best NA but 2nd rate ones, including not the best the American NA firms.

We were talking about badly positioned cleats (by design), namely the ones on the Hunter. Can you give some examples of European boats designed by major NA firms with so badly positioned cleats as on that Hunter? I don't think so.


----------



## PCP

noelex77 said:


> Those retractable cleats on the Hinckley are beautiful so I can see the market appeal. They also have some potential advantages in reducing the snagging of sheets especially for the spring cleats. Importantly they are placed so they are in sheer and look to have better quality and engineering than the Hunter equivalent (which you would expect from the price difference between the yachts).
> 
> ...
> Anyway, I would not tick the option box.
> 
> ....


You would not have too. They are standard as you would expect on a very high quality boat.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> Agreed although these days only the better builders use backing plates. The bigger production builders use fender washers.


Washers for holding cleats? are you kidding? The cheapest way that mass producer brands do it is with a piece of laminated wood completely impregnated with resin and introduced on the fiberglass, reinforced at that point. That's the way Bavarias do it and they are the less expensive cruisers around. Others use aluminum or steel pates embedded on the reinforced fiberglass.


----------



## PCP

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I agree with everything you say. But I also noticed something in this picture beyond the anti-snagging device:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the round thing on the ventilated toe rail. What is it and what is its purpose? And so you use the black pieces of line to hold it in place? Tell us more, please!
> 
> (actually, I have an inkling that it has to do with chafe reduction but I don't want to speculate)


That means that the boat is baldly designed on that particular spot and the round piece for reducing shaft is just a patch added by jon to minimize the effects of that bad design.

There should be an opening there on the rail and the design should provide for no shaft on the ropes that come out of the cleat and no friction of the ropes on the fiberglass, for not wearing it.


----------



## Noelex

PCP said:


> You would not have too. They are standard as you would expect on a very high quality boat.


I was referring to your comment about your own boat:


PCP said:


> I believe they are now an extra on my boat.


As I said, I would not tick that option box (on your boat).

I have never spoken to Hinckley, but I have have always imagined they are a semi- custom, rather than a production boatbuilder. If so I am sure they would be glad to change a detail like the type of cleat, although sometimes these changes can be more difficult than imagined.

A simpler solution might be to add some additional strong cleats/ Sampson posts that could take the force of being pulled off a sandbank, the deployment of a drogue/sea anchor etc. Strong points like this have sadly disappeared from most cruising boats. As they require significant under deck support they are difficult items for an owner to retrofit, but not hard to incorporate at the building stage.

Anyway those would be my wishes although I realise not everyone has the same views on what is desirable on a cruising boat.


----------



## Capt Len

I found the position and use of a good useful midship cleat had to be a consideration of beam, windage and prop wash on the rudder. Thane was 15 'beam so angle of pull on the centre of moving mass was greater . Windage was extreme forward so forces on that angle variable and 'gottabe quick'. Prop wash I had in abundance and knew how to use it. Every boat is different and rarely approaches perfect. Hardly ever knocked bystanders off the dock with the 12 ' bowsprit though.


----------



## Classic30

Minnewaska said:


> I've always been told that winches are not designed to be cleats. Knowing the loads they carry, I've been suspicious of that. However, if you look up your winch's specification, they do give a range of angles that the lines are intended to exit the drum. Running a dockline could be outside that range. I'm not certain if that range is due to design leverage limitations or if exceeding it would only cause overrides or a tailer to malfunction.


I wasn't really implying that you'd use a winch as a cleat (although I admit I do often use mine that way short-term to hold the spring during a lunch-stop).. more that you might use it whilst docking single-handed and then, by all means, shift the spring to your mid-ships cleat once alongside.

Control is the key here.. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like the idea of single-handed docking on a line I've got tied off to the boat already. If something goes pear-shaped (maybe the throttle gets stuck?) and I need to abort in a hurry, having the spring looped once around the winch and in my hand means I can cast off instantly, or at very least ease off and lessen the impact.

To answer your question: I think it's design shock-load limitation. Cleats are designed to handle a real pounding in snotty weather - but you still want your winches to turn next time you come aboard.


----------



## Classic30

Capt Len said:


> .... Hardly ever knocked bystanders off the dock with the 12 ' bowsprit though.


Sounds like you're not trying hard enough, Len! I hear dock-skittles is great fun.. :laugh :grin


----------



## Faster

Classic30 said:


> Sounds like you're not trying hard enough, Len! I hear dock-skittles is great fun.. :laugh :grin


Spoken by one who, at least by their avatar, appears to be somewhat 'bowsprit challenged'..


----------



## Classic30

Faster said:


> Spoken by one who, at least by their avatar, appears to be somewhat 'bowsprit challenged'..


Yes, never tried it myself.. but I've seen it done during a below-average docking of a small schooner by a rookie helmsman who misjudged his approach. Everyone ducked and no damage was done, so he got no points that day. I'm told that to score you've got to knock an unsuspecting someone or something over without actually hitting the dock in the process (that's an automatic disqualification).


----------



## Capt Len

I bet that a mid spring run from a cockpit winch will be too far aft ( unless run to a fairlead up where to cleat should be )to be useful in controling the bow against a contrary current or wind.Might as well just throw a stern line to someone on the dock and hope for the best. This apparently is the common wayit'sdone.


----------



## Classic30

Capt Len said:


> I bet that a mid spring run from a cockpit winch will be too far aft ( unless run to a fairlead up where to cleat should be )to be useful in controling the bow against a contrary current or wind.Might as well just throw a stern line to someone on the dock and hope for the best. This apparently is the common wayit'sdone.


Depends on the boat and the winch positions, I s'pose - that's why I put it out there as a question. Works for me.. and might work for others with a beam 1/3 of LOA and a largish cockpit.


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> What if you had to back into the slip with a forward spring?


Well, for me that's a far less likely scenario than coming alongside using an aft spring... However, in that case, 2 midship cleats would be nice ;-) If I owned a boat upwards of 40' or so, I'd want a pair or cleats, perhaps around Stations 4, and 6 or 7...

But again - at least for me - the more likely scenario of employing a forward spring than backing into a slip, is having to use a forward spring to get yourself free of a dock while being blown on to it... In that case, easing back on the spring taken to around Station 6 or 7 - or even to a stern cleat, on most boats will bring the bow out against the wind, then you're good to go...

Of course, this works far better on boats with a more traditional hull form and narrower transom... On many of today's wide-assed offerings shaped more like powerboats, a bow thruster in that case will likely be your best bet... 

Once again, these variables point to the utility of a perforated toerail... By using a snatch block, or simply a dyneema loup or soft shackle, it doesn't matter quite as much where the cleat is situated, you can simply create a fair lead to suit your purpose...


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> I did not say that. I said that European brands use the best NA, including the best American NA firms (Farr and Reichel & Pugh, among others). What I said was that mass production American brands don't use the best NA but 2nd rate ones, including not the best the American NA firms.
> 
> We were talking about badly positioned cleats (by design), namely the ones on the Hunter. Can you give some examples of European boats designed by major NA firms with so badly positioned cleats as on that Hunter? I don't think so.


No I can't the Hunter cleats are the worst I have ever seen


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> Well, for me that's a far less likely scenario than coming alongside using an aft spring..


Lucky duck. I've had to back into the slip in my current and past marina.



> ...a bow thruster in that case will likely be your best bet...


and I ain't afraid to use it. 

My standards only allow me to use short bursts. If I ever have to stand on it, I've screwed up.

Well, with one exception. I have to back up and turn the boat 90 degs, just to start heading down the fairway to my side slip. I came in this summer with 25kts blowing from the direction that the bow needed to go, while I was backing up. There was no magic on earth that was going to get that bow around, other than the blender under the bow.


----------



## JonEisberg

Classic30 said:


> Jon, maybe I'm missing something, but why use a midships cleat for this at all? Any reason you don't simply throw the other end of your dock-loop around the jib sheet winch and control it from inside the cockpit??
> 
> grin


Guess you missed it, but I did mention the use of a sheet winch as an alternative back in my first post on the subject, I believe... 

As always, depends on the boat... Although I don't think it's the preferred alternative, on some boats it will work fine... But on many center cockpits, if you try to run a spring from a cockpit winch to a cleat on a low floating dock, the lifelines are in the way, you could break one or bend a stanchion... On my aft cockpit, if I happen to have my cockpit weather cloths in place, using a winch as an option is out, as well...

But again, for single or shorthanded operation, with no assistance from the dock, a midship cleat situated near the beamiest part of the boat works best for me... It's the point of the boat easiest to get close to the dock first, closer is generally better when it comes to tossing a loop over a dock cleat or piling... Here's a recent example...

Several weeks ago I was running a Shannon 43 down from Maine... I arrived in the tiny Harbor of Refuge in Sandwich, at the entrance to the Cape Cod Canal, well after midnight, place was deserted, naturally... I was gonna have to come alongside their floating fuel dock, with about a 20 knot breeze out of the NE blowing me off... No bow thruster, and with her double head rig and large bowsprit, that boat has a LOT of windage forward, and not all that much in the way of a forefoot to prevent the bow falling off like a kite... Once the breeze starts taking that bow, it's _OVER_... ;-)

So, my only real option was to try to slam it alongside fairly agressively, using the prop walk to get her parallel to the dock, and try to toss a loop onto a cleat from amidships... Having to approach the dock at a fairly sharp angle, but also having to turn away from the dock sooner than I would have liked due to the bowsprit (Uhhh, have I mentioned I HATE running boats with bowsprits? ;-)) And to add a bit of spice to the mix, naturally this is the first time I have ever attempted to dock this boat, so just as well no one was around to watch ;-) But even with a fairly 'agressive' approach, I was probably still a good 6-8 feet away from the dock by the time I got up on deck and made the toss, and the bow was already falling off fast... With the somewhat pinched ends of that boat, I would have been considerably further away from the dock, attempting to loop a cleat from the cockpit, and by that time the bow likely would have been hopelessly gone...

Not to mention, so many boats I run today have so much crap surrounding the cockpits, biminis and all the rest, it's generally easier - and safer - to find the space to toss a line unimpeded, out on deck...


----------



## Classic30

Minnewaska said:


> ....
> and I ain't afraid to use it.
> 
> My standards only allow me to use short bursts. If I ever have to stand on it, I've screwed up.


Bow-thrusters?!? We don't need no bow-thrusters!!.. Oh, for the good old days...  



Minnewaska said:


> Well, with one exception. I have to back up and turn the boat 90 degs, just to start heading down the fairway to my side slip. I came in this summer with 25kts blowing from the direction that the bow needed to go, while I was backing up. There was no magic on earth that was going to get that bow around, other than the blender under the bow.


There is a way to do that without using "magic": Drop a small kedge in the appropriate spot out in the fairway on your way into the pen and slack right off on the line so no-one will even notice it. Next time you head out, simply take the line forward and haul on it to pull your bow around, picking it up as you head out.

(It's a trick widely used by the old clipper ships so they could leave the dock in adverse wind conditions without needing a tug..)


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> I've always been told that winches are not designed to be cleats. Knowing the loads they carry, I've been suspicious of that. However, if you look up your winch's specification, they do give a range of angles that the lines are intended to exit the drum. Running a dockline could be outside that range. I'm not certain if that range is due to design leverage limitations or if exceeding it would only cause overrides or a tailer to malfunction.


I think you're right, and there are a few reasons for that...

As powerful and robust was winches and windlasses can be, one thing they don't like is any shock or snatching loads... Now the use of an aft spring generally tends to be pretty benign, but you never know ;-) In any event, to use a winch as a substitute for a cleat is, in most circumstances, a poor practice and not the best alternative...

Good point about the preferred angles for lines led to winches, and relevant to this thread... My good friend Peter Linwick at Florida Rigging & Hydraulics explained to me years ago the importance of the correct orientation of the base of a winch relative to the load... I've forgotten the precise details, but if memory serves the wrap around the drum should begin approx. 15 degrees beyond the point at which the internal gear that drives the drum is situated... (Again, be advised I may not have this exactly right, it might be the point 15 degrees _BEFORE_ the gear, just going from a faded memory here, it's been a few years since I upgraded to my Andersens ;-)) Peter has serviced a LOT of winches over the years, and he says this is one of those details that very few builders bother to get right... The overwhelming majority of winches he sees have apparently simply been removed from the box, and mounted however which way based on the position of the self-tailing mechanism happens to have been put on during their assembly at the factory... The result is a total crapshoot, as to whether or not they have been mounted 'properly', with regard to the recommended direction of the load it will see from a sheet... He reckons it's purely coincidental, whenever he comes across a winch that has been mounted in the proper fashion on most boats today...

One more reason against mooring to winches, particularly if they happen to be aluminum drums... Years ago I was walking the docks at Bahia Mar with Peter, and we came across an old Maxi racer, tied up with spring lines taken to some of the dozens of vintage Barients on deck... The floating docks at Bahia Mar are concrete, and there had been a heavy rain shower earlier in the day, and there were still some rather large puddles of water collected at various points along the docks... On one of the spring lines led from a winch to the dock, the excess line on the dock was laying in one of these puddles...

Which just happened to be situated right next to the shore power post that the boat was plugged into...

;-)

Peter has always said he wishes he had a buck for every winch on old raceboats that were destroyed by stray current from shorepower that was transmitted to them by moist docklines...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> That means that the boat is baldly designed on that particular spot and the round piece for reducing shaft is just a patch added by jon to minimize the effects of that bad design.
> 
> There should be an opening there on the rail and the design should provide for no shaft on the ropes that come out of the cleat and no friction of the ropes on the fiberglass, for not wearing it.


LOL! Actually, I installed those cleats myself, probably one of the initial upgrades to my little tub after I bought her years ago...

So, I suppose it's a tossup as to which is the poorer design element: Allied Boat Company building the thing without midship cleats to begin with, or my decision to add them...

;-)

I initially considered mounting them on a slightly raised base to lessen the likelihood of chafe, but quickly ruled that out... It might have only resulted in a bit weaker attachment, and definitely would have constituted more of a tripping hazard, as they are located within my lifeline gate opening... So far, so good, my solution has worked fine, and whenever I'm in a situation where chafe might be a real concern, I'm likely to press those heavy dyneema strops into service, anyway...

I'm probably in the minority here, but I've never been a big fan of chocks... I don't have them at my bow either, I think the rounded sleeve over the toerail is a better solution on my boat... Way too many times, chocks only induce a sharp bend in the rope, and very often right at the splice if you happen to be using the loop end of a dockline at your deck cleats...

Again, chocks for midship cleats are another detail that I see very poorly executed all the time... Look at the very bottom of this pic of this Freedom, for example... Why isn't that cleat mounted right at the chock, instead of a foot or more behind it? An aft spring will have to take a very sharp 180 degree turn thru that opening, again right in the area of the splice in a looped dockline... Always a real head-scratcher whenever I see this, and I see it often, what is the possible rationale for that cleat or chock placement relative to each other?










And, _NO, _there is not a second chock situated aft of it...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Washers for holding cleats? are you kidding? The cheapest way that mass producer brands do it is with a piece of laminated wood completely impregnated with resin and introduced on the fiberglass, reinforced at that point. That's the way Bavarias do it and they are the less expensive cruisers around. Others use aluminum or steel pates embedded on the reinforced fiberglass.


robertsailor always says that. Remember the threads over on CF.

Just let him keep thinking it. It helps him sleep.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Once again, these variables point to the utility of a perforated toerail... By using a snatch block, or simply a dyneema loup or soft shackle, it doesn't matter quite as much where the cleat is situated, you can simply create a fair lead to suit your purpose...


I'm with you there. I really like the perf toerail.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by PCP View Post
> 
> Washers for holding cleats? are you kidding? The cheapest way that mass producer brands do it is with a piece of laminated wood completely impregnated with resin and introduced on the fiberglass, reinforced at that point. That's the way Bavarias do it and they are the less expensive cruisers around. Others use aluminum or steel pates embedded on the reinforced fiberglass.
> 
> 
> 
> robertsailor always says that. Remember the threads over on CF.
> 
> Just let him keep thinking it. It helps him sleep.
Click to expand...

It appears that neilpride concurs...

Ahh, but what would _he _ know? The guy only repairs yachts in the Caribbean for a living, after all...

;-)



neilpride said:


> Take this for granted as a example , the new Oceanis series from Beneteau use fender washers under the cleats.
> Rudder Failures - Page 21 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
> 
> Page 10.
> 
> Jeaneau to. The Sun Odyssey perfomance line series use fender wahers.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> It appears that neilpride concurs...
> 
> Ahh, but what would _he _ know? The guy only repairs yachts in the Caribbean for a living, after all...
> 
> ;-)


Yeah - I remember his photos. We discussed them at length in my insanely popular threads over on CF (which actually are becoming the most-read threads in each of their respective forums - go figure).

Anyway, many of those photos were unable to show the metal backing plate that had been glassed into the deck beneath those washers - which drastically changes the complexion of the debate.

So, I have no idea what photo this is - but it doesn't change the fact that there is usually more to the eye than what you're looking at in a photo. Show me build specs and photos of that build - or a sawn through cross-section - and I might be persuaded.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Show me build specs and photos of that build - or a sawn through cross-section - *and I might be persuaded.*


Somehow, I doubt that...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

Come now - I'm not unreasonable here.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Show me build specs and photos of that build - or a sawn through cross-section - and I might be persuaded.


Ok. Let's resolve this once and for all.

So whose Jeanneau are we going to chop up?

:chainsaw:chainsaw


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Ok. Let's resolve this once and for all.
> 
> So whose Jeanneau are we going to chop up?
> 
> :chainsaw:chainsaw


Bluto's! No, Minne's!


----------



## Classic30

chall03 said:


> Ok. Let's resolve this once and for all.
> 
> So whose Jeanneau are we going to chop up?
> 
> :chainsaw:chainsaw


Well.. Smacky has a Hunter - will that do?!?

:devil


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Somehow, I doubt that...
> 
> ;-)


I doubt that performance jeanneus have a worse build than Bavarias.

" under everything (such as a cleat), an aluminum plate provides solid backing."

That is from a motorboat test (BAVARIA 420 COUPE) but i doubt sailingboats are built differently in what regards that.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> I doubt that performance jeanneus have a worse build than Bavarias.
> 
> " under everything (such as a cleat), an aluminum plate provides solid backing."
> 
> That is from a motorboat test (BAVARIA 420 COUPE) but i doubt sailingboats are built differently in what regards that.


FWIW, I agree 100%. It seems to me too obvious a defect if a buyer could pull a cleat out of the deck of a brand-new boat without even trying hard. (The keel, OTOH, is a different prospect entirely..)

Conspiracy theory: The sharp edges of those fancy-pants pop-up cleats are specially designed to cut the manufacturer-supplied mooring lines before enough force can be applied to pull out the fender washers underneath.. ;-)

:laugh


----------



## Capt Len

The real conspiracy is in the marketing over reality to bamboozle the besotted boater. I mentioned wiping the dock with my bowsprit, Not being able to ascertain the vessel's pivot point can do that. e.g.. the Concordia (58m brigantine) stuck her bowsprit over the dock in Suva while coming along side. Pushed a whole line of cars to the end and over.


----------



## robert sailor

So Smack always asks for a picture but when he gets one he wants an X-ray! Polux takes a quote from a mag about a German boat and suggests a French boat must be built the same way. Quite the pair!!


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> Bluto's! No, Minne's!


Won't be necessary. If I remember, I will take a pic this weekend of the backing plate under my mid-ship cleat. It's accessible behind the fold down electrical panel at the nav station.

The reason I know there are backing plates is that I re-bed that cleat myself and found them there. Come to think of it, the aft cleats must be pretty accessible from the lazz too, at least for a pic.

OTOH, it would not surprise me at all that J went to a less expensive method, when they changed over to fake teak around '09ish.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Actually, I installed those cleats myself, probably one of the initial upgrades to my little tub after I bought her years ago...
> 
> So, I suppose it's a tossup as to which is the poorer design element: Allied Boat Company building the thing without midship cleats to begin with, or my decision to add them...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> I initially considered mounting them on a slightly raised base to lessen the likelihood of chafe, but quickly ruled that out... It might have only resulted in a bit weaker attachment, and definitely would have constituted more of a tripping hazard, as they are located within my lifeline gate opening... So far, so good, my solution has worked fine, and whenever I'm in a situation where chafe might be a real concern, I'm likely to press those heavy dyneema strops into service, anyway...
> 
> ...


Yes that also confuses me: on most boats the midships cleats are an extra and there are even some that do not buy them.

Regarding the rope passage from the amidships cleat here is the piece that is used by Bavaria. On my boat it is stronger:


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> Won't be necessary. If I remember, I will take a pic this weekend of the backing plate under my mid-ship cleat. It's accessible behind the fold down electrical panel at the nav station.
> 
> The reason I know there are backing plates is that I re-bed that cleat myself and found them there. Come to think of it, the aft cleats must be pretty accessible from the lazz too, at least for a pic.


Uh-oh. Jon's going to be very disappointed and embarrassed.


----------



## smackdaddy

Classic30 said:


> Conspiracy theory: The sharp edges of those fancy-pants pop-up cleats are specially designed to cut the manufacturer-supplied mooring lines before enough force can be applied to pull out the fender washers underneath.. ;-)
> 
> :laugh


Brilliant.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Uh-oh. Jon's going to be very disappointed and embarrassed.


Why would Jon be embarrassed ?? His pic and comments were based on a Benni not a Jenni!! I can send you a pic showing a backing plate under the cleat but it wouldn't be a Benni, would that help out.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> So Smack always asks for a picture but when he gets one he wants an X-ray! Polux takes a quote from a mag about a German boat and suggests a French boat must be built the same way. Quite the pair!!


No in fact I found a reference regarding backing plates on Jeanneau cleats on the jeanneau forum owners.

"I have already managed to fit the 2 new bow cleats as access to the bolts is easy via the focsle. However I cannot work out how to change the 2 aft cleats and the 2 middle cleats as access to the bolts and *backing plates* would appear to be impossible because of the way the cabin furniture has been installed. "

Read more: SO50 DS Fitting larger mooring cleats | Jeanneau Owners Network Forum


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Why would Jon be embarrassed ?? His pic and comments were based on a Benni not a Jenni!! I can send you a pic showing a backing plate under the cleat but it wouldn't be a Benni, would that help out.


Aahhmmmmm, Bob - this is what is right above that pic in Jon's quote...



> Jeaneau to. The Sun Odyssey perfomance line series use fender wahers.


I won't use the double exclamation marks - that would just be piling on.


----------



## outbound

Think many of these posts reflect a societal issue.

Engineering for manufacturing not service. 

Look under the hood of your car. Now the $5 voltage regulator is part of the $150 alternator. To replace voltage regulator have no choice but spend $150. Saves labor in assembly.
Gears in your kitchen appliances. Once were metal. Now injection plastic. Can't service. Just replace appliance. Parts for your house tools like pressure washers, paint sprayers and such. Plastic not metal. Same thing.
So you see this with boats. Big surprise. Here issue is mostly labor in assembly. Replacement or service are little considered by many production builders. Speak with pro captains. They hate the new small Oysters because access for service is so hard. Look at deck components of "contemporary " boats. Easy to assemble when in build but hard to replace. 
Every where you look byproduct of cad/cam and economic assembly analysis is to not be primarily concerned with service or service life and to not be concerned about ease of replacement.


----------



## robert sailor

outbound said:


> Think many of these posts reflect a societal issue.
> 
> Engineering for manufacturing not service.
> 
> Look under the hood of your car. Now the $5 voltage regulator is part of the $150 alternator. To replace voltage regulator have no choice but spend $150. Saves labor in assembly.
> Gears in your kitchen appliances. Once were metal. Now injection plastic. Can't service. Just replace appliance. Parts for your house tools like pressure washers, paint sprayers and such. Plastic not metal. Same thing.
> So you see this with boats. Big surprise. Here issue is mostly labor in assembly. Replacement or service are little considered by many production builders. Speak with pro captains. They hate the new small Oysters because access for service is so hard. Look at deck components of "contemporary " boats. Easy to assemble when in build but hard to replace.
> Every where you look byproduct of cad/cam and economic assembly analysis is to not be primarily concerned with service or service life and to not be concerned about ease of replacement.


Couldn't agree with you more but we live in a throw a way society and most of these new boats will never be rebuilt/refurbished, it just would not make sense. Imagine trying to rewire one of these boats where wiring is set in place between the hull and liner.As PCP always says, Europeans don't expect their boats to last a lifetime, they will trade up in 5 years. The Med is full of these boats and they sell for dimes of the original selling price. The world has simply changed and boats are like I phones and computers..limited lifetime and everyone chasing the latest model.


----------



## XSrcing

On the upside, it allows some of the more adventurous DIY'ers to get nice boats for cheap.


----------



## Noelex

outbound said:


> Gears in your kitchen appliances. Once were metal. Now injection plastic. Can't service. Just replace appliance. Parts for your house tools like pressure washers, paint sprayers and such. Plastic not metal. Same thing.
> So you see this with boats. Big surprise.


I think this a very accurate observation. The manufacturing techniques of building with a limited life and no potential for repair make sense for many appliances, but are these practices valid for a cruising boat?

I would argue that if the boat is used for the designated purpose, there will be many times when the owner will find themselves in situations where there is no chance of replacement. Some of the equipment is vital to at least the safety of the yacht, if not its owners. The robust construction of components (to use the example of metal instead of plastic gears) is far more desirable.

We have already had the debate about cleats. The strong Sampson posts of traditional cruising boats have been replaced. With each successive generation we seem to see a reduction in strength and quality. When replacing the Sampson post, manufacturers initially used substantial cleats with heavy backing plates. Now several generations later we see weak folding cleats placed so the pull is not even in shear. Cleats sometimes have minimal or no backing plates and the deck structure is significantly lighter, Boats constructed this way are lighter and therefore slightly quicker. They are cheaper to produce and other manufacturers are forced to follow suit to remain competitive. It is tempting to call them more efficient, or even to use overall terms like "modern" but are they better?

This single issue of cleats on its own is relatively minor, but when this philosophy is extended to all systems and structures, the chance of problems becomes significant.

Give me a boat with metal gears .


----------



## robert sailor

XSrcing said:


> On the upside, it allows some of the more adventurous DIY'ers to get nice boats for cheap.


No debate they are cheap but I'm not convinced "nice" is the right word. I think they do allow people to get into sailing or to trade up for a lot less money than in the past if this is what you meant but they are designed to have a limited life and as long as you take this into consideration then your good to go.


----------



## smackdaddy

noelex77 said:


> We have already had the debate about cleats. The strong Sampson posts of traditional cruising boats have been replaced. With each successive generation we seem to see a reduction in strength and quality. When replacing the Sampson post, manufacturers initially used substantial cleats with heavy backing plates. Now several generations later we see weak folding cleats placed so the pull is not even in shear. Cleats sometimes have minimal or no backing plates and the deck structure is significantly lighter, Boats constructed this way are lighter and therefore slightly quicker. They are cheaper to produce and other manufacturers are forced to follow suit to remain competitive. It is tempting to call them more efficient, or even to use overall terms like "modern" but are they better?


Okay - THIS is a great post Noel - and gets to the heart of the matter I think. As is pretty well known by now, I actually made the point here and on the CF thread that boats ARE moving toward being more "disposable". I caught a lot of flack in both places, but that's cool.

But what that means exactly is viewed VERY differently by different people.

I can almost guarantee (judging by how things roll on these forums) that when Samson posts went away and cleats took over, there was a loud howl from traditionalists that these wimpy new cleats would be ripping out all over the place and sinking boats left and right. That didn't happen. Obviously. The designers and engineers were able to gain more strength out of the materials they were working with in order to maintain structural integrity while scaling back size and weight.

Another of your statements belies this thinking, though, even today:

"Now several generations later we see weak folding cleats placed so the pull is not even in shear. Cleats sometimes have minimal or no backing plates and the deck structure is significantly lighter, Boats constructed this way are lighter and therefore slightly quicker."

Just like with the Samson post analogy - this questioning of what's being done today can only be answered by the evidence of what's happening to the boats themselves. The only way that this suspicion of "lighter is worse" is validated, is if we're seeing a _spate of failures_ in these new methods, not simply a comparison of old and new methods (which is more typical in these forums). To simply look at a photo fender washers (or whatever) and make a pronouncement that the method is inferior for its purpose is just as misinformed as when those traditionalists decried using cleats instead of a Samson post. And they were clearly wrong then.

So, to be clear, I'm not saying these newer methods and materials are without fault. But I AM saying they certainly seem to be doing the job they were intended to do - and doing so while being lighter, smaller, and cheaper (cue Moore's Law).

At the same time, I DO believe that these methods and materials WILL have a shorter half-life in general. I'm just not convinced that's a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> It appears that neilpride concurs...
> 
> Ahh, but what would _he _ know? The guy only repairs yachts in the Caribbean for a living, after all...
> 
> ;-)


Jon, I think neil is awesome (seriously), it was great going round with him on CF before the mods shut down the "Yard Guys" thread and booted me (and some of those same mods from their jobs - at least they got that part right)...

...but you really have to be careful with your examples. Here's his diagnosis of my boat from a single photo:

The Yard Guys - Page 23 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums



> *neilpride:*
> And sorry to be irritating again Smack , but is just my eyes or you have a crack in top of the grid liner beam in the bilge picture?? anyone noticed??


Then this...



> *neilpride:*
> Its a crack my friend, top of the beam, right side, or i just take to much beer yesterday!!!


I had then to talk this guy - who "only repairs yachts in the Caribbean for a living, after all..." (as you say) - off the ledge and let him know he was looking at _dirt_:



> Well, should I go with the surveyor and his report - or a beered-up guy who's looking at a blurry photo trying to find anything he possibly can to discredit my boat for some reason?
> 
> I'll take the surveyor.
> 
> What you're seeing is a line between dirty and clean surface. This was a photo from my initial inspection of the boat. We had the survey - which checked out great (the surveyor even looked in the bilge a couple of times!).
> 
> I have cleaned the bilge since the purchase. There is no crack. So you can rest easy and go back to your beer.
> 
> Anything else?


"Ahh, but what would _a professional surveyor or I _ know?" It is a photo after all.


----------



## seaner97

Still haven't seen Smack come up with a photo of a high end boat using that stupid fold out cleat that started this whole thing. I think, rather than allowing him to keep shifting the goalposts, we should dig in and allow him to eat crow about the point that started the whole thing. I'll keep this one and repost every five or so pages until he comes up with it or admits that he can't.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Still haven't seen Smack come up with a photo of a high end boat using that stupid fold out cleat that started this whole thing. I think, rather than allowing him to keep shifting the goalposts, we should dig in and allow him to eat crow about the point that started the whole thing. I'll keep this one and repost every five or so pages until he comes up with it or admits that he can't.


Well first you need to show me how I started all this cleat stuff. From what I recall it was JonE who posted the photo and analysis, not me.

So let's first get your goalpost nailed down before we cook the crow.

I'll wait.


----------



## Noelex

smackdaddy said:


> So, to be clear, I'm not saying these newer methods and materials are without fault. But I AM saying they certainly seem to be doing the job they were intended to do -


With respect, I disagree. The salesmen at the boat show won't mention it, and the boats tied up in the marina may not experience it, but at the coal face gear breaks all the time, sometimes with serious consequences.

I understand that like any product, boats need to be built so they are affordable. The "production boat builders" have done a great job in producing boats that are fantastic value for money and get people cruising, which I think is a wonderful thing.

However, it is a pity when very basic items like cleats are made (in my view) woefully inadequate. This is especially so when for very little or no extra cost the part could be made substantially better. I suspect those fancy folding stern cleats on the Hunter's transom could be replaced with some simple sturdy deck cleats for a very similar cost. Maybe even a serious backing plate could be incorporated with the cost savings of eliminating the folding mechanism?

These principles extend to many other boat systems. Cleats are just an example.

If we tell manufacturers what we want (and I suspect they do listen to forums more than we realise) there is no reason why a good simple cruising boat should not be produced for a reasonable cost. You feel they are adequate, but do you really want those folding cleats on the stern of your next Hunter?


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't seen Smack come up with a photo of a high end boat using that stupid fold out cleat that started this whole thing. I think, rather than allowing him to keep shifting the goalposts, we should dig in and allow him to eat crow about the point that started the whole thing. I'll keep this one and repost every five or so pages until he comes up with it or admits that he can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Well first you need to show me how I started all this cleat stuff. From what I recall it was JonE who posted the photo and analysis, not me.
> 
> So let's first get your goalpost nailed down before we cook the crow.
> 
> I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're the one that posted a far superior, properly mounted design on a Hinkley and attempted to draw the similarity line. 
Crow simmering.


----------



## smackdaddy

noelex77 said:


> With respect, I disagree. The salesmen at the boat show won't mention it, and the boats tied up in the marina may not experience it, but at the coal face gear breaks all the time, sometimes with serious consequences.


I fully understand that. But, again, I think you have to clearly define what that "coal face" is. For example...



noelex77 said:


> However, it is a pity when very basic items like cleats are made (in my view) *woefully inadequate.* This is especially so when for very little or no extra cost the part could be made *substantially better.* I suspect those fancy folding stern cleats on the Hunter's transom could be replaced with some *simple sturdy deck cleats for a very similar cost.* Maybe even a *serious backing plate* could be incorporated with the cost savings of eliminating the folding mechanism?
> 
> These principles extend to many other boat systems. Cleats are just an example.


What is the standard for inadequate or better or sturdy or serious or flimsy? Back to your coal face argument.

Here is the cleat on a Swan 66:










It's certainly not simple or cheap. Is it adequate? Is it sturdy?



noelex77 said:


> If we tell manufacturers what we want (and I suspect they do listen to forums more than we realise) there is no reason why a good simple cruising boat should not be produced for a reasonable cost. You feel they are adequate, but do you really want those folding cleats on the stern of your next Hunter?


I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending that particular folding cleat on the Hunter. I don't personally know the specs surrounding it - or how it's really installed. I don't think anyone else here knows that either at this point - so I also don't see they can so easily say it's "inadequate" or "flimsy". My point above with the Oyster, Hinckley, etc. - is that this type of retractable/folding cleat is neither new nor inherently inferior to the traditional cleat which many seem to hold is the "best" way to go. The best yachts in the world use them.

That said, _just by looking at it_, if I were buying this Hunter for blue water sailing I would definitely ask for the addition of strong anchor points for a drogue, stern anchor, etc. Unless there's a lot I don't know about the specs (which there obviously is for all of us), I wouldn't trust those cleats to handle those kinds of loads.

But, even on the face of it, I certainly wouldn't think they are too weak to handle the typical loads of docklines - though I agree with Jon that the direction of the fold seems a bit weird to me in that is can apply more moment to that joint (of course it's the the same issue on the Hinckley or Swan). So I don't see a huge issue with them on the face of it - it's another version of folding cleat.

So, back to the coal face, that point for a Hunter will be different than that point for a Dashew or Boreal. I completely understand that. But the market for the latter - based on how most people (including me) will use their yachts - is infinitesimal.

So it's a balance. And I'm generally pretty comfortable that most modern designers and builders are getting that balance right in the CE Cat A production boat market (even thought they are still not using Samson posts) - with certain caveats such as shelf-life, etc.


----------



## seaner97

I guess that's what passes for, "yeah, I was wrong- that isn't the same cleat" in smacklage.


----------



## Shockwave

It's all good till it isn't.......





















Price point boats are what they are...



smackdaddy said:


> So it's a balance. And I'm generally pretty comfortable that most modern designers and builders are getting that balance right in the CE Cat A production boat market (even thought they are still not using Samson posts) - with certain caveats such as shelf-life, etc.


----------



## robert sailor

I can be quite opinionated but I always have some experiences to back up most of my opinions. My first boat I took offshore was a C&C 36 and I sailed south from Vancouver to southern points of Mexico then over to Hawaii and back to Vancouver BC. On the first leg to San Fran we had a hell of a ride about 150 miles offshore and my rudder had a lot more play than the one in the video. I had it rebuilt in a similar manner plus added some additional supports to the bulkhead that held the rudder tube. On the way back from Hawaii we hit 2 gales and my top bearing was wearing out and the rudder was making blonk/block noises each time it rolled. I crawled in the back and I could see the post moving back and forth. I also laid on the floor when we were in large seas and I could see the door on the head moving up and down 3/4" and later found a crack in one of the bulkheads. When we got home I fixed everything up and sold it. It was a great sailing boat and it really sailed nice in the light stuff but it just wasn't built for the heavy going. Now having just crossed the Atlantic I can tell you it was a lake compared to sailing in the north Pacific returning to Vancouver so I can see why almost anything makes this passage easy peasy.


----------



## PCP

Shockwave said:


> It's all good till it isn't.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Price point boats are what they are...


Now you are certainly right about that, I mean *"It's all good till it isn't......."* but putting some movies of boats that are made in huge numbers, boats that needed maintenance or had a design problem as if many of them have real problems or design problems is just ridiculous.

Lot's of problems with high end boats, some that have sunk, some that have lost the keels and rudders. It would be as ridiculous as if I was stating that because there is a mass production boat for each hundred high end boat, high end boats have more problems since proportional the number of problems is bigger than the proportion regarding the number of boats.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> I can be quite opinionated but I always have some experiences to back up most of my opinions. My first boat I took offshore was a C&C 36 and I sailed south from Vancouver to southern points of Mexico then over to Hawaii and back to Vancouver BC. On the first leg to San Fran we had a hell of a ride about 150 miles offshore and my rudder had a lot more play than the one in the video. I had it rebuilt in a similar manner plus added some additional supports to the bulkhead that held the rudder tube. On the way back from Hawaii we hit 2 gales and my top bearing was wearing out and the rudder was making blonk/block noises each time it rolled. I crawled in the back and I could see the post moving back and forth. I also laid on the floor when we were in large seas and I could see the door on the head moving up and down 3/4" and later found a crack in one of the bulkheads. When we got home I fixed everything up and sold it. It was a great sailing boat and it really sailed nice in the light stuff but it just wasn't built for the heavy going. Now having just crossed the Atlantic I can tell you it was a lake compared to sailing in the north Pacific returning to Vancouver so I can see why almost anything makes this passage easy peasy.


That only proves that particularly model of C&C was not up to that type of job. Lots of guys world cruising on boats of that type without any problem and one of them has done (is doing?) that in a First 40.7, including sailing on high latitudes.

I remember them (the skipper and his wife) having survived a huge storm on the Antarctic that had sunk other sailboats, including a steel one. I would not say that the First 40.7 is the strongest boat around but i would say that if a First 40.7 can do that certainly more strong boats of that type can do that too.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> That only proves that particularly model of C&C was not up to that type of job. Lots of guys world cruising on boats of that type without any problem and one of them has done (is doing?) that in a First 40.7, including sailing on high latitudes.
> 
> I remember them (the skipper and his wife) having survived a huge storm on the Antarctic that had sunk other sailboats, including a steel one. I would not say that the First 40.7 is the strongest boat around but i would say that if a First 40.7 can do that certainly more strong boats of that type can do that too.


And one of my sisterships rode out the Fastnet Storm sipping coffee with contemporary IOR boats falling apart around them. New is not equal to better.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> It's all good till it isn't.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Price point boats are what they are...


I've seen 2 of those four videos before. I certainly won't defend the design of that rudder assembly on Blue Pearl - the B50 that sank. It was obviously poor design and construction. At the same time, a sister ship to that boat (La Vagabond) crossed the Atlantic and is currently sailing around the Carib after getting reinforcement to fix that deficiency. So, as Paulo said, I certainly don't think you can dismiss the entire line of boats based on what happened to one of them like Blue Pearl (which has a lot of additional questionable issues behind that particular failure).

The Bavaria is scarier to me. I'd not seen this video before. It's not clear to me in the write-up or video if that damage was caused by a hard grounding or poor keel installation/torque (which I could understand) or it was just falling apart after a few sails (which I couldn't).

I do remember seeing something about Bavaria keel issues that were apparently addressed in new designs - so I don't know.

Every boat out there, even boats that cost tens of millions and have top notch maintenance, is good until it isn't:


----------



## Shockwave

I have a rule of thumb, pretty simple really. Do I trust the boat enough to be out of sight of land, in cold water, in rough weather with help a long way aways, with my family aboard. Wiggly keels? Shoddy rudders? Piss poor construction? Not with my family... Shock out...


----------



## outbound

But isn't the point that if a boat has a significant production run issues like this are sorted out. Quest for newer, faster, sexier means such teething pains will persist. 


How can that easily happen with short production runs and continuous new designs.

With each passing year labor gets more expensive and the pool of skilled, "old school " labor decreases and migrates to the high end builders. Look at the guys at New England Boat or I'll bet Betts ( from Bob's pictures). Sure they are hi tech builders but old school in the sense of craftsmanship.

Say what you want Smack and Paulo but those videos are very, very scary. Scary tube for rudder post doesn't extend above waterline. Scary bearing not mounted inside tube with lateral supports in all directions. 

We had 1mm yes one millimeter of play in our upper rudder post bearing which is nylon. Called builder on the satphone. Shipped new one to destination and in our hand when passage complete. Pushed in and good to go. Initial piece probably just machined a hair off. That bearing is just below cockpit sole. Not needed for structural support. Unfortunate folks in video were going it alone. Do current production boat builders do a recall and fix such problems as they are found?

Have no problem with boats incorporating new developments in design and materials but believe when people's lives are at stake evolution not revolution has some merit in cruising boats.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> That only proves that particularly model of C&C was not up to that type of job. Lots of guys world cruising on boats of that type without any problem and one of them has done (is doing?) that in a First 40.7, including sailing on high latitudes.
> 
> I remember them (the skipper and his wife) having survived a huge storm on the Antarctic that had sunk other sailboats, including a steel one. I would not say that the First 40.7 is the strongest boat around but i would say that if a First 40.7 can do that certainly more strong boats of that type can do that too.


Yes the infamous 1st 40.7 made it through some storms and another one didn't and lost its keel and 5 guys were killed. Later inspections of other 40.7's found that the keel joint was compromised and it would no longer pass the minimum CE standards currently in force. So because the first guy made it doesn't mean it was a good choice, it simply means he made it. Some guys row across and make it but again does that suggest that a rowboat is a good choice. You decide. There are a lot better choices out there to sail offshore in but it doesn't mean if you used the 40.7 you wouldn't make it. I have been doing this sailing offshore stuff for a lot of years and met a lot of folks doing the same thing. Many if not most folks who circumnavigate never see winds more than 30 knots, ask Mark from SeaLife but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't choose a boat that has been built to a standard much higher than minimum.


----------



## Shockwave

Just curious, who would trust a Beneteau or a Bavaria or a Hunter over a Swan or a Hinkley or an Oyster when crossing an ocean or even when sailing in sporty conditions? 

Argue all you want, reality is the better builders build a safer boat. It's your neck but more importantly it's your family.

But if you're tied to the dock it doesn't matter does it?


----------



## robert sailor

Just to be clear I'm referring to the 40.7 only in my remarks although the 50 has had its issues. Benni has built some decent boats over the years but I'm not so sure that newer means better.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> Yes the infamous 1st 40.7 made it through some storms and another one didn't and lost its keel and 5 guys were killed. Later inspections of other 40.7's found that the keel joint was compromised and it would no longer pass the minimum CE standards currently in force. So because the first guy made it doesn't mean it was a good choice, it simply means he made it. Some guys row across and make it but again does that suggest that a rowboat is a good choice. You decide. There are a lot better choices out there to sail offshore in but it doesn't mean if you used the 40.7 you wouldn't make it. I have been doing this sailing offshore stuff for a lot of years and met a lot of folks doing the same thing. Many if not most folks who circumnavigate never see winds more than 30 knots, ask Mark from SeaLife but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't choose a boat that has been built to a standard much higher than minimum.


Quite confusing. Yes it passed the RCD demands at the time it was built, it does not pass now and that means that today's boats are stronger.

Yes the First 40,7 that I was talking about passed several storms, sailed the Antartic and circumnavigated or is still circumnavigating.

Yes two among the 600 First 40.7 around lost the keels. Both boats had a story of previous groundings and improper repairs.

Yes the First 40.7 among the mass production boats is not particularly strong, namely in what regards keel attachment but that only means that if a First 40.7 can stand the kind of punishment that implies a circumnavigation passing by Antarctic waters (having heavy storms), other stronger mass production boats can not only do that, but do that with a superior safety margin.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ..
> The Bavaria is scarier to me. I'd not seen this video before. It's not clear to me in the write-up or video if that damage was caused by a hard grounding or poor keel installation/torque (which I could understand) or it was just falling apart after a few sails (which I couldn't).
> 
> I do remember seeing something about Bavaria keel issues that were apparently addressed in new designs - so I don't know.
> 
> ..


That is a Bavaria Match 42 and the only Bavaria model that had keel problems. The problems where identified after a charter boat lost a keel. Several boats have been found suffering of keel problems and the one on the video was one of them (the video is from that time - 2004).

The problem was identified as a design problem. Bavaria built what was designed but obviously that was not strong enough particularly on boats that had suffered groundings.

All Match 42 were called by Bavaria to be modified and reinforced free of charge.

Immediately after that accident Bavaria stopped the production and discontinued their line of cruiser racers and sometime later stopped the collaboration with the NA cabinet that designed that boat (and designed all Bavarias) and started the collaboration with Farr.

After the modification and reinforcement not a single the Match 42 experienced any keel problem. In fact I believe they "overbuilt" the connection just to be completely sure that no more problems would arise.

The Match 42 is a good boat that can be a very good deal since after those problems the market value come down:


----------



## Shockwave

They're still junk. 

I would never trust any class of boat that had a history of losing a keel AND any builder who has a history of building boats that lose keels.

Rule number 1, don't lose the damn keel!


----------



## seaner97

Now, now. They may not be your or my cup of tea, but they aren't junk. I would say they have made some questionable design choices in search of luring buyers and hitting price point, but they aren't junk.


----------



## JonEisberg

noelex77 said:


> However, it is a pity when very basic items like cleats are made (in my view) woefully inadequate. This is especially so when for very little or no extra cost the part could be made substantially better.


Or, when such parts could be installed with an attention to detail, and simply by following best and proper practices to begin with...

In another thread recently, I was citing what I regard as a less than desirable practice on larger yachts of using deck-mounted U-bolts - poorly aligned to the load they will see - for the purpose of attaching backstays at deck level. The example I pictured was from a Beneteau SenseBoat, but at Annapolis this year I checked out some other examples...

No surprise, the folks at Oubound clearly understand the importance of backstays and their attachments, and get it pretty right...

A robust fitting mounted in shear, precisely aligned with the load, and toggle(s) with clevis pins matching the size of the hole in the hull attachment...










Compare with the solution employed on a boat over 10 feet larger - and with a mainsail only 50 square feet smaller than the entire sail plan of the Outbound - the Hanse 575... Both boats feature the same backstay configuration, and the use of hydraulic adjuster...

Hanse's fitting is mounted on deck, subject instead to less desirable situation of the force being applied in tension, using 4 fasteners instead of the 6 on the Outbound... But what boggles my mind, is the lack of attention paid in the construction phase of this boat, to simply aligning the fitting fairly to the load... Which has the result of having to use a toggle with a clevis pin undersized relative to the hole in the fitting in an effort to compensate for the misalignment, which then sits in that fitting at a skewed angle, and will be subject to point loading...










All that had to be done to at least come closer to getting it right, is to have rotated that fitting perhaps 10-15 degrees further in a clockwise direction during installation... Would that have cost any more to do so?

When one sees stuff like this that is so obvious and easy for all to see, how can one help but wonder what other examples of design and construction might have been have been executed poorly, that are not so blatantly obvious, even without setting foot on the boat?

In our previous discussion, Paolo dismissed this sort of misalignment as "inconsequential"... Well, he may be right in some instances, although I would argue that one will likely pay some sort of price for such poor execution somewhere on down the road, 10 or 15 years later... But, no worries, that will be some other owner's problem, at that point... ;-)

However, let's say you've just bought a new car, no matter whether it's a Ford, or a Lexus, it's gonna be a mere fraction of what you'll pay for a Hanse 575... Driving it away from the dealership, you notice that a clock face, gauge or whatever on the dashboard, has been mounted in a cockeyed fashion... Would you simply accept such a purely cosmetic flaw - having nothing to do with the actual operation or integrity of the ehicle - with a shrug, or would you return it to the dealer, and tell them it needs to be corrected? I know what I would do, for I know that for as long as I owned that car, it would bug the shi_t out of me, every time I looked at the damn thing... ;-)

Moreover, would a car manufacturer exhibit their product at the Detroit Auto Show, which exhibited such a flaw? Why are some so willing to accept or dismiss such flaws on yachts being shown at the most important Sailboat Show in North America? That Hanse would sell for roughly 3/4 of a million dollars. How much _DOES_ one have to pay for a boat these days, to get a boat with a backstay attachment point fairly aligned to the lead of the shroud? Does one have to go the $2+ million Hinckley route, before sufficient attention is being paid to such a fundamental rigging pratice?

But more than anything else, this sort of thing indicates a level of disrespect for the customer on the part of production builders these days... _"Nah, that's good enough, no one's gonna notice that, anyway..."_

Oh, wait - nevermind... As some would argue, we have to await for the _"FACTS"_ to emerge, not before we start hearing of multiple examples of Hanse 575s being dismasted due to backstays failing, how can anyone - including a professional rigger - look at that arrangement, and reasonably opine that it is poorly executed, or could have been better done, at little or no additional cost to the builder...

;-)



noelex77 said:


> Give me a boat with metal gears .


Hell, just give me a Raymarine tillerpilot drive with metal gears...

;-)

My 20+ year-old Autohelm drive unit is still alive and kicking as a backup, whereas I have been through few Raytheon/Raymarine 'upgraded' iterations, in the meantime...

I would gladly pay the extra buck or two, for what it would cost Raymarine to upgrade from plastic, to the metal that was originally used...

Also, give me a backstay that doesn't hit me in the head when I stand behind the wheel... Obviously, I'm too tall for a Beneteau Oceanis 48...










Nah, doesn't matter, I can't afford one, anyway...

;-)


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> Quite confusing. Yes it passed the RCD demands at the time it was built, it does not pass now and that means that today's boats are stronger.
> 
> Yes the First 40,7 that I was talking about passed several storms, sailed the Antartic and circumnavigated or is still circumnavigating.
> 
> Yes two among the 600 First 40.7 around lost the keels. Both boats had a story of previous groundings and improper repairs.
> 
> Yes the First 40.7 among the mass production boats is not particularly strong, namely in what regards keel attachment but that only means that if a First 40.7 can stand the kind of punishment that implies a circumnavigation passing by Antarctic waters (having heavy storms), other stronger mass production boats can not only do that, but do that with a superior safety margin.


What you failed to point out was that the group that looked into this boat, the 40.7 found that the keel could suffer integrity issues simply slamming into head seas for prolonged periods of time, no groundings required. Almost all of these boats are marina boats used to race on weekends, they are not sailing offshore, a few yes but most no so no matter how many they built you would not expect to have keels falling off although given enough time, who knows. This design would not be my choice for unlimited offshore use.
Yup you are right they have increased the standards for keel attachment and no, this boat no longer qualifies but what does that say about how well these were designed in the first place. The Match series of Bavaria is also a good example about the best NA's in the world designing these entry level boats, didn't work so well with either one. I guess if the game is to increase the standards after major failures eventually you might get somewhere but these two designs can hardly impress one with the world class job done by the Navel Architects.
The real world is that most of these entry level boats are engineered down to a price, they are generally strong enough for the intended use but in some cases not quite strong enough and the 40.7 is just one example.
I really loved my C&C 36 from days gone by, it was light, quick and easy on the eyes and I was like you back then, I didn't like the heavy clunky looking boats many people considered best for offshore sailing. I still don't like them but I have come to the conclusion that if you want to stay out for years and continue to cross oceans and flirt with higher latitudes there are simply better choices and they don't have to be clunky. I could probably have sailed the C&C36 around the world as long as I kept on top of it but on reflection it really wasn't the best choice.


----------



## hpeer

While I suppose the type of sailing you do effects the answer, for me the question is simply this .... 

"Is my boat constructed so that if it takes a hard grounding I can still sail it until my next scheduled haul out with reasonable assurance all is well."

For me that is a pretty basic question. I can understand it is not a necessity for many, perhaps most, but for me it is.

But the answer to that question would tend to sort us out into two camps who have fairly radical differences in expectations for their boats. Neither right or wrong, just two different types of sailing.


----------



## bobperry

hpeer:
I think you'd need to define "hard grounding" before anyone could answer that question. Just how hard?

If your answer is, "Really hard" that's going to eliminate a lot of boats with bolt on keels whether good quality or shoddy. It's going to eliminate almost all short chord modern designs with bolt on keels. It's going to eliminate a lot of boats that people love to sail. People who like high performance accept that as a risk and see it as a reasonable trade off for the performance advantage.

To satisfy your need you probably will need a long chord keel integral with the hull with internal ballast. Maybe a boat like my new carbon fiber cutters would do the trick. This keel is a combo of e glass and carbon fiber and is 1.25" thick on centerline wrapping up the sides of the keel a bit at that thickness. It's bulletproof and very expensive. But it can take a beating without compromising the watertight integrity of the hull.

You can read more about this new project on the thread Faster set up specifically for it here.


----------



## robert sailor

hpeer said:


> While I suppose the type of sailing you do effects the answer, for me the question is simply this ....
> 
> "Is my boat constructed so that if it takes a hard grounding I can still sail it until my next scheduled haul out with reasonable assurance all is well."
> 
> For me that is a pretty basic question. I can understand it is not a necessity for many, perhaps most, but for me it is.
> 
> But the answer to that question would tend to sort us out into two camps who have fairly radical differences in expectations for their boats. Neither right or wrong, just two different types of sailing.


Interesting thought! Years ago I began my sailing on Lake of the Woods in Ontario. There are a lot of hidden rocks in this lake and buoys often move over winter breakup so dozens of boats hit each year however in those days, pre GPS, most people wouldn't even have their boats hauled to check for damage, they would simply wait for the winter haulout. Often the keel damage was quite something with huge chunks or bite marks taken out of the leading edge but very seldom was there any damage to the hull.
These days the boats have been engineered so well that even if you touch bottom in a sandy anchorage everyone is screaming, haul the boat as you probably have structural damage. Crazy part in many cases they are right so if you do touch bottom in one of these new designs it makes good sense to haul it and have the whole structure carefully inspected. The NA's will tell you that today's boats are not designed to hit the bottom and from what I see they are right. Way back when we would see video's of sailboats being driven full blast into the rocks without suffering any damage, hell even Hunter did it but these days with our modern engineering, well if you touch bottom get it hauled/surveyed.


----------



## bobperry

Lots of variable at work here and generalities are not going to hold up very well. We have rocks in the PNW as bog as houses, large houses. If you ran a modern production boat with a bolt on keel into one of these rocks at 5 or more knots I'd say while there may not be water getting into the boat you should haul out as soon as you can and postpone any more cruising until the damage is evaluated and repaired if needed.

But if you take a boat like a Valiant, hardly state of the art today, with a big, thick, short chord chunk of lead bolted to a grp sump of generous laminate you will probably just see the big divot in the lead Robert talks about.

AS an example , here is NIGHT RUNNER. It's keel has a long root chord with length to spread out a gaggles of keel bolts. I have personally hit a big rock with NR at about 6 knots. It brought the boat to an immediate stop. But aside from some soiled undies there was no damage done. If you cut that root chord down to half of NR's I think you would have seen some structural damage. NR is a wooden, cold molded boat and the only damage done was, as Robert said, a fist sized divot in the lead.


Like I say, lots of variables.


----------



## hpeer

Bob,

I think you described my definition of "hard grounding" pretty well right there. Big rock, 6 knots, stopped dead. I've done something far to close to that myself. Nigel Calders book on navigation has a picture of his boat hung up on rocks in Main, mostly out of the water while he awaits high tide.

I'm way stupider than either of you guys so I need my boat to cut me more slack.

But "hard grounding" is one of those ambitious terms that gets thrown around a bunch including when talking about getting assistance for being towed off. I've never seen an "official" definition. I think most folks are thinking more like "I can't get off myself, not even at high tide, I need assisstance."


----------



## bobperry

Peer: 
I agree, hard to lock in a definition but you certainly feel it in your gut when it happens.

Theoretically you can calculate for the loads, with some variables. Speed gets squared so the loads at 5 knots are far less than the loads at 6 knots. Then you can engineer the laminate for the loads and introduce more variables. I like to have the floor at the trailing edge of the keel be a "double" floor, that is twice the strength of the others as that is where the biggest load is likely to be as the trailing edge of the fin tries to shove itself up into the hull. Contemporary, light boats with little or no rocker and no deadrise at all have very shallow bilges below the sole and this compounds the difficulty of beefing up the keel attachment area. On FRANCIS LEE I modified the hull lines by adding deadrise simply to allow me more depth the the floors when we went to timber construction for the hull. Comp[are that situation to what you see on the carbon cutters where I have bilge depth to burn.


----------



## outbound

Paulo are you listening?
Remember when you gave me guff for choosing a boat with no keel bolts, internal ballast and just a bulb not a t keel. Yes there is a trivial performance penalty for a cruiser but great peace of mind.


----------



## robert sailor

Paulo gives lots of guff but so do others...remember just opinions. Just because he puts out a pretty good blog doesn't make him any smarter than you.


----------



## albrazzi

So "Hard a ground" is not when you can't get the boat out of the slip twice a day at low tide?


----------



## seaner97

And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for either he or smack to admit they were wrong. There will always be some sort of excuse or "explanation" as to how you misunderstood them, despite the fact that admitting an error actually builds your credibility in the future.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for either he or smack to admit they were wrong. There will always be some sort of excuse or "explanation" as to how you misunderstood them, despite the fact that admitting an error actually builds your credibility in the future.


Wrong about what? Dude, you seem to be getting this weird fixation with me. What's that all about?

Anyway, if you're talking about groundings - I think Bob said it perfectly. Anyone who thinks modern production boats _are built to hit rocks at 6 knots full-stop without structural damage_ is drooling drunk. I certainly don't think that. They're designed to sail through water very well and as affordably as possible. And they are generally tough enough to take a fair amount of abuse in stride - but certainly not NEAR the amount of abuse Bob's CFFK can take.

Again, that's not what production boats are built for - at least not the ones I've been talking about.

So - as Bob says:



bobperry said:


> Lots of variable at work here and generalities are not going to hold up very well.


----------



## smackdaddy

albrazzi said:


> So "Hard a ground" is not when you can't get the boat out of the slip twice a day at low tide?


A&M blames Cynthia Woods wreck on ship builder - Houston Chronicle

Actually, that was a contributing factor in the _Cynthia Woods_ tragedy...continual resting on the deep keel in the slip - in addition to multiple groundings and poor repairs.



> The Coast Guard team cited at least nine separate grounding incidents and also claimed the water in the marina where the boat was moored was so shallow at low tide that the keel rested in mud. Eventually the damage required the keel to be pulled out of the boat and reattached several months before the race.


But the school blamed it on poor design and construction of the keel structure:



> "The 4,870-pound keel failed because the hull's fiberglass laminate was too thin to support the weight of and forces upon the keel, thereby resulting in insufficient shear load capacity," the report stated. "In addition, the use of backing plates that were too narrow exacerbated the problem."


So it's not so far fetched.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> Wrong about what? Dude, you seem to be getting this weird fixation with me. What's that all about?
> 
> Anyway, if you're talking about groundings - I think Bob said it perfectly. Anyone who thinks modern production boats _are built to hit rocks at 6 knots full-stop without structural damage_ is drooling drunk. I certainly don't think that. They're designed to sail through water very well and as affordably as possible. And they are generally tough enough to take a certain amount of abuse in stride - but certainly not NEAR the amount of abuse Bob's CFFK can take.
> 
> Again, that's not what production boats are built for - at least not the ones I've been talking about.
> 
> So - as Bob says:


Fixated? Hardly, but I've watched you throw bombs into the water of others for literally years now, and I just finally thought SOMEONE should hold you accountable for the BS blowhard moves of late.
1- argue w/ Jon about a cleat and then use a TOTALLY different one to make your point.
2- beg for evidence that they had problems, and then when someone throws out the fact that they froze in salt, basically ignore it and move on, saying, essentially "well, if they're good enough for Hinkley", despite, again, it being a different cleat.
3- essentially say that a Hunter and a Hinkley are analogous
4- circle back and come out with 'well, maybe they're not that strong, but at least they're cheap'

You're sounding a bit like Brent is all, and letting you just spin just seemed inhumane. And you genuinely seem like a decent human being except for the intellectual honesty and accountability thing. But you win. New is always better, nothing old or traditional can be learned from, and the goal of sailing is clearly to get to port faster.


----------



## eko_eko

JonEisberg said:


> When one sees stuff like this that is so obvious and easy for all to see, how can one help but wonder what other examples of design and construction might have been have been executed poorly, that are not so blatantly obvious, even without setting foot on the boat?


Bingo.

I sail a production boat. I'll never have a custom boat. I'm appalled that today's builders, building for the same market segment that my boat was built for, have dropped their standards so much.

In 2055, will anyone be sailing a 2015 model year production boat?

When I go to a boat show, I look at the edges of things. I imagine using interior fixtures as hand holds in a storm. I try to envision having to service or replace some of the built-in niceties. Most of the recent boats I've seen just don't cut it. I've put enough money into my four decade old production boat to have bought a much newer one, but I trust the construction and systems design on mine more than I would one of these.

I'm sorry Smack, but that includes all recent Hunters I've been aboard. I do not mean to disparage _your_ boat. I generally agree with you on this forum, and I think it is possible (but expensive) to adapt a recent production boat for offshore work, but I can't imagine that the two of us would stand in a current-year Hunter and not find piles of unacceptable design choices. Just the way they are being sold via SailTime tells you something about their expected longevity. No reasonable design would depend on a depreciation shifting loan game like that for promotion and sale.

There are plenty of great advances in design in these new production boats. It's a shame that they are not built with the same attention to detail as some of the older production boats that have stood the test of time. It comes down to economics. I doubt the builders want to build crap. They just don't have any buyers at a price (and performance level) which includes stronger construction and safer designs.

Maybe one of Bob's CF cutters will be available on the used market in time for my kids to buy one. They'll tell their friends about how their dad saw the boats being built over the Internet, using an honest-to-goodness metal laptop and not the disposable biodegradable micro-tablets that will be considered modern at that future date.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Paulo are you listening?
> Remember when you gave me guff for choosing a boat with no keel bolts, internal ballast and just a bulb not a t keel. Yes there is a trivial performance penalty for a cruiser but great peace of mind.


This is hard enough for you?





The dam boat does not even have a fixed keel but a more fragile vertical lifting keel. This is not a center border but a full ballasted bulbed keel, the keel does not go up with the shock. The structure just takes all the charges and is able to support them.

They dismounted the keel to see if there was damage and besides the big dents on the forward part of the keel there was none.










Maybe you need more resistance than that?

By the way the Linjett 43 is a production boat, a conservative design, but a light modern boat with very good sail performance, you would call it a cruiser/racer.

It weights only 8 700kg. Compare it with the 12 700 kg of the Outbound 44/46. That's what you pay for having an old designed keel among other things.

Linjett 43 nominerad till Årets segelbåt - Långsegling


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh good grief sean, I'll address your laundry list then let's move on, shall we?



seaner97 said:


> Fixated? Hardly, but I've watched you throw bomb into the water of others for literally years now, and I just finally thought SOMEONE should hold you accountable for the BS blowhard moves of late.


Sounds great. Let's get accountable...



seaner97 said:


> 1- argue w/ Jon about a cleat and then use a TOTALLY different one to make your point.


Jon says this (bolded to make it easy for you)...



JonEisberg said:


> And, as far as the title of this thread goes, I'd say *the "Limit" to these laughable stern cleats on that 47 will occur pretty early on*... Hell, *I'm not sure those pieces of crap, mounted as stupidly as they are, could manage to withstand the stress of towing an RIB the full length of the ICW...* ;-)


...then this when I ask him what a "proper" cleat is so we can get some context...



JonEisberg said:


> *I can't give you a precise answer to that*, and I imagine that would very from one style of cleat to the next...
> 
> There are so many things wrong with *that POS that Hunter is using there, I hardly know where to begin*... ;-)
> 
> *Mooring cleats are definitely one of those things that should adhere to the KISS principle... They should not rely on 'hinges', or 'pins' to perform their function*... I've used a variety of folding cleats, and every one of them has sucked, bigtime. *The one I have the most experience with, which I see is now being used on boats like the Jeanneau 64, is this style pioneered by Nomen*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *These stupid things are among the worst for holding a cleated line I've ever seen. * One quickly learns to finish off your figure 8 locking hitch with a couple of half-hitches for added security ;-) They have fairly *sharp 'corners', so the line changes shape and tends to 'migrate' when under increasing tension. Moreover, cleats should not require maintenance, but these things definitely do... The internal rubber 'ball' which performs the function of snapping them into an open or closed position, began to degrade and break down very quickly on the earliest versions I used, and their 'smooth operation' could also be impaired by salt crystals gunking up the works. Replacement of the rubber balls was a PITA, and surprisingly expensive, as the part was proprietary to the manufacturer... *However, they sure look _SEXY_, and *are touted as something 'New & Improved to the buyer who will fall for such BS, and for that reason I think their appearance on many production boats today is a prime example of the sort of 'Shiny Object' approach Robert describes that many builders are taking to catch the eye of the consumer...*
> 
> *A proper cleat design* will keep the load as low as possible to the base and mounting bolts of the cleat... *My favorite style is similar to this* from Schaefer or Wilcox-Crittenden...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4-hole base (I'm guessing the Hunter version is affixed with only 2 bolts), as wide as it is long*&#8230; In contrast, note how high the line is riding on this one, greatly increasing the torque that might be applied to the base of that cleat&#8230; *When a heavy or snatching load is applied to that line, seems as tossup as to whether the cleat will be bent, or the hinges will fail, or the entire POS will simply be ripped from the transom* ;-)


Jon's sense of humor (which I get) in posting notwithstanding, his version of "proper" is the old-style hunk-a-metal. Everything else is crap according to HIS above post - and, judging by his photos and critiques - that must include the same pop-up/foldable versions I showed him on Oysters, Hinckleys, Swans, etc.

The point being that his "proper" cleat is not what's being used by some of the best yacht builders in the world - even though HE thinks everything else is crap. So who's wrong?

Conversely, the use of similar cleats on _production boats_ is not "bad". It all depends on the specs and use case.



seaner97 said:


> 2- beg for evidence that they had problems, and then when someone throws out the fact that they froze in salt, basically ignore it and move on, saying, essentially "well, if they're good enough for Hinkley", despite, again, it being a different cleat.


Well, first, I don't beg. Ever. But if you can't provide any evidence for what you're claiming, then as you say, it's just like BS making claims. Bob posts drawing and photos of his boats. He's all about facts. BS can't. So you or Jon or anyone else can post _your_ facts about these "POS cleats" failing like you are certain they will. And, if you can do that, I'll definitely sit up and take notes. Until then...meh.

Also, I've already addressed the specific cleat on the Hunter 47 in relation to the other styles of pop-ups/fold-downs Jon doesn't like either. I agree it could be better in general. So chill.



seaner97 said:


> 3- essentially say that a Hunter and a Hinkley are analogous


They are...in terms of not using the traditional, KISS cleat that Jon advocates as "proper", or the Samson post that Noelex posted. No question. Then, if you do a little research in this thread, you'll also see where the new Hinckley 50 has many other features that are starting to look much more like BeneHunterJeneLinas ("IKEA-style" interiors, flatter hull shapes, etc.) The point is, they are gradually becoming more analogous in terms of the above methods and materials - not less. That should tell you something.



seaner97 said:


> 4- circle back and come out with 'well, maybe they're not that strong, but at least they're cheap'


I don't know how strong they are. Do you? If you _don't_ know, how can you (or anyone) be so sure how "bad" they are? I said, just judging their look, I personally wouldn't trust them with a drogue or other similar heavy load in big conditions. But I wouldn't see a problem with them being used with a dockline to secure the boat in normal conditions - jut like with the Oyster, or Hinckley, or Swan, etc.

This is somehow scandalous?

As for cheap - my point earlier is that Jon's KISS cleat is about as cheap as you can get. And robertsailor goes on and on about how production boats are built to the cheapest possible standards - making that a "bad" thing. When compared to the higher-end modern yachts and the components used on them, this doesn't seem to be true. Surprise.



seaner97 said:


> You're sounding a bit like Brent is all, and letting you just spin just seemed inhumane.


You need some practice on all this. You see, Brent doesn't provide any evidence for anything. Ever. I do. Almost always. Just as I've done above.

Now, like I said, if _you_ can provide evidence for all the catastrophic failures being predicted in these POS components that keep coming up from the boat shows - then you definitely have a case and I'll give you respect. But I certainly haven't seen that. I've only seen lots of photos of stuff that people don't like for various reasons - but it's stuff that seems to be working pretty well for the broad market.



seaner97 said:


> But you win. New is always better, nothing old or traditional can be learned from, and the goal of sailing is clearly to get to port faster.


If you say so. I don't really hold to the first part of the maxim - but I definitely love going faster than slower. No doubt.


----------



## smackdaddy

eko_eko said:


> I'm sorry Smack, but that includes all recent Hunters I've been aboard. I do not mean to disparage _your_ boat. I generally agree with you on this forum, and I think it is possible (but expensive) to adapt a recent production boat for offshore work, but I can't imagine that the two of us would stand in a current-year Hunter and not find piles of unacceptable design choices. Just the way they are being sold via SailTime tells you something about their expected longevity. No reasonable design would depend on a depreciation shifting loan game like that for promotion and sale.


No need to apologize eko. I respect your opinion. But I want to be very clear here...I don't much like the new Hunters myself. I LOVE the Hunter _I have_. I think it's one of the best boats Hunter ever built for what I want to do...even over the Cherubini - which I looked at as well. I did A LOT of research to get what I wanted. And I'm very happy with it.

But as I've said in this thread many times, if I were buying new for a production boat budget, I would likely go with the new Jeanneau DS series - or a cat. I like the style of the JDS series much more than the new Hunter. But that's purely subjective. I'm comfortable both of them can handle blue water sailing.

That said, I've been very clear that I personally suspect all these newer boats have a shorter "shelf-life" than what many of us used-boaters are sailing now. I have no hard evidence for that other than the comparison of older-heavier vs. newer-lighter builds. But I think the days of leaving your boat to your great-grandkids are over...not just from a durability of the boat standpoint - but of a "what the market wants" standpoint. People just don't seem to be keeping boats for decades anymore.

The big difference is that I just don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (many do). It will just make me much more vigilant if I buy a newer used boat. No doubt.

But I can absolutely guarantee you I will NEVER buy a Hans Christian or Cabo Rico, etc. I don't think old boats like that are worth it, and it's just not my thing.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> This is hard enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dam boat does not even have a fixed keel but a more fragile vertical lifting keel. This is not a center border but a full ballasted bulbed keel, the keel does not go up with the shock. The structure just takes all the charges and is able to support them.
> 
> They dismounted the keel to see if there was damage and besides the big dents on the forward part of the keel there was none.
> 
> Maybe you need more resistance than that?
> 
> By the way the Linjett 43 is a production boat, a conservative design, but a light modern boat with very good sail performance, you would call it a cruiser/racer.
> 
> It weights only 8 700kg. Compare it with the 12 700 kg of the Outbound 44/46. That's what you pay for having an old designed keel among other things.
> 
> Linjett 43 nominerad till Årets segelbåt - Långsegling


Now now Paulo, be nice! I knew I could count on you to dig up a vid showing a modern boat running their keel into something hard without wrecking it but why don't the other builders do the same thing? I'll take a guess...when you brag about your tough construction and some dude hits the sandy bottom a couple of times and sometime later the keel falls off you feel every right to suggest that a grounding lead to the problem, even you sing that song. I kinda don't think the folks at Linjett would sing the same song if one of their boats lost its keel, right!
Now I also have to tell you that the Outbound is a hell of a good offshore cruiser passage maker and in my mind can not be compared to a modern entry level boat, they are just not in the same league. I have sailed some of Carl S boats and that boy has never designed a slow boat in his life and the boats are a delight to sail, they are generally on the lighter side and built very stout.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> This is hard enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dam boat does not even have a fixed keel but a more fragile vertical lifting keel. This is not a center border but a full ballasted bulbed keel, the keel does not go up with the shock. The structure just takes all the charges and is able to support them.
> 
> They dismounted the keel to see if there was damage and besides the big dents on the forward part of the keel there was none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need more resistance than that?
> 
> By the way the Linjett 43 is a production boat, a conservative design, but a light modern boat with very good sail performance, you would call it a cruiser/racer.
> 
> It weights only 8 700kg. Compare it with the 12 700 kg of the Outbound 44/46. That's what you pay for having an old designed keel among other things.
> 
> Linjett 43 nominerad till Årets segelbåt - Långsegling


Okay - that's freakin' impressive. I think even Brent Swain would wet his crusty pants over that.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm sorry, this is completely inappropriate, but I was just about to navigate away from this page when I saw the list of members currently viewing it and had to laugh:

smackdaddy , Faster , slap , weinie


----------



## seaner97

Now that was funny


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

Probably inappropriate.......BUT, as they said in a show or book or something of that nature......

Truth is stranger than fiction!

So the four that were viewing, true! and strange at the same time!

Oh, and slap is still here.....

blt2ski , jason357 , mr_f , outbound , overbored , seaner97 , slap


Marty


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> Oh good grief sean, I'll address your laundry list then let's move on, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fixated? Hardly, but I've watched you throw bomb into the water of others for literally years now, and I just finally thought SOMEONE should hold you accountable for the BS blowhard moves of late.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great. Let's get accountable...
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1- argue w/ Jon about a cleat and then use a TOTALLY different one to make your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jon says this (bolded to make it easy for you)...
> 
> 
> 
> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as far as the title of this thread goes, I'd say *the "Limit" to these laughable stern cleats on that 47 will occur pretty early on*... Hell, *I'm not sure those pieces of crap, mounted as stupidly as they are, could manage to withstand the stress of towing an RIB the full length of the ICW...* ;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...then this when I ask him what a "proper" cleat is so we can get some context...
> 
> 
> 
> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't give you a precise answer to that*, and I imagine that would very from one style of cleat to the next...
> 
> There are so many things wrong with *that POS that Hunter is using there, I hardly know where to begin*... ;-)
> 
> *Mooring cleats are definitely one of those things that should adhere to the KISS principle... They should not rely on 'hinges', or 'pins' to perform their function*... I've used a variety of folding cleats, and every one of them has sucked, bigtime. *The one I have the most experience with, which I see is now being used on boats like the Jeanneau 64, is this style pioneered by Nomen*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *These stupid things are among the worst for holding a cleated line I've ever seen. * One quickly learns to finish off your figure 8 locking hitch with a couple of half-hitches for added security ;-) They have fairly *sharp 'corners', so the line changes shape and tends to 'migrate' when under increasing tension. Moreover, cleats should not require maintenance, but these things definitely do... The internal rubber 'ball' which performs the function of snapping them into an open or closed position, began to degrade and break down very quickly on the earliest versions I used, and their 'smooth operation' could also be impaired by salt crystals gunking up the works. Replacement of the rubber balls was a PITA, and surprisingly expensive, as the part was proprietary to the manufacturer... *However, they sure look _SEXY_, and *are touted as something 'New & Improved to the buyer who will fall for such BS, and for that reason I think their appearance on many production boats today is a prime example of the sort of 'Shiny Object' approach Robert describes that many builders are taking to catch the eye of the consumer...*
> 
> *A proper cleat design* will keep the load as low as possible to the base and mounting bolts of the cleat... *My favorite style is similar to this* from Schaefer or Wilcox-Crittenden...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4-hole base (I'm guessing the Hunter version is affixed with only 2 bolts), as wide as it is long*&#8230; In contrast, note how high the line is riding on this one, greatly increasing the torque that might be applied to the base of that cleat&#8230; *When a heavy or snatching load is applied to that line, seems as tossup as to whether the cleat will be bent, or the hinges will fail, or the entire POS will simply be ripped from the transom* ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jon's sense of humor (which I get) in posting notwithstanding, his version of "proper" is the old-style hunk-a-metal. Everything else is crap according to HIS above post - and, judging by his photos and critiques - that must include the same pop-up/foldable versions I showed him on Oysters, Hinckleys, Swans, etc.
> 
> The point being that his "proper" cleat is not what's being used by some of the best yacht builders in the world - even though HE thinks everything else is crap. So who's wrong?
> 
> Conversely, the use of similar cleats on _production boats_ is not "bad". It all depends on the specs and use case.
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2- beg for evidence that they had problems, and then when someone throws out the fact that they froze in salt, basically ignore it and move on, saying, essentially "well, if they're good enough for Hinkley", despite, again, it being a different cleat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, first, I don't beg. Ever. But if you can't provide any evidence for what you're claiming, then as you say, it's just like BS making claims. Bob posts drawing and photos of his boats. He's all about facts. BS can't. So you or Jon or anyone else can post _your_ facts about these "POS cleats" failing like you are certain they will. And, if you can do that, I'll definitely sit up and take notes. Until then...meh.
> 
> Also, I've already addressed the specific cleat on the Hunter 47 in relation to the other styles of pop-ups/fold-downs Jon doesn't like either. I agree it could be better in general. So chill.
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3- essentially say that a Hunter and a Hinkley are analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are...in terms of not using the traditional, KISS cleat that Jon advocates as "proper", or the Samson post that Noelex posted. No question. Then, if you do a little research in this thread, you'll also see where the new Hinckley 50 has many other features that are starting to look much more like BeneHunterJeneLinas ("IKEA-style" interiors, flatter hull shapes, etc.) The point is, they are gradually becoming more analogous in terms of the above methods and materials - not less. That should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4- circle back and come out with 'well, maybe they're not that strong, but at least they're cheap'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how strong they are. Do you? If you _don't_ know, how can you (or anyone) be so sure how "bad" they are? I said, just judging their look, I personally wouldn't trust them with a drogue or other similar heavy load in big conditions. But I wouldn't see a problem with them being used with a dockline to secure the boat in normal conditions - jut like with the Oyster, or Hinckley, or Swan, etc.
> 
> This is somehow scandalous?
> 
> As for cheap - my point earlier is that Jon's KISS cleat is about as cheap as you can get. And robertsailor goes on and on about how production boats are built to the cheapest possible standards - making that a "bad" thing. When compared to the higher-end modern yachts and the components used on them, this doesn't seem to be true. Surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're sounding a bit like Brent is all, and letting you just spin just seemed inhumane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need some practice on all this. You see, Brent doesn't provide any evidence for anything. Ever. I do. Almost always. Just as I've done above.
> 
> Now, like I said, if _you_ can provide evidence for all the catastrophic failures being predicted in these POS components that keep coming up from the boat shows - then you definitely have a case and I'll give you respect. But I certainly haven't seen that. I've only seen lots of photos of stuff that people don't like for various reasons - but it's stuff that seems to be working pretty well for the broad market.
> 
> 
> 
> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you win. New is always better, nothing old or traditional can be learned from, and the goal of sailing is clearly to get to port faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say so. I don't really hold to the first part of the maxim - but I definitely love going faster than slower. No doubt.
Click to expand...

So being on the mobile app, I'll be quite short - the only evidence you will seem to accept will never be published. Even something as basic as hull failures in 50 year old boats has one, unable to be found insurance institute study. There is a famous lancet article about the randomized, controlled parachute study. The point is, sometimes engineering doesn't need evidence to know its a bad idea. The one post about the Frozen pop up cleat is exactly what I would expect to happen (I note you ignored that again). And, yeah, many manufacturers are going to sailing pizza wedges with lots of bling. Lots of people also bought McMansions. It proves there are lots of stupid people with money to burn (or borrow), and nothing more. I'm done with this one, so feel free to hurl whatever you want at me. I'm glad you like the new bling, but the old fashioned hunk of metal is still a superior, fail proof piece of engineering. I'll give you that it isn't as sexy euro looking.


----------



## bobperry

Interesting grounding video. Nice piece of advertising. Notice how they never show you the aft end of the keel trunk where the damage would more likely occur. I'm skeptical.
I'm not the type that buys into advertising. I would want to examine that boat for myself before drawing a conclusion. I am not gullible. Ads lie.

"Your new Volkswagen diesel will exceed US emissions requirements." But they lied.

I don't buy into advertising. I find out for myself.


----------



## SloopJonB

Those Nomen cleats are gorgeous bits of sculptural design but I agree, totally wrong as working cleats - all form, no function. They look like you might be able to make a decent corkscrew out of one.

IMO Herreshoff cleats are far & away the best. The Schaefer/Wilcox style shown is next best but still a distant second


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

PCP said:


> The dam boat does not even have a fixed keel but a more fragile vertical lifting keel. This is not a center border but a full ballasted bulbed keel, the keel does not go up with the shock. The structure just takes all the charges and is able to support them.


I don't know the least thing about naval architecture. But the inside part of the videos shows that _*something*_ is going up in the keel box with the shock. So there is _some_ movement which must absorb _some_ of the energy of the impact.

And then there is of course Bob's point that they don't actually show the part of the boat where the most damage would occur.


----------



## bobperry

There is nothing at all "fragile" about that keel. It's a chunker. It''s short on span and long on chord. I would not expect the keel to be damaged other than at the impact point.

I agree with Mast. Something is moving up and down within the trunk. If it is the keel then that would certainly help relive the impact loads. But normally you sail a boat like this with the keel pinned down so it cannot come back up on its own. The lifting keels I have done were all fixed in the down position.

Interesting and on face value impressive.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> Now now Paulo, be nice! I knew I could count on you to dig up a vid showing a modern boat running their keel into something hard without wrecking it but why don't the other builders do the same thing? I'll take a guess...when you brag about your tough construction and some dude hits the sandy bottom a couple of times and sometime later the keel falls off you feel every right to suggest that a grounding lead to the problem, even you sing that song. I kinda don't think the folks at Linjett would sing the same song if one of their boats lost its keel, right!
> Now I also have to tell you that the Outbound is a hell of a good offshore cruiser passage maker and in my mind can not be compared to a modern entry level boat, they are just not in the same league. I have sailed some of Carl S boats and that boy has never designed a slow boat in his life and the boats are a delight to sail, they are generally on the lighter side and built very stout.


Now, if I show that a modern light production boat can stand some impressive shocks on the keel without damaging it significantly you will say they have just luck, others say that it was just because it was a lifting keel as if a lifting keel of that type would not be more fragile than a fixed keel.

This is not about a full keel well built boat not to have a more resistant keel to impacts but about a production well built boat with a modern keel to have one resistant enough to normal use and even some abuse in what regards grounding.

Some more videos: I guess they could not have all luck and that a boat losing a keel would give even an more interesting movie:laugh

The First one is probably the more interesting even if I can only provide the link since it regards a contemporary voyage boat, a very light and fast one, a smaller model of this one, with a modern high aspect ratio torpedo keel:






The video is here:




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=995865797119375



and by the way the boat survived with the two rudders intact. They took them to re-float the boat.

Here another mass production boat whose keel survived not only being thrown to the rocks but having been pulled from them brutally:






Another two older production boats with fin keels being pulled from the rocks and surviving:











Some more photos of boats that grounded and where re floated without significant keel damage (just in France):


----------



## seaner97

Clean aluminium cleat with direct fresh water. When using soap,
be sure to use mild dishwashing liquid and to rinse thoroughly.
Grease regularly the lifting parts with silicone grease. Don?t use other types of lubricants, they may damage the anodization and the O-rings. Never use abrasive cleaning products. Never use steel or brass wool, polishing wheels or polishing compounds.

Directly from the seasmart manual. Sounds like they are bulletproof. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## aeventyr60

*"If you say so. I don't really hold to the first part of the maxim - but I definitely love going faster than slower. No doubt."
*

You go Smack, Faster to the marina.....Queen dirt dweller that you are....


----------



## robert sailor

Do any of you guys remember when Swan designed and built a bullet proof boat that could be sailed anywhere offshore? Look at them now! They are of course still beautiful and well built but their anchoring systems are a laugh compared to their past boats. The interior layouts are also "marina" styled. I was looking at a new one in Italy and it was very easy on the eye but the design briefs and the customer base has really changed a lot over the years. We are seeing this on most boats, "more form than function". I also think its about the end users and how the boats are actually used. Just because you are cruising and crossing oceans doesn't mean that that is the way boats should be set up, hell I doubt even 1% of the boats are used this way these days. For the most part they are sailed from marina to marina and don't spend any time on the hook other than maybe for an evening drink or lunch. The Med is a huge market and there are more boats and buyers in that region than most North Americans can imagine. We spent a couple of years there and it was common to see boats coming into the anchorages during the day and leaving before dark heading back to the marina.
Now of course that doesn't work to well for cruisers but if I had the cake to buy a new Swan 100 footer then I'd do exactly the same thing and that my friends is the real market place, even for the 35 footers. The builders are not stupid they have this figured out and they know there buyers and how the boat will be used. Where is your boat going tonight? A nice safe marina or are you on the hook?


----------



## outbound

Hopefully there will always be niche builders building boats for actual cruising. 

Thank you for the videos Paulo. Pretty windy in your part of the world. Could you post details of the boats displayed? Model and year would be of interest. Do you have any idea of damage done to them? The center cockpit seemed a bit low in the water.

As an aside when hurricane sandy came through a 30 year old Cheribini staysail schooner broke free of its mooring in New Bedford, MA. Pounded into a granite abutment for several days. Was pulled off and went to Delrin NJ. Told now good as new and ready for another 30 years. Seems BS is ful of BS grp is pretty tough stuff.


----------



## Noelex

robert sailor said:


> Do any of you guys remember when Swan designed and built a bullet proof boat that could be sailed anywhere offshore? Look at them now! They are of course still beautiful and well built but their anchoring systems are a laugh compared to their past boats. The interior layouts are also "marina" styled. I was looking at a new one in Italy and it was very easy on the eye but the design briefs and the customer base has really changed a lot over the years. We are seeing this on most boats, "more form than function".


Now you are being silly Robert. These modern yachts are perfectly designed for rough offshore conditions.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Anyway, if you're talking about groundings - I think Bob said it perfectly. Anyone who thinks modern production boats _are built to hit rocks at 6 knots full-stop without structural damage_ is drooling drunk. I certainly don't think that. They're designed to sail through water very well and as affordably as possible. And they are generally tough enough to take a fair amount of abuse in stride - but certainly not NEAR the amount of abuse Bob's CFFK can take.


Hmmm, then I wonder why Steve Pettengill performs these stress tests, driving each new model Hunter up onto the beach in St Augustine at speed?








smackdaddy said:


> Again, that's not what production boats are built for - at least not the ones I've been talking about.
> 
> *So - as Bob says:*
> 
> 
> 
> bobperry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of variable at work here and generalities are not going to hold up very well.
Click to expand...

Well, speaking of _"generalities"_ that may not hold up very well:



smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, the Cat A boats are perfectly fine for bluewater sailing.


;-)

Check out this Category A rated midship cleat on this Beneteau 473...

Awesome engineering and installation, eh?



> Although the hull didn't need much work, the mid cleat on the starboard side did.
> 
> Jeremy on 'Blue Chip of Cowes', another 473, had the same problem. It results from expansion of the circular alloy blocks the cleat sits on. This time we have removed the cleat, filed down the blocks and then used epoxy resin to fix the splits in the teak toerail back in place. In the future, once it starts to split again, we will need to replace all of the alloy blocks under the 6 cleats with nylon ones and possible replace the teak sections at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.beyzano.com/page/17/


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
I'm not sure driving a boat up onto a sandy beach is equivalent to driving the same boat at hull sped into a rock 30' in diameter.
My client ran his boat into a rock while preparing to anchor. He was doing about 4 knots at the time. The impact was enough to throw him into the pedestal and break his arm.
I'm not saying Steve's test is invalid. I'm just saying sand is sand and rock is rock and both are going to produce different impact results.


----------



## seaner97

noelex77 said:


> robert sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you guys remember when Swan designed and built a bullet proof boat that could be sailed anywhere offshore? Look at them now! They are of course still beautiful and well built but their anchoring systems are a laugh compared to their past boats. The interior layouts are also "marina" styled. I was looking at a new one in Italy and it was very easy on the eye but the design briefs and the customer base has really changed a lot over the years. We are seeing this on most boats, "more form than function".
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are being silly Robert. These modern yachts are perfectly designed for rough offshore conditions.
Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon- most of that is the fact that the owners couldn't afford the boat if they actually sailed them. Someone has to pay for these inferior sexy "upgrades".


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Jon:
> I'm not sure driving a boat up onto a sandy beach is equivalent to driving the same boat at hull sped into a rock 30' in diameter.
> My client ran his boat into a rock while preparing to anchor. He was doing about 4 knots at the time. The impact was enough to throw him into the pedestal and break his arm.
> I'm not saying Steve's test is invalid. I'm just saying sand is sand and rock is rock and both are going to produce different impact results.


I agree completely... I've hit granite in Maine, marl in the Bahamas, sand in Belize - among many other places - and plenty of mud right here in Barnegat Bay, and the impacts are quite unique, and hardly equivalent, at all... ;-)

Just pointing out that the guys at Hunter appear to consider the sort of grounding depicted in that video to be just the sort of "hard grounding" not unlikely or uncommon here along the East coast, where so many of their boats are being used...

I give them a lot of credit for testing their boats in this fashion... On the other hand, I won't be holding my breath for the YouTube video of the new Hinckley 50 being intentionally driven hard aground at hull speed, even if the bottom is sand...

;-)


----------



## robert sailor

noelex77 said:


> Now you are being silly Robert. These modern yachts are perfectly designed for rough offshore conditions.


For sure LOL, you sure nailed it! We made wonderful friends with two American couples in the Med. Both had shipped their 50-60+ footers over and just figured, hey thats the way its done. Other than my ego and my pocket book I'd like to be able to do the same.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Hopefully there will always be niche builders building boats for actual cruising.
> 
> Thank you for the videos Paulo. Pretty windy in your part of the world. Could you post details of the boats displayed? Model and year would be of interest. Do you have any idea of damage done to them? The center cockpit seemed a bit low in the water.
> 
> As an aside when hurricane sandy came through a 30 year old Cheribini staysail schooner broke free of its mooring in New Bedford, MA. Pounded into a granite abutment for several days. Was pulled off and went to Delrin NJ. Told now good as new and ready for another 30 years. Seems BS is ful of BS grp is pretty tough stuff.


Well, I will post about about the RM that is on this video and seems to me the more relevant regarding new models with sharp looking torpedo keels, I mean this one:




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=995865797119375



It may seem that the boat is being pulled on soft sand that will absorb the shocks but it is not so. The boat is on a reef in French Polynesia, far away from home. It may also seem that the boat was grounded in mild conditions similar to the ones where it is been taken out to the sea again, but it was not the case. You can see on this photo that the waves were a lot bigger and probably much bigger when the accident happened since the boat was sailing with only a very reefed main. The only man aboard, a 70 year old sailor was rescued by an helicopter. By the way, the boat has a sail-drive that had no problems with the grounding.




























You can see here that the rudders remained intact even if the boat was pushed by a reef by waves of considerable size:




























The boat is a RM 1050 and about a hundred of that model were produced by RM in few years. This model:






Now they produce a boat not very different but incorporating all the new developments in what regard contemporary design regarding that type of boat, a faster and better cruiser (the building is similar). They are now selling and producing much more boats then the ones that they used to sell when they were producing the RM 1050 (1998-2011):





RM 1070, 100 milles en hiver _por voile-magazine_

I have read somewhere that the boat only needed relatively small repair on the hull.

Any boat can be destroyed by the sea even if it is laying on sand. I had seen steel ships being made to pieces in a considerable short period of time. However If you want a boat that can survive the longer while being pounded by the sea against rocks a steel yacht is the better by the far.

Personally That is not the main focus when I chose a sailboat, I mean the one that can take more pounding against rocks even if I want a strong boat that can take a "normal" grounding without problems. I would say that I would want first a boat with an interior when I can live comfortably and with the size to take the storage space I need, a seaworthy boat and a boat that can sail not only fast but most of all sail very well with very weak winds, that I unfortunately find a lot of time and that means a well designed light boat with a big sail area. That's mainly because I want to sail, not motor my way.

But of course there is not right or wrong in what regards the right compromises in the choice of a sailboat, only personal ones and Brent would certainly chose a steel boat with a bad light wind performance and the guy sails a lot.


----------



## Faster

I think that (yachts as deck cargo) industry and current practice is more about the owners'/crews' tolerance and time availability than the boats.... I think the majority of the sailboats pictured above would be deemed 'blue water/passage worthy' by most.


----------



## robert sailor

bobperry said:


> Jon:
> I'm not sure driving a boat up onto a sandy beach is equivalent to driving the same boat at hull sped into a rock 30' in diameter.
> My client ran his boat into a rock while preparing to anchor. He was doing about 4 knots at the time. The impact was enough to throw him into the pedestal and break his arm.
> I'm not saying Steve's test is invalid. I'm just saying sand is sand and rock is rock and both are going to produce different impact results.


I'm not a NA but I know if you have a lead keel and smack a rock,that bite in it was part of the G force being absorbed in the keel and not the floor structure.
I also don't believe for a moment that running aground in sand or mud is the same as rock where there is zero give. 
I was with a fellow sailor when he hit a rock at 3 or 4 knots and the whole boat sounded like a bell and I was plastered against the coaming. I have run aground myself in sand and there was no comparison to hitting a rock.


----------



## Faster

PCP said:


> Well, I will post about about the RM that is on this video and seems to me the more relevant regarding new models with sharp looking torpedo keels, I mean this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=995865797119375
> 
> 
> 
> ........


Impressive.. though you can see they prudently removed the rudders before dragging her off the beach.

Those RMs have always appealed, and not sure why exactly because my tastes run more to the traditional finishes interior-wise. But I think I'd like to give an RM a go here in BC..


----------



## PCP

Faster said:


> Impressive.. though you can see they prudently removed the rudders before dragging her off the beach.
> 
> Those RMs have always appealed, and not sure why exactly because my tastes run more to the traditional finishes interior-wise. But I think I'd like to give an RM a go here in BC..


Regarding the interior, if your wife is like mine, she would be in love with the boat:

Interesting Sailboats: RM 1070, THE REAL THING

If my wife chose our boat would be a RM. She likes particularly the galley and the interior volume. In what regards me I see an advantage in being able to sail the boat from the inside, at least in places with not much traffic.


----------



## SloopJonB

Just another IKEA interior.


----------



## Capt Len

I hear that rocks and sand are somewhat different in impact yield qualities.Plenty experience with mud and sand but eluded the harder stuff. But I figure that all that bling and underbody shape would not fair so well here on the coast. After a couple of encounters with a floating kelp island late at night middle of Salish Sea 30 kts SE in November .,what say you now? Also limits in where you go with 15/30 ft tide range .But I admit it shows well and a great day sail.


----------



## bobperry

Robert:
I agree. I have hit the sand, several times, and I have hit a rock at 6 knots. No comparison at all. You hit a rock and you bounce back, very hard. The sound of the impact is very different as you say. Maybe like a bell as you say, but a really weird bell as the everything that can move at all on the boat chimes in at once. Maybe like the sound of a car crash. I live on a rocky beach, most rocks smaller than a cantaloupe, but even hitting my beach would be far less impact than hitting a big rock. I have no idea what a "normal grounding" is.

I most certainly would not advocate a test with a boat hitting a nice big PNW rock at 8 knots. Not my boat anyway. If someone else wants to volunteer their boat I'll gladly drive it. I'll wear a flak jacket and helmet. There are a coupe of big rocks right around the point of my bay where we can do the tests. 

Volunteers?


----------



## Noelex

The RM series of yachts are intriguing.

However, construction wise they have almost nothing in common with 99% of production yachts. They are constructed (from memory) from an epoxy saturated plywood structure. While I think it is optional, all the RM boats I have met have been sheathed in Kevlar and (as I understand it) it is not a token thin Kevlar layer but the entire outer sheathing. The keel and rigging loads are taken by a galvanised frame (which is used on some other production boats, but is not common). The rudders are designed to support the yacht drying out (at least in the twin keeled models).

I have some reservations about the impact resistance of this type of hull construction having been crew on a large cruising yacht with similar building method (although no Kevlar) that was holed and sank alarmingly rapidly after hitting rocks, but RM's effort is a serious attempt to construct the ideal cruising yacht and resistance to impact and grounding loads is, or least should be, part of the design brief.

It is not a representative model of a typical production boat.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Just another IKEA interior.


I guess Ikea means modern to you LOL


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> Regarding the interior, if your wife is like mine, she would be in love with the boat:
> 
> Interesting Sailboats: RM 1070, THE REAL THING
> 
> If my wife chose our boat would be a RM. She likes particularly the galley and the interior volume. In what regards me I see an advantage in being able to sail the boat from the inside, at least in places with not much traffic.


I hate to say this but I like it ! A cruise boat it ain't as there is so little storage but it would be a fun wekender for sure.


----------



## Jaramaz

SloopJonB said:


> Just another IKEA interior.


Oh, that was the first time I have read this.

Original.

/J
from IKEA-land ....


----------



## PCP

noelex77 said:


> ,,,
> 
> It is not a representative model of a typical production boat.


However it is a production boat and not only produced in smaller numbers. Would Allures or OVNI also not be typical production boat, even if they are produced in large numbers, just because they are aluminum boats?

They are all production boats and not the kind that are made in very small numbers.

But I think this is what you would call a typical production boat:



















The boat was grounded on one of the nastiest places of the French coast, where some left their lives. The crew (a couple) was taken out by an helicopter and the boat was rocked side by side by breaking waves (comment from the guys from the Helicopter that on account of that ask the crew to jump to the sea and swim away from the boat).

Some hours later, when the sea become calmer the boat could be safely taken in tow to a port.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> I guess Ikea means modern to you LOL


Nope, it means cold, bright, cheap, flashy design.


----------



## Jaramaz

SloopJonB said:


> Nope, it means cold, bright, cheap, flashy design.


Well, there you are not really up-dated. When did you visit your IKEA store last time?

IKEA _*design*_ is not flashy, nor cheap. The produktion is cheap, but that is completelyt another thng.

Thing is, IKEA is copying scandinavian modern (as from 1940 -1970) designs, designs that no longer are protected by conventional IP securety means (as patents). So, not cheap design, not flashy.

You do not like it anyhow? That's your privelidge. 
You may not like BRG, but it is well-recognized.

/J


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> I hate to say this but I like it ! A cruise boat it ain't as there is so little storage but it would be a fun wekender for sure.


You don't know what you are talking about and never been for sure inside that boat. If you had you should not have said things that don't make sense. The RM is not only designed as a cruising boat but as a voyage boat and used as such by many. That is not by accident that French boat on the reef is on Polynesia and that the other that I posted a video is coming from Azores.

Of course, a voyage boat has to have a considerable storage space and the RM has it. Do you know many 35ft that offer this storage space as standard (look at the back of the boat):










The boat is only sold on a two version cabin with a dedicated big interior storage space:










Besides that and the spaces under the bunks they have a big and interesting space between the left saloon settee and the hull. That space closed can also be used as a bunk.


----------



## Noelex

PCP said:


> However it is a production boat and not only produced in smaller numbers. Would Allures or OVNI also not be typical production boat, even if they are produced in large numbers, just because they are aluminum boats?


No, in my view they are not typical production boats. To extrapolate factors such as impact resistance from swing keeled aluminium hulled yachts like a Allures or Ovni to a typical polyester fibreglass production boat is not a valid or useful comparison.

The epoxy/plywood RM range are yet another very different and interesting construction technique that does not have much in common with most production boats.


----------



## SloopJonB

Actually, I was at IKEA a couple of weeks ago. It is very big here - we have two huge stores in Vancouver. Whenever I go there I have the same reaction - I seldom see anything I don't like but I rarely see anything I would want to own - other than small stuff like fixtures.

It's always puzzled me that Swedes would create such a cold style of interior decor. If I lived in a climate like that I think I'd want something more "log cabin with a big fireplace".

Cozy it ain't.


----------



## bobperry

I think for Americans the term "IKEA" means exactly what Jon meant. Jon says "IKEA" and I know what he means. No explanation required. And there may have been a time when that was applicable. Maybe IKEA has changed. I have only been in the store once and that was years ago. But unfortunately for IKEA the term "IKEA" will be used here to describe " cold, bright, cheap". I would not go along with "flashy". I found it boring but not at all bad. Just not to my taste.

But one thing for sure, here IKEA means "cheap". That's exactly what they sell.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> You don't know what you are talking about and never been for sure inside that boat. If you had you should not have said things that don't make sense. The RM is not only designed as a cruising boat but as a voyage boat and used as such by many. That is not by accident that French boat on the reef is on Polynesia and that the other that I posted is coming from Azores
> 
> Of course, a voyage boat has to have a considerable storage the RM has it. Do you know many 35ft that offer this storage space as standard (look at the back of the boat):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The boat is only sold on a two version cabin with a dedicated big interior storage space:


I'm not a big fan of the looks of current boats, inside or out but those RM's are pretty cool - I could see owning one.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Nope, it means cold, bright..., flashy design.


No I understand: Cold, Bright and Flashy means modern to you, or at least is that way you see modern design. LOL

It goes with your opinion regarding modern contemporary designs that I bet you would call...Bright, cold and flashy to the new Hinckley :



















and would call to the 40 year old Hinckley 50 warm, cozy and of good taste:laugh



















I guess you live on the past! It happens... more to old folks than to guys that live in their own time.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> I'm not a big fan of the looks of current boats, inside or out but those RM's are pretty cool - I could see owning one.


Now you really get me confused!!! This was the boat that you said that had an IKEA interior, cold, flashy, cheap and bright and now you say that you like the boat and do not mind yo have one????

After all it seems you like Ikea, cold flashy bright and cheap interiors. I apologize if I did not understood you.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> PCP said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and never been for sure inside that boat. If you had you should not have said things that don't make sense. The RM is not only designed as a cruising boat but as a voyage boat and used as such by many. That is not by accident that French boat on the reef is on Polynesia and that the other that I posted is coming from Azores
> 
> Of course, a voyage boat has to have a considerable storage the RM has it. Do you know many 35ft that offer this storage space as standard (look at the back of the boat):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The boat is only sold on a two version cabin with a dedicated big interior storage space:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the looks of current boats, inside or out but those RM's are pretty cool - I could see owning one.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the interiors on the ships in StarWars from 1977. It should- it's the same design ethos. It's not really contemporary ( that would be the Hinkley), but it's 'Swedish modern' in its styling. Kinda cool, and cold/sterile. But the RM and the new Hinkley interior design aren't really as similar as you'd like to think they are. The Hink still has LOTS of wood compared to the RM.


----------



## outbound

Gee Paulo
A lot of us like the varied interiors of the K and M s, or the traditional interiors of the HRs and Rustlers, or the warm interiors of the Morris Ocean series or even the Oysters. Some even like the interiors of the new Amels. Baltics and Swans. But that interior is Fugly. Like living in a Tokyo hotel room. Nothing antiquated about that opinion of taste.
And suspect after having harnesses dropped on it, wet clothes sitting on it and general wear and tear wont look like much in a few years. Problem with those surfaces and veneers is they tend to not hold up well and are hard to restore.


----------



## robert sailor

Polux if you ever voyaged anywhere you would understand what I meant by storage. I grant you the space in the rear of the boat could be turned into a mini garage which certainly has its benefits and I like the open access to batteries but good storage doesn't mean big spaces. It means places for things that are easy to get to. It means not having to remove half your stuff to find a part or spare you have stored. It means being able to have a place for a couple of months of food that your wife can get at easily.
I'm right in the middle of installing a new Spectra watermaker and I am taking up space we used to use for storage and my wife is trying to figure where the stuff is going to go and to her its a big deal. I carry lots of spares and lots of tools. The wife has her big sewing machine and enough fabric to start a shop lol.
We don't have a genset and we don't have an AC and we don't even carry a portable generator which many of our cruising friends do but you need a big array of solar panels and a large bank of batteries and all the associated electronics that go with them. Then you have to install an autopilot and you need space for the smart box and all this crap eats up space. Your water tanks I am sure are under the seats and your fuel tank will be under the rear bunk so those spaces are not available. Lots of stuff we carry is bulky, extra sails, a series drogue, 8 fenders,extra line in every size,life jackets for 6, too many clothes (wife) jerry jugs, water jugs, extra bedding for guests, **** pit cushions that are only used at anchor, the list just goes on and on.
Look its a cool little boat and is nicely set up for a 35 footer, I really like the layout but I still think the storage could have been improved a lot but its not cheap to built cabinetry and its not light. If you moved the seating closer together it would open up some good storage behind the seat backs but that would start making the boat feel smaller, a no no today. Forget about open spaces and have a boat designed for a single purpose if you want to call it a good offshore cruiser. Ventilation is also important and that boat looks a bit weak there. 
Its not my personal cup of tea but I was on a friends Rustler 36 and there is a boat that is set up for cruising with excellent storage for its size and its a smaller boat than this one.


----------



## bobperry

I look at that interior and I can't see a single drawer! But drawers are expensive to build. But they are the most efficient way of stowing some items. I also see very little hanging locker space. It's clear to me when I look a many of these modern layouts they are designed to make the build easy. Notice how seldom you see lockers outboard of the settees that go up to the deck head. That's expensive to do. But how much room for books do you need? My feeling is that a layout like this is not designed for long term cruising. It's designed for immediate impact and the feel of spaciousness. That's good. That works. But it doesn't work so well for the family who will spend six months on the boat. Maybe we need some clarification of terms here.

What is a "voyage boat"?

A boas that could keep a family happy for two weeks cruising the San Juan Islands where frequent stops are an option? I suspect that would work on this boat. But is that voyaging?

Of course this boat can go "voyaging". 
A nine foot boat just sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. Was that boat a good "voyaging boat"?

Apparently for that guy it was.
Not me.

It gets very subjective, very quickly. To each his own.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Robert:
> I agree. I have hit the sand, several times, and I have hit a rock at 6 knots. No comparison at all. You hit a rock and you bounce back, very hard. The sound of the impact is very different as you say. Maybe like a bell as you say, but a really weird bell as the everything that can move at all on the boat chimes in at once. Maybe like the sound of a car crash. I live on a rocky beach, most rocks smaller than a cantaloupe, but even hitting my beach would be far less impact than hitting a big rock. I have no idea what a "normal grounding" is.
> 
> I most certainly would not advocate a test with a boat hitting a nice big PNW rock at 8 knots. Not my boat anyway. If someone else wants to volunteer their boat I'll gladly drive it. I'll wear a flak jacket and helmet. There are a coupe of big rocks right around the point of my bay where we can do the tests.
> 
> Volunteers?


robertsailor and JonE seem to think their proper boats can swing it. Let's see.

I'll bring the Vegemite and biscuits.


----------



## Shockwave

Just curious Paolo, of all the boats you show being towed off the bricks. How many of those have you read the actual surveyors reports afterwords? What is the actual damage assessment? What is the cost for cosmetic and structural repair?

I have seen the surveyors report for a .7 that hit a granite wall at speed. Beneteau totaled the boat, although it looked as if nothing was wrong. The structure was destroyed beyond repair.

Pretty pictures though, hoping you and I are never in those situations.


----------



## bobperry

Then there is the question of tankage on the RM.

I'd guess it carries 35 US gals of fuel, 20 US gals of holding and 50 US gals of water. Does anyone know the actual numbers?

For the record I like both of those Hinkley interiors. They speak of quality materials and workmanship. And I could care a less if PCO wants to call me names and try to characterize me. That's his problem. He leaves no room for individual taste.

IKEA! Furniture for the masses. You WILL like it!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh good grief sean, I'll address your laundry list then let's move on, shall we?
> 
> Sounds great. Let's get accountable...
> 
> Jon says this (bolded to make it easy for you)...
> 
> ...then this when I ask him what a "proper" cleat is so we can get some context...
> 
> Jon's sense of humor (which I get) in posting notwithstanding, his version of "proper" is the old-style hunk-a-metal. Everything else is crap according to HIS above post - and, judging by his photos and critiques - that must include the same pop-up/foldable versions I showed him on Oysters, Hinckleys, Swans, etc.
> 
> The point being that his "proper" cleat is not what's being used by some of the best yacht builders in the world - even though HE thinks everything else is crap. So who's wrong?


One cannnot help but notice you have not offered a single counter-argument to my specific objections to the particular cleats I referred to... Other than, _Well, builders like Oyster and Gunboat are using them, so they MUST be superior to the "old-style hunk-a-metal..."_

Have you actually ever used the Nomen cleats I dislike, after having used them for years on several different boats? I'm guessing the answer to that is a "No"... Certainly, I'm not claiming that everyone would share my opinion re their impracticality, but I would suggest you not be so dismissive of my experience with them, until perhaps you've had a chance to use them, yourself...

You may wish to read a bit more closely, and not try to put words in my mouth... In the post you're quoted and bolded extensively, I was referring specifically to the Hunter and Nomen cleats, that was written prior to the introdution of the Hinckley and Swan examples into the conversation... I have not branded them as "crap", as I have yet to either see or use them... Still, I have questions about their utlity due to their complexity, or for some of the reasons others have noted... One thing I don't care for about the Swan cleat, is the fact that it's an open bollard design, with no hole in the cleat to pass a loop through, then around the base, for ultimate security, to guard against the line from slipping off in the event of an upwards pull being exerted...












smackdaddy said:


> So you or Jon or anyone else can post _your_ facts about these "POS cleats" failing like you are certain they will. And, if you can do that, I'll definitely sit up and take notes. Until then...meh.


Well, if you have to wait for documented failures of that crap on the Hunter to begin appearing on www.MooringCleatFailureDatabase.com before being convinced it's a very poor arrangement, there's less hope for you than I thought...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> I don't know how strong they are. Do you? If you _don't_ know, how can you (or anyone) be so sure how "bad" they are? I said, just judging their look, I personally wouldn't trust them with a drogue or other similar heavy load in big conditions. *But I wouldn't see a problem with them being used with a dockline to secure the boat in normal conditions* - jut like with the Oyster, or Hinckley, or Swan, etc.


_"Normal docking conditions"_, eh? That's a good one...

Here's the marina dock where I spent last Sunday night, the Shadows Marina on the Hudson Rier in Poughkeepsie... Looks, pretty "normal", right?










Well, the thing about "normal conditions", is how easily subject to _change_ they can be... That pic was taken on Monday morning, the picture was quite different when I arrived the previous afternoon... With a strong N wind blowing down the river, once the tide began flooding upriver, things got pretty sporty out there... Then, throw in the wash from one of the tugs pushing a massive oil barge up to Albany, or the massive wake thrown by the southbound 50' SeaRay who couldn't be troubled to fully come down off his half-assed plane when passing the docks, the snatching loads on the mooring cleats on any boat tied alongside could have easily become extreme, the Hinckley cleat is a better design in that regard...

Here's a recent thread on CF regarding a stern cleat failure on a 2010 Leopard 38, in what otherwise sounds like a pretty "normal" situation moored in a marina... Until, it wasn't:



> Long story short, we were docked on our port side, with spring lines, bow and mid-ship lines all cleated off. Without warning the port stern cleat snapped in half and dislodged from the boat causing some damage to the fiberglass and gel coat. My question for this very knowledgeable and experienced group is - how common is it for a cleat to literally snap in two?
> 
> How often does a cleat snap? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


Not hard to imagine in this case, with another head-scratching placement of a stern cleat on a modern production boat... ;-)












smackdaddy said:


> *As for cheap - my point earlier is that Jon's KISS cleat is about as cheap as you can get.* And robertsailor goes on and on about how production boats are built to the cheapest possible standards - making that a "bad" thing. When compared to the higher-end modern yachts and the components used on them, this doesn't seem to be true. Surprise.


_WRONG_, yet again...

You obviously haven't looked at the prices lately of some of those plain 'ol "hunks-a-metal" from a quality supplier like Schaefer, or some of the other stuff - if you're lucky enough to be able to find it - fashioned from bronze, or Marinium...

I would guess you could order a full box of that crap on that Hunter direct from Alibaba, and have it delivered overnight to your front door by Jack Ma's personal assistant, for less than you could fit out a 47-footer with a set of 'proper' 10' Merriman-style cleats in bronze...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> We don't have a genset and we don't have an AC and we don't even carry a portable generator which many of our cruising friends do but you need a big array of solar panels and a large bank of batteries and all the associated electronics that go with them. Then you have to install an autopilot and you need space for the smart box and all this crap eats up space. Your water tanks I am sure are under the seats and your fuel tank will be under the rear bunk so those spaces are not available. Lots of stuff we carry is bulky, extra sails, a series drogue, 8 fenders,extra line in every size,life jackets for 6, too many clothes (wife) jerry jugs, water jugs, extra bedding for guests, **** pit cushions that are only used at anchor, the list just goes on and on.


No genset or AC? [Shudder.] That sounds uncivilized! Our AC (and microwave and icemaker) runs off shore power or the generator - so need for batteries there.

We do have a fairly good solar array for all the other electronics we like to keep running (fridge, AP, instruments, tunage, VHF, device chargers, radar, lights, etc.). Solar it's really not a big deal at all. In fact, it's pretty awesome to not have to run the engine to charge.

Like you, we also have a lot of bulky stuff (spare anchor and rode, SeaBrake drogue, life raft, dinghy, spare lines, 6 fenders, a crap-ton of life jackets, jerry jugs for fuel and emergency water, spare battery, LOTS of tools, equipment, and spares, etc.) And, we also stocked up with a month's worth of food along with clothes, snorkeling gear, fishing gear, etc. for 3.

And this is on a Hunter 40 - a boat that I've heard so many people say is only a coastal cruiser that has "no storage". Just not true.

Now, granted, I _did_ pull our cockpit cushions out and left them behind to make room below for the bigger stuff like the life raft and dinghy - but the AC and Xbox makes up for it.

Our production boat has LOTS of storage. It's really pretty amazing.


----------



## bobperry

OK I checked that tankage on the RM 1070 on their own spec sheet.

This "voyager" yacht carries:
50 US gals water
9.2 US gals of holding
21 US gals. of fuel

You are so funny PCP! You are joking,,,,right?


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> robertsailor and JonE seem to think their proper boats can swing it. Let's see.
> 
> I'll being the Vegemite and biscuits.


I only touched bottom in my own boat once in my early sailing life so I avoid it. I do think that a well built boat can rub the bottom and come out unscathed which is a good feeling. Compare the bolt pattern that BP uses in his keels to your typical production boat and tell me if you can see any difference. When one of these production boats loses a keel the first song sung is it must have been grounded in its past or this would not have happened which may or may not be true but those are the first songs sung. You are starting to believe that just maybe these newer boats won't be around as long as better built boats of the past and I think you are getting it. I'll share the biscuits but I'll pass on the Vegemite if you don't mind.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> No genset or AC? [Shudder.] That sounds uncivilized! Our AC (and microwave and icemaker) runs off shore power or the generator - so need for batteries there.
> 
> We do have a fairly good solar array for all the other electronics we like to keep running (fridge, AP, instruments, tunage, VHF, device chargers, radar, lights, etc.). Solar it's really not a big deal at all. In fact, it's pretty awesome to not have to run the engine to charge.
> 
> Like you, we also have a lot of bulky stuff (spare anchor and rode, SeaBrake drogue, life raft, dinghy, spare lines, 6 fenders, a crap-ton of life jackets, jerry jugs for fuel and emergency water, spare battery, LOTS of tools, equipment, and spares, etc.) And, we also stocked up with a month's worth of food along with clothes, snorkeling gear, fishing gear, etc. for 3.
> 
> And this is on a Hunter 40 - a boat that I've heard so many people say is only a coastal cruiser that has "no storage". Just not true.
> 
> Now, granted, I _did_ pull our cockpit cushions out and left them behind to make room below for the bigger stuff like the life raft and dinghy - but the AC and Xbox makes up for it.
> 
> Our production boat has LOTS of storage. It's really pretty amazing.


I know the layout on your boat and to be honest its pretty good for the typical racer/cruiser, not great but decent. It should serve you well.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> Now you really get me confused!!! This was the boat that you said that had an IKEA interior, cold, flashy, cheap and bright and now you say that you like the boat and do not mind yo have one????
> 
> After all it seems you like Ikea, cold flashy bright and cheap interiors. I apologize if I did not understood you.


You didn't. :wink


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> No genset or AC? [Shudder.] That sounds uncivilized! Our AC (and microwave and icemaker) runs off shore power or the generator - so need for batteries there.
> 
> We do have a fairly good solar array for all the other electronics we like to keep running (fridge, AP, instruments, tunage, VHF, device chargers, radar, lights, etc.). Solar it's really not a big deal at all. In fact, it's pretty awesome to not have to run the engine to charge.
> 
> Like you, we also have a lot of bulky stuff (spare anchor and rode, SeaBrake drogue, life raft, dinghy, spare lines, 6 fenders, a crap-ton of life jackets, jerry jugs for fuel and emergency water, spare battery, LOTS of tools, equipment, and spares, etc.) And, we also stocked up with a month's worth of food along with clothes, snorkeling gear, fishing gear, etc. for 3.
> 
> And this is on a Hunter 40 - a boat that I've heard so many people say is only a coastal cruiser that has "no storage". Just not true.
> 
> Now, granted, I _did_ pull our cockpit cushions out and left them behind to make room below for the bigger stuff like the life raft and dinghy - but the AC and Xbox makes up for it.
> 
> Our production boat has LOTS of storage. It's really pretty amazing.


My wife asked me how long your shore power cable was, LOL. Cheers:wink


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> robertsailor and JonE seem to think their proper boats can swing it.


Well, I can tell you one thing... If I ever have the misfortune to clobber a granite ledge in my boat, I'll be glad my keel is made of that nice 'soft' lead, instead of the less malleable iron that has become increasingly 'popular' today...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> One cannnot help but notice you have not offered a single counter-argument to my specific objections to the particular cleats I referred to... Other than, _Well, builders like Oyster and Gunboat are using them, so they MUST be superior to the "old-style hunk-a-metal..."_


Look, I only get paid $125 a post around here, so I have to be judicious.

From what I recall you didn't like the fact that they were operable (o-rings, rubber balls, springs, sprockets, whatever) - salt gets in them and they stick and make you mad. Also, you didn't like the shapes involved because they cause chafe. Finally, you didn't like the fact that the mounting base was narrow as you were convinced they'd rip out of the cheap boats. And most all of this was also related to the operable Hunter cleat (except maybe the rubber ball).

My counter with showing the use of such cleats on all these high-end yachts is that they themselves don't agree that the KISS cleats are "proper" cleats for a sailboat. That's not _my_ counter - that's theirs.

So, I'm not saying these new style cleats are "superior" to the Wilcox-Crittenden ones you like (the same style as the ones on my boat) - I'm just saying that if they are as bad as you're saying they are, a large chunk of the high-end yacht industry is missing _your_ boat. Or - maybe their customers don't mind a bit more maintenance to have something cooler than old school. In any case - your definition of "proper" is obviously somewhat narrow.



JonEisberg said:


> Have you actually ever used the Nomen cleats I dislike, after having used them for years on several different boats? I'm guessing the answer to that is a "No"... Certainly, I'm not claiming that everyone would share my opinion re their impracticality, but I would suggest you not be so dismissive of my experience with them, until perhaps you've had a chance to use them, yourself...


What does it matter what _my_ experience with these cleats is? I'm pretty sure Oyster and Hinckley and Swan have been doing all this even longer than you have. THEY are the ones disagreeing with your thesis. I just trust their experience and knowledge - which is substantial.

Are you saying I should trust yours more and disregard theirs?



JonEisberg said:


> You may wish to read a bit more closely, and not try to put words in my mouth... In the post you're quoted and bolded extensively, I was referring specifically to the Hunter and Nomen cleats, that was written prior to the introdution of the Hinckley and Swan examples into the conversation... I have not branded them as "crap", as I have yet to either see or use them... Still, I have questions about their utlity due to their complexity, or for some of the reasons others have noted... One thing I don't care for about the Swan cleat, is the fact that it's an open bollard design, with no hole in the cleat to pass a loop through, then around the base, for ultimate security, to guard against the line from slipping off in the event of an upwards pull being exerted...


Okay.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, if you have to wait for documented failures of that crap on the Hunter to begin appearing on www.MooringCleatFailureDatabase.com before being convinced it's a very poor arrangement, there's less hope for you than I thought...
> 
> ;-)


Dude - I can guarantee you...if ANYTHING like this happens to a Hunter, it'll be in the forums in a heartbeat.



JonEisberg said:


> _"Normal docking conditions"_, eh? That's a good one...
> 
> Here's the marina dock where I spent last Sunday night, the Shadows Marina on the Hudson Rier in Poughkeepsie... Looks, pretty "normal", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the thing about "normal conditions", is how easily subject to _change_ they can be... That pic was taken on Monday morning, the picture was quite different when I arrived the previous afternoon... With a strong N wind blowing down the river, once the tide began flooding upriver, things got pretty sporty out there... Then, throw in the wash from one of the tugs pushing a massive oil barge up to Albany, or the massive wake thrown by the southbound 50' SeaRay who couldn't be troubled to fully come down off his half-assed plane when passing the docks, the snatching loads on the mooring cleats on any boat tied alongside could have easily become extreme...


Yep. And how are you absolutely certain that that Hunter cleat will fail in such a scenario if your WC cleat didn't? And why wouldn't I move my Hunter if things are getting that bad at the dock? Wouldn't any prudent sailor protect his/her boat as best he/she can?

For example, the CF thread you mention below says that LOTS of boats were damaged by those 50'ers going by - as well as broken pilings, etc.

Look, I know your gut doesn't trust that Hunter cleat - but until you know the specs of what's there how can you be so sure it's a POS? You can't Jon. That's been my point. As I said, I agree with you that, just by gut, I don't like the fold direction and wouldn't trust a drogue off of it (and am iffy on a stern anchor rode connection) - but I'm not ready to call it a "POS" for normal docking usage which is likely what it's built for.

But at least I now have that cool website to monitor.



JonEisberg said:


> Here's a recent thread on CF regarding a stern cleat failure on a 2010 Leopard 38, in what otherwise sounds like a pretty "normal" situation moored in a marina... Until, it wasn't:
> 
> Not hard to imagine in this case, with another head-scratching placement of a stern cleat on a modern production boat... ;-)


What's CF? Heh-heh.

Funny you should bring that up here. As the thread says, the cleat itself broke in two - look at the type of cleat it is:




























Isn't that a "proper" KISS cleat?

If you want "proper", Noelex is on the right track:










I'll take my chances.



JonEisberg said:


> _WRONG_, yet again...
> 
> You obviously haven't looked at the prices lately of some of those plain 'ol "hunks-a-metal" from a quality supplier like Schaefer, or some of the other stuff - if you're lucky enough to be able to find it - fashioned from bronze, or Marinium...
> 
> I would guess you could order a full box of that crap on that Hunter direct from Alibaba, and have it delivered overnight to your front door by Jack Ma's personal assistant, for less than you could fit out a 47-footer with a set of 'proper' 10' Merriman-style cleats in bronze...
> 
> ;-)


Is that where the Hunter cleats came from? Really?


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> My wife asked me how long your shore power cable was, LOL. Cheers:wink


Hundreds of miles. The genset only sips diesel.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Look, I only get paid $125 a post around here, so I have to be judicious.
> 
> From what I recall you didn't like the fact that they were operable (o-rings, rubber balls, springs, sprockets, whatever) - salt gets in them and they stick and make you mad. Also, you didn't like the shapes involved because they cause chafe. Finally, you didn't like the fact that the mounting base was narrow as you were convinced they'd rip out of the cheap boats. And most all of this was also related to the operable Hunter cleat (except maybe the rubber ball).
> 
> My counter with showing the use of such cleats on all these high-end yachts is that they themselves don't agree that the KISS cleats are "proper" cleats for a sailboat. That's not _my_ counter - that's theirs.
> 
> So, I'm not saying these new style cleats are "superior" to the Wilcox-Crittenden ones you like (the same ones that are on my boat) - I'm just saying that if they are as bad as you're saying they are, a large chunk of the high-end yacht industry are missing your boat. Or - maybe their customers don't mind a bit more maintenance to have something cooler than old school. In any case - your definition of "proper" is obviously somewhat narrow.
> 
> What does it matter what _my_ experience with these cleats is? I'm pretty sure Oyster and Hinckley and Swan have been doing all this even longer than you have. THEY are the ones disagreeing with your thesis. I just trust their experience and knowledge - which is substantial.
> 
> Are you saying I should trust yours more and disregard theirs?
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Dude - I can guarantee you...if ANYTHING like this happens to a Hunter, it'll be in the forums in a heartbeat.
> 
> Yep. And how are you absolutely certain that that Hunter cleat will fail in such a scenario if your WC cleat didn't? And why wouldn't I move my Hunter if things are getting that bad at the dock? Wouldn't any prudent sailor protect his/her boat as best he/she can?
> 
> Look, I know your gut doesn't trust that Hunter cleat - but until you know the specs of what's there how can you be so sure it's a POS? You can't Jon. That's been my point. As I said, I agree with you that, just by gut, I don't like the fold direction and wouldn't trust a drogue off of it (and am iffy on a stern anchor rode connection) - I'm not ready to call it a POS for normal docking usage.
> 
> But at least I now have that website to monitor.
> 
> What's CF? Heh-heh.
> 
> Funny you should bring that up here. As the thread says, the cleat itself broke in two - look at the type of cleat it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that a "proper" KISS cleat?
> 
> If you want "proper", Noelex is on the right track:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances.
> 
> Is that where the Hunter cleats came from? Really?


That is a cheap seats cleat held in with 2 machine screws. The cleats that Jon showed you were held in by 4 fasteners. I really doubt there were backing plates behind thosecleats .


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> I do think that a well built boat can rub the bottom and come out unscathed which is a good feeling.


I have no doubt that virtually ANY boat we're talking about in this thread can do this. We were talking about hitting rocks dead square at 6 knots. That's a different bucket of monkeys.



robert sailor said:


> Compare the bolt pattern that BP uses in his keels to your typical production boat and tell me if you can see any difference.


Good lord, man. Let's at least keep the conversation real. We're talking modern production boats here - Bob's boats (even his "production boats") are in a different universe, for good reason.



robert sailor said:


> When one of these production boats loses a keel the first song sung is it must have been grounded in its past or this would not have happened which may or may not be true but those are the first songs sung. You are starting to believe that just maybe these newer boats won't be around as long as better built boats of the past and I think you are getting it. I'll share the biscuits but I'll pass on the Vegemite if you don't mind.


The problem is, if you look through the incident reports, it's true that many of these boats have grounded or hit stuff which contributed to the failure (Cheeki Rafiki, Blue Pearl, etc.). What boats are you aware of where the keel just fell off without any such contributing factors? I'd love to see those reports.

I still very much hold that modern, Cat-A production boats are perfectly suited to cruising blue water. You and Jon and many others disagree with that pretty much outright - though there is myriad evidence to show you otherwise.

Beyond that, what you see in me "getting it", is my belief regarding the shorter shelf life of these new boats. However, that is just a hunch. I've got no real evidence to back that up. So I could be very wrong. We'll just have to see. The difference between you and I is that I don't disregard the actual evidence to hold on to my hunch at all costs.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> I look at that interior and I can't see a single drawer! But drawers are expensive to build. But they are the most efficient way of stowing some items. I also see very little hanging locker space. It's clear to me when I look a many of these modern layouts they are designed to make the build easy. *Notice how seldom you see lockers outboard of the settees that go up to the deck head.* That's expensive to do. But how much room for books do you need? My feeling is that a layout like this is not designed for long term cruising. It's designed for immediate impact and the feel of spaciousness. That's good. That works. But it doesn't work so well for the family who will spend six months on the boat. Maybe we need some clarification of terms here.


You point to one of the worst interior design trends seen on so many boats today, taking the settees right out to the hull, eliminating all that handy storage space behind, or above... But of course, it creates that all-important feeling of "space", which helps sell boats at the Shows... ;-)

Not to mention, it takes up the space where the Picture Windows in the hull have to go...

;-)

One of the best decisions I ever made during the build of my interior, was to configure a set of 'bins' outboard of the top of the settees, in addition to lockers behind the seat backs...

Underway, they become 'catch-alls' for all manner of loose gear... It's incredible how useful that sort of simple feature can be...

I'm totally spoiled by their convenience, whenever I run a boat without such a provision, I always wind up with a pile of my crap on the cabin sole...

;-)


----------



## Capt Len

Doesn't matter about the backing plates or fender washers.It failed at the weakest point and the easiest point to make the strongest. Be surprised if the broken machine screw was 5/16 and the fair lead was up to snuff. Even the broken cleat wasn't capable when the bolt sheared and unexpected forces came on strong. What part of unexpected didn't you expect?


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> That is a cheap seats cleat held in with 2 machine screws. The cleats that Jon showed you were held in by 4 fasteners. I really doubt there were backing plates behind thosecleats .


You really should go read the thread before you start diagnosing.


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> Funny you should bring that up here. As the thread says, the cleat itself broke in two - look at the type of cleat it is:


An anodised aluminium cleat? Seriously?? You can't possibly compare that cheap piece of junk with anything similar in stainless or bronze.

Looking at the way that snapped I'd hazard a guess that owners put a fair amount of up-force on it whereas in shear it probably would have survived..

Even more important than the design of a cleat is the material it's made from. FWIW..


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> I have no doubt that virtually ANY boat we're talking about in this thread can do this. We were talking about hitting rocks dead square at 6 knots. That's a different bucket of monkeys.
> 
> Good lord, man. Let's at least keep the conversation real. We're talking modern production boats here - Bob's boats (even his "production boats") are in a different universe, for good reason.
> 
> The problem is, if you look through the incident reports, it's true that many of these boats have grounded or hit stuff which contributed to the failure (Cheeki Rafiki, Blue Pearl, etc.). What boats are you aware of where the keel just fell off without any such contributing factors? I'd love to see those reports.
> 
> I still very much hold that modern, Cat-A production boats are perfectly suited to cruising blue water. You and Jon and many others disagree with that pretty much outright - though there is myriad evidence to show you otherwise.
> 
> Beyond that, what you see in me "getting it", is my belief regarding the shorter shelf life of these new boats. However, that is just a hunch. I've got no real evidence to back that up. So I could be very wrong. We'll just have to see. The difference between you and I is that I don't disregard the actual evidence to hold on to my hunch at all costs.


Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you have real evidence?? I never read anything that was proof positive that Blue Pearl had grounded prior to her sinking!


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> You really should go read the thread before you start diagnosing.


Ever heard the expression..a picture is worth a thousand words??


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you have real evidence?? I never read anything that was proof positive that Blue Pearl had grounded prior to her sinking!


We discussed it on CF before the mod squad started trolling me. I'm not making anything up.

Go search it out.


----------



## smackdaddy

Classic30 said:


> An anodised aluminium cleat? Seriously?? You can't possibly compare that cheap piece of junk with anything similar in stainless or bronze.
> 
> Looking at the way that snapped I'd hazard a guess that owners put a fair amount of up-force on it whereas in shear it probably would have survived..
> 
> Even more important than the design of a cleat is the material it's made from. FWIW..


Excuse me, but I believe Wilcox-Crittenden calls it "Marinium" - not "Aluminum". Heh-heh.

(PS - I don't think that cleat shown is a W-C. Just sayin' W-C, which Jon really likes, has plenty of cast aluminum options as well.)


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> We discussed it on CF before the mod squad started trolling me. I'm not making anything up.
> 
> Go search it out.


Ya well it was all speculation, heresay with no facts, so that doesn't cut it. If you are going to make comments, get your ducks in a row!


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> Excuse me, but I believe Wilcox-Crittenden calls it "Marinium" - not "Aluminum". Heh-heh.
> 
> (PS - I don't think that cleat shown is a W-C. Just sayin' W-C, which Jon really likes, has plenty of cast aluminum options as well.)


"Marinium"??.. righto. I had to go look that one up and everything on it seems to point to discussions on CF. Go figure.. 

I'm sure they're probably ok holding spare halyards on the mast - but for a mooring cleat? That's crazy..

Thanks, but I'll stick with my bronze ones (polished real shiny..)


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> ...
> 
> What is a "voyage boat"?
> 
> A boas that could keep a family happy for two weeks cruising the San Juan Islands where frequent stops are an option? I suspect that would work on this boat. But is that voyaging?
> 
> Of course this boat can go "voyaging".
> A nine foot boat just sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. Was that boat a good "voyaging boat"?
> 
> Apparently for that guy it was.
> Not me.
> 
> It gets very subjective, very quickly. To each his own.


 Voyage boats is an European concept that originated in France but since they are by very far the biggest producers of sailboats it makes sense to use the name categories that they use for boats.

The word voyage is also much more used in Europe then on the US and that makes the concept more difficult to be grasped by an American. A voyage boat it is intended to voyage as one of main design criteria. Voyaging is what you do before reaching the cruising grounds you have selected. For instance if you select the Marshall Islands as your cruising ground, you have to voyage till reaching it.

If you sail only on the Mediterranean or in the Caribbean with an occasional Atlantic crossing once in a while you don't need a voyage boat. If you want to explore faraway places and cruise around the world, then a voyage boat will be the more indicated.

But nothing to google for "Voilier de voyage" to see what I am talking about. It is a category as defined as the one of cruiser-racers, at least in Europe.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> Voyage boats is an European concept that originated in France but since they are by very far the biggest producers of sailboats it makes sense to use the name categories that they use for boats.
> 
> The word voyage is also much more used in Europe then on the US and that makes the concept more difficult to be grasped by an American. A voyage boat it is intended to voyage as one of main design criteria. Voyaging is what you do before reaching the cruising grounds you have selected. For instance if you select the Marshall Islands as your cruising ground, you have to voyage till reaching it.
> 
> If you sail only on the Mediterranean or in the Caribbean with an occasional Atlantic crossing once in a while you don't need a voyage boat. If you want to explore faraway places and cruise around the world, then a voyage boat will be the more indicated.
> 
> But nothing to google for "Voilier de voyage" to see what I am talking about. It is a category as defined as the one of cruiser-racers, at least in Europe.


I think your definition of voyaging is pretty much spot on.


----------



## bobperry

So if I understand you correctly, PCP, you can "voyage from France to the Marshal Islands with:
50 gals of water
21 gals of fuel
9.2 gals of holding

That is very funny. You could not cruise with a family of four in San Francisco Bay with that. Do you have any idea how fast a family of four will fill up a 9.2 gal holding tank?


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Voyage boats is an European concept that originated in France but since they are by very far the biggest producers of sailboats it makes sense to use the name categories that they use for boats.


Actually, no. The US is by far the largest boat building nation. Over a thousand boat building firms there.

Here

By your logic, sounds like everyone should be using American terms. If they find themselves capable to "grasp" them, that is.



> The word voyage is also much more used in Europe then on the US and that makes the concept more difficult to be grasped by an American. A voyage boat it is intended to voyage as one of main design criteria. Voyaging is what you do before reaching the cruising grounds you have selected. For instance if you select the Marshall Islands as your cruising ground, you have to voyage till reaching it.


Yes. Thank you for defining a word both common and commonly used.



> If you sail only on the Mediterranean or in the Caribbean with an occasional Atlantic crossing once in a while you don't need a voyage boat. If you want to explore faraway places and cruise around the world, then a voyage boat will be the more indicated.
> 
> But nothing to google for "Voilier de voyage" to see what I am talking about. It is a category as defined as the one of cruiser-racers, at least in Europe.


Merely semantics. In the US, boats that generally stick to coastlines are called coastal cruisers. Boats designed for crossing oceans are called, with a great deal of debate about which actually qualify, blue water cruisers. Race boats are a spectrum of categories unto themselves, though racer/cruiser is also an extremely common boat type in the US. Contrary to your misconceptions. Trouble with cruiser-racers, at least in my view personally, is that seaworthy characteristics have to be designed out of them for the sake of speed and weight. So, they are neither particularly good at cruising or racing, but muddle their way through either.

As for "voyaging" boats...in proper English that's a bit of a rough description, as nearly any boat can go voyaging, even if not designed to. Blue Water Cruiser makes sense in the same way Blue Water Navy does.


----------



## aloof

From the photo provided it looks like the stainless steel bolt sheared of (as the do with regularity) then somehow the cleat broke before the other bolt did. The remaining bit qcleat is shown spun 180... Maybe. The moron crew, so impressed with the tested durability of the setup, chose to use the remaining bit to moor the boat....heh.


----------



## robert sailor

amwbox said:


> Actually, no. The US is by far the largest boat building nation. Over a thousand boat building firms there.
> 
> Here
> 
> By your logic, sounds like everyone should be using American terms. If they find themselves capable to "grasp" them, that is.
> 
> Yes. Thank you for defining a word both common and commonly used.
> 
> Merely semantics. In the US, boats that generally stick to coastlines are called coastal cruisers. Boats designed for crossing oceans are called, with a great deal of debate about which actually qualify, blue water cruisers. Race boats are a spectrum of categories unto themselves, though racer/cruiser is also an extremely common boat type in the US. Contrary to your misconceptions. Trouble with cruiser-racers, at least in my view personally, is that seaworthy characteristics have to be designed out of them for the sake of speed and weight. So, they are neither particularly good at cruising or racing, but muddle their way through either.
> 
> As for "voyaging" boats...in proper English that's a bit of a rough description, as nearly any boat can go voyaging, even if not designed to.


Wow! Tough crowd tonight!


----------



## amwbox

The irony of the condescension starts to grind after a while.


----------



## bobperry

Boxer:
Amen to that but get used to it when PCP is around. He feels he has to explain and educate us savages. He likes to lecture me on naval architecture. He's a funny man. But his blog is very good. Just take his comments on naval architecture with a grain of salt. He draws from a shallow stream. I do appreciate the work he puts into his blog.


----------



## robert sailor

amwbox said:


> The irony of the condescension starts to grind after a while.


Just different cultures, he's actually a good guy, opinionated like the rest of us but English is not his first language so there is often something missing in the translation plus he is bias as hell, like the rest of us, lol.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Ya well it was all speculation, heresay with no facts, so that doesn't cut it. If you are going to make comments, get your ducks in a row!


Dude - did you look it up - or are you still guessing? The information is from the owner himself.

Don't be lazy if you're going to join in the debate here. It makes you look silly.


----------



## amwbox

robert sailor said:


> Just different cultures, he's actually a good guy, opinionated like the rest of us but English is not his first language so there is often something missing in the translation plus he is bias as hell, like the rest of us, lol.


I haven't been here long enough to develop any beefs with anyone personally. So no major flames intended.

I just resent being told which words I can and cannot grasp. Bigotry over nationality is as nasty as any other form.


----------



## skygazer

amwbox said:


> Actually, no. The US is by far the largest boat building nation. Over a thousand boat building firms there.


From your link, impressive, my bolding:



> Based on the data collected via e-mail questionnaire The United States is the biggest manufacturer by far and* it produces more boats than the other 22 countries combined* that are involved in this research.


I'm impressed with PCP's ability to ague in a second language, right or wrong.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - did you look it up - or are you still guessing? The information is from the owner himself.
> 
> Don't be lazy if you're going to join in the debate here. It makes you look silly.


I'm OK with looking silly, it comes with age my friend. Now back to the subject.. The owner reported that his previous rudder had broken. It was a FG shaft, similar to the same design that failed on 16 plus Hunters. He had that section of the boat surveyed and was given an OK and he ordered and had a new rudder installed. The ruddder didn't fail but the rear bulkhead did and when it departed the boat sank. He went on the internet looking for other owners who may have had similar problems. One fellow got back and said when they bought an exact same model from Moorings that they were told that that section of the boat had shown signs of failure and needed additional support which they carried out with no problems. Another model in the same series was the 43 and it had similar problems. If you know something I don't please be my guest.


----------



## bobperry

Sky: 
I agree with you. I can stumble along in Mandarin but I would not think of starting technical argument in Mandarin. Woa pu ben!

I do have a problem with PCP explaining to me what English words mean, i.e. "voyaging", "contemporary". I find it amazingly,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,can't seem to find the right English word here. I had one but I see Jeff is monitoring this so I'll behave. I promised.


----------



## Faster

amwbox said:


> Actually, no. The US is by far the largest boat building nation. Over a thousand boat building firms there.
> 
> Here
> 
> .....


Ah.. statistics... wonderful things. Skimming that link, 495,000 or so of the 517,600+ US built boats are dinghies, cartoppers, etc.

Breaking it down further into sailboats alone (including sailing dinghies, I imagine) culled from their tables, the top 3:

US: 4300
France: 4755
Poland: 5030

So focusing on sailboats the ratio looks quite a bit different. Just sayin'


----------



## robert sailor

:cut_out_animated_em


Faster said:


> Ah.. statistics... wonderful things. Skimming that link, 495,000 or so of the 517,600+ US built boats are dinghies, cartoppers, etc.
> 
> Breaking it down further into sailboats alone (including sailing dinghies, I imagine) culled from their tables, the top 3:
> 
> US: 4300
> France: 4755
> Poland: 5030
> 
> So focusing on sailboats the ratio looks quite a bit different. Just sayin'


If you want to see more sailboats than you have ever seen, visit the Med


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Ah.. statistics... wonderful things. Skimming that link, 495,000 or so of the 517,600+ US built boats are dinghies, cartoppers, etc.
> 
> Breaking it down further into sailboats alone (including sailing dinghies, I imagine) culled from their tables, the top 3:
> 
> US: 4300
> France: 4755
> Poland: 5030
> 
> So focusing on sailboats the ratio looks quite a bit different. Just sayin'


Could you repeat that again...in Portuguese - or Polish?


----------



## amwbox

Faster said:


> Ah.. statistics... wonderful things. Skimming that link, 495,000 or so of the 517,600+ US built boats are dinghies, cartoppers, etc.
> 
> Breaking it down further into sailboats alone (including sailing dinghies, I imagine) culled from their tables, the top 3:
> 
> US: 4300
> France: 4755
> Poland: 5030
> 
> So focusing on sailboats the ratio looks quite a bit different. Just sayin'


Fair point.

Poland is surprising! Also...Beneteau is turning out crazy numbers, it would seem.

Though, it should be pointed out that in fact the majority of what you call "Dinghies and cartoppers" are in fact motorboats of various kinds. Inboard equipped motorboats alone are 7 times the volume of sailboats, and those are not dinghies. Nor are the various outboard fishing boats that millions of people own. Not sure what motivated that claim.


----------



## SloopJonB

Classic30 said:


> "Marinium"??.. righto. I had to go look that one up and everything on it seems to point to discussions on CF. Go figure..
> 
> I'm sure they're probably ok holding spare halyards on the mast - but for a mooring cleat? That's crazy..
> 
> Thanks, but I'll stick with my bronze ones (polished real shiny..)


Marinium is a proprietary alloy and FWIW I have never seen a piece of it break. I wouldn't use it for mooring a big boat - like over 40' but otherwise it is very good stuff.

I too prefer S/S & bronze though.


----------



## seaner97

The problem with relying on evidence is you need to recognize it when it's in front of you and not dismiss it. It would also help if the evidence to the contrary was something better than "yeah, well, they use them on the expensive ones, so they must be good". It's like saying Audi or MB or Ferrari can't make a mistake and everything on their cars is infallible. Clearly untrue, but we have a much better way of tracking that in the US than we do yachts.


----------



## blt2ski

bobperry said:


> So if I understand you correctly, PCP, you can "voyage from France to the Marshal Islands with:
> 50 gals of water
> 21 gals of fuel
> 9.2 gals of holding
> 
> That is very funny. You could not cruise with a family of four in San Francisco Bay with that. Do you have any idea how fast a family of four will fill up a 9.2 gal holding tank?


I think one would have to look at the European Cat A, B, C and D ratings to see how this setup would work from a voyage standpoint. Or even the IRC ratings as to what makes one able to cross and ocean etc in a race. The CE A ratings iirc from someone rather high up at Jeanneau, mentioned one needs 24 or "48" hrs of fuel plus 10% to get this rating. On the other hand, to get offshore race minimum, I need as I recal 6 hrs at the square root of the WL plus a smidgen more......

Probably a lot less than many of us want for a voyage from a fuel stand point. Do not recall off the top of my head the water requirement per person2 gals a day or some such thing. Offshore one does not need a poop holding tank per say,,,,,,just flush overboard. Does not work well around here in the Salish Sea, as we can not flush overboard. So 2-4 gals a day per person would be needed here as well depending upon how much anchoring you do vs pulling into a marina to fuel up and/or off load the black tank.

Kinda like camping, how much water per day, in your back pack? are you going up a mt rainier or Everest? or doing the cascade crest trail. Both have different needs from a camping standpoint. Of course, there is the bunch with their million dollar multislide motor homes, like an Oyster yacht vs a san juan 21 boating camping style too! Both are correct, both have plus's, both have minus's.

marty


----------



## amwbox

Comes down to comfort level, in the final analysis. If you like roughing it, you can get by with _very_ little and get where you want to go.


----------



## albrazzi

smackdaddy said:


> A&M blames Cynthia Woods wreck on ship builder - Houston Chronicle
> 
> Actually, that was a contributing factor in the _Cynthia Woods_ tragedy...continual resting on the deep keel in the slip - in addition to multiple groundings and poor repairs.
> 
> But the school blamed it on poor design and construction of the keel structure:
> 
> So it's not so far fetched.


Good example and that's why I moved. I didn't like it at all for lots of reasons. also was the culprit in my going swimming from my own boat while still in the slip!! But that's another story..


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Excuse me, but I believe Wilcox-Crittenden calls it "Marinium" - not "Aluminum". Heh-heh.
> 
> (PS - I don't think that cleat shown is a W-C. Just sayin' W-C, which Jon really likes, has plenty of cast aluminum options as well.)


I can guarantee that was not made by W-C, nor is it Marinium... As JonB mentioned, Marinium is not just a "name", but a proprietary alloy comprised of magnesium, titanium, aluminum, beryllium, and other metals...

From a forum discussion on polishing Marinium:

_"I polish Marinium parts by removing them and using a cotton buffing wheel on an 8" bench grinder with red buffing rouge.

The alloy is so hard that I found no other method produced a high shine and removed micro scratches without endless hours of elbow grease."_


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So, I'm not saying these new style cleats are "superior" to the Wilcox-Crittenden ones you like (the same style as the ones on my boat) - I'm just saying that if they are as bad as you're saying they are, a large chunk of the high-end yacht industry is missing _your_ boat. *Or - maybe their customers don't mind a bit more maintenance to have something COOLER than old school.* In any case - your definition of "proper" is obviously somewhat narrow.


Yup, that bolded part sums it up pretty neatly, I'd say...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> What does it matter what _my_ experience with these cleats is? I'm pretty sure Oyster and Hinckley and Swan have been doing all this even longer than you have. THEY are the ones disagreeing with your thesis. I just trust their experience and knowledge - which is substantial.
> 
> Are you saying I should trust yours more and disregard theirs?


See above, and below...

_"Leonardo knows firsthand how to market beautiful, top-quality products. He's the son of Salvatore Ferragamo, whose expert craftsmanship in shoes and clothing propelled a Florentine family business into a leading global luxury brand. Leonardo, 49, who spent his career in his family's businesses, is now successfully applying the Ferragamo touch to another luxury venture, yachts.

...

Ferragamo's real coup may well be the luxury-goods marketing savvy he is injecting into Nautor and the Swan brand. By revitalizing the annual Nautor's Swan Cup and other races for some 1,900 owners, Ferragamo infused Swan with new excitement and cachet."

Ferragamo Has Nautor Running Before the Wind - Businessweek_



smackdaddy said:


> Yep. And how are you absolutely certain that that Hunter cleat will fail in such a scenario if your WC cleat didn't?


I'm not absolutely "certain", of course. I'm only saying a failure of that cleat on the Hunter would be far more _LIKELY_, with a sharp snatching load from the direction pictured below...

Anyone with a pair of eyes, and even the most rudimentary understanding of physics, should be able to see that...

;-)












smackdaddy said:


> And why wouldn't I move my Hunter if things are getting that bad at the dock? Wouldn't any prudent sailor protect his/her boat as best he/she can?


Check your Waterway Guide App for better options at that particular point of the Hudson... There aren't many...

However, seems to me any prudent sailor would "protect his boat as best he can...", by choosing to have proper cleats, to begin with... ;-)

Are you saying you'd scurry away from any dock at the mere sighting of every Sea Ray approaching at speed from a distance? Seems that having to do that would get old, pretty quickly...



smackdaddy said:


> Funny you should bring that up here. As the thread says, the cleat itself broke in two - look at the type of cleat it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that a "proper" KISS cleat?


As others have already pointed out, NO, it is not...



smackdaddy said:


> If you want "proper", Noelex is on the right track:


Pretty robust, for sure... But for use as a midship cleat, others here would argue that would constitute a "tripping hazard", or be likely to snag spinnaker sheets, no?



smackdaddy said:


> Is that where the Hunter cleats came from? Really?


Just a hunch... I have tried to find an exact match for that Hunter POS in Google, no such luck... Seems likely it is proprietary to Marlow-Hunter...

David Marlow has been manufacturing his motor yachts "completely within" China for almost 2 decades... Wouldn't be that far-fetched that some components made in China found their way aboard the new Marlow-Hunters, would it?

NTTAWWT, of course... Fortunately, the folks who build Outbounds have the good sense to use a KISS-style hunk-a-metal...

;-)


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> NTTAWWT, of course... Fortunately, the folks who build Outbounds have the good sense to use a KISS-style hunk-a-metal...


..designed by 'ol man Herreshoff long before any of us were born.

;-)


----------



## outbound

Seems I never got the gestalt of "voyaging". Always thought whenever you got beyond the 200m range of the helicopters you were "voyaging". Think the folks going to Carribean in the damaged Gunboat thought they were "voyaging". Thought the fleet of the SDR or the Carribean 1500 when they got whacked thought they were "voyaging". Guess I don't get this concept.
Also thought "blue water" meant when they throw you over the side it's so deep all of you is gone and just your bones hit the bottom. This thread is getting close to hitting bottom. Feel like the fish and worms are eating me on the way down so the crabs won't get a chance.
Paulo wants me to go blue water voyaging without room for my blankie. 
We are arguing about cleats when it's obvious any cleat that can't be easily used, needs servicing beyond some collinite when you're bored, or fails in service is just eye candy for a cruiser? Voyager? Blue water sailor? 
Smackie want to compare his decades old boat made when men were men to the current crop.
Jon save us. Admit they still make some great boats not just drek even the French 
Damn even BS on the steel thread is better than this.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> So if I understand you correctly, PCP, you can "voyage from France to the Marshal Islands with:
> 50 gals of water
> 21 gals of fuel
> 9.2 gals of holding
> 
> That is very funny. You could not cruise with a family of four in San Francisco Bay with that. Do you have any idea how fast a family of four will fill up a 9.2 gal holding tank?


The concept of Voyage boat has nothing to do with me is just a concept and concepts are created to facilitate communication and to define better what one is talking about.

Sure you can voyage from France to the Marshal on the RM even if for that it would be better to mount an additional water tank that is on the boat options. I know you don't really like new stuff but you certainly have heard about water makers.

We are talking about a very good sailingboat that really does not need fuel to sail and in what regards energy the modern solution is a hydrogenertor (that is what they use on race boats for circumnavigation and the like) that can be combined with solar or wind generator.

Anyway a boat of that size is not designed to voyage with 4 adults unless two are kids.

Regarding the holding tank I really don't understand what is the problem: Do you think anybody will use one at the middle of the Pacific?

Regarding being possible or even desirable I had posted on the thread interesting sailboats the movies and posts of a French couple that chose to circumnavigate a boat very similar to the RM 1070 even if slightly smaller, a Fox 10.20 and they were not properly beginners but very experienced sailors and knew exactly the boat they wanted for the voyage. The boat was new and if they would find more convenient or enjoyable they could have bought an used bigger boat for the same money.

They were very satisfied with the boat that was designed by a NA friend as a fast voyage boat for a couple.

They shared some comments about the boat with the Interesting sailboat followers:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/743368-post1199.html

and a post I made about the similarities of that boat with the RM:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/722486-post491.html

The boat:



















I have posted on the interesting boat thread a lot of videos they had made during the circumnavigation, some while sailing the boat.

Anyway it is obviously not the type of boat you would chose for a circumnavigation or to voyage, that is clear by your doubts but it is also obvious that is the type of boat some sailors would chose as a voyage boat and that's why so many RM are sold.

Here are the videos:
http://levoyagedecapado.blogspot.pt/p/videotheque.html


----------



## blt2ski

Hmmmmm,

You are forgetting something about kids. At least with my 4, when ALL 4 when they where teenagers sitting in my crew cab pickumup, they were adult sized! My sons on there 13th B-day were 5'12" tall! Kids yes, but not small kids by any means. One thing many seem to forget, I may have my family of 6 along, including my Kids, but they are ADULT sized kids in some age brackets from about 12-14 yrs old and on. My daughters on the other hand, have been 5'7" and 5' 10" from the ages of 12-13 onward. 

To my thinking, Bobs comments about a family of 4, should be taken as that. It might also mean a couple and one of their sets of parents. Or another couple in my YC, many times bring BOTH mom's along as the Dad's are gone. Still a family of 4 in that boat I would say in a loose sense of the wording.

Marty


----------



## guitarguy56

PCP said:


> The concept of Voyage boat has nothing to do with me is just a concept and concepts are created to facilitate communication and to define better what one is talking about.
> 
> Sure you can voyage from France to the Marshal on the RM even if for that it would be better to mount an additional water tank that is on the boat options. I know you don't really like new stuff but you certainly have heard about water makers.
> 
> We are talking about a very good sailingboat that really does not need fuel to sail and in what regards energy the modern solution is a hydrogenertor (that is what they use on race boats for circumnavigation and the like) that can be combined with solar or wind generator.
> 
> Anyway a boat of that size is not designed to voyage with 4 adults unless two are kids.
> 
> Regarding the holding tank I really don't understand what is the problem: Do you think anybody will use one at the middle of the Pacific?
> 
> Regarding being possible or even desirable I had posted on the thread interesting sailboats the movies and posts of a French couple that chose to circumnavigate a boat very similar to the RM 1070 even if slightly smaller, a Fox 10.20 and they were not properly beginners but very experienced sailors and knew exactly the boat they wanted for the voyage. The boat was new and if they would find more convenient or enjoyable they could have bought an used bigger boat for the same money.
> 
> They were very satisfied with the boat that was designed by a NA friend as a fast voyage boat for a couple.
> 
> They shared some comments about the boat with the Interesting sailboat followers:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/743368-post1199.html
> 
> and a post I made about the similarities of that boat with the RM:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/722486-post491.html
> 
> The boat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted on the interesting boat thread a lot of videos they had made during the circumnavigation, some while sailing the boat.
> 
> Anyway it is obviously not the type of boat you would chose for a circumnavigation or to voyage, that is clear by your doubts but it is also obvious that is the type of boat some sailors would chose as a voyage boat and that's why so many RM are sold.
> 
> Here are the videos:
> Le Voyage de Capado: Videothèque


Grande retorno... Paulo... Chao :wink


----------



## outbound

What percentage actually "voyage". Prior poster made mention of three types of sailboat buyers. It was an incisive post.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> Sky:
> I agree with you. I can stumble along in Mandarin but I would not think of starting technical argument in Mandarin. Woa pu ben!


Holy **** Batman, Mandarin?

I'm impressed with the language thing, but have my own ideas which do not agree with PCP's.

Of course (in plain simple American) I like my ideas better!


----------



## PCP

guitarguy56 said:


> Grande retorno... Paulo... Chao :wink


Thanks Guitarman:2 boat:


----------



## amwbox

skygazer said:


> Holy **** Batman, Mandarin?
> 
> I'm impressed with the language thing, but have my own ideas which do not agree with PCP's.
> 
> Of course (in plain simple American) I like my ideas better!


Pretty sure a lot of Perry's boats were built in Taiwan. Tayana, Baba, and Tashiba spring to mind. Ta Shing and Ta Yang built some excellent boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

SloopJonB said:


> Marinium is a proprietary alloy and FWIW I have never seen a piece of it break. I wouldn't use it for mooring a big boat - like over 40' but otherwise it is very good stuff.
> 
> I too prefer S/S & bronze though.





JonEisberg said:


> I can guarantee that was not made by W-C, nor is it Marinium... As JonB mentioned, Marinium is not just a "name", but a proprietary alloy comprised of magnesium, titanium, aluminum, beryllium, and other metals...
> 
> From a forum discussion on polishing Marinium:
> 
> _"I polish Marinium parts by removing them and using a cotton buffing wheel on an 8" bench grinder with red buffing rouge.
> 
> The alloy is so hard that I found no other method produced a high shine and removed micro scratches without endless hours of elbow grease."_


Titanium?

I don't know exactly what's in this mysterious alloy, but whatever it is seems to have come from the 1960's, faded away through the '90s and is not back with a vengance...



> In the early 1960's, a new alloy appeared. First used on large racing sailboats, the new material's high strength to weight ratio, coupled with superb corrosion resistance, made it an attractive alloy for use on boats. The new alloy was trademarked with the name Marinium® shortly after its introduction to the marine market and quickly evolved into a popular line of power boat deck hardware. The line included cleats, chocks, hinges, deck fills, rod holders and navigation lights.
> 
> For many years Marinium® was the choice material for numerous quality boat builders. But with the technology that existed in the 1970s and 1980s, Marinium® proved to be a difficult alloy to manufacture. Internal rejection rates were high. Attempts to reduce costs only compounded the rework problem. Eventually, in the early 1990s, production of Marinium® marine hardware and lights ended. The industry lost access to perhaps the greatest marine alloy ever... until now!
> 
> Using modern technology and casting techniques unavailable to manufacturers decades ago, Marinium® has finally been perfected. The high strength to weight ratios and unparalleled corrosion resistance sought after for decades by quality builders is again available, this time with Perko® reliability and quality.


I'm betting mostly aluminum...with good marketing.


----------



## SloopJonB

*"Leonardo knows firsthand how to market beautiful, top-quality products. He's the son of Salvatore Ferragamo, whose expert craftsmanship in shoes and clothing propelled a Florentine family business into a leading global luxury brand. Leonardo, 49, who spent his career in his family's businesses, is now successfully applying the Ferragamo touch to another luxury venture, yachts.

...

Ferragamo's real coup may well be the luxury-goods marketing savvy he is injecting into Nautor and the Swan brand. By revitalizing the annual Nautor's Swan Cup and other races for some 1,900 owners, Ferragamo infused Swan with new excitement and cachet."*

So Swans have gone the way of shoes & handbags & perfume.

Shame, I liked them a whole lot better when Olin & Rod Stephens set the tone for them.


----------



## SloopJonB

smackdaddy said:


> Titanium?
> 
> I don't know exactly what's in this mysterious alloy, but whatever it is seems to have come from the 1960's, faded away through the '90s and is not back with a vengance...
> 
> I'm betting mostly aluminum...with good marketing.


It is mostly aluminium, in much the same way as 316 S/S is mostly steel.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Titanium?
> 
> I don't know exactly what's in this mysterious alloy, but whatever it is seems to have come from the 1960's, faded away through the '90s and is not back with a vengance...
> 
> *I'm betting mostly aluminum...with good marketing.*


Nah, that would be one of these...


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Titanium?
> 
> I don't know exactly what's in this mysterious alloy, but whatever it is seems to have come from the 1960's, faded away through the '90s and is not back with a vengance...
> 
> I'm betting mostly aluminum...with good marketing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is mostly aluminium, in much the same way as 316 S/S is mostly steel.
Click to expand...

And good marketing like ... Oh forget it. Snack and Poulo are right and the rest of us morons will just have to content ourselves with crap that actually works,requires less maintenance, and doesn't need to be traded in every 5 years. Come to think of it, what is the expiration date on the Hunter 40, Paulo?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, that bolded part sums it up pretty neatly, I'd say...
> 
> ;-)


See, that's your problem, cooler doesn't automatically mean POSier.



JonEisberg said:


> See above, and below...
> 
> _"Leonardo knows firsthand how to market beautiful, top-quality products. He's the son of Salvatore Ferragamo, whose expert craftsmanship in shoes and clothing propelled a Florentine family business into a leading global luxury brand. Leonardo, 49, who spent his career in his family's businesses, is now successfully applying the Ferragamo touch to another luxury venture, yachts.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ferragamo's real coup may well be the luxury-goods marketing savvy he is injecting into Nautor and the Swan brand. By revitalizing the annual Nautor's Swan Cup and other races for some 1,900 owners, Ferragamo infused Swan with new excitement and cachet."
> 
> Ferragamo Has Nautor Running Before the Wind - Businessweek_


Kind of like a fin keel or spade rudder or fiberglass or a fridge or LEDs instead of the traditional alternatives?

I'd say Ferragamo's nailing it, turning out top quality products.



JonEisberg said:


> I'm not absolutely "certain", of course. I'm only saying a failure of that cleat on the Hunter would be far more _LIKELY_, with a sharp snatching load from the direction pictured below...
> 
> Anyone with a pair of eyes, and even the most rudimentary understanding of physics, should be able to see that...
> 
> ;-)


I've already agreed with that point in principal. We just have no idea what those loads will be.



JonEisberg said:


> Check your Waterway Guide App for better options at that particular point of the Hudson... There aren't many...
> 
> However, seems to me any prudent sailor would "protect his boat as best he can...", by choosing to have proper cleats, to begin with... ;-)
> 
> Are you saying you'd scurry away from any dock at the mere sighting of every Sea Ray approaching at speed from a distance? Seems that having to do that would get old, pretty quickly...


Why not anchor if things are that bad at the dock? And as for scurrying away - if we're talking a single Sea Ray - of course not. But that broken cleat you linked to was apparently due to a parade of 50' trawlers which damaged lots of boats and even broke pilings. That's a different animal.

So what's the maximum snatch load capacity for your own cleats? The one on my Catalina 27 couldn't support its weight as it sunk in the slip. I don't hold that against Catalina.



JonEisberg said:


> As others have already pointed out, NO, it is not...


Okay, but it sure looks similar to this Schaeffer cleat - a brand you promoted a "proper":












JonEisberg said:


> Just a hunch... I have tried to find an exact match for that Hunter POS in Google, no such luck... Seems likely it is proprietary to Marlow-Hunter...
> 
> David Marlow has been manufacturing his motor yachts "completely within" China for almost 2 decades... Wouldn't be that far-fetched that some components made in China found their way aboard the new Marlow-Hunters, would it?


Not at all. Lots of stuff is made in China.

Actually, I don't think these are proprietary - and I don't think they are nearly as expensive as the ones on the Hinckley or Swan. They look very similar to this:

Folding Cleat | Premier Products










What we still don't know is what the specs are for those snatch loads. As I said, if I were buying one of these Hunters myself for off-shore use, I'd ask them to add beefed up anchor points for drogues and such.


----------



## amwbox

Pretty good failure data for various cleat materials and alloys (including "marinium"):
Foundation Findings #16 [Cleats]

Still tough to beat steel.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Come to think of it, what is the expiration date on the Hunter 40, Paulo?


The Yanmar's was June 2015 - but not of its own volition. The Hunter is still going strong - despite her skipper. So I'll let you know.


----------



## hellsop

JonEisberg said:


> Again, chocks for midship cleats are another detail that I see very poorly executed all the time... Look at the very bottom of this pic of this Freedom, for example... Why isn't that cleat mounted right at the chock, instead of a foot or more behind it? An aft spring will have to take a very sharp 180 degree turn thru that opening, again right in the area of the splice in a looped dockline... Always a real head-scratcher whenever I see this, and I see it often, what is the possible rationale for that cleat or chock placement relative to each other?


With this arrangement, the tension on the cleat doesn't change direction, ever. Which means the total distance that the decking might flex is halved (because the cleat is only trying to rock one way), the direction that reinforcement is needed is predictable, etc, and that's a lot less overall strain. For an aft spring, yes it'll have to go around a corner, but dock lines are cheaper than re-bedding and deck repairs, and replacing them is trivial in comparison.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> Pretty good failure data for various cleat materials and alloys (including "marinium"):
> Foundation Findings #16 [Cleats]
> 
> Still tough to beat steel.


Very cool. Thanks amw. So the 4-hole cleats generally have a high failure rate (at the feet), where the 2-hole cleats were stronger, with the failure happening at the fastener, as shown in that photo above. Interesting.

Also, Marinium does look strong according to those numbers. But this part is interesting:



> Marinium usually costs slightly more than aluminum. *Both metals have the same tensile strength*, but marinium has a higher strength-to-weight ratio.


And at least Hunter got this part right, eh?



> Although stainless steel has the greatest tensile strength of all the cleat materials we tested...


----------



## robert sailor

SloopJonB said:


> *"Leonardo knows firsthand how to market beautiful, top-quality products. He's the son of Salvatore Ferragamo, whose expert craftsmanship in shoes and clothing propelled a Florentine family business into a leading global luxury brand. Leonardo, 49, who spent his career in his family's businesses, is now successfully applying the Ferragamo touch to another luxury venture, yachts.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ferragamo's real coup may well be the luxury-goods marketing savvy he is injecting into Nautor and the Swan brand. By revitalizing the annual Nautor's Swan Cup and other races for some 1,900 owners, Ferragamo infused Swan with new excitement and cachet."*
> 
> So Swans have gone the way of shoes & handbags & perfume.
> 
> Shame, I liked them a whole lot better when Olin & Rod Stephens set the tone for them.


Some folks don't want to accept that fashion and marketing play a huge role in the sale of new boats but its just the way it is from those goofy cheap folding cleats mounted in the wrong place on Hunters to anchor systems on new Swans that are inadequate. It's all about sight lines and a clean uncluttered look. Who cares if all the deck glass leaks a year after you buy the boat or lifelines are to short, you need the "look" as our friend Smack says, looks cool, not like your Dad's boat. This crowd is not the best judge of these matters as most of us want something practicle that works and is easy to fix when it decides not to. The cool new buyers write a cheque for most everything and don't have the desire or skill to fix stuff so these new wonders of the sea will do just fine on the sales floor. The fashion fellow that sells purses is the perfect guy to take over Swan, he knows how to sell $25.00 purses for a couple of grand to ladies and these days they are usually the decision maker on boats, no matter what we want to believe.


----------



## Shockwave

Actually it's FE, iron.



SloopJonB said:


> It is mostly aluminium, in much the same way as 316 S/S is mostly steel.


----------



## Shockwave

I sure would not want to load a cleat that way. Hmmm...



smackdaddy said:


> See, that's your problem, cooler doesn't automatically mean POSier.
> 
> Kind of like a fin keel or spade rudder or fiberglass or a fridge or LEDs instead of the traditional alternatives?
> 
> I'd say Ferragamo's nailing it, turning out top quality products.
> 
> I've already agreed with that point in principal. We just have no idea what those loads will be.
> 
> Why not anchor if things are that bad at the dock? And as for scurrying away - if we're talking a single Sea Ray - of course not. But that broken cleat you linked to was apparently due to a parade of 50' trawlers which damaged lots of boats and even broke pilings. That's a different animal.
> 
> So what's the maximum snatch load capacity for your own cleats? The one on my Catalina 27 couldn't support its weight as it sunk in the slip. I don't hold that against Catalina.
> 
> Okay, but it sure looks similar to this Schaeffer cleat - a brand you promoted a "proper":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Lots of stuff is made in China.
> 
> Actually, I don't think these are proprietary - and I don't think they are nearly as expensive as the ones on the Hinckley or Swan. They look very similar to this:
> 
> Folding Cleat | Premier Products
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we still don't know is what the specs are for those snatch loads. As I said, if I were buying one of these Hunters myself for off-shore use, I'd ask them to add beefed up anchor points for drogues and such.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Seems I never got the gestalt of "voyaging". Always thought whenever you got beyond the 200m range of the helicopters you were "voyaging". Think the folks going to Carribean in the damaged Gunboat thought they were "voyaging". Thought the fleet of the SDR or the Carribean 1500 when they got whacked thought they were "voyaging". Guess I don't get this concept.
> Also thought "blue water" meant when they throw you over the side it's so deep all of you is gone and just your bones hit the bottom. This thread is getting close to hitting bottom. Feel like the fish and worms are eating me on the way down so the crabs won't get a chance.
> Paulo wants me to go blue water voyaging without room for my blankie.
> We are arguing about cleats when it's obvious any cleat that can't be easily used, needs servicing beyond some collinite when you're bored, or fails in service is just eye candy for a cruiser? Voyager? Blue water sailor?
> Smackie want to compare his decades old boat made when men were men to the current crop.
> Jon save us. Admit they still make some great boats not just drek even the French
> Damn even BS on the steel thread is better than this.


Welcome to the thread Out. Heh-heh.


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> I can almost guarantee (judging by how things roll on these forums) that when Samson posts went away and cleats took over, there was a loud howl from traditionalists that these wimpy new cleats would be ripping out all over the place and sinking boats left and right. That didn't happen. Obviously. The designers and engineers were able to gain more strength out of the materials they were working with in order to maintain structural integrity while scaling back size and weight.


Offered without comment: John Vigor's Blog: Cruising boats need Samson posts


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> I sure would not want to load a cleat that way. Hmmm...


Why not? I mean, in principal, if it were a fixed cleat, you'd be putting that same type moment load on it.

The things that are sketchy about this cleat to me, again in principal, are that you have two potential failure modes pointed out in the link amw provided above (the hinge pin AND the fasteners), it looks like it has a fairly high profile which would increase the rotational load - especially if you looped the lines over the top, and it does look a bit "sharp" to my eye.

But, again, it is SS which is the strongest material according to those tests - so who knows what the load capacity is. It could be quite high. And if it has a good backing plate, it could be pretty strong.

We just don't know.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Very cool. Thanks amw. So the 4-hole cleats generally have a high failure rate (at the feet), where the 2-hole cleats were stronger, with the failure happening at the fastener, as shown in that photo above. Interesting.
> 
> Also, Marinium does look strong according to those numbers. But this part is interesting:
> 
> And at least Hunter got this part right, eh?


Well not actually true. What the report said was the cheap 4 hole cleats had a much smaller foot print and they failed consistently around half the time but the better built 4 hole cleats had a larger foot print and had zero failures on all tests.
It's just like boats, cheap boats are just cheap and will always be more prone to problems, buy something designed and built a little better and you will be much happier over time.


----------



## smackdaddy

hellsop said:


> With this arrangement, the tension on the cleat doesn't change direction, ever. Which means the total distance that the decking might flex is halved (because the cleat is only trying to rock one way), the direction that reinforcement is needed is predictable, etc, and that's a lot less overall strain. For an aft spring, yes it'll have to go around a corner, but dock lines are cheaper than re-bedding and deck repairs, and replacing them is trivial in comparison.


Forget it. He's rolling.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Well not actually true. What the report said was the cheap 4 hole cleats had a much smaller foot print and they failed consistently around half the time but the better built 4 hole cleats had a larger foot print and had zero failures on all tests.
> It's just like boats, cheap boats are just cheap and will always be more prone to problems, buy something designed and built a little better and you will be much happier over time.


So which 4-hole cleats on the market do you recommend?


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Some folks don't want to accept that fashion and marketing play a huge role in the sale of new boats but its just the way it is from those goofy cheap folding cleats mounted in the wrong place on Hunters to anchor systems on new Swans that are inadequate.
> 
> This crowd is not the best judge of these matters as most of us want something practicle that works and is easy to fix when it decides not to.


Ahm, Nautor, you've been found lacking by the preeminent expert in the field.


----------



## guitarguy56

smackdaddy said:


> Ahm, Nautor, you've been found lacking by the preeminent expert in the field.


YES... Nautor will have to go back to their FEM models and analysis along with their FMEA analysis to scratch their heads as to how they missed their poor designs to suit the experts here!


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, tension versus shear... You don't want a cleat pulled by a tension load.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Ahm, Nautor, you've been found lacking by the preeminent expert in the field.


Actually Smack if you read my post I found our friends at Swan were doing an excellent job but thanks for the compliment!


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> So which 4-hole cleats on the market do you recommend?


I'm not recommending any cleat, I'm simply pointing out that you were not above board in reporting the findings of the tests. Had you made note that it was the poorly designed and built 4 hole cleats that failed 1/2 the time rather than telling a 1/2 truth by suggesting all 4 hole cleats failed at the foot I would not have responded.
Find all the evidence you reported yet on Blue Pearl or are you sticking with a similar story?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack, tension versus shear... You don't want a cleat pulled by a tension load.


I'm talking about rotational load, which I think is called moment (some of the engineers around here can clarify). I really don't think that with a good backing plate, this H47 cleat is going to be pulling out of that transom unless there's a crazy amount of load.

BUT - I could see where a good deal of rotational force could be applied with this cleat if the lines looped over the top and the focrce was perpendicular to the cleat.


----------



## robert sailor

guitarguy56 said:


> YES... Nautor will have to go back to their FEM models and analysis along with their FMEA analysis to scratch their heads as to how they missed their poor designs to suit the experts here!


Their designs are superb for their buyer profile which is simply not what it used to be.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> I'm not recommending any cleat, I'm simply pointing out that you were not above board in reporting the findings of the tests. Had you made note that it was the poorly designed and built 4 hole cleats that failed 1/2 the time rather than telling a 1/2 truth by suggesting all 4 hole cleats failed at the foot I would not have responded.


Dude - you really aren't very good at this. From the BoatUS tests:



> With four-hole cleats, feet failed 10 times in 24 pulls (42%). The feet failed consistently on half the four hole cleats, and they failed under smaller loads than every other cleat except the nylon. Of these three four hole cleats with consistent foot failures, one was aluminum, one zinc and one Zamac. Since these three metals have identical tensile strengths and held their own in the two-hole category, there had to be another explanation. We found the answer in foot surface area: the three cleats with consistently failing feet had the three smallest foot surface areas of the six four-hole cleats we tested.
> 
> We took a closer look at the effect of foot surface area by comparing the very similar aluminum and marini urn four hole cleats (see · cleats F and G at right). The feet on the aluminum-a big, beefy cleat failed on all four pulls. The marinium cleat had no feet failures. It had twice the foot surface area of the aluminum cleat (0.13 inches2 vs. 0.07 inches2), and withstood more than twice the load of the aluminum cleat.So, we deduced, the design of the feet , particularly their surface area, is critical. Ironically, the weak-footed aluminum cleat was the most expensive of the 11 cleats we tested.
> 
> E	Aluminum	*2* - 1/4-20	4970	3780	4170	5360	*4570	$19.25*
> F	Aluminum	*4* - 1/4-20	4170	1190	1790	4770	*2980	$31.95* - feet failed all tests


This is not "half-truth". This is a quote from the pros. And we're back to you and Jon needing to tell us ignorant production boaters which 4-hole cleat we need to buy to be "proper".

I'll wait.

As for this...



robert sailor said:


> Find all the evidence you reported yet on Blue Pearl or are you sticking with a similar story?


I know EXACLTY where it is. YOU'RE the one that made all these inaccurate statements about me not having facts. So don't be lazy - find it yourself.


----------



## bobperry

Sky: I spent a lot of time In Taiwan and I made a real effort to learn Mandarin. I did not like he feeling of frustration that came with not being able to communicate. My crude early efforts won me a lot of Taiwanese friends. They struggled hard to speak English and I think they enjoyed watching me struggle with their language. I am lucky in that I have a musician's ear for language. Inmy book I tell some funny stories about some of the language problems I had in Taiwan. " What you mean you have blind person for lunch!"
Mayo wen tee ( No problem).


----------



## robert sailor

outbound said:


> Seems I never got the gestalt of "voyaging". Always thought whenever you got beyond the 200m range of the helicopters you were "voyaging". Think the folks going to Carribean in the damaged Gunboat thought they were "voyaging". Thought the fleet of the SDR or the Carribean 1500 when they got whacked thought they were "voyaging". Guess I don't get this concept.
> Also thought "blue water" meant when they throw you over the side it's so deep all of you is gone and just your bones hit the bottom. This thread is getting close to hitting bottom. Feel like the fish and worms are eating me on the way down so the crabs won't get a chance.
> Paulo wants me to go blue water voyaging without room for my blankie.
> We are arguing about cleats when it's obvious any cleat that can't be easily used, needs servicing beyond some collinite when you're bored, or fails in service is just eye candy for a cruiser? Voyager? Blue water sailor?
> Smackie want to compare his decades old boat made when men were men to the current crop.
> Jon save us. Admit they still make some great boats not just drek even the French
> Damn even BS on the steel thread is better than this.


God that's a great post, funny as hell. Perfect one to cash in the night. Busy tomorrow with boat jobs, will get caught up later in the week..really funny!!


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - you really aren't very good at this. From the BoatUS tests:
> 
> This is not "half-truth". This is a quote from the pros. And we're back to you and Jon needing to tell us ignorant production boaters which 4-hole cleat we need to buy to be "proper".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> As for this...
> 
> I know EXACLTY where it is. YOU'RE the one that made all these inaccurate statements about me not having facts. So don't be lazy - find it yourself.


Well its pretty plain to see that when the cleat is made of the proper material and designed properly the 4 hole cleats never failed.

As to Blue Pearl you simply have zero evidence and no facts!
Now I'll wish you a good night..


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> As to Blue Pearl you simply have zero evidence and no facts!
> Now I'll wish you a good night..


You're obviously just lazy...and you need to sleep.

Goodnight Robert.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Kind of like a fin keel or spade rudder or fiberglass or a fridge or LEDs instead of the traditional alternatives?


Hardly, but keep trying... ;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Why not anchor if things are that bad at the dock?


I'd been running thru snow showers that afternoon, was in the mood for a bit of dockside living and plugging in to some heat, a shower and dinner ashore, and plugging into some CATV to watch some football...

things were not "that bad" at all, for a boat with proper cleats, properly situated... but they could have been, for a boat with a setup as stupid as on that Hunter...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> And as for scurrying away - if we're talking a single Sea Ray - of course not. But that broken cleat you linked to was apparently due to a parade of 50' trawlers which damaged lots of boats and even broke pilings. That's a different animal.


You appear confused... The failure of the cleat on that Leopard 38 had nothing to do with wakes from passing traffic... Rather, it was the arrival of a Bora wind during the night...

Not exactly an 'uncommon' or totally unexpected occurrence in Croatia, actually...



smackdaddy said:


> So what's the maximum snatch load capacity for your own cleats?


I have no idea, but after almost 20 years, so far, so good...

At 10 inches, they're larger and more substantial than you'll find on most of today's production offerings the size of mine.. And, I'd wager anything they are stronger than that crap on Hunter's newest "Flagship", displacing 2.5X what my little tub does...

;-)












smackdaddy said:


> Okay, but it sure looks similar to this Schaeffer cleat - a brand you promoted a "proper":


Try to _FOCUS_...

On _DESIGN/CHARACTERISTICS_, rather than the _BRAND..._



smackdaddy said:


> Not at all. Lots of stuff is made in China.
> 
> Actually, I don't think these are proprietary - and I don't think they are nearly as expensive as the ones on the Hinckley or Swan. They look very similar to this:
> 
> Folding Cleat | Premier Products


"Similar", perhaps, but not the same...

The ones on the Hunter are not mounted by machine screws, but appear to use studs, instead...



smackdaddy said:


> What we still don't know is what the specs are for those snatch loads. As I said, if I were buying one of these Hunters myself for off-shore use, *I'd ask them to add beefed up anchor points for drogues and such.*


What about for the possibility of towing another vessel, or being towed? A far more likely scenario for the sort of use the majority of those boats will see, after all...

And, I hope you would ask them for a half-sheet of plywood to try to close off that open transom invitation to a boarding wave, as well...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

hellsop said:


> With this arrangement, the tension on the cleat doesn't change direction, ever. Which means the total distance that the decking might flex is halved (because the cleat is only trying to rock one way), the direction that reinforcement is needed is predictable, etc, and that's a lot less overall strain. For an aft spring, yes it'll have to go around a corner, but dock lines are cheaper than re-bedding and deck repairs, and replacing them is trivial in comparison.


Interesting point, I suppose there is some logic to that... ;-)

Still, I'd prefer to go with the fairer lead, all things being equal...

I mounted my midship cleats almost 20 years ago... So far, no sign whatsoever of my deck "flexing", or the need for "re-bedding or deck repairs" due to the loads working in opposite diretions...

But, just a matter of time, I'm sure...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'd been running thru snow showers that afternoon, was in the mood for a bit of dockside living and plugging in to some heat, a shower and dinner ashore, and plugging into some CATV to watch some football...


Hey man, I totally get that. No hassles from me at all.



JonEisberg said:


> things were not "that bad" at all, for a boat with proper cleats, properly situated... but they could have been, for a boat with a setup as stupid as on that Hunter...


Maybe.



JonEisberg said:


> You appear confused... The failure of the cleat on that Leopard 38 had nothing to do with wakes from passing traffic... Rather, it was the arrival of a Bora wind during the night...
> 
> Not exactly an 'uncommon' or totally unexpected occurrence in Croatia, actually...


Yep. You're right. I mistakenly referred to this about a Pearson 323:



> To add to my post #3.
> 
> It was a 15 foot spring line secured to a piling alongside amidship that snapped my chock.
> 
> A parade of tournament sportfishers (50-70 footers) blasted past the docks about 50' off that wrecked havoc on the docks and boats. Probably more than a dozen boats suffered damage. Plus a few pilings snapped or were pulled free.
> 
> As far as I know, not a single captain took responsibility for their wake damage.


POS 70's era Pearsons. Heh-heh.



JonEisberg said:


> I have no idea, but after almost 20 years, so far, so good...
> 
> At 10 inches, they're larger and more substantial than you'll find on most of today's production offerings the size of mine..
> 
> And, I'd wager anything they are stronger than that crap on Hunter's newest "Flagship", displacing 2.5X what my little tub does...


Well, my Hunter has you beat. 26 years and going strong. And I think they're smaller than 10". I'll check.



JonEisberg said:


> Try to _FOCUS_...
> 
> On _DESIGN/CHARACTERISTICS_, rather than the _BRAND..._
> 
> "Similar", perhaps, but not the same...


Oh, I'm focused. You obviously haven't read the BoatUS testing report that amg linked to.

You might need a stiff drink.



JonEisberg said:


> What about for the possibility of towing another vessel, or being towed? A far more likely scenario for the sort of use the majority of those boats will see, after all...


You get towed stern-first? That's really weird.


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> You get towed stern-first? That's really weird.


Huh? How else do you get them off of that mud-bank they went head-first into at full speed whilst navi-guessing off the chartplotter... :grin


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> Actually, no. The US is by far the largest boat building nation. Over a thousand boat building firms there.
> 
> Here


It seem you did not understood but I was talking about sailing yachts, not about motorboats, dinghy, fishing boats or ships.

Regarding cruising sailingboats the situation regarding French market dominance is so overwhelming that the sailboats that sell more on America today are French franchises of Beneteau and Jeanneau, that, as you probably know, are French brands and French designs..



amwbox said:


> Merely semantics. In the US, boats that generally stick to coastlines are called coastal cruisers. Boats designed for crossing oceans are called, with a great deal of debate about which actually qualify, blue water cruisers. Race boats are a spectrum of categories unto themselves, though racer/cruiser is also an extremely common boat type in the US. ...
> As for "voyaging" boats...in proper English that's a bit of a rough description, as nearly any boat can go voyaging, even if not designed to. Blue Water Cruiser makes sense in the same way Blue Water Navy does.


Yes that is all about language and useful concepts. You talk about coastal cruisers, race cruisers and bluewater boats defining bluewater cruisers as the one designed to cross Oceans.

In what regards semantics the problem is that bluewater is not a function in itself like voyaging but an ability to sail in bluewater that we can call more correctly offshore as opposing coastal.

There are many offshore cruisers. Many types of boats can sail safely offshore, some more safely than many voyage boats. What define a voyage cruiser, besides being an offshore boat, is the special care in the design that is given to the needs of a voyager that are not the same as the ones of a boat that cross Oceans. A voyager boat implies a continuity in the function that an Offshore boat does not necessarily have.

Yes, only words and concepts but it is one of the things that differentiate us from other animals and precision is an important part on communication. It is about a better precision in defining a concept that I am talking about:

Many type of boats, including main market type of boats, cruiser-racers and voyage boats can be bluewater/offshore boats. The concept of voyage boat is just a more precise one.

The French and the Europeans use it to define a boat that is suited for voyaging and that may refer to very different boats adapted to different styles of voyaging.

Use the term or not but since it is widely used by the ones that built more yachts, including the ones of that type, it is useful you know what they are talking about when referring to voyage boats.


----------



## seaner97

Yeah, and mine is 50. But Paulo clearly thinks you need to trade in for a "contemporary" design, or you're a moron like the rest of us Americans. 
As for 70s Pearsons- well, don't get Jeff started. 
And finally, Jon, while I appreciate the effort, Smack won't believe that getting hit by a meteor isn't a bad idea until it's been replicated and documented multiple times, even if common sense would point out its probably not good. Talking boat design with Smack is like talking vaccines with Jenny McCarthy.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> Sky: I spent a lot of time In Taiwan and I made a real effort to learn Mandarin........... I am lucky in that I have a musician's ear for language.


I'm impressed because (and I'm no language expert) I imagine Chinese has no relationship to European languages, so it would seem hard to grasp. My sister speaks Russian, and was a UN translator. Russian seems less alien than Chinese!

I'm intrigued by your "musician's ear" concept. I took Spanish in high school and never really learned much. At the end of last winter I listened to some Spanish language tapes while plowing, and found that the listening aspect with no reading went deeper into my brain then all the classroom time study/reading/testing of several semesters in school. As an aside, my voice teacher (now retired) can both speak and write Chinese.

Sailboats - I'm tired of cleats.

A year ago I purchased my oldest sailboat (Tartan 27-2, one of the last 20 or so made, as new as I could get of that model, has a Yanmar diesel), which I have not had in the water yet. I want to work on a number of things first. My reason for buying my oldest boat was that I was dissatified with the way newer boats handle following seas. A flattish bottom, narrow entry, and wide stern gives me the uncomfortable feeling that the bouyant stern wants to pass the digging bow when in steep followng seas. Not a feeling of being boarded, but a feeling that broaching could happen with the right wave harmonic. I'm no designer, just the gut feeling coming through the helm. I'm particularly impressed with the rugged build of the Tartan. And the design of constant convex curvature makes it resistant to being pushed in/flexed by horizontal forces, something I can feel pushing with my hand. Flat things flex more easily. Of course, like skiing with heavily curved skis, the boat will be slower as the curves are always working. I love speed, but am willing to give some up for the greater chance of a safe return. Someone on this thread mentioned evolution of boat desigh. In the old days it was the boats that returned that got copied. I'm thinking the curvature makes it harder for the water to grab and pound the sides and the depth beneath the water will augment tracking while the narrower rounded stern will be pushed sideways less than a wide square stern. The antithesis of modern design!

I have some experience with that hull shape. I have a tiny Victoria 18 with a similar hull (much narrower wineglass stern with more overhang) which we sailed Labor Day weekend and Tuesday in Casco Bay during fairly good wind and wave. Reefed main, smallest jib, towing a dinghy with a similar waterline and loaded with firewood. We consistantly ran well over hull speed with spray coming over the cabin top. While such small boats are more twitchy, I liked the feel of the way she ran. I hadn't used the Vic in about 5 years.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Seems I never got the gestalt of "voyaging". Always thought whenever you got beyond the 200m range of the helicopters you were "voyaging". Think the folks going to Carribean in the damaged Gunboat thought they were "voyaging". Thought the fleet of the SDR or the Carribean 1500 when they got whacked thought they were "voyaging". Guess I don't get this concept.
> Also thought "blue water" meant when they throw you over the side it's so deep all of you is gone and just your bones hit the bottom. This thread is getting close to hitting bottom. Feel like the fish and worms are eating me on the way down so the crabs won't get a chance.
> Paulo wants me to go blue water voyaging without room for my blankie.
> ,,,.


Of course you can voyage on a main boat market and many do, many even circumnavigate, after adapting to the voyage needs.

What makes a voyage boat is that he is specially designed for that function while a main market boat has to be adapted.

Many boats are designed with the ability to sail offshore but that does not make them voyage boats since they were not designed with that particular need on mind since almost all will not be used for that. Contrary to that voyage boats are already designed with voyage as a design criteria and the ones that buy that boats will use them for voyaging.

Saying this, there are many types of voyaging boats, from very fast boats based on solo offshore racers to Aluminum light and more heavy ones, passing for other types in between but all of them are designed for voyaging, in different ways, depending of the different types of sailors, tastes and life-styles.

The RM belongs to the type of boats based on Open boats for the ones that like to voyage light and fast and want to have a lot of fun while doing it. It is not the only type (far from that) just one of them and obviously not the one more suited to you.

For you to travel with your "blankie" and with lot's of stuff I would say that the indicated boat as to be a big one and given your taste for going fast, but not too fast, in a comfortable way, I would say that one of these would suit you:


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> I think your definition of voyaging is pretty much spot on....


Thanks! Contrary to what have been insistently said by Bob and Outbound I do not talk about boats regarding my own liking in what regards sailing and cruising, but I think you do. No offense meaning.

I mean that when you think about a voyage boat you think about your particular needs in what regards a voyage boat but you are a very particular case because you don't only want a voyage boat (because you voyage) as you also want a boat to live aboard permanently because your boat is your house.

In fact that is a rare combination: most of the cruisers that live permanently on a sailboat don't voyage significantly. Most that I know, in forums and personally, voyage a lot less than me, making considerable less miles a year and I don't live full time on a sailboat.

For those the ideal living aboard boat is a boat that offers a lot of space, a comfortable one with lots of storing space but not a voyage boat, for the simple reason that voyage boats are expensive and those live aboard cruisers don't need to spend money in things that they don't need and can turn that extra money on a more comfortable and spacious boat (bigger galley, bigger living space, bigger storage). For those a condo cat or a boat like the Sense 46 or 50 make all the sense.

Then you have the other side, the ones that want a voyage boat because they want to voyage but that don't want to live full time on a boat and there are many more of these than the ones that voyage and live permanently on the boat. If you use the boat for some months a year, or even the biggest part of the year but still have a home where you kept many of the stuff that is significant to you, you don't have the same needs of storage that a live-aboard has.

Some even use the boat only on a sabbatical year or years as voyage boat, circumnavigate or voyage away and after that sell the boat or use it only on the holidays and weekends as a main market cruising boat.

So as you can see a voyage boat is far from being necessarily a living aboard boat and I believe that your difficulty in imagining a RM 1070 has a voyage boat has to do with that.

Imagine that you still have an active working life, want to make a break in it, sail and voyage solo or in a couple for one or two years, keeping your house and returning there and to your job after that. Imagine that after that period you will use the boat not for doing extensive voyaging but for cruising with some voyage once in a while and then the RM 1070 starts to make all the sense regarding price versus what it can offer.

That does not mean that a couple could not live aboard and voyage extensively aboard a RM 1070, after all we know about famous blogs of many sailors that do that in old boats with about the same length but with a much smaller interior volume, with much less storage and living space and certainly much less suited to do that even if I think a bigger boat would be more suited if they could afford it, at least for most of them.

Now if you do live aboard solo and voyage solo, the RM 1070 can make a lot of sense as a very good option to do that. Remember the one (1050) that I posted on that reef? It was sailed by a solo French 70 year old sailor.


----------



## outbound

Sky- I think you point to something very important to someone contemplating buying a boat for long term voyaging. There is no doubt some current designs are performance mavens if performance is solely defined by its sailing polars. And they are sturdy enough to survive what the ocean deals them. But for many they are not what's wanted due to what they impose on your quality of life.
Before our boat the bride was on a racing tri for a weeks cruise. She hated it. She day sailed a fast cat with narrow hulls and daggerboards. She hated it. She sat at anchor on a pizza pie boat with the anchorage open to a strong breeze and a chop running. She hated it. Just having drinks and hors d'oerves in the cockpit she needed to be assisted to prevent falls just moving around. We never even went for a sail as she had no interest in purchasing the boat. Boats centered around sailing performance speak only to sailing performance. For us that's just one aspect of cruising. Yes, it's a very important aspect but still just one aspect. 
Beyond the toys we carry for water sports we carry a lot of non essential stuff that is just there to improve quality of life. Entertainment stuff, cooking stuff and the like. We often add to our collection of weird stuff and get odd presents for our friends and family that needs to be stored. Sure we need to be space and weight conscious but no where near to the degree Paul's voyagers require.
We are often not on our best game when called to deal with difficult situations. Be it weather, docking, equipment failures, lack of sleep or injury. Being on a boat that lends confidence is a huge asset in those situations greatly increasing safety. For some being on a boat that has that sense of solidity is part of equation that produces confidence. I may intellectually know the boat can handle it but do I feel it in my bones.
Some boats are squirrelly or feel squirrelly. Too responsive. Too fast. You're always afraid the boat will get away from you. You are constantly on edge. This is very fatiguing.
Often the wind just doesn't blow. We went through 105g of diesel last passage. Don't care what you're on when the wind is 0-5kts the engine is on or you sit still. Have no interest sitting still rocking on a small boat in the heat in the middle of the ocean. Done that often enough when ocean racing and it just plain sucks.
Paulo may say what the hell is he talking about? Doesn't he want a fast strong boat for passages? The answer is yes I do. But I want to enjoy the passage. I want to be able to prepare a meal from scratch without difficulty. I want to shower in warm water. I want to listen to tunes. Burn electrons. I want enough water on board to shower and wash dishes in fresh water even if the anchorage is filled with slit or otherwise not suitable for watermaking. I want to carry a 12' dinghy on davits when the passage is over and on deck during passage. In short I want to feel safe, comfortable and content during the passage and at the destination. I look at Paulos posts with interest but for my ( and I suspect others) lifestyle they just won't do.


----------



## albrazzi

skygazer said:


> I'm impressed because (and I'm no language expert) I imagine Chinese has no relationship to European languages, so it would seem hard to grasp. My sister speaks Russian, and was a UN translator. Russian seems less alien than Chinese!
> 
> I'm intrigued by your "musician's ear" concept. I took Spanish in high school and never really learned much. At the end of last winter I listened to some Spanish language tapes while plowing, and found that the listening aspect with no reading went deeper into my brain then all the classroom time study/reading/testing of several semesters in school. As an aside, my voice teacher (now retired) can both speak and write Chinese.
> 
> Sailboats - I'm tired of cleats.
> 
> A year ago I purchased my oldest sailboat (Tartan 27-2, one of the last 20 or so made, as new as I could get of that model, has a Yanmar diesel), which I have not had in the water yet. I want to work on a number of things first. My reason for buying my oldest boat was that I was dissatified with the way newer boats handle following seas. A flattish bottom, narrow entry, and wide stern gives me the uncomfortable feeling that the bouyant stern wants to pass the digging bow when in steep followng seas. Not a feeling of being boarded, but a feeling that broaching could happen with the right wave harmonic. I'm no designer, just the gut feeling coming through the helm. I'm particularly impressed with the rugged build of the Tartan. And the design of constant convex curvature makes it resistant to being pushed in/flexed by horizontal forces, something I can feel pushing with my hand. Flat things flex more easily. Of course, like skiing with heavily curved skis, the boat will be slower as the curves are always working. I love speed, but am willing to give some up for the greater chance of a safe return. Someone on this thread mentioned evolution of boat desigh. In the old days it was the boats that returned that got copied. I'm thinking the curvature makes it harder for the water to grab and pound the sides and the depth beneath the water will augment tracking while the narrower rounded stern will be pushed sideways less than a wide square stern. The antithesis of modern design!
> 
> I have some experience with that hull shape. I have a tiny Victoria 18 with a similar hull (much narrower wineglass stern with more overhang) which we sailed Labor Day weekend and Tuesday in Casco Bay during fairly good wind and wave. Reefed main, smallest jib, towing a dinghy with a similar waterline and loaded with firewood. We consistantly ran well over hull speed with spray coming over the cabin top. While such small boats are more twitchy, I liked the feel of the way she ran. I hadn't used the Vic in about 5 years.


I would like to hear more about the Dingy full of firewood, sounds like Popeye's pickup truck.


----------



## bobperry

I'll stand firm on my claim that a boat with tankage consisting of :
50 gals of water
21 gals of fuel
9.2 gals of holding

Is not a "voyager" by any definition. If I suggested tankage like this to one of my clients they'd think I ad lost it. You may be fooled. I am not.

This boat cannot be considered by any experienced sailor a "voyager". If you think it can you may be fooling yourself. Of coursed you could take the boat offshore. But would a "normal" cruising family do a Transpac crossing in this boat? My buddy rowed his boat across the Atlantic. Does that make his rowboat a "voyager". ( check out Jordan at OAR Northwest) Time for a reality check. And I said before, if a family of four spent two weeks cruising on San Francisco Bay with a 9.2 gal holding tank they would find new uses for those bungs they bought at West Marine or stop every other day. Voyaging my ass. I don't care how you parse the word.

Sky: 
Mandarin is a tonal language. There are four tones that change the meaning of the word. The word "Ma" can mean "mother, Horse or "or not" depending on which tone you use to say it.. I don't know the fourth meaning. If you can't hear the tones Mandarin is going to be almost impossible to learn. I think being trained in music for many years gives me an advantage when it comes to recognizing and reproducing these tones. I have learned all my Mandarin through conversation. I listen. I make notes, I memorize. I have had only five formal lessons and they were not productive for me. Compared to European languages Mandarin has some advantages for the beginner once they get passed the tome issue. No genders for one thing. 

Ran into a Chinese couple in the meat section at the supermarket yesterday. They light up when you speak Mandarin to them.


----------



## Maine Sail

The Hunter 460 Susie Q. sank afer her starboard bow cleat was ripped from the deck. The old style cleat did not fail but rather the deck around it is what let go. 









Up here a Pearson 36-2 named Kismet, also sank due to a cleat. In Kismet's case the cleat itself failed. Pearson was using hollow aluminum cleats during this build time frame not solid marinium or solid aluminum. This is a Pearson 36-2 deck cleat.....









The use of good strong points with strong decks and backing are key on any boat....


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> I'll stand firm on my claim that a boat with tankage consisting of :
> 50 gals of water
> 21 gals of fuel
> 9.2 gals of holding
> 
> Is not a "voyager" by any definition.


I agree and wouldn't even call such a boat a "coastal cruiser". I would call it a weekender.

But unlike many forum people I don't have a problem with people having such a boat or consider them lesser.


----------



## bobperry

Don: 
I agree with you 100%. Spin it all you like, this is a weekender. But Knock yourself out if you want to try and take your family to New Zealand in this boat. I can see all the jerry cans of fuel lined up on the rail now.

This is not a game of words or semantics. This is about reality.


----------



## blt2ski

Maine,

What were the conditions that a boat would sink losing a cleat on a buoy? Did it get loose, and go aground, or something on par to sink? Double lined to buoy, waves going over the deck, so water ingress from other cleat opening during a strong hurricane style storm. 

I doubt the real issue from a sinking was just the cleat design etc.

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

THen there is me with the fuel, water and holding tank amounts......20 gals of fuel I would be in heaven. I have 7, probably 6 usable, so 8-10 hrs max motoring depending upon speed. 
I have 20 gals of water, no shower, so that usually lasts a season or max 2 fill ups per calendar year/season.
Holding tank is around 10-15 gals IIRC, never really looked it up. about 2 drains per year, depending upon useage etc. 

This works as a weekender, evening/day racer, one long week to two week trip a year. Boat was designed to cross oceans, or one to two day trips. Probably not an atlantic or pacific crossing. If you have to motor across an atlantic, good luck! 

The tankages needed will depend upon the where you sail, how you sail etc.

Much like a J105. It was designed to race and cruise. BUT, cruising ment stopping at a marina every 2-3 days, going ashore to a B&B to shower, clean up etc. Headroom was enough by 2" for the ave female.......It certainly is not designed for Bob or my sons at 5'16" to have headroom. For that, there is a J109! 

Take your pick, two boats, about the same size, same manufacture, same general design spec, but two very different boats!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> A year ago I purchased my oldest sailboat (Tartan 27-2, one of the last 20 or so made, as new as I could get of that model, has a Yanmar diesel), which I have not had in the water yet. I want to work on a number of things first. My reason for buying my oldest boat was that I was dissatified with the way newer boats handle following seas. A flattish bottom, narrow entry, and wide stern gives me the uncomfortable feeling that the bouyant stern wants to pass the digging bow when in steep followng seas. Not a feeling of being boarded, but a feeling that broaching could happen with the right wave harmonic. I'm no designer, just the gut feeling coming through the helm. I'm particularly impressed with the rugged build of the Tartan. And the design of constant convex curvature makes it resistant to being pushed in/flexed by horizontal forces, something I can feel pushing with my hand. Flat things flex more easily. Of course, like skiing with heavily curved skis, the boat will be slower as the curves are always working. I love speed, but am willing to give some up for the greater chance of a safe return. Someone on this thread mentioned evolution of boat desigh. In the old days it was the boats that returned that got copied. I'm thinking the curvature makes it harder for the water to grab and pound the sides and the depth beneath the water will augment tracking while the narrower rounded stern will be pushed sideways less than a wide square stern. The antithesis of modern design!


As with all things I personally think what you're talking about is somewhat relative. I've been offshore in following seas in several different boat types (Pacific Seacraft 37C, Pearson 365, and our Hunter 40). Obviously, our Hunter 40 is much more the newer, wider, flatter hull shape, especially compared to the PS37C with its canoe stern:


















_(Sister ship to our boat.)_

And this video of a cool dude sailing one of Bob's 40s (some of the best offshore boats out there) - even talks about trying to address the roll due to moderate following seas:






So, I have no doubt that there are differences - especially on the extreme end of things - but in terms of _significantly feeling_ a major difference offshore? I'm not so sure...at least not enough to discount the other advantages of more modern production boats.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> ...
> Paulo may say what the hell is he talking about? Doesn't he want a fast strong boat for passages? The answer is yes I do. But I want to enjoy the passage. I want to be able to prepare a meal from scratch without difficulty. I want to shower in warm water. I want to listen to tunes. Burn electrons. I want enough water on board to shower and wash dishes in fresh water even if the anchorage is filled with slit or otherwise not suitable for watermaking. I want to carry a 12' dinghy on davits when the passage is over and on deck during passage. In short I want to feel safe, comfortable and content during the passage and at the destination. I look at Paulos posts with interest but for my ( and I suspect others) lifestyle they just won't do.


Again, what I say as nothing to do with the boats I would chose for myself but with contemporary design solutions regarding all types of boats, including voyage boats of different types.

Obviously you and me would not chose the same boat neither I would chose a RM for the type of sailing I do. If I wanted one I would have one but that does not mean that I do not see the advantages of the design regarding the ones that would prefer those advantages over some disadvantages.

What do you think of that Boreal that I posted above (movie)? Don't you think that would tick all the boxes you were talking about with the advantage of having a stronger hull and allow you to anchor on shallow anchorages having as supplementary advantage a best protection while on anchor on really bad weather (since you could be much near the coast)?


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> The Hunter 460 Susie Q. sank afer her starboard bow cleat was ripped from the deck. The old style cleat did not fail but rather the deck around it is what let go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Up here a Pearson 36-2 named Kismet, also sank due to a cleat. In Kismet's case the cleat itself failed. Pearson was using hollow aluminum cleats during this build time frame not solid marinium or solid aluminum. This is a Pearson 36-2 deck cleat.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of good strong points with strong decks and backing are key on any boat....


We discussed the SuzieQ thing at length over on CF. Several factors sunk that boat. Regardless, some strong cleats on that Hunter there, eh?


----------



## Shockwave

Many of today's mass produced sailboat designs appeal to those who sail the cocktail circuit. Small holding tanks, air con, microwave, big engines, bigger fridge/freezer and marginal construction quality. They rarely anchor but dash from marina to marina for the next party.

Nothing wrong with that, those sailing/motoring this circuit seem to enjoy themselves. And they usually carry good quality booze!

I'm like Rodney, "can't we all get along".


----------



## bobperry

I'm totally with you Shock. "Different boats for different folks". I like them all. For the way I sail I think a new Pogo would be perfect. Or maybe a Beetle Cat. I'm easy.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> I'll stand firm on my claim that a boat with tankage consisting of :
> 50 gals of water
> 21 gals of fuel
> 9.2 gals of holding
> 
> Is not a "voyager" by any definition. If I suggested tankage like this to one of my clients they'd think I ad lost it. You may be fooled. I am not.
> 
> This boat cannot be considered by any experienced sailor a "voyager"......


I am quite sure your clients would not want this kind of boat. That's why they are your clients. They look for what you do or have done.

I don't care about your opinion. The fact that RM is one of the voyage boats that sell in more quantity is enough evidence that many sailors that want to voyage buy them.

Regarding being a voyage boat I would listen the opinion of "*Glenans*" one of the most famous and oldest sailing schools in the world: "*Le RM 10.50 biquille est un bateau de voyage rapide*"

The shipyard that build the boats defines itself like this: *"Constructeur de voiliers de voyage en contreplaqué époxy"*

Or on the nautical page of one of the biggest French Newspapers, L'Express: *"RM 10.60 Après le succès du 10.50, voilier hauturier que beaucoup de navigateurs ont adopté pour le grand voyage"*

a rapid search showed two blogs of French RM 10.50 that are cruising in America or have come back from the voyage. Of course there are a lot more that don't have a blog and are voyaging. I guess most are like me and only lose time in internet when they are not cruising LOL.

PHILEAS AU FIL DE L'EAU
https://ulysserm1050.wordpress.com/

But of course, only me and all those guys, including the several hundreds that sail RMs that don't know nothing about sailing and modern sailingboats, are fooled, not Bob Perry.

By the way my opinion regarding the needs of fuel on a fast sailing-boat started to change many years ago when on this forum a sailor expressed that opinion and said that had sailed from the US to Australia on a Jboat wasting 50L of diesel.


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> Yeah, and mine is 50. But Paulo clearly thinks you need to trade in for a "contemporary" design, or you're a moron like the rest of us Americans.


Not morons, just backward and unsophisticated. :wink


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> Ran into a Chinese couple in the meat section at the supermarket yesterday. They light up when you speak Mandarin to them.


Asians light up whenever westerners show them some respect by utilizing any of their interpersonal practices & traditions with them.

When my wife was working in investments she instantly gained lifelong clients simply by bowing (more of a nod really) to them and learning to greet them in Cantonese. I suspect they would have stayed with her just because of that, even if she was losing them money.


----------



## aloof

bobperry said:


> So if I understand you correctly, PCP, you can "voyage from France to the Marshal Islands with:
> 50 gals of water
> 21 gals of fuel
> 9.2 gals of holding
> 
> That is very funny. You could not cruise with a family of four in San Francisco Bay with that. Do you have any idea how fast a family of four will fill up a 9.2 gal holding tank?


Not very funny. I recently completed a voyage of that length with similar capacities. Most of the cruising world is accessible with those capacities. It's not exceptional, in my experience. It does demonstrate that the cruising community's need for a wide variety of boats.

I *voyage* alone or with one other. 50 gallons water is plenty if there is a watermaker or the ports are 10 or 20 days apart. I never use the holding tank, yet, certainly not underway. 21 gallons of fuel is reasonable, with maybe a few jugs for the longer crossings. I have all five full jugs and half a tank remaining, frustratingly, after my most recent 2200 mile crossing.


----------



## SloopJonB

I don't know if it's just due to his less than perfect English (still a lot better than my Portuguese) or something else, but declaring a "voyaging" boat as not really requiring liveaboard facilities or comforts, let alone adequate tankage for more than a few days is, to say the least, confusing.

If living on a boat for a year or several years while voyaging is not "living aboard", what is? Sitting at the dock watching TV while the laundry is on?


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> ,,,
> 
> If living on a boat for a year or several years while voyaging is not "living aboard", what is? Sitting at the dock watching TV while the laundry is on?


Certainly. When I cruise during 4 months I am living aboard too but there are a big difference in having a house where you would return to, even after a 2 or 3 year circumnavigation, having there all your stuff that matters to you or having only a boat and have all your stuff permanently on a boat. Surely you can see that.


----------



## SloopJonB

Actually, I fail to see the difference - extended vacations aside, if you are living on a boat while voyaging across oceans you are living aboard AFAIAC. 

Would you say having a big storage locker ashore would change that or do you have to own real estate?

The only difference I can see with your example is if the boat sinks a "voyager" loses only the boat and contents while a "liveaboard" loses everything.

IMO you are making a meaningless distinction - both circumstances require the same things in a boat.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> Yeah, and mine is 50. But Paulo clearly thinks you need to trade in for a "contemporary" design, or *you're a moron like the rest of us Americans*.
> ...


Very funny, as I am polite and don't insult nobody you insult others pretending that had come from me.

If you think that I think that you miss completely my point. Any boat is better than no boat at all.

The point is that if you had the chance to trade your 50 year old boat by a contemporary design of your choice and still prefer to stay with your 50 year old boat, then as SloopJonB says, I would consider you unsophisticated, and a very strange guy.

The point is that, generally speaking, the only guys that have 50 year old boats because that is really what they want are collectors that have very special historical boats or guys that don't have the money to buy a new one.

Contemporary boats sail much better, have more interior space than older ones and the market offers more different types than anywhere on the past.

Another thing I do not understand is that generalization regarding Americans liking old designed boats. Surely some few do but the boats that sell more by far in America are Beneteaus and Jeanneaus that are European contemporary designs.

Surely if Americans that have the money to buy new boats did not want contemporary boats other brands, like for instance Hunter or Catalina would be making old designed boats and selling much more than the European contemporary designs.

But it is quite the contrary, on the last 20 years hunter and Catalina have been on an approximation course with European design. The boats have become beamier, the interiors more European typed.

So I really don't understand what you mean, unless you are referring to the American sailors on this forum, that are generally owners of older boats and most of them have very conservative opinions (let's call it that) regarding boat design.


----------



## Don L

PCP said:


> The point is that if you had the chance to trade your 50 year old boat by a contemporary design of your choice and still prefer to stay with your 50 year old boat, then as SloopJonB says, I would consider you unsophisticated, and a very strange guy.


Poll says than 70+% of people here on SN have a boat that is 30+ years old.

Just in case people wonder why boat builders don't build boats for them!


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Very funny, as I am polite and don't insult nobody you insult others pretending that had come from me.
> 
> If you think that I think that you miss completely my point. Any boat is better than no boat at all.
> 
> The point is that if you had the chance to trade your 50 year old boat by a contemporary design of your choice and still prefer to stay with your 50 year old boat, then as SloopJonB says, I would consider you unsophisticated, and a very strange guy.
> 
> The point is that, generally speaking, the only guys that have 50 year old boats because that is really what they want are collectors that have very special historical boats or guys that don't have the money to buy a new one.
> 
> Contemporary boats sail much better, have more interior space than older ones and the market offers more different types than anywhere on the past.
> 
> Another thing I do not understand is that generalization regarding Americans liking old designed boats. Surely some few do but the boats that sell more by far in America are Beneteaus and Jeanneaus that are European contemporary designs.
> 
> Surely if Americans that have the money to buy new boats did not want contemporary boats other brands, like for instance Hunter or Catalina would be making old designed boats and selling much more than the European contemporary designs.
> 
> But it is quite the contrary, on the last 20 years hunter and Catalina have been on an approximation course with European design. The boats have become beamier, the interiors more European typed.
> 
> So I really don't understand what you mean, unless you are referring to the American sailors on this forum, that are generally owners of older boats and most of them have very conservative opinions (let's call it that) regarding boat design.


No. There are plenty of manufacturers that are selling the more seaworthy designs to this day.

What you term "contemporary" is actually more a matter of function following form. People like wife-friendly boats. Boats with a bloated beam, a generally less sea-kindly hull form, and less robust construction.

Having giant portlights (which are dangerous as hell in a roll over or even high swells) and wide open spaces below (to be thrown around in on rough seas) are dock friendly design choices. Not ocean friendly.

Perfectly fine if all you want to do is float around between the islands. But lets not delude ourselves into believing that this evolution is for the sake of seaworthiness. Its for the sake of selling boats. They figured out that interiors, not the mechanics of the boat and its construction, are what are going to open wallets...and so now we have boats where the interior is designed first...and the hull and rig are compromised in order to accommodate that interior.

Its marketing. Not engineering.

So pick your poison. All boats are a compromise...its just a matter of which is more important to you...form or function.

If I wanted to buy a new boat, I'd be going for a Crealock design, most likely.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Actually, I fail to see the difference - extended vacations aside, if you are living on a boat while voyaging across oceans you are living aboard AFAIAC.
> .....
> IMO you are making a meaningless distinction - both circumstances require the same things in a boat.


I don't know how you live but only my library would fill all the spaces of a 40ft sailboat and there is my CD and record collection, my hi-fi, my collection of Art objects, my photo albums collection (before digital) and lots of personal stuff I don't want to part with.

If I put all that on a storehouse I would never be able to enjoy them, or do you propose that I make regular visits to a store house?

If I don't have a permanent house to return to and live all the time on a sailboat, while I am voyaging or not, than I have to make a huge selection between the things I love to be able to decide what I would keep with me, on the only living space I have, the boat.

Even giving away or selling most of the the things I like only the objects that are very important to me and that I would absolutely want to maintain would need a very substantial storage space. I am certainly no different from many others.

I do not understand how you cannot see the difference regarding the need of storage regarding someone that is going to make a 2 year circumnavigation and will return to his home and someone that the only house he has is his boat and has to have there all he owns.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, I'm focused. You obviously haven't read the BoatUS testing report that amg linked to.
> 
> You might need a stiff drink.


Hell, I need a stiff drink every time I log onto this thread... ;-)

Still nothing in that report to give me any serious concern about what I consider to be a 'proper' mooring cleat... The style I described is the preference of many far more knowledgeable and experienced than I, people like Bill Seifert, for example... Don Street says in THE OCEAN SAILING YACHT that "few experienced seamen would deny that the best general all-around cleat has long been the hollow-cast Herreshoff type." And, finally, if my preference is shared by my friend Jeff H, that's good enough for me...

;-)

And, as Maine Sail and others have mentioned, the integrity of mooring cleats must be viewed as an entire system, that goes far beyond simply the strength of the cleat, itself... From the BOAT/US report:



> Chafe plays a vital role in the security of any cleat system. You can reduce chafe by using larger cleats, or cleats with smooth, round legs and no sharp angles, since the strength of a line is reduced by bending fatigue when it has to turn sharp corners or make tight bends.


As already mentioned, the "sharp angles" on those Hinckley and Hunter cleats don't look very 'rope-friendly', to my eye... ;-)



smackdaddy said:


> You get towed stern-first? That's really weird.


I wouldn't treat too lightly the importance of a boat's ability to be towed... In dire circumstances, the parting of a towline might easily result in the loss of a yacht...

As bad as the arrangement at the stern of that Hunter I pictured is, I actually think using that junk on the bow is ultimately a far greater liability... Dream on, if you really believe the odds of those things surviving an ordeal like the one experienced aboard the Alden 54 ZULU a few years ago, are as great or greater, than those old-fashioned hunks of metal on the foredeck of that Alden...



> The cutter came closer, about 15 feet off our bow, and a member of the crew heaved us a throwing line. Nate and I caught the line and immediately hauled away, quickly reaching the much larger dynasteel pennant of the towline. As soon as the line was fed through the fairleads and onto the cleats the crew of the cutter yelled for us to clear the bow. The cutter then paid out 400 feet of towline while getting in position to tow us southwest to Beaufort, North Carolina.
> 
> As soon as we got under tow around 0900 we realized that, as expected, the conditions aboard Zulu were going to be very rough while we were towed back through the Gulf Stream. The Captain of the cutter decided the conditions were too rough to run with the wind and waves and we were now going to steam north into the wind and waves back to Norfolk instead. We were only able to make about 3 knots SOG and with about 400 feet of towline between us and the cutter, three to four waves would stack up between us and the cutter and our bow would be pulled over, across, or through the massive waves. Zulu is a very solid sailboat at 54 feet in length, drawing 9ft, and displacing nearly 40,000 pounds, but that did not stop the boat from violently crashing into waves, punching into crests sending a wall of water over the deck, and being hit by breaking whitewater spinning the boat like a top, all before the towline went taught and we were pulled into the face of another wave. Initially Nate and I had been taking turns in the cockpit keeping watching and getting soaked by waves coming over the bow and over the side into the cockpit. I was so impressed with the pounding we were taking I thought it was only a matter of time before the towline snapped or the mast broke.
> 
> We spent all of Friday either "resting" below in our bunks or braced in the companionway observing our progress. Sometime in the afternoon a large wave crashed over the entire deck, burst its way through the dodger and into the cockpit drenching Nate who was sitting just inside the dodger, and spilling down below. Our navigation table took a direct hit and our satellite phone, notebooks, and navigation equipment were soaked. Our sat phone, we soon realized, was now destroyed preventing us from communicating with anyone except the crew of the Block Island via VHF radio.
> 
> We spent the day continuing to attempt to rest or eat. Scott was feeling better but was still very weak and was having trouble holding water. As we were towed through the middle of the Gulf Stream the conditions were so rough that there was really nothing we could do but wedge ourselves into our bunks and try to rest.Rest was almost impossible as the boat creaked, groaned, and crashed over and through the waves. I couldn't stop thinking about the mast and wondering when it would give way or when the towline was going to break.
> 
> ...
> 
> I awoke a little after sunrise Saturday morning feeling as though I may have actually gotten an hour or two of real sleep. It was immediately obvious to us that the sea state had subsided considerably and the wind had dropped to a light 15 knots, however now that we were in calmer conditions our lack of rudder was causing us to yaw 45-90 degrees to one side before the towline went taught causing us to swing 45-90 degrees the other direction.
> 
> Trouble aboard Zulu in the Gulf Stream | Cruising World


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> Poll says than 70+% of people here on SN have a boat that is 30+ years old.
> 
> Just in case people wonder why boat builders don't build boats for them!


The reality is that those who are "sophisticated" are much less likely to choose a boat that is less capable on the basis of its trick creature comforts down below.

Rubes are the ones who will write a check on the basis of gimmicks and slick marketing.


----------



## XSrcing

A friend of mine who works in the local boat yard just "allowed" his father to buy a 40' J Boat. I don't know how much of a blue water boat it is, but it has a really good feel to it. The fit and finish is amazing from what I've been able to oogle over. 

That being said, I haven't seen a single boat where I can hang my hammock inside. Are their any builders who sell good hulls with unfinished interiors? There are many people who have zero interest in sailing to the next party and just want to sail.


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> No. There are plenty of manufacturers that are selling the more seaworthy designs to this day.
> 
> What you term "contemporary" is actually more a matter of function following form. People like wife-friendly boats. Boats with a bloated beam, a generally less sea-kindly hull form, and less robust construction.
> 
> Having giant portlights (which are dangerous as hell in a roll over or even high swells) and wide open spaces below (to be thrown around in on rough seas) are dock friendly design choices. Not ocean friendly.
> 
> Perfectly fine if all you want to do is float around between the islands. But lets not delude ourselves into believing that this evolution is for the sake of seaworthiness. Its for the sake of selling boats. They figured out that interiors, not the mechanics of the boat and its construction, are what are going to open wallets...and so now we have boats where the interior is designed first...and the hull and rig are compromised in order to accommodate that interior.
> 
> Its marketing. Not engineering.
> 
> So pick your poison. All boats are a compromise...its just a matter of which is more important to you...form or function.
> 
> If I wanted to buy a new boat, I'd be going for a Crealock design, most likely.


I don't understand you. There are contemporary boats with a moderate beam, even narrow boats.

And that story of contemporary boats being designed with function following form is plain ridiculous. Do you really believe that?

Sailing boats are made to sail and there is a huge difference between sailing ability of 50 year old boats and contemporary ones.

I explain again that I refer as contemporary boats the ones that are today at the state of the art in what regards design and that means also at the state of the Art in what regards sailing.

Never like today the boat design was influenced by function: Sail efficiency

On older days racing influenced design but racing boats sailing performance (on compensated) was twisted by arbitrary rating rules that made in some cases form to follow not sailing performance but the forms that worked better with a given set of rules to give more advantage on compensated rating.

Happily now compensated racing is become less prominent and Open classes lead to huge advances in design regarding forms that worked better regarding sailing. Are those forms that today are the biggest influence on cruising boat's forms and they come directly from what works better on the water, what make a boat go faster and what makes a boar easier to sail (solo racing).


----------



## Don L

amwbox said:


> The reality is that those who are "sophisticated" are much less likely to choose a boat that is less capable on the basis of its trick creature comforts down below.
> 
> Rubes are the ones who will write a check on the basis of gimmicks and slick marketing.


Wow, that sure is an all out snob statement, Which is probably really at the heart of most boat bashing.


----------



## bobperry

Don:
I guess it would depend on how you defined "sophisticated". That's not the the word I would have chosen. I would have chosen "toves".


----------



## PCP

XSrcing said:


> A friend of mine who works in the local boat yard just "allowed" his father to buy a 40' J Boat. I don't know how much of a blue water boat it is, but it has a really good feel to it. The fit and finish is amazing from what I've been able to oogle over.
> 
> That being said, I haven't seen a single boat where I can hang my hammock inside. Are their any builders who sell good hulls with unfinished interiors? There are many people who have zero interest in sailing to the next party and just want to sail.


That would be quite expensive. The best solution if you don't need the usual comforts is to buy and ocean race boat that is not competitive anymore, preferably a solo racer that is more easy to sail.

Have a eye on this ones that I believe will be substituted soon. There will be a huge number of boats around and they are seaworthy and will come cheap, as it was the case on the previous generation (a Canadian circumnavigated with one):






By the way this is a racing Beneteau.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> I don't understand you. There are contemporary boats with a moderate beam, even narrow boats.
> 
> And that story of contemporary boats being designed with function following form is plain ridiculous. Do you really believe that?


Of course. Its undeniably correct. Beneteau doesn't shove as much interior volume as possible into a boat, coupled to spade rudders and a plenitude of potential points of failure on deck because they think its going to make the boat more survivable in a storm.

They do it because people like it and they are more likely to _buy_ it. People are visual creatures. And prone to impulse buying over a gimmick. Go to a boat show and watch what people are impressed by. Hull characteristics, sturdiness of the steering gear, robustness of the rig, etc etc...nobody cares. What people oooh and ahhhh about are the interior accommodations. And designers figured this out decades ago.



> Sailing boats are made to sail and there is a huge difference between sailing ability of 50 year old boats and contemporary ones.
> 
> I explain again that I refer as contemporary boats the ones that are today at the state of the art in what regards design and that means also at the state of the Art in what regards sailing.
> 
> Never like today the boat design was influenced by function: Sail efficiency


No doubt newer designs are faster and more maneuverable. But that doesn't actually equate to seaworthiness does it?



> On older days racing influenced design but racing boats sailing performance (on compensated) was twisted by arbitrary rating rules that made in some cases form to follow not sailing performance but the forms that worked better with a given set of rules to give more advantage on compensated rating.
> 
> Happily now compensated racing is become less prominent and Open classes lead to huge advances in design regarding forms that worked better regarding sailing. Are those forms that today are the biggest influence on cruising boat's forms and they come directly from what works better on the water, what make a boat go faster and what makes a boar easier to sail (solo racing).


Not arguing that. But again...when it comes to form following function we're not talking about purpose built race boats, are we? Obviously a wide beam race boat has been designed that way for performance reasons. When talking about the actual production boats the masses buy...its not race boats, built to race, and its not heavy displacement, large wetted area cruisers, built for the rigors of the open ocean.

They buy your typical Hunter/Beneteau/Catalina designed for weekending and coastal hops.

Which is _fine._ These boats work great at the task they were meant to be able to perform, despite the obvious design compromises for the sake of marketability.

Dealing with the pounding and oilcanning that's been so widely reported even in larger Beneteau's, for example, is a direct consequence of designing more towards marketability and less towards seaworthiness. Which, again, is fine considering what most of these boats are realistically going to be used for.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> "So I really don't understand what you mean, unless you are referring to the American sailors on this forum, that are generally owners of older boats and most of them have very conservative opinions (let's call it that) regarding boat design."
> 
> And you say you "don't insult anybody"?
> 
> Are you serious? You are a *very silly man *with an extremely narrow point of view. You can be very insulting. If that insults you then that's OK. I am very aware of what I am saying. Are you?


Sure I am. The content of this thread show how conservative the major part of members of this forum are.

If you go to Sailing Anarchy or Cruising forum you will see that the vast majority is less conservative. The average age of the boats there is also much more recent.

Besides it seems you think conservative is an insult and I don't understand why. If somebody likes more cars, boats or furniture from the past than what is contemporary then by definition has a conservative taste and it seems clearly that is what happens here but I don't see how that is insulting. It is a reality.

Now when you call me a a* "very silly man*", that is an insult, but I would not expect anything different from you after the many other insults, like Nazi taste.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> Wow, that sure is an all out snob statement, Which is probably really at the heart of most boat bashing.


It was actually a response to boat bashing, ironically enough. It was counter-snobbery, in fact.


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> 
> Are you serious? You are a very silly man with an extremely narrow point of view. You can be very insulting. If that insults you then that's OK. I am very aware of what I am saying. Are you?


Try saying that in Portuguese and we'll see how aware you are then ;-)


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Sure I am. The content of this thread show how conservative the major part of members of this forum are.
> 
> If you go to Sailing Anarchy or Cruising forum you will see that the vast majority is less conservative. The average age of the boats there is also much more recent.
> 
> Besides it seems you think conservative is an insult and I don't understand why. If somebody likes more cars, boats or furniture from the past than what is contemporary then by definition has a conservative taste and it seems clearly that is what happens here but I don't see how that is insulting. It is a reality.


Its not about age...its about design. And its true that the proven blue water designs tend to be conservative...which is exactly what you want when things go wrong. The ocean hasn't changed.

The mistake isn't in calling such designs conservative, which is exactly what they are, and for very good reason. The mistake is conflating conservative with age.

And in insulting those who prefer these proven designs, and making implications about their finances. Of which you know nothing. As I pointed out...these designs are still in production. You can buy a new one (at a very high price) right now.


----------



## bobperry

"Sure I am. The content of this thread show how conservative the major part of members of this forum are."

Says who? Buy your narrow judgement? Buy your vast experience in yacht design? You make me laugh. Your attempts at compartmentalizing everything with sweeping generalizations is boorish.

You type to much.
You say too little.


----------



## Don L

PCP said:


> If you go to Sailing Anarchy or Cruising forum you will see that the vast majority is less conservative. The average age of the boats there is also much more recent.


I don't know about SA because I never go to it, but at CF boat age breakdown is almost the same as here. I know because I did the same poll there as here.

Different forums have different snob bashing. It mostly takes the form of the 20 most active bashers on each site because other than for those the rest apparently mainly just same out of the "discussion".


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> Its not about age...its about design. And its true that the proven blue water designs tend to be conservative...which is exactly what you want when things go wrong. The ocean hasn't changed.


Do you consider Hallberg Rassy conservative?

Najad? Malo? Oyster? Hylas? Amel?

Do you consider them "Blue water" capable?

I own a 1968 Cadillac DeVille 1968 convertible, I also own a 2014 Hyundai Sonata that is my daily commuter. The Hyundai is a better car in all aspects.

The road hasn't changed (much).


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> "Sure I am. The content of this thread show how conservative the major part of members of this forum are."
> 
> Says who? Buy your narrow judgement? Buy your vast experience in yacht design? You make me laugh. Your attempts at compartmentalizing everything with sweeping generalizations is boorish.
> 
> You type to much.
> You say too little.


Hey Bob what did people say about the design of the Valiant 40 back in the day :laugh


----------



## bobperry

Jorgen: 
Don't see your point. Please explain.

I'd love to see your Caddy. Pics?


----------



## bobperry

Don: 
Some people thought it was too radical and light to be a true offshore sailing boat. But I proved them wrong then and I can prove them wrong today. The sea has not changed as Jorgen points out. People have not changed either. Tastes have changed. For my taste this argument/discussion has become so broad and generalized that it has lost any meaning. It fails, mostly due to PCP's efforts to diminish any value on individual taste and style of sailing.

I find the (edit) approach ignorant of human nature. We go sailing to satisfy a wide variety of needs. One guy loves to sit at the dock. Another guy sails to Tiera del Fuego, by himself. The needs vary with the individual as does the appropriate boat . One way is not "right" and the other way or other ways is not wrong, only different.

If you want to live in a rigid, non compromising world where the individual has no say, knock yourself out. I chose to live in a world where the differences are tolerated and even celebrated. I love designing a wide variety of boats, from the Baba 30 to the FT10m. For me they are all fun. Without that variety my job would be boring.


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> Do you consider Hallberg Rassy conservative?
> 
> Najad? Malo? Oyster? Hylas? Amel?
> 
> Do you consider them "Blue water" capable?
> 
> I own a 1968 Cadillac DeVille 1968 convertible, I also own a 2014 Hyundai Sonata that is my daily commuter. The Hyundai is a better car in all aspects.
> 
> The road hasn't changed (much).


We both know the road isn't going to roll you or dump hundreds of tons of seawater on you. So...specious comment. Cars are not boat. Well, some cars are. 

As to the boats you describe, sure. Look good to me. They have been designed and constructed for ocean crossings. Hylas in particular I've always liked. Hallberg Rassey has made a lot of very traditional boats that have held up extremely well.

Are they ideal? No. But no boat is. I'm not talking about high dollar luxury boats. I'm talking about the other 90% of boats we all find.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> What you term "contemporary" is actually more a matter of function following form. People like wife-friendly boats. Boats with a bloated beam, a generally less sea-kindly hull form, and less robust construction.
> 
> Having giant portlights (which are dangerous as hell in a roll over or even high swells) and wide open spaces below (to be thrown around in on rough seas) are dock friendly design choices. Not ocean friendly.


Straight to SillyLand.


----------



## amwbox

As for cars, I think they've improved across the board. There are many who will disagree. Cars are a point A to point B appliance. They have become safer and more efficient. Great.

Some boats have also improved...at least the ones that have been designed to purpose. Other boats (in fact, I'd wager most boats sold today) have gone the opposite route. They have been designed as floating apartments, rather than to a functional purpose. Sure, they sail well...but not as well as they could if they'd been designed to be boats first and apartments second. They work fine within their intended use.

To be clear, I am not bashing these boats. Just pointing out that just because its a new design doesn't make it a better *boat.* The dockside comforts also have value. Speed has value. Maneuverability has value. It just depends on what your personally prioritize. If you want maximum space and convenience, get a catamaran. Or hell, even a trawler. Would either of those be my choice considering my intended purposes? Nope. But to each their own.


----------



## JonEisberg

amwbox said:


> *Having giant portlights* (which are dangerous as hell in a roll over or even high swells) and wide open spaces below (to be thrown around in on rough seas) *are dock friendly design choices.* Not ocean friendly.


Not necessarily...

Those picture windows can be pretty scary at dockside, if things go pear-shaped...

But, hey, at least the stern cleat held...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

" Cars are not boat. Well, some cars are."

Jorgen's Caddy is a boat but oh what a boat! I've had my eye on a '74 Coupe de Ville down the beach. I'm afraid to stop and talk to the seller.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> Don:
> Some people thought it was too radical and light to be a true offshore sailing boat. But I proved them wrong then and I can prove them wrong today.


And that's the point. :wink


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> Jorgen:
> Don't see your point. Please explain.
> 
> I'd love to see your Caddy. Pics?


Bob,

My point is that blue water boats does not need to be conservative. The boats manufacturers I listed are not that conservative.

Here's the Caddy:










You can see the Korean masterpiece in the background ;-)


----------



## amwbox

Depends on what you mean by conservative....? 

To me conservative in a blue water sense is a boat built with being very far from help in very harsh conditions in mind. Ruggedness, mostly. If properly executed, I'm betting most anything can be made strong enough, if money is no object.


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> Do you consider Hallberg Rassy conservative?
> 
> Najad? Malo? Oyster? Hylas? Amel?
> 
> Do you consider them "Blue water" capable?
> 
> I own a 1968 Cadillac DeVille 1968 convertible, I also own a 2014 Hyundai Sonata that is my daily commuter. The Hyundai is a better car in all aspects.
> 
> The road hasn't changed (much).


Nice cars dude! And I agree with your point. I currently own a Maserati and a Jeep. They both have their functions.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> We both know the road isn't going to roll you or dump hundreds of tons of seawater on you. So...specious comment. Cars are not boat. Well, some cars are.
> 
> As to the boats you describe, sure. Look good to me. They have been designed and constructed for ocean crossings. Hylas in particular I've always liked. Hallberg Rassey has made a lot of very traditional boats that have held up extremely well.
> 
> Are they ideal? No. But no boat is. I'm not talking about high dollar luxury boats. I'm talking about the other 90% of boats we all find.


All else being equal (someone said that is not always the case ;-):

What would you buy?

The Pacific Seacraft 37 is a superb, high performance cruising yacht which incorporates all the qualities an experienced sailor looks for in a &quote;proper yacht&quote; - seaworthiness, premium quality, exceptional performance, comfort and beauty. S

Designed in the late 1970' ish.

or this:

Hallberg-Rassy - Yachts - Aft Cockpit Boats

Designed in the 2010's

One would sail circles around the other and still be considered a blue water cruiser by most people.

It carries its beam well aft, has a modern fractional rig, more fuel and water capacity than the PSC (only 40 gals, won't get you to Marshall Islands, eh?)

I have not heard too much bitchin' about the quality of HR's.

Now, I am looking forward to some good rational arguments as to why one would buy the 1970's boat&#8230; ;-) (that you can buy a used one cheaper is not necessarily a good argument, it is economics).

That one would buy it because one loves the style of boat etc I can totally understand. I would not mind owning a Concordia yawl based on that argument. 
That is also the reason that I own a pretty useless Caddy (8 MPG).

OTOH, the HR 372 may not be that "contemporary" by some standards ;-)


----------



## bobperry

Joregen:
Great looking car and a great looking dog. I'm not keen on most Korean cars. They look to me like the designers spent too much time on the styling. They should have quit two weeks ago. Imd sure it drives circles around the Caddy but who cares! I have owned six Mercedes , four of them SEL's. My last was an SEL. I just bought a Subaru Crosstrek. I love it. No more big cars for me.

I consider all the boats you listed as very "conservative" most definitely. Look at the D/L's and, SA/D's. They are far from Pogos. I think you could look at hte H_R's as almostthea definition of modern "conservative" recognizing that the term "conservative" is not static.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> Depends on what you mean by conservative....?
> 
> To me conservative in a blue water sense is a boat built with being very far from help in very harsh conditions in mind. Ruggedness, mostly. If properly executed, I'm betting most anything can be made strong enough, if money is no object.


Conditions are pretty harsh where HR comes from. I grew up there. I sailed there.


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> Joregen:
> Great looking car and a great looking dog. I'm not keen on most Korean cars. They look to me like the designers spent too much time on the styling. They should have quit two weeks ago. Imd sure it drives circles around the Caddy but who cares! I have owned six Mercedes , four of them SEL's. My last was an SEL. I just bought a Subaru Crosstrek. I love it. No more big cars for me.
> 
> I consider all the boats you listed as very "conservative" most definitely. Look at the D/L's and, SA/D's. They are far from Pogos. I think you could look at te H_R's as almost a definition of modern "conservative" recognizing that the term "conservative" is not static.


Bob,

Left part of the brain influenced the Korean purchase. $21K brand spanking new, 35 mpg, 100,000 miles powertrain warranty is a "no left brainer" for a 100 mile a day commuter.

Right part of the brain bought me a couple of Land Rovers, POS quality but probably a road equivalent of a blue water cruiser. Like a land based Valiant 42 minus the quality ;-)

Maximus the dog is a good lad, how the hell that brick **** house jumped into to the trunk of the Caddy without breaking a leg I have no idea.

Thread drift...

I guess conservative is a relative concept.


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> All else being equal (someone said that is not always the case ;-):
> 
> What would you buy?
> 
> The Pacific Seacraft 37 is a superb, high performance cruising yacht which incorporates all the qualities an experienced sailor looks for in a &quote;proper yacht&quote; - seaworthiness, premium quality, exceptional performance, comfort and beauty. S
> 
> Designed in the late 1970' ish.
> 
> or this:
> 
> Hallberg-Rassy - Yachts - Aft Cockpit Boats
> 
> Designed in the 2010's
> 
> One would sail circles around the other and still be considered a blue water cruiser by most people.
> 
> It carries its beam well aft, has a modern fractional rig, more fuel and water capacity than the PSC (only 40 gals, won't get you to Marshall Islands, eh?)
> 
> I have not heard too much bitchin' about the quality of HR's.
> 
> Now, I am looking forward to some good rational arguments as to why one would buy the 1970's boat&#8230; ;-) (that you can buy a used one cheaper is not necessarily a good argument, it is economics).
> 
> That one would buy it because one loves the style of boat etc I can totally understand. I would not mind owning a Concordia yawl based on that argument.
> That is also the reason that I own a pretty useless Caddy (8 MPG).
> 
> OTOH, the HR 372 may not be that "contemporary" by some standards ;-)


Well...in the case of those two boats, its irrational as I'm a sucker for double enders. . I don't even really buy into the belief that a canoe stern is better in following seas, blah blah...I just really like them.

Aside from that, marks against the 372 include not enough skeg protecting the rudder...and nothing at all protecting the prop. Plus, I don't like saildrive setups. Also, I don't like the skylights for already covered reasons. I also prefer the engine access of the PSC, as the cockpit floor can literally be lifted out for easier access to rear of engine, gearbox, stuffing box, etc etc. The overhangs of the PSC are going to be better for easier motion, etc. Also, now that I look at the thing...there isn't enough bulwark in the 372, and the stanchions are bolted to the deck, rather than through the side of the bulwark as is the case of the PSC. Also, I prefer the exterior chainplates of the PSC.

The more I nitpick, the better I like the PSC over the 372, in fact. If speed and maneuverability (and lets face it the 37 is not really a slouch) mattered much to me, I'd find more to like about the 372. I do like their cabin layout better. Never much cared for the angled berth in the 37. Plus with a transom you just get more room at the stern.

But again...this boils down to priorities. I'm quite minimalist. You'd be surprised how long I could go on 40 gallons.  With a PSC 37 first think I'd do is swap in a tiller. Which probably doesn't apply to the crowd that would prefer the 372.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> Well...in the case of those two boats, its irrational as I'm a sucker for double enders. . I don't even really buy into the belief that a canoe stern is better in following seas, blah blah...I just really like them.
> 
> Aside from that, marks against the 372 include not enough skeg protecting the rudder...and nothing at all protecting the prop. Plus, I don't like saildrive setups. Also, I don't like the skylights for already covered reasons. I also prefer the engine access of the PSC, as the cockpit floor can literally be lifted out for easier access to rear of engine, gearbox, stuffing box, etc etc. The overhangs of the PSC are going to be better for easier motion, etc. Also, now that I look at the thing...there isn't enough bulwark in the 372, and the stanchions are bolted to the deck, rather than through the side of the bulwark as is the case of the PSC. Also, I prefer the exterior chainplates of the PSC.
> 
> The more I nitpick, the better I like the PSC over the 372, in fact. If speed and maneuverability (and lets face it the 37 is not really a slouch) mattered much to me, I'd find more to like about the 372. I do like their cabin layout better. Never much cared for the angled berth in the 37. Plus with a transom you just get more room at the stern.
> 
> But again...this boils down to priorities. I'm quite minimalist. You'd be surprised how long I could go on 40 gallons.  With a PSC 37 first think I'd do is swap in a tiller. Which probably doesn't apply to the crowd that would prefer the 372.


Well, if you are sucker for double enders and like bulwarks and tillers....

Buy this puppy:

1976 Alajuela 38 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

About as conservative and they come and equipped with the fullest keel available.

Has the opposite of a fine entry and does not back up for ****e (I've been on one backing up, even the bow thruster did not help).

I also has the benefit of a small cockpit that takes about a week to drain.

But... it is a manly boat with character and charm.

Exterior chain plates are good for fecking up sheeting angles and as for skegs I think the jury came back in 20 years ago and decided that a properly designed spade rudder is as strong if not stronger (and that in fact the skeg is the weakest point)

Not sure how overhangs are going to create a better motion - maybe Bob can enlighten me?

Nothing against the PSC 37, but it does have an interior of a 28 footer. Might be good for minimalists ;-)

Edit: the Alajuela I once knew had stanchions bolted to the bulwarks, not the best design, quite weak and they tended to come "loose"


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Don:
> Some people thought it was too radical and light to be a true offshore sailing boat. But I proved them wrong then and I can prove them wrong today. The sea has not changed as Jorgen points out. People have not changed either. Tastes have changed. For my taste this argument/discussion has become so broad and generalized that it has lost any meaning. It fails, mostly due to PCP's efforts to diminish any value on individual taste and style of sailing.
> 
> I find the "Achtung! I will tell you what is good" approach ignorant of human nature. We go sailing to satisfy a wide variety of needs. One guy loves to sit at the dock. Another guy sails to Tiera del Fuego, by himself. The needs vary with the individual as does the appropriate boat . One way is not "right" and the other way or other ways is not wrong, only different.
> 
> If you want to live in a rigid, non compromising world where the individual has no say, knock yourself out. I chose to live in a world where the differences are tolerated and even celebrated. I love designing a wide variety of boats, from the Baba 30 to the FT10m. For me they are all fun. Without that variety my job would be boring.


Bob, I can adress some of this. I started this thread here (and a similar one over on CF) to counter all the production boat bashing that goes on in these forums (CA is much more fair in assessments of boats). But here and at CF that bashing is or has been very, very prevalent.

The gist of these debates has been that production boats don't belong offshore - that they're not "blue water capable". Obviously this in itself is an ignorant generalization that is of the "Achtung! I will tell you what is good" approach.

So, this thread and the other on CF are basically calling BS on what I call the Blue Water Chuckleheads who think the ONLY boats capable or worthy of being offshore in bluewater are either the 40 year old tanks that are no longer made or the Oysters and Hinckleys and Island Packets and Outbounds, etc.

THEY are the ones claiming a monopoly on the ocean. And they are wrong. So, this gives you a bit of background on why the conversation here is "defensive". Because it was borne out of years of silly attacks by Blue Water Chuckleheads who can't stand the thought of my Hunter passing them on our way to the BVIs...while me and my boys moon them.


----------



## bobperry

Jorgen:
Yes, that's one big chunk of dog for that leap but he looks very pleased with himself.

I think you nailed it. All these labels and definitions have to be relative to something. Finding consensus on that may prove difficult.
I try not to put boats into boxes. What a boat can and can't do has so much to do with the operator.
In my head I have one really big box. It has a label on it, "boats". I pul what I need from that big box to create the "perfect boat" for the individual client.

Take clients Dahlgard and Clute (pages 175 ans 209 in my book). Both about the same age. Both experienced sailors and both with almost identical mission statements. One married and one single.
YONI displaced 50,000 lbs on an LOA of 50', STARBUCK displaced 27,000 lbs on an LOA of 58'. Both clients thought their boat was "perfect". It was never my job to jam my idea of "perfect" down either client's throat.

You know, Beethoven most probably never heard the terms "classical" and "romantic". These labels were assigned years later by "critics" and scholars, most of who never composed a symphony of note in their entire lives. They needed the labels in order to understand what was going on, to simplify the creative process and put it into term they could understand. I can't imagine Beethoven woke up one morning, walked over to his paino, sat dan and said t himself, "Enough of that classical BS. It's too old fashioned. Today I'm going to go Romantic. I'm going contemporary."

I'm happy with my big box of boats in my head. If someone wants radical we can do that. If someone wants historical I can do that. I can do all the shades in between too. There is no right or wrong. There are only differences in taste and requirements.


----------



## bobperry

Smack:
" (CA is much more fair in assessments of boats)."

At the risk of making enemies here (what a shock) I'd say that is because the depth of knowledge and experience on SA/CA is greater than it is here. If you say something stupid on SA you get eaten alive. You and I have seen it many times.

I'm with you. I'm not inclined to impose limits on what certain boats can and can't do. I will put limits on individual sailors though.


----------



## Shockwave

Sailing is by nature a slow method of traveling and that's part of its charm. We find life aboard begins to become uncomfortable when speeds are in the low to mid teens so we tend to back down sooner. And since our boat design is almost 50 years old it really shouldn't be sailed this fast.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Bob, I can adress some of this. I started this thread here (and a similar on over on CF) to counter all the production boat bashing that goes on here and CF. And that bashing is very, very prevalent.
> 
> The gist of these debates has been that production boats don't belong offshore - that they're not "blue water capable".
> 
> Obviously this in itself is an ignorant generalization that is of the "Achtung! I will tell you what is good" approach.
> 
> So, this thread and the other on CF are basically calling BS on what I call the Blue Water Chuckleheads who think the ONLY boat capable or worthy of being offshore in bluewater are either the 40 year old tanks that are no longer made or the Oysters and Hinckleys and Island Packets and Outbounds, etc.
> 
> THEY are the ones claiming a monopoly on the ocean. And they are wrong. So, this gives you a bit of background on why the conversation here is "defensive". Because it was borne out of years of silly attacks by Blue Water Chuckleheads who can't stand the thought of my Hunter passing them on our way to the BVIs...while me and my boys moon them.


I haven't read the entire massive thread...but it goes without saying that any boat is capable of going wherever, doesn't it? I mean...people kayak across oceans. The polynesians did it with outrigger canoes. The vikings crossed the north atlantic in open ships built with lapstrake and pitch.

So clearly, you can pretty much do whatever you think yourself capable of...until nature intervenes and its no longer up to you. In _that_ situation, you have to ask yourself if you'd still turn your nose up at "the tank".

Its matter of acceptable degree of risk. Everyone has different thresholds.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Smack:
> " (CA is much more fair in assessments of boats)."
> 
> At the risk of making enemies here (what a shock) I'd say that is because the depth of knowledge and experience on SA/CA is greater than it is here. If you say something stupid on SA you get eaten alive. You and I have seen it many times.
> 
> I'm with you. I'm not inclined to impose limits on what certain boats can and can't do. I will put limits on individual sailors though.


That's exactly right. And that's why I started these threads. Newbs shopping for boats need to get a balanced view.


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> Jorgen:
> Yes, that's one big chunk of dog for that leap but he looks very pleased with himself.
> 
> I think you nailed it. All these labels and definitions have to be relative to something. Finding consensus on that may prove difficult.
> I try not to put boats into boxes. What a boat can and can't do has so much to do with the operator.
> In my head I have one really big box. It has a label on it, "boats". I pul what I need from that big box to create the "perfect boat" for the individual client.
> 
> Take clients Dahlgard and Clute (pages 175 ans 209 in my book). Both about the same age. Both experienced sailors and both with almost identical mission statements. One married and one single.
> YONI displaced 50,000 lbs on an LOA of 50', STARBUCK displaced 27,000 lbs on an LOA of 58'. Both clients thought their boat was "perfect". It was never my job to jam my idea of "perfect" down either client's throat.
> 
> You know, Beethoven most probably never heard the terms "classical" and "romantic". These labels were assigned years later by "critics" and scholars, most of who never composed a symphony of note in their entire lives. They needed the labels in order to understand what was going on, to simplify the creative process and put it into term they could understand. I can't imagine Beethoven woke up one morning, walked over to his paino, sat dan and said t himself, "Enough of that classical BS. It's too old fashioned. Today I'm going to go Romantic. I'm going contemporary."
> 
> I'm happy with my big box of boats in my head. If someone wants radical we can do that. If someone wants historical I can do that. I can do all the shades in between too. There is no right or wrong. There are only differences in taste and requirements.


I hear you.

I do have a copy of your book so will check out LONI and Starbuck again.

I like all kinds of music (both country and western ;-) rock, blues, jazz, opera, classic but find myself gravitating towards Jazz and Opera the older I get.

Talking about odd boats, I was once aboard a 43' Cheyo Lee Motor Sailer, I think that is your design? Very unique boat.

(The couple that were looking to buy it had just started taking sailing lessons, perfect 40,000 lbs starter boat!)


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> Well, if you are sucker for double enders and like bulwarks and tillers....
> 
> Buy this puppy:
> 
> 1976 Alajuela 38 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> About as conservative and they come and equipped with the fullest keel available.
> 
> Has the opposite of a fine entry and does not back up for ****e (I've been on one backing up, even the bow thruster did not help).
> 
> I also has the benefit of a small cockpit that takes about a week to drain.
> 
> But... it is a manly boat with character and charm.
> 
> Exterior chain plates are good for fecking up sheeting angles and as for skegs I think the jury came back in 20 years ago and decided that a properly designed spade rudder is as strong if not stronger (and that in fact the skeg is the weakest point)
> 
> Not sure how overhangs are going to create a better motion - maybe Bob can enlighten me?
> 
> Nothing against the PSC 37, but it does have an interior of a 28 footer. Might be good for minimalists ;-)
> 
> Edit: the Alajuela I once knew had stanchions bolted to the bulwarks, not the best design, quite weak and they tended to come "loose"


Well. I guess your anecdotes are quite different from mine.

*shrug*

These debates have been raging for decades. The jury never did come back. Just conflicting opinions. I tend to think excuses get made to justify compromises to ourselves. But...that's just what people do.

Its what leads them to preferences for floating condos.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Very funny, as I am polite and don't insult nobody you insult others pretending that had come from me.
> 
> If you think that I think that you miss completely my point. Any boat is better than no boat at all.
> 
> The point is that if you had the chance to trade your 50 year old boat by a contemporary design of your choice and still prefer to stay with your 50 year old boat, then as SloopJonB says, I would consider you unsophisticated, and a very strange guy.
> 
> The point is that, generally speaking, the only guys that have 50 year old boats because that is really what they want are collectors that have very special historical boats or guys that don't have the money to buy a new one.
> 
> Contemporary boats sail much better, have more interior space than older ones and the market offers more different types than anywhere on the past.
> 
> Another thing I do not understand is that generalization regarding Americans liking old designed boats. Surely some few do but the boats that sell more by far in America are Beneteaus and Jeanneaus that are European contemporary designs.
> 
> Surely if Americans that have the money to buy new boats did not want contemporary boats other brands, like for instance Hunter or Catalina would be making old designed boats and selling much more than the European contemporary designs.
> 
> But it is quite the contrary, on the last 20 years hunter and Catalina have been on an approximation course with European design. The boats have become beamier, the interiors more European typed.
> 
> So I really don't understand what you mean, unless you are referring to the American sailors on this forum, that are generally owners of older boats and most of them have very conservative opinions (let's call it that) regarding boat design.


I actually look at each new boat that comes out in SAIL every month and do a thought experiment- would I trade, even up, my old Pearson for one of the new ones that are described in the pages. So far, in the last 6 mos, the Morris 42X is the only one to meet that requirement. So, yeah, I'm unsophisticated. The rest I'd immediately hand over to a broker, sell and use the proceeds to buy a Bristol 35.5 and pocket the change. Regarding the insult, it clearly isn't what you said, but certainly how it is perceived.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> Well. I guess your anecdotes are quite different from mine.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> These debates have been raging for decades. The jury never did come back. Just conflicting opinions. I tend to think excuses get made to justify compromises to ourselves. But...that's just what people do.
> 
> Its what leads them to preferences for floating condos.


Maybe it did not come across, but I actually liked the Alajuela, a lot, for what it is.

Really cool boat, just not for me.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> That's exactly right. And that's why I started these threads. Newbs shopping for boats need to get a balanced view.


I started with a balanced view, back in the day. 5 years of Beneteau 281 ownership back to back with crewing on a couple of "tanks" up to Alaska and down to hawaii has unbalanced me.

The 281 was fine for the river. Now I want to go farther, and I don't fool myself into thinking the 281 was going to cut it.

Everyone has to make their call, and free themselves of the ideology of the thing.


----------



## bobperry

Thanks Boxer. I think you nailed it very succinctly.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> I haven't read the entire massive thread...but it goes without saying that any boat is capable of going wherever, doesn't it? I mean...people kayak across oceans. The polynesians did it with outrigger canoes. The vikings crossed the north atlantic in open ships built with lapstrake and pitch.
> 
> So clearly, you can pretty much do whatever you think yourself capable of...until nature intervenes and its no longer up to you. In _that_ situation, you have to ask yourself if you'd still turn your nose up at "the tank".
> 
> Its matter of acceptable degree of risk. Everyone has different thresholds.


Yes. And different degrees of self-delusion. Read Hal Roth's _"Handling Storms at Sea"_.

When "nature intervenes" what exactly do you expect that old PSC 37 to protect you from that a modern Cat-A production boat won't?

Your polar extreme examples of canoes and open lapstrakes are often used in these debates to try to discredit production boats as somehow being equivalent to these - with "real blue water boats" being the other end of that extreme. We've even seen BWCs go as far as using a _bathtub_ as an example: "You could cross an ocean in a bathtub - but would you really want to? No. So buy and MoodSwaCabOyster and quit being stupid!"

I personally don't want to have to be stuck with an old tank every day of my sailing life _just for the thought that I *might* be safer_ in that 1% chance I'd get caught in a survival storm. And even if I did - it wouldn't be an old, out-of-date tank that's a pig...it would would be something like a Boreal.

Anyway, we've covered all this ground. It's in these threads. So you ought to take a look. Then come back and let's talk.


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> Maybe it did not come across, but I actually liked the Alajuela, a lot, for what it is.
> 
> Really cool boat, just not for me.


I've not seen one in person, but I've spent quite a lot of time on a couple of similar boats. The one that left the biggest impression was a Lord Nelson 41, if you want to play with full keels. But there are plenty of little full keel pocket cruisers to be had if I wanted to go there.

You've gotta love a boat. Otherwise you'll hate it.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> I started with a balanced view, back in the day. 5 years of Beneteau 281 ownership back to back with crewing on a couple of "tanks" up to Alaska and down to hawaii has unbalanced me.
> 
> The 281 was fine for the river. Now I want to go farther, and I don't fool myself into thinking the 281 was going to cut it.
> 
> Everyone has to make their call, and free themselves of the ideology of the thing.


You're absolutely right there. If you are going to go offshore with a production boat, you should at least make sure it's Cat-A rated. Beneteau makes a lot of those - as do the other brands.

The 28 ain't one of them for sure.


----------



## bobperry

An Alajuela would drive me nuts. I favor performance and by that I mean VMG and primarily to weather. The Alajuela is an Atkin design from the 1950's. We can do better than that.

I was working with a spar builder this afternoon and he needed info for a Valiant 50. In the tech files I was surprised to see print out from the VPP program on the V 50/47. That was 34 years ago. I am not new to the pursuit of performance.

Jorgen: 
I listen to mostly opera and now Sirius opera in the new car, symphonic music, jazz and C&W. In that order. I have some Couperin on right now. I love that Sirius Met Opera Chanel.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Yes. And different degrees of self-delusion. Read Hal Roth's _"Handling Storms at Sea"_.
> 
> When "nature intervenes" what exactly do you expect that old PSC 37 to protect you from that a modern Cat-A production boat won't?
> 
> Your polar extreme examples of canoes and open lapstrakes are often used in these debates to try to discredit production boats as somehow being equivalent to these - with "real blue water boats" being of the other end of that extreme. We've even seen BWCs go as far as using a _bathtub_ as an example: "You could cross and ocean in a bathtub - but would you really want to? No. So buy and MoodSwaCabOyster and quit being stupid!"
> 
> I personally don't want to have to be stuck with an old tank every day of my sailing life _just for the thought that I *might* be safer_ in that 1% chance I'd get caught in a survival storm. And even if I did - it wouldn't be an old, out-of-date tank that's a pig...it would would be something like a Boreal.
> 
> Anyway, we've covered all this ground. It's in these threads. So you ought to take a look. Then come back and let's talk.


Its like you didn't read my post. 

I'm not comparing anything to a bathtub or whatever. Why are you so dead set against the idea that things that have been designed to do a thing might be better at doing that thing than something that _wasn't_ designed to do that thing?

Yeah, a minivan can be driven around a racecourse. But why is the notion that a sports car could do it better so offensive?


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> You've gotta love a boat. Otherwise you'll hate it.


Spot on! (Bevan...)


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> You're absolutely right there. If you are going to go offshore with a production boat, you should at least make sure it's Cat-A rated. Beneteau makes a lot of those - as do the other brands.
> 
> The 28 ain't one of them for sure.


I'm not talking about Cat-A stuff at all. I'm talking about people trying to take the boats that represent the vast bulk of the market, things like the 281, to Samoa. Obviously its been done, but its not a great idea, at least IMO. I think your projecting someone else's baggage onto me.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> I'm not comparing anything to a bathtub or whatever. Why are you so dead set against the idea that things that have been designed to do a thing might be better at doing that thing than something that _wasn't_ designed to do that thing?


I'm not. Not at all.

As I said above, it's the BWCs that maintain that even though a Cat-A production boat has been _designed to be a bluewater boat_ - it's not...for all kinds of excuses they can come up with including comparing them to bathtubs.

I'm saying they're wrong. So do all the Cat-A production boats out there that are plying the oceans.

(edited), then it's simply a matter of the particulars _you_ want in _your_ boat. And as Bob said, that's very subjective - which is great. That's why boats of all kinds are cool in their own ways.


----------



## seaner97

FWIW, my dog in this fight is just questionable engineering. I could probably have sailed my old C22 pop top across the Atlantic if I loaded it right. Doesn't make it a "bluewater boat" or a "voyager". But if it's built to minimum standards it can go further than 99% of people will take it. 
But when I'm out there (even coastal) I want stuff that works, and stuff that doesn't require a ton of maintenance. And when I row or motor away I want something that feeds my soul. A floating pizza that looks like the interior of a star destroyer doesn't really do it for me. And without instruments, 6knots feels exactly like 14, so the added performance of the new stuff doesn't make much difference to me, except for pointing higher- I do like that. So, while I still think, for all his bluster, Smack still has a tendency to think his opinion is evidence and ignores any real evidence that doesn't agree with his preconceived notions, and Paulo clearly thinks I'm unsophisticated because I see other reasons for sailing than he does, I think anyone who is sailing, at any level is cool/great, and I actually like all these boats more or less. I certainly have my opinions about the ones I would own as well as how much I'd pay for them, and for the chunk of change a new one would cost, I'd expect WAY more in the value categories to make me take out a boat loan.


----------



## SloopJonB

Now that it's just a $hitfight, this whole thread should be transferred to SA.

PCP thinks newer is better in every way, others think older is better in every way and I think some of both.

It's gotten really boring and I'm dropping it.


----------



## Don L

amwbox said:


> I started with a balanced view, back in the day. 5 years of Beneteau 281 ownership back to back with crewing on a couple of "tanks" up to Alaska and down to hawaii has unbalanced me.
> 
> The 281 was fine for the river. Now I want to go farther, and I don't fool myself into thinking the 281 was going to cut it.
> 
> Everyone has to make their call, and free themselves of the ideology of the thing.


A common thing in these threads is that "production" boat owners never say all production boats can/should go off shore. I doubt any would say a Bene 281 should go off shore except maybe to the islands on a good weather window. But the bashers will say that no production boats can go off shore except for luck.

My position is and has always been that not not all production boats can/should go off shore, but very very very many of them can without issue (not talking extreme sailing, only a 1 off really is for that).


----------



## amwbox

bobperry said:


> Thanks Boxer. I think you nailed it very succinctly.


As someone who's actually designed quite a few of the boats being maligned as "pigs" and "tanks" in this thread, and as a working designer who presumably knows better what he's talking about than most around here, what is your take on comparing modern fin keel spade rudder ocean-rated boats with the older designs?

I think it goes without any real debate that the more modern stuff is faster, roomier, etc. But in terms of taking a pounding and the specific sorts of sailing long distance cruisers will be doing the most of, do you consider something like a Crealock 37, a Tayana 37, or a Valiant 40 to be truly "out of date" and presumably thus inferior in technical terms?

And what of the pocket cruisers? The Nor'sea 27, the Dana 24, etc...and as far as I know, if you want a pocket cruiser there really aren't many modern equivalents available.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> A common thing in these threads is that "production" boat owners never say all production boats can/should go off shore. I doubt any would say a Bene 281 should go off shore except maybe to the islands on a good weather window. But the bashers will say that no production boats can go off shore except for luck.
> 
> My position is and has always been that not not all production boats can/should go off shore, but very very very many of them can without issue (not talking extreme sailing, only a 1 off really is for that).


That sounds like a lot of forum history I'm not part of.

I've never had any doubt that the modern boats built to do it can. They obviously can and do. When I think "production boats", I think of the truly mass produced ones present around the world in their thousands. The cheaper models of the big 3. So maybe I'm looking at it wrong if the higher dollar Benehunterlina's are to be considered as part of that equation.


----------



## seaner97

amwbox said:


> Don0190 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A common thing in these threads is that "production" boat owners never say all production boats can/should go off shore. I doubt any would say a Bene 281 should go off shore except maybe to the islands on a good weather window. But the bashers will say that no production boats can go off shore except for luck.
> 
> My position is and has always been that not not all production boats can/should go off shore, but very very very many of them can without issue (not talking extreme sailing, only a 1 off really is for that).
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a lot of forum history I'm not part of.
> 
> I've never had any doubt that the modern boats built to do it can. They obviously can and do. When I think "production boats", I think of the truly mass produced ones present around the world in their thousands. The cheaper models of the big 3. So maybe I'm looking at it wrong if the higher dollar Benehunterlina's are to be considered as part of that equation.
Click to expand...

It's also not entirely accurate. More along the lines of "they aren't the equivalent of a true purpose built blue water boat and shouldn't be held up as such, at which point the coveted CatA rating gets thrown out there and then we devolve into talking about lowest common denominator and how these political things came about, and then we argue about details on or in the boats, and then someone (not ALWAYS smack) uses one item loosely related to what we were talking about to make their (subjective) point. I think that's a decent synopsis.


----------



## guitarguy56

seaner97 said:


> It's also not entirely accurate. More along the lines of "they aren't the equivalent of a true purpose built blue water boat and shouldn't be held up as such, at which point the coveted CatA rating gets thrown out there and then we devolve into talking about lowest common denominator and how these political things came about, and then we argue about details on or in the boats, and then someone (not ALWAYS smack) uses one item loosely related to what we were talking about to make their (subjective) point. I think that's a decent synopsis.


Talk about "pot calling the kettle black".... LMAO... :wink


----------



## bobperry

Oh really? You mean those "pigs" PCP talks about are my designs? Booo Hooooooooo! (Edit - abuse) . He simply has zero experience to back any of his opinions. But he is really good at searching the internet and cutting and pasting.

Ironically, in terms of what boats PCP and I like we are far closer than you would expect. But I fear that is too complex a dynamic for PCP to grasp. None the less I love high tech fast boats. But,,, and here's my big but,,,,I have no desire to go voyaging. I'm almost 70 and I have done all the travelling I care to do. Excitement for me now, is a beef tenderloin roast in the oven, a hockey game on TV (muted), Bill Evans on the hi-fi, my dog by my side and a fire in the fireplace. If I were to look for a voyager type, by my definition, it would be a boat with a D/L in the low 200's, SA/D just under 20.00, with good tankage, good stability, comfortable accommodations for offshore and a stout build.

A Tayana 37 would not work for my performance expectations. I always thought the Crealock PSC's were outdated before they were launched. Crealock never caught up with the Valiants in terms of hull design. (So why don't you kill me. Thanks Beck) A Valiant would be fine (Don't knock it till you have tried it) but now my knees are shot so I'd need an open transom with a swim step and easy cockpit access. I want a big, Perry galley, not a Euro mini galley. I would not want a light boat. I know for a fact that I do not have the energy or inclination to try and plane off into the sunset every day as I cross oceans. Cruising for me is not an athletic endeavor. I'd settle for a good displacement hull speed and maybe a skosh more on the good days. I want a soft and gentle ride that won't fatigue me on a passage. I want internal volume so I can carry lots of stuff without having to lash it on deck. I'll take my big, Gibson JS200 guitar. I'm not playing no stinkin' midget guitar.

I know for a fact that the Nor'sea 27 is a very capable boat. The Dana is a pig. Sorry. I just sold my 26'er and it would have made a fabulous pocket cruiser. Not sure it had the volume for long offshore passages but that's a subjective thing. Would not have worked for me. I'm 6'3" and I'd like to be able to stand up somewhere in the boat.

Keep an open mind. Evaluate each boat as an individual. Don't write of a certain boat because it has a spade rudder. Don't write off a boat because it has a full keel. Look at them all. Sail as many as you can. In time you will find one that speak directly to you, " I am your boat. Take me home." It's very personal.

Remember, all these numbers you read are to help people who don't have a good seat of the pants feel for a boat. The numbers tell fragments of the story, that's all. By all means, check the numbers but the total character of the boat can be far more than the sum total of the numbers.

Dinner time!


----------



## seaner97

guitarguy56 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not entirely accurate. More along the lines of "they aren't the equivalent of a true purpose built blue water boat and shouldn't be held up as such, at which point the coveted CatA rating gets thrown out there and then we devolve into talking about lowest common denominator and how these political things came about, and then we argue about details on or in the boats, and then someone (not ALWAYS smack) uses one item loosely related to what we were talking about to make their (subjective) point. I think that's a decent synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about "pot calling the kettle black".... LMAO...
Click to expand...

Hey man, I was being charitable. And I don't see anything I wrote that was untrue. But feel free to call me on it. I've got several examples where I've admitted I was wrong.


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Yes. And different degrees of self-delusion. Read Hal Roth's _"Handling Storms at Sea"_.
> 
> When "nature intervenes" what exactly do you expect that old PSC 37 to protect you from that a modern Cat-A production boat won't?
> 
> Your polar extreme examples of canoes and open lapstrakes are often used in these debates to try to discredit production boats as somehow being equivalent to these - with "real blue water boats" being the other end of that extreme. We've even seen BWCs go as far as using a _bathtub_ as an example: "You could cross an ocean in a bathtub - but would you really want to? No. So buy and MoodSwaCabOyster and quit being stupid!"
> 
> I personally don't want to have to be stuck with an old tank every day of my sailing life _just for the thought that I *might* be safer_ in that 1% chance I'd get caught in a survival storm. And even if I did - it wouldn't be an old, out-of-date tank that's a pig...it would would be something like a Boreal.
> 
> Anyway, we've covered all this ground. It's in these threads. So you ought to take a look. Then come back and let's talk.


What you discribed as old tanks are just strong fast boats that are built well. Now if you don't like the design then I understand that because all of us have different tastes and that's what makes the world go around.
I know you feel you have a rocket ship and that's fine too because all of us should love our boats but the boats you listed for the most part are faster than yours or at least as fast. You can go all the way back to the 70's and find and old tired Tartan 41 that is just as fast.
Anyways the point I was trying to make was that while you don't like many of these boats they are not old slow tanks just sailboats that sail well but don't make the grade visually for you. Your efforts to try and elevate some of the entry level boats by putting down some of the boats you don't like are no different than what you claim others are doing to boats you like.
Congrats on this thread it must be breaking some sort of a record!


----------



## outbound

Paulo
I guess we live in different worlds. As regards "contemporary" boats. My boat was built 2 years ago. In common English usage it is contemporary. It was built to a 14 year old design. since it was built 11 sisterships were built or are in active construction. These boats are even more contemporary. Those owners are spending roughly $650k after customizing to get a finished boat. They are moving OFF of the current croup of J boats, Bene, Hanse, X boats and the like. Some are moving off die hard racers. Admittingly, some are moving from traditional heavy displacement boats as well. I also know folks building new HRs, Morris and Hylases. These boats do not fit the design parameters you ascribe to. The owners all have significant prior blue water and/or "voyaging" experience before making this decision. Universally, they have chosen well behaved boats of solid construction and moderate displacement. They are all aware of the boats you post about but have made an educated decision that even though those boast are well within their financial reach they have no appeal.
So you tell me Paulo-why is that? 

BTW- My short list was the Boreal 44 or the Outbound. We communicated with both builders for some time before pulling the string. Interestingly my wife's friend Steve chose the Boreal. It is a truly great boat that I'm sure I would be very happy on. But the wife's decision was the Outbound and for how we sail and live she was right.


----------



## Minnesail

seaner97 said:


> Talking boat design with Smack is like talking vaccines with Jenny McCarthy.


Dude, that is harsh!


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> As someone who's actually designed quite a few of the boats being maligned as "pigs" and "tanks" in this thread, and as a working designer who presumably knows better what he's talking about than most around here, what is your take on comparing modern fin keel spade rudder ocean-rated boats with the older designs?


Easy bro - I've not called any specific boats "pigs" or "tanks". I'm talking boat TYPES that I personally feel are such. And when I say that I mean boats that are slow.

Did you watch that video of the young kid easily pulling down 150 mile days in one of Bob's 40s? That's not slow. That's not a pig. At least not in my book.

A BS Yacht, on the other hand, definitely a tank...and definitely a pig in my book. But even then, that's just my personal taste. Those boats still get the job and people like them. So my "maligning" them doesn't matter to those people...though it really should.


----------



## Shockwave

Hey! That's our boat sans the open cockpit/transom. I like the way you think.



bobperry said:


> If I were to look for a voyager type, by my definition, it would be a boat with a D/L in the low 200's, SA/D just under 20.00, with good tankage, good stability, comfortable accommodations for offshore and a stout build.
> 
> A Tayana 37 would not work for my performance expectations. I always thought the Crealock PSC's were outdated before they were launched. Crealock never caught up with the Valiants in terms of hull design. (So why don't you kill me. Thanks Beck) A Valiant would be fine (Don't knock it till you have tried it) but now my knees are shot so I'd need an open transom with a swim step and easy cockpit access. I want a big, Perry galley, not a Euro mini galley. I would not want a light boat. I know for a fact that I do not have the energy or inclination to try and plane off into the sunset every day as I cross oceans. Cruising for me is not an athletic endeavor. I'd settle for a good displacement hull speed and maybe a skosh more on the good days. I want a soft and gentle ride that won't fatigue me on a passage. I want internal volume so I can carry lots of stuff without having to lash it on deck. I'll take my big, Gibson JS200 guitar. I'm not playing no stinkin' midget guitar.
> 
> I know for a fact that the Nor'sea 27 is a very capable boat. The Dana is a pig. Sorry. I just sold my 26'er and it would have made a fabulous pocket cruiser. Not sure it had the volume for long offshore passages but that's a subjective thing. Would not have worked for me. I'm 6'3" and I'd like to be able to stand up somewhere in the boat.
> 
> Keep an open mind. Evaluate each boat as an individual. Don't write of a certain boat because it has a spade rudder. Don't write off a boat because it has a full keel. Look at them all. Sail as many as you can. In time you will find one that speak directly to you, " I am your boat. Take me home." It's very personal.
> 
> Remember, all these numbers you read are to help people who don't have a good seat of the pants feel for a boat. The numbers tell fragments of the story, that's all. By all means, check the numbers but the total character of the boat can be far more than the sum total of the numbers.
> 
> Dinner time!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> THEY are the ones claiming a monopoly on the ocean. And they are wrong. So, this gives you a bit of background on why the conversation here is "defensive". *Because it was borne out of years of silly attacks by Blue Water Chuckleheads who can't stand the thought of my Hunter passing them on our way to the BVIs...while me and my boys moon them.*


Bit of friendly advice here, take it or leave it...

I can appreciate there's a certain amount jest in that comment, but you've really teed it up for some Bluewater Chucklehead to make a snarky comment about _your rate of progress - *or lack thereof* - so far..._ Reminds me a bit of the sort of thing Rebel Heart was known to post, actually...

;-)

Sailors are well known for their superstitions, I'm likely somewhat of a rarity in that I harbor none of the most commonly held among us... I don't give something like beginning a trip on a Friday a second thought, for instance... But the one thing my experience has taught me to be VERY leery of, is any sort of talk about future plans, and so on... Particularly, on the internet...

;-)

All of the most accomplished sailors I've known, while some may possess rather 'healthy' egos and be somewhat boastful about their past exploits, it seems much rarer for the Genuine Articles to brag about what the future holds... Most folks who've really been Out There appreciate that there are so many variables, so much beyond our ability to control, just seems like bad Karma to do anything but keep your cards closer to your chest, regarding future _'accomplishments'..._...

_"Just Do It"_, instead...

;-)

The Sea has a knack for humbling even the very best... I strongly recommend anyone with dreams of sailing offshore read The Best Story Published in CRUISING WORLD, _Ever_... Herb McCormick's superb account of "How Not to Sail Across the Atlantic"...

http://www.cruisingworld.com/how-not-to-cross-atlantic


----------



## PCP

Don0190 said:


> I don't know about SA because I never go to it, but at CF boat age breakdown is almost the same as here. I know because I did the same poll there as here.
> 
> Different forums have different snob bashing. It mostly takes the form of the 20 most active bashers on each site because other than for those the rest apparently mainly just same out of the "discussion".


Yes you are right in what regards the poll results but on Sailnet voted 1148 members on Cruising forum 210 members. It does not seem to me that the difference in number of voters is proportional to the difference of the active members of both forums.

You also see a lot of active members with new boats and that's pretty rare here, anyway regarding this one being more conservative I have no doubts, you have only to look in what regards the way modern boats are looked and criticized, maybe it has to do with the influence of several very experienced sailors that have a positive look regarding contemporary designed boats while here I don't see any.


----------



## smackdaddy

I think Bob's last post puts it all in perspective. And he is the Maestro.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Bit of friendly advice here, take it or leave it...
> 
> I can appreciate there's a certain amount jest in that comment, but you've really teed it up for some Bluewater Chucklehead to make a snarky comment about _your rate of progress - *or lack thereof* - so far..._ Reminds me a bit of the sort of thing Rebel Heart was known to post, actually...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Sailors are well known for their superstitions, I'm likely somewhat of a rarity in that I harbor none of the most commonly held among us... I don't give something like beginning a trip on a Friday a second thought, for instance... But the one thing my experience has taught me to be VERY leery of, is any sort of talk about future plans, and so on... Particularly, on the internet...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> All of the most accomplished sailors I've known, while some may possess rather 'healthy' egos and be somewhat boastful about their past exploits, it seems much rarer for the Genuine Articles to brag about what the future holds... Most folks who've really been Out There appreciate that there are so many variables, so much beyond our ability to control, just seems like bad Karma to do anything but keep your cards closer to your chest, regarding future _'accomplishments'..._...
> 
> _"Just Do It"_, instead...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> The Sea has a knack for humbling even the very best... I strongly recommend anyone with dreams of sailing offshore read The Best Story Published in CRUISING WORLD, _Ever_... Herb McCormick's superb account of "How Not to Sail Across the Atlantic"...
> 
> How Not to Cross the Atlantic | Cruising World


You know me. It's mostly in jest. At the same we've been on our way to the BVIs since we took our first sailing lessons in Lake Travis with "Captain Sam" 7 years ago. So I have no problem sharing that goal - or mooning slow boats.

Second, at some point, you get life-slapped enough that you get a little punch drunk and far less superstitious. And you just keep slogging. I think that's probably where I am right now.

Lastly, I'm a bit Churchillian.


----------



## Don L

seaner97 said:


> It's also not entirely accurate. More along the lines of "they aren't the equivalent of a true purpose built blue water boat and shouldn't be held up as such, ........... I think that's a decent synopsis.


Who here can afford a purpose build boat??? One of these is NOT a standard of comparison in any of these threads as it is on the very far end of choices. Of course you can not compare a purpose built boat to a production boat, ............. or any other boat. If that's your position you win, but who cares and what does it matter?

Are you going for being a pot or a kettle?


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not entirely accurate. More along the lines of "they aren't the equivalent of a true purpose built blue water boat and shouldn't be held up as such, ........... I think that's a decent synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> Who here can afford a purpose build boat??? One of these is NOT a standard of comparison in any of these threads as it is on the very far end of choices. Of course you can not compare a purpose built boat to a production boat, ............. or any other boat. If that's your position you win, but who cares and what does it matter?
> 
> Are you going for being a pot or a kettle?
Click to expand...

I'm actually not real sure what he meant... So I'll just go for being black.


----------



## seaner97

Minnesail said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking boat design with Smack is like talking vaccines with Jenny McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that is harsh!
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably rougher than he deserves. But the whole "evidence" schtik wears pretty thin when you cherry pick and then blatantly ignore actual experience to the contrary. You know- actual evidence. Like a cleat getting frozen by ocean rime (which, as I recall, was exactly the design element I said was likely to be a problem). It really reminds me of trying to have a discussion with an antivax parent. "But MY evidence says..."
And I was probably a bit more ornery than usual when I wrote that.


----------



## outbound

Bob does it for a living and whole heartily agree with his attitude. Personally think its wonderful people are crossing oceans on Pogos and RMs. Think it's wonderful that hull and appendages are continuously being refined in the pursue of speed. Love to see all these boats and would love to sail them all as well. But it has yet to change what I want from a boat. 
As Bob said different folks-different boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Bob does it for a living and whole heartily agree with his attitude. Personally think its wonderful people are crossing oceans on Pogos and RMs. Think it's wonderful that hull and appendages are continuously being refined in the pursue of speed. Love to see all these boats and would love to sail them all as well. But it has yet to change what I want from a boat.
> As Bob said different folks-different boats.


Bingo.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> ....
> 
> I consider all the boats you listed as very "conservative" most definitely. Look at the D/L's and, SA/D's. They are far from Pogos. I think you could look at hte H_R's as almostthea definition of modern "conservative" recognizing that the term "conservative" is not static.


In fact Joregen compared two boats of different eras (Pacific Seacraft 37 and Halberg Rassy 372) pointed to a similar market target at the time they were designed. In their own time they were two relatively conservative but contemporary designs regarding the state of the art (at that time).

The point is not being them, at their own time, relatively conservative boats but the improvements that 30 years of design evolution brought to the contemporary boat and those improvements are huge.

They are two comparable boats in what regards their design program resulting in two different boats not because the program is different but because the state of the art in what regards design is very different now and 30 years ago and that makes the HR372 a much better sailboat.

You should have looked at the SA/D and to the D/LWL with more care and you would have noticed how different they are: the HR372 has a SA/D of 19.45, the PS 37 has a Sa/D of 15.57. Regarding the D/LWL the difference is even bigger with the HR372 having 141.94 and the PS 190.75.

That (the difference between D/LWL) is due mostly on account of the huge difference on the LWL of the two boats due to the modern transom and bow of the 372. The 372 has a LWL of 33.8ft and the PS only 27.75ft. The two boats have not a very different LOA, 37.3ft the HR, 36.9ft the PS. These numbers give an idea and are consistent with the big difference in sailing performance between the two boats.

Of course the HR372 does not only sail better as has also much bigger interior volume and that allows for a better cruising interior with more living space and more space for storage.



















Your reference to the Pogo makes not any sense. It is not a boat designed with a similar program of those two neither pointed at the same market segment.


----------



## bobperry

edited


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> Bingo.


Agreed.


----------



## bobperry

HJey! That's my Blue Valiant 42. Carol Hasse the sailmaker and old friend, called me after that, the trip from hell, However, she was extremely complimentary about the performance of the boat. She loved it. Of course, she only has 40 years of sailmaking experience so how can that compare to PCP and his 40 years of endless talking.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Now that it's just a $hitfight, this whole thread should be transferred to SA.
> 
> PCP thinks newer is better in every way, others think older is better in every way and I think some of both.
> 
> It's gotten really boring and I'm dropping it.


I guess that if you put words in my mouth you have at least to express my opinion about that:

1 - when I say newer is better it is assumed that the new one represents the state of the art, that means that it is well designed and incorporates the latest proven (on racing) design developments as well as interior design improvements.

2- When I say that newer is better I am talking about two designs with similar programs and of similar built quality. That example between the HR 372 and the PS 37 is a good example.

3- When I say that newer is better I am not talking about 1 or 2 years but let's say about 10 years. On that period, at the pace yacht design has evolved on the last years the improvements will already be enough to make a new model of a previous similar boat a better one, being it a cruising or a race boat. In fact that period in race boats is smaller, in 3 or 4 years a race boat is out performed by a new generation of racers.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> You are boring me PCP. You talk nonsense. Read slowly.
> 
> Don't lecture me PCP. You sound like a fool.


When you don't have arguments you resource to insulting people.

That is not only boring but desagreable.

You have done so when I showed to you that the RM 1060 was considered in France, by sailors, media and sailing schools as a voyage boat.

You have done it now again when I showed to you that, contrary to what you were suggesting, the Sa/D and D/WL of the HR 372 and the PS37 were not similar but substantially different and that the Pogo has nothing to do with the sailing program of any of the two previous boats.

If you don't agree I am hearing what you have to say about that, I mean besides insults. Someone should teach you good manners.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
Truth kind of stings doesn't it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are not putting a cogent argument together to make any point. I have been comparing D/Ls and SA/D s since 1970. Do you really think for a oment you, with your vast experience in yacht design (that's a joke PCP) can teach me anything? You are truly delusional.

I save my good manners for people I respect. Get used to it.

Show me exactly where I said this, exactly:
"contrary to what you were suggesting, the Sa/D and D/WL of the HR 372 and the PS37 were not similar"
Whatever that means.


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> HJey! That's my Blue Valiant 42. Carol Hasse the sailmaker and old friend, called me after that, the trip from hell, However, she was extremely complimentary about the performance of the boat. She loved it. Of course, she only has 40 years of sailmaking experience so how can that compare to PCP and his 40 years of endless talking.


Was certainly a good read.. thanks for posting it, JE. 

Funny, in stories like these it's usually, predictably, the crew that gives up before the boat does, but in this case it was neither.. just the wrong place at the wrong time.

EDIT: Bob, if English isn't working out, maybe you and PCP can try Mandarin. It might not make any more sense to the rest of us, but it'd be a lot more fun.


----------



## Donna_F

At first I thought the only really valuable outcome of this thread was that most of you learned how to bold and enlarge font (different colors to come in Phase 2?). Then I see this:

PCP and Bob agreeing. And PCP liking a Smackdaddy post.

In the far reaches of my brain I believe that maybe the three of you won't buy each other a round but should there be a bar fight, you'd have each other's backs, at least until it was over.


----------



## Shockwave

I think most of us would agree that newer doesn't always represent better.

Just curious why you feel teeth rattling upwind work on a light pizza wedge is better then a soft ride in an older more traditional boat with moderate numbers? I'm not even sure the pizza wedge is quicker in those conditions.



PCP said:


> I guess that if you put words in my mouth you have at least to express my opinion about that:
> 
> 1 - when I say newer is better it is assumed that the new one represents the state of the art, that means that it is well designed and incorporates the latest proven (on racing) design developments as well as interior design improvements.
> 
> 2- When I say that newer is better I am talking about two designs with similar programs and of similar built quality. That example between the HR 372 and the PS 37 is a good example.
> 
> 3- When I say that newer is better I am not talking about 1 or 2 years but let's say about 10 years. On that period, at the pace yacht design has evolved on the last years the improvements will already be enough to make a new model of a previous similar boat a better one, being it a cruising or a race boat. In fact that period in race boats is smaller, in 3 or 4 years a race boat is out performed by a new generation of racers.


----------



## smackdaddy

DRFerron said:


> At first I thought the only really valuable outcome of this thread was that most of you learned how to bold and enlarge font (different colors to come in Phase 2?). Then I see this:
> 
> PCP and Bob agreeing. And PCP liking a Smackdaddy post.
> 
> In the far reaches of my brain I believe that maybe the three of you won't buy each other a round but should there be a bar fight, you'd have each other's backs, at least until it was over.


I like Paulo very much. I also like Bob very much. And we ALL like a good fight.

I would definitely have their backs - and I'd buy them beers too.

That said, Bob is a big guy - so I'd hide behind him and tell everyone to punch TDW. It's just the way I roll.

Polite agreement is overrated. We're talking sailing and sailboats here.


----------



## tdw

Please understand that this is On Topic,. It is not the sewer. Abuse and personal villivifcation will simply not be tolerated.


----------



## smackdaddy

tdw said:


> Please understand that this is On Topic,. It is not the sewer. Abuse and personal villivifcation will simply not be tolerated.


Sorry. I was joking about the whole "punch TDW" thing.


----------



## tdw

smackdaddy said:


> I like Paulo very much. I also like Bob very much. And we ALL like a good fight.
> 
> I would definitely have their backs - and I'd buy them beers too.
> 
> That said, Bob is a big guy - so I'd hide behind him and tell everyone to punch TDW. It's just the way I roll.
> 
> Polite agreement is overrated. We're talking sailing and sailboats here.


Yes we are Smack and a reasonable amount of lively debate, even if the odd nose is put out of joint, is part and parcel of that. Nonetheless there are lines which should not be crossed. They were and repeatedly have been.


----------



## tdw

smackdaddy said:


> Sorry. I was joking about the whole "punch TDW" thing.


Smack .... no need to be. My post had nothing to do with your incitement to violence which I most certainly took as a joke.

Its the point though, people can take the piss out of me if they like, you know as well as I do that I take it in good grace. Taking the piss, blustering on about who designs or builds the best boats, which boats are more or less suitable for the purpose etc etc is grist for the mill but Godwin's Law is after all Godwin's Law.


----------



## smackdaddy

I didn't think you believed in Godwin.


----------



## bobperry

Hey Jorgen I have an idea:
You are really going to like this. Trust me.

I love that Caddy but I understand it weighs a lot, has funky susupension and a really out of date engine. Probably even has bias ply tires!

What do you say we take it into Jim Bett's shop and replicate the body in carbon fiber and foam. We can take a mold of the existing steel body. We can get that entire Caddy body down to 200 lbs.

Then we take it to my buddy Crazy Eddy who works on dune buggies and get an independent four wheel to die for suspension put in.
Then my old pal Bugger can swap that antiquated engine for a new, light weight, fuel injected 12 cyl job, maybe a Ferrari engine. I really don't know fancy engines but you get my drift.
We'll replace all the chrome with titanium parts. Polished of course.
Then we'll put on state of the art, wide radial tires on alloy wheels. Discreet pattern of course. I'm sure they must make some white walls to fit.
We'll have to go with the latest sound system and digital array so we can monitor the tunes on Sirius XM. We can program it for all David Allan Coe all the time!
Add a couple of fuzzy dice on the rear view mirror and violer!

I'm petty sure we could do all of that under $200,000. When do we start?
It will be a babe magnet for sure.

Then you would own the automotive equivalent to my four carbon cutters. I know the concept is beyond a few here but stay with me on this. OK, lose the dice. I was just kidding about the dice.

My mother used to think she could tell me what I could and couldn't say. I ignored her.


----------



## tdw

smackdaddy said:


> I didn't think you believed in Godwin.


No, more I hope he doesn't. Gonna be bloody embarassing for me if he does.


----------



## SloopJonB

Curious thing - I've been on SA nearly as long as here and yet this "civilized" place is the one where I have seen Godwins law in action - 2 or 3 times but never on SA.

Must be indicative of something but I have no idea what.


----------



## bobperry

Glad I could be of help with that Jon. I don't want to break any "laws". 
But you know, I'm thinking, you see what you want to see. German is a beautiful language. It is the language of Wagner, Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert. Liszt and Mozart. But not here. Here it is apparently "offensive". But for many German is he language of precision. You can say exactly what you mean. PARSIFAL is my very favorite opera.


----------



## Classic30

tdw said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you believed in Godwin.
> 
> 
> 
> No, more I hope he doesn't. Gonna be bloody embarassing for me if he does.
Click to expand...

TD, was that God? ..or Godwin that you didn't believe in?!? I get confused sometimes.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Sailors are well known for their superstitions, I'm likely somewhat of a rarity in that I harbor none of the most commonly held among us... I don't give something like beginning a trip on a Friday a second thought, for instance... But the one thing my experience has taught me to be VERY leery of, is any sort of talk about future plans, and so on... Particularly, on the internet...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> _"Just Do It"_, instead...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> The Sea has a knack for humbling even the very best... I strongly recommend anyone with dreams of sailing offshore read The Best Story Published in CRUISING WORLD, _Ever_... Herb McCormick's superb account of "How Not to Sail Across the Atlantic"...


It's a great and very sobering read.

I share your superstition.


----------



## seaner97

Did someone say Nazi and I missed it? Even I would but Smack and Paulo a round. I might make Smack say "I was wrong" first, just to see if it was possible...


----------



## outbound

Bob I'd want my muscle car built in unobtainium.

Worth while to note it took decades to reproduce the straight ahead performance of that generation of cars.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
If you've got the money honey,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> Hey Jorgen I have an idea:
> You are really going to like this. Trust me.
> 
> I love that Caddy but I understand it weighs a lot, has funky susupension and a really out of date engine. Probably even has bias ply tires!
> 
> What do you say we take it into Jim Bett's shop and replicate the body in carbon fiber and foam. We can take a mold of the existing steel body. We can get that entire Caddy body down to 200 lbs.
> 
> Then we take it to my buddy Crazy Eddy who works on dune buggies and get an independent four wheel to die for suspension put in.
> Then my old pal Bugger can swap that antiquated engine for a new, light weight, fuel injected 12 cyl job, maybe a Ferrari engine. I really don't know fancy engines but you get my drift.
> We'll replace all the chrome with titanium parts. Polished of course.
> Then we'll put on state of the art, wide radial tires on alloy wheels. Discreet pattern of course. I'm sure they must make some white walls to fit.
> We'll have to go with the latest sound system and digital array so we can monitor the tunes on Sirius XM. We can program it for all David Allan Coe all the time!
> Add a couple of fuzzy dice on the rear view mirror and violer!
> 
> I'm petty sure we could do all of that under $200,000. When do we start?
> It will be a babe magnet for sure.
> 
> Then you would own the automotive equivalent to my four carbon cutters. I know the concept is beyond a few here but stay with me on this. OK, lose the dice. I was just kidding about the dice.
> 
> My mother used to think she could tell me what I could and couldn't say. I ignored her.


Bob,

That is an interesting idea. Some people do just that (maybe minus the CF body&#8230

Sorry Bob, the project is a "No Go".

How about we take the $200K and;

1.	Spend $30,020.00 on a new paint job (current one is 8 years old) and a few more bits and pieces for the Caddy so that she can win shows again. $20 is for the fuzzy dice.

That way she does not have to pretend to be what she is not. She was/is state of the art design and build 1968. Today, not so much.

2.	Out of the remaining $170K, I'd spend $100K on a Tesla Model S (to replace the Korean as daily commuter) and $70K on and F350 King Ranch Dually (or maybe I'd build a larger wine cellar and stock it for $70K&#8230

If we use the same line of thinking on boats (with all due respect to your CF cutters which I think will be cool boats) I can buy a used Hinc B40 for $200K and then call Forbes and see if he can get me a decent price on a brand new one of these:

2016 X-Yachts Xp 44 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

That way I could have the best of two worlds and maybe some change for a couple of bottles of wine.

If I was going to spend 1MUSD on one of your designs, I would for sure get Francis Lee hull #2 (not sure if a mill would do it&#8230. Truly unique and very cool design.

Realistically, a King Ranch Dually to pull horse trailer, a Flying Scot and a bottle of 1998 Penfolds Grange is more likely to happen.

Horses for courses&#8230;.


----------



## amwbox

But...wouldn't a classic Caddy in carbon fiber and on a modern chassis take away from the charm of a classic Caddy? I mean...lets be honest. You don't buy a car with its own gravitational pull and a mountain motor because you wanna take it to the autocross....

It would be hilarious, but...counterproductive.


----------



## bobperry

Jorgen:
I have learned one thing by watching ANTIQUES ROAD SHOW. Do Not mess with an original antique.

One million could do another FRANCIS. Would depend on the yard. I think Betts could do it in CF fr that. The school's involvement with the build drug things out a bit due to school schedules and time always costs money.

I can't think of an X Boat that I didn't like. They are probably my favorite Euro boats. That 44 looks great.

Forget the Flying Scott and go for a Tasar, one of the finest small boats ever designed.

I'm down on the Penfold's Grange but I'm on the wagon now so save it please. It's beyond my everyday wine budget.


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> Jorgen:
> I have learned one thing by watching ANTIQUES ROAD SHOW. Do Not mess with an original antique.
> 
> One million could do another FRANCIS. Would depend on the yard. I think Betts could do it in CF fr that. The school's involvement with the build drug things out a bit due to school schedules and time always costs money.
> 
> I can't think of an X Boat that I didn't like. They are probably my favorite Euro boats. That 44 looks great.
> 
> Forget the Flying Scott and go for a Tasar, one of the finest small boats ever designed.
> 
> I'm down on the Penfold's Grange but I'm on the wagon now so save it please. It's beyond my everyday wine budget.


Francis in CF would be the ultimate.

The Flying Scots are raced pretty actively in this neck of the woods, that's why. I think I'm too old for a Tasar...

The Grange is way out my every day budget as well, Bought one on auction back in June to reward myself. It is being shipped this week (finally cool temps) . Should go well with Prime Rib.

For a good big ass Aussie Shiraz that does not cost an arm and a leg: Elderton Command or Schild Estate.

Otherwise I am more of a Barolo man.


----------



## bobperry

Tomorrow I am meeting with 6 students and an instructor from Western Washington University school of Vehicle Engineering and Design. They are coming down to view Betts shop and get a tour of the carbon cutters. 
The students area all sailors. Could be a lot of fun. Students are always fun.

Jorgen: 
I try to limit myself to Wa stat wine. See if you can find a Quilceda Creek Cab. My neighbor is their CFO. Around $100+ per bottle. Or look for Hogue GENESIS Cab or Merlot, great wine and around $12 per bottle. I love Italian wines also.
I think you would be amazed at just how easy a Tasar is to sail. They plane upwind and are a blast to single hand. I have never sailed another boat that got up onto a plane so easily. My wife and I raced one, CHROME HEART, for two years. It was a good test of the strength of our marriage.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> Truth kind of stings doesn't it.
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about. You are not putting a cogent argument together to make any point. I have been comparing D/Ls and SA/D s since 1970. Do you really think for a oment you, with your vast experience in yacht design (that's a joke PCP) can teach me anything? You are truly delusional.
> 
> I save my good manners for people I respect. Get used to it.
> 
> ...


Well, I use good manners with everybody even the ones I do not respect or don't like. It is called to be polite.

Regarding D/Wl and SA/D I was talking about this statement of yours:

"I consider all the boats you listed as very "conservative" most definitely. Look at the D/L's and, SA/D's. They are far from Pogos."

Replying to Jorgenl post where he stated:



jorgenl said:


> ...
> 
> What would you buy?
> 
> The Pacific Seacraft 37 is a superb, high performance cruising yacht which incorporates all the qualities an experienced sailor looks for in a &quote;proper yacht&quote; - seaworthiness, premium quality, exceptional performance, comfort and beauty. S
> 
> Designed in the late 1970' ish.
> 
> or this:
> 
> Hallberg-Rassy - Yachts - Aft Cockpit Boats
> 
> Designed in the 2010's
> 
> One would sail circles around the other and still be considered a blue water cruiser by most people.
> 
> It carries its beam well aft, has a modern fractional rig, more fuel and water capacity than the PSC (only 40 gals, won't get you to Marshall Islands, eh?)
> 
> I have not heard too much bitchin' about the quality of HR's.
> 
> Now, I am looking forward to some good rational arguments as to why one would buy the 1970's boat&#8230; ;-) (that you can buy a used one cheaper is not necessarily a good argument, it is economics).
> ...


You where implying that the boats were not that different since they had similar D/Ls and SA/D.

Well, they don't and are in fact very different sailboats in what regards sail performance. I have pointed it out on this post:



PCP said:


> In fact Joregen compared two boats of different eras (Pacific Seacraft 37 and Halberg Rassy 372) pointed to a similar market target at the time they were designed. ...
> 
> They are two comparable boats in what regards their design program resulting in two different boats not because the program is different but because the state of the art in what regards design is very different now and 30 years ago and that makes the HR372 a much better sailboat.
> 
> You should have looked at the SA/D and to the D/LWL with more care and you would have noticed how different they are: the HR372 has a SA/D of 19.45, the PS 37 has a Sa/D of 15.57. Regarding the D/LWL the difference is even bigger with the HR372 having 141.94 and the PS 190.75.
> 
> That (the difference between D/LWL) is due mostly on account of the huge difference on the LWL of the two boats due to the modern transom and bow of the 372. The 372 has a LWL of 33.8ft and the PS only 27.75ft. The two boats have not a very different LOA, 37.3ft the HR, 36.9ft the PS. These numbers give an idea and are consistent with the big difference in sailing performance between the two boats.
> 
> Of course the HR372 does not only sail better as has also much bigger interior volume and that allows for a better cruising interior with more living space and more space for storage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to the Pogo makes not any sense. It is not a boat designed with a similar program of those two neither pointed at the same market segment.


Your replied, as usual when you do not have arguments, insulting me:

"*You are boring me PCP. You talk nonsense. Read slowly. Don't lecture me PCP. You sound like a fool*."

It is not the first time, I mean your resource to insults when you are out of arguments. When regarding this statement of yours:

*"I'll stand firm on my claim that a boat with tankage ... Is not a "voyager" by any definition. If... You may be fooled. I am not."*

I showed to you that in France (the biggest producer of sailboats and where the concept of voyage boats was first used to define a given category of boats) the builder calls it a voyage boat, the best sailing French school calls it a voyage boat, the French specialized press calls it a voyage boat, the French sailors call it a voyage boat and the brokers call it a voyage boat.

That of course completely invalidates the statement that the RM "*is not a voyage boat by any definition*"

Your reply to that: more insults that were later edited, not by your will, i suppose.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> That said, Bob is a big guy - so I'd hide behind him ...


Hum, I am not small either, I have been a sportsman all over my life, I have a box full of medals from different disciplines and I was a national champion in one of them, so perhaps you should wide behind me:wink


----------



## bobperry

Whooo Hoo Look at me!

I have no idea what you are going on about PCP. But I think posting that photo of yourself tells me everything I need to know about you.
Your manic knee jerk need to continue to argue when all we want here is discuss boats in very tiresome.

Here is a photo of me taken a few years back.
Look at all my medals.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Hum, I am not small either, I have been a sportsman all over my life, I have a box full of medals from different disciplines and I was a national champion in one of them, so perhaps you should wide behind me:wink


Heh-heh. Cool! I'll hide behind you as well!


----------



## guitarguy56

PCP said:


> Hum, I am not small either, I have been a sportsman all over my life, I have a box full of medals from different disciplines and I was a national champion in one of them, so perhaps you should wide behind me:wink


Paulo... now if Bob would actually post a similar 'manly' photo to go with the insults he throws out then we can see who is the 'man' here... :devil










Ha ha... No wonder I do not like your current designs Bob... you live in the past and those 'naval galleons' are no longer in style... :wink

Just having fun here... don't take anything here as insults... :laugh


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

PCP said:


> Hum, I am not small either, I have been a sportsman all over my life, I have a box full of medals from different disciplines and I was a national champion in one of them, so perhaps you should wide behind me:wink


Putin goes to sea


----------



## Capt Len

Does this include the #13 Reeboks?


----------



## bobperry

Len: 
My Reeboks are size 15. I was first place in Foot Growing in high school. I have a medal some where.

OK Guitar, you asked for it. You threw the gauntlet down.

I hate to be this narcissistic but I am competitive. This photo is more recent.


----------



## PCP

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Putin goes to sea


No, Putin is a very small guy, I am big.


----------



## bobperry

This is getting kind of weird.

I know. I get it.
it's a Halloween thing! Very good PCP, you had us all fooled for a moment. Happy Hallowe!


----------



## XSrcing

Bob's cutter are more like taking the body off a '57 Chevy and putting it on a Corvette chassis. It looks retro, but that's about it.


----------



## outbound

If it's Balkan sobranie in that pipe you win Bob


----------



## outbound

Figured it out. Paulo just doesn't understand a lot of us are adults not teenagers. No testosterone storm any more. We love our wives not infatuated with our current girlfriend. We love offshore but just don't want to be uncomfortable doing it.

P.s. I'm sure you,love your love your wife. Above is not meant that way but rather to differentiate differences in relationships to boats only. Trying to point out issues of livability are constrained by the flavor of the day mentality . I do try very hard to be gentlemanly and wish you well.

I can't see me doing passages on many of the boats you post. Recall days on watch with AP remote hung around my neck. Reading on iPad. Flipping to chart plotter screen time to time and looking about 360. Sometimes stand up and get mesmerized by the cut water. But mostly lying on foredeck with back against house. One crew watching a movie on the flatscreen snacking down below. The other working up a multi course meal from fresh ingredients. Boat gracefully plowing along within a knot of hull speed at all times.


----------



## bobperry

XS:
Yes, you have it about right. The basic design, especially aesthetically is more like a 1948 Chev ( I had one in HS, fabulous car) on a new Vette chassis. The keel fin and rudder benefit from what I have leaned about foils in the last 43 years but in planform they are quite traditional. The cutaway in the trailing doge of the keel has been done many times before. I just did it my way this time. The rig and "sprit assembly" are all carbon so they are about as contemporary as you can get. We meet with the sailmaker in a week, at least one sailmaker UK who is trying for the job so w will see just how exotic the owner is willing t go on sail fabrics.

We have never been interested in producing a "traditional" boat, Just a boat that looks traditional. We have big tank capacities and plenty of volume to stow serious passage making gear. This is not a harbor hopper. 
I do not expect everyone to understand this design. It's pretty tough to stuff it in a box and give it a category. But I'm not keen on categories anyway. I'd rather use my own brain than someone else's definitions.

I think we can all agree that it is unusual.


----------



## guitarguy56

If you can't have fun and talk sailing/techie stuff without heads being blown off... then no sense in having to come to this forum... too many other sailing forums and blogs to visit... but we all like this one and need to respect one another even if in jest!

Cheers... Happy Halloween! :2 boat:


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> XS: a 1948 Chev ( I had one in HS, fabulous car)




Now *that* is the triumph of memories over reality - very dark rose glasses there Bob.

Splash oiling, one barrel carb, three on the tree, leaf springs and shocks that barely deserved the name.

Yeah, fabulous. The bodies were thick steel I suppose and they *were* ugly.

Maybe if it was a Tudor '49 Fleetline..... maybe.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> XS:
> Yes, you have it about right. The basic design, especially aesthetically is more like a 1948 Chev ( I had one in HS, fabulous car) on a new Vette chassis. The keel fin and rudder benefit from what I have leaned about foils in the last 43 years but in planform they are quite traditional. The cutaway in the trailing doge of the keel has been done many times before. I just did it my way this time. The rig and "sprit assembly" are all carbon so they are about as contemporary as you can get. We meet with the sailmaker in a week, at least one sailmaker UK who is trying for the job so w will see just how exotic the owner is willing t go on sail fabrics.
> 
> We have never been interested in producing a "traditional" boat, Just a boat that looks traditional. We have big tank capacities and plenty of volume to stow serious passage making gear. This is not a harbor hopper.
> I do not expect everyone to understand this design. It's pretty tough to stuff it in a box and give it a category. But I'm not keen on categories anyway. I'd rather use my own brain than someone else's definitions.
> 
> I think we can all agree that it is unusual.


Definitions are all about convenient shorthand. I've never been a splitter, I prefer lumping like together and understanding rather than attempting to parse things into bite sized buckets. It doesn't really lend itself well to communicating in prose, however. 
Bob, someone asked you at some point about the grounding strength of a fin/spade vs full or modified full/CB and I either missed the answer or it got lost in the mud- care to recomment for those of us that got lost?


----------



## PCP

XSrcing said:


> Bob's cutter are more like taking the body off a '57 Chevy and putting it on a Corvette chassis. It looks retro, but that's about it.


Nah! more like to put a 57 chevy body and engine but making the body in carbon. Yes it looks retro.


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
Mine was a '46 Chev Coupe.
It never burned oil. It ran great and had a simple, 6 cyl engine that even I could work on. Bought it for $20 and sold it for $40. Not a single tire matched.

Sean:
Probably have to define just what you mean by "grounding strength". If you mean setting the boat down on a sandy beach as long as the boat was not pounded by the surf on the beach I'd say a well designed spade going through a stout rudder tube with good gusset support at the hull and the deck where you would have another bearing you should be fine. But it would depend on how hard you pounded. Rudder are designed for bending and twisting loads as a function of hydrodynamic loads nor hitting hard objects loads. 

So, lets say you are in a harbor in BC. It's a rocky harbor. Gale force winds come up and you drag and find yourself bumping against rocks. Kind of hard to imagine you won;t do some dame to the rudder whether it be spade, skeg hung or hung full keel style on the trailing edge of the keel.

If I had to I could probably make the case that the spade was the strongest AND MOST DURABLE.

With a skeg hung rudder the lower bearing is very vulnerable ia grounding. So what if your rudder blade is in one piece if your lower bearing is all buggerred up? The there is the huge issue of the structural integrity of the skeg itself. Is the skeg holding the rudder on or is the rudder holding the skeg on?


It's a bit the same with a full keel rudder. Usually the lower bearing is the lowest point on the entire hull. So if you are going to hit that lower gudgeon will hit first, maybe. But if you screw up the lower bearing you probably will jam the rudder and be out of business.

Note on the carbon fiber cutters how I have elevated the l,ower bearing on the rudder so it is well above the lowest point on the keel. The lowest point on the lower bearing is 18" above base draft.

With a spade rudder you can probably bend the stick, if it is alu or ss, and still have some play in the rudder for steerage. Of course with a modern carbon fiber rudder you can build an immensely strong rudder and stock as a monocoque unit. For my money that's the only way to go today.

Sorry to disappoint. I have searched my photo files but I cannot find a single photograph of my feet.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Figured it out. Paulo just doesn't understand a lot of us are adults not teenagers. No testosterone storm any more. We love our wives not infatuated with our current girlfriend. We love offshore but just don't want to be uncomfortable doing it.
> 
> P.s. I'm sure you,love your love your wife. Above is not meant that way but rather to differentiate differences in relationships to boats only. Trying to point out issues of livability are constrained by the flavor of the day mentality . I do try very hard to be gentlemanly and wish you well.
> 
> I can't see me doing passages on many of the boats you post. Recall days on watch with AP remote hung around my neck. Reading on iPad. Flipping to chart plotter screen time to time and looking about 360. Sometimes stand up and get mesmerized by the cut water. But mostly lying on foredeck with back against house. One crew watching a movie on the flatscreen snacking down below. The other working up a multi course meal from fresh ingredients. Boat gracefully plowing along within a knot of hull speed at all times.


You mean like these ones that I have posted and talked about on my blog? A pity you don't like them, I like them a lot.











I like many types of boats it is you that like only one boat, yours LOL.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
"I like many types of boats it is you that like only one boat, yours LOL."

This is absolutely not true.

Why do you continually have to argue and put your words into other people's mouths?
Give it a rest. Chill. Relax and stop being so uptight. You have your OPNIONS and others have theirs. It's as simple as that.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Jon:
> Mine was a '46 Chev Coupe.
> It never burned oil. It ran great and had a simple, 6 cyl engine that even I could work on. Bought it for $20 and sold it for $40. Not a single tire matched.
> 
> Sean:
> Probably have to define just what you mean by "grounding strength". If you mean setting the boat down on a sandy beach as long as the boat was not pounded by the surf on the beach I'd say a well designed spade going through a stout rudder tube with good gusset support at the hull and the deck where you would have another bearing you should be fine. But it would depend on how hard you pounded. Rudder are designed for bending and twisting loads as a function of hydrodynamic loads nor hitting hard objects loads.
> 
> So, lets say you are in a harbor in BC. It's a rocky harbor. Gale force winds come up and you drag and find yourself bumping against rocks. Kind of hard to imagine you won;t do some dame to the rudder whether it be spade, skeg hung or hung full keel style on the trailing edge of the keel.
> 
> If I had to I could probably make the case that the spade was the strongest AND MOST DURABLE.
> 
> With a skeg hung rudder the lower bearing is very vulnerable ia grounding. So what if your rudder blade is in one piece if your lower bearing is all buggerred up? The there is the huge issue of the structural integrity of the skeg itself. Is the skeg holding the rudder on or is the rudder holding the skeg on?
> 
> It's a bit the same with a full keel rudder. Usually the lower bearing is the lowest point on the entire hull. So if you are going to hit that lower gudgeon will hit first, maybe. But if you screw up the lower bearing you probably will jam the rudder and be out of business.
> 
> Note on the carbon fiber cutters how I have elevated the l,ower bearing on the rudder so it is well above the lowest point on the keel. The lowest point on the lower bearing is 18" above base draft.
> 
> With a spade rudder you can probably bend the stick, if it is alu or ss, and still have some play in the rudder for steerage. Of course with a modern carbon fiber rudder you can build an immensely strong rudder and stock as a monocoque unit. For my money that's the only way to go today.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint. I have searched my photo files but I cannot find a single photograph of my feet.


I'm sure I'm missing something, but assuming accidental grounding (not clawing off a lee shore), wouldn't the keel hit first in both types? I'm one of the second type of sailor (will ground, but hasn't yet), so my personal experience is nil in this regard. It seems, based on physics, that you could, especially in CF, engineer the fin keel to distribute those forces so the whole thing doesn't punch up into the boat, similar to the full keel energy dispursement, and get the high aspect foil Paulo likes with the crash resistance of a full keel. I'm sure it would cost a ton, but it'd be cool if you could say "that joint will take 14x the boat before it becomes compromised", and would go a long way toward alleviating the concerns I've seen bandied about here about keel bolts and keels falling off and "hard groundings". I'm totally with you on the rudder design.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> "I like many types of boats it is you that like only one boat, yours LOL."
> 
> This is absolutely not true.
> 
> Why do you continually have to argue and put your words into other people's mouths?
> Give it a rest. Chill. Relax and stop being so uptight. You ahev your OPNIONS and others have theirs. It's as simple as that.


Please put that on the context, I was replying to the letter to outbound that said this about me and the boats I like and I was joking contrary to Outbound that seems to really think that LOL:

"Figured it out. Paulo just doesn't understand a lot of us are adults not teenagers. No testosterone storm any more. .*.I can't see me doing passages on many of the boats you post.* "

A difference dough, I still like to have fun while sailing a boat. Not just having it on the autopilot and I like to sail a responsive sailboat, but I can have fun sailing a lot of different boats. Not testosterone, just sailing pleasure:

Speeding on a moonshine: see, I even had time to take photosLOL


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Please put that on the context, I was replying to the letter to outbound that said this about me and the boats I like and I was joking contrary to Outbound that seems to really think that LOL:
> 
> "*Figured it out. Paulo just doesn't understand a lot of us are adults not teenagers. No testosterone storm any more. ..I can't see me doing passages on many of the boats you post.* "


Chalk this one up to language, I think. He said many, not ANY of the boats you post. I bet there are a couple you could agree upon.
I'd also point out there seems an over abundance of testosterone in this thread recently.


----------



## travlin-easy

Good Lord! I can't believe this thread is still alive and kicking. You guys need to do more sailing and less typing. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## seaner97

travlineasy said:


> Good Lord! I can't believe this thread is still alive and kicking. You guys need to do more sailing and less typing.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


Those of us that still work for a living are putting them on the hard. Just waved to her as she went to the yard for the winter :crying


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> Chalk this one up to language, I think. He said many, not ANY of the boats you post. I bet there are a couple you could agree upon.
> I'd also point out there seems an over abundance of testosterone in this thread recently.


Not related to sailboats I am afraid but mostly with good manners and insults and in what regards that I always have been polite.

Regarding boats let's say that Outbound tastes are much more limited than mines in what regards contemporary designs, or modern designs if you prefer. I like all types of boats, from racers to voyage boats and I like to sail them all.

Also that I don't share his opinion that boats are like wives to be kept for live (well, many don't do that anyway) and I prefer updated boats in what regards design evolution to old out dated designs.

But I think the same in what regards cars for instance. I have no desire to be "married" with a car for life and if I could I would update my "Ferrari" regularly changing it for a new and better performance model.


----------



## PCP

travlineasy said:


> Good Lord! I can't believe this thread is still alive and kicking. You guys need to do more sailing and less typing.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


That's winter time man, it is raining outside!


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Not related to sailboats I am afraid but mostly with good manners and insults and in what regards that I always have been polite.
> 
> Regarding boats let's say that Outbound tastes are much more limited than mines in what regards contemporary designs, or modern designs if you prefer. I like all types of boats, from racers to voyage boats and I like to sail them all.
> 
> Also that I don't share his opinion that boats are like wives to be kept for live (well, many don't do that anyway) and I prefer updated boats in what regards design evolution to old out dated designs.
> 
> But I think the same in what regards cars for instance. I have no desire to be "married" with a car for life and if I could I would update my "Ferrari" regularly changing it for a new and better performance model.


I think we can agree to disagree on your "politeness" in the past. 
I also like to sail them all, but as for owning them, I'm with Out. I want one I can hand to my son in 30 years if I'm paying new boat prices. I don't view them like cars, which I also tend to hang onto. The last one I traded in prior to being at least 10 years old was a VW, but they are simple a-b transport for me.
There is something to be said for racing and racing design, but I (and others) don't view it as the end all, and things that have 50 crew on them aren't nearly as practical for a boat that is sailed mostly by one or two. They have their place, but they aren't "better", they are a different set of compromises.

PS- I was trying to help you out there:wink


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Boats centered around sailing performance speak only to sailing performance. For us that's just one aspect of cruising. Yes, it's a very important aspect but still just one aspect.
> 
> ...
> 
> We are often not on our best game when called to deal with difficult situations. Be it weather, docking, equipment failures, lack of sleep or injury.  Being on a boat that lends confidence is a huge asset in those situations greatly increasing safety. For some being on a boat that has that sense of solidity is part of equation that produces confidence. I may intellectually know the boat can handle it but do I feel it in my bones.
> 
> Some boats are squirrelly or feel squirrelly. Too responsive. Too fast. You're always afraid the boat will get away from you. You are constantly on edge. This is very fatiguing.


I think the importance of these comments is impossible to overstate...

I consider fatigue to be the single greatest danger to any crew, shorthanded, or otherwise... Many of my biggest gripes about some of the newer crop of boats today, is simply that they can be more fatiguing to sail in anything less than ideal conditions, or can inspire fatigue in such a variety of subtle ways...

Something those who believe that a Hunter 40 will blow right past a Valiant while beating into the trades towards the BVIs may not fully appreciate...

;-)


----------



## seaner97

This isn't all about Smack, Jon. :wink


----------



## seaner97

I just read this in something totally nonrelated, but thought it apropo-
Intelligent, well-executed strategies need not follow one form in order to be successful.


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
Right on with the right on!

That says so much with so few words.

As for grounding impact:
Experience tells me there is no telling where you are going to hit. Sometimes it's the forefoot. Sometimes it's the toe of the keel. Sometimes it's the side of the keel. Sometimes it's the rudder.
It's a 4 world out there and not a 2d profile.


----------



## XSrcing

So you mean there is more than one way to skins a cat?


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Seaner:
> Right on with the right on!
> 
> That says so much with so few words.
> 
> As for grounding impact:
> Experience tells me there is no telling where you are going to hit. Sometimes it's the forefoot. Sometimes it's the toe of the keel. Sometimes it's the side of the keel. Sometimes it's the rudder.
> It's a 4 world out there and not a 2d profile.


Seems like you could model the most likely points of impact (or at least those most likely to cause catastrophic damage) and engineer for them. Is my basic understanding of the spreading of forces at least a decent starting assumption?


----------



## bobperry

XS:
Yes, In my office there are many ways to skin the cat. Don't tell my cat. I am a man of multiple fawcetts.

I keep saying this over and over, if I took a narrow minded approach to design as does PCP I could never have stayed in business. You would have to look long and hard for a type of boat I have not designed. I have designed a re-breather. Do you even know what re-breather is? I didn't before I designed it.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> This isn't all about Smack, Jon. :wink


Sure it is sean. Heh-heh.



JonEisberg said:


> I think the importance of these comments is impossible to overstate...
> 
> I consider fatigue to be the single greatest danger to any crew, shorthanded, or otherwise... Many of my biggest gripes about some of the newer crop of boats today, is simply that they can be more fatiguing to sail in anything less than ideal conditions, or can inspire fatigue in such a variety of subtle ways...
> 
> Something those who believe that a Hunter 40 will blow right past a Valiant while beating into the trades towards the BVIs may not fully appreciate...
> 
> ;-)


Though I've never done so on a Valiant (unfortunately) - I've done so on a Pearson 365 Ketch and a Pacific Seacraft 37C. This one was the Pearson in seas that were very steep Gulf of Mexico waves in the 7'-12' range.



















This was the first time I'd ever hurled over the side on any sailboat. It took me 2 hours to get past it and get my sealegs. And the boys were both sick as well - with the youngest taking 6 hours to get past his puking - and the oldest taking 22 hours to get past his.

And remember, Herb's story you linked to was in a Valiant 42. And though they rightly praised the boat for its build and integrity, they turned around in the face of big weather - AFTER the router told them that the worst part of the storm had cleared them.

My point is, when you're beating into seas like that, the boat, regardless of brand/style, is going to make only a relative difference in how people feel. It's NOT going to be night and day.

And, in fact, if you have a misguided faith in your boat - thinking it WILL be night and day in big conditions - simply because of the name on it, you can very well end up like _Rebel Heart_.


----------



## bobperry

Sean: Yes, your approach is spot on and that's essentially what we do in terms of the keel. But as I said the rudder is designed to take bending and twisting loads imparted by boat speed and rudder angle. A skeg hung or full keel type rudder sees only twisting moments and can get by with a relatively small dia. stock. A spade rudder sees twisting AND bending as it is not supported at the bottom. Bending moments are greater than are twisting moments and require a large dia stock. It would be possible to engineer the rudder for impact but I think that would have more to do with how the rudder tube and shell in way of the tube ares engineered than the blade of the rudder. In my typical installation, with multiple gusetts and big glass lap joints the shell around the rudder tube builds up thickness quickly. I have NEVER had a failure in this area. I have had several cases of "wiggly" skegs. The basic geometry of the skeg makes it very difficult to build properly.

I was not joking about the rudder holding the skeg on.

I cover all this in my book. Go out and buy nine copies. Christmas is coming. I need the royalties!


----------



## bobperry

Smack: 
I think if you read the story carefully you will find they turned around because of multiple systems failures, not the boat. Carol Hasse had nothing but praise or the boat.

Don't make me have to come down there!


----------



## bobperry

Smack says:
"My point is, when you're beating into seas like that, the boat, regardless of brand/style, is going to make only a relative difference in how people feel. It's NOT going to be night and day"

People ask me for a boat that will be comfortable at sea. I tell them, "Forget about it." It's all about degrees of discomfort.
You want to cross the ocean in comfort get a first class seat on a 747. Even that is a PITA after ten hours.


----------



## seaner97

Bob,
So if I'm understanding you correctly, there should really be no excuse for keel bolts shearing or keels pushing up into a boat on a fin keel design on impact? You should be able to engineer a boat that could take massive loads to the forward aspect of the keel or have the boat dropped straight down on the keel off a wave and have it survive?


----------



## bobperry

Sean: 
No, I am not saying that.

What is a "massive load"? OK, for me a massive load might be running running into a rock at ten plus knots, engine at full rpm, beam reach, 20 TWS and all sails drawing. Trust me, there will be damage to the structure and the keel fin. You could add to that. coming off a wave and add 3 more knots. I know a case where this is exactly what happened. The boat ended up on the rock west of Vancouver Island and it broke up. This was a well built boat.

If you are going to navigate your boat into a position where that is a possibility , you had better be ready to take the risk of some serious damage. Boats are not designed for the stupid.
If you find yourself in that position due to no fault of your own you can assume there will be some serious damage.

Now, hypothetically it could be done. You could call the boat "THE BOMB PROOF 40". But the structure required fr what you are talking about (I assume) would be massive and dominate the interior of the boat. Nobody would buy that boat. 

Heard at the Nap Show, "Oh look honey, Isn't this lovely? Look at all the massive structure,"
" Look honey, it even comes with matching helmets!"


----------



## outbound

Paulo
Please STOP putting words in my mouth. It is rude. Once again 
I very much like many of the boats you have posted. I do not wish to own one.
I was delighted with the Boreal and was all set to have one built for me but wife preferred the Outbound.
I was on Jimmy's boat. It felt small for me. The ergonomics didn't work for me. I didn't like the weld work. I do not wish to own one.

Without dissing Bob we also seriously looked at a Valiant 50. Great boat, as are many you post, but again didn't want to own one. I believe as you have demonstrated it is you who have the parochial tastes. 

To really screw you up. If I could swing it I would like to own the contemporary Neel, Chris White or big Catana. If the goal is speedy comfortable passagemaking I think they have more to offer than most of the boats you reference.


----------



## XSrcing

The only re-breathers I have experience with are Drägers.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Paulo
> Please STOP putting words in my mouth. It is rude....


I was joking meaning only that your scope in what you like as a cruising boat is really limited, like you were joking when you said that the boats I like had to do about being a teenager on a testosterone storm, a thing that you and others are not.

*"Paulo just doesn't understand a lot of us are adults not teenagers. No testosterone storm any more. "*

I assumed you were kidding (i hope so) and replied on the same joking tone. It seems you did not understood even if was you that started kidding. I am sorry sometimes on internet is dificult to express emotions and to differentiate what is a joke or something said seriously.


----------



## bobperry

XS:
I know very little about rebreathers. We were involved with several submersible projects and this one just came along and we were already working with the company. We designed the "shell" to fit around the components.

I only posted it to help get rid of some of PCP's stupid "You must be new at yacht design. Allow me to lecture you." attitude. Twit!


----------



## bobperry

Boy PCP, there seems to be a lot of "misunderstanding" where your posts are concerned. Have you discovered the common element? It's you each time.

"I was joking meaning only that your scope in what you like as a cruising boat is really limited" Really? That's a joke?

If it is a language difficulty that is entirely understandable. I admire your ability and willingness to try to argue in English. But perhaps you need to listen more and talk less. I know enough not to even try to argue in Mandarin but I can discuss family life.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Sean:
> No, I am not saying that.
> 
> What is a "massive load"? OK, for me a massive load might be running running into a rock at ten plus knots, engine at full rpm, beam reach, 20 TWS and all sails drawing. Trust me, there will be damage to the structure and the keel fin. You could add to that. coming off a wave and add 3 more knots. I know a case where this is exactly what happened. The boat ended up on the rock west of Vancouver Island and it broke up. This was a well built boat.
> 
> If you are going to navigate your boat into a position where that is a possibility , you had better be ready to take the risk of some serious damage. Boats are not designed for the stupid.
> If you find yourself in that position due to no fault of your own you can assume there will be some serious damage.
> 
> Now, hypothetically it could be done. You could call the boat "THE BOMB PROOF 40". But the structure required fr what you are talking about (I assume) would be massive and dominate the interior of the boat. Nobody would buy that boat.
> 
> Heard at the Nap Show, "Oh look honey, Isn't this lovely? Look at all the massive structure,"
> " Look honey, it even comes with matching helmets!"


I'm thinking more about survival equivalent to what we know full keelers have come back from, where their lead keels disperse the forces and they may need some external glass work, but are otherwise pretty good to go. Fun fins seem to have a tougher time.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> That's winter time man, it is raining outside!


Then you're in the wrong country. :grin

It's not only fine and sunny outside we have our major Regatta for the year coming up this weekend. Can't wait!

The Cup Regatta 2015 | Classic Yacht Association of Australia


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> I was joking meaning only that your scope in what you like as a cruising boat is really limited,


Jeezuuss - that redefines pots & kettles.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> Sean:
> No, I am not saying that.
> 
> What is a "massive load"? OK, for me a massive load might be running running into a rock at ten plus knots, engine at full rpm, beam reach, 20 TWS and all sails drawing. Trust me, there will be damage to the structure and the keel fin. You could add to that. coming off a wave and add 3 more knots. I know a case where this is exactly what happened. The boat ended up on the rock west of Vancouver Island and it broke up. This was a well built boat.
> 
> If you are going to navigate your boat into a position where that is a possibility , you had better be ready to take the risk of some serious damage. Boats are not designed for the stupid.
> If you find yourself in that position due to no fault of your own you can assume there will be some serious damage.
> 
> Now, hypothetically it could be done. You could call the boat "THE BOMB PROOF 40". But the structure required fr what you are talking about (I assume) would be massive and dominate the interior of the boat. Nobody would buy that boat.
> 
> Heard at the Nap Show, "Oh look honey, Isn't this lovely? Look at all the massive structure,"
> " Look honey, it even comes with matching helmets!"


Bob, have you forgotten about BS boats already? You can drop them on a coral reef for weeks and not even have to touch up the paint.

You're just not doing it right with your bourgeois status symbols. :wink


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Sure it is sean. Heh-heh.
> 
> Though I've never done so on a Valiant (unfortunately) - I've done so on a Pearson 365 Ketch and a Pacific Seacraft 37C. This one was the Pearson in seas that were very steep Gulf of Mexico waves in the 7'-12' range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was the first time I'd ever hurled over the side on any sailboat. It took me 2 hours to get past it and get my sealegs. And the boys were both sick as well - with the youngest taking 6 hours to get past his puking - and the oldest taking 22 hours to get past his.
> 
> And remember, Herb's story you linked to was in a Valiant 42. And though they rightly praised the boat for its build and integrity, they turned around in the face of big weather - AFTER the router told them that the worst part of the storm had cleared them.
> 
> My point is, when you're beating into seas like that, the boat, regardless of brand/style, is going to make only a relative difference in how people feel. It's NOT going to be night and day.
> 
> And, in fact, if you have a misguided faith in your boat - thinking it WILL be night and day in big conditions - simply because of the name on it, you can very well end up like _Rebel Heart_.


How come you were motoring in that breeze??


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
Take my CF cutters for example:
If I had gone with external lead, as I originally intended as that's what I prefer, I would have ended up with a low, wide shape of external lead running about (I have the drawing up now on my other monitor) 17'7" down the bottom of the fin. with over 17' to work with I could have had 34 keel bolts spreading the lead loads out over the entire 17'7" piece of lead. These bolts would have gone through 1.25" of solid e glass and CF.

The angle of the leading edge from vertical is 60 degrees. Compare that to modern keels with near dead vertical leading edges to the fin.

Now lets pick a rock. There's a good one about 18' in dia. When my externally ballasted CF cutter hits it the boat will ride up on that leading edge reducing the impact load. What lad is left will be spread out through my 34 keel bolts. I'll suffer a nice divot in the lead most probably but I think that boat would come through with no or very minimal structural damage.

"Fun fins" do have a tougher time. But you can see this idea at work in some very modern boats where the root chord has been extended with a marked trail or leading edge fillet just to help spread out the keel bolts.

Trade offs my friend.


----------



## bobperry

Jon:
Thanks so much for reminding me.
I kind of miss the little guy.

Beautiful fall weather here, Last of the salmon are running past the shack. They wave to me as they go by laughing at my lure. Lot s of sailing left to do here. We have some major races coming up.


----------



## amwbox

bobperry said:


> Now, hypothetically it could be done. You could call the boat "THE BOMB PROOF 40". But the structure required fr what you are talking about (I assume) would be massive and dominate the interior of the boat. Nobody would buy that boat.
> 
> Heard at the Nap Show, "Oh look honey, Isn't this lovely? Look at all the massive structure,"
> " Look honey, it even comes with matching helmets!"


_I_ want that boat.

Too bad there's only one of me.:|


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Seaner:
> Take my CF cutters for example:
> If I had gone with external lead, as I originally intended as that's what I prefer, I would have ended up with a low, wide shape of external lead running about (I have the drawing up now on my other monitor) 17'7" down the bottom of the fin. with over 17' to work with I could have had 34 keel bolts spreading the lead loads out over the entire 17'7" piece of lead. These bolts would have gone through 1.25" of solid e glass and CF.
> 
> The angle of the leading edge from vertical is 60 degrees. Compare that to modern keels with near dead vertical leading edges to the fin.
> 
> Now lets pick a rock. There's a good one about 18' in dia. When my externally ballasted CF cutter hits it the boat will ride up on that leading edge reducing the impact load. What lad is left will be spread out through my 34 keel bolts. I'll suffer a nice divot in the lead most probably but I think that boat would come through with no or very minimal structural damage.
> 
> "Fun fins" do have a tougher time. But you can see this idea at work in some very modern boats where the root chord has been extended with a marked trail or leading edge fillet just to help spread out the keel bolts.
> 
> Trade offs my friend.


Thanks- that's kind of what I was getting at. Thought if I drew it out of you it would broaden the discussion in this thread. Also put to rest some silliness. It's all trade offs. Some of us want boats that are more forgiving of our errors, some don't. Neither is better or worse although each may be better or worse for circumstances they find themselves in.


----------



## bobperry

Seaner :
I enjoy this kind of chat but I hate to draw hard lines, i.e. this is good and that is bad. Experience has taught me that there are many variables to consider. I'm nervous sometime to commit to an answer for fear it might be taken the wrong way.


----------



## Don L

bobperry;3116178 Boats are not designed for the stupid.
[/QUOTE said:


> :smile:smile:smile


----------



## Classic30

amwbox said:


> _I_ want that boat.


There a guy around here name of Brent Swain.. go talk to him, 'cause I'm sure he can build you one.


----------



## amwbox

Classic30 said:


> There a guy around here name of Brent Swain.. go talk to him, 'cause I'm sure he can build you one.


*Googles*

...I'm really not into steel as a boat material.

But it looks like there's another long, toxic thread on that subject.


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> Seaner:
> Take my CF cutters for example:
> If I had gone with external lead, as I originally intended as that's what I prefer, I would have ended up with a low, wide shape of external lead running about (I have the drawing up now on my other monitor) 17'7" down the bottom of the fin. with over 17' to work with I could have had 34 keel bolts spreading the lead loads out over the entire 17'7" piece of lead. These bolts would have gone through 1.25" of solid e glass and CF.
> 
> The angle of the leading edge from vertical is 60 degrees. Compare that to modern keels with near dead vertical leading edges to the fin.
> 
> Now lets pick a rock. There's a good one about 18' in dia. When my externally ballasted CF cutter hits it the boat will ride up on that leading edge reducing the impact load. What lad is left will be spread out through my 34 keel bolts. I'll suffer a nice divot in the lead most probably but I think that boat would come through with no or very minimal structural damage.


Bob makes a good point in there that is easy for folks to forget: Lead is a rather soft metal (soft enough to shape with a wood-plane) and will give quite a bit on impact, whilst cast iron/steel doesn't have that advantage and impact point forces can be significant.

..of course, so long as you don't hit anything it doesn't much matter otherwise.


----------



## Classic30

amwbox said:


> *Googles*
> 
> ...I'm really not into steel as a boat material.
> 
> But it looks like there's another long, toxic thread on that subject.


There is indeed.. and about as toxic as it gets. :devil


----------



## bobperry

Just put the bottle of Sriracha sauce on the table to have with my tuna noodle casserole I made from scratch. I like toxic. I sprinkle it on everything that needs some spicing up.


----------



## outbound

Read above and think Bob's right. All boats are comprimises. But also think the devil is in the details. Regardless of what the NA draws for a deck plan or canoe body it's the details that will give the end user the headaches. 
Personally had external ballast on a prior boat. Inspite having very limited knowledge of naval architecture understand internal ballast requires a certain thickness or chord to the keel. Further understand this to some extent limits design with impact on efficacy. That's why you don't see internally ballasted race boats now a days.
However from first hand experience understand crevice corrosion. Understand keel bolt integrity cannot be determined without pulling the keel bolts. Or at least dropping the keel. Understand that internal ballast on a moderate aspect fin keel properly engineered allows opportunity for a very strong structure. Understand the benefits of bulbs. Understand the drawbacks of t keels but also their benefits. Realize even with a full keel like Bob's CF cutters or my boat you can incorporate, to some extent the benefits of a bulb.
Here is the compromise. Which is more important to you. A structure that will never cause you concern versus optimizing performance. With one you can get excellent performance. With the other you can get optimal performance. Regardless of choice some internal ballasted boats will get the most benefit from that choice. Some external will get the best from that choice. In both camps some will not. Good design and bad occurs in both paradigms. Neither choice is "best". Neither choice is ideal and the only smart choice. Seems that's the dilemma cruisers face. For racers its easier. Whatever is faster is the right choice. What Paulo seems to repetitively overlook is we are cruisers not racers.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
You pretty well summed up why we went with internal ballast. I had the chord thickness already and I thought it was ideal regardless of ballast config.
We had tanks all through the keel cavity and they would have been over the keel bolts making it impossible to check them without some surgery and tremendous inconvenience.
In the end the change to internal ballast was a no brainer. With a VCG as low as we have now there is really nothing to gain from external ballast except losing that big "bumper".
It's all good. I do not see it as a compromise at all. I see it as an "optimize".


----------



## hellsop

outbound said:


> Paulo
> I guess we live in different worlds. As regards "contemporary" boats. My boat was built 2 years ago. In common English usage it is contemporary. It was built to a 14 year old design. since it was built 11 sisterships were built or are in active construction. These boats are even more contemporary.


Compared to what's waved around in this thread, even if it were the first one of that design and 14 years old, it's contemporary, because it wasn't build in 1985... :laugh


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Seaner :
> I enjoy this kind of chat but I hate to draw hard lines, i.e. this is good and that is bad. Experience has taught me that there are many variables to consider. I'm nervous sometime to commit to an answer for fear it might be taken the wrong way.


I get it. Same reason I try not to get into medical advice online. But having someone who actually knows how this is done talk about the trade offs is way different than the armchair guys (myself included), even if we are all boat geeks.


----------



## bobperry

Thanks Seaner. We are all learning as we go. I do not have all the answers. Doubt I ever will.
Knowledge is a moving target don't you think?


----------



## seaner97

Absolutely. That being said, there are some stupid decisions and poorly considered trade offs people make, usually when they put form over function. Or, in my world, emotion before fact.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> How come you were motoring in that breeze??


We were only a mile or so past jetties at this point. We were headed out past the ship anchorage at Aransas Pass, and we needed to make sea room before turning east toward Galveston. So it was main and motor.

And you think that's a "breeze"? Okay.

Anyway, it's not my boat. I wasn't the skipper. But I would have done the same thing.


----------



## blt2ski

If you are not learning something new ea day, you are not growing!

I suppose one could also say, if you forget something each day, but learn something new to take its place, one is still growing.....

ALL trades if you will, things are new ea day. Some of the items will stick. Others will not. Bob can correct me, I seem to recall most advances or new things done to boats are done on racers, then trickle to cruiser boats, as in reality, even a cruiser wants to get someplace quickly! 

The only item that I have heard of, that has gone from a cruiser to a racer is furling head sails. Mainly jibs. I would suspect that furling spins/code zeros started more in racers.....could be wrong. 

With that, off to work we go for a drive literally around and across puget sound.

Marty


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> We were only a mile or so past jetties at this point. We were headed out past the ship anchorage at Aransas Pass, and we needed to make sea room before turning east toward Galveston. So it was main and motor.
> 
> And you think that's a "breeze"? Okay.
> 
> Anyway, it's not my boat. I wasn't the skipper. But I would have done the same thing.


I was just curious. It was a breeze, it takes much more than that to qualify as a blow.


----------



## bobperry

Marty:
I would agree with you.
Not sure if self tailing winches were a cruiser trickle down or racer trickle down. My inclination is racer trickle down. I could be wrong.
Roller furling headsails for sure started on cruisers. I remember those funky old Simpson-Lawrence bronze furlers from when I was a teenager.

Good topic for discussion though. Let's see if we can turn it into a total ****ski fight! Should not be too hard given my track record here.

I'm headed up to the boatyard in Anacortes this morning. I'm meeting with some college student there for a tour. I really look forward to these trips. They relax me. There is always a few new things to see. I'll get photos and post them on the carbon cutter thread.

Just another stressful day at the office.
Hah!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> This was the first time I'd ever hurled over the side on any sailboat. It took me 2 hours to get past it and get my sealegs. And the boys were both sick as well - with the youngest taking 6 hours to get past his puking - and the oldest taking 22 hours to get past his.
> 
> My point is, when you're beating into seas like that, the boat, regardless of brand/style, is going to make only a relative difference in how people feel. *It's NOT going to be night and day.*


No surprise, but I disagree...

A boat's motion, or how it might make you "feel", is but _ONE_ element that can lead to fatigue... If you have the chance to sail a wider variety of boats, in a wider range of conditions, over far longer passage times, you might begin to appreciate the virtually limitless assortment of factors - unrelated to the boat's 'motion' - that can contribute to a crew's fatigue, or degradation of morale on board...

For me, a boat's ability to easily and comfortably be made to heave-to, for instance, is perhaps the single most important arrow in the quiver of a crew who might be close to becoming debilitated by exhaustion... If you don't realize that the difference between dealing with such a situation aboard a boat what will heave-to with relative ease, as opposed to one that will not, can indeed be one of "Night and Day", well... I think you probably need to get 'Out There' a bit more, before making such pronouncements, in such absolute terms... 



smackdaddy said:


> And remember, Herb's story you linked to was in a Valiant 42. And though they rightly praised the boat for its build and integrity, they turned around in the face of big weather - AFTER the router told them that the worst part of the storm had cleared them.


Seems you've pretty much missed the gist of that tale, and the lessons to be learned from it...

The abandonment of that voyage had nothing to do with the boat, other than the degree of complexity of some of the added systems, and the lack of a proper shake-down... That trip was largely doomed by a host of decisions made long before departure, and that crew was already beginning to suffer from fatigue, and a loss of confidence in the passage plan before they ever departed Belfast...

Herb has sailed as wide a variety of boats as anyone I know... I can assure you, the list of production boats he would have been quite relieved _NOT_ to be aboard south of Sable Island in a tropical storm, instead of a V-42, would be a _VERY_ lengthy one, indeed...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> And, in fact, if you have a misguided faith in your boat - thinking it WILL be night and day in big conditions - simply because of the name on it, you can very well end up like _Rebel Heart_.


Or, even worse, like RULE 62...


----------



## Shockwave

Not only are there multitudes of different boats with different characteristics there are multitudes of different sailors with varying skills, physical abilities and experience levels. What works for Smack or PCP may not work for me. What I feel is important may not register with Jon or Sloop. 

There are no right or wrong answers. There is only what you do with what you have and when done, the outcome of your actions determine right or wrong.


----------



## PCP

hellsop said:


> Compared to what's waved around in this thread, even if it were the first one of that design and 14 years old, it's contemporary, because it wasn't build in 1985... :laugh


You can use the word contemporary in different senses, in what regards boats what makes it contemporary is the design year, not the year of built, meaning if the design is contemporary or not.

You can have, and sometimes have, a two hundred year old design built today. That dose not make that boat a contemporary boat, at least if we are referring to design and I have said very clearly that I was using the word contemporary referring to contemporary designed boats.

The Oubound 44/46 is a 15 year old design. Do you think that qualifies it as a contemporary design? Go to the site of any of the more significant contemporary NA cabinet and compare the shape of cruising boat hulls from 15 years ago (if they still have them on the site) with the ones made on the last 3 or 4 last years and you will see a huge difference in all the designs.

Even so the Oubound 44/46 was a very good design regarding its time and most of all it is a very good sailing boat. Boat design has not progressed enough in 15 years to make it really outdated like all 30 or 40 year old designs will be, regarding performance and interior space, if we compare them with cruising boats with the same program and similar built quality.


----------



## PCP

Classic30 said:


> Then you're in the wrong country. :grin
> 
> It's not only fine and sunny outside we have our major Regatta for the year coming up this weekend. Can't wait!
> 
> The Cup Regatta 2015 | Classic Yacht Association of Australia


Yes, I would like to be rich enough to be sailing always in the summer. One boat here and other in Brazil or Australia would end with my internet days since I rarely post in the summer. I have better things to do LOL

Why the well are you not sailing?


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> You can use the word contemporary in different senses, in what regards boats what makes it contemporary is the design year, not the year of built, meaning if the design is contemporary or not.
> 
> You can have, and sometimes have, a two hundred year old design built today. That dose not make that boat a contemporary boat, at least if we are referring to design and I have said very clearly that I was using the word contemporary referring to contemporary designed boats.
> 
> The Oubound 44/46 is a 15 year old design. Do you think that qualifies it as a contemporary design? Go to the site of any of the more significant contemporary NA cabinet and compare the shape of cruising boat hulls from 15 years ago (if they still have them on the site) with the ones made on the last 3 or 4 last years and you will see a huge difference in all the designs.


The year of the design also means nothing. The design itself is what matters. As a for instance, in another thread Jeff referred to a Pearson 30 as a being ahead of it's time. There were other designs that were completed within 5 years of it that were not 'contemporary' to them (using your definition- which I ,and others, have repeatedly pointed out is flawed). But more to the point, he was pointing out that the vast majority of us on here have old boats (hell, a 1985 is positively NEW for many of us!)


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> The year of the design also means nothing. ...


I agree with you if *we do not* use the term contemporary in its vulgar use, that means "*belonging to or occurring in the present*" that is what many has been defending as the only meaning of the term.

If we use the therm with that meaning a contemporary design is one made in the present. However I had said that in what regards contemporary, if it regards design, means not only made in the present but made according with the state of the art in the present. It applies to boats, cars, airplanes or any complex functional object, like engines or spacecrafts, you name it.

Anyway in what regards the Outbound 44/46, a 15 year old design, it does not qualify itself in what regards boat design on any of the two categories. 15 years ago cannot be considered "present". It is was a boat designed in another decade.


----------



## albrazzi

PCP said:


> I agree with you if *we do not* use the term contemporary in its vulgar use, that means "*belonging to or occurring in the present*" that is what many has been defending as the only meaning of the term.
> 
> If we use the therm with that meaning a contemporary design is one made in the present. However I had said that in what regards contemporary, if it regards design, means not only made in the present but made according with the state of the art in the present. It applies to boats, cars, airplanes or any complex functional object, like engines or spacecrafts, you name it.
> 
> Anyway in what regards the Outbound 44/46, a 15 year old design, it does not qualify itself in what regards boat design on any of the two categories. 15 years ago cannot be considered "present". It is was a boat designed in another decade.


I just realized what I must sound like arguing with my wife..Thanks for the personal growth lesson.


----------



## guitarguy56

albrazzi said:


> I just realized what I must sound like arguing with my wife..Thanks for the personal growth lesson.


That would be true if PCP was responding to your reply but he wasn't.... 
This thread is getting sillier by the minute! :wink


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> The year of the design also means nothing.


Huh?

I work with engineering in the automotive industry which together with aerospace is considered by most as leading edge when it comes to deploying and using new processes, methods and software for design.

I can assure you that in my industry the year of design means a lot.

What we can design and simulate today was in many cases not possible 15 years ago due to HW/SW limitations.

Again, I use the example of my 1968 Caddy and the 2014 Korean Masterpiece Vehicle. Look under the hood and you should see how the packaging capabilities has changed in 50 years (drawing board to state of the art 3D MCAD).

We can do cooling system performance simulations down to +/- 1 deg variation from collected data from dyno test...

it would be my guess that most yacht design offices did not perform CFD analysis 15-20 years ago, but that the larger houses that can afford the HW/SW and the talent to run it uses it today.


----------



## guitarguy56

jorgenl said:


> Huh?
> 
> I work with engineering in the automotive industry which together with aerospace is considered by most as leading edge when it comes to deploying and using new processes, methods and software for design.
> 
> I can assure you that in my industry the year of design means a lot.
> 
> What we can design and simulate today was in many cases not possible 15 years ago due to HW/SW limitations.
> 
> Again, I use the example of my 1968 Caddy and the 2014 Korean Masterpiece Vehicle. Look under the hood and you should see how the packaging capabilities has changed in 50 years (drawing board to state of the art 3D MCAD).
> 
> We can do cooling system performance simulations down to +/- 1 deg variation from collected data from dyno test...
> 
> it would be my guess that most yacht design offices did not perform CFD analysis 15-20 years ago, but that the larger houses that can afford the HW/SW and the talent to run it uses it today.


+1000

I couldn't agree more... As an aerospace engineer on cutting edge almost to the unbelievable technology advances in the last 5 years alone design year does matter!

The fact that many of these boats were over-designed back in 70's-mid 80's was lack of technology based engineering, FEM simulations and CFD modeling can today almost engineer a product without prototyping and the 3D modeling and model based definition means from the design in the CAD system to actual part in the form of 3D printing even with advanced metals and the technology is improving even as I type this now.


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> Huh?
> 
> I work with engineering in the automotive industry which together with aerospace is considered by most as leading edge when it comes to deploying and using new processes, methods and software for design.
> 
> I can assure you that in my industry the year of design means a lot.
> 
> What we can design and simulate today was in many cases not possible 15 years ago due to HW/SW limitations.
> 
> Again, I use the example of my 1968 Caddy and the 2014 Korean Masterpiece Vehicle. Look under the hood and you should see how the packaging capabilities has changed in 50 years (drawing board to state of the art 3D MCAD).
> 
> We can do cooling system performance simulations down to +/- 1 deg variation from collected data from dyno test...
> 
> it would be my guess that most yacht design offices did not perform CFD analysis 15-20 years ago, but that the larger houses that can afford the HW/SW and the talent to run it uses it today.


My point was that there are some designs that are made "out of time" and that the advances are not widely adopted until later. It is therefore possible for a boat that is 100 years old to actually be "state of the art" in design (not likely in material). Take a look at Rob Mazza's ongoing series in GOB where we went from plumb or even reverse raked stems with fine entries over a hundred years ago to the current "state of the art" with... plumb to reverse raked stems with fine entries on race boats. Not all new stuff is really "new". Heck, even the bulb T keels that Paulo really likes aren't really "new". They've been around for a very long time and have been resurrected and abandoned several times as people have alternately liked and disliked their tradeoffs. I'm not talking about processes or systems, but ultimate design. There were some designers that were just way ahead of their time, and when you punch stuff through the fancy CAD software, you still come back to where their eye and brain were taking you anyway. The real "advances" have come in working different materials and what CAD and machining allow you to do with them.
But some of the stuff on modern boats is just bling, designed to suck you in. Just like some of the stuff on cars is. Seriously- was an in dash 6CD changer 'contemporary'? Sure. State of the art? yup. An advance? C'mon.


----------



## bobperry

Huh?

You mean to tell me I spend the entire morning in the boatyard 40 miles away and I come back to PCP still struggling with the meaning of "contemporary"? Sorry guys but this has become crazy. I am happy that I was immersed in THE REAL WORLD ( can someone make that Blue, Big and Bold? I mean just for emphasis) of yacht design and building.

We covered a lot of ground at the yard this morning but we did not get around to discussing the meaning of "contemporary". Instead we talked boats and boatbuilding with the "students" from the university.

I was sold a bill of goods. These were not students. They weren't even all instructors. Two of them were connected to the school. Essentially it was crony club of retired guys who sail and are interested in boat building. They seem to cluster around the guy in the middle, black leather jacket and red baseball cap. He drives a new Tesla, owns a Ferrari and has been experimenting with V-12 carbon fiber engine blocks. He has built several. He's one of those guys who you hear out of the corner of your ear and all of a sudden realize that this guy is the real deal. He talked. I listened.

All in all it was a fun time with a good group of guys around my own age. That's Jim Betts on the far left.


----------



## seaner97

At least if he owns a Tesla and a Ferrari he might be in the market to add to the Perry Armada.


----------



## seaner97

Yeah, I'm done trying to deal with 'contemporary'. But it IS annoying that Paulo keeps chucking it out there with his meaning.


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
He knew my work. They all did. I think they all visited my web site before coming up. This was a sharp group of guys. They were prepared.

This thread is starting to remind me of this Monty Python skit.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> I agree with you if *we do not* use the term contemporary in its vulgar use, that means "*belonging to or occurring in the present*" that is what many has been defending as the only meaning of the term.
> 
> If we use the therm with that meaning a contemporary design is one made in the present. *However I had said that in what regards contemporary, if it regards design, means not only made in the present but made according with the state of the art in the present. It applies to boats, cars, airplanes or any complex functional object, like engines or spacecrafts, you name it.*
> 
> Anyway in what regards the Outbound 44/46, a 15 year old design, it does not qualify itself in what regards boat design on any of the two categories. 15 years ago cannot be considered "present". *It is was a boat designed in another decade.*


Well, at least the upside of that definition, is that we only have to wait another 5 years before this State of the Art Masterpiece of Design and Technological Advancement must no longer be considered an example of the Latest Marvel of _CONTEMPORARY_ Yacht Design...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

That's got you written all over it Jon.

I'd comment on the sheer if I could find it.

But according the PCP it is "contemporary" so it has to be good.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Well, at least the upside of that definition, is that we only have to wait another 5 years before this State of the Art Masterpiece of Design and Technological Advancement must no longer be considered an example of the Latest Marvel of _CONTEMPORARY_ Yacht Design...
> 
> ;-)


Well, it is only contemporary on Bob Perry definition of contemporary design, that is any design that is made at the present time.

Certainly that has nothing to do with the state of the art in what regards sailing boat design, that is the definition I see fit for the expression "contemporary design". In what regards that, that boat will certainly sail very badly and obviously has nothing to with the state of the sailboat art design, that obviously regards sailing performance.

It is just a bad taste eccentricity. Some NA design eccentric crazy sailboats, that have nothing to do with sailing performance, if some crazy client dreams with that kind of stuff. Probably that boat is just what a client wanted.

Funny that I had posted that boat on a facebook Portuguese group about boats and the sea as the most ugly sailboat around:laugh


----------



## bobperry

What? Still, struggling with "contemporary" PCP? Give it a rest. You have beat this horse to death. Most of us here speak English we do not need you to explain the meaning of words we have used all our lives.

There must be a special thread or forum where people discuss semantics.


----------



## Don L

Why can't sailors just get along?


----------



## bobperry

DonO:
I have no idea why PCP wants to turn everything into a confrontation. I talked boast to guys all morning and no one argued. Then I come back to this thread and the same argument over the definition of a word that was started three days ago is still going. I'm telling you, it's whacky. I honestly can't figure out what PC is bitching about most of the time. Every time I turn around he's attacking someone.


Outbound: Your boat is stupid, old and ugly and not good. And not contemporary either.

I suggest we respect the opinions of others as valid and individual and go from there. This ridiculous "I'll tell you what is right and wrong" attitude is really foolish.
You know what they say about opinions, "Opinions are like a-s h---s, everyone has one." I think that's a great place to start.

There are no arguments on my carbon cutter thread.


----------



## Brent Swain

"Contemporary, state of the art" has become more and more synonymous with " As ugly as you can make it.
I just met another friend who is having the mass produced, production boat blues. 
She said, how things are put together on her very popular, mass produced, plastic boat,
is incredibly stupid, and she is now dreaming of owning a one off ,back yard built ,steel brentboat, built by some very practical people.


----------



## Don L

Brent you are just trying to piss gasoline onto a fire! I have owned a mass produced boat for 6 years and have found nothing really to complain about on the construction and have had no build/construction problems on what is now a 15 year old boat. If your "friend" has one that is different maybe they should have chosen a better model for their use.


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> it IS annoying that Paulo keeps chucking it out there .


Fixed


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


> Well, at least the upside of that definition, is that we only have to wait another 5 years before this State of the Art Masterpiece of Design and Technological Advancement must no longer be considered an example of the Latest Marvel of _CONTEMPORARY_ Yacht Design...
> 
> ;-)


They read my comment about tail fins on boats! They even doubled them up like a '59 Dodge Lancer


----------



## goat

jorgenl said:


> Again, I use the example of my 1968 Caddy and the 2014 Korean Masterpiece Vehicle. Look under the hood and you should see how the packaging capabilities has changed in 50 years (drawing board to state of the art 3D MCAD).


It will be interesting to see how the current marvels of engineering cars (and boats) hold up when they reach the age of your Caddy.

goat


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> DonO: *I talked boast* to guys all morning and no one argued.


Freudian typo? :wink


----------



## bobperry

No. That was a contemporary thought.


----------



## SloopJonB

goat said:


> It will be interesting to see how the current marvels of engineering cars (and boats) hold up when they reach the age of your Caddy.
> 
> goat


We already know that - cars last a whole lot better than they did back then. In the days of that Caddy a car was essentially dead at 100K miles - only prized cars that were exceptionally well loved lasted much past that.

Now 250K is routine even for everyday drivers that live outdoors and receive minimal care.

There is no comparison between cars from BITD and "contemporary" cars except the old ones generally had more individuality and maybe more soul.

Contemporary boats, probably not so much.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> What? Still, struggling with "contemporary" PCP? Give it a rest. You have beat this horse to death. Most of us here speak English we do not need you to explain the meaning of words we have used all our lives.
> 
> There must be a special thread or forum where people discuss semantics.


Short memory Bob. Here are the two definitions of what is a contemporary design, yours and mine:

*Mine*:


PCP said:


> ...
> Note that I was only using the word the word *contemporary* referring to *contemporary yacht design*.
> ...
> To be a contemporary design a boat has to be to the state of the art, or cutting edge as you seem to prefer and contemporary design refers to what is the state of the art now. ..


*Yours* (replying to me):


bobperry said:


> PCP:.. Contemporary when referring to design and technology does not mean current but to the state of the art at the present time. "
> 
> Amazing, now PCP is going to demand we all adhere to his own definitions of English words. " You vill all relearn your English!"
> 
> The definition of "contemporary" "with time" is well understood and needs no clarification here.
> 
> For PCP's benefit, here's a little primer:
> con·tem·po·rar·y
> kənˈtempəˌrerē/Submit
> adjective
> 1.
> living or occurring at the same time.
> "the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
> 2.
> belonging to or *occurring in the present*.
> "the tension and complexities of our contemporary society"
> synonyms:	modern, up-to-date, up-to-the-minute, fashionable; More
> noun
> 1.
> a person or thing living or existing at the same time as another.
> "he was a contemporary of Darwin"
> .....
> PCP:
> I was an English major in College. You are sounding very foolish trying to explain the English language to us.


So it is clear as water, according to you that boat has a contemporary design: It was designed now.

According to me it is not: It is a badly designed sailingboat, one that will sail badly having nothing to do with the sailingboat design state of the art.

Time to change of opinion?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> No surprise, but I disagree...
> 
> A boat's motion, or how it might make you "feel", is but _ONE_ element that can lead to fatigue... If you have the chance to sail a wider variety of boats, in a wider range of conditions, over far longer passage times, you might begin to appreciate the virtually limitless assortment of factors - unrelated to the boat's 'motion' - that can contribute to a crew's fatigue, or degradation of morale on board...
> 
> For me, a boat's ability to easily and comfortably be made to heave-to, for instance, is perhaps the single most important arrow in the quiver of a crew who might be close to becoming debilitated by exhaustion... If you don't realize that the difference between dealing with such a situation aboard a boat what will heave-to with relative ease, as opposed to one that will not, can indeed be one of "Night and Day", well... I think you probably need to get 'Out There' a bit more, before making such pronouncements, in such absolute terms...


Good grief.

So you've now gone from beating into heavy tradewind-whipped seas as a test of motion comfort straight to heaving-to as a test of motion comfort? Which is it? I'm even getting seasick by your changes in direction.

Of course motion changes with heaving to. I've done it in virtually every boat I've sailed on. And I can make the pronouncement in absolute terms that it definitely makes things far more comfortable - regardless of the make of the boat. My Hunter does pretty well heaving to. So I would have no trouble choosing heaving-to over bashing into heavy seas for days on end. And if I had trouble maintaining that due to building conditions, I'd then deploy our SeaBrake and hang out below.

It's not as bleak as you're trying to paint it.



JonEisberg said:


> Seems you've pretty much missed the gist of that tale, and the lessons to be learned from it...
> 
> The abandonment of that voyage had nothing to do with the boat, other than the degree of complexity of some of the added systems, and the lack of a proper shake-down... That trip was largely doomed by a host of decisions made long before departure, and that crew was already beginning to suffer from fatigue, and a loss of confidence in the passage plan before they ever departed Belfast...
> 
> Herb has sailed as wide a variety of boats as anyone I know... I can assure you, the list of production boats he would have been quite relieved _NOT_ to be aboard south of Sable Island in a tropical storm, instead of a V-42, would be a _VERY_ lengthy one, indeed...
> 
> ;-)


Well, I'd say you're being a bit selective in your reading. There is also this:



> There were some new developments aboard Eleanor. The dripless shaft coupling was now dripping. We had leaks in the on-deck Charlie Noble vent for the heater and the mast boot. "We have water coming in from the top and the bottom," noted Logan. Our comms were still iffy; our success rate locking onto satellites was about 50 percent. The manifold system for the fuel tanks had been a problem from the start, and now a strong smell of diesel permeated the main cabin.


...and this...



> Hasse pointed out that if we kept going, our progress could be very slow in the coming days, well under the daily 150-mile runs we needed to make to keep to everyone's schedules. And it was pretty clear to me that if we did press on, and things went totally sideways in the mid-Atlantic, we could be in a world of hurt. Billy didn't say much, but it seemed we'd already reached a quorum.


Now, again, I'm NEVER going to knock the Valiant 42. This boat was selected the best cruising boat of all time for a reason.

BUT - you certainly can't read the above snippets from this article and come away with your "absolute proclamation":



JonEisberg said:


> The abandonment of that voyage had nothing to do with the boat, other than the degree of complexity of some of the added systems, and the lack of a proper shake-down...


Sorry. Not true.



JonEisberg said:


> Or, even worse, like RULE 62...


Yeah - that was bad.


----------



## bobperry

Good grief is right.

I have no idea what PCP is rambling on about. How can I change my opinion. On what? 
I think he is having a personal stability problem. He has become fixated with the word "contemporary". 
Sounds to me like he well beyond his limit of positive stability. Which was only 103 degrees to begin with.

You may want to take a short vacation PCP. Take care you don't have a problem with your (gratuitous German word of precision) *SCHLUSSELBEIN*.


----------



## Shockwave

I like my old boat. It does what it needs to do for me and I really haven't seen a contemporary boat I would like to replace it.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Good grief is right.
> 
> I have no idea what PCP is rambling on about. How can I change my opinion. On what?
> I think he is having a personal stability problem. He has become fixated with the word "contemporary".
> Sounds to me like he well beyond his limit of positive stability. Which was only 103 degrees to begin with.
> 
> You may want to take a short vacation PCP. Take care you don't have a problem with your (gratuitous German word of precision) *SCHLUSSELBEIN*.


As usually, when you do not have arguments you divert to insults. Boring.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> As usually, when you do not have arguments you divert to insults. Boring.


Not as boring as "contemporary".

How about moving on to define "cutting edge" for us? After that you can do "state of the art".


----------



## seaner97

Get em Jon. He wore me out.


----------



## robert sailor

There is one word that expresses a beautiful design no matter when it was designed....,"Timeless" who wants to throw out some good examples ?? OK I'll start..,Burmuda 40


----------



## seaner97

Alden Challenger, Bristol 35.5, Tartan 34c, Hinkley SW42 and 70. Morris 42/42x. Tayana 37. Valiant 42. (God I hate canoe sterns, but those are nice boats). And many more. A few of those are even contemporary.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Not as boring as "contemporary".
> 
> How about moving on to define "cutting edge" for us? After that you can do "state of the art".


You can use a dictionary, that's easy and give us the meaning of both expressions:

*Cutting edge*:"*the leading position in any field; forefront: on the cutting edge of space technology.; *"
Cutting edge - definition of cutting edge by The Free Dictionary

*Cutting edge*:"*The latest or most advanced stage in the development of something*: researchers at the cutting edge of molecular biology."
cutting edge: definition of cutting edge in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

So, in what regards yacht design it refers to the most advanced stages of development. It is about the same as the state of the art. Regarding technology they use the two expressions as meaning the same thing:

" *Cutting edge is also known as leading-edge technology or state-of-the-art technology*."...

*Cutting-edge technology refers to... technology at the frontiers of knowledge*...Cutting-edge technology refers to current and fully developed technology features, unlike bleeding-edge technology, which is so new that it poses unreliability risks to users. While commonly used to refer to computer and electronic technology, the term can apply to technology of any type, including automotive, medical, engineering and countless other industries."
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/26589/cutting-edge-technology

*State of the art: "the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique, science, etc, esp at present"*
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state+of+the+art

State of the art: *"the level of development (as of a device, procedure, process, technique, or science) reached at any particular time usually as a result of modern methods"*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state of the art


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Good grief.
> 
> So you've now gone from beating into heavy tradewind-whipped seas as a test of motion comfort straight to heaving-to as a test of motion comfort? Which is it? I'm even getting seasick by your changes in direction.


_Reading is Fundamental..._;-)

There is a reason for the use of _paragraphs..._ In that instance, it was to make clear that it was _NOT_ my intention to make a direct comparison between the fatigue that can result from beating into the trades along the Thorny Path, and the importance of having the means to take a break, and alleviate oncoming exhaustion by heaving-to... I'm glad your Hunter heaves-to to your satisfaction, but I don't believe that's necessarily a characteristic of of many production boats I'm seeing today...



smackdaddy said:


> It's not as bleak as you're trying to paint it.


Well, the lessons learned from our respective experiences appear to differ... I will admit, I have no experience motorsailing a Pearson 365 into a sloppy seaway in the Gulf of Mexico, thus I'm forced to confess that perhaps an hour or 2 of doing so would cause me to radically alter my perspective, developed over the course of a few+ decades in the yacht delivery game...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Well, I'd say you're being a bit selective in your reading. There is also this:
> 
> ...and this...
> 
> Now, again, I'm NEVER going to knock the Valiant 42. This boat was selected the best cruising boat of all time for a reason.
> 
> BUT - you certainly can't read the above snippets from this article and come away with your "absolute proclamation":


You're right, I should have said "Virtually nothing", instead of inferring 'absolutely'... ;-)



smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abandonment of that voyage had nothing to do with the boat, other than the degree of complexity of some of the added systems, and the lack of a proper shake-down...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Not true.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't know that...

I got the story straight from the horse's mouth, during an extended conversation with Herb within a week of their return to Maine, months prior to the publication of his story...

Read again, one of the most important points made in his final summation of this trip:



> *Finally, we all agreed on one thing: The ocean trip we'd just taken should've been the real shakedown for a transatlantic voyage.* We'd discovered what went wrong, what worked and what didn't. We should've gone home, corrected things and set out when we were actually prepared. Simple, right?


Most every problem you've highlighted, was a result of a modification to the boat, and the subsequent lack of a proper shakedown... Dripless seal a new installation with the new engine, for instance, never had been a problem during the previous summer's brief shakedown on Penobsot Bay:

Shakedown on Penobscot Bay | HERB McCORMICK

One of the things Herb said to me in regard to this, was along the lines of _"In hindsight, during our initial shakedown cruise, I'm not sure we EVER took a drop of water on deck..."_










Well, a leaking Charlie Noble or mast boot is certainly not likely to become apparent, during the course of such a test... So, I think my comment as originally stated, is still reasonably accurate:

_The abandonment of that voyage had nothing to do with the boat, other than the degree of complexity of some of the added systems, and the lack of a proper shake-down... _


----------



## robert sailor

Smack,
Your Hunter 40 doesn't really have to, it fore reaches slowely at a knot or more. All modern fin keel with spade rudder boats do the same. It still similar and is OK for a rest underway or doing sail changes etc. But it is not really hove to in the traditional sense.


----------



## Classic30

robert sailor said:


> There is one word that expresses a beautiful design no matter when it was designed....,"Timeless" who wants to throw out some good examples ?? OK I'll start..,Burmuda 40


Laurent Giles 'Vertue' ... Herreshoff 28 .. Knud Reimers 'Tumlaren' ...

(Since you asked..)


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> You can use a dictionary, that's easy and give us the meaning of both expressions:
> 
> *Cutting edge*:"*the leading position in any field; forefront: on the cutting edge of space technology.; *"
> Cutting edge - definition of cutting edge by The Free Dictionary
> 
> *Cutting edge*:"*The latest or most advanced stage in the development of something*: researchers at the cutting edge of molecular biology."
> cutting edge: definition of cutting edge in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
> 
> So, in what regards yacht design it refers to the most advanced stages of development. It is about the same as the state of the art. Regarding technology they use the two expressions as meaning the same thing:
> 
> " *Cutting edge is also known as leading-edge technology or state-of-the-art technology*."...
> 
> *Cutting-edge technology refers to... technology at the frontiers of knowledge*...Cutting-edge technology refers to current and fully developed technology features, unlike bleeding-edge technology, which is so new that it poses unreliability risks to users. While commonly used to refer to computer and electronic technology, the term can apply to technology of any type, including automotive, medical, engineering and countless other industries."
> https://www.techopedia.com/definition/26589/cutting-edge-technology
> 
> *State of the art: "the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique, science, etc, esp at present"*
> State of the art - definition of state of the art by The Free Dictionary
> 
> State of the art: *"the level of development (as of a device, procedure, process, technique, or science) reached at any particular time usually as a result of modern methods"*
> State Of The Art | Definition of state of the art by Merriam-Webster


Very good - now work on "Sarcasm".


----------



## outbound

Sorry I've been gone and I see Paulo has been giving me some hits. But don't worry cause I know something he does not. I know in every generation there are some boats that are eternal. They hit all the right spots. Old Nate drew a few,as did Carl, Bob, German and a bunch of others. Folks get on those boats and all is right with the world. Perhaps Paulo's list is different than mine. Perhaps he can never make such a list as once it's written it is no longer contemporary so needs to be discarded. In which case I just pity him. We all pick and choose what we want and are willing to use from the cutting edge present and the tried and true past. There are so many examples of this in all aspects of our lives.
Paulo can't understand and probably never will why people with full awareness of the the offerings of new designs at time of build would knowingly choose a prior design. He can't understand that performance as defined by him is not the only parameter. Every example be it comfort, usable space, durability, ease of service, aesethetics, tankage, carrying capacity, motion in a seaway, strength in a grounding or other mishap is meet with the same mantra. Current boats "perform better". 
He doesn't realize on passage a days work is usually a reflection of what that crew can get out of that boat. When buddy boating or in a rally this fat old man and his little lady do just fine. Usually on passage we and our sisterships are in the front of the pack often outdistancing bigger boats and "newer" designs. We are able to consistently get closer to the performance limits of our craft. I don't feel I'm skilled enough nor fit enough nor driven enough to do that on many of the boats Paulo posts. 
He doesn't acknowledge a good builder like Phil Lambert will incorporate new technologies such as moving from balsa to closed cell foam at my request or CF rigs and rudders. Or systems reworked if a better product becomes available such as my phillipi. He doesn't understand how a good design can evolve over the years so each successive boat is a bit better.
I have no issue with this. I'm comforted Phil continues to take orders and build new boats. I'm comforted that the two gentlemen I took to the eastern Caribbean told me my boat was the best boat they ever took passage on for its size. One races three digit J boats and knows speed. He was amazed at the comfort and maintenance of VMG with so little effort. The other a left coast pro captain covering for his brother was similarly delighted with the boat.
While in the eastern Caribbean got friendly was another pro captain. We buddy boated some but he also got to daysail my boat. He has been captaining on everything from 50-90 footers. He has done transits of pacific and Atlantic. Probably more sea miles than anyone I know. I overheard him telling his S.O. whenhe has the kitty he wants an Outbound for his "last boat". Came back to New England with two. One of them is now taking delivery of a new Outbound. The other was a extraordinarily experienced sailor and although he has frequent exposure to "contemporary " was similarly effusive in his praise.
In short I know there are better boats than mine (think Bob, Dykstra ( now gone), and others) have such boats in build but for me the Outbound is just right. Wouldn't I trade it for a big Pogo, Salona, italia RM etc. not a chance. 
So at the end of the day when Paulo spouts off I just smile. The people whose opinion I respect such as Bob say good things. The people who have been there and done that say good things. The people who work on boats be it running them or servicing them say good things. My experience to date says good things. I know I have a bright future with my boat. I know there has yet to be a new offering that comes close to what I require in boat at any thing close to the price of my boat. Perhaps that will change. If so and I have the resources I will switch. As Paulo infers it's a mistake to be entrapped in the past. A equally harmful thing is to be so enthralled by "cutting edge" as to mistake the newest as always the right choice. I could refer to comments I have about "contemporary " boats but then I'd sound like Smackie . For present don't see that switch happening given current trends in production boats leave me cold.

BTW
Nice read about the T37 in practical sailor Bob.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> _Reading is Fundamental..._;-)
> 
> There is a reason for the use of _paragraphs..._ In that instance, it was to make clear that it was _NOT_ my intention to make a direct comparison between the fatigue that can result from beating into the trades along the Thorny Path, and the importance of having the means to take a break, and alleviate oncoming exhaustion by heaving-to... I'm glad your Hunter heaves-to to your satisfaction, but I don't believe that's necessarily a characteristic of of many production boats I'm seeing today...
> 
> Well, the lessons learned from our respective experiences appear to differ... I will admit, I have no experience motorsailing a Pearson 365 into a sloppy seaway in the Gulf of Mexico, thus I'm forced to confess that perhaps an hour or 2 of doing so would cause me to radically alter my perspective, developed over the course of a few+ decades in the yacht delivery game...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> You're right, I should have said "Virtually nothing", instead of inferring 'absolutely'... ;-)
> 
> Sorry, but you don't know that...
> 
> I got the story straight from the horse's mouth, during an extended conversation with Herb within a week of their return to Maine, months prior to the publication of his story...
> 
> Read again, one of the most important points made in his final summation of this trip:
> 
> Most every problem you've highlighted, was a result of a modification to the boat, and the subsequent lack of a proper shakedown... Dripless seal a new installation with the new engine, for instance, never had been a problem during the previous summer's brief shakedown on Penobsot Bay:
> 
> Shakedown on Penobscot Bay | HERB McCORMICK
> 
> One of the things Herb said to me in regard to this, was along the lines of _"In hindsight, during our initial shakedown cruise, I'm not sure we EVER took a drop of water on deck..."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a leaking Charlie Noble or mast boot is certainly not likely to become apparent, during the course of such a test... So, I think my comment as originally stated, is still reasonably accurate:
> 
> _The abandonment of that voyage had nothing to do with the boat, other than the degree of complexity of some of the added systems, and the lack of a proper shake-down... _


According to the story, it was a combination of things...including issues with the boat itself and the crew's mentality/morale/etc. So, spin it how you want. I don't really care. But that's what the story says.


----------



## outbound

Paulo 
I know you ride. I just had a funny vision. You explaining to my Iron Butt buddies why they should get off their Goldwings, BMWs, and Harleys and get new Bennelis, Ducatis, and Hiabusas.
They may want a 2016 version of their ride of choice otherwise they just leave laughing as they go on to do the four corners while you continue to talk about contemporary performance.


----------



## bobperry

Jon:
"Very good - now work on "Sarcasm".

Priceless!


----------



## Classic30

WOW! 1000 likes already!!! :eek

Who'd ever thought... oh, never mind.

:2 boat:


----------



## mr_f

Brent Swain said:


> "Contemporary, state of the art" has become more and more synonymous with "As ugly as you can make it."


Wait, so BrentBoats are contemporary/state-of-the-art? I am so confused.


----------



## robert sailor

outbound said:


> Paulo
> I know you ride. I just had a funny vision. You explaining to my Iron Butt buddies why they should get off their Goldwings, BMWs, and Harleys and get new Bennelis, Ducatis, and Hiabusas.
> They may want a 2016 version of their ride of choice otherwise they just leave laughing as they go on to do the four corners while you continue to talk about contemporary performance.


That's an excellent comparison when you think about it!! I'm guilty of wondering why guys spend huge amounts on 1940's technology when they buy a Harley yet there is no arguing that these bikes sell in huge numbers so who's right?? Maybe a Pogo is the Ducati of sailboats and an Island Packet is a Harley.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Very good - now work on "Sarcasm".


I don't know what sarcasm has to do with it. It really seem to me that you didn't know what means regarding yacht design the expression "state of the art" or "cutting edge" or even what means regarding yacht design the expression "contemporary design".

Your previous interventions on this thread give that idea.


----------



## PCP

robert sailor said:


> That's an excellent comparison when you think about it!! I'm guilty of wondering why guys spend *huge amounts on 1940's technology when they buy a Harley *yet there is no arguing that these bikes sell in huge numbers so who's right?? Maybe a Pogo is the Ducati of sailboats and an Island Packet is a Harley.


 Harley's feature a type of bike that is also produced by all the Japanese manufacturers. The difference is that while that is a small market target for the Japanese manufacturers it is pretty much the only target for Harley.

Regarding Harley they felt the need to abandon old tech and become more to the state of the art. Have you heard about the first of the new ones?

The big Harley V-Twin powerplant is still there but it's been refined, fuel injected, punched out from 96 to 103 cubic inches (with a 110ci option). On the biggest bikes, Harley includes a well-hidden liquid cooling system called "twin cooling" that targets the hot part of the heads, allowing the engine to make more power. But, externally, the engine looks just like the air-cooled units going back decades. The radiators are well-hidden in the fairing lowers.....Harley claims the result is an open-road bike that is more fun to ride at longer stretches (and higher speeds) and it coddles rider and passenger like no Harley from years past. Meanwhile, the bikes retain the classic look just like buyers expect....

The list of tech features that has been poured into the latest Harley tour bikes sounds like it came from BMW, Honda, or even Ducati.

Read more: Harley-Davidson goes high-tech, Street line lures new riders | Digital Trends 
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

When you add linked anti-lock braking system (ABS) brakes, a larger, more rigid fork, brand-new "DayMaker" LED headlamps, and a text-to-speech infotainment system, fully equipped with voice-recognition software, satellite radio, and Bluetooth connectivity, you start to see that perhaps mad, old Jim Cramer might have a point....

*Cramer's comment about Harley's "tech" status came on the back of the company's third-quarter results, which showed a 6.8% sales rise, a 16.9% jump in net income, and a 20.1% rise in diluted EPS, compared to Q3 2013.*

Harley-Davidson: Is This Stalwart a Tech Company in Disguise? | Wall Street Daily

So as you can see by the sales results Harley riders do want that type of motorcycle but want a state of the art one and sales are going up when new technologies are introduced.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Paulo
> I know you ride. I just had a funny vision. You explaining to my Iron Butt buddies why they should get off their Goldwings, BMWs, and Harleys and get new Bennelis, Ducatis, and Hiabusas.
> They may want a 2016 version of their ride of choice otherwise they just leave laughing as they go on to do the four corners while you continue to talk about contemporary performance.


I guess in what regards motorcycles it happens pretty much the same as in your opinion regarding boats. Like in what regards cruising boats there are many types of motorcycles that are used for cruising or voyaging.

We had already talked about this, the difference between you and me in what regards boats and motorcycles is that for me it is very clear that different types of riders will enjoy very different types of boats or motorcycles for voyaging or cruising, from sportive light motorcycles to very heavy ones.

Regarding heavier ones I do not appreciate the Gold wing or Harley type. Not fun enough to drive in what regards me (but I can understand the ones that ride a gold wing with a trailer on its back).

I do appreciate BMWs, particularly the ones with the twin cylinder boxer engine that give one of the best feelings you can get on a motorcycle.

I have even owned and toured with a motorcycle of that type even if more powerful. I have also voyaged with much more sportive motorcycles. Different kinds of fun in what regards me.

It is you that are unable to understand or accept that some would enjoy more to voyage or cruise on a light and fast sailing boat or motorcycle even if the evidence is there. There are riders that prefer those motorcycles and sailing boats for voyaging and in what regards the last ones there are even voyage boats designed to that purpose and sold in considerable numbers.

No, I respect your tastes in what regards the type of boat you find adequate for you to voyage and I don't want to put you voyaging on a much faster, more spartan and fun boat to sail, it is you that seem to want to put me (and many others) on a slower and less fun boat to sail and voyage, as if the way you like to do it is the only "right" way as if there was a single type of boat adequate to do that.

Regarding motorcycles, yes I like Ducatis in what regards touring and voyaging, particularly this one:


----------



## bobperry

" it is you that seem to want to put me (and many others) on a slower and less fun boat to sail and voyage, as if the way you like to do it is the only "right" way as if there was a single type of boat adequate to do that."

That's it PCP, reverse the reality so it appears you are the one under attack. Very clever.

"I don't know what sarcasm has to do with it."
That is very apparent.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Sorry I've been gone and I see Paulo has been giving me some hits. But don't worry cause I know something he does not. I know in every generation there are some boats that are eternal. They hit all the right spots. Old Nate drew a few,as did Carl, Bob, German and a bunch of others. Folks get on those boats and all is right with the world. Perhaps Paulo's list is different than mine. Perhaps he can never make such a list as once it's written it is no longer contemporary so needs to be discarded. In which case I just pity him. We all pick and choose what we want and are willing to use from the cutting edge present and the tried and true past. There are so many examples of this in all aspects of our lives.
> Paulo can't understand and probably never will why people with full awareness of the the offerings of new designs at time of build would knowingly choose a prior design. He can't understand that performance as defined by him is not the only parameter. Every example be it comfort, usable space, durability, ease of service, aesethetics, tankage, carrying capacity, motion in a seaway, strength in a grounding or other mishap is meet with the same mantra. Current boats "perform better".
> He doesn't realize on passage a days work is usually a reflection of what that crew can get out of that boat. When buddy boating or in a rally this fat old man and his little lady do just fine. Usually on passage we and our sisterships are in the front of the pack often outdistancing bigger boats and "newer" designs. We are able to consistently get closer to the performance limits of our craft. I don't feel I'm skilled enough nor fit enough nor driven enough to do that on many of the boats Paulo posts.
> He doesn't acknowledge a good builder like Phil Lambert will incorporate new technologies such as moving from balsa to closed cell foam at my request or CF rigs and rudders. Or systems reworked if a better product becomes available such as my phillipi. He doesn't understand how a good design can evolve over the years so each successive boat is a bit better.
> I have no issue with this. I'm comforted Phil continues to take orders and build new boats. I'm comforted that the two gentlemen I took to the eastern Caribbean told me my boat was the best boat they ever took passage on for its size. One races three digit J boats and knows speed. He was amazed at the comfort and maintenance of VMG with so little effort. The other a left coast pro captain covering for his brother was similarly delighted with the boat.
> While in the eastern Caribbean got friendly was another pro captain. We buddy boated some but he also got to daysail my boat. He has been captaining on everything from 50-90 footers. He has done transits of pacific and Atlantic. Probably more sea miles than anyone I know. I overheard him telling his S.O. whenhe has the kitty he wants an Outbound for his "last boat". Came back to New England with two. One of them is now taking delivery of a new Outbound. The other was a extraordinarily experienced sailor and although he has frequent exposure to "contemporary " was similarly effusive in his praise.
> In short I know there are better boats than mine (think Bob, Dykstra ( now gone), and others) have such boats in build but for me the Outbound is just right. Wouldn't I trade it for a big Pogo, Salona, italia RM etc. not a chance.
> So at the end of the day when Paulo spouts off I just smile. The people whose opinion I respect such as Bob say good things. The people who have been there and done that say good things. The people who work on boats be it running them or servicing them say good things. My experience to date says good things. I know I have a bright future with my boat. I know there has yet to be a new offering that comes close to what I require in boat at any thing close to the price of my boat. Perhaps that will change. If so and I have the resources I will switch. As Paulo infers it's a mistake to be entrapped in the past. A equally harmful thing is to be so enthralled by "cutting edge" as to mistake the newest as always the right choice. I could refer to comments I have about "contemporary " boats but then I'd sound like Smackie . For present don't see that switch happening given current trends in production boats leave me cold.
> 
> BTW
> Nice read about the T37 in practical sailor Bob.


One of the best posts in this entire thread, very nicely said... Only way it might have been improved, would be to have added a line space between paragraphs...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> According to the story, it was a combination of things...including issues with the boat itself and the crew's mentality/morale/etc. So, spin it how you want. I don't really care. But that's what the story says.


No spin, simply pointing out that your "Issues with the boat" were with modifications and add-ons not fully tested prior to setting off...

And, that such relatively 'minor' issues such as topside leaks are _precisely_ the sort of things I alluded to previously - that while most can easily endure for a single overnight, but can add up over the course of a longer passage, becoming incredibly irritating, and exacerbating the crew's fatigue and frustration with the boat...


----------



## outbound

Well Paulo it just a shame you have totally misunderstood my posts of the last two years. You are dead wrong in judging my attitude. Friend is taking off voyaging with his wife and another couple. They are on an all CF cat. 57' by 27'. My dinghy has more beam then their hulls. Rotating CF mast. daggerboards. Spartan interior. In fact they are delayed a few days putting in a sink and a head.
The boat has a prior circumnavigation under her belt. Strong, safe boat. They say they will be quite upset if their days work is not over 200m and fully expect 300-400m days.
The four of them are clearly in love with their boat and I can see why. Fascinating to examine the hi tech solutions incorporated in her.
I wish them joy. I'm sure they will have too much fun and will marvel at her performance. For me she would be great fun to day sail or island hop and hope to do so. But I don't want her as a live aboard. Don't want to dock her. Would worry about her if I had to fly off for other endeavors. 
Saw a huge tri last summer in Newport. Thing must of been 100'. Total form follows function. Walked the dock next to her and was overwhelmed in admiration. Many OMG moments looking at the details. But have no desire to own her. Actually have no desire to do a passage on her.
I enjoy your posting and excitement about new boats but think you come off as disrespectful of folks who roll a different way then you. Even more so when they acknowledge appreciation of the latest and greatest but demure from the desire to own one and present very logical thinking for their decision.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
You seem intent on putting some of us in little boxes.If you are going to try and put me in a box PCP I think you'll need a much bigger box.

Here is LITTLE WING a 54' catamaran I designed. This is far from one of those slow French cow-marans. This is a fast and capable boat with asymetrical dagger boards.


----------



## bobperry

Jon:
Thanks.
I saw that article in Practical Sailor. I was impressed with how accurate it was. That's a change.
Awful photo of that "semi-reefed" boat.


----------



## outbound

Paulo it's interesting you totally overlooked the point of the MC post. The bikes sited make no sense from a purely engineering point of view if the only yardstick is performance.
Surely you know each of these bikes have gradually changed. Have gradually evolved. But the format is unchanged. It's just refined. Surely you know
A push rod engine can only tolerate a certain amount of revs.
A flat six will be heavy compared to other power plants.
A flat twin either as a airhead or oil head is similarly limited. 
Heat is the enemy that can't be conquered as well as in other designs.
But when the rider gets off his bike after his thousand mile day regardless if it's listening to potato potato or nothing but wind noise and no vibration he is a happy camper. He can go dancing smiling at the duck rider trying to ease their aching back and numb hands.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Jon:
> 
> Awful photo of that "semi-reefed" boat.


I know how you love seeing Crap on the Back added to one of your boats... ;-)

Have you ever seen anything more ridiculous than that humongous Inmarsat dome atop the arch on ELEANOR? Hell, it probably takes all 4 crew standing on the foredeck, to get a shot of her sitting on her lines... ;-)










I told Herb it was probably just as well they turned around when they did... With the "very active" weather pattern they were looking at further along their route, seems quite possible they might have been looking at something like this, further on down the road...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Jon: Initially I was hoping the dome was on the bow of the dark blue bigger boat behind the Valiant. But nooooooooo.

Very interesting observation about the trim That did not occur to me but you are very correct. Nothing kills performance worse than stern down trim. Well,,, maybe a few things like the keel falling off but few things.
That's close to 700 lbs. at least on the bow. That gives about a 14,000 ft lb. trimming moment.

" Look what they've done to my song, Ma."


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> So it is clear as water, according to you that boat has a contemporary design: It was designed now.
> 
> According to me it is not: *It is a badly designed sailingboat, one that will sail badly having nothing to do with the sailingboat design state of the art.*


Wow...

Sorry, but that is a _REALLY_ stupid statement...


----------



## bobperry

Jon:
PCP lives in a narrow world of his own. He loves boats but he has zero experience with yacht design and his comments reflect that lack of experience. The best he is is funny and entertaining that's all. I think that photo he posted of himself says all I need to know. The more he talks the sillier he sounds.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> *PCP quote*:*So it is clear as water, according to you that boat has a contemporary design: It was designed now.
> According to me it is not: It is a badly designed sailingboat, one that will sail badly having nothing to do with the sailingboat design state of the art.*
> 
> *Wow...
> 
> Sorry, but that is a REALLY stupid statement...*


Stupid is you trying to make believe that a quote I made regarding another boat refers to the one you posted. *Not only stupid but plain wrong*. I thought better of you.

I was clearly talking about a boat you posted, this one.










This quote regards this boat and only this boat that was what we were discussing at the time:

*PCP quote*:*So it is clear as water, according to you that boat has a contemporary design: It was designed now.
According to me it is not: It is a badly designed sailingboat, one that will sail badly having nothing to do with the sailingboat design state of the art.*

Can you explain to me why do you find it "a _REALLY_ stupid statement"?


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
My statement stands regardless of the boat you were referring to.

To jon's post:
PCP you really don't talk "clearly" about much of anything but I'll chalk that up to the language difficulty and I understand that. I speak no Portuguese. So you are one up on me there.

Jo:
Thanks for posting the sailplan. That one is obsolete now but the boat still looks the same and it looks great to me. I find it a good contrast to the "sameness" we see in today's production boats. I love to celebrate the aesthetics of yesterday while combining the look with the design technology of today.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Well Paulo it just a shame you have totally misunderstood my posts of the last two years. ...
> 
> I enjoy your posting and excitement about new boats but think you come off as disrespectful of folks who *roll a different way then you*. Even more so when they acknowledge appreciation of the latest and greatest but demure from the desire to own one and present very logical thinking for their decision....
> 
> Paulo just doesn't understand a lot of us are adults not teenagers. No testosterone storm any more. We love our wives not infatuated with our current girlfriend. ..
> P.s. I'm sure you,love your love your wife. Above is not meant that way but rather to differentiate differences in relationships to boats only.


Again, as many times you seem to give the impression that I only post about boats that I see fit for my sailing tastes and that is absolutely not true and the many posts I have made on the interesting boat thread and my blog, about boats that don't fit my sailing style, are a clear prove of that.

I am interesting by boat design particularly in what regards contemporary boat design that I identify as boats designed according with the state of the art. All types of sailing boats I would say. That means that what I post are new contemporary designs not boats designed 15 or 30 years ago and that are not anymore at the state of the art.

This seems obvious to me and I don't understand how you see this as disrespectful to anybody. I own a sailboat that was designed 9 years ago and certainly don't consider it as being at the state of the art anymore, but that does not mean that I am interested in buying a new sailboat right now.

But given time, certainly when the the evolution on design makes my boat clearly a much worse boat then many similar typed boats, that will exist on the future market, certainly, only If I would not have the money, I would not trade it for a clearly better one.

I find irrational putting at the same level the love for a wife with the love for a given model of a boat.

Yes regarding boats I would always trade an old one for a new and much more effective one. Regarding my wife, we live together for so many years that I have forget how many and I don't have any desire to trade her for a prettier, better performance and more functional model, not that I do not acknowledge that a much newer model is not prettier more functional or will perform better but as I said I don't see any relation between the love we have for wives and sons with the love we have for boats. Boats are just functional objects that we can like...or not.
:wink


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Stupid is you trying to make believe that a quote I made regarding another boat refers to the one you posted. *Not only stupid but plain wrong*. I thought better about you.
> 
> I was clearly talking about a boat you posted, this one:


Oooops, my apologies, Paulo... I obviously confused my reading of Post #2745 with your original reply to me...

My mistake entirely, sorry about that...

;-)


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Oooops, my apologies, Paulo... I obviously confused my reading of Post #2745 with your original reply to me...
> 
> My mistake entirely, sorry about that...
> 
> ;-)


Seems that after all the opinion I had of you was clearly justified. We need more like you.

Cheers.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> the "sameness" we see in today's production boats.


Bill Garden said it best I think;

"the vast fleets of white, triangular, me-too's"


----------



## Capt Len

I figure that the design/production world builds and caters to a price market if the niche is big enough. no matter if it's motorcycles or sail boats. If the pre/apre contemporary cutting wind crowd could agree to pony up to the bar we could see cross overs like oak hoops on CF masts with roller boom reefing, cleats that work and wet exhausts that 'potato,potato. Look like an older but goodie and still cut wind.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> bobperry said:
> 
> 
> 
> the "sameness" we see in today's production boats.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Garden said it best I think;
> 
> "the vast fleets of white, triangular, me-too's"
Click to expand...

Hardly limited to this era, however. It's just that in previous generations they were prettier me toos.


----------



## JonEisberg

SloopJonB said:


> Bill Garden said it best I think;
> 
> "the vast fleets of white, triangular, me-too's"


Seems that with each passing year, I'm increasingly dependent upon the identifying flags and banners being flown from each being exhibited at Annapolis, in order to be able to tell one Bloated Brand from another...

;-)










This might even be more true, among powerboats today... Years ago, I could recognize the distinctive styling of a Hatteras from miles away... Nowadays, I have to be able to read the nameplate, to know for sure whether it's a Hatteras, or an Azimut, or a Sunseeker, or a Lazzara, or...


----------



## bobperry

I have several friends that do "potato, potato" and they would not trade their rides for anything. As far as I can tell riding a Harley is about a lot more than getting from point to point. You are riding a piece of timeless Americana. Lots of rich history there. Kind of the same feeling I get when I sail a Cape Cod Catboat.

I don't ride but my buddy brought me back an official Sturgess Rally T shirt this year.

When I buy a new, exotic piece of hi-fi gear my wife will shake her head and say, "Oh well, it could have been a Harley."


----------



## Minnesail

Wow, we've got braggadocio, chest thumping, comparisons to Nazis, belligerent moderators, and personal attacks too numerous to count. 

Is this a thread on Sailnet or the U.S. Republican presidential debates?


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> But given time, certainly when the the evolution on design makes my boat clearly a much worse boat then many similar typed boats, that will exist on the future market, certainly, only If I would not have the money, I would not trade it for a clearly better one.
> 
> Yes regarding boats I would always trade an old one for a new and much more effective one. Regarding my wife, we live together for so many years that I have forget how many and I don't have any desire to trade her for a prettier, better performance and more functional model, not that I do not acknowledge that a much newer model is not prettier more functional or will perform better but as I said I don't see any relation between the love we have for wives and sons with the love we have for boats. Boats are just functional objects that we can like...or not.
> :wink


This is crux of the problem. You're operating under the fallacy that newer necessarily equates to better. It does not.

Newer is only better if the boat is improved in some ways but not degraded in others relative to a previous model. You have to question whether design decisions are being made for the sake of marketability via aesthetics and livability as opposed to seaworthiness via construction quality and ruggedness.

One is good for the manufacturer. The other is good for the buyer.

Of course...if aesthetics and livability are someone's primary concerns, then, yeah, newer probably is an improvement to that person. To each their own.


----------



## bobperry

Minne:
"belligerant moderators? I really don't think so at all. They have a tough job to do with the likes of me around.
When I was in junior high school, my "home room" was the vice principal's office!

I think our moderators are *nette Leute* .


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> This is crux of the problem. You're operating under the fallacy that newer necessarily equates to better. It does not.
> 
> Newer is only better if the boat is improved in some ways but not degraded in others relative to a previous model. ....


Yes you are right and evidently it is like that. Ever new model from the same brand is just a little bit better then the previous model. If you separate models from the same brand (with the same program) 30 years apart, the difference will be just huge, in interior space and performance, I mean regarding the ones that are designed by the best NA.

Many times the same brand uses one or two of them for its entire line so many consecutive models on a given brand are designed by the same NA cabinet, take for instance Halberg Rassy and German Frers or the smaller Beneteau by Finot/Conq.

The NA designs each model the best he can and know but as the best he can is always increasing with the development of the state of the art, his next design, separated from the last one (on that model) for more than half a dozen years, is always a little bit better.

Of course this is only valid in what regards state of the art NA, the ones that contribute now for the development of yacht design, but are those that the big manufacturers call for designing their boats for obvious reasons.

The same happens with cars: Two consecutive models (same type) from the same brand and the new one is slightly better. Compare one made today with a car that was pointed to the same market 30 years ago and the difference will be huge.


----------



## seaner97

amwbox said:


> This is crux of the problem. You're operating under the fallacy that newer necessarily equates to better. It does not.
> 
> Newer is only better if the boat is improved in some ways but not degraded in others relative to a previous model. You have to question whether design decisions are being made for the sake of marketability via aesthetics and livability as opposed to seaworthiness via construction quality and ruggedness.
> 
> One is good for the manufacturer. The other is good for the buyer.
> 
> Of course...if aesthetics and livability are someone's primary concerns, then, yeah, newer probably is an improvement to that person. To each their own.


Agree, except that the aesthetics of the newer me toos seem to be more antiseptic than in the past. Some of us don't find that to be an 'improvement'- but I will (and have always) readily admitted that that is personal preference, and totally unrelated to relative worth of the design. PCP seems to feel it is inherent to the relative superiority of the newer designs. I just discard it as "not my tastes, and irrelevant to the discussion unless the topic is 'would you buy it?'".


----------



## bobperry

I just finished the VPP's and stability calcs for the carbon cutters. Pretty much what I had anticipated but now I have it to three decimal places. I need some time to digest the VPP's. No, I won't post them here. Not even sure how I'd do that. Maybe I'll post just the polars later but not the entire tabular print out.

Anyone care to guess what the limit of positive stability is? I'll offer a prize to the closest guess.

The winner will get a signed copy of the book PIPE The Art and Lore of a Great Tradition. No, I did not write it but I'll sign it anyway.

*Überlieferung*


----------



## mr_f

bobperry said:


> I just finished the VPP's and stability calcs for the carbon cutters. Pretty much what I had anticipated but now I have it to three decimal places. I need some time to digest the VPP's. No, I won't post them here. Not even sure how I'd do that. Maybe I'll post just the polars later but not the entire tabular print out.
> 
> Anyone care to guess what the limit of positive stability is? I'll offer a prize to the closest guess.
> 
> The winner will get a signed copy of the book PIPE The Art and Lore of a Great Tradition. No, I did not write it but I'll sign it anyway.
> 
> *Überlieferung*


Well, if it is any less than 183, I assume your clients are going to be heading on over to get Brent to design them a real boat.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Yes you are right and evidently it is like that. Ever new model from the same brand is just a little bit better then the previous model. If you separate models from the same brand (with the same program) 30 years apart, the difference will be just huge, in interior space and performance, I mean regarding the ones that are designed by the best NA.
> 
> Many times the same brand uses one or two of them for its entire line so many consecutive models on a given brand are designed by the same NA cabinet, take for instance Halberg Rassy and German Frers or the smaller Beneteau by Finot/Conq.
> 
> The NA designs each model the best he can and know but as the best he can is always increasing with the development of the state of the art, his next design, separated from the last one (on that model) for more than half a dozen years, is always a little bit better.
> 
> Of course this is only valid in what regards state of the art NA, the ones that contribute now for the development of yacht design, but are those that the big manufacturers call for designing their boats for obvious reasons.
> 
> The same happens with cars: Two consecutive models (same type) from the same brand and the new one is slightly better. Compare one made today with a car that was pointed to the same market 30 years ago and the difference will be huge.


Again...you are equating new to better, as if your opinion of better is an objective truth. It is NOT. It is a subjective opinion based on your own personal preferences.

For example, its my opinion that screwing a thousand holes into the deck of a boat to attach teak decking is stupendously idiotic. But once up a time, it was standard procedure. We don't see so much of that anymore, and I view it as an improvement.

Its also my opinion that this bizarre faux teak deck padding **** is ridiculously awful, and will age horribly and be an eventual nightmare to deal with. A nightmare in a lot of cases just in terms of re-bedding deck hardware. This is a new development that is not "better" at all. Its ****. But it will sell boats.

And so on and so fourth.

You view things as "better" if they improve the characteristics of a boat that _you_ prioritize. Stop pretending that there is an objective truth in your opinions...because that's all they are.


----------



## bobperry

"Its also my opinion that this bizarre faux teak deck padding **** is ridiculously awful, and will age horribly and be an eventual nightmare to deal with."
Hah!


Boxer: Initially the carbon cutter client wanted real teak decks on the cutters. Then when we looked at the weight of the CF deck and the weight of the teak it just did not makes sense.

So, we looked at faux teak alternatives. The final decision was, after grave efforts trying to convince each other, that the faux teak decking is pure ****e. We'll go with painted on non skid now. I'll leave the faux teak to the faux sailors.


----------



## bobperry

I'm disqualifying Jeff H from the stability guess. He's almost a pro and he has an unfair advantage. Sorry Jeff.


----------



## PCP

Capt Len said:


> I figure that the design/production world builds and caters to a price market if the niche is big enough. no matter if it's motorcycles or sail boats. If the pre/apre contemporary cutting wind crowd could agree to pony up to the bar we could see cross overs like oak hoops on CF masts with roller boom reefing, cleats that work and wet exhausts that 'potato,potato. Look like an older but goodie and still cut wind.


You are under the false impression that that the design/production world builds only for low prices. Off course everything is built to a price but that price can be very high in what regards production boats:


























Yes and they all have retractable cleats that work. They are many times more expensive than the ones you like, so it is not a question of price, quite the contrary.

And by the way the NA that design these boats are the same that design other less expensive production boats.


----------



## Faster

amwbox said:


> ....
> Of course...if aesthetics and livability are someone's primary concerns, then, yeah, newer probably is an improvement to that person. To each their own.


I'm pretty sure that distinction is as debatable as any other... but the key statement is the last.. to each their own. There's room for everyone and everyone's tastes and wishlists...


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Yes you are right and evidently it is like that. Ever new model from the same brand is just a little bit better then the previous model. If you separate models from the same brand (with the same program) 30 years apart, the difference will be just huge, in interior space and performance, I mean regarding the ones that are designed by the best NA.
> 
> Many times the same brand uses one or two of them for its entire line so many consecutive models on a given brand are designed by the same NA cabinet, take for instance Halberg Rassy and German Frers or the smaller Beneteau by Finot/Conq.
> 
> The NA designs each model the best he can and know but as the best he can is always increasing with the development of the state of the art, his next design, separated from the last one (on that model) for more than half a dozen years, is always a little bit better.
> 
> Of course this is only valid in what regards state of the art NA, the ones that contribute now for the development of yacht design, but are those that the big manufacturers call for designing their boats for obvious reasons.
> 
> The same happens with cars: Two consecutive models (same type) from the same brand and the new one is slightly better. Compare one made today with a car that was pointed to the same market 30 years ago and the difference will be huge.


I'm looking for a new car. I've test drove multiples. I still like my 2002 manual transmission Outback better than any of the new ones. All the new ones have more electronics, but the gas mileage is the same, and I like the handling of the older ones better. The only reason I'm replacing it is that the body rust is so bad from the northeast that it may no longer pass inspection. So, even in cars, new is NOT always better.


----------



## bobperry

Absolutely Faster
That's what I have been harping on here.
Enough with the"right" and "wrong" BS. We are not drones. We think for ourselves.

PCP: feel free to guess at the stability question. You are an amateur. Knock yourself out!

Seaner:
Check out the new Subaru Cross trek. I just got one and I love it. Manual transmission though. We are a three Subaru family.


----------



## Maine Sail

Just found these in my phone from last week..

First pic is of the bolts holding the anchor roller on. One of them is half way between the hull flange and the deck. Fender washers, no lock nuts and this is a 2007 36' boat...

Builders only get away with this because buyers refuse to look at the important details. 









Here is the port bow cleat. Two 5/16 bolts are all that is holding this 36' boat to the anchor, mooring or dock. The bolts barely pass through the inner flange and the washers are basically supporting air for a good bit of their surface area.. A rather large percentage of deck fittings and through bolts are leaking on this boat and it is barely 8 years old...









If you don't look, you won't know what's hiding........:wink

P.S> Boat brand purposely unnamed so some here don't soil their panties defending this level of "quality".....:wink This level of build should be 150% unacceptable no matter who the builder is but we as buyers accept it. Sad really......


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Absolutely Faster
> That's what I have been harping on here.
> Enough with the"right" and "wrong" BS. We are not drones. We think for ourselves.
> 
> PCP: feel free to guess at the stability question. You are an amateur. Knock yourself out!
> 
> Seaner:
> Check out the new Subaru Cross trek. I just got one and I love it. Manual transmission though. We are a three Subaru family.


As are we. The XV is a little narrower than the old outback and the carseats are too scrunched, unfortunately. And the cargo space is just a wee bit too small for the Berner. And they stopped making the outback in a standard tranny.
I guess high 140s range (147 if you want a precise WAG).


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> ..
> P.S> Boat brand purposely unnamed so some here don't soil their panties defending this level of "quality".....:wink This level of build should be 150% unacceptable no matter who the builder is but we as buyers accept it. Sad really......


But you should. All the boats are not the same and that one looks pretty badly built, at least on that area. Doing that you are raising unjustified suspicions regarding many brands. Nothing worse than generalizing a thing like that.


----------



## outbound

So newer is NOT necessarily better. Folks forget the builder is every bit as important as the NA. Bob clearly pays close attention to this which is one of the reasons he continues to be so highly sort after.

Paulo to shake you up further and hopefully cut through your misperceptions. Most folks are not monomaniacal in their thinking. I just took delivery of a brand spanking new Jeep Summit eco diesel. It is loaded with "state of the art contemporary" technology. Gets 30mpg ( really does!!!!) and goes through the loose fine sand on the beach with the tires fully inflated. We'll see how it does with snow ( haven't seen snow for a couple of years so will be a kick). Loaded with radar and sonar so if I don't pay attention it will bail me out. Will take me to the hunting camp in sybaritic comfort. 
Leaving for S. Carolina on a road trip to investigate marinas down there. Let you know if newer is better. Traded in a dressed F150 for her.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> I'm looking for a new car. I've test drove multiples. I still like my 2002 manual transmission Outback better than any of the new ones. All the new ones have more electronics, but the gas mileage is the same, and I like the handling of the older ones better. The only reason I'm replacing it is that the body rust is so bad from the northeast that it may no longer pass inspection. So, even in cars, new is NOT always better.


I guess you should change of brand: I don't know in Europe of any similar model built today that has not a considerable better millage then the similar 13 year old model.

Manufacturers have been concentrating hard on that point and the improvements on that area have been big. In many countries tax on cars depend on CO2 emission and that depends of the car consumption. That's why they have worked on that a lot: less tax means a car cheaper then the rival that pays more taxes because it wastes more fuel.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> Minne:
> "belligerant moderators? I really don't think so at all. They have a tough job to do with the likes of me around.
> When I was in junior high school, my "home room" was the vice principal's office!


Principal is spelled P-A-L because he's your pal.


----------



## robert sailor

PCP said:


> I guess you should change of brand: I don't know in Europe of any similar model built today that has not a considerable better millage then the similar 13 year old model.
> 
> Manufacturers have been concentrating hard on that point and the improvements on that area have been big. In many countries tax on cars depend on CO2 emission and that depends of the car consumption. That's why they have worked on that a lot: less tax means a car cheaper then the rival that pays more taxes because it wastes more fuel.


Right and you drive a VW


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> I guess you should change of brand: I don't know in Europe of any similar model built today that has not a considerable better millage then the similar 13 year old model.
> 
> Manufacturers have been concentrating hard on that point and the improvements on that area have been big. In many countries tax on cars depend on CO2 emission and that depends of the car consumption. That's why they have worked on that a lot: less tax means a car cheaper then the rival that pays more taxes because it wastes more fuel.


Other than Volkswagen, it should be noted. Continuously.

Actually, when it comes to engines we've got another place where newer isn't better. We're seeing electronic engine controls and such on sailboats now. These are not systems that can be repaired at sea. A well maintained diesel should damned well _run_ when fed fuel and air...and when some sensor or ECM goes haywire (as it predictably will in a salty environment) you're pretty much out of luck.

These developments are great with cars. If it breaks, pay your money and have it fixed. Your inconvenienced with a walk or taxi ride home. On a boat...could be disastrous.


----------



## robert sailor

Maine Sail said:


> Just found these in my phone from last week..
> 
> First pic is of the bolts holding the anchor roller on. One of them is half way between the hull flange and the deck. Fender washers, no lock nuts and this is a 2007 36' boat...
> 
> Builders only get away with this because buyers refuse to look at the important details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the port bow cleat. Two 5/16 bolts are all that is holding this 36' boat to the anchor, mooring or dock. The bolts barely pass through the inner flange and the washers are basically supporting air for a good bit of their surface area.. A rather large percentage of deck fittings and through bolts are leaking on this boat and it is barely 8 years old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't look, you won't know what's hiding........:wink
> 
> P.S> Boat brand purposely unnamed so some here don't soil their panties defending this level of "quality".....:wink This level of build should be 150% unacceptable no matter who the builder is but we as buyers accept it. Sad really......


Smack and CPC will want Xrays as they believe that there are proper backing plates inside the glass of


----------



## Capt Len

Stand still ,little sheep ,and be shorn. All bleat, no bark.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> I guess you should change of brand: I don't know in Europe of any similar model built today that has not a considerable better millage then the similar 13 year old model.
> 
> Manufacturers have been concentrating hard on that point and the improvements on that area have been big. In many countries tax on cars depend on CO2 emission and that depends of the car consumption. That's why they have worked on that a lot: less tax means a car cheaper then the rival that pays more taxes because it wastes more fuel.


It's because of the AWD and the fact that they were WAY ahead of the curve back in 2000. I bet if Subaru sells in Europe, you'll see the same there. Find any other full time AWD vehicle and I bet you see the same in Europe. We have snow, and LOTS of it here so AWD is a must for me, and my AWD Subaru still gets better mileage than most contemporary AWD vehicles with all the bells and whistles (that are unecessary and break).
Oh- and I had a VW Jetta wagon at one point. POS with electrical problems.


----------



## amwbox

When I was a kid I had a Renault. Called it a Le Car over here. 

When it could be made to run, it was mostly a matter of counting down how many lights I still had to make it through before it crapped out again.

Had a VW relatively recently, but I had to replace the massively expensive turbo system twice, and the particulate filter. Never again. Other than the unreliability, it was a decent car.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Yes you are right and evidently it is like that. Ever new model from the same brand is just a little bit better then the previous model. If you separate models from the same brand (with the same program) 30 years apart,* the difference will be just huge, in interior space and performance*, I mean regarding the ones that are designed by the best NA.


Yup, those "Voyage Interiors" just keep getting better and better, it's amazing what they can do with all that _SPACE..._

;-)










That Oceanis 60 that recently disappeared in a typhoon in the South China Sea, that would have been fun attempting to move around down below in extreme conditions, eh?


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> I just finished the VPP's and stability calcs for the carbon cutters. Pretty much what I had anticipated but now I have it to three decimal places. I need some time to digest the VPP's. No, I won't post them here. Not even sure how I'd do that. Maybe I'll post just the polars later but not the entire tabular print out.
> 
> Anyone care to guess what the limit of positive stability is? I'll offer a prize to the closest guess.
> 
> The winner will get a signed copy of the book PIPE The Art and Lore of a Great Tradition. No, I did not write it but I'll sign it anyway.
> 
> *Überlieferung*


Bob,

LPS = 133

Looking forward to the book ;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

Maine Sail said:


> Just found these in my phone from last week..
> 
> First pic is of the bolts holding the anchor roller on. One of them is half way between the hull flange and the deck. Fender washers, no lock nuts and this is a 2007 36' boat...
> 
> Builders only get away with this because buyers refuse to look at the important details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S> *Boat brand purposely unnamed so some here don't soil their panties defending this level of "quality"*.....:wink


Well, Maine, I believe you just did...

;-)

Hey, look at it this way... By having those Breakaway Bow Rollers and Sacrificial Stem Fittings, they might at least help in preventing the entire Front Falling Off, no?

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Come on guys, give it a guess. This can be fun. I'll tell you this: I had a number in my head for the last six months. I varied about 4 degrees. I am 2 degs off my final number.

Seaner:
Your guess is OK.
There, now you have given everyone else an advantage.

Thanks Jorgen. That guess i also OK.

Cars:
Our other two Subarus are Outbacks. The old one is 15 years old and like a new car. The newer one is the the 3.6 liter engine model. I bought that for my son when my first grand kid was born three years ago. But I have taken ownership of the Cross trek because I love it. Yes, it's small and has half the room behind the back seat that the Outback has. But it's just me and the dog and we have more than enough room. I'm averaging 34.00 mpg and I'm seldom on the freeway. It's the smallest car I have ever bought. It makes me feel sporty. So I got that going for me.


----------



## XSrcing

Any time a fancy new part is added to a boat you add another failure point that must be maintained. How many failure points do you have, and how easy would it be for that component to fail? A properly backed cleat is a failure point, but it has an extremely low possibility of failure. What Main Sail posted would be a high possibility. 

Cars: I absolutely, 100% refuse to buy new. way too many failure points that cannot be repaired outside a dealer and I'm not a fan of paying to have my vehicles fixed.


----------



## bobperry

XS:
The guy who came to the yard who owns the TESLA was telling TESLA stories yesterday. He lives in Bellingham.

He said there is a small door that closes over where he "plugs in" to recharge. You open that door through the computer screen. He could not open the door. He went through "three layers" of commands with no luck and finally pried it open with his pocket knife.

You should hear his "auto drive" stories. Terrifying.


----------



## XSrcing

Bob: he looks familiar. Probably a customer of mine. And don't get me started on freaking new electronics. Adaptive cruise control is awesome until it breaks and you plow in to the car in front of you because you were too trusting in the damn thing to start with.


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> Seaner:
> Check out the new Subaru Cross trek. I just got one and I love it. Manual transmission though. We are a three Subaru family.


I've been a Subaru person for a couple decades now (three Liberty/Legacys in a row). They're fantastic cars.. particularly in less-than-ideal conditions.

Given that nearly everyone else in the company has Subaru also (mix of Imprezza's, BRZ's and others) the carpark is joking referred to as "Subaru City".


----------



## Brent Swain

Maine Sail said:


> Just found these in my phone from last week..
> 
> First pic is of the bolts holding the anchor roller on. One of them is half way between the hull flange and the deck. Fender washers, no lock nuts and this is a 2007 36' boat...
> 
> Builders only get away with this because buyers refuse to look at the important details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the port bow cleat. Two 5/16 bolts are all that is holding this 36' boat to the anchor, mooring or dock. The bolts barely pass through the inner flange and the washers are basically supporting air for a good bit of their surface area.. A rather large percentage of deck fittings and through bolts are leaking on this boat and it is barely 8 years old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't look, you won't know what's hiding........:wink
> 
> P.S> Boat brand purposely unnamed so some here don't soil their panties defending this level of "quality".....:wink This level of build should be 150% unacceptable no matter who the builder is but we as buyers accept it. Sad really......


One of the main items on offshore cruisers' Wish list is super strong mooring bits. I sheered two off in Noumea, each held by 4- half inch bolts . Bow rollers, stronger than the strongest line which will ever be used on them, are another high priority.You will find nothing even remotely close on most stock boats, which are mainly designed and built to spend their lives in marinas. My mooring bits are designed for 90 tons sheer strength. If a tug offers to pull you off a beach ,or reef, he is not going to hand you a piece of half inch towline.

Love the ability to weld my bits , cleats and bow rollers, etc into a steel deck and hull. 
Nothing stronger!


----------



## bobperry

XS: 
He has a Ferrari also. He told us about driving to Seattle with the "auto driving " on. He said it was extremely stressful.
I had no idea that "auto driving" was available to the public. Maybe this guy is special. He was the head of the solar car project for years at Western.
I "auto drive" with my knees while I pack my pipe.


----------



## bobperry

No BS, the LPS of the cutter is not 182 degs.


----------



## Jeff_H

bobperry said:


> I'm disqualifying Jeff H from the stability guess. He's almost a pro and he has an unfair advantage. Sorry Jeff.


Darn, I saw this just as I was just about to venture a guess. I'll email you. Thanks for the flattering comment, but I think that I am still very much an amateur.

Jeff


----------



## Brent Swain

Check the cabinside tumblehome on a Sparkman and Stephens deigned Hughs 31. One side has about 2 1/2 inches more tumblehome than the other.
There is an article about another Sparkman ans Stephens design, breaking up en route to the Marquesas recently, possibly on this site. It was obviously designed just too fragile for ocean cruising, common in Sparkman and Stephens designs.
They are some of the most fragile boats out there.


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> I'm looking for a new car. I've test drove multiples. I still like my 2002 manual transmission Outback better than any of the new ones. All the new ones have more electronics, but *the gas mileage is the same*, and I like the handling of the older ones better. The only reason I'm replacing it is that the body rust is so bad from the northeast that it may no longer pass inspection. So, even in cars, new is NOT always better.


well, KBB.com reckons:

2002 Subaru Outback City 19/ Hwy 25/ Comb 21 Mpg

2016 Subaru Outback City 25/ Hwy 33/ Comb 28 Mpg

That's a pretty good improvement in my mind.

Not that it matters anymore when oil is $45/barrel and 87 gas in $2/gal ;-)

I'm driving my F250 Diesel to work everyday while these prices last. ;-)


----------



## bobperry

BS has seriously lost it:

"It was obviously designed just too fragile for ocean cruising, common in Sparkman and Stephens designs.
They are some of the most fragile boats out there."

Talk about an idiotic generality. The little guy needs some help.

"common in Sparkman and Stephens designs." Maybe the dumbest thing I have ever heard here.


----------



## bobperry

Jorgen: 
I'm stuck on 33.9 GPM and have been for about a week. It dipped for a couple of minutes the other day but now it's stuck on 33.9. I watch the GPM read out all the time. It's a game I play. It's only a 2 liter engine.


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> XS:
> The guy who came to the yard who owns the TESLA was telling TESLA stories yesterday. He lives in Bellingham.
> 
> He said there is a small door that closes over where he "plugs in" to recharge. You open that door through the computer screen. He could not open the door. He went through "three layers" of commands with no luck and finally pried it open with his pocket knife.


Obviously no-one told him there's a little button on the charging plug to open the door. :laugh :laugh

(Yet another classic example of failure to RTFM.. Happens all the time.)


----------



## bobperry

OK, Jeff emailed me his LPS guess and surprise he was spot on. He gave a small range depending on how the tanks were filled but he was right there.

Congrats Jeff!


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a new car. I've test drove multiples. I still like my 2002 manual transmission Outback better than any of the new ones. All the new ones have more electronics, but *the gas mileage is the same*, and I like the handling of the older ones better. The only reason I'm replacing it is that the body rust is so bad from the northeast that it may no longer pass inspection. So, even in cars, new is NOT always better.
> 
> 
> 
> well, KBB.com reckons:
> 
> 2002 Subaru Outback City 19/ Hwy 25/ Comb 21 Mpg
> 
> 2016 Subaru Outback City 25/ Hwy 33/ Comb 28 Mpg
> 
> That's a pretty good improvement in my mind.
> 
> Not that it matters anymore when oil is $45/barrel and 87 gas in $2/gal ;-)
> 
> I'm driving my F250 Diesel to work everyday while these prices last. ;-)
Click to expand...

I've got an 02 standard and a 11 CVT. I get 26 in the 02 and 27 in the 11.


----------



## Classic30

seaner97 said:


> I've got an 02 standard and a 11 CVT. I get 26 in the 02 and 27 in the 11.


That's odd.. because they completely re-designed the engines and engine management systems around 2010 (IIRC), and the new engines do use less fuel for significantly more power.

Perhaps you're enjoying the CVT too much (lead-foot!...) :grin

EDIT: FWIW, the issue they had with the old wasn't the engine so much, but the engine/drive-train computer systems. If you weren't driving like a maniac, after a while the too-smart-for-its-own-bloody-good auto-learn shift-point selection system would progressively move the auto transmission shift-points too far apart resulting in a situation commonly referred to as "Granny Mode"...


----------



## bobperry

Granny mode?

I could use that.


----------



## seaner97

I


Classic30 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got an 02 standard and a 11 CVT. I get 26 in the 02 and 27 in the 11.
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd.. because they completely re-designed the engines and engine management systems around 2010 (IIRC), and the new engines do use less fuel for significantly more power.
> 
> Perhaps you're enjoying the CVT too much (lead-foot!...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: FWIW, the issue they had with the old wasn't the engine so much, but the engine/drive-train computer systems. If you weren't driving like a maniac, after a while the too-smart-for-its-own-bloody-good auto-learn shift-point selection system would progressively move the auto transmission shift-points too far apart resulting in a situation commonly referred to as "Granny Mode"...
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I usually accelerate more quickly in the standard. I seem to recall that there was an adjustment in the way they estimated the MPG at some point in the past decade as well (in response to the Prius) so that may account for some of it. All I know is what the pump and my odometer tells me, though. Those aren't numbers off the computer screen (although the 11's computer does seem to jive).


----------



## Shockwave

The picture of the the bolts holding the view roller aren't from a Hunter, they have outward turned flanges. Maybe Catalina or a Beneteau?


----------



## mr_f

bobperry said:


> Jorgen:
> I'm stuck on 33.9 GPM and have been for about a week. It dipped for a couple of minutes the other day but now it's stuck on 33.9. I watch the GPM read out all the time. It's a game I play. It's only a 2 liter engine.


You use ~34 gallons of fuel to go 1 mile? Yikes!


----------



## XSrcing

My lifted Nissan Frontier gets 16 mpg city/19 highway. But that is also why I got a 1990 Civic that gets 38-40 mpg no matter what.

But who doesn't love a truck?


----------



## outbound

Think the adaptive cruise control is like the AP. Still should be someone ready to take the wheel or stomp the brakes. The jeep also has accident avoidance. Hope never to find out which one wins if they fail and start to compete with each other. Real like the brunt grunt of the diesel and surprised by performance off the line. Torque monster with efficacy. If they would import a defender 110 with a small turbo diesel I'd be all over it. To bad RR went the Mac mansion route in this country.

Wondering about point of vanishing stability. ? Is there a point where it could be too high? So high the consequence is a uncomfortable stiff boat? Isn't the area under the baseline also important and should be sited? Shouldn't you look at the whole graft not just one value in judging a boat?
Asked in the past and will ask again. BS can we see theGZ graft of your 36' please? From my limited understanding would suspect an initially tender boat which would take awhile to right given weight of hull above waterline and the weight of top hamper in steel. Personally find 20 degrees enough life on a slant. 


Anyway 136. Think with that full keel there is plenty of room so how low can you go is not an issue. Also think it will not want to stay turtled for long.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, those "Voyage Interiors" just keep getting better and better, it's amazing what they can do with all that _SPACE..._
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Oceanis 60 that recently disappeared in a typhoon in the South China Sea, that would have been fun attempting to move around down below in extreme conditions, eh?





JonEisberg said:


> Yup, those "Voyage Interiors" just keep getting better and better, it's amazing what they can do with all that _SPACE..._
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Oceanis 60 that recently disappeared in a typhoon in the South China Sea, that would have been fun attempting to move around down below in extreme conditions, eh?


Jon, those are not a voyage boats and regarding the Sense 55 you have really nothing to compare regarding previous models since there are none.

Each boat has a program and a list of priorities in what regards design criteria. Sure they are offshore boats and can sail offshore and cross Oceans but the design of the interior is not designed having that as the main priority. If that is the use that you will give to the boat it will pretty easy to create the needed hand holds.

Those boats point not for voyaging extensively but for cruising, enjoying life and live aboard with comfort in a nice ambiance.

Particularly the Sense is a very good living aboard boat for the ones that are not interested in crossing Oceans frequently ( if ever and that are vast the majority) offering a huge storage space and a good sailing performance.

*Here you have a 360º view that shows how nice is that interior for living for extended periods:*

Beneteau-Sense-55

Here you have a good boat test on the Sense 55 by Yachtingworld:






In my opinion you tend to measure all boats by their capacity for sailing offshore with bad weather permanently or for long extended periods. I don't agree in most cases with you in what regards the performance of the boats on those situations (regarding type of boat and hull) but I tend to agree in what regards interior design.

But simply what makes a good interior for sailing offshore it will make a disagreeable one for enjoying life aboard and anyway, if you really want it it is not dificult to create the interiors the handhold needed to make it better in what regards sailing offshore with bad weather.

To make an evaluation of any sailboat having as main focus sailing extensively offshore in bad weather makes no sense simply because most of those boats will be used very rarely on those conditions and in what regards interior the needs for having a good boat regarding that conflict with the ones that will make it an agreeable boat to liveaboard at anchor or at the marina (out of the time they are cruising from anchorage to anchorage or from marina to marina). That's where those boats will pass most of the time and that is what most of their owners want to do with them.

If you want to measure modern boats with the only focus you seem to use on evaluating a cruising boat you should look to the ones that have that as a main design criteria, namely contemporary voyage boats.


----------



## bobperry

Out:

Your guess is very close. But Stumble is closer.

Om your question:
Not really. The LPS is ultimnate stability and the range wher it effects the comfort of the boat is initial stability. i.e. through the first 15 degs. You can have a boat with low initial stablity, a function of hull form and a high ultimate stability more a function of VCG. The benefits of a low VCG are not felt much) at low angles of heel. You need heel angle to get Rigting arm.
Follow?

I suppose there are exceptions. There always are but this is the usual way it works. Think of a flat bottom skiff with tremendous initial stability due to form and very low ultimate stability due to a high VCG. That would be sort of an extreme example.
Then think of a plank on edge cutter with very low initial stability, due to narrow hull form and a high ultimate stability due to low VCG, another extreme example.
Follow?


----------



## bobperry

This is great. PCP is now lecturing Jon Eisberg on what makes a good cruising boat.
Priceless.

Does PCP even have a clue how much offshore sailing on a huge variety of boats Jon has done? Nope.

Jon and I go way back. I would never presume to lecture Jon an anything about sailing. I know better.

Listen up Jon. You could learn something.
Hah!


----------



## Shockwave

It's a perfect boat for the cocktail circuit. Marina to marina, maybe a night or two out on the anchor. That has no appeal for me, maybe Paulo likes that. That's fine, we all like what we like.



PCP said:


> Jon, those are not a voyage boats and regarding the Sense 55 you have really nothing to compare regarding previous models since there are none.
> 
> Each boat has a program and a list of priorities in what regards design criteria. Sure they are offshore boats and can sail offshore and cross Oceans but the design of the interior is not designed having that as the main priority. If that is the use that you will give to the boat it will pretty easy to create the needed hand holds.
> 
> Those boats point not for voyaging extensively but for cruising, enjoying life and live aboard with comfort in a nice ambiance.
> 
> Particularly the Sense is a very good living aboard boat for the ones that are not interested in crossing Oceans frequently ( if ever and that are vast the majority) offering a huge storage space and a good sailing performance.
> 
> *Here you have a 360º view that shows how nice is that interior for living for extended periods:*
> 
> Beneteau-Sense-55
> 
> Here you have a good boat test on the Sense 55 by Yachtingworld:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you tend to measure all boats by their capacity for sailing offshore with bad weather permanently or for long extended periods. I don't agree in most cases with you in what regards the performance of the boats on those situations (regarding type of boat and hull) but I tend to agree in what regards interior design.
> 
> But simply what makes a good interior for sailing offshore it will make a disagreeable one for enjoying life aboard and anyway, if you really want it it is not dificult to create the interiors the handhold needed to make it better in what regards sailing offshore with bad weather.
> 
> To make an evaluation of any sailboat having as main focus sailing extensively offshore in bad weather makes no sense simply because most of those boats will be used very rarely on those conditions and in what regards interior the needs for having a good boat regarding that conflict with the ones that will make it an agreeable boat to liveaboard at anchor or at the marina (out of the time they are cruising from anchorage to anchorage or from marina to marina). That's where those boats will pass most of the time and that is what most of their owners want to do with them.
> 
> If you want to measure modern boats with the only focus you seem to use on evaluating a cruising boat you should look to the ones that have that as a main design criteria, namely contemporary voyage boats.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> This is great. PCP is now lecturing Jon Eisberg on what makes a good cruising boat.
> Priceless.
> 
> Does PCP even have a clue how much offshore sailing on a huge variety of boats Jon has done? Nope.
> 
> Listen up Jon. You could learn something.
> Hah!


You know here Jon is pretty lonely in what regards to be a very experienced deliver skipper with many hours offshore in many types of boats but on a nearby forum he is far from being lonely.

There are there several delivery skippers with many hours offshore in many types of boats that don't favor the old designs, heavy boats and the type of hulls that Jon seems to favor.

Contemporary designers (cutting edge designers or state of the art designers to take out any ambiguity to the word) when designing voyage sailboats, specially adapted for offshore use, don't favor also the type of old designs and hull forms Jon favors.

Nothing wrong with Jon preferences, each one is entitled to have his own but it is obvious that the ones jon prefers are far from be the only valid ones, I would say that they are the minority in what regards the sailors that today voyage and sail extensively offshore, like Jimmy Cornell and his 4 or 5 circumnavigations (that he made using very different types of boats). That's why practically there is no offer of the type of boats Jon favors on the voyage boat market.

Cornell, after having made the last circumnavigation in an OVNI 43 is making another one with a contemporary design, a Garcia 45, (that shares the hull with Allures 44) and is not very different from Steve's Boreal: Light beamy centerboarders with the beam pulled back and huge transoms. Not very different in hull design from that Sense 55, certainly less different than one of the heavier narrower boats that you seem to favor for that job.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> *Überlieferung*


Hope PCP doesn't speak German - that could give him apoplexy


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> When I was a kid I had a Renault. Called it a Le Car over here.


R5 over there.


----------



## guitarguy56

SloopJonB said:


> Hope PCP doesn't speak German - that could give him apoplexy


PCP probably does know what it means and probably speaks/understands several different languages as most Europeans do... unfortunately for those in the U.S. that only speak English only with the occasional second language taught at High Schools to get into college... by the way it means 'tradition'.... :wink


----------



## SloopJonB

Brent Swain said:


> Check the cabinside tumblehome on a Sparkman and Stephens deigned Hughs 31. One side has about 2 1/2 inches more tumblehome than the other.
> There is an article about another Sparkman ans Stephens design, breaking up en route to the Marquesas recently, possibly on this site. It was obviously designed just too fragile for ocean cruising, common in Sparkman and Stephens designs.
> They are some of the most fragile boats out there.


The Hughes 31 was not designed by S&S - either the hull OR the deck. The hull was a much modified S&S Northstar 1000 hull (a 1/2 Ton racer design) and the deck was all Hughes work.

Lots of Hughes boats have gone offshore with no trouble - ever hear of Fatty Goodlander?

Your comments about S&S boats are just more BS BS - Ted Turner won the '79 Fastnet on a decade old S&S boat.


----------



## bobperry

Quite right Guitar. I knew exactly what it meant when I posted it. It is my habit to post exactly what I want to say so I do not have to go back and apologize later.

" unfortunately for those in the U.S. that only speak English only with the occasional second language taught at High Schools to get into college.."

I do not fit in that box either. I have made an effort for the past 35 years to learn Mandarin. I can do quite well in most situations. I can say what I want to say but very often I cannot understand what is said back to me . I have to say, " Ching ni Man man Tso" "Please go slowly. Or " De bu chee. Woa sher eega da ben dan." "Sorry but I am just a big dummy." I know the effort it takes to speak another language when you are in a situation where there is no option. I have worked in situations where I had to communicate in Mandarin. I love the challenge. If I end up looking foolish, I laugh and learn.
You are going to need a bigger box.

I also speak fluent Australian. I am a native Australian speaker. Fair dinkum.


----------



## guitarguy56

bobperry said:


> Quite right Guitar. I knew exactly what it meant when I posted it. It is my habit to post exactly what I want to say so I do not have to go back and apologize later.
> 
> " unfortunately for those in the U.S. that only speak English only with the occasional second language taught at High Schools to get into college.."
> 
> I do not fit in that box either. I have made an effort for the past 35 years to learn Mandarin. I can do quite well in most situations. I can say what I want to say but very often I cannot understand what is said back to me . I have to say, " Ching ni Man man Tso" "Please go slowly. Or " De bu chee. Woa sher eega da ben dan." "Sorry but I am just a big dummy." I know the effort it takes to speak another language when you are in a situation where there is no option. I have worked in situations where I had to communicate in Mandarin. I love the challenge. If I end up looking foolish, I laugh and learn.
> You are going to need a bigger box.
> 
> I also speak fluent Australian. I am a native Australian speaker. Fair dinkum.


That's cool Bob... I also know Mandarin from my time in Shanghai quite recently as I had the contract for the ECS systems for the COMAC C919 program (1+ year)... So I was stationed in Xin Tian -Di district of Shanghai (French Concession).... first words I needed to learn was 'Nǐ hěn piàoliang'... if you look it up you'll know why... many other Mandarin phrases that I have forgotten but totally enjoyed learning that (it's really how you sound out the vowels and tone that means something different - but you know that already as you mentioned) and French while in Montreal (1 year) also recently... it's best to be immersed in the culture and language rather than in a classroom... The Chinese engineers I was mentoring also learned my English as they taught me Mandarin...

I'm of Spanish origins so know Spanish/Portuguese/Italian.... :wink

Experts have also mentioned learning several languages also lowers the onset of brain disease (dementia, Parkinsons, etc.) and it's actually quite fun!

Cheers...

P.S.

You'll enjoy this photo Shanghai during their New Year and the plaque in the 'Bund' district (older financial center) that depicts the International Opium Commission and how China was raped in drugs while the French and British stole the money from it's wealth... a little history there... Anyway... back to the usual rant on 'cleats'.... or is that topic over?


----------



## bobperry

Guitar, the topics are never "over".

Yeah that was the first phrase I learned too. It worked. The the next day I jumped into a cab and went into the heart of Taipei by myself and got out. When I had enough of wandering around I climbed back in a cab only t find out the cabby (sher foo) could no speak any English and could not understand my English name for the hotel, "Santos". I was screwed. We went back and forth for a while with the options and finally settled on "San Der". Imagine my relief when we pulled up in front of my hotel. I said to myself, "That's never going to happen again." Right there I began trying to learn the language. 

The first time I told a cab driver to take me to the hotel in Mandarin ( San Der da fun dien Cheng Der Loo.) and we pulled up in front I was amazed. I just sat there thinking, "I spoke Chinese and a Chinese guy understood me."


I don't use Pinyin. I use my own code. I learn aurally. 

The girls at the front desk would write down in Chinese where I needed to go so I could give the card to the cabby. I told them "No, teach me how to say it so I can tell him myself." I would tuck the card into my pocket just in case. I made good friends with some of the regular cab drivers who hung at my hotel. I went bowling with one of them one Sunday afternoon. That was a hoot. Cab drivers can be good tutors.


----------



## guitarguy56

bobperry said:


> Guitar, the topics are never "over".
> 
> Yeah that was the first phrase I learned too. It worked. The the next day I jumped into a cab and went into the heart of Taipei by myself and got out. When I had enough of wandering around I climbed back in a cab only t find out the cabby (sher foo) could no speak any English and could not understand my English name for the hotel, "Santos". I was screwed. We went back and forth for a while with the options and finally settled on "San Der". Imagine my relief when we pulled up in front of my hotel. I said to myself, "That's never going to happen again." Right there I began trying to learn the language.
> 
> The first time I told a cab driver to take me to the hotel in Mandarin ( San Der da fun dien Cheng Der Loo.) and we pulled up in front I was amazed. I just sat there thinking, "I spoke Chinese and a Chinese guy understood me."
> 
> I don't use Pinyin. I use my own code. I learn aurally.
> 
> The girls at the front desk would write down in Chinese where I needed to go so I could give the card to the cabby. I told them "No, teach me how to say it so I can tell him myself." I would tuck the card into my pocket just in case. I made good friends with some of the regular cab drivers who hung at my hotel. I went bowling with one of them one Sunday afternoon. That was a hoot. Cab drivers can be good tutors.


Yep... those taxi drivers at times had my heart at my throat... incredibly scary but excellent drivers nonetheless... Yes I remember the cards as well but threw them out as you did... I just took out the Chinese guys I was mentoring for lunch and dinner every chance I could to make good use of the 'local cuisine and culture'.... Miss that a lot and wish I could muster the business again there...

Fun times... Glad someone here experienced it as well...

Cheers...

Not sure if they did it in your part of China you were at but in Fuxing Park everyday they had 'ballroom in the park' and I got to dance with some lovely Chinese women...


----------



## eko_eko

PCP said:


> Yes you are right and evidently it is like that. Ever new model from the same brand is just a little bit better then the previous model.
> 
> ...
> The same happens with cars: Two consecutive models (same type) from the same brand and the new one is slightly better.


Paulo, I don't know of any field where what you've said is universally true.

In every engineering endeavor there is usually a trend of improvement along the factors which are important at the moment. The factors do change over time. For example is this thing designed during the oil crisis or in times of cheap gas? That alone will cause any trend line drawn with today's priorities to waver from one of constant improvement.

A 1980s Honda Civic will get better gas mileage than one from the late 90s. The newer one was weighted down with safety gear and lost some economy to emission control. Depending on which axes you are measuring, a "betterness" trend for the civic might have a peak in the late 1980s and then a dip through the 1990s only to rise again in the last few years.

Another thing that can cause the new version of something to be worse than the old is the problem of fads. My car was produced in a window of time where proximity keys were all the rage. This particular model -- and its contemporaries from the same manufacturer -- take the notion too far and it is inconvenient as hell. Years later, everyone agrees it was a bad idea. The manufacturer has since reverted to an earlier design. People make mistakes.

In S. Florida you see homes built in the 1950s that survived Hurricane Andrew and homes built in the late 1980s that didn't. Newer was not better in 1992.

For recent computing examples, look at the response to the last several major Windows revisions. For an older computing example, search for "Road Apples".

If newer things were always better that would imply an unbelievable level of infallibility on the part of these designers. They are human. They make mistakes, have regrets, fall victim to fads or inaccurate marketing analyses, and generally foul things up from time to time. Then they learn and hopefully improve. The mistakes they produced may linger on.

You seem to be arguing that the latest iteration of any design family is always the best at that time. The rest of the posters in this thread are trying to remind you that newer is not necessarily better or worse. It is just different. Some change is good, some isn't.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> To make an evaluation of any sailboat having as main focus sailing extensively offshore in bad weather makes no sense simply because most of those boats will be used very rarely on those conditions and in what regards interior the needs for having a good boat regarding that conflict with the ones that will make it an agreeable boat to liveaboard at anchor or at the marina (out of the time they are cruising from anchorage to anchorage or from marina to marina). That's where those boats will pass most of the time and that is what most of their owners want to do with them.


Thing is...the boat isn't really tested until it has to survive these conditions. These conditions are the situations _where it really matters._

Having some extra legroom to sprawl out in the cockpit with a cocktail at the dock is just fluff. A nice bonus. Making it to the dock, however, is essential.

So...priorities. Yes, if you're careful, pick good weather windows, and are above all else _lucky_, then you can mostly avoid bad weather. But eventually, things just go wrong and you have to decide if skylights, numerous cheap hatches, and glass companionways on a boat were actually a good idea with hundreds of tons of seawater slamming down on them. You view them as amenities that make the boat move "liveable". I view them as disastrous points of failure.

I guess I'm just not optimistic enough.


----------



## Noelex

Learning the language even if it just a few words is important when traveling. Fortunately cruising by yacht means you typically spend a long time in a country so there is plenty of opportunity.

However, I have found modern technology a great help. A mobile phone can be used to photograph the train station, hotel etc. Showing this to a cab driver usually gets the point across. You can use the maps and GPS on your phone as a further check or illustration of where you want to go.

Photographs on the phone are particularly useful when trying to buy technical items. Even if you are conversing with someone with reasonable knowledge of English, technical terms are not often part of their vocabulary. A photo of the part or tool you require taken on your phone (or downloaded from the net) does wonders in helping people understand. They can usually at least point you in right direction to find a suitable shop.

Oh and it saves you making chicken or sheep noises in the butchers shop :laugh.


----------



## Minnewaska

Is it just me?

Many new boats are going to the flush deck design, with recessed hatches. If you like the clean look, more power to you, I don't really think the look matters. When I see a boats lines, my eye has almost never been drawn to her hatches.

I'm just scratching my head from a practical standpoint. I've heard some say these recessed hatches clear up the foredeck. But you still shouldn't stand on them, so what's so much clearer? I even wonder if they make it more likely that you'll accidentally stand on one. 

When aboard the Hylas 63, which has flush hatches, I noticed that water is to drain through a molded sluice that runs under the deck. Seemed like a clogging hazard to me and you'd need one long pipe cleaner to unclog it. Probably 4 or 5 feet, as I recall. 

I think all this flush stuff is just catering to an aesthetic trend, more than anything else. Pay up, if you like it. 

I'm a big fan of a bow thruster, because it's doing something that old tech didn't do. However, my cleats and hatches aren't missing anything and I don't see what improvement is being made, other than aesthetics, on their modern evolutions.


----------



## seaner97

Minnewaska said:


> Is it just me?
> 
> Many new boats are going to the flush deck design, with recessed hatches. If you like the clean look, more power to you, I don't really think the look matters. When I see a boats lines, my eye has almost never been drawn to her hatches.
> 
> I'm just scratching my head from a practical standpoint. I've heard some say these recessed hatches clear up the foredeck. But you still shouldn't stand on them, so what's so much clearer? I even wonder if they make it more likely that you'll accidentally stand on one.
> 
> When aboard the Hylas 63, which has flush hatches, I noticed that water is to drain through a molded sluice that runs under the deck. Seemed like a clogging hazard to me and you'd need one long pipe cleaner to unclog it. Probably 4 or 5 feet, as I recall.
> 
> I think all this flush stuff is just catering to an aesthetic trend, more than anything else. Pay up, if you like it.
> 
> I'm a big fan of a bow thruster, because it's doing something that old tech didn't do. However, my cleats and hatches aren't missing anything and I don't see what improvement is being made, other than aesthetics, on their modern evolutions.


It's not you.


----------



## PCP

Shockwave said:


> It's a perfect boat for the cocktail circuit. Marina to marina, maybe a night or two out on the anchor. That has no appeal for me, maybe Paulo likes that. That's fine, we all like what we like.


See if you get it right: There are many types of sailors and cruisers.

Some just prefer to go to marinas even if they are hundreds or thousands of km apart. On a sailingboat it is not the way you "park" the boat, on a marina or at anchor, but the in between, the sailing part and the Sense sails a lot better then any 30 year old boat, not to mention a 50 year old one.

Some, including me , like to receive people aboard, on anchor or at the marina, have some cocktails and chat trough the evening or night. For that you need a spacious cockpit and the Sense excels at that.

There are many types of boats and the Sense is a main market boat and that means that is pointed to what most sailors want from a sailingboat.

It is not what you would wanted, it is not what I wanted, pretty much by opposite reasons, but that only means that you and I belong to minorities in what regard sailing and cruising.

You talk like if the minority to whom you belong was the only one that has got it right, I mean the way of cruising, the type of boat and the lifestyle. That makes no sense.


----------



## outbound

Thesis
Antithesis 
Synthesis 
Progress


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> *Überlieferung*
> Hope PCP doesn't speak German - that could give him apoplexy


I don't see how. I have owned a traditional 80 year's old sailing boat for several years. It was my first sailing boat and I loved it.

Traditional boats are some thing that should be treasured and maintained. I don't see any problem even in reproducing copies of traditional boats to maintain live the traditions and to enjoy sailing as it was on those days.

Another thing is to design modern boats with traditional characteristics out of some derived looks: in what regards shape of hulls, keels and rudders they are hopelessly outdated in what regards sailing art and will perform very poorly when compared with a modern sailingboat.

A good sailing performance is not the point in what regards traditional boats but it is surely the point in what regards modern designs.


----------



## bobperry

I like flush hatches but you don't get something for nothing. The hatch frame and drains intrude into the headliner area often taking away some headroom. Then there is the draining issue. This can be accommodated. For the carbon cutters we chose the high profile Hood s.s. hatches as we though they were the very best available.

I'm a fan of as many opening ports as possible and these work best for light and ventilation if they are in the sides of a cabin trunk. This eliminates the sexy, low wedgy cabin trunks of many modern yachts. But it's a practical issue. I work had to get in as many opening ports as I can. While I like trendy I owe my clients what I know works best. My clients do not come to me for trendy. The big round ports in the hull sides are not trendy either but they are opening.

Come to think of it, I don't do trendy. Not interested.

The new PSC 63 is festooned with opening ports in addition to lots of hatches and Dorades. the need for ventilation cannot be overestimated. This boat will spend much of its life in the Caribbean.
Painted white and not black. But I like the black.


----------



## PCP

eko_eko said:


> Paulo, I don't know of any field where what you've said is universally true.
> 
> In every engineering endeavor there is usually a trend of improvement along the factors which are important at the moment. ...


In some fields improvements in design are faster then others and that's all the one thing to discuss is the average time some complex functional item will become outdated.

For instance in what regards computers it is ridiculous to compare the performance of a modern one with a 15 year old one. On cars it is ridiculous to try to compare the performance of a new one with the performance of a similar program model from 30 years ago and the same happens with boats.

We can discuss the amount of time that in each area takes for a boat, a car or a computer to be hopelessly out performed by a new model, but that is all that can be discussed or do you think it would make any sense to compare the performance of a yacht from the nineteen century with the performance of a new one?


----------



## bobperry

"A good sailing performance is not the point in what regards traditional boats but it is surely the point in what regards modern designs."

PCP, you still do not understand.
I think you will never understand. You live in a very confined world. I do not.


----------



## outbound

The PSC makes the point about Hegelian evolution. 

Balanced fin for a rudder. Advanced keel design. Modern construction techniques and use of computers in hull design etc.

But near vertical hatches evolved from an old design, split rig, camber to house top, bow overhang, dorades etc.

One can see this is a strong boat. Easy to live on. Easy to sail on with excellent days work on passage. Easy to service. But as important with a awesome row away factor. I'm sure it was a huge investment in time and money for both the owner and Mr. Brodie. It looks like it hits the sweet spot and is not a disposable boat catering to current trends but rather the needs of people and the realities of the sea.


----------



## jerryrlitton

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, those "Voyage Interiors" just keep getting better and better, it's amazing what they can do with all that _SPACE..._
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Oceanis 60 that recently disappeared in a typhoon in the South China Sea, that would have been fun attempting to move around down below in extreme conditions, eh?


If this is modern contemporary styling I want no part of it. Looks like an office. All you need is dentist chair Muzak and people in those chairs with headphones. Too funny. But ok tied to a dock I suppose.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> I like flush hatches but you don't get something for nothing. The hatch frame and drains intrude into the headliner area often taking away some headroom. Then there is the draining issue. This can be accommodated. For the carbon cutters we chose the high profile Hood s.s. hatches as we though they were the very best available.
> 
> I'm a fan of as many opening ports as possible and these work best for light and ventilation if they are in the sides of a cabin trunk. This eliminates the sexy, low wedgy cabin trunks of many modern yachts. But it's a practical issue. I work had to get in as many opening ports as I can. While I like trendy I owe my clients what I know works best. My clients do not come to me for trendy. The big round ports in the hull sides are not trendy either but they are opening.
> 
> Come to think of it, I don't do trendy. Not interested.
> 
> The new PSC 63 is festooned with opening ports in addition to lots of hatches and Dorades. the need for ventilation cannot be overestimated. This boat will spend much of its life in the Caribbean.
> Painted white and not black. But I like the black.


That is not about being trendy. The word trendy can only be applied to non sailing functional parts of the boat and in what regards the cabin you are right. Nothing wrong in choosing a traditional look.

But in what regards the hull the word trendy cannot be applied anymore since it is a functional sailing part and in what regards that the question is if it is to the state of the art or not in what regards sailing efficiency.

And in what regards that that boat could be easily designed 20 or 30 years ago. The only real modern thing is a spade rudder that is just a small detail on a old designed hull far away from the state of the art.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Capt Len said:


> Stand still ,little sheep ,and be shorn. All bleat, no bark.


Lemmings also.


----------



## seaner97

Uh oh


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> Is it just me?
> 
> Many new boats are going to the flush deck design, with recessed hatches. If you like the clean look, more power to you, I don't really think the look matters. When I see a boats lines, my eye has almost never been drawn to her hatches.
> 
> I'm just scratching my head from a practical standpoint. I've heard some say these recessed hatches clear up the foredeck. But you still shouldn't stand on them, so what's so much clearer? I even wonder if they make it more likely that you'll accidentally stand on one.
> 
> When aboard the Hylas 63, which has flush hatches, I noticed that water is to drain through a molded sluice that runs under the deck. Seemed like a clogging hazard to me and you'd need one long pipe cleaner to unclog it. Probably 4 or 5 feet, as I recall.
> 
> I think all this flush stuff is just catering to an aesthetic trend, more than anything else. Pay up, if you like it.
> 
> I'm a big fan of a bow thruster, because it's doing something that old tech didn't do. However, my cleats and hatches aren't missing anything and I don't see what improvement is being made, other than aesthetics, on their modern evolutions.


Nope, not just you, and that's an excellent example of an 'advancement' made purely from form taking priority over function, and an introduction of more complexity to make it happen...

From a design stantpoint, such hatches _will_ be more likely to leak... They will be more difficult to fit a cover over when not in use, how would you secure a protective cover over them, while keeping the deck clean, or the use of some sort of fasteners similarly 'recessed'? How would you secure a hatch dodger, so they could be left open in the rain, or when taking spray on deck while underway? Well, you don't, that's what generators and AC systems to replace natural ventilation are for, of course... But I fail to see how the elimination of dorade vents, or hatches that can be left open in inclement weather, are not an 'improvement' on the sort of boats most of us sail, in anything other than purely aesthetic terms...

The trend towards leading running rigging aft below decks, in an effort to keep the decks or coachroof 'clean', is another that strikes me as incredibly dumb... I've run boats where some halyards and control lines were led aft from the mast through tubes inside a curved handrail on the coachroof... Precisely the sort of thing to elicit Ooohs & Ahhs at the boat show, but a real PITA in actual usage. That boat really needed electric winches, the additional friction this setup induced was substantial, and was a recipe for breaking something, if a hockle in the line happened to develop at the entrance or exit of those channels, for instance...

I'm seeing many boats now with jib sheets disappearing into a rabbit hole in the deck... Great, but what happens if you want to alter the sheet lead substantially with the use of a barber haul, or when using a whisker pole sailing DDW, when the sheet typically has to be led outside the lifelines, and through a different snatch block or similar on the rail?

Or, a furling line led below deck, to a recessed drum forward? Yeah, what could _POSSIBLY_ go wrong, there?

Well, that's what hired crew is for, I suppose... ;-) And, when they're not running around attending to some of this stuff, one can be permanently stationed at the bow, to alert the person at the helm to all that cannot be seen behind those sexy deck-sweeping headsails, which help give these boats all that "performance", and make them so much more "fun to sail"...

Got a chuckle out of that video Paulo posted of the Oyster 825, and the shot of Dieter Loibner standing in the salon... Dieter is a fairly tall guy, but what is the point of a deck salon, if you would have to stand on a step stool, to be able to look out through all those pretty windows?


----------



## PCP

jerryrlitton said:


> If this is modern contemporary styling I want no part of it. Looks like an office. All you need is dentist chair Muzak and people in those chairs with headphones. Too funny. But ok tied to a dock I suppose.


In what regards that I fully agree with you that the choice of an interior, in what regards style, has nothing with the functionality of a sailboat and it is just a personal choice. What I can tell you as an Architect is that the interior design of the Sense 55 is a high quality design in what regards modern spaces that are what most clients prefer.

That has nothing to do with the individual tastes of each person in what regards style but one thing is right, your taste is a minority one (nothing wrong with that).

If your taste regarding boat interiors was the more common you could be sure that on the Sense you would find an interior according to your taste for the simple reason that they are there to make money and give to the sailors what they want.

The photos you post cannot really give an image of the Sense 55 interior that we can "feel" much better on a 360º view:

Beneteau-Sense-55


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> But you should. All the boats are not the same and that one looks pretty badly built, at least on that area. Doing that you are raising unjustified suspicions regarding many brands. Nothing worse than generalizing a thing like that.


Sorry but I disagree 150%. I am trying to get folks to ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE BUYING not give them a cook-book for what boat this came from so they can then avoid it based of an n=1. The boat brand is _not important_ but _the construction is_. Folks need to actually LOOK at what they are buying.

Should stuff like this just be accepted because naive boat buyers refuse to do their homework?

When buyers don't _demand_ safer and better built boats they get things like _highly polished SS double sinks_ and _Ultraleather_ interiors instead of well designed chain plates.

31 footer:









This inward deck flange is barely as thick as the fender washer for the stanchion. The chain plates are simply bolted through the toe rail and paper thin deck flange with a "dinky" backing plate. 
Is this acceptable? Really?









I urge EVERYONE to poke your head around some these boats, really into every nook & cranny, as I do....

Remove the cushions, peel back the headliner. Use inspection scopes so you can see what level of _shoddy_ the builders are HIDING FROM YOU. I think many would be very surprised at what can lurk. Only once you actually know _what is hiding_ or _how the vessel was put together_ can you then make an educated buying decision. Sadly many buyers never look beyond the Ultraleather or the "Category A" CE rating, which one of the boats I have recently shown is certified for.


----------



## bobperry

"The word trendy can only be applied to non sailing functional parts of the boat"

There you go again PCP with your ridiculous attempts to tell us how to think. Give it a rest. We can think for ourselves.

As for, you have no idea where the technology begins and ends in that design to claim you do just proves your level of ignorance. You look at a profile rendering and pass judgement on the technology of the keel shape and hull form. You, who has never designed a boat in his lfie. You just do not have the background, You are a wannabe.

Unfortunately you have diarrhea of the fingers and can't stop typing. It's like an illness. You have little to say but you'll say it over and over.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> Got a chuckle out of that video Paulo posted of the Oyster 825, and the shot of Dieter Loibner standing in the salon... Dieter is a fairly tall guy, but what is the point of a deck salon, if you would have to stand on a step stool, to be able to look out through all those pretty windows?


That is a fair point but it regards what people really want. In fact the therm deck salon that once was used for a saloon that could give views to the outside is now almost unanimously used regarding a saloon that has a very high ceiling and that has almost continuous "window" around the deck allowing for a lot of light on a very spacious saloon.

That happens also because today cruising boats offer views to the outside through port hulls.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the terminology and it's use or with that kind of spaces, it is just what people want and what is happening specially on smaller yachts (under 60ft) where there is no space for a space like that and a pilot house.

The boats that now offer the possibility of having that kind of functionality today are mostly voyage boats.



















There is however some few main market boats that escape to that rule:


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> Sorry but I disagree 150%. I am trying to get folks to ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE BUYING not give them a cook-book for what boat this came from so they can then avoid it based of an n=1. The boat brand is _not important_ but _the construction is_. Folks need to actually LOOK at what they are buying.
> 
> Should stuff like this just be accepted because naive boat buyers refuse to do their homework?
> 
> When buyers don't _demand_ safer and better built boats they get things like _highly polished SS double sinks_ and _Ultraleather_ interiors instead of well designed chain plates.
> 
> 31 footer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This inward deck flange is barely as thick as the fender washer for the stanchion. The chain plates are simply bolted through the toe rail and paper thin deck flange with a "dinky" backing plate.
> Is this acceptable? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I urge EVERYONE to poke your head around some these boats, really into every nook & cranny, as I do....
> 
> Remove the cushions, peel back the headliner. Use inspection scopes so you can see what level of _shoddy_ the builders are HIDING FROM YOU. I think many would be very surprised at what can lurk. Only once you actually know _what is hiding_ or _how the vessel was put together_ can you then make an educated buying decision. Sadly many buyers never look beyond the Ultraleather or the "Category A" CE rating, which one of the boats I have recently shown is certified for.


No and I agree with you but it would make all sense to know of what you are talking I mean regarding what boat or boats you are talking about. Production boats are not all the same, not even all the same from the same builder. You were talking about a 2006 boat, those chain-plates are not the ones used by Bavaria or Jeanneau on boats of that vintage (or ever I think). I don't know the system used by Beneteau but it seems very strange to me that they used something like that.


----------



## seaner97

Man that's a fugly boat.
I'm getting more glad by the post that I'm not in the 'target market' for these people.


----------



## bobperry

Seaner: 
It is a scary thought.
Kind of like being told to eat at Taco Bell. The market wants it so it must be good!


----------



## seaner97

Careful Bob, someone will call you a Commie soon. "The market is infallable!"


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> "The word trendy can only be applied to non sailing functional parts of the boat"
> 
> There you go again PCP with your ridiculous attempts to tell us how to think. Give it a rest. We can think for ourselves.
> 
> .... You look at a profile rendering and pass judgement on the technology of the keel shape and hull form. ....
> Unfortunately you have diarrhea of the fingers and can't stop typing. It's like an illness. You have little to say but you'll say it over and over.


No, I don't understand why you say that I had looked only at the profile, I had looked also to a superior view and a cut of that hull and even if looking only to the profile there are sufficient data that allows to say that is an old type of hull, from the huge difference between the LOA and the LWL to the shape of the keel. That information is complemented when you look to a superior view and to the cut, I mean in what regards to be an old designed boat and not one to the state of the art:










Nothing wrong with that, that is a good looking boat and there are still some that will want such a boat and it seems they are almost all on this thread LOL

I Only objected to your use of the word "not trendy" to define that boat as if boats designed to the state of the art would not be that way for a question of sail efficiency but for some fashion reason that has nothing to do with sail efficiency.


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
I think my clients are more the "fallible" type.
They come to me precisely because they do not want what the market wants, whoever the market is. I think there are a plethora of markets (Mucho gracias El Guapo). Some are big and very dumbed down and some are very small and sophisticated. Each market requires a specific approach and my work covers one of those approaches. My work is relevant to my small market and that's all. That keeps me happy and busy enough.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
Is it even possible for you to post without insulting people?
"Nothing wrong with that, there are still some that will want such a boat and it seems they are almost all on this thread LOL"

You cannot analyze the sectional shape of my boat without more material. Even if you had a full set of lines you lack the experience and skill to make determinations. Get used to it.

But keep it up. All you have is vacant talk.

PS: Many thanks for posting my lovely drawings. Must drive you crazy that I can actually do it while you can only talk about it.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> Is it even possible for you to post without insulting people?
> "Nothing wrong with that, there are still some that will want such a boat and it seems they are almost all on this thread LOL"
> ...


LOL at the end means that I was kidding but if you want I would say many are on this thread, without kidding.

There are production boats with different kinds of traditional tastes presently on the markey, some even pure classical, on those you will find modern more efficient keels and on the traditional ones, not only a modern keel but also a considerably more maximized LWL and more hull form stability.

These ones are not sold on a single exemplar but, particularly the traditional ones, are a very successful series with many boats built. Even so they represent a very tiny, tiny percentage of the market in what regards cruising boats with that size. If more people wanted that type of boat that would mean that you will sell several of them but I doubt that or at least in any meaningful numbers regarding the offer of more modern traditional or classical boats available on that market.


----------



## bobperry

Blah, blah, blah

Let's have more substance. Less blah.

"State of the art" is a foiling trimaran doing 45 knots. Everything else is yesterday. In 12 months 45 knots will be yesterday. Let's be real.
Is 7 knots slow and 9.5 knots fast?
No, 45 knots is fast.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> LOL at the end means that I was kidding but if you want I would say many are on this thread, without kidding.
> 
> There are production boats with different kinds of traditional tastes presently on the markey, some even pure classical, on those you will find modern more efficient keels and on the traditional ones, not only a modern keel but also a considerably more maximized LWL and more hull form stability.
> 
> These ones are not sold on a single exemplar but, particularly the traditional ones, are a very successful series with many boats built. Even so they represent a very tiny, tiny percentage of the market in what regards cruising boats with that size. If more people wanted that type of boat that would mean that you will sell several of them but I doubt that or at least in any meaningful numbers regarding the offer of more modern traditional or classical boats available on that market.


Wait, now successful is how many are sold? I'm getting really confused as to what your goalposts are.
I'd also point out that your 'market' is price oriented. Most of the better looking/more traditional designs are way more expensive than the value oriented designs that are out there. I could be wrong, but I bet if Bob's cutter design or the PSC was scaled down and could be produced at a similar pricepoint, particularly with quality that he would allow, there would be a much larger segment of the market that would immediately gravitate towards those designs. As it is, that segment of the market has no offerings, which is one of the reasons why you have most of the people on this site with 30+ year old boats.


----------



## Maine Sail

Some of this stuff is just not easy to inspect so you must have blind faith in the builder to have made the right engineering choices.. How does a buyer even evaluate the engineering of such a "chain plate"....??

Late 90's 43 footer complete rig loss in 19 knots. Repair costs 35k. Acceptable? 









Apparently the _"limit"_ for this customer was 19 knots..... D'oh......


----------



## bobperry

"Wait, now successful is how many are sold? I'm getting really confused as to what your goalposts are."

There you have it in a nutshell Seaner. PCP continually moves the goal posts. The moment you point out how ridiculous his last statement was he changes the argument to cover his rear end. He's been doing that ever since I ran into him here. It's his tactic. That way he can never be "wrong". " No, you were mistaken. I wasn't talking about that." He has no substance to stand on so admitting error is not a possibility.
Me? I'm wrong all the time. But I put in the correction, as my Sensai would say, and I move to not commit the same error again. I think this is called "learning", for me an ongoing process. I have enough substance in my body of work to maintain self confidence eve when making an error. Kind of like Roger Federer muffing a backhand. No big deal.

Maine:
On your last photo. That is not carbon fiber. What is i? I presume that is a chainplate. Looks like burlap!
"We can wrap some fabric over this bushing. Hey, give me your shirt."


----------



## Maine Sail

bobperry said:


> Maine:
> On your last photo. That is not carbon fiber. What is i? I presume that is a chainplate. Looks like burlap!
> "We can wrap some fabric over this bushing. Hey, give me your shirt."


I dunno Bob, but regardless, it looks like the "_limits_" were found at a _very scary_ 19 knots....:wink


----------



## seaner97

Looks to me like a 'modern improvement' to 'avoid crevice corrosion'. Trust us- it'll be just as strong as metal and never need maintenance.


----------



## skygazer

Cars??

We are misled here by poor analogies. In response to the statement that the ocean has not changed, someone compared boats to cars, and stated roughly that the roads haven't changed much, but cars are improving. 

Sailboats were around thousands of years ago. Automobiles became common barely 150 years ago, so are nearer the beginning of their development compared to boats. Wheels were tall and thin to cut through the mud and snow. Roads have improved drastically since then, wheels are short and wide. Even in my life time I've seen a big improvement with engineered roads becoming the main travel way instead of rough country roads.

Spacecraft? Probably at the stage of clinging to a log to cross a river.

After thousands of years simple experiments and evolution of design have produced pretty good boats, based on what survives the critical moments out there. The ocean has not changed at all except for manmade junk floating in it. Long long history so we are not at the beginning of boat development. It is harder to make breakthroughs, more things were tried in the past then we know or remember.

Performance today is taken to mean speed and maneuverability. Performance in reality should include how the boat handles (performs in) storms on the ocean. When flat bottomed hard chined boats get stability from form, it really means they rely on the surface of the water for orientation. Great when the surface is flat. But when the surface is tilted, the boat tends to align with the surface. In heavy waves, that will produce more rapid tilting to try to follow the surface, requiring more rapid acceleration from side to side. A more rounded bottom will not have to follow the surface so closely and will have less acceleration, thus less fatigue and puking. 

Visualize it taken to extremes. A piece of 2x6 wood with a heavy bolt screwed to the bottom and laying flat will orient to the surface. A ball with a weight at the bottom will tend to stay more upright, or will roll slowly with less acceleration.

I have found that even new bicycles with short frames and upright forks without rake are marketed as "responsive". My experience is they are tiring. Glance back over my shoulder and I find I've changed lanes! Great for racing and short hops. Lousy for long enjoyable relaxing rides. I have zero interest in modern racing style boats. Sailed by athletic young men in all weather gear knocking themselves out. Good on them, and I'm sure they will discover something useful besides keels that fall off. 

I don't care if most of the time boats are used in good weather or at the dock. When stuff happens, even if only once, I want a boat based on those that return. I might not get two chances to survive. 

I hate the hotel room look of the modern boat interior. I notice that even my tiny Tartan 27-2 has handholds inside. I hate the large continuous picture windows. If ice smashes through, how can it be blocked? I'd rather struggle with blocking a small opening. I want a boat that can take the worst conditions, and then I want to do all I can to avoid those conditions.

That's my two cents!


----------



## outbound

Hull windows 

When actually cruising off the marina circuit may have to dock next to commercial docks. Often these don't align to rub rails ( sorely lacking on many current offerings) and may have various things attached which may touch your boat regardless of how many fenders you carry. When scratched defects don't easily buff out of these windows. When struck soundly the sitting may be impacted leading to leaks down the road. When installed correctly they can be every bit as strong as the hull but unlike the hull may need to be replaced not repaired if injured.

A side issue is some people find it very disconcerting to see the sea rushing by going to weather. Have heard some folks cover them from the inside when sailing to keep their crews stomachs settled.

Think they are necessitated by the high freeboard of some current boats. As Bob points out a house also allows headroom and permits having lights that open which the ones in hull ones generally don't.

Personally have found the Oysters pretty except for those three vertical lights which to my eye totally break up the flow of the lines. 

Understand deck prisms also have their issues and can leak but think flush deck or near flush deck boats necessitating hull lights don't have the myriad benefits of having a good house with intrinsic light and ventilation easy to achieve. Just going forward is a different experience. Lose the grab rail on the top of the house. Lose opening windows. Have green water careening aft. Big open space but hard to live with.

See boats where you can look through one side and see out the other. See people in varying states of undress or in various activities when taking the dinghy in. Avert my eyes. Not everyone is a sight to see and think people deserve their privacy.

Here newer is not necessarily better unless the designer has thought long and hard about how to make up the issues that design feature creates.


----------



## JonEisberg

Maine Sail said:


> I dunno Bob, but regardless, it looks like the "_limits_" were found at a _very scary_ 19 knots....:wink


Or, 47 knots, as measured by Ian van Tuyl, and posted on YouTube...

;-)


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> Wait, now successful is how many are sold? ...


If sailors like a boat a lot then commands will be made and from that design or a similar one more boats will be built.

Several production boats started like that, recently Boreal for instance. A boat was made more people appeared wanting the same boat and in some time they were so many that the boat started to be produced for the many commands that come.

Boreal, conceived by and for navigators | Boreal Yachts

Pretty much, the success of a design can be measured by the number of boats that are made over that design or a very similar one. That means that the design satisfies the needs of many sailors on that market sector being it big or small.


----------



## seaner97

Well, then, I've got a great boat!


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> When aboard the Hylas 63....


Yep - just another crappy production dock queen. Heh-heh.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Hull windows
> 
> When actually cruising off the marina circuit may have to dock next to commercial docks. Often these don't align to rub rails ( sorely lacking on many current offerings) and may have various things attached which may touch your boat regardless of how many fenders you carry. When scratched defects don't easily buff out of these windows. When struck soundly the sitting may be impacted leading to leaks down the road. When installed correctly they can be every bit as strong as the hull but unlike the hull may need to be replaced not repaired if injured.
> 
> A side issue is some people find it very disconcerting to see the sea rushing by going to weather. Have heard some folks cover them from the inside when sailing to keep their crews stomachs settled.


Amen to that... ;-)










First boat I ever delivered years ago with large portlights amidships that would submerge when heeled, I had my girlfriend along for the trip... She was a very experienced sailor, never got seasick, nothing ever bothered her, or made her frightened...

However, seeing those openings below the water, completely freaked her out...

;-)

Yeah, we wound up stuffing a pillow and blanket up against the leeward one, that calmed her down a bit ;-) However, coupled with an incredibly annoying squeak in the mast compression post that we were unable to remediate in any way, her lack of confidence and ability to feel entirely comfortable on that boat was destroyed... Precisely the sort of thing I have in mind, when I alluded in a prior post to the infinite variety of factors beyond the simple motion of a boat at sea, that will ultimately contribute to fatigue...

Although we had decent conditions on that trip for staying outside out around Canaveral, we wound up going back inside at Ponce Inlet, and running down the Ditch to Ft Pierce, due simply to the fact that I knew she was not enjoying the ride, and needed a rest from the assortment of niggling issues that she found disconcerting...

If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that you have to choose wisely, when it comes to which boats you want to invite a new girlfriend along, for the first time...

;-)


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> Some of this stuff is just not easy to inspect so you must have blind faith in the builder to have made the right engineering choices.. How does a buyer even evaluate the engineering of such a "chain plate"....??
> 
> Late 90's 43 footer complete rig loss in 19 knots. Repair costs 35k. Acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the _"limit"_ for this customer was 19 knots..... D'oh......


Again, there is a lot of boats that are not well built and given that there are many tens of thousands around that does not mean nothing if you don't specify the boat brand. That one don't look like a mass production European boat.

Yes if the chain-plates are made from metal and as any metal part have a limited life. Most brands advise the rigging to be substituted after 7 to 10 years and chain-plates after 15 to 20 years. That is not done on most part of the cases.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> Sorry but I disagree 150%. I am trying to get folks to ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE BUYING not give them a cook-book for what boat this came from so they can then avoid it based of an n=1. The boat brand is _not important_ but _the construction is_. Folks need to actually LOOK at what they are buying.
> 
> Should stuff like this just be accepted because naive boat buyers refuse to do their homework?
> 
> When buyers don't _demand_ safer and better built boats they get things like _highly polished SS double sinks_ and _Ultraleather_ interiors instead of well designed chain plates.
> 
> 31 footer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This inward deck flange is barely as thick as the fender washer for the stanchion. The chain plates are simply bolted through the toe rail and paper thin deck flange with a "dinky" backing plate.
> Is this acceptable? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I urge EVERYONE to poke your head around some these boats, really into every nook & cranny, as I do....
> 
> Remove the cushions, peel back the headliner. Use inspection scopes so you can see what level of _shoddy_ the builders are HIDING FROM YOU. I think many would be very surprised at what can lurk. Only once you actually know _what is hiding_ or _how the vessel was put together_ can you then make an educated buying decision. Sadly many buyers never look beyond the Ultraleather or the "Category A" CE rating, which one of the boats I have recently shown is certified for.


Jeez Maine, let's at least try to be reasonable here. You usually are - so it really stands out when you start going off the rails.

First - does the above 31' boat have the "Category A" CE rating? I doubt it. What boat is it?

Second, Jon and Minne and robertsailor are all going to cringe to see u-bolts with just fender washers and a tiny backing plate holding firm to the point of pulling the entire deck and flange and toerail up instead of ripping through that "paper thin deck" like they say should happen.

Again, I love debate - but let's not get mascara-running hysterical here.


----------



## seaner97

Wow, I think that might be the longest number of posts between Cat As in this thread!


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> Well, then, I've got a great boat!


If it was sold in great numbers certainly a great design in its own time.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> If it was sold in great numbers certainly a great design in its own time. It is a new one?


Not even close. But they did build 515 of them. It's apparently junk now, however.


----------



## outbound

Pretty much, the success of a design can be measured by the number of boats that are made over that design or a very similar one. That means that the design satisfies the needs of many sailors on that market sector.


Think here is a very fundamental difference between you and many posters.

Most folks don't know if a new acquisition gives full satisfaction until they have lived with that new thing for awhile. Yes units sold give the seller satisfaction ( edsels , corvairs, vw diesels to pick a discipline) but not necessarily the buyer.
Many folks will pick from the common offerings of their market. Sometime it's herd mentality. Sometimes lack of exposure to different things. Sometimes misplace priorities. Often simple lack of knowledge. Think American cars in the '80s. 
My father made a good living as chief of advertising and marketing for a multinational. You have drunk the kool aid Paulo. There is often little or no correlation between units sold and quality of product all too often. There are many factors beyond quality that result in sales.


----------



## bobperry

"Pretty much, the success of a design can be measured by the number of boats that are made over that design or a very similar one"

Really? I don't think so.

That's only one way to measure "success?, Do you know how many MacDonalds hamburgers were sold? Now that is some quality food. It has to be. The market has spoken. I think that success as measured by numbers sold is a very shallow way to look at the success of a design. It is one way and that is all. My own world is far more sophisticated that that.

They built over 600 Islander 32's but I do not consider it one of my best designs. It was "successful" in terms of units sold. That's all.
RED HERRING is a very successful design. They built one.
FRANCIS LEE looks like it's on its way to being very successful. They built one.
TICONDEROGA was a spectacularly successful design. They built one with a couple of spin offs.

Maybe PCP needs to spend more time with his English dictionary boning up on the definition of "successful". This is not a one dimensional word.

Now watch the goal posts get moved.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> _Quote:
> Originally Posted by bobperry View Post
> 
> Maine:
> On your last photo. That is not carbon fiber. What is i? I presume that is a chainplate. Looks like burlap!
> "We can wrap some fabric over this bushing. Hey, give me your shirt."_
> 
> I dunno Bob, but regardless, it looks like the "_limits_" were found at a _very scary_ 19 knots....:wink


Wait - you don't even know what that is in your own photo? Why the hell post it then? I've never seen a chainplate like that - looking like just a pin running through molded glass with no additional tie in to a below-decks structure? Something's not adding up.


----------



## Capt Len

When I first saw the hull ports I thought,'well the ice would surely catch and tear that open' Then I remembered that my chartered guests were mostly comatose on the cabin sole in rough weather so the big open living room would only have to be transversed by the delivery crew until safety and comfort of the marina was regained . Shows well and probably cuts the wind better than most. Not much interested in finding out as not my personal choice in style .That and the fact that I didn't and wouldn't want to build it myself Just a personal choice there .


----------



## bobperry

Smack:
It could be e glass strands wrapped around a bushing and spread out down the hull. That works with enough e glass. 
We do the same thing with carbon fiber but that does not look like carbon fiber to me.


----------



## Shockwave

I do understand there are all kinds of sailors/sailboat and I'm accepting of all types and styles of sailing, live and let live, vivre et laisser vivre. But it seems you don't. It seems you cannot accept that there are many older boats out there that are as good or better then a large percentage of the new crap being foisted upon an unknowing public. It seems you cannot accept the fact that some sailors prefer a traditional design, even new builds, not cruising the good ship IKEA.



PCP said:


> See if you get it right: There are many types of sailors and cruisers.
> 
> Some just prefer to go to marinas even if they are hundreds or thousands of km apart. On a sailingboat it is not the way you "park" the boat, on a marina or at anchor, but the in between, the sailing part and the Sense sails a lot better then any 30 year old boat, not to mention a 50 year old one.
> 
> I would be willing to bet our boat designed in the 60's, built in the early 70's;
> Cost substantially less, a fraction, of a new Sense 50
> Will beat it to the weather mark.
> Will beat it to the leeward mark.
> Has an easier helm.
> Will still be going strong forty years from now. Will the Sense?
> Is more comfortable on a passage, carries a bigger payload and more crew in comfort.
> 
> Some, including me , like to receive people aboard, on anchor or at the marina, have some cocktails and chat trough the evening or night. For that you need a spacious cockpit and the Sense excels at that.
> 
> Our old boat does that just fine, we often entertain 10 or 12, why would I need to buy an expensive, slow, cheaply built Sense 50 for that?
> 
> There are many types of boats and the Sense is a main market boat and that means that is pointed to what most sailors want from a sailingboat.
> 
> I look around the marina and most of the boats are traditional, I see very few glass encrusted pizza wedges. I think I'm in the majority.
> 
> It is not what you would wanted, it is not what I wanted, pretty much by opposite reasons, but that only means that you and I belong to minorities in what regard sailing and cruising.
> 
> You've said what you want, you want new, OK, that's cool. I want a good sailing boat, built well, quick, and reasonably priced.
> 
> You talk like if the minority to whom you belong was the only one that has got it right, I mean the way of cruising, the type of boat and the lifestyle. That makes no sense.
> 
> I don't think there is any right or wrong, only preferences. Your preference is NEW, that's fine but that doesn't make it right, the fastest, the most comfortable, best built, the best investment. It only makes it new.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Smack:
> It could be e glass strands wrapped around a bushing and spread out down the hull. That works with enough e glass.
> We do the same thing with carbon fiber but that does not look like carbon fiber to me.


Gotcha. Thanks. It will be interesting to see what the boat is.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Wait - you don't even know what that is in your own photo? Why the hell post it then? *I've never seen a chainplate like that - looking like just a pin running through molded glass with no additional tie in to a below-decks structure?* Something's not adding up.


What, you've never seen a Hunter 430?

CE Category A rated, no? "Perfectly fine" for taking offshore, right?

;-)

Your memory might be getting short, Smack... you posted to this first thread back in the spring of this year... ;-)

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/hunter/193330-hunter-b-r-rig-chain-plates.html

Hunter 430 dismasted | SailboatOwners.com Forums

http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/hunter-430-frp-cracking-at-chainplate.119112/


----------



## Shockwave

Maine, the problem is many new production boats are built in this fashion. How else do you build to a very low price point, something has to give to make the price attractive enough to sell them. Who looks at structure when there are flowers, throw cushions, LCD tv's and corrian counter tops. Plus the dealership gets a bit annoyed when boat show guests starting pulling up floorboards, looking behind panels and crawling into lazerettes. Sometimes they actually ask you to leave. :wink



Maine Sail said:


> Sorry but I disagree 150%. I am trying to get folks to ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE BUYING not give them a cook-book for what boat this came from so they can then avoid it based of an n=1. The boat brand is _not important_ but _the construction is_. Folks need to actually LOOK at what they are buying.
> 
> Should stuff like this just be accepted because naive boat buyers refuse to do their homework?
> 
> When buyers don't _demand_ safer and better built boats they get things like _highly polished SS double sinks_ and _Ultraleather_ interiors instead of well designed chain plates.
> 
> 31 footer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This inward deck flange is barely as thick as the fender washer for the stanchion. The chain plates are simply bolted through the toe rail and paper thin deck flange with a "dinky" backing plate.
> Is this acceptable? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I urge EVERYONE to poke your head around some these boats, really into every nook & cranny, as I do....
> 
> Remove the cushions, peel back the headliner. Use inspection scopes so you can see what level of _shoddy_ the builders are HIDING FROM YOU. I think many would be very surprised at what can lurk. Only once you actually know _what is hiding_ or _how the vessel was put together_ can you then make an educated buying decision. Sadly many buyers never look beyond the Ultraleather or the "Category A" CE rating, which one of the boats I have recently shown is certified for.


----------



## bobperry

Scary chainplates.

I did some carbon chainplates with Dennis Choate on a 56'er. I gave hmi the drawings and he said it was not stoing enough as drawn. I called the office and told my engineer to check his calcs. half an hour later my engineer, Tim Kernan, called back and said our specs were fine. Dennis said they were not fine again. I called Tim again. Tim called back, "They are fine." Dennis took me down to the marina and showed me an Alan Andrews 70'er had had built.
"Look at those chainplates."
"Wow", I said, "Are those to the Alan Andrew's specs?"
Dennis, "No, we doubled his spec."
So much for engineering. But I have learned to listen very hard to what a builder wants to do. They usually know what works without calculating anything.
With CF it is so easy to add a lot of strength with very little additional material. No sense in underbuilding.

Now for some sailing fun!
Check out this link for an extremely well done video on FRANCIS LEE. No blah, blah, blah just a lot of good information very well presented on a real boat.
To see the entire video you have to sign up in those windows on the right.
This is only Part One.
http://www.offcenter...3f568oFTfT44w9k


----------



## Capt Len

Just looked at the Hunter cure for the buggered chain 'pin' design flaw. Six closely placed bolts on ashiny plate, Yup that ought to be a big improvement ,maybe all the way to maybe 32.4 knots. (carefully calculated ,so don't quote me )


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> If it was sold in great numbers certainly a great design in its own time.


Or a great marketing department.


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


>


Not a bad concept if the pin is removable and the moulding work is adequate but putting that port opening right beside the chains was a pretty stupid idea.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Not a bad concept if the pin is removable and the moulding work is adequate but putting that port opening right beside the chains was a pretty stupid idea.


How else are you going to see the dock you're tied to?


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> Not even close. But they did build 515 of them. It's apparently junk now, however.


There will be a time where every boat or every car will be junk.

Not saying that in your case it is already now, it seems not to be the case.

The only ones that will survive will be the few ones that will have a historic interest. Anyway, like cars, at a given time it will be more expensive to maintain a very old one then to buy an used newer and better one. That's when they normally go to a junkyard.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Blah, blah, blah
> 
> Let's have more substance. Less blah.
> 
> "State of the art" is a foiling trimaran doing 45 knots. Everything else is yesterday. In 12 months 45 knots will be yesterday. Let's be real.
> Is 7 knots slow and 9.5 knots fast?
> No, 45 knots is fast.


Yes let's be real. The sailboat performance in what regards a good speed regards to each type of boat. The one from an American cup foiling boat has nothing to do with the one of a similar sized Open or IRC racer and that one will be superior to the one of a cruising boat.

State of the Art has obviously to do with each type of design. Back on its day, more than 40 years ago this one was a state of the art design:








and it was designed by you.

Regarding what is fast or slow it depends of type and length of the boat, from the wind and point of sail. 7 or 9k can be fast or slow. I would say that you are right regarding 45k to be fast under any conditions and regarding any size, if we are talking about sailboats.


----------



## bobperry

Really?
Where is this boat "junkyard". Maybe PCP should visit the "refurbishing CCA boat" thread here. There are a lot of bloats built in the early 60's that are still going strong and looking great.

Try telling this guy that his boat is ready for the junk yard.


----------



## Shockwave

Paulo, you do realize the Sense 50 has a PHRF rating of 90 don't you? That's barbarically slow for a NEW fifty footer. Hell, a 25 year old Baltic 50 rates 45.



PCP said:


> Yes let's be real. The sailboat performance in what regards a good speed regards to each type of boat. The one from an American cup foiling boat has nothing to do with the one of a similar sized Open or IRC racer and that one will be superior to the one of a cruising boat.
> 
> State of the Art has obviously to do with each type of design. Back on its day, more than 40 years ago this one was a state of the art design:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and it was designed by you.
> 
> Regarding what is fast or slow it depends of type and length of the boat, from the wind and point of sail. 7 or 9k can be fast or slow. I would say that you are right regarding 45k to be fast under any conditions and regarding any size, if we are talking about sailboats.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
The Valiant 40 was NEVER "state of the art". It was just a cruising boat. Compared to the IOR boats of the day the V-40 was a very traditional boat the day it was launched.

Now you have lapsed into the *ABSURD* You are trying to argue explaining to me the nature of one of my own designs.

Sorry to have to say that but I have had enough of your endless, nonsensical blather and BS. Some one around here has to call a spade a spade.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> There will be a time where every boat or every car will be junk.
> 
> Not saying that in your case it is already now, it seems not to be the case.
> 
> The only ones that will survive will be the few ones that will have a historic interest. Anyway, like cars, at a given time it will be more expensive to maintain a very old one then to buy an used newer and better one. That's when they normally go to a junkyard.


Agreed. It all depends on the individual and their needs/wants- which is what those of us on this side of the discussion have been trying to impress on you. That your wants are just that- no better or worse than ours. They are just yours. No value attached.
Now you want to talk pop up cleats, or flush hatches, or synthetic teak decks, then yeah- there is going to be value judgements attached as I think my opinion on them is totally defensible. But my old hull vs a new hull? New one will get you there faster, and some, but not all of them may be more comfortable than mine in a rough seaway. That makes them different, but not necessarily better.
Now, my boat predated the Cat A ratings, but was designed as a coastal cruiser/racer (although way down on the racer scale- I think that part was mostly marketing). But one of the design (might even have been mine as I've been trying to research her lineage) rode out the Fastnet storm in relative comfort sipping coffee while those fast IOR boats were being lost at sea. The IORs would kick my stern and sail figure 8s around me on light air days, however. Different horses for different courses, and my requirements in a boat may differ from yours, but are no less valid. You want to go skipping over the ocean until you wear it- go for it, but that certainly doesn't make it the only way to go. And the Cat A rating, as proven, doesn't make a boat seaworthy, it means a committee sat down and put some basic minimum standards down to be certain really bad schlock wasn't out there. Admirable, but not exactly a bar that if you clear means all that much more than that you met those criteria, some of which, I would bet, are both subjective and not necessarily 'quality improving'.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Really?
> Where is this boat "junkyard". Maybe PCP should visit the "refurbishing CCA boat" thread here. There are a lot of bloats built in the early 60's that are still going strong and looking great.
> 
> Try telling this guy that his boat is ready for the junk yard.


Hey man- don't throw the CCA thread to him! And I sail a boat, although some may think it's a bloat. :wink

I'd still love to hear some of your designers input over there as to either the validity of Jeff's statements or things that we could do to the old girls.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> "Pretty much, the success of a design can be measured by the number of boats that are made over that design or a very similar one"
> 
> Really? I don't think so.
> *
> That's only one way to measure "success?, Do you know how many MacDonalds hamburgers were sold? Now that is some quality food. It has to be. The market has spoken.* I think that success as measured by numbers sold is a very shallow way to look at the success of a design. It is one way and that is all. My own world is far more sophisticated that that.


Now that is pretty funny!! I really did laugh out loud!


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
I'll check that thread out again and see if I have anything to add.

The thing is that Jeff knows his stuff and is better at communicating it than I am. You are safe in his hands.

The guy with the pristine Morgan has his own thread over on CA. He loves his boat, has lots of photos of it and like very much to show it off.
I doubt it was ever "state of the art" (These f-----g labels are killing me!) but try telling this guy he sails a pig.


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Seaner:
> I'll check that thread out again and see if I have anything to add.
> 
> The thing is that Jeff knows his stuff and is better at communicating it than I am. You are safe in his hands.
> 
> The guy with the pristine Morgan has his own thread over on CA. He loves his boat, has lots of photos of it and like very much to show it off.
> I doubt it was ever "state of the art" (These f-----g labels are killing me!) but try telling this guy he sails a pig.


No doubt Jeff does, but sometimes we all perpetuate bad info inadvertently or let our own biases get in the way. Less with Jeff, but re-read it and see what you think.
I sail a similar pig and quite enjoy her. Mine is not nearly as pristine, but that is what the whole CCA refurb thread is about.
Ditto the labels/boxes.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> Hey man- don't throw the CCA thread to him! And I sail a boat, although some may think it's a bloat. :wink
> ,,,


You mean that they will survive for eternity? That was what I meant, all boats and cars of today will one day be on a junkyard, except the ones with historical value and those will cost a fortune to maintain and preserve.

Never talk about a time period.

You seem to have a knack for contesting the obvious:wink


----------



## albrazzi

PCP said:


> There will be a time where every boat or every car will be junk.
> 
> Not saying that in your case it is already now, it seems not to be the case.
> 
> The only ones that will survive will be the few ones that will have a historic interest. Anyway, like cars, at a given time it will be more expensive to maintain a very old one then to buy an used newer and better one. That's when they normally go to a junkyard.


True but I would venture that todays' new Boats will get there faster than yesterdays' We are all fortunate to be enjoying a time when Boats are able to be enjoyed by lots of people from diverse economic classes. I'm able to do what I do because the 20-25 year old boats are still quite serviceable. I'm afraid there wont be those opportunities for another generation. sorry if this is a bit of a derail.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> What, you've never seen a Hunter 430?
> 
> CE Category A rated, no? "Perfectly fine" for taking offshore, right?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Your memory might be getting short, Smack... you posted to this first thread back in the spring of this year... ;-)
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/hunter/193330-hunter-b-r-rig-chain-plates.html
> 
> Hunter 430 dismasted | SailboatOwners.com Forums
> 
> Hunter 430 FRP cracking at chainplate | SailboatOwners.com Forums


Yeah - my memory must be short. That sucks. Hunter should be ashamed of that one.

I'll go take a look at that SBO thread. Comparing the drawing to what I see in that photo, something isn't adding up.



JonEisberg said:


> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/hunter/193330-hunter-b-r-rig-chain-plates.html


That one was about a fire. And I told the dude I'd run - regardless of the type of boat.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> You mean that they will survive for eternity? That was what I meant, all boats and cars of today will one day be on a junkyard, except the ones with historical value and those will cost a fortune to maintain and preserve.
> 
> Never talk about a time period.
> 
> You seem to have a knack for contesting the obvious:wink


I expect my boat to go to the junkyard in about 100 years :wink (or when my son trashes it).

Not really sure what you're talking about regarding the 'obvious'. Maybe that's why I have a knack for contesting it- it isn't.
:confused


----------



## bobperry

Seaner:
Read the entire CCA boat thread. You guys are all over it. You don't need me. Jon knows his stuff too. Both Jons.
I'll keep my eye on the thread.

If you want to do some research into exactly what is meant by a "CCA boat" specifically, I'd suggest you go to GOB and find my article on the CCA. I did long articles on both the CCA and IOR to try and explain to sailors just why their boats look the way they do.

The CCA article was the hardest to write of any I have written. Pretty much all the experts are dead. (Wish I had called Charlie Morgan). When I Googled CCA I kept getting "Bob Perry" hits. That didn't work. But I tapped into my crony network and finally, with much help from Alan Andrews, I put the article together. It's not an easy read. It's very technical and all rule specific. But I think if you have a CCA style boat it's worth the effort to read.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay, I looked at both threads. The first case was on a 16-year-old boat according to the post dates. The second one on an 11-year-old boat. So both would be prime for a rig inspection and re-rigging in my opinion.

Even so, here's a more full view of that diagram image:










First, I love the language about the "unsightly metal plates" being bolted through the hull - when that's exactly how they ended up fixing this debacle.

BUT, looking at that failure pic and the way the end pieces look more intact than the centers, it seems to be that the SS bar might have snapped somewhere around the middle - instead of the whole thing just pulling up through the glass.

Even so, this sure seems like a lousy design to me (as a novice). Yet Bob said that this technique is used on other boats. So maybe Hunter just screwed it up. Who knows.

Or - maybe we're back to the disposability issue?


----------



## PCP

Shockwave said:


> Paulo, you do realize the Sense 50 has a PHRF rating of 90 don't you? That's barbarically slow for a NEW fifty footer. Hell, a 25 year old Baltic 50 rates 45.


I fail to understand the connection. The Baltic 50 that rates 45 is this one;









*It is not a main market cruiser but a cruiser-racer* and it is not 25 years old but a 17 years old. The sense 50 is a 5 year old design and we were talking about the Sense 55 a three year old design.










With a difference of design of 12 years and taking into consideration that one is a top racer-cruiser and the other is a very spacious and comfortable main market sailboat I don't see what that difference has of extraordinaire.

Has you know the PHRF varies greatly with the draft of the boat. The same boat with different drafts have considerable different ratings. T*he Sense 50 can have a draft of 1.75 or 2.10m*, t*he Baltic 50 has a draft of 3.3m*. Put that draft on the Sense and we will see the PHRF go down.

The Sense series are more luxurious and more heavy then the Oceanis series of Beneteau and slightly slower, but even so a sailing boat with a good sailing performance.

Maybe your idea was to compare the Sense 50 with a boat of the same category (main market) but older 25 years in design? That would be a boat designed in 1985. Be my guest and suggest one, maybe this one, with a design only two years older than that difference but bigger one ft?








Or this one, also a 50ft boat but with a much smaller difference on the age of the design. Only 13 years separate the design of this one from the design of the Sense 50:








As you can see here a Sense 50 sails quite well but only an American would have the idea of racing a Sense 50 (where do you get that PHRF?):


----------



## seaner97

Read it. Have also read your SAIL write ups on my boat and several others on the CCA era (Rob Mazza has some multiparters in GOB as well that have added some to it). When I was looking at boats I spent tons of time crawling all over various boats. I thought about taking out a loan for a new Hunter. Looked at Catalinas (grew up on one, after all), looked at Bristols, Cals, Columbias, a very poorly taken care of T37, a Cabo Rico 38 I couldn't afford without a loan, a J boat, a Bene, and a Jene. Probably a bunch I've forgotten. Almost bought a Pearson 30 (deal didn't feel right). Almost bought a Bristol 30 (guy wouldn't budge on the price). Looked at a Swedish IOR design that looked and sailed FAST, but damn uncomfortable and touchy, with a lot of pressure on the rudder. Paulo probably would have loved it except it wasn't fat enough in the aft. Ended up with mine. But not until I read a crudload on CCA designs and the racing rules and how they sailed and behaved. Some of it was written by Jeff- usually how crappy they are and that they should all be put on the bottom compared to the new stuff, but he has his reasons, and that's not really what he says, just my interpretation of the overarching theme that shines through in his opinions of them, and he's certainly tempered that a bit over the years. 
She needed a bunch of cosmetic work, but was otherwise very sound and I've been pretty happy with her over the last 5 years. Is she perfect? No way, but I bought her straight out in cash, she takes care of me and was in good enough shape that I could make her closer to perfect over the years. The HAVE to do list was short and cheap, and the NICE to do list is ever growing as something else annoys me or I look at it and say "hmm- wonder when that was replaced?".


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> That is not about being trendy. The word trendy can only be applied to non sailing functional parts of the boat and in what regards the cabin you are right. Nothing wrong in choosing a traditional look.
> 
> But in what regards the hull the word trendy cannot be applied anymore since it is a functional sailing part and in what regards that the question is if it is to the state of the art or not in what regards sailing efficiency.
> 
> And in what regards that that boat could be easily designed 20 or 30 years ago. The only real modern thing is a spade rudder that is just a small detail on a old designed hull far away from the state of the art.


Wow.

Its becoming increasingly impossible to ignore the fact that you simply do not know what you are talking about. You keep rattling off the same nonsense, despite getting schooled by the more knowledgeable all around you. None of it sinks in. You continue to compare computers to _boats_, for crying out loud. Moore's Law applies when talking about silicon buried inside a piece of consumer electronics...where raw performance literally is the entire consideration: Is it faster or is it not?

Boats on the other hand, are far more complicated. Most people buy them on the basis of aesthetics, bragging rights, and dockside appeal. Performance is secondary. Seaworthiness comes _last_, it would seem.

How long are you going to keep this up?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

PCP said:


> I guess you should change of brand: I don't know in Europe of any similar model built today that has not a considerable better millage then the similar 13 year old model.
> 
> Manufacturers have been concentrating hard on that point and the improvements on that area have been big. In many countries tax on cars depend on CO2 emission and that depends of the car consumption. That's why they have worked on that a lot: less tax means a car cheaper then the rival that pays more taxes because it wastes more fuel.


Wow, European cars. What a great example! Don't get me started about this wonder of contemporary European engineering!

Your European car manufacturer has made great efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions on its contemporary design. And made tons of money by selling the cars based on the tax advantages you mention.

Improvements have, indeed, been big. Problem is the progress was in finding even more pernicious ways for cheating on emissions tests. They have been concentrating hard on hiding that the 'modern clean diesel' spews out more than 40 times the allowed maximum of NOx. So one dude driving in his euro-chic car generates more nitrous oxides than a 40 ton truck in this country, after being told that his 'clean diesel' is actually eco-friendly. And all this from the ultra-ecological Germans, that don't miss an opportunity to lecture the world about pollution. Turns out they care sh*t about the environment and whether they are literally killing people, as long as they can make a buck.

And when they were caught in their deceit, for more than a year they condescendingly told the regulators that they were wrong. "You don't know what you are talking about, we know better, we are the largest car company in Europe, no, the world!" But you have to give it to them, they always had great commercials. At last year's Superbowl their motto was "Truth in engineering." You could not make that up!

They are fouling the air that we, and our children have to breath. I hope they get the largest fine allowable under the law and are made to buy back all the sickening cars that they sold with their fraudulent methods. Oh, wait, they have a plan for that too: Volkswagen actually suggested itself to buy back the illegal cars in Germany (which are even MORE polluting than those in the US because European pollution rules are much less rigorous). But not to shred them, or to fix them: instead, the plan is to sell them to Turkey, or Africa (or maybe Portugal?), any place where regulations are even less strict than in Germany. Nevermind they will foul the air there and literally kill people. It is good enough for the people there, they are just untermenschen.

European contemporary technology, my foot. See, you got me started.


----------



## Shockwave

Wrong Baltic Paolo, that one rates negative.

Admit it, the Sense 50 is a slow, glass covered, pizza boat. The rating of the Sense 50 is closer to Bob's Valent 40. ?

But it's new...????


----------



## PCP

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Wow, European cars. What a great example! Don't get me started about this wonder of contemporary European engineering!
> 
> Your European car manufacturer has made great efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions on its contemporary design. And made tons of money by selling the cars based on the tax advantages you mention.
> ...


What that has to do with it? I only said to a guy that if the 12 year new model of his old car wasted the same fuel as the old one he should change of brand. I did not even looked at what car he was talking about.

And it seems obvious to me: What is the same model of car that wastes today more fuel then 12 years ago?, not a VW certainly even with all the **** that they have been making in what regards emission control.


----------



## tdw

PCP said:


> You mean that they will survive for eternity? That was what I meant, all boats and cars of today will one day be on a junkyard, except the ones with historical value and those will cost a fortune to maintain and preserve.
> 
> Never talk about a time period.
> 
> You seem to have a knack for contesting the obvious:wink


.... and it was pretty damn obvious that is what you meant.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> What that has to do with it? I only said to a guy that if the 12 year new model of his old car wasted the same fuel as the old one he should change of brand. I did not even looked at what car he was talking about.
> 
> And it seems obvious to me: What is the same model of car that wastes today more fuel then 12 years ago?, not a VW certainly even with all the **** that they have been making in what regards emission control.


Of course...this depends entirely on fuel economy being the primary consideration.

Which is an ignorant assumption on your part. Again.

VW has always been a mediocre car in quality terms, it should be pointed out.


----------



## Shockwave

Paulo, have you raced? One design, IOR, RORC, IMS... bouy racing, distance racing. Trying to understand where you are coming from, what about new and shiny leads you to better?


----------



## slap

PCP said:


> I fail to understand the connection. The Baltic 50 that rates 45 is this one;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is not a main market cruiser but a cruiser-racer* and it is not 25 years old but a 17 years old. The sense 50 is a 5 year old design and we were talking about the Sense 55 a three year old design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a difference of design of 12 years and taking into consideration that one is a top racer-cruiser and the other is a very spacious and comfortable main market sailboat I don't see what that difference has of extraordinaire.
> 
> Has you know the PHRF varies greatly with the draft of the boat. The same boat with different drafts have considerable different ratings. T*he Sense 50 can have a draft of 1.75 or 2.10m*, t*he Baltic 50 has a draft of 3.3m*. Put that draft on the Sense and we will see the PHRF go down.
> 
> The Sense series are more luxurious and more heavy then the Oceanis series of Beneteau and slightly slower, but even so a sailing boat with a good sailing performance.
> 
> Maybe your idea was to compare the Sense 50 with a boat of the same category (main market) but older 25 years in design? That would be a boat designed in 1985. Be my guest and suggest one, maybe this one, with a design only two years older than that difference but bigger one ft?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this one, also a 50ft boat but with a much smaller difference on the age of the design. Only 13 years separate the design of this one from the design of the Sense 50:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see here a Sense 50 sails quite well but only an American would have the idea of racing a Sense 50 (where do you get that PHRF?):


How about the Beneteau Oceanus 500 from 1988? Its PHRF is 75, and has a draft of 1.8m.


----------



## outbound

Paulo you crack me up with your nonsense about the Sense,

BTW my 14y.o. design also has a PHRF of 90. It's design brief was to be a bullet proof CRUISER capable of crossing oceans . Racing was not in the brief.


Don't know hull #1 but do know hull #2. She's still going strong on her original chainplates.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:

Here, let me help you out. Here's a few more of my production boats. I don't have a list of my custom projects. Cut and paste that's it? You don't have a single original or creative idea. Cut and paste.
Knock yourself out: (I pulled this off another SN thread. It's not my list but it seems close.)

VALIANT 40-1 (101-199) 39.82' / 12.14m 1973 
ISLANDER FREEPORT 41 45.17' / 13.77m 1974 
HANS CHRISTIAN 36 42.00' / 12.80m 1974 
HANS CHRISTIAN 34 34.00' / 10.36m 1974 
PH 41 41.00' / 12.50m 1975 
ISLANDER 28 27.92' / 8.51m 1975 
BYSTEDT 30 30.00' / 9.14m 1975 
CT-54 54.00' / 16.46m 1975 
CT-37 36.67' / 11.18m 1976 
TAYANA 37 36.80' / 11.22m 1976 
BABA 30 30.00' / 9.14m 1976 
ISLANDER 32-2 31.96' / 9.74m 1976 
ISLANDER BAHAMA 26 26.00' / 7.92m 1976 
ISLANDER 26 25.83' / 7.87m 1976 
MIRAGE 26 (PERRY) 26.17' / 7.98m 1976 
ISLANDER FREEPORT 36 35.75' / 10.90m 1976 
VALIANT 32 32.00' / 9.75m 1976 
YACHTCRAFT 32 31.92' / 9.73m 1976 
SUN 838 27.50' / 8.38m 1977 
ISLANDER 32-3 31.96' / 9.74m 1977 
ESPRIT 37 37.00' / 11.28m 1977 
SUN 27 27.50' / 8.38m 1977 
SUN 28 28.00' / 8.53m 1977 
UNION POLARIS 36 36.25' / 11.05m 1977 
VALIANT 37 37.00' / 11.28m 1977 
VALIANT ESPRIT 37 37.00' / 11.28m 1978 
LAFITTE 44 44.33' / 13.51m 1978 
EO 36 36.00' / 10.97m 1978 
CHEOY LEE 35 34.83' / 10.62m 1979 
WESTSAIL 39 38.83' / 11.84m 1979 
BABA 35 34.83' / 10.62m 1979 
ALOHA 26 26.00' / 7.92m 1979 
CHEOY LEE 44 43.80' / 13.35m 1979 
POLARIS 43 42.67' / 13.01m 1979 
WHITE WING 35/36 35.93' / 10.95m 1980 
CHEOY LEE 48 47.83' / 14.58m 1980 
NORSEMAN 447 44.58' / 13.59m 1980 
NORDIC 44 43.83' / 13.36m 1980 
PASSPORT 40 40.67' / 12.40m 1980 
BABA 40 39.83' / 12.14m 1980 
ALOHA 8.2 27.00' / 8.23m 1980 
BABA 40 PH 39.83' / 12.14m 1980 
ISLANDER BAHAMA 28 27.92' / 8.51m 1981 
RELIANCE 37 37.00' / 11.28m 1981 
VALIANT 40-2 39.82' / 12.14m 1981 
NORDIC 40 39.67' / 12.09m 1981 
VALIANT 47 47.00' / 14.33m 1981 
GOLDEN WAVE 42 42.00' / 12.80m 1981 
MARINER 39 (PERRY) 38.83' / 11.84m 1981 
ALOHA 27 27.00' / 8.23m 1981 
VALIANT 40 PH 39.82' / 12.14m 1981 
SEAMASTER 46 46.00' / 14.02m 1982 
SCORPIO 72 65.00' / 19.81m 1982 
CT-65 / SCORPIO 72 64.83' / 19.76m 1982 
MIRAGE 25 (PERRY) 25.17' / 7.67m 1982 
MIRAGE 33 33.50' / 10.21m 1982 
MIRAGE 27 (PERRY) 27.92' / 8.51m 1982 
ALOHA 271 26.75' / 8.15m 1983 
ISLANDER 38 C 38.00' / 11.58m 1983 
MIRAGE 30 30.00' / 9.14m 1983 
ISLANDER 34-2 34.33' / 10.46m 1983 
MIRAGE 35 35.50' / 10.82m 1983 
TATOOSH 51 51.00' / 15.54m 1983 
ISLANDER FREEPORT 38 38.00' / 11.58m 1983 
TAYANA 52 52.42' / 15.98m 1983 
PASSPORT 47 46.58' / 14.20m 1983 
PANDA 40 39.83' / 12.14m 1983 
TATOOSH 42 41.83' / 12.75m 1984 
NASSAU 45 45.92' / 14.00m 1984 
NORDIC 34 34.00' / 10.36m 1984 
TASHIBA 40 39.87' / 12.15m 1984 
PASSPORT 37 37.00' / 11.28m 1984 
TASHIBA 31 31.19' / 9.51m 1986 
TASHIBA 36 36.00' / 10.97m 1986 
TASHIBA 36 PH 36.00' / 10.97m 1986 
CT-56 55.50' / 16.92m 1986 
PASSPORT 41 41.33' / 12.60m 1987 
MIRAGE 32 32.00' / 9.75m 1987 
SOUTH PACIFIC 42 41.92' / 12.78m 1988 
NORDIC 45 RS 45.33' / 13.82m 1988 
TAYANA 47 CC 47.00' / 14.33m 1991 
TAYANA 47 DS 47.00' / 14.33m 1991 
VALIANT 42 42.00' / 12.80m 1992 
PASSPORT 50 50.00' / 15.24m 1994 
VALIANT 39 39.33' / 11.99m 1995 
NORSTAR 44 43.83' / 13.36m 1995 
NORSTAR 40 39.67' / 12.09m 1995 
PASSPORT 44 45.50' / 13.87m 1995 
SAGA 43 43.25' / 13.18m 1996 
VALIANT 50 50.67' / 15.44m 1997 
SAGA 35 36.50' / 11.13m 2000 
SAGA 48 52.30' / 15.94m 2003 
FLYING TIGER 10M 32.66' / 9.95m 2005


----------



## SloopJonB

Shockwave said:


> Paulo, you do realize the Sense 50 has a PHRF rating of 90 don't you? That's barbarically slow for a NEW fifty footer. Hell, a 25 year old Baltic 50 rates 45.


My 1970 Columbia 43 rated 111 and the C-50 of the same era rated 90-ish so yeah, all that progress ain't done much - in a Sense. :wink

PCP's "Newer? Must be better" has a corollary - "Costs more? Must be better".

In a general sense, things improve over time as new technologies come along and designers understand things better but to make blanket statements that it's all better is simply the triumph of marketing departments over knowledge and experience.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> My own world is far more sophisticated that that.


I'd be careful there Bob - you're an American talking to a European. :wink


----------



## robert sailor

What's happened!!! Usually Paulo and Smack are a tag team, well they were on CF but I guess the crowd is a bit tougher here plus they post pictures which is a tough act to follow. Paulo is learning that many new boats really don't perform much better than older ones and Smack is learning that a CE rating really doesn't mean all that much. This is starting to be a very entertaining thread. Keep up the good work, calling a spade a spade..except for RP he calls it a ******* shovel.


----------



## amwbox

SloopJonB said:


> I'd be careful there Bob - you're an American talking to a European. :wink


*Looks up from budweiser/big mac trough, swallows, and peels eyes away from South Park long enough to sound out the words, lips moving..*

Meh. If stereotypes and the usual cultural ignorance so pervasive on both sides of the pond had their way, we'd all probably be...happier? Ignorance is bliss, after all. We all know Canadians live in igloos and drink pendleton whisky with a maple syrup chaser, the french are all striped shirt wearing mustachioed nymphomaniacs, and the Brits just leer at each other's bad teeth through their monocles and a general alcoholic haze.

"Sophisticated European" is somewhere up there with "Bad Asian Driver" on the idiotic meter.


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> VW has always been a mediocre car in quality terms, it should be pointed out.


That is simply not true - VW's have always been very high quality compared to "same class" cars from other manufacturers.

Their near indestructibility was a primary reason they sold something like 20 million Beetles. The GTI set the standard for Hi Po econoboxes etc. They have had very few duds over the years (the Passat comes to mind).


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> *Looks up from budweiser/big mac trough, swallows, and peels eyes away from South Park long enough to sound out the words, lips moving..*
> 
> Meh. If stereotypes and the usual cultural ignorance so pervasive on both sides of the pond had their way, we'd all probably be...happier? Ignorance is bliss, after all. We all know Canadians live in igloos and drink pendleton whisky with a maple syrup chaser, the french are all striped shirt wearing mustachioed nymphomaniacs, and the Brits just leer at each other's bad teeth through their monocles and a general alcoholic haze.
> 
> "Sophisticated European" is somewhere up there with "Bad Asian Driver" on the idiotic meter.


It was a reference to an older post, hence the wink.


----------



## eko_eko

PCP said:


> What is the same model of car that wastes today more fuel then 12 years ago?


A 1999 Honda Accord 4cyl gets (slightly) worse mileage than a 1989 Honda Accord 4cyl. Gas mileage was an important selling feature in 1989, less so in 1999.

Paulo: please learn about the No True Scotsman Fallacy before replying.


----------



## amwbox

SloopJonB said:


> That is simply not true - VW's have always been very high quality compared to "same class" cars from other manufacturers.
> 
> Their near indestructibility was a primary reason they sold something like 20 million Beetles. The GTI set the standard for Hi Po econoboxes etc. They have had very few duds over the years (the Passat comes to mind).


I shouldn't say "always", to be fair. Sure, something as simple as the old bug couldn't help but be reliable.

Currently, they aren't so great, relative the Japanese competition. I personally had some ugly turbo and particulate filter issues.


----------



## Capt Len

This thread could be even more entertaining if all posts were in limerick or haiku form .


----------



## SloopJonB

Way too much effort and sophistication.

Besides, I much prefer the Hurling Abuse at Absurd Statements format.


----------



## bobperry

Right on Jon. I've been wrestling with the VPP program print out format ( should be the easiest part!) for the last two hours and I am not in the mood for sophistication.
I had better go chop some firewood. I may have to start drinking again!

BTW: My VPP print out looks magnificent! I beat the process into submission.


----------



## PCP

slap said:


> How about the Beneteau Oceanus 500 from 1988? Its PHRF is 75, and has a draft of 1.8m.


Well, that is a well designed sailboat for that era but I don't think so. The SA/D of the Sense 50 is 19.38 the one of the Oceanis 500 is 18.27. besides that it would be more fair to compare an old Oceanis with a new Oceanis. Oceanis series are faster than Sense series.

Anyway the PHRF can be very different between two sailboats depending not only on the draft of the keel but also on the sails.

I asked from where come that 90 PHRF for the Sense 50 but I did not had a reply. Maybe from the same place you get that 75 for the 1988 Oceanis 500? That seems a bit low for that boat. Can you post a link to have a look?


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> Paulo you crack me up with your nonsense about the Sense,
> 
> BTW my 14y.o. design also has a PHRF of 90. It's design brief was to be a bullet proof CRUISER capable of crossing oceans . Racing was not in the brief.
> ...


You mean that on the Sense brief had racing in mind? You can only be kidding. The Oceanis line, that also has nothing to do with racing is faster.

Anyway Shockwave posted that information about the Sense 50 having a PHRF of 90 I asked him to post a link to see about what he was talking about and eventually the boat configuration and till now nothing.... except this enigmatic post.



Shockwave said:


> Wrong Baltic Paolo, that one rates negative.
> Admit it, the Sense 50 is a slow, glass covered, pizza boat. The rating of the Sense 50 is closer to Bob's Valent 40. ?
> But it's new...????


How hard is to post that link shockwave?


----------



## seaner97

PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps

Here's the NE one. Google works wonders, you know.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps
> 
> Here's the NE one. Google works wonders, you know.


Yes I had saw that but the one that is mistakenly named Beneteau Sense 40 (that I think it is the 50 since there is no Sense 40) *has a lower PHRF, 84, not 90 and it is the swallow draft version and that means that the standard version will have a considerable lower PHRF that in some cases can go below 10 points or more*.

Regarding the Outbound 44/46 the more frequent PHRF is 90/93

The PHRF of the same model can be very different on different keel and sail configurations. For instance regarding the Oceanis 500 we can find them with a PHRF of 60, 75, 84 and 81. Regarding modern Oceanis I can find several smaller 48 Shallow Drafts with PHRF between 72 and 87 (more 72), and a Oceanis 54 with a PHRF of 45. Anyway Slap is right regarding the old Oceanis 500 to be a very fast sailboat for 1988. Cheers to Philippe Briand for a great design.

But anyway when I was thinking about old designs even if some were made not many years ago like for instance the Vaillant 50 that has a PHRF between 102 and 105.

Regarding Philippe Briand the only Beneteaus he had designed recently are the big ones from the Beneteau Luxury brand CNB, some of the bigger Jeanneau and a lot of luxury maxi yachts.

Beautiful maxi yachts that deserve to be seen. Look at this:


----------



## slap

PCP said:


> Well, that is a well designed sailboat for that era but I don't think so. The SA/D of the Sense 50 is 19.38 the one of the Oceanis 500 is 18.27. besides that it would be more fair to compare an old Oceanis with a new Oceanis. Oceanis series are faster than Sense series.
> 
> Anyway the PHRF can be very different between two sailboats depending not only on the draft of the keel but also on the sails.
> 
> I asked from where come that 90 PHRF for the Sense 50 but I did not had a reply. Maybe from the same place you get that 75 for the 1988 Oceanis 500? That seems a bit low for that boat. Can you post a link to have a look?


I got my numbers from here:

http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/DARoot/Offshore/PHRF/2014%20PHRF%20Handicaps%20Data.pdf

And SA/D is only part of the picture - as an example, the Sense probably has a fair bit more wetted surface than the Oceanus 500.


----------



## bobperry

Blah, blah, blah, I really do not understand the point at all.

"Anyway the PHRF can be very different between two sailboats depending not only on the draft of the keel but also on the sails."

Really? Is that how it works? That is really simple. I thought it was a little more complex than that. But what would I know? I have only been working with PHRF for over 40 years. I have even been on PHRF committees.


----------



## skygazer

Capt Len said:


> This thread could be even more entertaining if all posts were in limerick or haiku form .


Pizza slice boats like to speed,
for comfort you'd better take heed.
They throw you about
till your insides are out
Their design is based mainly on greed.

Old boats are designed for the sea
But that doesn't matter to me.
I'd rather have new, 
and cutting edge too,
so avoiding all storms is my plea.

Whatever I like is the best.
Who cares about all of the rest.
I'll always do fine
at least in MY mind
as long as I flee the sea test.


----------



## Shockwave

Paulo, did your race? Any class? Just curious, trying to know where you come from and why you think what you think.

It's ok if you like and want new boats, there's lots of appeal for that but you can't say it's better only because it's new. There are too many good older boats out there for that blanket statements. There are too many traditional designs being designed and built today to discount them.

I look at it this way: 
Displacement boats
Planning boats
Multihulls

Most displacement boats are equal in speed, regardless of age.
Planning monos are plenty quick but would but tough to cruise cause you have to carry stuff and sailing faster then 10 knots is uncomfortable.
Multis run the gamut, they can be wicked quick and wicked uncomfortable or extremely comfortable and very slow.

And yes, I was surprised by how slow the Sense 50 was but it's probably a great cocktail cruiser.


----------



## aeventyr60

Nice Poem!
The best post yet! Real clarity for us GOB guys...


----------



## bobperry

Nicely crafted Sky.


Shocker: 
Having been on some PHRF committees there was a time when we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats. It came down to D/L's. This first came up when the Aphrodite 101's first 12 boats came to Seattle. They were "different" and tough to rate. To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150 which at the time we considered very light. How times change. But that argument still rages on. It's hard to establish a line between the "light" boats and the "not light" boats. The definitions won't stand still.

I can't remember a time when Seattle was not sing some form of PHRF. I can't recall what we called it in the early days. I have a PM out to one of my cronys for some historical data. I think out name was dropped when we merged with the Californian fleet rating system.


----------



## Shockwave

I don't envy the PHRF guys Bob. Tough to rate boats fairly when the performance envelopes very so widely. One number for all conditions? Ha, that'll make you drink.


----------



## PCP

slap said:


> I got my numbers from here:
> 
> http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/DARoot/Offshore/PHRF/2014%20PHRF%20Handicaps%20Data.pdf
> 
> And SA/D is only part of the picture - as an example, the Sense probably has a fair bit more wetted surface than the Oceanus 500.


Yes, I agree with you and I had found out that information too (see post above). I guess that between those two it will depend on the boat configuration and on the point of sail. Probably the Sense can carry a bigger asymmetric downwind and will be faster there and in stronger winds and probably the Oceanis 500 will be faster upwind and I would not be surprised if in weak winds,

Anyway no doubt the Oceanis 500 is a more sportive design than the Sense 50 and a great design also.


----------



## bobperry

Shock:
Yeah, we had a major shake up here in the big boat class two years ago. It left some owners very upset. One put his boat up for sale. It was my design. He got hammered with a new rating. It has hastened the move to IRC or a lot of the owners. I've been racing on FRANCIS LEE and we have been happy with our rating.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Blah, blah, blah, I really do not understand the point at all.
> 
> "Anyway the PHRF can be very different between two sailboats depending not only on the draft of the keel but also on the sails."
> 
> Really? Is that how it works? That is really simple. I thought it was a little more complex than that. But what would I know? I have only been working with PHRF for over 40 years. I have even been on PHRF committees.


That is typical of you: Do you disagree with anything I have said? Off course not, the PHRF regarding boats from the same model can be very different due to different sails and different draft.

Did you add something more? No!

What was the finality of that post? None!

Anyway the PHRF is a lot simpler and far from the accuracy of the IRC or the ORC. I like particularly ORCI that has been increasing its importance in Europe and that take into account a huge amount of information in what regards rating a boat and include not only a differentiation in rating between Inshore (windward-leeward) or Offshore races and also a triple rating with 3 different time on time coefficients to be used in light, medium and heavy breezes.

For the ones that want to have a look here is a file;

Google for: "ORC international certificate XP 44" and download the PDF


----------



## Shockwave

Paulo, do you race?


----------



## bobperry

PCP: 
You don't know enough about PHRF to lecture me on it.


But we can have some real boat fun:
Let's have a little challenge. How about you guess the PHRF rating of FRANCIS LEE. You know the boat. It can't be that hard. I see you did not guess on the limit of positive stability contest. I didn't think you would I presumed you would have no clue.

Come on PCP let's see how much you really know about PHRF. I'll give you any dimensions you need. This could be fun. Should be easy for a PHRF expert like you.


----------



## PCP

Shockwave said:


> ,,,
> It's ok if you like and want new boats, there's lots of appeal for that but you can't say it's better only because it's new. There are too many good older boats out there for that blanket statements. There are too many traditional designs being designed and built today to discount them.
> 
> I look at it this way:
> Displacement boats
> Planning boats
> Multihulls
> 
> *Most displacement boats are equal in speed, regardless of age.*
> Planning monos are plenty quick but would but tough to cruise cause you have to carry stuff and sailing faster then 10 knots is uncomfortable.
> ......
> 
> *And yes, I was surprised by how slow the Sense 50 was* but it's probably a great cocktail cruiser.





bobperry said:


> Nicely crafted Sky.
> 
> Shocker:
> *Having been on some PHRF committees there was a time when we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats. It came down to D/L's*. This first came up when the Aphrodite 101's first 12 boats came to Seattle. They were "different" and tough to rate. *To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150* which at the time we considered very light. How times change. But that argument still rages on. It's hard to establish a line between the "light" boats and the "not light" boats. The definitions won't stand still.
> ....


Well, Bob replied telling you are wrong but I bet you did not have understood neither the majority of the ones on this thread.

He seems to agree to you in what regards the division regarding the speed of identical length sailboats (modern or old designed) only having to do with them be planing boats or not and then he says that planing boats are the ones with a D/L of 150 LOL.

I guess you did not have understood the joke, I explain it to you: according to Bob a Sense 55 is very clearly a planing boat with a D/L of 128 and the Sense 50 is a borderline boat with a D/L of 153.

Off course it does not make any sense to call to a Sense 55 a planing boat but that is another story. What matters here is that Bob is contradicting you in a way you or many here are not able to understand clearly.

*What Bob is saying is that old designed cruising sailboat are significantly slower than modern designs*.

Practically all modern main market mass production cruisers have a SA/D around or less than 150 (they are all planing boats LOL).

Note that a modern main market design is not necessarily a boat designed in the present but a cruising boat that is light, has a fin keel and a spade rudder (or close to it in what regards efficiency). Slap showed that on the end of the 80's there were already some very advanced cruising designs that fit on that category. An old cruising design is a boat with a full or modified fin keel, with a big rudder and a heavy boat by modern standards. A boat with a big wet area.

Just a review in what regards the more popular main market mass production 50fters actually on the market and their D/L:

Jeanneau 509-D/L *144*....Beneteau Oceanis 55 D/L-*134*....Bavaria 50 cruiser D/L-132....Hanse 505 D/L-*119.*..Hunter 50- D/L *156*

Now compare this with main market old design 50ft sailboats of different vintages:

Valiant 50 D/L *243*...Passport 50 D/L *256*...Tayana 52 D/L *231*...Tatoosh 51 D/L *264*....

To this difference in D/L (and other factors like SA/D) corresponds, on boats with a same LOA, a huge differences in performance, contradicting what you say.

You say you are surprised with the poor sail performance of the Sense 50 that has a PHRF of *84*, on his swallow draft version (and that should have about 75 on the standard keel version).

Yes I agree that among the other mass production 50fters the Sense 50 is not particularly fast and the Sense 55, a newer boat, is proportionally faster and will have a lower PHRF, but compared with the boats I was comparing it, old designed boats, the Sense 50 it is a rocket.

I guess you should be very surprised with that since it contradicts strongly your opinion "*Most displacement boats are equal in speed, regardless of age.*"

Even considering the higher PHRF of the swallow draft version of the Sense 50, it has a 80 PHRF and that shows that it is incomparably faster than old designed boats with the same LOA: Tatoosh 51 (PHRF *120*), Tayana 52SD (*111/120*), Valiant 50 (PHRF *102/105*), Roberts 53 (PHRF *126*), Mason 53 (PHRF *132/138*), Mason 63 (PHRF *168*), HINCKLEY SW 50 (*120*), Gulfstar 50 (PHRF *126/132*).

Why are you not surprised?

That surprise should be even more evident if we look at some of the PHRF of those 50ft main market mass production boats actually on the market:

For instance Beneteau Oceanis 50 (PHRF *75*), Hanse 470 (PHRF *39*), Hanse 540 (PHRF 1*2/27*), Jeanneau 509 (PHRF*45*).

*In fact regarding those heavy old designed boats an old 50 fter has a worse (or equal) sailing performance than a modern mass production 37/38fter like a Jeanneau 376 (PHRF 90/108), Hanse 370 (PHRF 90/105) a Beneteau Oceanis 37 (111/114) or a Bavaria 38 (93/108).*

All these 37/38ft boats are main market mass production boats and none of them is a cruiser-racer and it would be ridiculous to call to any of them planing boats.

There are not many *cruising planing boats* but there are some like the Pogo 12.50 the 50, the new Django 9.60, The Malango 10.45, boats that have a D/L incomparably inferior to 150.

The Pogo 50 has a *D/L around 71* and the Django 9.60 a *96 D/L* (and a SA/D of 29). Regarding these cruisers, that are based on Ocean solo racers, a Pogo 12.50 would be much faster than any 50ft modern mass production main market boat and in what regards PHRF it would have probably a negative one.


----------



## SloopJonB

*To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150 which at the time we considered very light. How times change. But that argument still rages on. It's hard to establish a line between the "light" boats and the "not light" boats. The definitions won't stand still.*

What about that didn't you understand Paulo?

It's pretty clear that he was referring to a long time ago when 150 was considered extremely light (I was there too), not now in regard to "contemporary" boats.

Repeat after me - *The definitions won't stand still*

You really set a new standard for conceit - do you actually think you know more about any aspect of sailboat design than one of the most successful designers in the business?


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> *To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150 which at the time we considered very light. How times change. But that argument still rages on. It's hard to establish a line between the "light" boats and the "not light" boats. The definitions won't stand still.*
> 
> What about that didn't you understand Paulo?
> 
> It's pretty clear that he was referring to a long time ago when 150 was considered extremely light (I was there too), not now in regard to "contemporary" boats.
> 
> Repeat after me - *The definitions won't stand still*
> 
> You really set a new standard for conceit - do you actually think you know more about any aspect of sailboat design than one of the most successful designers in the business?


It is not necessary to be rude. That is two times unnecessary because you missed the point completely. *It is not about the definition of what is a light or heavy boat but about the definition of what is a planing boat, or not, regarding D/L. *

Some boats with a low D/L can plan on some conditions and it is about that D/L that is defined by Bob as 150 that I was talking about. About what is the D/L that makes a sailboat a planing boat.

Bob said about that:

Having been on some PHRF committees there was a time when *we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats.* *It came down to D/L's.* ...*To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150*

It is pretty clear, the line between planing boats and non planing boats was established with a D/L of 150.

That does not make sense neither now neither 30 years ago. The boats did not plan better 30 or 40 years ago than now and the needed D/L to have a boat planing is the same, maybe a bit less now with those beamy flat hulls.

A Beneteau Sense 55 has a D/L way lower than 150. It has 128 and it is ridiculous to say that it is a planing boat.

From all modern mass production main market 50fters the only one that has a slightly superior D/L is the Hunter (156), all the other have considerably less and the Hanse 505 has 119, a long long way from 150.

Even given the huge difference is still ridiculous to call the Hanse 505 a planing boat. The Hanse is even not a cruiser-racer. The company owns Dehler and the cruiser-racers of the group are Dehler.

Got it now?


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
Quit trying to say what you think I am saying. You can quote me that's fine but you have the ugly habit of twisting everything to your own needs. Your lame efforts at interpreting what I am saying have become ridiculous.

*And QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!*


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> ...
> 
> *And QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!*
> 
> I realize your own imagination is lacking ( cut/paste cut/paste) but if you can't think of anything authentic and original to say just SHUT UP! Most of us have heard too much of your drivel already.
> 
> You simply are a figment of your own imagination.


As usual with bad manners. So much anger is not good to the wealth. you should take care.

I didn't not put words in your mouth. I quoted you regarding what is the D/L that distinguishes a planing sailboat from a non planing sailboat.

If you have something to say, say it ,stop being rude. I did not cut it on the first post I quoted you, only when sloopjon did not understood what I was talking about I cut the non relevant part. Never pasted anything. Here is the full quote in what regards tD/L and planing boats, like I had posted on a previous post:

"Having been on some PHRF committees *there was a time when we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats. It came down to D/L's.* This first came up when the Aphrodite 101's first 12 boats came to Seattle. They were "different" and tough to rate. *To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150* which at the time we considered very light[. "


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
We come here to discuss sailing and to voice opinions not to have someone parse our comments and non sequitur put them back into an argument. We all are entitled to our opinions. I like to hear a variety of opinions.Your knee jerk need to take almost everyone to task for the slightest comment is boring. You continue to manufacture argument where there is none. 

Do I sound "rude"? Good. That is my intention. Do you understand how rude you sound. I suspect not. 

So get used to it. I'm not going away and I will continue to call you on your endless stream of BS.

"Having been on some PHRF committees there was a time when we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats. It came down to D/L's. This first came up when the Aphrodite 101's first 12 boats came to Seattle. They were "different" and tough to rate. To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150 which at the time we considered very light. "

This is simply historical fact. No argument can change that. Right or wrong in your myopic eyes it is what it is, just a fact.


----------



## eko_eko

I wonder if we're legitimately seeing a problem with reading comprehension in a second language. The tenses Bob used could confuse a non-native speaker.

Let's break it down.

At some point in the past, when PHRF was young, a group of people looked at the field of boats to be measured.

They found that the planing boats in the measurement pool had a D/L of less than 150. The displacement boats happened to have a D/L of over 150.

The committee noticed this.

Paulo: at no point did Bob say or imply that every boat over 150 D/L everywhere was a displacement boat, nor that all under 150 were planing boats. Bob reported a fact about the pool of boats being measured at an early PHRF session. That's it.

Every conclusion you've argued with in quoting him was one that you manufactured in your misreading of his words. It's understandable. I might do the same thing arguing in Italian or Portuguese.


----------



## bobperry

eko ditto:
I could see it that way and I have tried to. I have tried to give PCP the benefit of the doubt due to language difficulties. Fact is much of what he posts I can't understand at all and I'm an English major. But, no, I don't think so. It is way too consistent. The man lives with a turd in his pocket.

As I have said before, I can stumble along in Mandarin (did it today) but I sure as hell know where my limits are. That's called "intelligence" is it not?


----------



## Don L

Time for an on topic post, so:


Trick or Treat!


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> It is not necessary to be rude. That is two times unnecessary because you missed the point completely. *It is not about the definition of what is a light or heavy boat but about the definition of what is a planing boat, or not, regarding D/L. *
> 
> Some boats with a low D/L can plan on some conditions and it is about that D/L that is defined by Bob as 150 that I was talking about. About what is the D/L that makes a sailboat a planing boat.
> 
> Bob said about that:
> 
> Having been on some PHRF committees there was a time when *we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats.* *It came down to D/L's.* ...*To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150*
> 
> It is pretty clear, the line between planing boats and non planing boats was established with a D/L of 150.
> 
> That does not make sense neither now neither 30 years ago. The boats did not plan better 30 or 40 years ago than now and the needed D/L to have a boat planing is the same, maybe a bit less now with those beamy flat hulls.
> 
> A Beneteau Sense 55 has a D/L way lower than 150. It has 128 and it is ridiculous to say that it is a planing boat.
> 
> Got it now?


If you actually read and grasped those posts you would have picked up on the Aphrodite 101 comment - that puts things around 1977 re: what was light, what was capable of planing etc. Even then the 150 figure was simply a PHRF committees best guess at dealing with a new phenomenon in an era when 150 was an extremely light boat and virtually no keelboats could plane.

You seem to think those comments related to current cruising boats.

It obviously does not apply to now, especially when you consider he has designed planing boats since then.

Got it now?

Someone once posted that they were glad they never had you as a teacher.

I couldn't agree more.

Maybe you do better in your native tongue - for your sake I sure hope so because you come across as a very arrogant, self satisfied clown in English


----------



## blt2ski

Paulo,

HERE is another listing of PHRF ratings for different boats. Not sure how up to day it is per say......but you can find in some boat models, the differences between a tall mast "TM" shoal keel "SK or SD" among some of the abbreviations used.

But as has been said, a rating of around 90-100 for a 50' boat, or I saw 75 for the O50 in the list, is on the slow side. Not that one wants to compare to say a TP52, at somewhere in the -160 arena, that boat is ~4 min a mile faster. The O50 barely 2 min a mile faster than my 28' boat, and a full minute slower than a Farr/Mum30.

It might help if we had some semi std IRC Time on Time scoring ratings to see the difference. A phrf 90-110 IIRC a conversion factor is about a 1.00 IRC. My boat from a few listings is ~.875. Base PHRF is 189, I sail at 195 with a super small spin.

A Beneteau O50 may have potential....to be a very fast boat. But with SA/D in the upper teen to really low 20-1 range, Those will be slow boat compared to boats the same size with SA/D's in the mid 20-1 or the new pogo 36 I saw an article on yesterday, 35-1! Planing in winds less than 10 knots on correct angles. IIRC a pogo mini has a rating in the low 100 range, ie less than 110!

Marty


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> ....
> 
> "Having been on some PHRF committees there was a time when we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats. It came down to D/L's. This first came up when the Aphrodite 101's first 12 boats came to Seattle. They were "different" and tough to rate. To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150 which at the time we considered very light. "
> 
> This is simply historical fact. No argument can change that. Right or wrong in your myopic eyes it is what it is, just a fact.


The fact is that you were not disagreeing with that definition about a planing boat to be the one a displacement boat to be one with a D/L over 150 and planing boats the ones that has less.

You have posted it on a discussion about modern designs versus old designs because you agree with it, otherwise you would not have posted it or would have said that you disagree with that definition.

Contrary to what is a a light or heavy boat what is a planing boat does not have changed and will never change, a planing sailboat is one that can go on the right conditions over the bow wave and sail to speeds that have nothing to do with their hull speeds, sometimes 2 or 3 times more.

I only pointed out that definition makes no sense since lots of boats with way less than 150, and among them practically all mass production main market 50fters, have a D/L considerably lower than 150 and are not planing boats.

I had refereed particularly the case of the Sense 55 that was a D/L of 128, much lower than what would be needed to be defined as a planing boat, but calling the Sense 55 a planing boat makes no sense at all to the point of being a ridiculous claim.

Now, instead of insulting me, can you tell us with what you disagree regarding what I said above and why?


----------



## bobperry

PCP: Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. Your arguments are so circuitous that they really make no sense. You are not very good at putting together a cogent argument. It matters not what anyone says. You turn it into an argument. Then you don't move the goal posts, you just keep adding more and more goal posts until know one knows which way the discussion is going. This makes cohesive discourse difficult.

You are beating a very dead horse. Why don't you relax and give it a rest. You go on for days over a silly manufactured argument that only exists in your mind and only you understand. I'm just a yacht designer but I'd say this is odd behavior.

It is very clear to me that your ability to understand what I am saying is very limited. I understand. It's ESL for you. I can't help that. But I make a simple comment and you read it as something totally different. There is no argument in that quote, just an observation. I can express myself very well in writing, " Look Ma, I wrote seven books!" so the problem does not lie with me. Read slower and be slower to react. You'd be doing us all a favor.


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> ....
> But as has been said, a rating of around 90-100 for a 50' boat, or I saw 75 for the O50 in the list, is on the slow side. ..
> 
> Marty


Marty, the only Sense 50 that has a PHRF rating is a swallow draft one and has a 84 PHRF. Has you know that PHRF can vary a lot with having a bigger draft keel (that would reduce it) and with the sails the boat carry. You can fin on other 50ft Beneteaus, on the same boat model (with different keels and configurations), PHRF as low or high as 66 and 90.

I know that the sense series are slightly slower than the Oceanis series and other main mass production 50ft sailboats and I had said that.

What is in question here is the notion that most displacement sailboats of the same LOA will have a similar sailing performance, being them old designed or modern designed, particularly this statement by Shocker:

"*"Most displacement boats are equal in speed, regardless of age."*" and the subsequent reply of Bob Perry to that post: *"Shocker:..there was a time when we had to draw that line between displ boats and planing boats. It came down to D/L's. ... To put things into perspective,we finally decided to draw the line at a D/L of 150."*

Bob Perry statement and the posted definition of what is a planning boat will make almost all modern mass production 50ft cruisers planing boats, at least on the paper, because on the water they are clearly displacement boats.

And being them displacement boats that will invalidate clearly what Shockwave was saying.

An old designed 50ft (heavy, modified fin keel or full keel) main market cruiser cruiser will have a sail performance similar to a 37ft modern designed main market mass production cruiser (see post 2970).

That is what this was all about since the beginning.


----------



## goat

PCP said:


> It is pretty clear, the line between planing boats and non planing boats was established with a D/L of 150.
> 
> That does not make sense neither now neither 30 years ago. The boats did not plan better 30 or 40 years ago than now and the needed D/L to have a boat planing is the same, maybe a bit less now with those beamy flat hulls.
> 
> A Beneteau Sense 55 has a D/L way lower than 150. It has 128 and it is ridiculous to say that it is a planing boat.
> 
> From all modern mass production main market 50fters the only one that has a slightly superior D/L is the Hunter (156), all the other have considerably less and the Hanse 505 has 119, a long long way from 150.
> 
> Even given the huge difference is still ridiculous to call the Hanse 505 a planing boat. The Hanse is even not a cruiser-racer. The company owns Dehler and the cruiser-racers of the group are Dehler.
> 
> Got it now?


That's a **** ton of numbers and whatnot. I'm glad I can just go sailing my old tub and not have to think about whether it's contemporary or modern or production or whatever. That's hard.

goat


----------



## PCP

Shockwave said:


> ...
> Admit it, the Sense 50 is a slow, glass covered, pizza boat. The rating of the Sense 50 is closer to Bob's Valent 40. ?
> 
> But it's new...????
> 
> Paulo, do you race?


Sorry for the late reply I did not notice your posts.

The Valiant 40 in its own time was a very fast cruiser, one of the fastest and I had already said that the Sense 50, regarding other modern boats it is not particularly fast but the difference of speed between a Valiant 40 and a Sense 50 is huge.

The only Sense 50 with a PHRF is not a standard version but one with a swallow keel but even so his PHRF is 84. There are many Valiant 40 with a PHRF, they average about 140 as PHRF.

Regarding racing no I do not race anymore, I have raced a lot...but motorcycles, not sailingboats.

I only made two sailingboat races having has crew my two kids at the time with about 8 and 15 years of age. One was a classic around the buoys race and the other a small oceanic one. On both it was just for the fun of it and it was so amateurish that the boats were not even rated.

Even if we consider the Valiant 50 that is only 13 years old in what regards the difference in Design time, the difference is big, having the several Valiants 50 an average rating of 104 versus 84 on the Sense 50.

I don't understand how you can consider it slow when compared with old designed heavy boats like the Valiant even if as I have said, the Valiant 40 was a very fast cruiser in its own time.


----------



## outbound

Paulo
You repetitive use criteria that apply to race boats to cruising boats. I have ocean raced on multi hulls, and planing mono hulls. Regardless of what you say it is exhausting. The level of alertness required and the difficulties in activities of daily living just wears you down. Regardless of what you say once a boat goes beyond its hull speed the motion changes and sensitivity to changes in trim, direction and sailplain are more dramatic. Yes there is a sweet spot where the motion actually decreases but even then you know you are living on the edge of a knife.
You can tell me of 70 year olds voyaging on such boats or 15 year olds circumnavigating but I have no interest. It is definitely a blast to day sail such a boat or even do short passages but for a cruiser often a boat that can find its own way even when none of the crew bring their best game is highly desirable.
They say"a good mono takes care of you-you take care of a multi". Think this also applies to planing mono hulls as well.

As we discuss the historical 150 I note the high end boats be they Rustlers, HRs, Hylas, Discoverys, Morris, Passport all have been designed recently enough to qualify as "contemporary " with new offerings every year or two. Still these much sort after top of line CRUISING boats which actually cruise most commonly with a mom and pop crew are of fully displacement design. None make use of t keels. None bring beam aft. All are quite heavy by "modern" standards. Most are single skin with core only in deck and house. By your definition these boats are archaic. But these boats remain in great demand with new ones of this style being designed continuously.

There is no question the designers of these premium boats make full use of advances in hull design but they also fully understand the goal of a cruising boat is make passages in safety and COMFORT, to make life on the hook pleasant and to be durable. 

I asked you before and will ask again. Why do informed sailors who have owned boats in the past have new boats built for them following this style? Why do boats of this style for many remain the pinnacle of MODERN cruising yacht design? Why do many find the offerings of current mass production builders deficient either in quality or design?

Often I think you view sailing only as a sport. Some of us view it as a lifestyle.


----------



## bobperry

"Bob Perry statement and the posted definition of what is a planning boat will make almost all modern mass production 50ft cruisers planing boats, at least on the paper, because on the water they are clearly displacement boats."

PCP:
Once again, please do not try to put words in my mouth you do not have the skills for it. Unfortunately I do not speak Portuguese and I do admire your attempts at English but they fall short in many cases. You will just continue to look silly if you try to manipulate my comments to suit your argument.

Just how many more days are you going to go on making a futile effort to prove your point, whatever it is! Today makes three days. This is very silly. Don't you have a life?

Kind of reminds me of that classic scene in COOL HAND LUKE, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I once saw an episode of MIAMI VICE in Taiwan it was dubbed into Mandarin. Miles Davis was the guest star. " Tsai chien wo de ai" " Good bye my love". It was quite funny.

Goat: Spot on there mate.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
You say:
"But these boats remain in great demand with new ones of this style being designed continuing to be drawn."

I have a lot of consultation clients looking for boats like this because they can't find them on the new market. I could sell a lot of Passport 40's if I had them. Many of my older designs are highly sought out on the used market.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> I have a lot of consultation clients looking for boats like this because they can't find them on the new market. I could sell a lot of Passport 40's if I had them. Many of my older designs are highly sought out on the used market.


Well then the question is why aren't the designs good enough to survive in the new boat market?


----------



## SloopJonB

Because the wives generally like the interiors of the new style boats better.

Go to a boat show and see how many people are looking at the deck, rig, hardware etc. then check out how many go directly below to check out the accommodations. You'll see it is 20-1, 30-1 or more going below.

Read my "follow the herd" post earlier in this thread.


----------



## amwbox

SloopJonB said:


> Because the wives generally like the interiors of the new style boats better.
> 
> Go to a boat show and see how many people are looking at the deck, rig, hardware etc. then check out how many go directly below to check out the accommodations. You'll see it is 20-1, 30-1 or more going below.
> 
> Read my "follow the herd" post earlier in this thread.


Quoted for truth.

Plus, I'm betting those designs, as heavily built as the they were, and with all that woodwork, wood be very expensive today. How thick were those hulls down low, like 2 inches solid glass?


----------



## robert sailor

Don0190 said:


> Well then the question is why aren't the designs good enough to survive in the new boat market?


Builders of better built stick boats can't make a go of it against the high production liner built boats. H R is a shadow of its former self. These days buyers do more due diligence buying a flat screen TV than when they buy a new boat. The PP40 is one of the nicer 40 ft cruising boats ideally suited to offshore sailing but its much cheaper to buy an older used one and refit it.


----------



## Don L

SloopJonB said:


> Because the wives generally like the interiors of the new style boats better.


I don't accept that answer in any form ready. I like comfortable space down below the same as my wife. As written a few posts ago there are builders still doing the "older" hull designs. But if you look at those they are almost always higher end builders where you get a nicer interior than what you say only wives like.

If I had to guess the real reason is that for the most part the ones that like the older designs are older people. And therefore those that can buy say a Passport or Rustler are older rich people.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> I don't accept that answer in any form ready. I like comfortable space down below the same as my wife. As written a few posts ago there are builders still doing the "older" hull designs. But if you look at those they are almost always higher end builders where you get a nicer interior than what you say only wives like.
> 
> If I had to guess the real reason is that for the most part the ones that like the older designs are older people. And therefore those that can buy say a Passport or Rustler are older rich people.


I'm 32. I'm starting to wonder when it counts as "old". 

Perhaps better to say, "those more concerned with interior" rather than limit it to wives. This is not to say a PP40 or something like a Baba or Hans Christian is lacking in interior nicety. Its just not such a vast sprawl of open, airy, sort of interior design. Which is actually not a good thing at sea...but then again boat shows happen at the docks.

The old interiors were more classically styled. Baba IMO being the best of the litter:









Imagine what a boat built in 1978 would look like today if it had been "contemporary" 70's?:










So much awful orange and yellow and green.:eek


----------



## Ninefingers

As with anything, the pursuit of money usually leads the way. Look a home construction these days, stuff is built to a bare minimum, (at least around here). I'd say that trend began around 1980. 1960-1975 homes are generally regarded as the best built, (around here). There really wasn't a "cheap" option until the late 70's, and then it became unstoppable as everyone gravitated to the cheapest price, because heck, the houses looked like they built just like the old ones.

Is there a correlation in the boat industry? Was there ever a time where there was no "cheap option"? I think there was but I'm no expert in that. Was it Pearson that introduced low priced boats? Around here, some of the better builders such as CS, and C&C went out of business in the early 90's. 

Anyhow, there are boats like Blue Jacket out there at a premium price, but I'm not sure how well they are doing. 

Once a consumer is introduced to a low cost option the tide is near impossible to reverse.


----------



## SloopJonB

Don0190 said:


> I don't accept that answer in any form ready. I like comfortable space down below the same as my wife. As written a few posts ago there are builders still doing the "older" hull designs. But if you look at those they are almost always higher end builders where you get a nicer interior than what you say only wives like.
> 
> If I had to guess the real reason is that for the most part the ones that like the older designs are older people. And therefore those that can buy say a Passport or Rustler are older rich people.


I think you missed the "*generally*" bit. :wink


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> Imagine what a boat built in 1978 would look like today if it had been "contemporary" 70's?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much awful orange and yellow and green.:eek


Lousy place for drinking too! :wink


----------



## Capt Len

Gosh darn it ,I knew I was missing the orange shag carpets. And the feminine toe prints in the soot on the low foc'sle deckhead.


----------



## ChristinaM

Capt Len said:


> Gosh darn it ,I knew I was missing the orange shag carpets. And the feminine toe prints in the soot on the low foc'sle deckhead.


My dad once bought a trawler that came with orange shag carpeting... on the walls. It was quickly removed.


----------



## blt2ski

Ninefingers said:


> As with anything, the pursuit of money usually leads the way. Look a home construction these days, stuff is built to a bare minimum, (at least around here). I'd say that trend began around 1980. 1960-1975 homes are generally regarded as the best built, (around here). There really wasn't a "cheap" option until the late 70's, and then it became unstoppable as everyone gravitated to the cheapest price, because heck, the houses looked like they built just like the old ones.
> 
> Is there a correlation in the boat industry? Was there ever a time where there was no "cheap option"? I think there was but I'm no expert in that. Was it Pearson that introduced low priced boats? Around here, some of the better builders such as CS, and C&C went out of business in the early 90's.
> 
> Anyhow, there are boats like Blue Jacket out there at a premium price, but I'm not sure how well they are doing.
> 
> Once a consumer is introduced to a low cost option the tide is near impossible to reverse.


The blue jacket at least in the salish sea is doing horrible! I would swag the dealer is wishing it had not brought a boat in. Still sitting after 3 or so years. In the meantime, they have sold Jeanneau's at around 20 or so a year! including a number of 50'rs. Even Island Packet does not sell well here, there are a few. but not many compared to other boats.

Having been i the home building trades, granted a landscaper, but going into homes as they are built. The local million dollar homes had the same framers as the early 80s starter homes in the upper 5 digit to just over 100K price. Today a starter home or low end new home is 500K US$ in the seattle area. Still built as they were int he 80's, other than some bling added.

To me, the 70's and 80's had the lowest price for what you got, or best bang for buck boat if you went new. There are a few that are going back to this option, but overall, an ave middle class worker can not afford a boat! unless they go used. And even then, if they get a hole in the water. One is looking at $3-4 above abd beyond what they paid for it, if it needs even a few major items replaced.

marty

marty


----------



## bobperry

Christina: 
What? You mean your Dad didn't go for the orange shag on the headliner too. Probably had bean bag chairs in the salon.

The green shag carpet in the house I bought in 1974 was so thick I didn't know if I should vacuum it or mow it! It covered beautiful oak floors.

I think Nine's post is spot on. It's hard to choose "better" when it's not available. I don't shop at IKEA. I prefer quality American antiques that show craftsmanship and quality materials.
If " high tech", "State of the art" ( very subjective) and numbers sold were the criteria for "the best" then a Micky D's cheeseburger would be considered fine dining. In truth it's crap and enough of it will kill you.

On the '70's living room: I think I have the same turntable Linn LP12, state of the art then and still the bench mark for turntable quality today and still available new.


----------



## bobperry

Boxer: 
Thanks for posting the Baba 40 pic. Yes, with the help of Bob Berg ("Baba,,,get it?) that is one of my best layouts. It just feels right. The one in the pic is a bit too woody for me but fact is I like dark, cave like interiors. Bob don't do "light and airy". By nature I am dark and quasi morose. I want a womb like interior where I can feel secure. I want the interior of my boat as different from my domestic surroundings as possible and my domestic surrounds are a bit dark and cave like too. It's just a taste thing, a mood thang. I have but one mood.


In defense of the modern interior I should say that labor was never a consideration in those interiors. Bob Berg would say, "Don't worry about the labor cost. It's nothing." When Ta Shing took over the project the first thing they did was to simplify the layout and remove many of the labor intensive details. It still worked but it was less Bob Bergian. " See that drawer Bob. What if we had another little drawer inside that drawer."
Me, "Huh?"
" OK"


----------



## Don L

I don't think some of you get it. No one is building the "older" style boats with a "basic" interior. Builders of the older style boats are building semi custom boats with very nice fancy interiors (i.e. expensive boats way out of range for purchase on 90% of people here). I'm sure "production" boat builder could do older style hulls with pretty much the same interiors that people say only wives like.

So the questions is why? I think part of the reason is that the semi custom people know that the fancy hand built interior is more important to their buyer than a modern hull design.


----------



## outbound

Even for the big builders a major expense is labor. Believe this is unchanged over time. Had opportunity to be involved in a consortium to build Peter Ibold pilothouse cutters some decades ago. Much time was spent analyzing labor costs. Back then discounts for materials by bulk purchase where not that impressive. Suspect the same now. Capital investment on tooling, design, contracting etc. suggested a run of at least 10-12 boats were required to make sure you were in the black and could recapitalize to the next design. 
Believe labor costs have risen at a greater pace than material costs. In prior decades this resulted in outsourcing to China and Taiwan. More recently to Poland.
Regardless if you are building a stick built boat where everything is coming through the companions way in Scandinavia like Malo, or an iron trawler in Vietnam or an Outbound in China carefully glass in both sides of bulkheads or a Morris in Maine exceeding EU requirements you are expending costs on features of the boat not easily visible or appreciated by the average buyer. Malo declared bankruptcy. The Morris crowd is 1% of the 1%ers. This means if desirable features are appreciated the costs of that construction places the vessel outside the reach of the average buyer.
These features are not recouped in average use. If the vessel is to be "voyaged", and viewed as a long term investment the equation changes. Such buyers are rare. The entire sailboat industry including the big builders is a low volume industry. This segment smaller still.
This has resulted in a paucity of high labor contructs in the 40 to 50 foot range. Folks with the knowledge, resources and desire for such a high labor intensive boat have moved to one offs or the few remaining premium builders. In larger boats often money is no object. Smaller the costs are lower so less of a impediment. 
Those without the resources have moved to refitting prior generation boats or second hand one offs. This shrinks this segment of the market yet further. So the remaining voyaging production boats are of the type Paulo posts.


----------



## SailBender

amwbox said:


> The old interiors were more classically styled. Baba IMO being the best of the litter:
> 
> Imagine what a boat built in 1978 would look like today if it had been "contemporary" 70's?:
> 
> So much awful orange and yellow and green.:eek


I honestly don't see much difference. That is why I much prefer modern interiors.


----------



## jorgenl

bobperry said:


> The one in the pic is a bit too woody for me


Maybe a white "liner"?


----------



## bobperry

Bender:
It' all about taste. There is no right and no wrong.

I am wearing a Carhart Henley style T shirt with a big hole right in the middle of the chest. I like it. My wife just shakes her head. She just can;t understand the joyful aesthetic of the Farmer Brown look.
It might be "bad" taste, but it's my taste.

It's perfect here at the shack today, pouring down rain, dark and blowing. And just to poke my finger in the eye of God I went out and mowed the lawn. 
Now to get ready to build a world class Irish style lamb stew for dinner. Perfect.
*DUMPLINGS!*

Jorgen:
Yep, that's exactly what I would do. Line the sides of the cabin trunk with white. That's what we are doing on the carbon cutters.


----------



## amwbox

SailBender said:


> I honestly don't see much difference. That is why I much prefer modern interiors.


The difference is night and day, really.

Interior finish is purely a subjective matter of preference. For my own part, I think the classic appeal of the older interiors is timeless. It gets better with age, properly maintained. The newer stuff is too much plastic, too many angles and planes that are going to seem dated much more rapidly. I just feel like putting the time and work into maintaining something like what I posted earlier is _worth it._

Again, this is based on my personal tastes.


----------



## NCC320

Production Boats and Limits: The first limit for almost everyone realistically is money. Money for most people is limited...be it millions or thousands, so how much can I, or am I willing, to commit to the boat? The other side of that question for the builders is how little must I bring the price of the build to earn a bit and still have something the market will buy? At the same time, technology changes and everyone wants the latest gizmos. Old days...no self tailing winches. No fancy gps chart plotters. Probably no radar or depth finder. Anchor lockers. Nice interior, sound systems, full kitchen (galley) with latest appliances....and on and on. As to production boats, except for one offs, they're all production boats, but this thread generally has regarded production boats as Beneteaus, Hunters, Catalinas and similar levels of build. Never mind each of these have models that range from a few thousand, to hundreds of thousands, and still they are on the cheaper side of the boat building business. So realistically, because of the first limit (money), we are forced into "good enough" for what we intend to do. For those who want bullet proof, go anywhere in terrible storms, they are often forced into buying older, out of production, but rugged boats of yesteryear, and then spend thousands to try to update those so they can convince themselves that they have a "real bluewater boat with lots of handholds, pilot berths, and little cockpits, etc. By those standards the big Oysters and similar fail the bluewater test. Realistically, most of us don't cross oceans. We stay coastal. So the build quality of the Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus works out just fine. Anymore, and the case could be made that one is wasting money. The best, or cutting edge, biggest, fastest, etc. are loosing propositions. Once you buy the boat, you are stuck with it for years. Maybe many years. And even if you buy the latest, best, cutting edge, etc., soon, someone will come along and outdo you on that. So, while for the designer or engineer, wanting to do the best design or build is good, realistically, almost all of us are forced into good enough. And what exact is wrong with that? Good enough, means the boat is going to satisfy those items that you, individually, rate as important, and not waste money for having been built excessively to accommodate things that the owner will never encounter. Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau have and continue to meet what the market wants. That is why they sell thousands of boats and others sell few, or go out of business. And nice interiors is part of what the market want. So no, the way they build them today is not like they used to build...realistically, they are giving you a better package today than what they did previously.

In my case, good enough was a new Catalina 320. Kept the boat for 16 years, sold it for 75% of what I paid for it. Never had any of those problems that one is supposed to have with production boats. Replaced a few broken blocks, a water pump, corrected a crack in some filler material used for fairing around the shaft strut. Had one intermittent leak at one of the hatches. That's it for 16 years. I couldn't have been more happy with the boat. Lots of others felt the same way. There were 1175 built before production stopped in 2012. I'm older now, and large boat sailing is over for me, but I saw the next boat this weekend. It was Catalina's 385. 

The production boats get a bad rap...lots of talking people who don't own one are too quick to tell you that they are not up to the job. They usually don't know what they are talking about, or often they're trying to convince themselves that the old shoe they have is superior. Those mishaps at sea...look around, and you'll find that bad things can happen to production or high end boats.

For a long time, I believed some of that baloney. Wouldn't even consider one of the production boats. Then, one day, it occurred to me: it's either no boat, and old "good" boat, or a production boat (Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau because those are the three brands with dealers in my area)....important just in case there would be problems. So I gave in, and bought the size and brand that I liked best and the one that seemed to meet my personal needs and wants. Quickly, I found out, at least for Catalina, was they were fine boats, even if designed by an in house designer. And I found over the years, and by examining older Catalinas, that the newer boats were actually better than the older ones. I'm sure that the current series is better than the one that I bought. That's progress.

And talking about the good quality of boats that cost nearly a million dollars or more is just that ...talk. Because, even though they are fine boats, I can never, ever have one. And, I suspect, this is true for boats priced at over just one or two hundred thousand for most of us.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> I don't think some of you get it. No one is building the "older" style boats with a "basic" interior. Builders of the older style boats are building semi custom boats with very nice fancy interiors (i.e. expensive boats way out of range for purchase on 90% of people here). I'm sure "production" boat builder could do older style hulls with pretty much the same interiors that people say only wives like.
> 
> So the questions is why? I think part of the reason is that the semi custom people know that the fancy hand built interior is more important to their buyer than a modern hull design.


I think the nicer interiors on the older style hulls comes of the higher cost of building these far heavier duty designs. A LOT of material goes into those things. The hulls are thicker, the decks are heavier, etc etc. They just cost more to build. The old PSC 31 Mariah was 3 inches solid glass at the bilge. Inch and half thick at the deck. Its a 31' boat with a 16,000 lb displacement. By today's standards that is crazy overbuilt.

So, with the base costs of this sort of boat so high, a potential buyer is going to expect the finished product to be well appointed. At least, as a layman, that's my understanding of it.


----------



## PCP

Don0190 said:


> Well then the question is why aren't the designs good enough to survive in the new boat market?





SloopJonB said:


> Because the wives generally like the interiors of the new style boats better.
> ,,,,.


Yes, blame it on the wives the no existence of demand on the market of boats like the Passport...to the wives and to the poor husbands that do what their wives tell them to do, even in what regards buying a sailboat.

Sorry but that does not make any sense. Heavy boats with a inferior sail performance and even so with a smaller interior storage and living volume don't make much sense to the vast majority of sailors and that's why there is no significant demand for them on the market of new cruising boats.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Yes, blame it on the wives the no existence of demand on the market of boats like the Passport...to the wives and to the poor husbands that do what their wives tell them to do, even in what regards buying a sailboat.
> 
> Sorry but that does not make any sense. Heavy boats with a inferior sail performance and even so with a smaller interior storage and living volume don't make much sense to the vast majority of sailors and that's why there is no significant demand for them on the market of new cruising boats.


Much like yourself, they simply don't know any better.


----------



## SailBender

amwbox said:


> The difference is night and day, really.
> 
> Again, this is based on my personal tastes.


For me it is not much different. They both just look dated and from the same era. I wish it did not, because older boats can be had for much cheaper. Just my personal opinion of course.


----------



## bobperry

So there we are going along, about 20 posts in a row, a nice, civil and entertaining fun thread discussing interior styles and along comse PCP to try and turn even this into an argument with his dogmatic insistence on right and wrong.

"Sorry but that does not make any sense."

It makes no sense to YOU pcp. To the rest of, while we may or may not agree, it makes perfect sense. Your problem understanding is not our problem.
Where opinions are concerned people with an open mind have no need to break them down into "right" and "wrong". They are just different ways of looking at things.

Listen more and type less. Maybe in time it will make sense.


----------



## Ninefingers

I actually like the modern interiors. I also like lot of light below - but I typically day sail with day guests, and that makes for a nice fit.

FYI, I have fractionally owned the following the last 4 years:
2006 Hunter 33
2007 Hunter 36
2014 Hunter e33
2015 Oceanis 38.

As of yesterday, I am the full owner of a lovely 1977 CS27.

If I could take some cabin accessories from the Hunters and plop them in the CS, I would. The CNC cut panels and corian counters are easier to maintain!

However, there really is a big difference in regards to hull stiffness and structure. I was shocked that the cockpit lockers opened so easily on the CS. And the interior drawers, while kitchy, are still perfectly aligned. 

On all of the previously mentioned boats, (by me here), lockers and doors went out of alignment often. On the Hunter 36, there was serious "racking" going on. Evidenced by opposing lockers binding in opposing corners. So the boat may have been hit at some time. If it were a rectangle, it was now a rhombus. But all of them showed signs of being out alignment at some point. Which is odd, because I can understand fiberglass flexing, but not staying that way.


----------



## SloopJonB

It only "stays that way" because the cabinetry was fitted before the boat ever saw the water. Boats change shape a little when they start floating - that's why you align shafts in the water, not on dry land.


----------



## bobperry

Niner:
Cs 27 is a very nice boat. The CS boats had great quality. Your boat is an ice breaker compared to the current group of mas produced boats. By today's standards you could not consider your boat " mass produced".
As Jon says it was built the old fashioned way where everything was cut to fit with precision. Very handsome boat.


----------



## Ninefingers

Thanks Bob, I am very lucky, the previous owner refitted it with much love. He is a member here I believe.


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> I'm 32. I'm starting to wonder when it counts as "old".


Ask a 16 year old if you are old. :wink

Old is much more a state of mind than a chronological age. One of my longest standing friends (45 years now) is rapidly turning into an old man at 66, to the point that other friends comment on it. Those other friends might as well still be 30 albeit with more wisdom and money, as am I.


----------



## bobperry

Niner:
I went to a "re-naming" ceremony yesterday. The new owner is a friend of mine and pretty new to sailing The boat is a Tayana 42. The previous owner and his wife were at the ceremony. The boat was immaculate and fitted out to the nines (Hah!). I talked to the previous owner for quite a while. He was clearly very proud of the boat he had sold and the fact that he had done everything possible to make it a great boat. I could not help but feel a little sadness in the air when the time came to throw the metal disc with the boat's previous name into the drink.


----------



## SloopJonB

blt2ski said:


> To me, the 70's and 80's had the lowest price for what you got, or best bang for buck boat if you went new. There are a few that are going back to this option, but overall, an ave middle class worker can not afford a boat! unless they go used. And even then, if they get a hole in the water. One is looking at $3-4 above abd beyond what they paid for it, if it needs even a few major items replaced. marty


Back then, at least around here, a new San Juan 24 cost a healthy years pay, a Peterson One Tonner cost as much as a house in a good neigbourhood or about 10X the price of a new Corvette.

Frequently people sold their "new" boats after 2 or 3 years for more than they had paid, partly due to inflation and partly due to the fact that there wasn't the supply of used boats we now have.

It was a golden age for sailing but it wasn't cheap or even cheaper from what I've seen.


----------



## SloopJonB

Don0190 said:


> I don't think some of you get it. No one is building the "older" style boats with a "basic" interior. Builders of the older style boats are building semi custom boats with very nice fancy interiors (i.e. expensive boats way out of range for purchase on 90% of people here). I'm sure "production" boat builder could do older style hulls with pretty much the same interiors that people say only wives like.
> 
> So the questions is why? I think part of the reason is that the semi custom people know that the fancy hand built interior is more important to their buyer than a modern hull design.


If Jaguar had re-created the E-Type with the technology of the new F-Type underneath do you think it would sell?

Sometimes just plain beautiful is enough.


----------



## Ninefingers

Bob,

I'm keeping the name because I like it...and it allows for very pretty script...and easy to pronounce. 

I may keep her for twenty years or two. Who knows? Regardless, it will be turned over in equal or better shape when it's time for that.


----------



## Don L

SloopJonB said:


> If Jaguar had re-created the E-Type with the technology of the new F-Type underneath do you think it would sell?
> 
> Sometimes just plain beautiful is enough.


Don't know and don't what point or direction you are trying to make/take. The question is, since so many on forums are so set on the "old" boats being better and given that manufacturers are in the business of making things people want, why aren't the "older" styles of boats being boat except for expensive models?


----------



## SloopJonB

Because the majority of people want "new".

Not just brand new but "New & Improved" - even if it's not really new, just different. It has been programmed into the mass market brain by decades of advertising.

"Newer? Must be better" and "Costs more? Must be better" are extremely widely held ideas.


----------



## Don L

SloopJonB said:


> Because the majority of people want "new".
> 
> Not just brand new but "New & Improved" - even if it's not really new, just different. It has been programmed into the mass market brain by decades of advertising.
> 
> "Newer? Must be better" and "Costs more? Must be better" are extremely widely held ideas.


So basically in the boat buying market people believe new boats have become improved, ........................... except on forums. And there it is.


----------



## SloopJonB

Don0190 said:


> So basically in the market people believe new *always means* improved, ........................... And there it is.


Fixed.


----------



## Don L

SloopJonB said:


> Fixed.


don't how that "fixed" it (and it sure isn't what I said) as it pretty much doesn't agree with your earlier post


----------



## Ninefingers

Yes, I think you're correct. 

Someone shopping for a boat would believe newer is better.


----------



## bobperry

I think newer boat should be better. Now let's define "better". There's the rub. In terms of boat speed newer should be better. Designers know more. In terms of build quality I doubt it very much. In terms of comfort that is subjective. In terms of usable volume for a give 35' DWL ( Do not compare LOA's. They can be misleading.) I would doubt it because the newer boat would most probably be quite a bit lighter. For instance, look at tankage numbers. I think they are the best indicators for usable volume. Displacement can be considered a measurement of materials, i.e. 12,000 lbs of materials vs 16,000 lbs. of materials. Materials cost money. The trend today in mass produced production boats is towards the cheapest build possible. It's all about the money honey.

Don:
Keep in mind people buy LOA. The GOB from the mid '70's might have an LOA of 36' and a DWL of 28'. Can you say "Overhangs"?
The new 36' will have almost zero overhang so in terms of volume it is a far bigger boat than the 70's vintage 36'er. The interior will be far roomier. But it's a mistake to think of it as a bigger 36'er . Compare DWL's. Take a peak at the GOB Islander 36 with it's nice but useless overhangs and compare it to the latest "me too" Euro model with almost no overhangs at all. Using LOA as a defining criteria does not work with that range of designs. Now comparing a two year old design with a design launched today LOA would certainly be more valid a comparison tool.


----------



## seaner97

Unfortunately yards, slips and everyone else charge by LOA. If they charged by DWL, I bet you'd see a rush back to CCA rule boats.


----------



## mitiempo

Ninefingers said:


> Thanks Bob, I am very lucky, the previous owner refitted it with much love. He is a member here I believe.


You bought Ravat?


----------



## mitiempo

PCP said:


> Cornell, after having made the last circumnavigation in an OVNI 43 is making another one with a contemporary design, a Garcia 45, (that shares the hull with Allures 44) and is not very different from Steve's Boreal: Light beamy centerboarders.....


Pcp

What makes you think the Boreal 44 is light?


----------



## Ninefingers

"Don't be fooled, this 28' has the room of most 33' boats!"

"Honestly, this boat while being only 30' has more space than most 36' boats!"

"When you go below you are amazed that this much room comes with a 34' boat!"

"It feels like a much larger boat!"

I always want to know what boat they are using for comparison - poor beast....

Now, let's talk FREEBOARD! If you haven't parachuted off the deck of a Hunter, you haven't lived. At the same time, the voluminous cabin below is appreciated.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> In terms of boat speed newer should be better. Designers know more.


Even that is not always the case. A friend had a mid to late 90's Hunter 340 - a much bigger (and WAY more expensive) boat than my mid 80's Hunter 31.

Its PHRF was only a few seconds lower than mine.


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
OK, some designers know more.

My approach is, lay off the generalities.
Appraise each boat individually.
Do not fall for the dogmatic BS you hear from PCP.
Each boat has a personality that may or may not be reflected in cold numbers.
Take the holistic approach.
O mani padme hum.

I would not even want to try and define" better" used as a generality.

Now used if I'm getting a back rub, that an entirely different thing.
" Oh yeah,,,,that's better."


----------



## outbound

Don
Please read post 3004. New boats having the features and build quality suggested are unfortunately priced out of most people's hands. Just look at the cost of a new bristle channel cutter. Silly money for a 28' boat.


----------



## zephyrcat229

I agree completely, many answers to this one


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> Boxer:
> ...It just feels right. The one in the pic is a bit too woody for me but fact is I like dark, cave like interiors. Bob don't do "light and airy"...


I've wondered about bright vs. dark boat interiors. It can be so unendingly bright under the sky, with nothing but water around, that a dark interior can be a relief.

I once became snowblind inside a tent, brightness can be debilitating.

I remember reading about early pioneers in the Midwest, living in sod houses. The first local to learn about whitewash and do his interior was fiercely envied by his neighbors. But in winter, the unyielding brightness at a time when people had to work outside, made the bright interior feel painful instead of healing and refreshing.

Not that long ago yachting for pleasure was restricted to the very rich, and thus still has lots of prestige, even after production building allowed the middle class to afford boats. Many people today may want a boat for the pleasure of having a boat, of visiting the water with friends, not so much actual sailing. Most on this forum are actual sailors. Personally, I like to sail on and off my anchor or mooring whenever possible. I wish I had a yawl so I could easily back down setting my anchor by back winding the aft sail.

When I'm sailing I'm amazed at the sailboats driving by with furled sails on the finest of perfect days. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm surprised at people I know who are afraid to reef. I've learned that quite a few are afraid to raise the main at all, and just sail with the furling headsail or motor. Nothing wrong with any of it, it's all good.

But people who don't really like the sailing part so much seem to be the majority. Thus, saying that a type of boat sells doesn't prove it is selling because it is ideal for general sailing. It may sell because it is new, and has lots of room, and looks familiar - like that hotel room. And being new, they expect that it is well made. They don't check the suspension on a new car, and they don't check the construction on a new boat. They expect it to be good.

So day sailors/motorers/dockqueens may prefer a bright wide clean interior because it's best for their purpose. Again, nothing wrong with that. And who doesn't enjoy fast sailboats? At least for a pleasant day sail. I like speed, but I don't want to always have to pay total attention. One wicked night and day at anchor when the wind came from the wrong direction and we were thrown about convinced me that flat tall boats were not for me. Out my portlights I could see a much bigger newer (flatter taller) boat looking like a bucking bronco, size did not seem to help.


----------



## bobperry

Sky: I once became snow blind in a bar.

My wife did not test drive the last car she bought. "I like the color. I'll take it."

I'm not sure an inexperienced sailor can tell much from a test sail. They don't have the frame of reference. But they know when they like the layout.

I made a list of all the boats I could remember sailing. I got through the one design classes then I stopped. It was a very long list. I can tell the difference as I suspect most of you can.


----------



## outbound

That's part of what I don't get. Regardless of how he expresses himself I think Paulo is a skilled experienced sailor. Believe I understand his point of view and in fact I'm sympathetic to the idea of advances resulting in quicker boats. What I don't understand is why he doesn't appreciate the validity of others assessment including equally or more experienced such as Jon and those with much deeper understanding of naval architecture such as Bob.

Bob if someone was to give me a brand spanking new Friendship I'd take it. Even with the useless overhangs:laugh


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> Sky: I once became snow blind in a bar.


:grin ..........Must have been a hard day at a beach bar on white sand! LOL



bobperry said:


> My wife did not test drive the last car she bought. "I like the color. I'll take it."
> 
> I'm not sure an inexperienced sailor can tell much from a test sail. They don't have the frame of reference. But they know when they like the layout.
> 
> I made a list of all the boats I could remember sailing. I got through the one design classes then I stopped. It was a very long list. I can tell the difference as I suspect most of you can.


Not likely a test sail will include a squall to see how she handles rough stuff.

All boats are a compromise, as we all know. Let each one pick the spot on the curve that they like best. I don't agree with some who imagine that what they choose is the best:



skygazer said:


> Whatever I like is the best.
> Who cares about all of the rest.
> I'll always do fine
> at least in MY mind
> as long as I flee the sea test.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> ...I'd take it. Even with the useless overhangs:laugh


They are not only useless as they also degrade sailing performance, meaning that a boat without them will sail better, it will have a better sailing performance.

You can say that the difference will not be much even if regarding the big overhangs used by Bob in some modern designs it will be quite noticeable, but what makes a boat sail much better (and a modern design)it is just not one funtional detail (like overhangs) but many that go from spade rudders instead of old designed rudders, fin keels or modern foil keels instead of modified fin keels or full keels, lighter boats instead of heavier ones (smaller wet surface), the maximization of hull form stability for a given beam, a transom design that does not only contribute to that but for a smaller roll downwind, a more powerful boat /through the increase of hull form stability or lowering the CG with deeper keels with most of the ballast on the bulb (that if necessary can swing nor lift for allowing a smaller draft) and related to the more power, a bigger SA/D.

All this (and other) small details put together will give a much better and faster sailboat, then an old designed one. When a NA design a modern sailboat he just doesn't let one, two or three of them outside the equation. Modern design is just about sailing efficiency and form following function.

Sure, there is a lot of design details (out of the immersed part of the boat) that have nothing to do with sail efficiency and that can even be useless and have to do only with a style or even be trendy but those details on a modern boat would not be functional ones and will not degrade the boat performance. Nothing wrong about that, quite the contrary.


----------



## eko_eko

I wonder how much rising costs have affected build quality of today's production boats vs the GOBs.

Adjusted for inflation, my 1974 Tartan 30 would have cost about $140k in 2015 dollars. I don't know that you could actually build one for that price today, just due to the cost of resin and teak.

Bob: Since you'd have the best data, can you compare the construction cost of one of your older designs to the cost of building a similar boat today? Perhaps the Saga 48 vs the Cheoy Lee 48?

I know those aren't too similar except for displacement, LOD, and beam. Compare any models you like. Your CF Cutters are amazing, but probably too much more expensive to construct than the norm to make a good comparison for this particular question. Thanks!


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> Pcp
> 
> What makes you think the Boreal 44 is light?


It is not an impression but the reality. As you know the boreal 44 is a Voyage centerboarder with most of the ballast inside or on a small skeg that protects the propeller and that means that it has to have a lot more ballast than if it was a keel boat with all the ballast on the keel. That means that it has to be a proportionally more heavy boat than a keeled boat with the same hull and design characteristics.

Even so the *Boreal 44* has a D/L of *182.3* and a SA/D of *21.6*

Compare for example with the Passport 44 that is 15 years older in design and his a keel boat with the ballast on the keel:

Passport 44 - D/L of *219.8* and a SA/D of *16.64*

The Passport 40, an older design that Bob Perry says that would have clients today, if the boat was built has:

Passport 40 - D/L *272* and a SA/D *15.24*


----------



## PCP

eko_eko said:


> I wonder how much rising costs have affected build quality of today's production boats vs the GOBs.
> ...


You have today on the market boats with different types of quality and prices, from acceptable quality and very moderated prices to boats of very high quality and very high prices. Here you have one with very high quality and a very high price:


----------



## PCP

Don0190 said:


> So basically in the boat buying market people believe new boats have become improved, ........................... except on forums. And there it is.


And not in all forums even if the opinion in forums tend to be pretty more conservative than the opinion of those that buy new boats and whose tastes and needs define the sailboat market.


----------



## bobperry

PCP: 
Your are wrong again. overhangs don't "degrade" the performance and in some cases they can enhance performance. I did a whole chapter in my book analyzing with VPP's the effect of bow overhang. I sincerely doubt you have ever done such a thing. You are guessing. I am not.

Let's get this straight, for a given LOA, take the TP52 box rule or any box rule, overhangs do not work. You do need some overhang aft to clean up the run. ( Got that pcp?) Within a rule that limits LOA max DWL always wins out. I'll say it again for pcp. Within a rule that limits LOA max DWL always wins out.

However, if LOA is not limited there can be benefits to overhangs fore and aft. They may be minimal (see the study *and* the chapter on bow shapes in my book). If you want a boat with a 34 ' DWL and you are open to overhangs you can pick up sailing length by adding overhangs. Not so much in the bow but most certainly in the stern. The best examples I can think of this is the Universal, International and last America's Cup rules. In these rules LOA was not fixed and not taxed either. Theses are rules where length is determined by girth locations. It's a bit involved to explain here. But like the IOR, once those girths are placed on the hull you can carry the hull out as far as you like. Look at some of the the extreme stern overhangs used by Gary Mull in the IOR days. Does this extreme overhang aft work? Probably not.

Now jump ahead to the last AC races in monohulls. Think of the totally dominant boat designed by Laurie Davidson, BLACK MAGIC. If you watch BM going to weather and heeled well over you will notice aft that its almost like someone hung over the stern with a piece of chalk and marked on the hull exactly where the water broke from the hull and said "Cut here." The most clearly was an effort to use as much aft overhang as possible to extend sailing length. Once the water cleared the hull the hull was trimmed off. Beyond that it was of no value. BLACK MAGIC had considerable overhang aft. It won the Cup. Overhangs fore and aft appear not to have "degraded" much of BM's performance.

So there can be no doubt that overhang aft* IF NOT PENALIZED OR DEDUCTED FROM DWL* can be beneficial.

Bows are more of a problem.
There is very little volume in the bow. Look at the bow of BM. Look at those powerful U shaped sections Davidson used to try to push volume into the bow. But on a boat like BM with no restriction (almost no) on bow overhang once the girth requirements had been met Davidson chose to use bow overhang. Why?

In the first series of AC boats designed to that rule Bruce Farr had split from the pack and introduced what they called the "destroyer bow". This was a bow you would recognize today with a near plumb stem and almost no overhang at all. It reduced weight in the end. It reduced beam on deck and it looked fast. It wasn't. It trials against the conventional bow boats it was found that in a chop the destroyer bowed boats were not as fast as the boats with bow overhang. This is not opinion. This is just plain fact. I had a long, quiet dinner with Laurie Davidson one night in NZ where we went over these elements of design in detail. So if you look at the last three AC's you will see the winning boats all had bow overhang. In fact Laurie came up with what was called the "Davidson bow". I cover this in my book. The Davidson bow was a way to gain overhang while not sacrificing DWL. It's a bit complicated to explain here but there is a good illustration of it in my book. Obviously Laurie Davidson did not believe that bow overhang was useless or "degrading".

So to make the comment "They are not only useless as they also degrade sailing performance," shows a clear lack of understanding on exactly how overhangs work. It depends on the situation. It depends on the rule. In some situations overhangs can be very beneficial. History has well documented this with race results.


----------



## bobperry

eko ditto:

Not sure exactly what you are asking.

You sell boats by LOA. You buy boats by the pound. Take the price of any boat and divide it by the displ and you'll get a price per pound. I don't have new boat prices on hand for my old designs. I was never really concerned with price. It would be interesting to know what the price per pound was for a Passport 40 and compare it to a 40'er of today. Iwill dig a bi and see if I have any information on Passport 40 original prices. 

No pcp, would you please drop this ugly habit of putting words into other people's mouths! I never said people would but the Passport today if it were built. Why? It would be very, very expensive. A new Passport 40 today built as it was built 20 years ago would cost maybe $750,000. Take the price per pound of any new, high quality boat, and multiply is by 28,000 lbs.. That would give you an indicator of a new Passport in today's market.

For fun consider this, In 1974 the base price of a Valiant 40 was $63,500. You'd have a hard time finding a beater used V-40 for that today.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> So there we are going along, about 20 posts in a row, a nice, civil and entertaining fun thread discussing interior styles and along comse PCP to try and turn even this into an argument with his dogmatic insistence on right and wrong.
> 
> "Sorry but that does not make any sense."
> 
> It makes no sense to YOU pcp. To the rest of, while we may or may not agree, it makes perfect sense. Your problem understanding is not our problem.
> Where opinions are concerned people with an open mind have no need to break them down into "right" and "wrong". They are just different ways of looking at things.
> 
> Listen more and type less. Maybe in time it will make sense.


It would help if we know about you are talking about. Maybe about this?:

*"Originally Posted by PCP 
Yes, blame it on the wives the no existence of demand on the market of boats like the Passport...to the wives and to the poor husbands that do what their wives tell them to do, even in what regards buying a sailboat."*

or about this?:

*Originally Posted by PCP 
It is pretty clear, the line between planing boats and non planing boats was established with a D/L of 150.

That does not make sense neither now neither 30 years ago. The boats did not plan better 30 or 40 years ago than now and the needed D/L to have a boat planing is the same, maybe a bit less now with those beamy flat hulls.

A Beneteau Sense 55 has a D/L way lower than 150. It has 128 and it is ridiculous to say that it is a planing boat.*

It would help if instead of saying nothing about why you disagree you substantiate your disagreement instead of saying things like this:

"*Listen more and type less. Maybe in time it will make sense.*"


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> PCP:
> Your are wrong again. overhangs don't "degrade" the performance and in some cases they can enhance performance. I did a whole chapter in my book analyzing with VPP's the effect of bow overhang. I sincerely doubt you have ever done such a thing. You are guessing. I am not.
> 
> Let's get this straight, for a given LOA, take the TP52 box rule or any box rule, overhangs do not work. You do need some overhang aft to clean up the run. ( Got that pcp?) Within a rule that limits LOA max DWL always wins out. I'll say it again for pcp. Within a rule that limits LOA max DWL always wins out.
> 
> However, if LOA is not limited there can be benefits to overhangs fore and aft. They may be minimal (see the study *and* the chapter on bow shapes in my book). If you want a boat with a 34 ' DWL and you are open to overhangs you can pick up sailing length by adding overhangs. Not so much in the bow but most certainly in the stern. The best examples I can think of this is the Universal, International and last America's Cup rules. In these rules LOA was not fixed and not taxed either. Theses are rules where length is determined by girth locations. It's a bit involved to explain here. But like the IOR, once those girths are placed on the hull you can carry the hull out as far as you like. Look at some of the the extreme stern overhangs used by Gary Mull in the IOR days. Does this extreme overhang aft work? Probably not.
> 
> Now jump ahead to the last AC races in monohulls. Think of the totally dominant boat designed by Laurie Davidson, BLACK MAGIC. If you watch BM going to weather and heeled well over you will notice aft that its almost like someone hung over the stern with a piece of chalk and marked on the hull exactly where the water broke from the hull and said "Cut here." The most clearly was an effort to use as much aft overhang as possible to extend sailing length. Once the water cleared the hull the hull was trimmed off. Beyond that it was of no value. BLACK MAGIC had considerable overhang aft. It won the Cup. Overhangs fore and aft appear not to have "degraded" much of BM's performance.
> 
> So there can be no doubt that overhang aft* IF NOT PENALIZED OR DEDUCTED FROM DWL* can be beneficial.
> 
> Bows are more of a problem.
> There is very little volume in the bow. Look at the bow of BM. Look at those powerful U shaped sections Davidson used to try to push volume into the bow. But on a boat like BM with no restriction (almost no) on bow overhang once the girth requirements had been met Davidson chose to use bow overhang. Why?
> 
> In the first series of AC boats designed to that rule Bruce Farr had split from the pack and introduced what they called the "destroyer bow". This was a bow you would recognize today with a near plumb stem and almost no overhang at all. It reduced weight in the end. It reduced beam on deck and it looked fast. It wasn't. It trials against the conventional bow boats it was found that in a chop the destroyer bowed boats were not as fast as the boats with bow overhang. This is not opinion. This is just plain fact. I had a long, quiet dinner with Laurie Davidson one night in NZ where we went over these elements of design in detail. So if you look at the last three AC's you will see the winning boats all had bow overhang. In fact Laurie came up with what was called the "Davidson bow". I cover this in my book. The Davidson bow was a way to gain overhang while not sacrificing DWL. It's a bit complicated to explain here but there is a good illustration of it in my book. Obviously Laurie Davidson did not believe that bow overhang was useless or "degrading".
> 
> So to make the comment "They are not only useless as they also degrade sailing performance," shows a clear lack of understanding on exactly how overhangs work. It depends on the situation. It depends on the rule. In some situations overhangs can be very beneficial. History has well documented this with race results.


It seems you are right and all the state of the art NA are wrong.

Off course because you value aesthetics more than sailing efficiency, in what regards your later cruising designs, you have to come with some form of justifying the low LWL for LOA that your cruising boats feature.

In a non planing sailing-boat there is no substitute for LWL length in what regards sailing boat performance and maximizing LWL (in what regards racing and cruising sailboats) has been one of the main trends in what regards modern yacht design on the last 30 years and that has mostly to do with the shape of bows and transoms.

It is so obvious that it does not even deserve to be discussed.

Regarding why cruisers want a 50 ft boat with a LWL close to 50ft and not a 70ft boat with a 50 ft LWL is also so obvious that does not deserve discussion, however if you want to discuss that I will.


----------



## bobperry

pcp:
You need to read slower.
"ff course because you value aesthetics more than sailing efficiency"

I used the example of the AC boats exactly because in these cases *AESTHETCS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.*

Personally I do not care for overhangs. I would put overhangs on a design if the client requested them. I like DWL. Please read that slowly pcp. I like DWL.

What I posted is fact. Study the AC monohulls. Study the International and Universal rule boats. It's not "opinion" it's just history. If it's beyond your comprehension that's your personal problem and I want nothing to do with that.

Please re read my post and read slowly this time. It's just facts. I am not at all interested in your opinion. I just feel the need to be a counterpoint to your myopic, dogmatic comments so others here are not confused.


----------



## outbound

Paulo 
You are a funny man. I will be as annoyingly pedantic as you in this reply.
Have you ever looked at paintings of older boats? Don't you know plumb bows have only been around for some centuries. As Bob previously mentioned a PIA in a cruising boat. Walk down a dock and see the various fugly things people hang over their bows to protect their plumb bows when not actively sailing. Or the scarred stainless protectors attached to the hulls. 
Plumb sterns are also centuries old. In the past with heavy boats they were submerged. Now they may be at or slightly above or below the static waterline. When at anchor if there is any kind of chop running through the anchorage they produce an annoying slap. My current boat has this. My prior T37 did not.
The lwl of boats with overhangs vary depending on speed through the water and heel. NAs used this to cheat on racing rules. For at time this was a concern which fortunately no longer applies. Still if done right it seems to me some boats with this feature where waterline is brought aft squat less. Seems to me that an advantage of pizza pie boats with beam brought aft is they resist swatting as long as gyradius is perserved. 
I'm no NA but even I have some awareness of this. Thought you would too.
In short, what you call new in your recent post is not. Any feature on a boat is a trade off. You improve something at the expense of something else. 
What is new is the ability to create what in the past were called ultralights. The avant of CF/foam boats allows very strong hulls to be built with surprisingly little weight. This has caused a shift in paradigm. It's a delight to see how NAs exploit the opportunities this material allows. Downside is expense placing it out of the reach of the average cruiser.


----------



## bobperry

My web site is chock full of boats with minimal overhangs. If anyone really is interested all they have to do it look. This is fact not pcp's bloviating opinion. Check out my web site. It's nice.

So rather than post a bunch of my own designs with plum, stems , you can see them on my web site, I thought I'd post these for fun. I like a nice plumb or near plumb stem.






Oh pcp, just in case it escapes you,,,,,,,,these are cartoons.


----------



## Don L

If this were a movie it would be about this time for some posters here to rip each others clothes off and have wild monkey sex on the coffee table!


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> My web site is chock full of boats with minimal overhangs. If anyone really is interested all they have to do it look. This is fact not pcp's bloviating opinion. Check out my web site. It's nice.
> 
> So rather than post a bunch of my own designs with plum, stems , you can see them on my web site, I thought I'd post these for fun. I like a nice plumb or near plumb stem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh pcp, just in case it escapes you,,,,,,,,these are cartoons.


Funny you post cartoons to make your point. I was not talking about cartoons but specifically, and maid that clear, about your last cruising designs, the ones you have been posting extensively on this forum. I guess we all now what i was talking about.


----------



## bobperry

Not bloody likely Don.

How about I go walk my dog. Big meeting today and tomorrow with Butch Ulmer of UK Sails and Steve King of Offshore Spars. They are here for the carbon cutter project. Long day at the yard tomorrow. They are staying at my shack so I will be very busy.

I can guarantee you there will be endless boat talk, some disagreements but not ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT! It will all be fun. Even the work part.


----------



## bobperry

pcp says:
"I guess we all now what I was talking about."

This is a joke. Right?

I'm not sure anyone knows what you are talking about.


----------



## albrazzi

Ninefingers said:


> As with anything, the pursuit of money usually leads the way. Look a home construction these days, stuff is built to a bare minimum, (at least around here). I'd say that trend began around 1980. 1960-1975 homes are generally regarded as the best built, (around here). There really wasn't a "cheap" option until the late 70's, and then it became unstoppable as everyone gravitated to the cheapest price, because heck, the houses looked like they built just like the old ones.
> 
> Is there a correlation in the boat industry? Was there ever a time where there was no "cheap option"? I think there was but I'm no expert in that. Was it Pearson that introduced low priced boats? Around here, some of the better builders such as CS, and C&C went out of business in the early 90's.
> 
> Anyhow, there are boats like Blue Jacket out there at a premium price, but I'm not sure how well they are doing.
> 
> Once a consumer is introduced to a low cost option the tide is near impossible to reverse.


Its a shame cost and value seem to be opposed instead of aligned. The house next door to me could literally be punched through with your fist if you avoid the corners and miss the bracing. When the "Big one" comes and I hope it doesn't mine will still be there. I can predict the enduring builds of today, Boat wise, will outlive the trendy value conscience offerings but most are in the here and now mentality like it or not.


----------



## Ninefingers

mitiempo said:


> You bought Ravat?


 Yes.


----------



## bobperry

Niner:
How about a pic of the new boat?


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> pcp:
> You need to read slower.
> "ff course because you value aesthetics more than sailing efficiency"
> 
> I used the example of the AC boats exactly because in these cases *AESTHETCS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.*
> 
> Personally I do not care for overhangs. I would put overhangs on a design if the client requested them. I like DWL. Please read that slowly pcp. I like DWL.
> 
> What I posted is fact. Study the AC monohulls. Study the International and Universal rule boats. It's not "opinion" it's just history. If it's beyond your comprehension that's your personal problem and I want nothing to do with that.
> 
> Please re read my post and read slowly this time. It's just facts. I am not at all interested in your opinion. I just feel the need to be a counterpoint to your myopic, dogmatic comments so others here are not confused.


The LWL is only one factor in what regards performance. The last AC monohulls, the fastest boats designed by the IACC class rules (that provided slow monohulls by the standards of that time) had or plumb bows or slightly inverted ones, like the one of the winning boat:










The boats that were to be expected to be the next AC monohull, where these ones (AC 90):










The new rule would allow for much faster and more modern boats boats that would not only have a maximized LWL (with transoms and bows designed to that effect) but would be beamier and with a large transom, with all the beam pulled back. This was 8 years ago and that is already a long time in what regards racing design. Unfortunately or not, the AC went for multihulls and the AC 90 were never built.


----------



## bobperry

Yes pcp, plumb bow AND overhang. You really need to pay attention to the complete picture. We were talking about overhangs. Are you moving the goal posts again to cover your rear end?

Notice the very pronounced Davidson bow on ALINGHI? I'm sure you did not. I'm sure you never heard of the Davidson bow until today.
Also notice the generous stern overhang. You see pcp you only see what you want to see and you ignore the rest.


----------



## PCP

PCP said:


> Funny you post cartoons to make your point. I was not talking about cartoons but specifically, and maid that clear, about your last cruising designs, the ones you have been posting extensively on this forum. *I guess we all now what i was talking about*.





bobperry said:


> pcp says:
> "*I guess we all now what I was talking about*."
> 
> This is a joke. Right?
> 
> I'm not sure anyone knows what you are talking about.


Well, I believe we all know your last cruising designs since you have posted them many times on this forum, but since you don't now what I am talking about I will post them, the ones with a relativelly small LWL for the LOA:


----------



## bobperry

Very nice boats designed with bows to suit the requirements of the owners. If they want overhang I give it to them. Pity we don't get your approval first. In both cases it was an aesthetic choice. Their aesthetic choice, not yours.

You are totally oblivious to the custom design process.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> It seems you are right and all the state of the art NA are wrong.
> 
> Off course because you value aesthetics more than sailing efficiency, in what regards your later cruising designs, you have to come with some form of justifying the low LWL for LOA that your cruising boats feature.
> 
> In a non planing sailing-boat there is no substitute for LWL length in what regards sailing boat performance and maximizing LWL (in what regards racing and cruising sailboats) has been one of the main trends in what regards modern yacht design on the last 30 years and that has mostly to do with the shape of bows and transoms.
> 
> It is so obvious that it does not even deserve to be discussed.
> 
> Regarding why cruisers want a 50 ft boat with a LWL close to 50ft and not a 70ft boat with a 50 ft LWL is also so obvious that does not deserve discussion, however if you want to discuss that I will.


Bob, however did you manage to stay in business all those years and design all those boats without PCP's knowledge and guidance?


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> I'm no NA but even I have some awareness of this. Thought you would too.


There was your first mistake - Paulo only knows "Newer is better".


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> I guess we all now what i was talking about.


Wrong yet again.


----------



## SloopJonB

Paulo, since you seem to think you know more than even the pro's about yacht design, let's have a test.

You remember tests from your days teaching don't you?

Explain to those of us less enlightened folks here the following arcane yacht design concepts - and no Internet cut & paste - in your own words please, just like a school test.

1. Prismatic coefficient

2. Block coefficient

3. How do they differ?

4. Dellenbaugh Angle


----------



## bobperry

Jon: How did I stay in business with out PCP's help? I have had one rule, never listen to idiots.

I'll tell you a funny story about the PSC 63.

This starts in the very early days of preliminary design. The boat was 47' LOA and we did not have a builder yet. Most of you will understand that with a custom project it is key to have the wife engaged, invested even in the process. I encourage that. There are exceptions, FRANCIS LEE being one of them. I want the hear the wife's preferences. It makes my job easier. It makes the boat "better". But with the PSC boat the wife was quiet only saying she wanted a "pretty boat".

The client and I explored several aesthetic approaches including plumb bows and even a reverse bow. For fun we have each bow a name. One Sunday morning I sketched up the reverse bow version and emailed it off to the client. We called it the "You talking to me" bow after that famous Robert DeNiro line in TAXI. The client said he'd show it to his wife that night, after dinner, when he knew she would be in a good mood.

Early Monday morning the client called. "How did she like the bow?" I asked. I'll never forget his reply, "She could not have hated it more."

So for what they are worth Euro trends and various versions of whatever "state of the art" is the decision was made to add some overhang forward and give the boat a more delicate, feminine look. The wife loved it.

You see, this client can afford any boat he wants. ANY BOAT. He does not want a Euro "me too" looking boat. He wanted a unique boat that reflected the North American tradition of yachting. Milking the hull for the last tenth of a knot was never part of the picture. The simple fact that the bat is ketch rigged should tell you that immediately.

For me this makes a design project a lot of fun. It is a very personal undertaking. Over the design phase the client and I usually become very close friends. It's my job to give the client a boat that accurately reflects his vision of how he sees himself and his wife on the water.

Why is this so difficult for PCP to grasp?


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Bob, however did you manage to stay in business all those years and design all those boats without PCP's knowledge and guidance?


That is not the point. Bob made long ago some state of the art designs, some that were innovative in their own time and at that time he designed production boats that were produced in large scale.

Today is different, there is not any big mass production boat that had required his services and he designs now custom boats for a small minority that has huge amounts of money and very conservative tastes, outdated tastes. US is still a conservative boat market (even if that is changing fast).

That is not the point at all. The point is Bob calling trendy to all modern mass production designs, that are designed by the best NA cabinets) instead of assuming that they are only modern and contemporary and that what he does as NA now, is not neither modern neither contemporary.

Not any problem with the boats Bob designs. I find them good looking sailboats and there is a very small market for them, It is his attitude that I don't like, that and the bad manners.


----------



## jorgenl

PCP said:


> outdated tastes.


Paulo, I do not think a taste can be "outdated", nor can a taste be right or wrong.

A taste is personal and subjective and is just that, a _taste_.


----------



## Don L

PCP said:


> Today is different, there is not any big mass production boat that had required his services and he designs now custom boats for a small minority that has huge amounts of money and very conservative tastes, outdated tastes. US is still a conservative boat market (even if that is changing fast).


Not getting into the PCP vs Bob fight

But really for the most part in today's market that is the choice. A "mass produced" boat or a more conservative much more expensive boat. Yes there a few less mass produced conservative boat at somewhere between the two (around twice the mass produced boat price) it is a small market.


----------



## bobperry

Oh God! Not the definition of "contemporary" again for three days! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Where are your answers to Jon's little test pcp?

No answer on the LPS contest.
No answer on the PHRF rating test.
No answer on Jon's test.

In my country you would be getting a failing grade PCP.

A friendly tip:
When you make something you have "made" it.
A "maid" is a young lady. A young lady who works in a dairy is a "milk maid".
"Pretty maids all in a row."

I hope I can look forward to your help if I ever choose to learn Portuguese. I will need a lot.


----------



## bobperry

Jorgen: 
Good point

If taste could be outdated there would be no market for antiques. There would be audience for opera. No one would show up at the symphony. I could get any seat I wanted!


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> That is not the point. Bob made long ago some state of the art designs, some that were innovative in their own time and at that time he designed production boats that were produced in large scale.


Anything that is produced in its own time is "state of the art", as much as that phrase actually means anything. But actually, Bob mostly designed cruising boats...as opposed to the relatively cheaply and lightly built analogues of them that dominate the market today. Cruising boats were once relatively mass market items. Now, the vast majority of sailors don't actually plan on going anywhere more than a few nights away.

The fact remains that because of the advantages that come with these sorts of designs, there remains a very strong, WORLDWIDE demand for them. A great many are still in production today.

You are just out of touch.



> Today is different, there is not any big mass production boat that had required his services and he designs now custom boats for a small minority that has huge amounts of money and very conservative tastes, outdated tastes. US is still a conservative boat market (even if that is changing fast).


You're wrong about that as well. The US market is dominated by lightweight coastal cruisers, much like other markets.

Tastes, very obviously, are subjective things that aren't subject to being in or out of date. As far as I can tell, you don't have tastes...but are a slave to ideology. So rigid in your own stilted beliefs that you simply cannot _grasp_ that other people may not place the same priorities on particular aspects of particular boats as you. Its as though you are megalomaniacal, and suppose that your personal views are somehow definitive of objective truth. Or something. Simply being ignorant is one thing. Being willfully entrenched in ignorance and cognitive dissonance is quite another.



> That is not the point at all. The point is Bob calling trendy to all modern mass production designs, that are designed by the best NA cabinets) instead of assuming that they are only modern and contemporary and that what he does as NA now, is not neither modern neither contemporary.


If its happening in the present, no matter what it is, its contemporary. You keep tripping over that word. That's its definition, FYI.



> Not any problem with the boats Bob designs. I find them good looking sailboats and there is a very small market for them, It is his attitude that I don't like, that and the bad manners.


As someone who has repeatedly espoused his own good manners only to rudely besmirch immediately after, you really have no room to complain. You are the one being insulting. You are the one who is uninformed. You are the one dragging this thread down to a juvenile, ad hominem loaded mess.

Not that ad hominem loaded messes aren't fun now and then.

(No. You won't make me go away by pretending I'm not here.) :wink


----------



## Ninefingers

bobperry said:


> Niner:
> How about a pic of the new boat?


Okay!


----------



## bobperry

Nice Niner. 
I love outboard rudders. I had one on the P'winkle. I'll bet that boat backs up like a dream.


----------



## SloopJonB

Ninefingers said:


> Okay!


There're a bunch of those CS 27's in my marina - great boats. Ray Wall was (is?) a good designer with a very recognizable style.


----------



## Faster

SloopJonB said:


> There're a bunch of those CS 27's in my marina - great boats. Ray Wall was (is?) a good designer with a very recognizable style.


That he is.. he was still living in Sidney a decade ago.

His CS 27 is very 'camper nicholson' looking compared to the CS 33 & 36T. He also did a Quanta 28 along the same lines here in BC.

Interestingly much of the CS molding details, esp on the cabin hous,e is also visible on our boat, another "originally Nicholson" product.


----------



## Brent Swain

Bob is designing the type of boat in which the market is saturated, for far less than the cost of materials. Friends who have bought his boats recently, bought them because they are so cheap these days. ( Bic lighter disposables) It makes no sense to pay someone exorbitant fees for designing such boats. The amount of free time he has to saturate this, and other sites with his posts, and jeering, is an indicator of how busy he is not. He even stated that it is a main part of his social life. I have been told that other formerly busy designers of such boats are hurting economically, lately. The boom times for such work has clearly passed.


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> Bob is designing the type of boat in which the market is saturated, for far less than the cost of materials. Friends who have bought his boats recently, bought them because they are so cheap these days. ( Bic lighter disposables) It makes no sense to pay someone exorbitant fees for designing such boats. The amount of free time he has to saturate this, and other sites with his posts, and jeering, is an indicator of how busy he is not. He even stated that it is a main part of his social life. I have been told that other formerly busy designers of such boats are hurting economically, lately. The boom times for such work has clearly passed.


Brent, Bob has several boats under construction right at this moment as shown in his thread. He has had several more large projects that we've all followed. They are all very different - yet incredible boats. And they are designed and built and launched and sailed in a relatively short time-frame.

You have ONE boat in your design catalog. And very few are being built as shown on your website. And those that actually ARE being built are taking years or decades for their poor owners to complete - IF they are ever completed at all. Most of those who start your boats never finish them. THAT is about the worst thing anyone could do to the environment and humanity. And that's your world.

So - yet again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## outbound

It would be great fun for Paulo and Brent to discuss naval architecture. Probably as good as the "this bird is dead " Monty Python skit.


----------



## bobperry

BS says, "bob is designing the type of boat in which the market is saturated"

Right on BS. 
There are carbon fiber cutters all over the place.
There are 62', 19,000 lb. double enders all over the place.
There are 63' traditional ketches all over the place.
There are 32' carbon fiber cutters all over the place.
There are 43' cold molded schooners all over the place.
There are 43' carbon fiber weekenders.

They're everywhere!!!!!!!!!

Man, BS your powers of observation are amazing.
You really should get out of that bay more. Stop by the shack some time and see just how badly I am "hurting". 

Your obsession with me borders on a sickness. Get over it.


----------



## NCC320

Regarding the limits on production boats in severe water conditions....I ran across this:





Comments?

Re: PCP's ideas and beliefs.....It seems to me that maybe on this side of the ocean, we are being too harsh on PCP. He has his beliefs, correct or not, but he is entitled to them. He's not a boat designer, but he has made lots of studies in his own way and has come to certain positions. Bob is an experienced and very knowledgeable designer and says that PCP is making some wrong assumptions and interpretations of the results of certain design calculations/considerations. Both have a strong personalities and neither is going to concede to the other.

I for one appreciate the many postings of and about really nice boats by both of them. As to boats liked on this side of the ocean and those liked in Europe, being different is not surprising. It's not unlike American cars (especially of some years ago) and European cars of the same era....both were quite different.


----------



## mitiempo

>


Paulo

You are confused I think if you think the Boreal 44 is light. The D/L ratio compares a boat's displacement to its waterline. It doesn't really relate to weight or displacement itself.

If you were to take a boat with long overhangs, say an Alberg 37 with a D/L of 403 and extended its waterline so it had 3' of overhang and not more than 10' its D/L would be a lot lower, even though the added structure would be heavier by hundreds of pounds.

The Boreal 44 has a displacement of just shy of 23,000 lbs. The boat below, an older design and very popular cruiser has a displacement 3,000 lbs less than the Boreal 44.

You will also note it has minimal overhangs, less than 4' as a matter of fact.


----------



## overbored

Brent Swain said:


> Bob is designing the type of boat in which the market is saturated, for far less than the cost of materials. Friends who have bought his boats recently, bought them because they are so cheap these days. ( Bic lighter disposables) It makes no sense to pay someone exorbitant fees for designing such boats. The amount of free time he has to saturate this, and other sites with his posts, and jeering, is an indicator of how busy he is not. He even stated that it is a main part of his social life. I have been told that other formerly busy designers of such boats are hurting economically, lately. The boom times for such work has clearly passed.


You do not know what you are talking about.
Bob is designing very high tech boats made out of high tech materials and people are throwing money at him to build these boats. He is enjoying the process, the friends he makes and the money they throw his way. If he can do that and not be very busy that is because he is very good at what he does. I understand completely because I do the same thing with aircraft and many other types of projects. 
You on the other hand do not understand because people do not throw money your way to weld steel dumpsters together. most people with money do not throw it in a dumpster. 
maybe your boom time has passed but ours is clearly still going strong.
What really does not make any sense is for people to throw money into a rusty bucket. But I guess not many are doing that are they.


----------



## bobperry

" It doesn't really relate to weight or displacement itself."

That's not quite right. "D" in the formula is "displacement" so yes it does in fact relate to displ.

Thanks for choosing one of my boats for an example. As you can plainly see my love of long overangs is very evident in this design. Hah!

But you are very correct in that with a D/L of 182 the Boreal 44 is far from what would be considered "light" today. I'd call a D/L of 182 "Low medium" at best.


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> Paulo
> 
> You are confused I think if you think the Boreal 44 is light. The D/L ratio compares a boat's displacement to its waterline. It doesn't really relate to weight or displacement itself.
> 
> If you were to take a boat with long overhangs, say an Alberg 37 with a D/L of 403 and extended its waterline so it had 3' of overhang and not more than 10' its D/L would be a lot lower, even though the added structure would be heavier by hundreds of pounds.
> 
> The Boreal 44 has a displacement of just shy of 23,000 lbs. The boat below, an older design and very popular cruiser has a displacement 3,000 lbs less than the Boreal 44.
> 
> You will also note it has minimal overhangs, less than 4' as a matter of fact.


It seems to me that it is you that is confused:

You mean the Saga 43 a very popular production boat and sold 55 boats till it go bankrupt some 10 years later or so? That does not seem to me the definition of a very popular sailboat. Don't you think that if they went bankrupt was because there was not a number enough of sailors interested on that boat?

The second confusion here is you comparing the D/L of what was at the time considered a performance cruiser (the Saga) with the one that was always considered a voyage boat. What sense has that? It has even less sense considering that the Saga is obviously a deep keel boat with all the ballast on the keel and the Boreal a centerboarder with all the ballast inside the boat or near by on a small skeg.

What about being logical and to compare the D/L of a voyage boat with one of another voyage boat? If you do that you will find that the Boreal has a low D/L and is a light boat regarding its type.

Regarding very popular boats I would say that we should be talking about boats like the jeanneau 349 that is selling 250 boats a year, a boat that maximizes interior and cockpit space without becoming ugly or affecting significantly its good performance. Its PHRF is similar to the one of the Passport 40.

A great contemporary design by one of the best state of the art NA, Marc Lombard:


----------



## bobperry

Once again you fall into the MacDonald's cheeseburger trap PCP. Numbers sold have nothing to do with quality. Maybe you eat at MacDonalds. I do not. It sure is high tech, contemporary and state of the art. Unfortunately the food is ****e.The numbers do not mean quality. You are as usual again very confused.


----------



## PCP

jorgenl said:


> Paulo, I do not think a taste can be "outdated", nor can a taste be right or wrong.
> 
> A taste is personal and subjective and is just that, a _taste_.


I think you are wrong if we are talking about technological functional objects like cars, airplanes or sailboats.

If you want a two wing airplane expressly designed for you (for normal use) just because you find them beautiful, you are entitled too but you have an outdated taste.

If you want a vapor driven auto specially designed for you with the looks of a XIX century coach, because you find them beautiful, you are entitled too but you have an outdated taste.

If you want a full keel boat with long overhangs expressly designed for you because you find it beautiful, you are entitled to but you have an outdated taste.

The reason why you don't find those airplanes, cars or boats on the market is just because they are outdated designs and practically nobody would desire them and that's why you have to pay much more for an outdated design that has to be made expressly for you.

But I agree with you that tastes are tastes and everybody is entitled to have his own.


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much awful orange and yellow and green.:eek


I guess that it was typical mass American taste on the 70's but you should not confound that with what the best American Architects were designing at that time. It is not fair for them at all. Search for Charles Moore and California Ranch.


----------



## bobperry

BS wonders (one of his obsessions) how I can be busy with design work and still spend time here.

OK, here is my secret revealed. I use two computers, one connected to the internet and one not connected. I used two keyboards, two mice and THREE monitors. I have another computer connected to the internet as backup but I rarely use it unless I have someone else in the office working with me. I use two computers so the computer I do all my work on is isolated from the internet and that way protected. My computers communicate via thumb drives. I don;t have to leave my stool, almost. I can be monitoring what goes on here or SA/CA 8 hours a day while working on my current design project. If I see something I want to respond to I respond and barely break stride with my work.

I am adept at multi tasking.


----------



## bobperry

"I guess that it was typical mass American taste on the 70's"

There you go again being silly pcp. I don't think anyone here confuses that living room with "mass American taste". I'm not even sure what "mass American taste is/was.
Unlike you pcp I actually lived in the United States in the '70's. My home and my parents home looked nothing at all like that photo, no similarity whatsoever. In fact I didn't know anyone who had a living room like that.


----------



## seaner97

Ok, I can't stand it anymore. Mass American taste of the 70s, but only look at the really good architects? But more units sold in boats means a better and more successful design? And if a company goes bankrupt they clearly had poorly designed boats? Do you even have the ability to realize any form of internal consistency?


----------



## Don L

I thought those mass marketed boats of the 70s were the ones that so many here love so much and use to trash talk the current ones.


----------



## bobperry

Don: You may be confusing issues here. I don't think you can draw a line from that weird 70's interior to an Islander 28. Having designed the I-28 I can assure you that you cannot. That living room was the farthest thing from my mind when I drew the I-28.

Love to stick around and banter but I have sailmaker and spar maker here now, we've been talking boats since 4am. It's off to the boat yard now to spend a day on the carbon cutter project.


----------



## Don L

I find a lot of 70-80's boat interiors just as ugly as that 70's living room. But I don't like the Ikea type boat interiors and find them just as ugly, but "modern". All that really proves is that people like what they like and there isn't much point in discussing it.

I freely admidt I got my current boat for the interior layout. The rest of the boat I figure are give and takes being better sometimes and not at others that applies to any boat.

Far as limits of my current boat or any other boat I might be on, I know the limit is Me! I also believe that next limit after is still me because the first thing to break on the boat is going to depend on whatever stupid decision I made.


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> I find a lot of 70-80's boat interiors just as ugly as that 70's living room. But I don't like the Ikea type boat interiors and find them just as ugly, but "modern". All that really proves is that people like what they like and there isn't much point in discussing it.
> 
> I freely admidt I got my current boat for the interior layout. The rest of the boat I figure are give and takes being better sometimes and not at others that applies to any boat.
> 
> Far as limits of my current boat or any other boat I might be on, I know the limit is Me! I also believe that next limit after is still me because the first time to break on the boat is going to depend on whatever stupid decision I made.


+1. Although the interior of my boat wasn't my selling point. But the fact that my wife approved it was imoportant. Having her walk below and say "Yeah, I could do this" was a deal starter, and if she said "no" it was a breaker. Luckily I married well and we are fairly sympatico. 
I'm probably going to remove and rebuild the head counter in the next year or so to get rid of the avocado swirl, although it's so old it's new again.


----------



## sailpower

Brent Swain said:


> Bob is designing the type of boat in which the market is saturated, for far less than the cost of materials. Friends who have bought his boats recently, bought them because they are so cheap these days. ( Bic lighter disposables)


If his boats were disposables they wouldn't be available for sale.

They would just be a pile of rusty parts in the backyard. Oh, wait.


----------



## slap

PCP said:


> It seems to me that it is you that is confused:
> 
> You mean the Saga 43 a very popular production boat and sold 55 boats till it go bankrupt some 10 years later or so? That does not seem to me the definition of a very popular sailboat. Don't you think that if they went bankrupt was because there was not a number enough of sailors interested on that boat?


Well, Jeanneau almost went under in 1995 - a bankruptcy court handled the sale to Group Beneteau. Or how about Dehler? - went under and then bought by Hanse. Heck, there are plenty of rumours around about Beneteau's river of red ink.


----------



## SloopJonB

*Don't you think that if they went bankrupt was because there was not a number enough of sailors interested on that boat?
*

Apparently you have never heard of bad management.

There's always been a lot of it in the boatbuilding business - kind of like restaurants - everyone who likes eating good food thinks they can run a restaurant and everyone who likes working on boats thinks they can run a boatyard.


----------



## SloopJonB

Bob's McDonalds reference is right on point AFAIAC - name anything that satisfies mass market tastes and is also the "best".

The mass market buys what marketing departments tell them is the newest and best.

Paulo has swallowed that particular hook so deeply it's snagged on his colon.


----------



## guitarguy56

Don0190 said:


> I find a lot of 70-80's boat interiors just as ugly as that 70's living room.


Don... agree with what you say here... if the interiors and layout of these 70-80's or for that matter 50'-60's boats were so popular why are they not in the existing 'new' boats being shown at the boat shows?

The reason they are not is because 'tastes' have changed and NA/Designers of these new boats know the target they are after...

Bob and other boat designers design products whose customers lean towards those tastes... but they're not mine or others and our opinions matter as much as those that oppress the newer designs as being worthless because they are designed more efficiently or using the latest design technologies (Ikea interiors, latest cleat gizmos, boom furling, etc.).

I love our Hunter and have since upgraded the entire interior to rid the mid 80's look and now has the look of a 2010-2015 interior with all LED's, non alcohol stove, electric head, ultraleather cushions, new teak floors, I want to change the glossy wood panels to satin finish later... we will keep our Hunter for the next several years while we decide the route for our next new boat but it will not be a 70's-90's boat that is for sure.... Who knows it might have the IKEA look to it already and be of 'contemporary' design... :wink


----------



## Don L

SloopJonB said:


> The mass market buys what marketing departments tell them is the newest and best.


I'm pretty sure the mass market buys mostly based on value (which isn't just price).

But there's always a market for high end stuff. People with money will always find a way to justify it, some even willing to just admit that it is because they can.


----------



## guitarguy56

PCP said:


> I guess that it was typical mass American taste on the 70's but you should not confound that with what the best American Architects were designing at that time. It is not fair for them at all. Search for Charles Moore and California Ranch.


Paulo... That was my playboy pad in West Palm Beach after FSU... Many a good times spent there with friends and girlfriends.... At the time it was 'State of the Art' and the same can be said of homes designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.... but you won't see homes built that way today because 'tastes' have changed! :wink


----------



## guitarguy56

Don0190 said:


> I'm pretty sure the mass market buys mostly based on value (which isn't just price).
> 
> But there's always a market for high end stuff. People with money will always find a way to justify it, some even willing to just admit that it is because they can.


And.... I bet 90% of products in Jon's home have been mass marketed to him as well and he bought line-hook-sinker as well... :wink


----------



## PCP

slap said:


> Well, Jeanneau almost went under in 1995 - a bankruptcy court handled the sale to Group Beneteau. Or how about Dehler? - went under and then bought by Hanse. Heck, there are plenty of rumours around about Beneteau's river of red ink.


Jeanneau and Dehler went under due to bad management and the reason they were recovered was that the boats they built were boats sailors wanted (the market) and therefore with a good management it would be possible to make them solid and lucrative again.

They are solid and lucrative again doing great boats:


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> Anything that is produced in its own time is "state of the art",.


No, in fact most of the things that are produced today are not state of the art. If you don't know the meaning of the word look at the dictionary:

"*The term "state of the art" refers to the highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time*"

Only the best that is produced at a given time can be considered "state of the art".


----------



## slap

guitarguy56 said:


> Don... agree with what you say here... if the interiors and layout of these 70-80's or for that matter 50'-60's boats were so popular why are they not in the existing 'new' boats being shown at the boat shows?


Boats in the 1970s and 1980s were designed to the IOR rule. The IOR rule isn't relevant anymore.



> The reason they are not is because 'tastes' have changed and NA/Designers of these new boats know the target they are after...
> 
> Bob and other boat designers design products whose customers lean towards those tastes... but they're not mine or others and our opinions matter as much as those that oppress the newer designs as being worthless because they are designed more efficiently or using the latest design technologies (Ikea interiors, latest cleat gizmos, boom furling, etc.).


Boom furling? Don't you mean in mast furling? It's easy to understand why some don't like in mast furling - less sail area, less efficient sail shape, more weight high up, more chance of something going wrong (and harder to fix), sail needs to be replaced sooner, can't depower the sail by mast bend.


----------



## jorgenl

slap said:


> Boats in the 1970s and 1980s were designed to the IOR rule. The IOR rule isn't relevant anymore.


Nope, I do not think *all *boats were designed to the IOR rule?

Mainly boats that would potentially be raced?

I suspect that the Alajuela 38 was designed to the "the heavier the better" rule. Which was never relevant.



slap said:


> Boom furling? Don't you mean in mast furling? It's easy to understand why some don't like in mast furling - less sail area, less efficient sail shape, more weight high up, more chance of something going wrong (and harder to fix), sail needs to be replaced sooner, can't depower the sail by mast bend.


I think he means In Boom Furling.


----------



## chall03

bobperry said:


> Once again you fall into the MacDonald's cheeseburger trap PCP. Numbers sold have nothing to do with quality. Maybe you eat at MacDonalds. I do not. It sure is high tech, contemporary and state of the art. Unfortunately the food is ****e.The numbers do not mean quality. You are as usual again very confused.


I eat at Mc Donalds. Not often but tbh ]nothing beats a big mac when you have a hangover 

However if I am taking Mrs _chall_ out for dinner I try and take her somewhere nice, our favourite local is Pilu a Sardinian restaurant overlooking Freshwater beach.

I do always enjoy my big mac after a big night but it is clearly not the 7 course degustation at Pilu. They are clearly different restaurants aimed at different markets.

Where I would really get in the ****e is if I took Mrs Chall to Mc donalds for our anniversary.

I would then be using it for a purpose it was not designed for


----------



## Faster

Definitely not all 70s80s boats were designed to IOR.. but many 'racer/cruisers' were. Probably the best comparable examples would be the Ranger 28 and the Ranger 29. Both contemporaries in era, both by Gary Mull, the former a racer/cruiser/IOR influenced, the latter a cruiser/racer and not. Quite different boats. Both did well under PHRF when well sailed, but the 28 was a much twitchier boat. I think most Jboats of the day (J24/J30/J36) were specifically designed in a move to create distance from the IOR peculiarities (and instant obsolescence).


----------



## jorgenl

Faster said:


> Definitely not all 70s80s boats were designed to IOR.. but many 'racer/cruisers' were. Probably the best comparable examples would be the Ranger 28 and the Ranger 29. Both contemporaries in era, both by Gary Mull, the former a racer/cruiser/IOR influenced, the latter a cruiser/racer and not. Quite different boats. Both did well under PHRF when well sailed, but the 28 was a much twitchier boat. I think most Jboats of the day (J24/J30/J36) were specifically designed in a move to create distance from the IOR peculiarities (and instant obsolescence).


I hear you...

But how about some of the traditional Blue Water Cruisers, Baba, Tayana, HC38/43 etc that did actually have the interiors that are not so popular anymore? Probably not designed to IOR?

I think the reason that the much admired type of interiors in the above boats are no longer widely produced is cost.

It must cost an arm and a leg to "put another small drawer in that drawer"...

So, nowadays the real beautiful (subjective....) interiors are only available in high end or custom boats.


----------



## NCC320

SloopJonB said:


> Bob's McDonalds reference is right on point AFAIAC - name anything that satisfies mass market tastes and is also the "best".
> 
> The mass market buys what marketing departments tell them is the newest and best.
> 
> .


Jon,

Is not your boat a "production" boat built for the market at the time it was built...that would be the mass market? And in a way, the people marketing the boat told you, or the original buyer, what was good in the literature that was presented in advertisements regarding the boat and its features. By the definition of state of the art being best techniques (at a given time), your boat may or may not been built to state of the art...probably not, if it was not a custom or semi-custom. But to a certain degree, it was, because they used the production/design techniques that were popular at the time....mostly techniques and materials that have been improved with the passage of time, so however it was built, it is not state of the art now. And, if you are not the original purchaser, didn't you buy an out of date mass market offering?

As to cheeseburgers, there are lot's of them sold, so while not the best food offering, they must be pretty good....lots of people like them.

As to the best, I submit that you and I, and most other people cannot afford the best....in food, or boats, or anything else.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Once again you fall into the MacDonald's cheeseburger trap PCP. *Numbers sold have nothing to do with quality*. Maybe you eat at MacDonalds. I do not. It sure is high tech, contemporary and state of the art. Unfortunately the food is ****e.The numbers do not mean quality. You are as usual again very confused.


And again you are confusing things: Who was talking about quality when talking about Jeanneau selling 250 Sun Odyssey a year? We where talking about popularity!!!

*Originally Posted by mitiempo:
The boat below, an older design and very popular cruiser...*(the boat below was a Saga 43)

and I replied, regarding that particular point (popularity): 


PCP said:


> ...
> You mean the Saga 43 a very popular production boat and sold 55 boats till it go bankrupt some 10 years later or so? That does not seem to me the definition of a very popular sailboat. Don't you think that if they went bankrupt was because there was not a number enough of sailors interested on that boat?
> ...
> Regarding very popular boats I would say that we should be talking about boats like the jeanneau 349 that is selling 250 boats a year, a boat that maximizes interior and cockpit space without becoming ugly or affecting significantly its good performance. Its PHRF is similar to the one of the Passport 40. A great contemporary design by one of the best state of the art NA, Marc Lombard:
> ..


Evidently the Sun Odyssey and the Passport belong to different market niches that are defined in Europe as Family boats and Luxury boats but what defines popularity in each case are the number of boats that are sold. In any case if a company has a popular boat that sells well and it is popular in their market, it will not go bankrupt, specially if it has only four boats on their catalog...and the Passport 43 was not the one that was selling something when Saga went down.

The last boat to enter their line, the 409 (designed by Tony Castro) was a state of the art boat but it was already too late, they were already in deep trouble and probably the clients too conservative for that boat:








Sail magazine said about the Saga 409:
*"If you want to see a dramatic example of how far monohull cruising boats have evolved in the past couple of decades, study the Saga 409 for a while....The Saga 409 is a solid, stylish, and comfortable cruising boat that offers a glimpse of where cruising-boat design appears to be headed in the twenty-first century."*
Saga 409 - Sail Magazine

By the way, MacDonalds (as well has the fast food) are an American thing and very popular in America. Yes there are some Mac Donalds on European cities (the big ones) but the vast majority of people here does not eat on Mac Donald's and many cities don't have even one. Here it is mostly a kid's stuff, due to the toys they give with the food.

State of the art food on a Mac Donald's???? It seems that we have very different definition regarding what is state of the art cooking.


----------



## guitarguy56

chall03 said:


> I eat at Mc Donalds. Not often but tbh ]nothing beats a big mac when you have a hangover
> 
> However if I am taking Mrs _chall_ out for dinner I try and take her somewhere nice, our favourite local is Pilu a Sardinian restaurant overlooking Freshwater beach.
> 
> I do always enjoy my big mac after a big night but it is clearly not the 7 course degustation at Pilu. They are clearly different restaurants aimed at different markets.
> 
> Where I would really get in the ****e is if I took Mrs Chall to Mc donalds for our anniversary.
> 
> I would then be using it for a purpose it was not designed for


Funny you say that about McDonalds.... My wife and I as a goof did the anniversary dinner at McDonalds for 31 years so far and have not changed that... it was meant at first to piss off our wealthy/in your face parent in-laws that wanted the very best at everything including butting into our marriage... Kept the tradition all the years to the folly of our friends who didn't understand why... and the day following our anniversary we went out for an exclusive Five Star restaurant meal for the real celebration.

This is our anniversary dinner on the Hunter... Do I have a great wife... YOU BET!


----------



## guitarguy56

jorgenl said:


> Nope, I do not think *all *boats were designed to the IOR rule?
> 
> Mainly boats that would potentially be raced?
> 
> I suspect that the Alajuela 38 was designed to the "the heavier the better" rule. Which was never relevant.
> 
> I think he means In Boom Furling.


Thanks... what I meant...


----------



## chall03

NCC320 said:


> As to cheeseburgers, there are lot's of them sold, so while not the best food offering, they must be pretty good....lots of people like them.


It makes them extremely popular and fit for a mass market. Which I guess as you said does make them 'pretty good'.

There is nothing wrong with good value, cheaply made, well designed boats if they are fit for purpose.

Why however are we so surprised that when the majority of the sailors now don't want to cross oceans and liveaboard that the majority of sailboats on the market aren't liveaboard bluewater cruisers?



NCC320 said:


> As to the best, I submit that you and I, and most other people cannot afford the best....in food, or boats, or anything else.


This is elephant in the room in this thread.

When the egos are gone and the keyboard warriors have calmed down, at the end of the day cruisers looking for a good value capable boat on a budget(That would include _moi_) are essentially stuck with a choice between 20+ year old so called 'Bluewater' boats that while solidly built with moderate seakindly attributes are getting old and in need of a refit or modern so called 'production boats'.

The choice is a hard one. Thus why projects like the Adventure 40 are getting some ground.


----------



## guitarguy56

NCC320 said:


> Jon,
> 
> Is not your boat a "production" boat built for the market at the time it was built...that would be the mass market? And in a way, the people marketing the boat told you, or the original buyer, what was good in the literature that was presented in advertisements regarding the boat and its features. By the definition of state of the art being best techniques (at a given time), your boat may or may not been built to state of the art...probably not, if it was not a custom or semi-custom. But to a certain degree, it was, because they used the production/design techniques that were popular at the time....mostly techniques and materials that have been improved with the passage of time, so however it was built, it is not state of the art now. And, if you are not the original purchaser, didn't you buy an out of date mass market offering?
> 
> As to cheeseburgers, there are lot's of them sold, so while not the best food offering, they must be pretty good....lots of people like them.
> 
> As to the best, I submit that you and I, and most other people cannot afford the best....in food, or boats, or anything else.


That is sort of putting salt on the wound... but sometimes the foot is put into the ***** of those that speak....

Many here can afford the good things, food, cars, boats, etc... but choose not to... I am one who does not see wealth to impress others... but I could! :wink


----------



## albrazzi

PCP said:


> I guess that it was typical mass American taste on the 70's but you should not confound that with what the best American Architects were designing at that time. It is not fair for them at all. Search for Charles Moore and California Ranch.


A buddy of mine had a Buchaneer back in the day and it DID look like that. So I guess there has always been a Quality/not so much Quality line on everything built. To say everything is, was, should, look like that to be contemporary for the day is a bit of a stretch.

Trying to copy that cool looking picture. sorry..


----------



## Don L

chall03 said:


> When the egos are gone and the keyboard warriors have calmed down, at the end of the day cruisers looking for a good value capable boat on a budget(That would include _moi_) are essentially stuck with a choice between 20+ year old so called 'Bluewater' boats that while solidly built with moderate seakindly attributes are getting old and in need of a refit or modern so called 'production boats'.


Actually I would say for the forum crowd you are talking more of a 30+ year old boat. But the real reason is that so many are just not willing to consider a good 15 year mass produced boat like a Hunter as being acceptable to them. And that's a shame because there are lots for good choices. I consider my 2001 Hunter 410 an excellent value that will take me anywhere I would chose to go (because I have no interest in sailing in ice packs or around Capes out of season).

Yes if I won the lottery I would get a nicer boat. But it wouldn't be because I feel that the money would be getting me better construction in a matter that impacts my boating enjoyment or safety, it would to just be fancier and nicer.


----------



## SloopJonB

guitarguy56 said:


> And.... I bet 90% of products in Jon's home have been mass marketed to him as well and he bought line-hook-sinker as well... :wink


You lose.


----------



## SloopJonB

NCC320 said:


> Jon,
> 
> Is not your boat a "production" boat built for the market at the time it was built...that would be the mass market? And in a way, the people marketing the boat told you, or the original buyer, what was good in the literature that was presented in advertisements regarding the boat and its features. By the definition of state of the art being best techniques (at a given time), your boat may or may not been built to state of the art...probably not,


It was - it's a "Chevy" (Hunter) but I bought it on it's merits as a cheap project and how it ticked my particular boxes at the time. Advertising, "contemporariness", fashion and all those other things under discussion here had zero to do with my decision.

As they always do. It was different when I was young and labels, "the latest" and such trivialities mattered but I learned better a few decades ago.

Hell, I don't even know who the movie stars are anymore. 

Oh, and by the way Guitarguy - I could pay cash for a new 50' Benny if I was so inclined so there goes your trite "impoverished envy" theory.


----------



## NCC320

guitarguy56 said:


> Many here can afford the good things, food, cars, boats, etc... but choose not to... I am one who does not see wealth to impress others... but I could! :wink


I agree completely. As to affording good things, I am sure there are many who can, and do, including Jon, me, and many, many others. And for those who can't just now, I wish that good fortune comes their way so they can have whatever they desire somewhere down the road. However, my good might not be, and probably is not, nearly as nice as your good. There is a big difference between "best" and "good". Best means the very top, nothing better. Truly, only a small percentage of people can actually afford the very best. Fortunately, however, good has quite a wide range, and what is good for a given person is largely decided by the individual involved. So many people can enjoy "good" things in life.

Since our topic is boats, the boat a person has does not reveal much about a person's wealth. It depends a lot on what one intends to do with the boat, one's concept of value, and above all, what one wants to commit towards boating.


----------



## guitarguy56

SloopJonB said:


> It was - it's a "Chevy" (Hunter) but I bought it on it's merits as a cheap project and how it ticked my particular boxes at the time. Advertising, "contemporariness", fashion and all those other things under discussion here had zero to do with my decision.
> 
> As they always do. It was different when I was young and labels, "the latest" and such trivialities mattered but I learned better a few decades ago.
> 
> Hell, I don't even know who the movie stars are anymore.
> 
> Oh, and by the way Guitarguy - I could pay cash for a new 50' Benny if I was so inclined so there goes your trite "impoverished envy" theory.


Yeah... Right! You say you aren't 'mass marketed' to... but look into your pantry... now look at the cars you drive, look at the latest HD TV set you have, cellphones? How about the computer you're typing on?

That's right you're the guy who told me you could buy 5 or 6 Rolex's at one time... Bet you could buy a 2015 Swan or as you say Benny but you bought a fixer upper Hunter... Right... and it goes on and on... Bet you could buy a convertible latest BMW/Benz... but you choose to drive the Hyundai... because you hate to be told what to buy by mass marketers.... :wink

The TV show 'Live Free or Die' gives me real kicks with these losers who shun society and the ills of mass marketing and either live freely as gatherers and hunters free from the ties of society YET they tie themselves to cameras to be MASS MARKETED to TV's across the nation... talk about hypocrites! :laugh


----------



## guitarguy56

NCC320 said:


> I agree completely. As to affording good things, I am sure there are many who can, and do, including Jon, me, and many, many others. And for those who can't just now, I wish that good fortune comes their way so they can have whatever they desire somewhere down the road. However, my good might not be, and probably is not, nearly as nice as your good. There is a big difference between "best" and "good". Best means the very top, nothing better. Truly, only a small percentage of people can actually afford the very best. Fortunately, however, good has quite a wide range, and what is good for a given person is largely decided by the individual involved. So many people can enjoy "good" things in life.
> 
> Since our topic is boats, the boat a person has does not reveal much about a person's wealth. It depends a lot on what one intends to do with the boat, one's concept of value, and above all, what one wants to commit towards boating.


I couldn't have said it any better... What one owns means nothing to their wealth and we see and read this everyday where the poor looking couple that died down the street in their very very modest home were worth $200 million... you'd never know it and you treated them as no different than you or I... Point said is nobody knows... when and if they show up here with their new Benny or Swan paid in CASH and not financed for 10-20 years do we then know their true worth... in the mean time it's hush.... :wink


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> Actually I would say for the forum crowd you are talking more of a 30+ year old boat.


I agree.

That's part of the issue. When this debate first ignited it was the early 2000s.

Then it was about 15 year old 'Bluewaterys' vs newer production boats with this fear being perpetuated that the production boats would all fall apart.

Now the Bluewaterys are 30+ years old. The 10 year old+ production boats are good value and have not fallen apart. The new Bluewaterys are becoming niche high end boats and require one to have very deep pockets.

It's very easy to compare boat designs and building techniques on the interwebs. It is something else all together to buy a boat built in the 1970s to go through the chain plates, the rig, the rudder, the hull, re engine it, replace the sails, replace all the thru hulls, redo the electrics, update the electronics and to actually go cruising on the boat and not lose one's shirt. This is what we are facing and it is a daunting prospect [/QUOTE]


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## jorgenl

It's not quite as bad as all that. I only paid 1200 for my Cal and put about 11,000 into her over the course of a year. Do the work yourself and dont buy all the gadgets they want to sell you.[/QUOTE]

Yeah...but a Cal 29 probably does not cut it for most cruising families of four (no disrespect to the Cal).


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> No, in fact most of the things that are produced today are not state of the art. If you don't know the meaning of the word look at the dictionary:
> 
> "*The term "state of the art" refers to the highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time*"
> 
> Only the best that is produced at a given time can be considered "state of the art".


Incorrect. Look at the definition _you just posted. _ Didn't you read it?

The highest level of development is merely the most recent development, as development is a temporal measure of change.

Again...you and this conflation of newest and "best". Its just flatly wrong. _Unarguably_ wrong.

The "state of art" can be applied to making something cheap and easy just as easily as making it high quality. In "state of the art" furniture production, a bunch of cheap particle board is knocked together to be sold at IKEA. Does that mean that IKEA furniture is better than something a master craftsman can hand-build from quality hardwood?

Is the well made table inferior to the cheaply made newer design made with new methods and materials because of..."newer"?

An old, solidly built table is worth putting the time and money into repairing, refinishing, and using...because it is intrinsically valuable due to its enduring function, and because it was built well enough to stay useful.

No, its no longer "in style". Maybe it doesn't have a gimmicky hidden drawer or something. But its also not as likely to wind up in the dumpster as the rickety IKEA stuff as it ages.


----------



## PCP

NCC320 said:


> Jon,
> 
> Is not your boat a "production" boat built for the market at the time it was built...that would be the mass market? And in a way, the people marketing the boat told you, or the original buyer, what was good in the literature that was presented in advertisements regarding the boat and its features. By the definition of state of the art being best techniques (at a given time), your boat may or may not been built to state of the art...probably not, if it was not a custom or semi-custom. But to a certain degree, it was, because they used the production/design techniques that were popular at the time....mostly techniques and materials that have been improved with the passage of time, so however it was built, it is not state of the art now. And, if you are not the original purchaser, didn't you buy an out of date mass market offering?
> 
> As to cheeseburgers, there are lot's of them sold, so while not the best food offering, they must be pretty good....lots of people like them.
> 
> As to the best, I submit that you and I, and most other people cannot afford the best....in food, or boats, or anything else.


Only one disagreement here. There is not a boat market that offers a given type of boat. This is not so evident on the US where the offer is limited but is most than evident in Europe where the biggest global market is.

When we talk about mass market normally we are talking about main market affordable boats, what the Europeans call family boats, that are the ones that by far are produced in larger numbers.

But the market, in what regards sailboats, offers many other market niches, from production voyage boats to luxury cruisers to mass production day sailers, to luxury daysailers (that can be very expensive 40 or 50ft sailboats), to trailerable boats to performance cruisers to cruiser racers (more pointed to racing than cruising) to racing boats.

Evidently, as anything, all the sailboats are built to a budget but in some of those niches the budget is several times higher than the one of a mass production family cruiser of the same size.

The competition is huge and state of the art boat design and state of the art building techniques and materials (to a budget) are what makes some boats more competitive and desirable than others.

The builders never decide the market, state of the art design coupled with the need and desires of the sailors that buy all those different types of boats do.


----------



## amwbox

bobperry said:


> "I guess that it was typical mass American taste on the 70's"
> 
> There you go again being silly pcp. I don't think anyone here confuses that living room with "mass American taste". I'm not even sure what "mass American taste is/was.
> Unlike you pcp I actually lived in the United States in the '70's. My home and my parents home looked nothing at all like that photo, no similarity whatsoever. In fact I didn't know anyone who had a living room like that.


The photo is most mostly about the colors. And I'm pretty sure that harvest orange, puke green, cream corn yellow trifecta were pretty common choices. At least if old TV shows are to be believed.


----------



## chall03

sharkbait said:


> It's not quite as bad as all that. I only paid 1200 for my Cal and put about 11,000 into her over the course of a year. Do the work yourself and dont buy all the gadgets they want to sell you.


I agree with you to a point. But you may also have either bought well or gotten lucky. We always do as much work ourselves as possible, but are also happy to pay a specialist when necessary.

If crossing oceans I think there are times when money has to be spent.


----------



## Ninefingers

The interior of the new Marlow 31: 

I like it, it's fun. And completely appropriate for the boats intended market and usage - as a day sailing beach house.


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> Incorrect. Look at the definition _you just posted. _ Didn't you read it?
> 
> *The highest level of development is merely the most recent development, as development is a temporal measure of change.
> *
> Again...you and this conflation of newest and "best". Its just flatly wrong. _Unarguably_ wrong.
> ...


Yes, I have read and understood the definition of state of the art, it seems you have read it and did not have understood it. The dictionaries give examples to make it clear in what regards what means in that case "the most recent development", for instance:

*state of the art*:
*"the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique, science, etc, esp at present"*
State-of-the-art | Define State-of-the-art at Dictionary.com
*The highest level of development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field, achieved at a particular time....the latest and most sophisticated or advanced stage of a technology, art, or science: a camera considered the state of the art in design."the state of the art in space travel"
*
State of the art - definition of state of the art by The Free Dictionary

Regarding what you say and the publicitary use when an article is said to be state of the art that means that it is, in technology and design, made using the latest development on that field and it is the best it can be made with the actual level of knowledge.

Of course sometimes they advertise that and it is just not true, but that is another matter that has nothing to do with the meaning of the expression.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Yes, I have read and understood the definition of state of the art, it seems you have read it and did not have understood it. the dictionaries give examples to make it clear in what regards the most recent development, for instance:
> 
> *state of the art*:
> *"the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique, science, etc, esp at present"*
> State-of-the-art | Define State-of-the-art at Dictionary.com
> *The highest level of development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field, achieved at a particular time....the latest and most sophisticated or advanced stage of a technology, art, or science: a camera considered the state of the art in design."the state of the art in space travel"
> *
> State of the art - definition of state of the art by The Free Dictionary
> 
> Regarding what you say and the publicitary use when an article is said to be state of the art that means that it is, in technology and design, made using the latest development on that field and it is the best it can be made with the actual level of knowledge.
> 
> Of course sometimes they advertise that and it is just not true, but that is another matter that has nothing to do with the meaning of the expression.


You don't get to change the definitions of terms to suit your argument. The definition you have just posted runs contrary to your claims!

Apparently you didn't read this...I'll repost for your convenience:

"*The highest level of development is merely the most recent development, as development is a temporal measure of change. *

Again...you and this conflation of newest and "best". Its just flatly wrong. Unarguably wrong.

*The "state of art" can be applied to making something cheap and easy just as easily as making it high quality. *In "state of the art" furniture production, a bunch of cheap particle board is knocked together to be sold at IKEA. Does that mean that IKEA furniture is better than something a master craftsman can hand-build from quality hardwood? "

The problem, as ever, is that you continue to incorrectly conflate "new" with "better". As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, new can just as easily be about cheaper and easier as opposed to better. Which is a very common phenomenon with boats.


----------



## guitarguy56

Ninefingers said:


> The interior of the new Marlow 31:
> 
> I like it, it's fun. And completely appropriate for the boats intended market and usage - as a day sailing beach house.


I love it! I think it's perfect for the cruising couple wishing to go from port to port on the East Coast.... The buyer of this boat will not be crossing the Atlantic or round any horns of any continent and would be perfectly happy entertaining friends and guests impressed with the boat and interior if they COULD get away from conversing about the rear cleats on the stern... :wink


----------



## Don L

why can't some people just stop brickering over the same couple of word meanings over and over


----------



## guitarguy56

'Conflate'... new word for my vocabulary... jeesh.... Agree Don...


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> why can't some people just stop brickering over the same couple of word meanings over and over


Because then it wouldn't be Sailnet


----------



## NCC320

Ninefingers said:


> The interior of the new Marlow 31:
> 
> I like it, it's fun. And completely appropriate for the boats intended market and usage - as a day sailing beach house.


Oops.....Is that 70's green that I see on those cushions?

Actually, the YouTube video shows a nice boat with some neat features.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> why can't some people just stop brickering over the same couple of word meanings over and over


Its puzzling to me as well. How PCP can actually paste in the definition of a term, and still misuse it...immediately after...I've no idea.

Also...Welcome to the Internet.


----------



## amwbox

NCC320 said:


> Oops.....Is that 70's green that I see on those cushions?


The '70s Are Back. Can Ya Dig It?


----------



## Don L

NCC320 said:


> Oops.....Is that 70's green that I see on those cushions?


goes with the other cushions strips

But hey Hunter reads forums and knows people want 70's boats, so they did what they could and did 70's cushions, genius!


----------



## PCP

guitarguy56 said:


> I love it! I think it's perfect for the cruising couple wishing to go from port to port on the East Coast.... The buyer of this boat will not be crossing the Atlantic or round any horns of any continent and would be perfectly happy entertaining friends and guests impressed with the boat and interior if they COULD get away from conversing about the rear cleats on the stern... :wink
> ...


In fact colors are back in what regards design, not only in interior and public spaces design as in boats. The interiors will not have a nice or bad design for using colors or not, but depending if the design is good or not, from a professional point of view, independently of personal tastes.

But of course we are talking about aesthetics that have not a functional play on a sailboat in what regards sailing, only in what regards a space agreeable for living in.

Mass production boats have to treat boat interiors in a way that satisfies the biggest number of clients however Azuree, that makes good performance sailboats, come with something different on the smallest boat on its line, the 33c, a boat that you can personalize:


----------



## XSrcing

McDonald's has mastered consistency. Doesn't mean it's the best food out there, but you know pretty much exactly what you are going to get before you even step inside one. 

It's a perfect business model that Henry Ford started: the assembly line. 

Now these mass produced boats are following the same path. You won't get the quality seen in a custom boat because the assembly line doesn't allow for much deviation from the blueprints.


----------



## XSrcing

And don't down play semantics, it allowed me to win a debate against a nuclear physicist about hover boards.


----------



## guitarguy56

XSrcing said:


> McDonald's has mastered consistency. Doesn't mean it's the best food out there, but you know pretty much exactly what you are going to get before you even step inside one.
> 
> It's a perfect business model that Henry Ford started: the assembly line.
> 
> Now these mass produced boats are following the same path. You won't get the quality seen in a custom boat because the assembly line doesn't allow for much deviation from the blueprints.


Mass produced goods are great... my Mass produced Jeep Cherokee Laredo takes me everywhere without a glitch.... when I want class I drive the Fiat Spider because although I could afford a Ferrari 360 I get the same looks and stares driving the classy Spider as the Ferrari... and making sure the mass marketing helps my little grandson take the helm next... :wink


----------



## Ninefingers

PCP said:


> however Azuree, that makes good performance sailboats, come with something different on the smallest boat on its line, the 33c, a boat that you can personalize:


Ya I don't know about this "your way your rules" stuff from Beneteau and others. If you want me to "unleash my creativity" give me a bare hull with an engine and rigging. I would to love fit out a full interior.


----------



## chall03

For what it is worth we are going to have a look at a Hallberg Rassy 45 this afternoon and the beloved just texted me to ask whether we should grab Mc Donalds on the way.....


----------



## outbound

There are several things that catch my eye in the above posts.

First, lack of recognition there is a sub set of people who could give a rats behind what label is on clothes, cars, boats or anything else. They are similarly unconcerned if the design is old or new or of its place of manufacture. Their prime concern is whether it's well made, durable, comfortable, aesthetically pleasing and serves its function. They have no desire to be trendsetters but often are. They tend to have the resources to humor their desires but are totally without flashiness. They may have sailors ponytails not because they want to be stylish but rather due to lack of concern to have a $50 haircut. They may wear Mustos over ratty fleece bought at Walmart. They could buy a new Mercedes but may choose a 60k pickup if that fits their current needs. They are more likely to shop at Filson then Ferragamo. If they have a Rolex it's because it keeps time and they don't have to wind it or change a battery. One and done mentality. 
This segment is currently poorly served in the new boat market.

They don't want converted race boat designs. For them performance is not defined as speed alone but rather is multi factorial with comfort, endurance, safety and durability in distress also important. They know life is not a contest but rather an opportunity. They know they are not infallible. That lump of coral head is really a lump of sargasso. That lump of sea grass is really a coral head. 

At present you have

Balls to the wall "voyagers". These cruisers have nothing to prove or desire to prove it. If they buy a high latitude boat. It's to have that experience. It not to put a notch in their gun.

Floating palaces. These cruisers tend not to be party animals although they have good times drinking and showing off is not a focus or desire.

Even the so called Ocean series now comes with in boom furling and self tacking jibs whereas an ocean boat may tack two or three times a day or even not at all. These cruisers can't see spends a million or two just to have the showy "best". Especially given the turn Morris, Hinckley and Swans have taken.

There are very few new true ocean boats offering comfort,strength, capacity, ease of ownership, and warm aesethetics available on the market except at ridiculous costs. Bob churns out great creations for the 1% of the 1% but what about the rest of us.

There's an assumed dichotomy concerning D/L and comfort/speed. Of course it's a false dichotomy. Go to CF with core cell and you have superseded this relationship in large measure. It's here the genius of a good designer shines through. It works in both directions getting performance as defined by Paulo in a heavier boat or seagoing comfort in a light boat. To see the lack of relationship harken back to Dachews designs or Bob's more recent sliver project. In the other direction look at K and Ms or my boat. Yes Paulo the glass version of Dykstras boat won European boat of the year. By your usage it's a heavy boat. Similarly the relationship between displacement and comfort or seaworthiness is a false one. Look at the studies of heavy displacement boats in extreme conditions. They were more likely to broach and capsize. Those heavy displacement full,keel boats are not safer. Then again it seems some multihull flyers have recent strikes against them.

However, there is a hole in the market. 

A boat moderate in all regards. Moderate does not mean lack of passion but rather acknowledgement of the trade offs inherent in any vessel. A true jack of all trades. Good in the ocean. Good at anchor. But strong, durable, able to take on the sea and excuse the mistakes us ignorant, inattentive cruisers make. 
A new design made by a production builder at reasonable cost filling not the coastal occasional sailor mainstream needs but rather the live aboard seagoing cruiser needs. It would be embraced by the subset of people I first delineated. Until that occurs HR,Outbound, Passport and the like will continue to produce and sell boats based on designs of 10-15 y of heritage.

Jon I'd like to meet you. Love to crew for you or have you crew with me. From this thread seems we are kindred spirits.


----------



## bobperry

Holy cow, I'm just home from the yard. Looks like you guys had fun today. I was busy with my modern, cutting edge, state of the art, contemporary classic carbon cutters. Had a great day of going over details with Butch Ulmer, sailmaker, Steve King, spar make and the rest of the yard team. It's kind of odd to walk from that world into this world. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## SloopJonB

guitarguy56 said:


> Yeah... Right! You say you aren't 'mass marketed' to... but look into your pantry... now look at the cars you drive, look at the latest HD TV set you have, cellphones? How about the computer you're typing on?
> 
> That's right you're the guy who told me you could buy 5 or 6 Rolex's at one time... Bet you could buy a 2015 Swan or as you say Benny but you bought a fixer upper Hunter... Right... and it goes on and on... Bet you could buy a convertible latest BMW/Benz... but you choose to drive the Hyundai... because you hate to be told what to buy by mass marketers.... :wink
> 
> The TV show 'Live Free or Die' gives me real kicks with these losers who shun society and the ills of mass marketing and either live freely as gatherers and hunters free from the ties of society YET they tie themselves to cameras to be MASS MARKETED to TV's across the nation... talk about hypocrites! :laugh


Yeah, your right, I'm just poor and bitterly envious because I can't afford all that cool new stuff in the ads on TV and in the magazines.


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> The photo is most mostly about the colors. And I'm pretty sure that harvest orange, puke green, cream corn yellow trifecta were pretty common choices. At least if old TV shows are to be believed.


Hey! Those are (or were) "Earth Tones". Probably had avocado appliances in the kitchen too.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> I
> Mass production boats have to treat boat interiors in a way that satisfies the biggest number of clients however Azuree, that makes good performance sailboats, come with something different on the smallest boat on its line, the 33c, a boat that you can personalize:


That's better - it even appears to have handholds. I always thought pullman galleys made a lot of sense in a coastal boat.


----------



## seaner97

There's nothing inherently wrong with mass produced goods. There is just nothing inherently better about them other than price. We all buy mass produced stuff often. But if, given a choice, many if not all of us would spend slightly more for something with better quality. Everyone's definition of "slightly" is usually where the rubber hits the road. This isn't a Hunter/custom or Hyundai/Bently difference. I, for one, take exception to two issues- 1. The idea that if its new it's better and 2. The idea that the mass market must be producing good designs of anything. These are demonstrably false in many ways.


----------



## SloopJonB

Outbound, I agree with your last post - except the bit about the ponytail.


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with mass produced goods. There is just nothing inherently better about them other than price. We all buy mass produced stuff often. But if, given a choice, many if not all of us would spend slightly more for something with better quality. Everyone's definition of "slightly" is usually where the rubber hits the road. This isn't a Hunter/custom or Hyundai/Bently difference. *I, for one, take exception to two issues- 1. The idea that if its new it's better and 2. The idea that the mass market must be producing good designs of anything. These are demonstrably false in many ways.*


With the highlighted comments you just encapsulated the whole point of the "negative" comments in this thread - well done.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> There are several things that catch my eye in the above posts.
> 
> First, lack of recognition there is a sub set of people who could give a rats behind what label is on clothes, cars, boats or anything else. They are similarly unconcerned if the design is old or new or of its place of manufacture. Their prime concern is whether it's well made, durable, comfortable, aesthetically pleasing and serves its function. They have no desire to be trendsetters but often are. They tend to have the resources to humor their desires but are totally without flashiness. They may have sailors ponytails not because they want to be stylish but rather due to lack of concern to have a $50 haircut. They may wear Mustos over ratty fleece bought at Walmart. They could buy a new Mercedes but may choose a 60k pickup if that fits their current needs. They are more likely to shop at Filson then Ferragamo. If they have a Rolex it's because it keeps time and they don't have to wind it or change a battery. One and done mentality.
> This segment is currently poorly served in the new boat market.
> 
> They don't want converted race boat designs. For them performance is not defined as speed alone but rather is multi factorial with comfort, endurance, safety and durability in distress also important. They know life is not a contest but rather an opportunity. They know they are not infallible. That lump of coral head is really a lump of sargasso. That lump of sea grass is really a coral head.
> 
> At present you have
> 
> Balls to the wall "voyagers". These cruisers have nothing to prove or desire to prove it. If they buy a high latitude boat. It's to have that experience. It not to put a notch in their gun.
> 
> Floating palaces. These cruisers tend not to be party animals although they have good times drinking and showing off is not a focus or desire.
> 
> Even the so called Ocean series now comes with in boom furling and self tacking jibs whereas an ocean boat may tack two or three times a day or even not at all. These cruisers can't see spends a million or two just to have the showy "best". Especially given the turn Morris, Hinckley and Swans have taken.
> 
> There are very few new true ocean boats offering comfort,strength, capacity, ease of ownership, and warm aesethetics available on the market except at ridiculous costs. Bob churns out great creations for the 1% of the 1% but what about the rest of us.
> 
> There's an assumed dichotomy concerning D/L and comfort/speed. Of course it's a false dichotomy. Go to CF with core cell and you have superseded this relationship in large measure. It's here the genius of a good designer shines through. It works in both directions getting performance as defined by Paulo in a heavier boat or seagoing comfort in a light boat. To see the lack of relationship harken back to Dachews designs or Bob's more recent sliver project. In the other direction look at K and Ms or my boat. Yes Paulo the glass version of Dykstras boat won European boat of the year. By your usage it's a heavy boat. Similarly the relationship between displacement and comfort or seaworthiness is a false one. Look at the studies of heavy displacement boats in extreme conditions. They were more likely to broach and capsize. Those heavy displacement full,keel boats are not safer. Then again it seems some multihull flyers have recent strikes against them.
> 
> However, there is a hole in the market.
> 
> A boat moderate in all regards. Moderate does not mean lack of passion but rather acknowledgement of the trade offs inherent in any vessel. A true jack of all trades. Good in the ocean. Good at anchor. But strong, durable, able to take on the sea and excuse the mistakes us ignorant, inattentive cruisers make.
> A new design made by a production builder at reasonable cost filling not the coastal occasional sailor mainstream needs but rather the live aboard seagoing cruiser needs. It would be embraced by the subset of people I first delineated. Until that occurs HR,Outbound, Passport and the like will continue to produce and sell boats based on designs of 10-15 y of heritage.
> 
> Jon I'd like to meet you. Love to crew for you or have you crew with me. From this thread seems we are kindred spirits.


The problem with all that is that moderation (in what regards sailboat design) is like good sense....what is good sense to one is not to other.

You continue to assume that there is an ideal sailboat to all, even in what regards only offshore sailboats, one that would be ideally moderated ....and then you say that I have a restricted view about different types of boats.LOL

The type of boat that would be perfect as a offshore boat to one sailor would be a drag for another one and if you are not able to understand this you will never will be able to understand that there are not an offshore boat ideal for all, but several different types of boats (that's why you can find on the contemporary market many different types of offshore boats, for different types of sailors).

Regarding what is a moderately designed boat, the concept has no sense unless you consider only contemporary state of the art cruising boats, because a moderate boat, considering the state of the art 30 or 40 years ago, would not be by any means a moderate boat today, but a very slow and a very heavy one.

I doubt very much that you would like what would be a moderate offshore cruising boat regarding contemporary state of the art design.

I like Dykstra's sailboats but you are wrong. Dykstra's boat did not won the European boat of the year. That year they tested the boats with very heavy weather and Dykstra's boat was not as effective as the Oyster 625 that won the trophy (on the category of luxury cruisers):





Here is one crossing the Atlantic:


----------



## skygazer

PCP said:


>


Ho Hum........... Again, athletic men in heavy weather gear pounding away. Motorcycle racing fun? Yes. Relaxing for a couple without a crew of men to change out helmsman? No. Often I enjoy PCP's videos, but sometimes the sameness... I guess I'm tired tonight.

As mentioned, there are more aspects to performance than simple speed. And since the compromise continuum has many sweet spots, my objection is the self righteous assumption that a taste for speed is "best", and no one else counts except as ignorant and outdated.

I like speed, I like many things. It's all good. I don't consider what I like to be superior, it's just what I choose, superior for what I like.

Hope you all saw the video a few pages back of the McGregor, not known as the strongest heaviest built boat, in similar conditions.

I believe that pizza slice boats, like catamarans, still have great form stability, even when upside down.


----------



## outbound

Paulo
You're right the glass Dykstras did not win. My bad. But once again you totally misconstrued the point of the post. I fully acknowledge there is a spectrum. I've repeatedly quoted Bob. Will do so again in hopes you understand 

Different boats for different folks

What I said there is a segment of the market that is underserved. This is my opinion. It is also the opinion of many others with whom I've discussed boats with outside this forum. Inside this forum I think ( stand to be corrected) both Jons, seaner, stargazer and others note this.

There is a world outside either yours or my small parochial ones.


----------



## PCP

skygazer said:


> Ho Hum........... Again, athletic men in heavy weather gear pounding away. Motorcycle racing fun? Yes. Relaxing for a couple without a crew of men to change out helmsman? No. Often I enjoy PCP's videos, but sometimes the sameness... I guess I'm tired tonight.
> ...
> I believe that pizza slice boats, like catamarans, still have great form stability, even when upside down.


Those are several testers, from different European magazines testing the same boat.

Those are the type of boats that Outbound calls moderate LOL.
When testers test the boats with nice weather you would say that that's no way to test a saling boat. When they test it with bad weather you say that it is Motorcycle fun LOL.

By the way, one of those boats is a relatively narrow one, the one that sails with more heel.

Yes, great stability upside down for the pizza boats, look at these ones: more pizza slice is not possible, these ones are the fathers or all PizZa slice boats LOL


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> .... I fully acknowledge there is a spectrum. I've repeatedly quoted Bob. Will do so again in hopes you understand
> 
> Different boats for different folks


Till here I follow and I agree.



outbound said:


> What I said there is a segment of the market that is underserved. This is my opinion. It is also the opinion of many others with whom I've discussed boats with outside this forum. Inside this forum I think ( stand to be corrected) both Jons, Seaner and others note this.
> 
> There is a world outside either yours or my small parochial ones.


Here i do not understand you. You are contradicting yourself, kind of you agree that there are several types of offshore boats but the ones I don't like and that don't make my style I call them underserved. There are also others that don't like them and call them that too.

What kind of logic is that?

There are guys buying the boats you call undeserved, like for instance the Pogo 12.50 and crossing oceans with them...guys with the same type of boat, but with a much smaller 6.5 mini circumnavigate cruising and you call them undeserving offshore boats?

Where is your acceptance that there are different boats for different folks?

I have no problem in accepting that there are others that prefer to cruise in heavy slow boats, that are not fun to sail, in what regards my opinion.


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> However, there is a hole in the market.
> 
> A boat moderate in all regards. Moderate does not mean lack of passion but rather acknowledgement of the trade offs inherent in any vessel. A true jack of all trades. Good in the ocean. Good at anchor. But strong, durable, able to take on the sea and excuse the mistakes us ignorant, inattentive cruisers make.
> A new design made by a production builder at reasonable cost filling not the coastal occasional sailor mainstream needs but rather the live aboard seagoing cruiser needs. It would be embraced by the subset of people I first delineated. Until that occurs HR,Outbound, Passport and the like will continue to produce and sell boats based on designs of 10-15 y of heritage.


Absolutely.

But we need to admit that this hole (while encompassing perhaps both you and I) is a smallish hole and in an economic climate where boating giants like Beneteau and Hanse are trying to turn a profit they are perhaps sensibly aiming their offerings at charter, weekend warriors and coastal cruisers.

Anyone else is considered more a 'niche' builder and needs to price boats accordingly to remain in business.

Again the idea of the Adventure 40 maybe fits this hole, but in a very limited fashion and to date not one has been built.


----------



## bobperry

PCP is kind of like the fat guy at the baseball game sitting way up in the cheap seats and yelling "swing" at every pitch. He has never played the game and has no clue as to the nuances. But he has no qualms telling the pros how to do it.
"What kind of logic is that?"

Back to the yard:
Here are some of the Andersen winches. "Pretty maids all in a row". We had fun placing winches on the deck today. Major change: We decided to take the winches off the mast and mount them flush on the deck between the two cabin trunks. We had a lot of "horsepower" at the yard today and decisions were well worked over.

Here are Eric and Taylor standing in front of one of the aft bulkheads getting ready to be bonded into hull no. 1. Eric is saying, "Come on Taylor, aren't you going to share any of that Halloween candy?" Joking aside these two guys are quality men. Taylor is in charge of the receiving of all the parts that come in when not mucking in on other chores. Eric likes to work in the metal shop where he is a master craftsman.

This is the mockup of the engine room. Eric built the base for the humungous alternator that is jack shafted off the PTO on the engine.


----------



## Hudsonian

Bob: The Anderson winches seem the obvious choice to me. From inside he loop do you have any insight at to why there not more frequently OEM.


----------



## guitarguy56

outbound said:


> There are several things that catch my eye in the above posts.
> 
> This segment is currently poorly served in the new boat market.
> 
> However, there is a hole in the market.
> 
> A new design made by a production builder at reasonable cost filling not the coastal occasional sailor mainstream needs but rather the live aboard seagoing cruiser needs. It would be embraced by the subset of people I first delineated. Until that occurs HR,Outbound, Passport and the like will continue to produce and sell boats based on designs of 10-15 y of heritage.


This is where I tend to disagree some... there are plenty of designs out there if one were to look more closely... I did and came up with some nice models... but... what may have been great boats to me may not be for you or others...

Even if manufacturers were to make the exact specifications of sailboats as you describe for the 'live aboard seagoing cruiser' (just how many on these forums are live aboard seagoing cruisers?).

There still is the 'cost' related to these boats... all would be expensive in materials and to manufacture... thereby with the same result of 'sticker shock' or 'they're not built per our standards of boats in the 70-80's'.... in those cases you wind up with the same people who say they can buy new a Bennie or Swan but choose again to buy and fix up the same old battered 70's-80's boats and then come on these threads to bash anyone that thinks the new boats mass produced are not built right or cheaply...

My avatar is that of the 787 cockpit... sure a beautiful aircraft and built to the best in today's technology... it is better than the 727... you bet... are the materials better.... you bet and the SAE specs insure it's better than the materials of yesteryear... do customers complain that the 727 or for that matter 777 is better built than the 787... my guess is the answer would be 'NO'... Would my son buying the next new boat say 'my dad's boat was better' than his new boat in terms of materials?... my guess would be 'NO'...

So exactly who are the sailors for new boats at the current boat shows targeting?


----------



## bobperry

Huddy:
Yep, probably cost and the fact that distribution has gone through some off and on stages up till now. Andersen is now being rep'd by Ronstan. We are using a lot of Ronstan gear on the cutters. I meet with the Ronstan guy on Friday at the yard. My choice for hardware was Harken but the client likes Ronstan.


----------



## amwbox

seaner97 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with mass produced goods. There is just nothing inherently better about them other than price. We all buy mass produced stuff often. But if, given a choice, many if not all of us would spend slightly more for something with better quality. Everyone's definition of "slightly" is usually where the rubber hits the road. This isn't a Hunter/custom or Hyundai/Bently difference. I, for one, take exception to two issues- 1. The idea that if its new it's better and 2. The idea that the mass market must be producing good designs of anything. These are demonstrably false in many ways.


^A much more tactful expression of what I've been trying to say.

If every new product was required to be an improvement over its previous version, then it would be true that newer is better. But that's not the case.

We're surrounded by things that used to be better, even not that long ago. And there are a lot of used-to-be-quality brands that have stagnated, cheapened, or flatly just sold out and are now trying to coast on a reputation earned in the past.

There's often no business case for actually improving a product. But there is _always_ a business case for finding ways to shave costs off of it.


----------



## bobperry

Well said Boxer.


----------



## NCC320

seaner97 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with mass produced goods. There is just nothing inherently better about them other than price. We all buy mass produced stuff often. But if, given a choice, many if not all of us would spend slightly more for something with better quality. Everyone's definition of "slightly" is usually where the rubber hits the road. This isn't a Hunter/custom or Hyundai/Bently difference. I, for one, take exception to two issues- 1. The idea that if its new it's better and 2. The idea that the mass market must be producing good designs of anything. These are demonstrably false in many ways.


Converse to what you say above, which can be true,

1. The idea that if its new, it's not as good as older production, and 2. The idea that the mass market (production) must be producing bad designs of things

are both not true either. You have to take care. Sometimes new is better, sometimes not. But where some here seem to lean heavily towards new and mass produced is not as good as older products, I strongly disagree. More often than not, new and mass produced are in fact much better. Look at TV's, computers, cars. Built differently from earlier, but new most often is cheaper in price, but better in quality and performance. (Computers and TV's are definately cheaper now, cars and boats are not, but look at what you get. A new car today comes with many features that older ones didn't. In times past, getting a car to go 100K miles was a rare exception. Now, they are hardly broken in at that point. A ten year old car in years past was ready for the junk yard, today, if you don't know the models well, you can't tell whether its 3 yrs old or 10.)

In today's world, a complex product is made up of an assembly of various components and technologies made by many others. Often there are many levels from raw stock to a finished product such as a TV, car, or boat. At nearly every level, it is newer technology, newer methods, and mass production that even allow the finished product like a TV, car, or boat to be made. No, new and mass produced are not bad things.

One other point: It has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread that manufacturers and marketers have no incentive to make the product better. That is not true. They are under tremendous pressure to improve and to try to offset inflation and costs. Generally costs keep going up, but the sticker shock we get on prices would be much worse without these efforts. That manufacturer who doesn't improve his product line and give the market what they want will soon go out of business, because just around the corner, there are a couple of other manufacturers who will improve their line and offer the market more value for their money.


----------



## guitarguy56

NCC320 said:


> Converse to what you say above, which can be true,
> 
> 1. The idea that if its new, it's not as good as older production, and 2. The idea that the mass market (production) must be producing bad designs of things
> 
> are both not true either. You have to take care. Sometimes new is better, sometimes not. But where some here seem to lean heavily towards new and mass produced is not as good as older products, I strongly disagree. More often than not, new and mass produced are in fact much better. Look at TV's, computers, cars. Built differently from earlier, but new most often is cheaper in price, but better in quality and performance. (Computers and TV's are definately cheaper now, cars and boats are not, but look at what you get. A new car today comes with many features that older ones didn't. In times past, getting a car to go 100K miles was a rare exception. Now, they are hardly broken in at that point. A ten year old car in years past was ready for the junk yard, today, if you don't know the models well, you can't tell whether its 3 yrs old or 10.)
> 
> In today's world, a complex product is made up of an assembly of various components and technologies made by many others. Often there are many levels from raw stock to a finished product such as a TV, car, or boat. At nearly every level, it is newer technology, newer methods, and mass production that even allow the finished product like a TV, car, or boat to be made. No, new and mass produced are not bad things.


Perhaps what Seaner97 misses are the good old days of quality products and the newer improved products are not to his liking...

For starters maybe these products like the computers were technological marvels he could use today:










He'd rather be calling on this cellphone:










Cooking that delicious dinner on the better quality product from the past:










While watching the latest updates on the TV manufacturer no longer in business:










The point is products including boats and cars change due to better materials, updated electronics and engines, better manufacturing techniques which reduce costs... this is not news... it's called technological obsolescence and it'll continue as long as we are scientifically and technologically advancing... that's the market whether you appreciate it or not.


----------



## XSrcing

You are missing the fact that at the price point of many of these mass produced boat there is no room for the expense of using top quality hardware and the builders themselves are nothing more than minimum wage grunts running an assembly line. Which is why they must offer and put limits on warranties.


----------



## SloopJonB

The examples being used in this thread have gotten pretty far afield. It started as a comparison between "true" blue water boats and current mass market boats and now everything from airplanes to cell phones have been dragged in to support one viewpoint or another.

I don't think anyone here said or even implied that "everything new is ****e and everything old is better" as some seem to have inferred.

To try to get things at least somewhat back on point, I have a personal anecdote that might illustrate somewhat where things have gone in terms of production sailboats.

I have an '84 Hunter 31 and a friend has an '09 Hunter 38. My boat has suffered a lot of neglect over the years - rode hard and put up wet. Despite that the only thing that has gone wrong with it in any sort of fundamental way is the cabin sole was allowed to delaminate (I am currently replacing it). Everything else that I've been dealing with is simply deferred maintenance - lots of it over a long period of time.

The 38 is much more luxuriously outfitted than my boat - central heat, two reefers, BOSE sound etc. Contrary to my boat it has had an easy life with no expense spared on pro maintenance. Since new it has suffered the following; the engine jumped off its mounts and beds and landed 1/2 in the bilge, screwing up the stuffing as an aside. The in-mast furling jammed several times and screwed up the mainsail to the point it wouldn't furl properly and had to be replaced. The steering fell apart on a cruise requiring a tow and a bunch of reassembly work. About 10' of the aft hull deck joint had to be opened up and re-sealed. Locker doors have come off in peoples hands - the doors were teak veneer on particle board. I recall there were a couple of other similar stories but can't recall the details.

I realize it's anecdotal but I'm directly "involved", no "someones cousin told me" stuff going on here.

I'd say it illustrates very strongly that newer is not always better.


----------



## skygazer

Just a reminder. Cell phones, computers, TV's, airplanes. spaceships, all our modern tech stuff is at the beginning of the development/improvement curve. You could say that every single time a satellite or any space travel gear is built, it has new improvements, often huge. Even telescopes, with four hundred years of building, are still developing. Even guitars 

Boats on the other hand, not so much. Being much farther down the development curve (around five thousand of years known) it is harder to make truly big jumps in improvements. 

When I started fooling with computers there was no internet as we know it, and I programed in machine language. In boating this would be like having no ocean, just a small pond, and maybe a paddle but no oars. So yeah, constant improvement. But perhaps in five thousand years computer improvements will slow down.


----------



## seaner97

I do believe I acknowledged the converse. I also believe I pointed out that not all mass marketed stuff was bad, but unlike guitar, I'm not an absolutist, and while SOME parts of the market do drive advances, any idiot can see (well, clearly not ANY) that SOME "advances" are clearly just bangles and to keep something from having sticker shock, the cost of those bangles has to come from somewhere in the product. Either the materials or labor has to get cheaper (not always at a degradation of quality, but sometimes) or you have to use less of it. Or cut somewhere else it is not as easy for the consumer to notice. I felt I had to respond to keep from being misrepresented, but I think I'm out. Sky, Jons, Bob, Jeff- if you're ever around the Penobscot looking to sail on a tired old boat the the wind still moves well....Out, yours is nicer, but you're welcome too.
I'm done with this one.


----------



## guitarguy56

seaner97 said:


> I do believe I acknowledged the converse. I also believe I pointed out that not all mass marketed stuff was bad, but unlike guitar, I'm not an absolutist, and while SOME parts of the market do drive advances, any idiot can see (well, clearly not ANY) that SOME "advances" are clearly just bangles and to keep something from having sticker shock, the cost of those bangles has to come from somewhere in the product. Either the materials or labor has to get cheaper (not always at a degradation of quality, but sometimes) or you have to use less of it. Or cut somewhere else it is not as easy for the consumer to notice. I felt I had to respond to keep from being misrepresented, but I think I'm out. Sky, Jons, Bob, Jeff- if you're ever around the Penobscot looking to sail on a tired old boat the the wind still moves well....Out, yours is nicer, but you're welcome too.
> I'm done with this one.


No one here called you and absolutist... No one here called you an idiot either... at least not I!

The jpegs were so you and others understood products change (not sure it sunk in)... I never said for the better just that manufacturing/costs as well as improved design is what dictates the markets... clearly YOU should know that...

I never said making products out of cheap material or inferior materials with cheap labor was a good thing and if I did please point out in any of my replies... That said if one is buying products and that includes boats one needs to be very vigilant and in that regards there are designers/NA out there to insure you get the product you want in the materials and grade you want... the products including boats being mass produced are just that for people who can't make those choices and cannot understand 25 ply FB or CF vs 18 ply Kevlar reinforced hulls or veneered cabinets vs marine teak and trust me there are many out there that do not know the difference... if they did they wouldn't be at the boat shows buying those boats... right?

But adding the "Sky, Jons, Bob, Jeff- if you're ever around the Penobscot looking to sail on a tired old boat the the wind still moves well....Out, yours is nicer, but you're welcome too.".... What is that all about?... to make me and PCP or NCC320 feel somehow envious? I can just imagine all of you on one boat.... Dude I don't care about any bromance on these boards... I'm here to talk sailing talk.... :eek


----------



## guitarguy56

XSrcing said:


> You are missing the fact that at the price point of many of these mass produced boat there is no room for the expense of using top quality hardware and the builders themselves are nothing more than minimum wage grunts running an assembly line. Which is why they must offer and put limits on warranties.


You have many choices to avoid buying these inferior products... it's called voluntary restraint! No one twists your arms to buy any of these inferior products you speak of... one only needs to look for the NA/designer of the boats you want and get that well made cruiser made in your choice of materials, equipped to the max, in any colors you like, and of course unsinkable as someone else said or was it you earlier? Warranties are legal entities to protect the manufacturer and not you the customer... clearly you should know that... but maybe you don't? :wink


----------



## seaner97

I think I partially misinterpreted your comments. You're welcome to go slow w me as well. Hell, Paulo and Smack are as well. I think the first group just might appreciate it more. And for the record, I didn't call you an idiot, although I think the absolutist thing is at least very close to accurate. 
No bromance intended.


----------



## outbound

Thanks Seaner
If you're down in R.i. before the fall P.M. me and we'll put her her through her paces.

Today is the second day of putting in a watermaker. It's a Cape Horn extreme. Reverse osmosis devices cheap enough and small enough to put in boats is a recent advance. The pumps continue to evolve so current Clark pumps are said to be better. Hose connections, fittings and even the hoses are improved from years past. Biologic protection without chemicals is a big step. No question in such a device and others like it there are meaningful technological advances.

However, unlike many models this company offers there are NO electronic brains in this machine. You need to manually turn it on and flip valves to make it work, do flushes or pickle it. 

Down south water costs 20-30 cents a gallon. Quality of water is variable. Using solar and wind mostly for electricity through the machine due to need to replace filters and assuming a new feed pump every five years water will cost 10-25cents a gallon. Up north in Maine due to shorter filter life 20-30 cents a gallon. 

So here you have a maritime example.
You can get the bells and whistles of a electronic auto flushing, self monitoring device. With it more complexity and less reliability. Or a bare bones device. Here many would say newer is not better.
You can incorporate new technologies (Z function) or use noxious chemistry which requires another chore. Here many would say newer is better.
You need to stand back and realize making water really doesn't save you money nor convenience as it is yet another thing to maintain. Here many would say making water is not more convenient but rather another "thing".

But it gives you freedom. 
Freedom to shower on passage more frequently. Freedom to stay in that isolated anchorage until the food runs out. Freedom to not be as concerned about waterborne disease.

Wife makes fun of me when I go on this forum. "Talking to your girlfriend again". Advances are double edged. Can be enslaving. Kids texting to each other in the same room. Or liberating. The new watermaker. Often both. The Internet. Using Google to find out how to get a part or fix a boat system.

The voyaging boats Paulo posts are the same. He acknowledges there are boats that meet the requirements I stipulated in the prior post currently available. They are not race boat derived nor expedition derived. They are cruisers for mom and pop but durable, comfortable and ocean ready. He doesn't acknowledge whereas I would have no problem buying a V40-42 when they were in production I do have a problem spending so much money on a Morris or K&M or one off.Jon points out even those with the resources have issue with this. Yes it remains unfortunate, the 40 project is not going to production. This is self centered as I see a future with very few cruisers and the east coast filled with coastal folks and the Caribbean filled with charters but no one chatting on cruiseheimers or going past chicken harbor.


----------



## guitarguy56

Seaner97... I didn't mean anything about the bromance either and I usually don't talk this way unless backed into a corner... I too owned several mass produced boats... owned the Hunter I have now since 1995... the boat was three years old when I took it over from the previous owner who was a pilot friend that succumbed to health issues here in Savannah so I am the second owner of this boat... I owned a US Yachts 25 in Everett I bought for kicks in the Puget Sound area while in Seattle during one of my extended consulting trips... I had time to upgrade her and install new upholstery and spruce her up some... sailing her was a blast in the San Juans and Lake Washington... Yes... mass produced but served me well... she is sold to another pilot friend from Boeing... now although the Hunter we have is great it needed improvements and I think I mentioned it earlier... it really did not need better materials and at least it was well made back in the day and has lots of real teak but some veneer as well... spent 2 grand on the teak and holly floors, had them cut, finish, and install it... big improvement... what I'm saying is.... what all of you Bob, Jon, XC, others is no different than what I'm seeing too... but while some improvements are great... some such as particle board veneered panels or doors are not my idea of improvements but rather the manufacturer seeing a cheaper route and this is where one needs to be vigilant... when buying a new boat just as buying a new house one has choices on the appliances, fixtures, floors, paint, etc. Enough of my rant... I'm done as well with this thread... 

Chao!


----------



## bobperry

Sailing talk? Why muck the thread up with sailing talk. That would require posters to actually be sailor and no boats. Better keep it to toasters, cell, phones and living rooms where everyone is a true expert. Maybe throw in a vacuum cleaner in just for spice. This thread really took off when it diverted from sailing to product design. " Hey, I brought a product once. I'm an expert!" I'm probably to blame with my Micky Dee's hamburger reference. Damn! Sorry about that. Kind of.


----------



## guitarguy56

bobperry said:


> Sailing talk? Why muck the thread up with sailing talk. That would require posters to actually be sailor and no boats. Better keep it to toasters, cell, phones and living rooms where everyone is a true expert. Maybe throw in a vacuum cleaner in just for spice. This thread really took off when it diverted from sailing to product design. " Hey, I brought a product once. I'm an expert!" I'm probably to blame with my Micky Dee's hamburger reference. Damn! Sorry about that. Kind of.


We're the 'greybeards' Bob... did you not know that? That infers we are the experts because we have lived it all... otherwise how would the youngsters know what to do?

It's great as we have lived to have seen these products from computers to phones evolve... look at TV's and how they have become too smart for even me to program with wifi/Netflicks/HULU, etc.,.... I can't even figure out how to use my Iphone Version 10,000... and cars... have you opened the hood lately? Which is why I drive the Fiat Spider... I can trace each wire to where is goes... I can actually 'see' the engine... not so in modern cars or trucks...

And don't get me started on Dyson vacuum cleaners... :eek


----------



## PCP

guitarguy56 said:


> This is where I tend to disagree some... there are plenty of designs out there if one were to look more closely... I did and came up with some nice models... but... what may have been great boats to me may not be for you or others...
> 
> Even if manufacturers were to make the exact specifications of sailboats as you describe for the 'live aboard seagoing cruiser' (just how many on these forums are live aboard seagoing cruisers?).
> 
> There still is the 'cost' related to these boats... ....


Exactly. There are many boats that fit on that hole Outbound says it exists even if he puts everything on the same bag. He says the better boats to fill that hole are 10 or 15 year old designs, like his boat (Outbound) or Halberg Rassy.

He says:

*"A new design made by a production builder at reasonable cost filling not the coastal occasional sailor mainstream needs but rather the live aboard seagoing cruiser needs. It would be embraced by the subset of people I first delineated. Until that occurs HR,Outbound, Passport and the like will continue to produce and sell boats based on designs of 10-15 y of heritage."*

There are several confusions regarding that quote:

1- There is a considerable difference between a 10 year old design, that sometimes is only slightly outdated, with a 15 year old design that is much more outdated.

2- Halberg Rassy is not making 15 year old designs but state of the art push pull button boats, boats that can be sailed by a solo sailor, even a very old one. Modern hulls with state of the art technology, including all hydraulics and electronics needed for such a boat. Sure they are renovating their line and still have some MKII, that are based on older hulls but that is for economic needs, not because they are better, otherwise the new boats would continue to have those types of hulls and they don't.

3- Passport and Outbound almost don't sell boats if we consider similar but contemporary versions of those boats like the ones on the XC line, the Halberg Rassy line, the Oyster line, the Discovery line, the Contest line and many others.

4- If a liveaboard has a seagoing need, meaning that he wants to voyage most of the time, than there are on the market many aluminum boats more adapted to that then the above boats, like the Boreal series, the Allures series, the Garcia series, the OVNI series, the Cigale series among others.

5- All the above boats are production sailboats and not built in just some few exemplars a year. They are contemporary designs that compete on very competitive markets and that have to have state of the art designs otherwise sailors will just chose the other one, the one that is made taking into account the most recent developments on boat design.

6- Regarding cost, size by size all these boats offer a lot more for the money then Passport or Outbound. If those contemporary designs are stripped of all their state of the art hydraulics and electronics and push pull systems (to be at the same condition as Passport or Outbound) they would considerably less than those boats.

I predict that Outbound and Passport will be soon closing doors unless they can produce a contemporary boat that would be a match similar typed but contemporary European models and even so the American Market is so small for that type of boats that I don't know if they can survive. There is already Hylas on that segment of the American market doing more modern boats (German Frers designed), specially the last one, the 63.

Even if this are all production boats and cost, size by size, half or less than one of the Bob's custom boats (taking as example that small one million dollar boat) one thing is true: Even if a larger production can offer boats not as expensive as the Passport or Oubound they will be always more expensive than mass production boats, many times they would cost the double and that explain why for many a mass production boat is the best option.

Regarding price, the ones that have the money to afford these type of boats, including the Outbound 46 (USD800 000?) will prefer to live permanently on a bigger sailboat and that is why on that luxury market segment the boats have become bigger and many brands do not offer anything smaller than a 50 fter. If the money is not a problem that is what the majority will chose and that is why the offer went that way.

Regarding the price of an Outbound 44/46 I bet that most that would want to live aboard would chose a mass production Jeanneau 57 over it: less expensive, much more space, much more speed, probably a superior seaworthiness due to size, a very agreeable and spacious interior and a big cockpit for socializing.

Ok, it can have not the same quality in what regard duration of the sailboat, I am sure of that, but what that would matter to a 55 to 65 year old guy that has finally retired and is going to enjoy life living in a boat while cruising?

He is not going to cruise for more than 20 years so what matters to him if the boat is not going to last 40 years? Besides statistics show that this type of rich guy that can afford these boats to enjoy retirement, will change it for a new one each 5 to 7 years or so, just to enjoy a more agreeable interior space, most of the time.


----------



## bobperry

Guitar:
Funny, I thought about the Dysons right after I finished my post. I don't have one. My son has one. I'm on the tall side and their handle is too short for me. My son is 6'5" but he doesn't care. He likes the Dyson. I prefer the old fashioned canister type with the separate wand, the Sears variety. I have two, a Sears one for downstairs and a Panasonic for upstairs. They are almost identical. While they may not be "state of the art" for me they work BETTER!

So once again this pesky little semantic detail of what exactly does "better" mean crops up. I'm afraid you guys are chasing your tails until you deal with that.

PCP says, "There are there confusions here:" Boy, you can say that again. I have no idea what it means but you can say it again if you like the sound of it.


Or maybe the loudmouth at the golf tournament who shouts "IN THE HOLE!" after every drive. Like he actually has something to do with the shot.

My buddy who owns a Baba 40 said to me a few weeks back. " I couldn't afford this quality today. Even it I could find it."

'I have sailed the Hylas 63 and I was not at all impressed. I don't care who designed it.


----------



## outbound

Gee Paulo
Outbound which is a very small house made in the same yard as Passport has had 12 new orders in the last two years. This is more than he had in prior years. He is out flat. Owner of outbound is not big on marketing. Rare to see an ad. Almost all boats sold by word of mouth although he does do the boat shows. Given he (Phil Lambert) is a one man show and his big thing is after purchase service think he doesn't want to build more than 1-4 boats a year. 
Think he makes a very comfortable living and is quite solvent as these boats nicely fit the small niche I referred to earlier. Maybe on your side of the pond folks are flipping boats every 5-6 years. Here we do not. This is not due to just expense. It takes us a few years to outfit the boat just the way we want and to learn the boats idiosyncrasies. It's a PIA to do this over and over again. See friends sailing 30 year old Cheribinis or seguins because of this. See high end boats passed through the generations. 
All boats depreciate. At least on this side of the pond quality boats depreciate less. In the segment of 40-55' boats think the Hylases, Rustlers, HRs, Outbounds, passports etc. do just fine on resale.
BTW have you ever looked at the hulls of the "new" boats offered by these houses?. Little changes or improvements from the past. Yes they are improved but still follow the same basic formula.


----------



## blt2ski

For those that want to talk sailing manufactures....Jeanneau has been BK at least twice. Late 80's as Pangor-Punta went under while also owning Cal, Ranger, O'Day to name a couple of others that conglomerate owned. Then again when the company that the French gvmnt got to take over Jeanneau, in the mid 90s when Group Beneteau took over. 

ALong with I will repeat as I said before, While I would luv an SO349 in my slip, it is not fast by any stretch of means! At PHRF 140, vs and older SO35 at 120, the SF version at 105, lets add in a J35 at 72, or the SF3200 at 80 to the mix..... a slow boat! Or As I recall also a 33i, in the 120 range. So unless one wishes to beat the rating rules with a Code 0 in less than 10 knots of wind, it will take soem 15 knots to get it going. just as the SF3200 needs.

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

Hull shape. Not sure the newer bullet shaped forms are true all around performance oriented. As examples, the older IOR boats due great upwind. Down wind they suck. A bullet will plane down wind. Does pretty well upwind. not sure it is as well as an IOR boat. 

Reality is, probably some kind of longest DWL with in reason to LOA, and a shape in the middle is best for most of us. Espeacially myself in an area where I am going up or down wind. Not too much reaching. 

Then again, this is my opinion. We seem to have established that opinions smell like our AHoles! BAD!LOLOL

Marty


----------



## Don L

PCP said:


> There are there confusions here:


I mostly agree with the post and didn't see the need to make people reread it.

One of the things I feel that get suggested about buyers/owners of newer mass produced boats is that they are somehow stupid and know nothing about boats etc. But of course that mostly isn't true just because they are stuck in 80s.


----------



## bobperry

My buddy Spriggsy maintains a charter fleet in Anacortes. He told me the new French models are knickel and dime-ing them to death with their near constant need of repair.


----------



## Don L

You know, one of my main issues with newer mass production boats is that they seem to focus too much on being able to sleep too many people. While this may be great for a weekend or week long trip, there really isn't an offering in the 45-48' range aimed at a live aboard "older" cruising couple.

This to me is the real market that people like Outbound and Passport are supplying. I like the Outbound layout the best of all boats I've ever looked at for what my wife and I really would like in a layout. If a regular production builder would start building a model in the 45-48' range aimed at a couple with a little bit of upgrades from their regular line I bet it would really take a bite out of some builders.


----------



## bobperry

Don:
I have been reviewing the Euro models for years and right now it seems that every model comes with at least three layout options. In boats under 40' LOA you can have v berths and two quarter "sleeping holes". I'm not going to call them "staterooms". This gives you cabins form three couples. Or you can convert one quarter cabin to stowage wand sleep two couples. In some boats over 40' you can even split the V berth area into two cabins ot give you four cabins for sleeping. Or go one cabin forward ad one cabin aft or two cabins aft. I think they cover all the options very well. I think the "let's cram them in" layout is aimed at charter groups.


----------



## jorgenl

Don0190 said:


> You know, one of my main issues with newer mass production boats is that they seem to focus too much on being able to sleep too many people. While this may be great for a weekend or week long trip, there really isn't an offering in the 45-48' range aimed at a live aboard "older" cruising couple.
> 
> This to me is the real market that people like Outbound and Passport are supplying. I like the Outbound layout the best of all boats I've ever looked at for what my wife and I really would like in a layout. If a regular production builder would start building a model in the 45-48' range aimed at a couple with a little bit of upgrades from their regular line I bet it would really take a bite out of some builders.


Take a look at the Catalina 445, similar convertible aft cabin/storage/work area to an Outbound?

Probably not quite the same quality but likely half the price....


----------



## Don L

I'm not in the buying market unless I win the lottery.

But one of my complaints is builders seem to feel boats need two heads. So you end up with 2 small showers that are barely useful instead on 1 head with a good shower. Heck I have 2 heads on my boat, one we only use the head and in the other we only use the shower.

But I'm sure the builders have to aim for the majority of buyers as they can only have so many molds for the decks in order to control costs.


----------



## albrazzi

amwbox said:


> The '70s Are Back. Can Ya Dig It?


Good movie Jennifer Lawrence steals the show.


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> ...
> The voyaging boats Paulo posts are the same. He acknowledges there are boats that meet the requirements I stipulated in the prior post currently available. They are not race boat derived nor expedition derived. They are cruisers for mom and pop but durable, comfortable and ocean ready. ....


Most contemporary voyage boats have incorporated in their designs the learning taken from Solo racing boats hulls and it is logical that they do so since Open boats are designed to be sailed most of the time on autopilot with a lonely sailor aboard. They have to be very safe, stable, seaworthy and easy driven boats and off course ...fast. The Boreal is a good example, the Cigale, the Garcia or Allures too as well as the new OVNI. They are all beamy, all light for centerboarders, all with all beam pulled back with big tansoms.























































But maybe I am not understanding you since you seem to talk about the best boats to voyage and to live aboard and sail extensively (and those are the ones posted above) and then talk about luxury main market boats with great offshore potential like the Halberg Rassy or the Outbound 46. So what do you really mean?


----------



## bobperry

"Swing!"


----------



## jorgenl

Don0190 said:


> I'm not in the buying market unless I win the lottery.
> 
> But one of my complaints is builders seem to feel boats need two heads. So you end up with 2 small showers that are barely useful instead on 1 head with a good shower. Heck I have 2 heads on my boat, one we only use the head and in the other we only use the shower.
> 
> But I'm sure the builders have to aim for the majority of buyers as they can only have so many molds for the decks in order to control costs.


two heads are good when cruising and one of them craps out (intended...) you can just use the functioning one until there is an opportune time to fix the crappy one ;-)


----------



## bobperry

I like one, nice big head. When my second son was born my wife told me " From now on you clean the toilets." I'd rather clean one than two.
As far as head problems go I am a big advocate of the LaVac line of heads. They are very easy to fix and unclog.

Many boats under 40' have as many heads as there are on a Boeing 737.


----------



## Don L

jorgenl said:


> two heads are good when cruising and one of them craps out (intended...) you can just use the functioning one until there is an opportune time to fix the crappy one ;-)


I have never had a head crap out or plug in 8 years and two boats and if it were to happen I have a bucket! So as far as I'm concerned an extra head is a waste of space on a boat, which is like the biggest boat design sin there can be.


----------



## Don L

You know another peeve I have with boats marketed to be cruising boats??? (I bet you really want to know)


It's a boat marketed to be a good cruising passage maker where the photos always show it heeled over with the rail in the water. That's what I want in a comfortable cruiser :frown


----------



## Faster

I'm also in the 'one head is plenty' camp.. and bemoan the loss of better-used space when a second head is added to a smallish boat.

A decent compromise is on our friends' Passport 40 (V berth layout).. in the aft cabin there's a marine toilet hidden under a side seat. Convenient for middle of the night use by guests, but not a full 'head'. Even so, though, probably not necessary.


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> ,,,
> ALong with I will repeat as I said before, While I would luv an SO349 in my slip, it is not fast by any stretch of means! At PHRF 140, vs and older SO35 at 120...
> Marty


Marty, yes, you have said that already. Mostly we are discussing really old boats versus new ones not boats separated by 10 years on design and regarding that and accepting that PHRF you give, that would made that Jeanneau 349 as fast as a 35 year old Passport 40.

Regarding that PHRF and the comparison with the one of the Jeanneau 35 you have to take into consideration that the Sun Odyssey 35 is a real 35ft boat while the Sun Odyssey 349 is short of a 34ft boat.

Besides that the PHRF of the same model varies with several factors and can be substantially different. There are many Jeanneau 35 with a PHRF that varies from 132 to 108. The jeanneau 349 is a new model and he have to wait till more certificates are issued to have a real perception of how fast is the boat. There will be plenty of them on the next years due to the big number of sales.

I found out a Jeanneau 349 with a PHRF of 141 but the boat is a shallow draft version and as you now the PHRF will be considerably lower on the standard version.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP, I think you mean *shallow* draft not swallow draft.


----------



## PCP

Faster said:


> I'm also in the 'one head is plenty' camp.. and bemoan the loss of better-used space when a second head is added to a smallish boat.
> 
> A decent compromise is on our friends' Passport 40 (V berth layout).. in the aft cabin there's a marine toilet hidden under a side seat. Convenient for middle of the night use by guests, but not a full 'head'. Even so, though, probably not necessary.


I guess that it will depend on the use you give to the boat and what you consider smallish. Regarding today's boats that option is offered on most 40fters, assuming the boat has a typical modern beamy hull and it is a bit tight making most of the time only sense on a charter boat or on a boat that is used most of the time by two couples.

Even on considerably bigger boats a second head normally only makes sense if more than a couple sails the boat.

Saying all this my boat, a 41fter and has two heads. If I had bought the boat new I would have chosen the one with one head. But now knowing the boat very well I doubt it would be the better option, since the storage would be far less and the access more difficult, but that obviously depends of the layouts of each boat and where is the space occupied by the second head.

Anyway the second head comes really handy when we have another couple sailing with us. Nice to be able to say; this is your cabin, this is your head ;-)


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> PCP, I think you mean *shallow* draft not swallow draft.


Yes, thanks, I will get it right.


----------



## PCP

Don0190 said:


> You know, one of my main issues with newer mass production boats is that they seem to focus too much on being able to sleep too many people. While this may be great for a weekend or week long trip, there really isn't an offering in the 45-48' range aimed at a live aboard "older" cruising couple.
> ...


You have mass production boats with layouts that point to that. Here two 46ft boats:

























This is the one from the Oubound 46.


----------



## guitarguy56

You guys have it all wrong... a lot of head is a good thing! :eek


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Regarding price, the ones that have the money to afford these type of boats, including the Outbound 46 (USD800 000?) will prefer to live permanently on a bigger sailboat and that is why on that luxury market segment the boats have become bigger and many brands do not offer anything smaller than a 50 fter. If the money is not a problem that is what the majority will chose and that is why the offer went that way.
> 
> Regarding the price of an Outbound 44/46 I bet that most that would want to live aboard would chose a mass production Jeanneau 57 over it: less expensive, much more space, much more speed, probably a superior seaworthiness due to size, a very agreeable and spacious interior and a big cockpit for socializing.
> 
> Ok, it can have not the same quality in what regard duration of the sailboat, I am sure of that, but what that would matter to a 55 to 65 year old guy that has finally retired and is going to enjoy life living in a boat while cruising?


Reading this sort of stuff, it really hits home how "outmoded" my way of thinking is today... If Smack is the "Last Man Standing", I should probably be the "Last Wimp Cowering"... ;-) The Outbound 46 is a bit beyond the upper range of what I would ever care to own, or sail offshore... Something like the Jeanneau 57? Well, that's _WAY_ beyond the size of boat I'd care to have to maintain, or handle alone/shorthanded offshore in 30 knots or more of breeze, but that's what separates me from the Big Boys, I suppose...

;-)



PCP said:


> He is not going to cruise for more than 20 years so what matters to him if the boat is not going to last 40 years? Besides statistics show that this type of rich guy that can afford these boats to enjoy retirement, *will change it for a new one each 5 to 7 years or so*, just to enjoy a more agreeable interior space, most of the time.


In addition to being a wimp, I'm also _SLOW_...

After owning and sailing a boat for 5 to 7 years, I'd just be _STARTING_ to _'Get The Boat RIGHT'_...

;-)

Why would I want to get rid of it then, and have to start the process all over again with a new one? Just to have the "State of the Art/Latest & Greatest"?

No thanks, but that's probably just me...

;-)


----------



## Faster

The reality for me is that buying any of these new boats is like entertaining the idea of winning a lottery.. nice to think about but not likely to happen.

We find our boat quite adequate to our needs.. a typical 30 year old design, well maintained for the most part, comfortable for two and even 4 in a pinch, and literally gobs of usable, accessible storage behind seatbacks, under berths, in dedicated cupboards and cabinets. Our cabin sole is quite small in area since the 'furniture' is not pushed out to the hull (hence the usable space)

Our one lament and point of envy is the space and helm seating in the newer (not the newest) cockpits. With an improbably usable aft cabin in what is essentially a skinny-assed IOR design, the tradeoff is the cockpit of a 30 footer. Right after dreaming of a lottery win (silly because we don't buy tickets..) sometimes I have visions of getting out the chainsaw and splaying out the back 8-10 feet of the boat to create a better cockpit area. Then sanity returns.. at least partially.

Bottom line is that every new boat we gawk at (not talking size here, but the current trends in general) my wife, esp, laments the lack of useful storage, long/wide areas without handholds, cockpits with obstacle tables so big that personal intercoms are required, etc etc.. 

Finally, any 'next boat' upgrade that might address out cockpit desires will call for a 100%+ increase in our outlay since our current boat has 'fallen' over the 30 yr cliff and the market value is low. The 'next' boat likely needs new elx, better batteries, solar, charging, etc etc.. so in the end we make do. I suspect many of us are in the same boat, so to speak.

Anyhow I think this sort of thing is where the a lot of the 'dissatisfaction' with the new, and defense of the old stems from. Add to that the loss of rounded moldings, proper fiddles, soft corners the list goes on. I think I know where Jon E is coming from...


----------



## seaner97

guitarguy56 said:


> We're the 'greybeards' Bob... did you not know that? That infers we are the experts because we have lived it all... otherwise how would the youngsters know what to do?
> 
> It's great as we have lived to have seen these products from computers to phones evolve... look at TV's and how they have become too smart for even me to program with wifi/Netflicks/HULU, etc.,.... I can't even figure out how to use my Iphone Version 10,000... and cars... have you opened the hood lately? Which is why I drive the Fiat Spider... I can trace each wire to where is goes... I can actually 'see' the engine... not so in modern cars or trucks...
> 
> And don't get me started on Dyson vacuum cleaners... :eek


Now there is a new product I can get behind, although my 1960s Electrolux still works fairly well. We will see if my 3 year old Dyson can make the same claim eventually. But as far as sailboats, I'm just not seeing the big advances Paulo is talking about. For the way I sail, there is a good reason I've "exercised restraint" about entering the "modern" boat market. I'm not saying everyone has to sail like me, just that sailing like Paulo isn't the end all either.


----------



## seaner97

JonEisberg said:


> Reading this sort of stuff, it really hits home how "outmoded" my way of thinking is today... If Smack is the "Last Man Standing", I should probably be the "Last Wimp Cowering"... ;-) The Outbound 46 is a bit beyond the upper range of what I would ever care to own, or sail offshore... Something like the Jeanneau 57? Well, that's _WAY_ beyond the size of boat I'd care to have to maintain, or handle alone/shorthanded offshore in 30 knots or more of breeze, but that's what separates me from the Big Boys, I suppose...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> In addition to being a wimp, I'm also _SLOW_...
> 
> After owning and sailing a boat for 5 to 7 years, I'd just be _STARTING_ to _'Get The Boat RIGHT'_...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Why would I want to get rid of it then, and have to start the process all over again with a new one? Just to have the "State of the Art/Latest & Greatest"?
> 
> No thanks, but that's probably just me...
> 
> ;-)


It's not just you. A 57 would require crew. At the risk of drawing PCP over, check out the 20 million dream. The vast majority of posters would want something smaller and more manageable that didn't need crew. Again, there are ALOT of us 'merican sailors sitting on the sidelines in old boats and not in the 'market' because the 'market' has nothing to offer us at a price we would be willing to pay.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg;3134474..Cowering"... ;-) The Outbound 46 is a bit beyond the upper range of what I would ever care to own said:


> WAY[/I] beyond the size of boat I'd care to have to maintain, or handle alone/shorthanded offshore in 30 knots or more of breeze, but that's what separates me from the Big Boys, I suppose...
> ;-)
> ..


This is not about the boats that you, me or outbound would like to own but about boats offshore cruising boats that sailors like to own and buy and there are very different tastes about that.

The guys that have boats like the Jeanneau 57 have the money to pay somebody to do the maintenance for them and normally don't due maintenance work, except some pretty basic one.

I only pointed out that, in what regards liveaboard market and new boats sold for the retirement days, new boats the ones that are sold for that are boats from around 50ft to 60ft.

Look at the catalog of brands that sell boats for that segment of the luxury market and you will see that they have no small boats...because there is not a target for them.

If they are rich enough to have want they want and in that case is a 50ft luxury boat or bigger or they have not and those will not going to buy a small luxury boat, but a similarly priced mass production boat. I am not saying it is right or wrong, neither that the much more expensive boat is not better, just that it is what happens.

If you had delivered one of those you know that they have powerful engines and that is a help on bad weather plus push pull button control of the sails. In bad weather a boat like the Jeanneau 57 needs a very little amount of sail to be responsive on a much bigger than a 30k breeze and I bet you know that. With that little piece of sail the boat is on control and offers a huge stability and an increased safety regarding a much smaller boat.

In fact brands like Halberg Rassy and many others, including mass production brands are doing boats over 60ft designed to be sailed by a couple, even on bad weather.
Here a test by a very conservative sailor...that has to agree that the boat can be sailed easily by two.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> It's not just you. A 57 would require crew....


Yes, an old cruising boat will require crew. I see a lot of brand new big boats being sailed just by a couple and they are increasing in numbers.


----------



## bobperry

"This is not about the boats that you, me or outbound would like to own but about boats that sailors like to own and buy and there are very different tastes about that."

Really?
Really?
That is a bizarre comment. Most of us here , including me, evaluate each boat with our own use and ownership as a benchmark. It's kind of a reflex. 

"If you had delivered one of those you know that they have powerful engines and that is a help on bad weather plus push pull button control of the sails. In bad weather a boat like the Jeanneau 57 needs a very little amount of sail to be responsive on a much bigger than a 30k breeze and I bet you know that. With that little piece of sail the boat is on control and offers a huge stability and an increased safety regarding a much smaller boat."

huh?

The Jeanneau 57 has only 63 gallons of fuel. My clients for 50' boats would laugh at that.


----------



## Don L

Boat size that can be sailed solo or by a couple always gives me a laugh. You can mostly guess the size of people's boat by what size they say is the largest that they can single hand.


----------



## albrazzi

PCP said:


> Yes, an old cruising boat will require crew. I see a lot of brand new big boats being sailed just by a couple and they are increasing in numbers.


Roller everything, thrusters (plural) and some pushbutton winches and I could singlehand just about anything. This HR seems to be as easy as it gets, if that's what you are looking for and need and you can afford that stuff. Oh and some dock hands everywhere you go, lets not forget that.


----------



## bobperry

FRANKIE can be easily single handed. Here I am proving it. Lazy jacks, furling jib, all winches in reach from the tiller, piece of cake. Of course, FRANKIE was designed to be single handed.

Sailing single handed is far more about the sailor than it is about the boat.


----------



## albrazzi

That's a pretty Boat LOVE them big roaches. Is that a day sailor sans lifelines.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> You have mass production boats with layouts that point to that. Here two 46ft boats:


Line drawings rarely tell the whole story...

Here's a better view of those lovely picture windows in that boat's topsides...

"State of the Art" naval architecture and production yacht construction, no doubt about it...

Photos rarely tell the whole story, either... It's a pity I don't have an audio tape to share...

;-)


----------



## SloopJonB

That's like the Hunter with the glass chainplates that failed - big hull port right beside the chains in what is probably the single most highly stressed area of the hull after the keel attachment point.

Really dumb bit of design IMO.


----------



## bobperry

Albrazzi:
Yes, FRANCIS LEE was designed a a gentleman's day sailer. But they let me sail it anyway.
We race with a crew of 5 or 6. We do very well.
Care to guess the PHRF rating? I asked PCP to guess but he has not clue. FRANKIE drives pcp nuts. It doesn't fit into any of his boxes. We can do an effortless 14+ knots in 20 knots tws no chute. EFFORTLESS.


----------



## albrazzi

Gotta be -20or40 Interesting double ender. Bet she sails backwards pretty well.


----------



## bobperry

Al: 
Not quite that fast but getting close.

We have never sailed it backwards. Might be fun.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> I mostly agree with the post and didn't see the need to make people reread it.
> 
> One of the things I feel that get suggested about buyers/owners of newer mass produced boats is that they are somehow stupid and know nothing about boats etc. But of course that mostly isn't true just because they are stuck in 80s.


I don't think anyone is stuck in the 80s. I was _born_ in the 80s.

I don't prefer the older designs because that's what I remember (first boat I was on was actually my grandfather's O'day 25), but rather because after owning a Big 3 production boat for a while, and then crewing on a couple of older bluewater boats on some long distance passages...I found that I _deeply_ preferred the latter.

So who started this whole thing?

Was it:

Idiot A, who thinks if its new is going to instantly fall apart at the first 30 kt gust,

or

Idiot B, who thinks newer=superior?


----------



## SloopJonB

Well Smackdaddy started it so I guess it's idiot A. :wink


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Albrazzi:
> Yes, FRANCIS LEE was designed a a gentleman's day sailer. But they let me sail it anyway.
> We race with a crew of 5 or 6. We do very well.
> Care to guess the PHRF rating? I asked PCP to guess but he has not clue. FRANKIE drives pcp nuts. It doesn't fit into any of his boxes. We can do an effortless 14+ knots in 20 knots tws no chute. EFFORTLESS.


Bob, that story about the PHRF makes no sense, why are you insisting on it? That boat is a daysailer and even if it is a bit more modern than your later designs, it is very much a Bob Perry design and as usual on your designs, it has many non functional aesthetic elements that are detrimental for a better sailing performance, from the shape of the bow to the shape of the stern and hull to the very narrow beam.

What I can tell you, for sure, is that this daysailer, with about the same length, but with no aesthetic concessions that degrade performance, is a much faster sailboat and will have a much lower PHRF. OK?



























The design is by German Frers.

Your boat is what it is and probably the performance is enough for the owners and the boat probably satisfies them but I am tired to hear you talking about that boat as if it was a state of the art boat or even a contemporary sailboat.


----------



## Don L

amwbox said:


> I don't think anyone is stuck in the 80s. I was _born_ in the 80s.


Kids, when are they going to learn to just be quiet :devil


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Line drawings rarely tell the whole story...
> 
> Here's a better view of those lovely picture windows in that boat's topsides...
> 
> "State of the Art" naval architecture and production yacht construction, no doubt about it...
> 
> Photos rarely tell the whole story, either... It's a pity I don't have an audio tape to share...
> 
> ;-)


I don't understand your point. What has that to do with the interior layout that was what was being discussed?


----------



## bobperry

I vote we blame Smackers for everything.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> ...
> Really?
> Really?
> That is a bizarre comment. Most of us here , including me, evaluate each boat with our own use and ownership as a benchmark. It's kind of a reflex.
> ...


That's a dramatically wrong statement for an Architect, being it a Naval one or not. When a client goes to an architect the function of the architect is not to design to the client the house or boat that he sees fit for himself but the boat or house that will fit the needs, style of live and tastes of the client.

The architect is there to give quality and state of the art design to the client dreams, not his own dreams.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> Kids, when are they going to learn to just be quiet :devil


You seem to have an extremely loose definition of "kids". In my experience they don't tend to have as many grey whiskers as I.

But I'll take it. :laugh


----------



## amwbox

SloopJonB said:


> That's like the Hunter with the glass chainplates that failed - big hull port right beside the chains in what is probably the single most highly stressed area of the hull after the keel attachment point.
> 
> Really dumb bit of design IMO.











Serious question on that point: What is the engineering advantage of placing the chainplates (or combination chainplate singular) for both the inner and upper shrouds, at the same point on the deck? To say nothing of placing them near a port..which yeah, is just obviously stupid.

Wouldn't it be better (though probably not easier or cheaper) to distribute those sorts of loads more? Plus, get a little redundancy as opposed to being certain of losing both the uppers and inners at the same time.


----------



## guitarguy56

amwbox said:


> I don't think anyone is stuck in the 80s. I was _born_ in the 80s.
> 
> I don't prefer the older designs because that's what I remember (first boat I was on was actually my grandfather's O'day 25), but rather because after owning a Big 3 production boat for a while, and then crewing on a couple of older bluewater boats on some long distance passages...I found that I _deeply_ preferred the latter.
> 
> So who started this whole thing?
> 
> Was it:
> 
> Idiot A, who thinks if its new is going to instantly fall apart at the first 30 kt gust,
> 
> or
> 
> Idiot B, who thinks newer=superior?


Actually neither and the answer is C....

To assume anyone here is an idiot really speaks volumes about who YOU are... Some of us here are doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, business owners, professionals, and to infer we are idiots or fools because we have opinions or ideas that may be different than others does not mean we need to be degraded...

I've seen so far in this forum run-mouths like you and others that in other forums would be warned or banned but somehow the moderators see fit to ignore here.... too bad because this is how the discussion quickly degrades into child bantering at the worse!

Tell us what PROFESSION are you to think we need to listen to anything you have to offer?


----------



## amwbox

Oh, get over yourself. It was meant to be facetious and you bloody well know it. Its not as though I was subtle with how I phrased it. Keep up. 

You're impressing nobody with this unwarranted personal attack. Grow up, man up, calm down, etc etc.

And, not that it matters, but I'm an astronaut. And part time underwear model. Just like everyone else on the interwebs. :wink


(That was also facetious. Seems like I had better spell that out, just in case.)


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> That's a dramatically wrong statement for an Architect, being it a Naval one or not. When a client goes to an architect the function of the architect is not to design to the client the house or boat that he sees fit for himself but the boat or house that will fit the needs, style of live and tastes of the client.
> 
> The architect is there to give quality and state of the art design to the client dreams, not his own dreams.


Presupposing, of course, that the client desires _your_ opinion of what amounts to "state of the art".

Again with the absolutes.


----------



## guitarguy56

amwbox said:


> Oh, get over yourself. It was meant to be facetious and you bloody well know it. Its not as though I was subtle with how I phrased it. Keep up.
> 
> You're impressing nobody with this unwarranted personal attack. Grow up, man up, calm down, etc etc.
> 
> And, not that it matters, but I'm an astronaut. And part time underwear model. Just like everyone else on the interwebs. :wink


There's nothing to get over... and if you think it's a personal attack go run to the moderators as they have fallen asleep lately!

Astronaut? With the way you carry on here doubt it much! You're what 25 yrs old and think you've manned up already?


----------



## Don L

guitarguy56 said:


> Tell us what PROFESSION are you to think we need to listen to anything you have to offer?


I don't know which we should listen to, but over the years of threads like this it has always seemed that we shouldn't listen to naval architects or boat designers because it seems everyone knows more about boat design than them. :| Please note my jest.

I feel I know enough to be dangerous and maybe know what I like in a boat. But in the end I never feel I know more about my boat than than the people who designed my boat. Unlike people here who not only design and build boats from their living rooms, but probably also coach NFL teams etc.


----------



## amwbox

guitarguy56 said:


> There's nothing to get over... and if you think it's a personal attack go run to the moderators as they have fallen asleep lately!
> 
> Astronaut? With the way you carry on here doubt it much! You're what 25 yrs old and think you've manned up already?


Like most people, I'd _love_ to return to my 20's. But, not in the cards.

So...is it ageism, then? What other personal characteristics of myself would you like to go after? Religion? Ethnicity?

You're coming out of nowhere to personally accost _me_ rather than to comment on the topic under discussion. So, what's it going to be? At this point in the thread, as you can see above, I'm interested in talking chainplates. How about you?

We've established that your entire childish rant was moot. My post went over your head. And so...here we are, you having realized your error, now flailing around, trying to save face. Me, enjoying the hell out of the energy in thread. Don't stop now.


----------



## guitarguy56

Don0190 said:


> I don't know which we should listen to, but over the years of threads like this it has always seemed that we shouldn't listen to naval architects or boat designers because it seems everyone knows more about boat design than them. :| Please my jest.
> 
> I feel I know enough to be dangerous and maybe know what I like in a boat. But in the end I never feel I know more about my boat than than the people who designed my boat. Unlike people here who not design and build boats from their living, but probably also coach NFL teams etc.


Don... I'm not saying I know boat design and would infer I do... been an engineer for over 35 years in some of the most technological advanced companies including NASA... so yeah I know nothing about boat design but know enough to be dangerous... but I will never try to outguess Bob on naval ship design or PCP on architectural design... etc.... I definitely wouldn't call either of them idiots!


----------



## guitarguy56

amwbox said:


> Like most people, I'd _love_ to return to my 20's. But, not in the cards.
> 
> So...is it ageism, then? What other personal characteristics of myself would you like to go after? Religion? Ethnicity?
> 
> You're coming out of nowhere to personally accost _me_ rather than to comment on the topic under discussion. So, what's it going to be? At this point in the thread, as you can see above, I'm interested in talking chainplates. How about you?
> 
> We've established that your entire childish rant was moot. My post went over your head. And so...here we are, you having realized your error, now flailing around, trying to save face. Me, enjoying the hell out of the energy in thread. Don't stop now.


With 73 posts to your rank... I'd say YOU came out of nowhere to ramble about people here without merit... think about that for a second!


----------



## amwbox

I've called nobody idiots, it should be pointed out. You're having a reading comprehension failure. Idiot, in the context I used it, was meant as an abstraction of stereotypes. Not as a description of anyone in particular. Other people immediately got it. You obviously didn't. So, I wouldn't trumpet too hard about brain power. Just saying. 

God. I should post in crayon.


----------



## bobperry

"What I can tell you, for sure, is that this daysailer, with about the same length, but with no aesthetic concessions that degrade performance, is a much faster sailboat and will have a much lower PHRF. OK?"

You are telling me nothing that is not obvious. Unfortunately my client did not want a Euro trendy boat. But you tell it in your snarky insulting way. You are clueless. You do not know enough about design to even guess at a PHRF number. 

"Bob, that story about the PHRF makes no sense, why are you insisting on it?"

Just to point out to others that you are all mouth and zero substance. The moment things get specific you cry foul and try to move the goal posts.


Boxer, don't forget to lick the end of the crayon.

Guitar:
I don't mind being called an "idiot". Look at what I have accomplished. Look at what I have produced in the last 42 years. I have a lot to show. PCP has nothing to show. If an "idiot" can produce a body of work like mine I'm quite happy with that description although I think it says far more about the "caller" than the "callee". ON SA they call me 
"Maestro" but you can call me "idiot" here. It will help define the two sites better.


----------



## guitarguy56

amwbox said:


> God. I should post in crayon.


If that is what children do... be my guest!

Done with this kid! Ignore time...


----------



## amwbox

guitarguy56 said:


> If that is what children do... be my guest!
> 
> Done with this kid! Ignore time...


Thank God.

Seriously...this entire problem your having is due to a leap to a conclusion as opposed to actually reading what is written.

Again, get over yourself and get back on topic. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you. Ok?


----------



## XSrcing

Pfft. Back to boats!

I didn't even know what PHRF stood for until a few minutes ago. Sounds like a perfectly silly way to compare boats, honestly. Especially when trying to figure out how well they would handle blue water.


----------



## amwbox

Some of us are arguing about blue water. Others are focused entirely on performance. *shug*


----------



## weinie

bobperry said:


> FRANKIE can be easily single handed. Here I am proving it. Lazy jacks, furling jib, all winches in reach from the tiller, piece of cake. Of course, FRANKIE was designed to be single handed.
> 
> Sailing single handed is far more about the sailor than it is about the boat.


Does it have a state-of-the-art espresso maker on board?


----------



## bobperry

XS:
PHRF stared many years ago. In the PNW it was called "speed potential". It was a way of handicapping boats so that you could not design to thr rule and develope rule focused boats like you saw under the IOR. The CCA was dominant in this country at the time and even CCA boats were becoming quite rule focused. Take the Cal 40 for instance. The Speed Potential rule would ignore all the nuances of the design and instead of relying on a complex set (and expensive and time consuming) set of measurements a panel of "experts" would look at your boat, look at your basic numbers and pronounce a rating. This rating would be adjusted up or down depending on your subsequent race results. There were a number of major problems with this rule but it was used. Say you owned a Rawson 30 and you were an OK sailor you might get a low rating. But you buddy, a world class racer, also owned a Rawson 30 and his rating was higher because he sailed faster. In time it would be the boat that was rated and not the skipper. Soon the PNW Speed Potential system joined with the So Cal PHRF Performance Handicap Racing Fleet system which started in 1958. This is the most popular rule in America. It allows for a wide variety of boats to compete. You cannot design to this rule so boats don't face racing obsolescence from year to year with rule changes.

If you are looking at modern boats and want to get an idea of comparative speed potential you should check PHRF ratings. Europe has finally caught on to PHRF so there are ratings for most European models now too. PHRF is far from perfect. It has gone through some awkward phases as designs have changed over the years but it's about as good as it gets for a simple rule.

Let me recommend a fabulous book for you. Peter Johnson's YACHT RATING. Perhaps a bit dry for some of you but chock full of info on the history of rating rules. Full of fun math.


----------



## bobperry

Weinie:
No, we hand "grind" the beans on the counter top by smashing the beans with a winch handle. Then we just boil the coffee grounds cowboy style in the top of the compass cover.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> Weinie:
> No, we hand "grind" the beans on the counter top by smashing the beans with a winch handle. Then we just boil the coffee grounds cowboy style in the top of the compass cover.


Is that an Idiot way :devil


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> Presupposing, of course, that the client desires _your_ opinion of what amounts to "state of the art".
> 
> Again with the absolutes.


Again? Go to the dictionary and try to understand what the expression means. State of the art regarding a science, engineering car, yacht of airplane design is nothing pessoal, it is not an opinion, it is just the level of knowledge that was reached on any of those fields.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> That's a dramatically wrong statement for an Architect, being it a Naval one or not. When a client goes to an architect the function of the architect is not to design to the client the house or boat that he sees fit for himself but the boat or house that will fit the needs, style of live and tastes of the client.
> 
> The architect is there to give quality and state of the art design to the client dreams, not his own dreams.


You misread or misunderstood it PCP - what you said is also what he said and has been saying all through this thread.

The designers job is to give the client what they want in the best way possible.


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Again? Go to the dictionary and try to understand what the expression means. State of the art regarding a science, engineering car, yacht of airplane design is nothing pessoal, it is not an opinion, it is just the level of knowledge that was reached on any of those fields.


Which, as has already been pointed out to you more than once, can apply not to improvement of quality, but just as easily to improvements in speed and ease of manufacturing, and/or to improvements in economical production. Or even improvements to marketability.

You are equating it with objective improvement in qualitative terms, and that, (again I point out, please pay attention) is _simply not correct._ Because, obviously the opinions on what qualities are desirable in a boat vary widely, and there is no absolute truth.

The trouble is that the dictionary definition and your definition aren't even remotely the same thing.


----------



## SloopJonB

XSrcing said:


> Pfft. Back to boats!
> 
> I didn't even know what PHRF stood for until a few minutes ago. Sounds like a perfectly silly way to compare boats, honestly. Especially when trying to figure out how well they would handle blue water.


It's a good way to compare generalized overall speed relative to other boats. It's based on observations so it's far from exact or technical but it's a pretty decent basis of comparison.

When I'm shopping for a boat it's one of the first things I look at - one can be very surprised at how different a boats performance can be than might otherwise be expected based on external and visual factors.


----------



## SloopJonB

What does "Pessoal" mean?


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> Again? Go to the dictionary and try to understand what the expression means. State of the art regarding a science, engineering car, yacht of airplane design is nothing pessoal, it is not an opinion, it is just the level of knowledge that was reached on any of those fields.


Would you say that foam cored, carbon fiber/epoxy laminate is state of the art in boat construction?


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> *Quote PCP:**"What I can tell you, for sure, is that this daysailer, with about the same length, but with no aesthetic concessions that degrade performance, is a much faster sailboat and will have a much lower PHRF. OK?"*
> 
> You are telling me nothing that is not obvious. Unfortunately my client did not want a Euro trendy boat. But you tell it in your snarky insulting way. You are clueless. You do not know enough about design to even guess at a PHRF number.
> 
> *Quote PCP:*
> *"Bob, that story about the PHRF makes no sense, why are you insisting on it?"*
> 
> Just to point out to others that you are all mouth and zero substance. The moment things get specific you cry foul and try to move the goal posts.
> ....


Bob, when you quote me please make clear what is the quote and what you are saying not to have confusions about that. It can be like I have done above or you can use the quote system from the forum.

*As I had said before you identify sail efficiency and state of the art design with what you call euro trendy.* That's maybe because most of the European boats are designed to the state of the art?

Regarding that daysailer that you call a "Euro trendy design" maybe we should look again at it and compare it with the design of what should be one of the fastest monohull, the one designed for the Americas's cup (AC 90) and that never saw the light of the day, because cats made their appearance on the Cup:














































So, trendy euro design? or sailing efficiency and state of the art?


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> Oh, get over yourself. It was meant to be facetious and you bloody well know it. Its not as though I was subtle with how I phrased it. Keep up.
> 
> You're impressing nobody with this unwarranted personal attack. Grow up, man up, calm down, etc etc.
> 
> And, not that it matters, but I'm an astronaut. And part time underwear model. Just like everyone else on the interwebs. :wink
> 
> (That was also facetious. Seems like I had better spell that out, just in case.)


Hey, show the gittar man a little respect - he has the demonstrated ability to know all about other posters here - their age, finances, education, work history, even the food they eat and the cars they drive.

Kind of like a dog sniffing another dogs a$$ I guess.


----------



## Brent Swain

overbored said:


> You do not know what you are talking about.
> Bob is designing very high tech boats made out of high tech materials and people are throwing money at him to build these boats. He is enjoying the process, the friends he makes and the money they throw his way. If he can do that and not be very busy that is because he is very good at what he does. I understand completely because I do the same thing with aircraft and many other types of projects.
> You on the other hand do not understand because people do not throw money your way to weld steel dumpsters together. most people with money do not throw it in a dumpster.
> maybe your boom time has passed but ours is clearly still going strong.
> What really does not make any sense is for people to throw money into a rusty bucket. But I guess not many are doing that are they.


You see very little rust on actively cruising steel boats. With modern epoxies, and lots of stainless trim, they are extremely easy to maintain. Plastic is great for marina queens( which describe the lions share of Bobs boats) but for hard, full time use , things on them work lose, leak and break ,something which simply doesnt happen with welded down gear.
If Bob is so busy, where doe he find the long hours of free time to spend here, as he obviously does.
For plastic , the market is saturated. For good , affordable steel boats, I'm the only show in town around here. Sure, it definitely is a much smaller market, as marina queen priorities is what most consumers need.


----------



## SloopJonB

Brent Swain said:


> You see very little rust on actively cruising steel boats. With modern epoxies, and lots of stainless trim, they are extremely easy to maintain. Plastic is great for marina queens( which describe the lions share of Bobs boats) but for hard, full time use , things on them work lose, leak and break ,something which simply doesnt happen with welded down gear.
> If Bob is so busy, where doe he find the long hours of free time to spend here, as he obviously does.
> For plastic , the market is saturated. For good , affordable steel boats, I'm the only show in town around here. Sure, it definitely is a much smaller market, as marina queen priorities is what most consumers need.


Repeat after me.....Ad Nauseam


----------



## bobperry

He just never gets it Jon. He is so blind he can't see my current output and won't take the time to even look, He revels in his own stupidity. He is really like a broken record.
He is a very jealous little man.


----------



## bobperry

pcp:
I will post any way I like. You are the one who is confused. I think the rest here can understand me just fine.

You are a very frustrated man stuck in a very narrow world it seems. The world of yacht design does not end at the end of your nose.

If I client comes to me and asked for a certain style of boat it is my job to give him a boat in the style he wants. Read that again, really slowly this time.

" Oh I see, a narrow double ender. Well, no. I won't give you that. I don't care what you want. I'll give you a fat assed, me too, trendy looking Euro boat with a bow du jour so you can look just like all the other me too's out there. You take it and you'll like it. I want this and this is what you will have. In two years it will be out of style but that's not my problem."

I really should add some German phrases here but I think you get the gist without them.

Look at my half dozen current projects. It's hard to find a common style thread that runs through all of them. They are very individual designs. They are my style, varied and different. I am not trying to be Euro trendy.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Yes, an old cruising boat will require crew. I see a lot of brand new big boats being sailed just by a couple and they are increasing in numbers.


And they better hope like hell nothing goes wrong with any of their gadgets and that the local coasties are close when they do. You don't have to make good choices to be on the water, and when it comes to mechanical things and fashion, people that exceed a certain income level tend to make spectacularly bad choices.


----------



## guitarguy56

SloopJonB said:


> Hey, show the gittar man a little respect - he has the demonstrated ability to know all about other posters here - their age, finances, education, work history, even the food they eat and the cars they drive.
> 
> Kind of like a dog sniffing another dogs a$$ I guess.


Jon... you have put quite a little show here... It seems you are so envious of others you stoop to this level of childish banter... I know what a jackass is and hope this wasn't you... but alas with the comments you just made it confirms it!


----------



## Brent Swain

I don't see any rusty steel boats on the beaches here ,but they are becoming increasingly littered with broken up plastic boats. I do remember
one rusty steel boat ( Trismus) which was washed up in the Tuamotus. Sat there for ten years before the natives got her off, and immediately started using her for moving 
coconuts around. The other 35 plastic boats which went aground there the same year ( 1975)broke up in minutes.


----------



## Brent Swain

The owner of Trismus gave up on her, and was later lost at sea, while crossing the Atlantic in a plastic boat. He shoulda stuck with steel!


----------



## Don L

I have nothing against steel boats and a Waterline boat would definitely be agreeable to me. But Brent I know nothing really about your boats, but can say I would never consider one just because of your crap postings!


----------



## SloopJonB

guitarguy56 said:


> Jon... you have put quite a little show here... It seems you are so envious of others you stoop to this level of childish banter... I know what a jackass is and hope this wasn't you... but alas with the comments you just made it confirms it!


Sorry, your Rolex made me do it.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> XS:
> ...*Europe has finally caught on to PHRF so there are ratings for most European models now too*. PHRF is far from perfect. It has gone through some awkward phases as designs have changed over the years but it's about as good as it gets for a simple rule.
> 
> Let me recommend a fabulous book for you. Peter Johnson's YACHT RATING. Perhaps a bit dry for some of you but chock full of info on the history of rating rules. Full of fun math.


For one that say to know so much about the different rating systems you have very funny opinions about the rating systems that the Europeans use, particularly the statement that they use PHRF. That it is not true and it reveals ignorance regarding the subject, in what regards Europe.

The only PHRF that you can find regarding European made boats are the ones that are owned by Americans and race on US and they are many.

The rating systems used on the rest of the world (with the exception of NZ) are the IRC (and the ORC) that are much more accurate regarding performance boats and race boats that are the ones that are used to race everywhere.

Making mine the words of a New Zealander Experienced sail maker, former Olympic sailor and sailboat racer, Gray Gibson, comenting the situation on NZ :

"*PHRF is essentially General Handicap, but not a very reactive one. It pretends to use measurements in the beginning, but in the end it slowly rewards boats that are not sailed very well and penalises those that are. General Handicap as used at clubs and regattas is a way more superior General Handicap than PHRF, as it is more reactive updating after every race.

IRC is a true performance related rule, a measure of the boat and not those that sail it. All the Asian regattas use IRC, but here in NZ where we consider ourselves to be a leading force in International yachting PHRF is favoured. All that tells me is the mentality here is quite retarded really.*"

Since you don't know that in Europe what is used as rating systems are IRC and the ORC, here are their sites with information about the ratings. It is an interesting stuff:

An Introduction to IRC
ORC - World Leader in Rating Technology

In my opinion and in the opinion of several NA that design top race-cruisers and racing boats the ORCI is more accurate even if it is still growing and is less used than IRC. The major European races have now two classifications, one in ORC and other in IRC.

Some years back they have decided to merge the two rules, but it is taking more time than previewed: lots of installed interests.


----------



## amwbox

Brent Swain said:


> I don't see any rusty steel boats on the beaches here ,but they are becoming increasingly littered with broken up plastic boats. I do remember
> one rusty steel boat ( Trismus) which was washed up in the Tuamotus. Sat there for ten years before the natives got her off, and immediately started using her for moving
> coconuts around. The other 35 plastic boats which went aground there the same year ( 1975)broke up in minutes.


I don't recall ever seeing boats of any sort "littering the beaches". If there's a derelict for some reason, its generally dealt with. We both live in the same PNW, right?

That there are so many half century old FRP sailboats still floating around in perfectly workable condition is a testament to the durability of the material. You have to screw up pretty spectacularly, or fail in a really serious way when it comes to maintenance in order to cause one to eventually sink. Much less "litter the beaches".


----------



## bobperry

"Since you don't know that in Europe what is used the IRC and the ORC"
You have no idea what I know and what I don't know. You are sounding stupid, again. I am well acquainted with IRC and ORC. Seattle has a well established IRC racing fleet.

The boats you cut and paste are cute, interesting style statements but far from state of the art. Ik ind of like them but they are very "me too" looking. Very predictable. Nice if you like the style.

But they are far from "state of the art".

*State of the art is a foiling boat doing 45 knots*. That is reality. Everything else is just aesthetics. The last America's Cup raised the level of state of the art. You should have paid more attention pcp. It was amazing.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> *State of the art is a foiling boat doing 45 knots*. That is reality. Everything else is just aesthetics. The last America's Cup raised the level of state of the art. You should have paid more attention pcp. It was amazing.


Finally someone mentioned foiling boats! I considered bringing up 'moths' as the new racing boats needing total attention, might make a good voyaging boat for some. 

I've been imagining that soon all boats will be foiling, and computers will take over the balancing act, freeing up the helmsman to do whatever.

Then the reaction will set in, and people will want to have simpler boats they can control themselves instead of relying on computers. Thus, I see the future of sailing as going back to basics.

Therefore I'm considering naming my "new" oldest boat, one of the last Tartan 27-2's.........._*"Back To The Future"*_


----------



## SloopJonB

Brent Swain said:


> If Bob is so busy, where doe he find the long hours of free time to spend here, as he obviously does.


Brent - did you miss this?



Look up the following terms that are used by people who work with their computers;

Multiple windows
Multi-tasking
Multiple consoles
Coffee breaks

An understanding of them will help you understand how it's done.


----------



## outbound

Been working on the boat today so late in catching up on posts.

Would note berths in front of the mast tend not to be much fun on passage. Some of the boats Paulo posted really have only one or no usable berths.

Double berths also tend to be less fun. Can be made quite usable with a bundle board but usually those big doubles in the back have one big mattress on the Eiro boats. Hard to wedge in and sleep.

I single my boat. Have gone island to island by myself. We do 2k passages with three to allow a good sleep schedule. Watches are one person. The boat can be run without difficulty in the total absence of any powered device. Biggest issue then would be the windlass not running the boat. Could raise the anchor but it would definitely be a chore. Stock boat comes with one powered winch to raise the main. I powered the others because I'm lazy. Believe that is the size limit. If boat is so big you need power to run it it is too big. It is a SAIL boat.

If you actually live on a boat two heads are nice. Wife has one. I have the other. Back one is electric. Guests know how to push a button so use the back one. Front one is hand pump. Back has separate shower stall which is nice. Shower stall also serves for wet foulies underway. Front has shower but is small with pull out sink over toilet. Having two holding tanks is nice. So far have never been inside the three mile limit so long we needed a pump out. Have pumped out just to make sure things are up to stuff but not due to necessity.

We've lived on the boat. Done a couple of passages on the boat and thousands and thousands of miles cruising. Say what you want Paulo it's a great cruising boat. May not win races against an Open boat but I don't give a hoot about that. Rather care it is so much more pleasing in all regards for the actual lifestyle we live. We will not replace it in five years as both Jon and I have said it makes no sense to do this from both a pragmatic, economic and emotional viewpoint. We will get rid of the boat when we need assisted living. Of interest ran into a couple in USVIs on an early Outbound. They were in their 80s. They took on a middle aged Canadian gentleman as crew. They said they needed his help to get in and out of the dinghy but they still sailed the boat.


----------



## XSrcing

My dumb little Mac25, which should be in a million pieces according to BS, has an average PHRF of 230. I'm fairly certain that is terrible. I don't care. The boat floats and sails and thousands were built. According to PCP the Mac25 would have been a state-of-the-art, brilliant boat because of that. Which is laughable.


----------



## Ninefingers

skygazer said:


> Finally someone mentioned foiling boats! I considered bringing up 'moths' as the new racing boats needing total attention, might make a good voyaging boat for some.
> 
> I've been imagining that soon all boats will be foiling, and computers will take over the balancing act, freeing up the helmsman to do whatever.
> 
> Then the reaction will set in, and people will want to have simpler boats they can control themselves instead of relying on computers. Thus, I see the future of sailing as going back to basics.
> 
> Therefore I'm considering naming my "new" oldest boat, one of the last Tartan 27-2's.........._*"Back To The Future"*_


There is a Moth at my dinghy club, (where I keep my Hobie AI - Multiple boats for me!). I am 99% sure he is the only one on Lake Ontario. He works hard on getting it going, but man when he does...he circled me 3 times in 3 minutes I think. I asked him what the sound and vibration was like when foiled...thinking their would be a hum of some sort. He said he just feels and hears wind and not much else.

Sorry for the divert..


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> Double berths also tend to be less fun. Can be made quite usable with a bundle board


Outbound - you're doing it wrong. :wink


----------



## SloopJonB

XSrcing said:


> My dumb little Mac25, which should be in a million pieces according to BS, has an average PHRF of 230. I'm fairly certain that is terrible. I don't care. The boat floats and sails and thousands were built. According to PCP the Mac25 would have been a state-of-the-art, brilliant boat because of that. Which is laughable.


That's not terrible for a 25' of the era - not great but in the ball park. IIRC San Juan 24's are in the 220's


----------



## smackdaddy

SloopJonB said:


> Brent - did you miss this?
> 
> 
> 
> Look up the following terms that are used by people who work with their computers;
> 
> Multiple windows
> Multi-tasking
> Multiple consoles
> Coffee breaks
> 
> An understanding of them will help you understand how it's done.


Brent's too focused on getting others onto his treadmill.


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Boat size that can be sailed solo or by a couple always gives me a laugh. You can mostly guess the size of people's boat by what size they say is the largest that they can single hand.


I dunno, unless you are permanently enlisting hired help to do the heavy lifting, or always sailing with multiple crew, seems being able to comfortably perform any chore underway by yourself is a pretty good benchmark of an appropriate size boat for any particular individual...

But in casting oneself in the role of the typical Mom & Pop cruising couple, how many here would be comfortable sailing a boat that they doubted the ability of their partner to handle alone, in the event of one of them becoming incapacitated, or going overboard, for instance?

If you're really gonna go places with only one other person aboard, you _WILL_ be doing your fair share of singlehanding, after all...



> The first and most important piece of safety gear you have on board is a partner who has the knowledge and skills to handle the boat. There is not one piece of man-overboard gear that is going to help if the person left on the boat does not know how to get the boat back to you.
> 
> You Can?t Buy Safety | Lin & Larry Pardey: Newsletters & Cruising Tips


----------



## outbound

Jon
I wholeheartedly agree with you and have found in actual practice even with crew you are just taking turns single handing. Our only disagreement is where that cut off is. Think at present for folks in their mid sixties its in the mid forties. So far the AP has not broken. Think if it did and I was by myself on passage I'd be in deep do do. That's one of the reasons I do passages with three. 
However if not running 24/7 think I could hand steer until I could drop the hook.
We are looking to do the canal then South Pacific in ~2 years. Will put on a vane before then and carry full spares including drive and rudder angle indicator.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> If you had delivered one of those you know that they have powerful engines and that is a help on bad weather plus push pull button control of the sails. In bad weather a boat like the Jeanneau 57 needs a very little amount of sail to be responsive on a much bigger than a 30k breeze and I bet you know that. With that little piece of sail the boat is on control and offers a huge stability and an increased safety regarding a much smaller boat.
> 
> In fact brands like Halberg Rassy and many others, including mass production brands are doing boats over 60ft designed to be sailed by a couple, even on bad weather.
> Here a test by a very conservative sailor...that has to agree that the boat can be sailed easily by two.


Yeah, I have a bit of experience with that whole "Pushbutton Sailing" thing... It's fantastic, makes any size boat simple to singlehand, as long as one has the strength or agility to push the button...

As long as the button _works_, that is...

I'll bet this couple loved all those buttons on their pushbutton Amel... Well, until that one horrific day in Jolly Harbor, when the Lewmar button wouldn't _STOP_ working, that is...

WARNING: Not for the squeamish:

ELECTRIC WINCH: Weapon of Mass Destruction?

I love sailing boats with those helm consoles like on that H-R pictured, makes me feel like Captain Kirk on the bridge of the STARSHIP ENTERPRISE... ;-)

As for those "powerful engines" you mention that make such boats so easily handled alone, I had the starting circuit of one fried 80 miles off Charleston as a result of saltwater intrusion thru one of the buttons on this sexy Euro pedestal...

_"State of the Art"_, strikes yet again...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

In that photo of my office corner notice my state of the art stool. BS would love it. It's an antique steel stool with a maple seat. It looks like ****e and my wife keeps trying to replace it but I love it. I suppose I could go for one of the new Herman Miller stools. My client threatened to give me one. He has a bunch. They certainly are contemporary and state of the art but I like this stool just fine. It's unique .


----------



## bobperry

XS:

You enjoy that Mac. Don't let anyone tell you how you should have a good time.


Jon E.

I think sailing with your wife and two small kids is far more difficult than single handing.

Sky:
Funny how PCP quacks about how high tech his Euro trendy boats are while totally ignoring the fact that there is an entire movement to foiling boats now, from monos to tri's and big to small. If the boat is not riding on foils it's yesterday.


Guitar:
Just got a pristine 20 year old Rick 360 12 string. Going to give it to my son for Christmas. Damn it. I have it hanging on a stand in my office. I'll hate to say goodbye.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Jon E.
> 
> I think sailing with your wife and two small kids is far more difficult than single handing.


Hell, Bob, I think sailing with _ANY_ number of additional crew is harder than singlehanding... ;-)

As long as the boat size is 'appropriate', that is...

And, it is set up so that reefing the main is done at the mast, the boat actually has a _rubrail_, midship cleats positioned properly, and so on... ;-)

But again, that's probably just me...

;-)


----------



## skygazer

PCP said:


> ...Here a test by a very conservative sailor...that *has to agree *that the boat can be *sailed easily by two*.


From PCP "very conservative sailor...that has to agree that the boat can be sailed easily by two".

From video soundtrack: "and *provided the systems are all working*, it's a real treat to sail"

You may have missed or overlooked the part where the very conservative sailor says "provided the systems are all working"

In my experience things do not always work in an imperfect world.

Way too many gimmicks for the sake of being a gimmick. Hospital beds for bunks? If you are unable to sit up, perhaps you should not be singlehanding. The companionway above all should be simple and fool proof. Having it auto raise from below is just wrong, the opposite of an elegant solution.



outbound said:


> The boat can be run without difficulty in the total absence of any powered device.


Excellent, that is the way I feel that it should be, if all goes wrong you can still sail.



XSrcing said:


> My dumb little Mac25, which should be in a million pieces according to BS, has an average PHRF of 230. I'm fairly certain that is terrible. I don't care. The boat floats and sails and thousands were built. According to PCP the Mac25 would have been a state-of-the-art, brilliant boat because of that. Which is laughable.


Did you see the video with the Mac 26 in 50 MPH wind and 18 ft. waves?






The whole point of sailing is not speed, it's the journey not the destination. Why compare the speed of two turtles and say one is fast? Well, in a turtle race, but for regular enjoyment get a powerboat if you want speed. I like sailing anything, from a canoe with a poncho on sticks and on up. It's all good!


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Hell, Bob, I think sailing with _ANY_ number of additional crew is harder than singlehanding... ;-)
> 
> As long as the boat size is 'appropriate', that is...
> ...
> But again, that's probably just me...
> 
> ;-)


It is just you ;-). It all depends on the crew and if they are sailors or passengers.

If it was like you say on a regatta, that implies a lot of maneuvering, there would be an advantage of having on a 33 ft boat a solo sailor instead of a crew, specially in light wind conditions were the weight of the crew would be more a disadvantage than an advantage.

But of course, that is not true.


----------



## bobperry

It's not just you Jon. I feel the exact same way. I prefer to cruise by myself. It's just easier. i don't care what the boat is.


----------



## PCP

skygazer said:


> From PCP "very conservative sailor...that has to agree that the boat can be sailed easily by two".
> 
> From video soundtrack: "and *provided the systems are all working*, it's a real treat to sail"
> 
> You may have missed or overlooked the part where the very conservative sailor says "provided the systems are all working"
> 
> In my experience things do not always work in an imperfect world.
> 
> Way too many gimmicks for the sake of being a gimmick. Hospital beds for bunks? If you are unable to sit up, perhaps you should not be singlehanding. The companionway above all should be simple and fool proof. Having it auto raise from below is just wrong, the opposite of an elegant solution.
> 
> Excellent, that is the way I feel that it should be, if all goes wrong you can still sail.
> 
> Did you see the video with the Mac 26 in 50 MPH wind and 18 ft. waves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of sailing is not speed, it's the journey not the destination. Why compare the speed of two turtles and say one is fast? Well, in a turtle race, but for regular enjoyment get a powerboat if you want speed. I like sailing anything, from a canoe with a poncho on sticks and on up. It's all good!


It seems you don't know what 44k wind makes to the sea: there would be breaking crests in almost all the waves and some spray on the air. I don't see your point. There are no breaking waves and that sea would be safe for any small boat with a competent sailor, including sailing on a MacGregor.

Well, I told you it was a very conservative old lady, with opinions not very different from yours (I read the magazine were she publish some articles, that I try to avoid LOL).

You don't know what are the safety back ups of the system installed on that Halberg Rassy and if something stop to work it would be very improbable that it would be all the system, in any case they have a manual back up for everything. All you had to do is to to sail that boat more conservatively. You would get a decent speed out of it on those conditions.

Regarding the quote "providing the systems are all working" that could apply to the safety of a modern carrier airplane that relies heavily on electronics.

Regarding the reliability of those electronic hydraulic and electric systems, I have on my boat a plotter outside, fully exposed to the sea and sometimes to incoming waves that after 8 years it still works like new.

I have an electric winch, even more exposed to salt water and incoming waves. Never repaired, it works like new.
I have wireless commands for the winch, for the anchor winch, for the steering wheel and for the autopilot and they still work like new.
Regarding hydraulic systems they are more reliable then electronic ones and bigger yachts (and some smaller ones) use hydraulic steering wheel systems without any problem.

Off course, all those systems will require more maintenance and regarding electronics, their replacement at regular time for better performing ones (they become outdated before they come out of service). That would make the maintenance of these type of boat more expensive but those are very expensive boats and that does not care to their owners that have not only money for the boat as to do a proper regular maintenance.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> It's not just you Jon. I feel the exact same way. I prefer to cruise by myself. It's just easier. i don't care what the boat is.


Off course, that would also include passage making and crossing Oceans....in any type of cruising sailboatLOL.


----------



## bobperry

Get the turd out of your pocket PCP. You are sounding angry today. Relax.

Here, do something, go learn what real high tech and state of the art is.


----------



## skygazer

PCP said:


> Regarding hydraulic systems they are more reliable then electronic ones and bigger yachts (and some smaller ones) use hydraulic steering wheel systems without any problem.


We certainly agree on the idea that hydraulic systems are WAY more reliable than electronic systems.

I personally use hydraulics quite a bit, and I see them fail regularly. Did you ever open up the valves that control the flow of the hydraulic fluid?

The valves look like a computer clean room. I've seen a tiny sliver of aluminum from some working part get stuck in a valve and hold it open, rendering the hydraulic cylinder useless. Pulling out the sliver and reassembly cured the problem. Solenoids control power to the pumps, fail constantly. I've seen the valves get bent, replacement necessary. I've had lines pop off for no known reason, ending all function, and it can be difficult to relieve all pressure to reinstall. Dirty too.

I still like hydraulics very much, makes me feel incredibly strong!!


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> ... learn what real high tech and state of the art is.


Wow Bob, that looks like a nice relaxing voyaging boat to me! :wink


----------



## PCP

amwbox said:


> I don't recall ever seeing boats of any sort "littering the beaches". If there's a derelict for some reason, its generally dealt with. We both live in the same PNW, right?
> 
> That there are so many half century old FRP sailboats still floating around in perfectly workable condition is a testament to the durability of the material. You have to screw up pretty spectacularly, or fail in a really serious way when it comes to maintenance in order to cause one to eventually sink. Much less "litter the beaches".


There are many fiberglass sailboats abandoned and littering not so much the beaches but small rivers, marinas and public spaces. That is already a big problem in Europe and it will be a big one on the US since owners prefer to ditch them than to have to pay for having then destroyed, old boats that nobody wants anymore.

Unfortunately I saw a lot of steel boats on that condition too.


----------



## bobperry

Sky:
As long as PCP is going to throw vague terms like "state of the art" around he might as well learn what they mean. By his own definition HYDROPTER is "state of the art". Those fat assed Euro trendy boats are far from state of the art. They are just "modern" style focused boats. I'm sure they sail well but they are not "fast". Fast is 45 knots or more.

Time to get real.


----------



## bobperry

State of the art is not static. It is fleeting. Looks like this boat was only state of the art for only a while. Then it became WTF?


----------



## JonEisberg

skygazer said:


> We certainly agree on the idea that hydraulic systems are WAY more reliable than electronic systems.
> 
> I personally use hydraulics quite a bit, and I see them fail regularly. Did you ever open up the valves that control the flow of the hydraulic fluid?
> 
> The valves look like a computer clean room. I've seen a tiny sliver of aluminum from some working part get stuck in a valve and hold it open, rendering the hydraulic cylinder useless. Pulling out the sliver and reassembly cured the problem. Solenoids control power to the pumps, fail constantly. I've seen the valves get bent, replacement necessary. I've had lines pop off for no known reason, ending all function, and it can be difficult to relieve all pressure to reinstall. Dirty too.
> 
> I still like hydraulics very much, makes me feel incredibly strong!!


A good friend of mine works for one of the largest yacht rigging services in Florida, he's always just stepping off some Perini Navi, or flying off to some exotic location to service a lifting crane on some megayacht... ;-)

A year or two ago, he spent a week renewing the hydraulic system on a big Oyster, 60+ feet or thereabouts... He said it was an absolute nightmare job, everything was situated _WAY_ down in the bilge, they basically had to tear out the entire cabin sole throughout the boat... After he got home, he could barely move for a week, felt like he needed back surgery... ;-)

The owner of the next boat I'm delivering used to own an Oyster 56... This gentleman could afford to own pretty much anything, and having made his money in Silicon Valley, he's about as "high tech" as it gets...

For his current boat, he's downsized to 42', largely because he wants a "simpler" boat, and one not so 'systems dependent'... With a young family, he wants to spend time with his kids when on the boat, not fussing around with trying to keep everything up and running...

Oh, btw, this very experienced sailor with a highly analytical approach to everything, has chosen one of Bob's long "outmoded" designs... Go figure...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

"Oh, btw, this very experienced sailor with a highly analytical approacn to everything, has chosen one of Bob's long "outmoded" designs... Go figure..."

Thanks for posting that Jon.
It seems to be an ongoing theme. My stuff may not be Euro trendy but it is durable.

Let's see,,,,,,,Don't tell me.........Got it!..............He bought a Perrywinkle!


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> * Quote PCP:"Since you don't know that in Europe what is used the IRC and the ORC"*
> 
> You have no idea what I know and what I don't know. *You are sounding stupid, again.* I am well acquainted with IRC and ORC. Seattle has a well established IRC racing fleet.


Calling me stupid again? It is never to late to learn how to have good manners on a public forum. I still have hopes on you.

Yes I know that IRC is used almost worldwide and that is expanding to the few countries that still use other rating systems but I assumed you didn't know that, given the level of ignorance this statement of yours shows about that:
Quote Bob Perry,
*"Europe has finally caught on to PHRF"*
In fact PHRF is not used anywhere in Europe and if you did not know such a elementary thing how was I to know that you have a detailed knowledge about IRC or ORC? If you knew a lot about IRC and ORC you should have known that IRC is used worldwide and PHRF is not used in Europe (but IRC and ORC).



bobperry said:


> The boats you cut and paste are cute, interesting style statements but far from state of the art. Ik ind of like them but they are very "me too" looking. Very predictable. Nice if you like the style.
> But they are far from "state of the art".
> 
> *State of the art is a foiling boat doing 45 knots*. That is reality. Everything else is just aesthetics. The last America's Cup raised the level of state of the art. You should have paid more attention pcp. It was amazing.


Were you go again confusing things. I guess you do that on purpose, but to for the others, here is an explanation about state of the art and to make it more easy to understand, let's start with another technological object: cars

There is a state of the art in what regards the design of the F1 racing cars, there is another one in what regards the design of WRC rally cars. it does not evolve exactly the same knowledge even if many parts of that knowledge are shared regarding the two state of the art.

There is a state of the art in what regards the design of a touring car, like a top Mercedes for instance, some of the knowledge is shared with the two examples above, other not, like for instance many security and comfort items.

There is a state of the art in what regards designing a grand tourism car like a Porsche or a Ferrari and so on.

For each market and type of car there is a state of the art, a design that is made according to the highest level of knowledge available, even if budget consideration can be a limiting factor, but many times, better has nothing to do with increased costs.

The same happens with the many types of sailboats, from Ocean racing trimarans to Ocean racing Monohulls, to regatta monohulls and trimarans, to the many different types of yachts, including daysailors and different types of cruising boats.

There is a state of the art for any given type of design but you can be sure that in what regards cars or yachts any state of the art design cannot include aesthetically details that determine designs and that are prejudicial to the overall performance. A better performance (and I am not talking only about speed) is what state of the art designs are all about, not about aesthetics.
In what regards boats and cars it is the other way around, state of the art determines the necessary aesthetics for more functional and better performance cars and yachts and those aesthetics, with time determine, what is beautiful or not and shape taste, at least for the majority.


----------



## bobperry

This is kind of fun.
FRANCIS LEE: The Ultimate Sailing Machine, Part 1 - The Design Spiral - OffCenterHarbor.com

PCP:
You might as well give up. So long as you are rude to others on this site Iwill continue to be just as rude to you. You have a very rude way of continually talking down to people like they are beneath your level of comprehension. Don't let the fact that you have never designed a boat get in the way. All bow down to Pope Paulo the infallible. You may have a few people fooled. Not me. Not ever.

Moving the goal posts again? Cars? WTF! Stay on boats PCP. We are discussing boats. We are not discussing cars. Stay focused. Pay attention!
State of the art is this. Get used to it. It will be gone before you know it and replaced with something you can't even imagine today. You need to find another cliche.


----------



## bobperry

Of course anyone who follows recent developments in naval architecture will know that today this is "state of the art". 65.45 knots!
This the the real "ultimate sailing machine".


----------



## XSrcing

PCP, I've built and worked on many race cars in my shirt life. You know nothing of those, either. F1 is state-of-the-art, to a point. They had to limit the technology in order to keep it competitive, and a "driver's game". WRC cars use much of the EXACT same technology, just with different geometry. And those systems are actually pretty delicate. They need to survive for just a few hard hours of use, not months or years.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> State of the art is not static. It is fleeting. Looks like this boat was only state of the art for only a while. Then it became WTF?


You mean state of the art racing multihulls stop to be state of the art when they collide at 15k with a steel container...and even so are able to get back to port without outside help?

I guess that you would say the same when a Ferrari hits a tree. A "*fleeting state of the art*" LOL.










There is one difference however, the tree was there well visible and it is clearly a drivers mistake, the container is invisible, most of the time, specially at 15k and on autopilot.


----------



## PCP

XSrcing said:


> PCP, I've built and worked on many race cars in my shirt life. You know nothing of those, either. F1 is state-of-the-art, to a point. They had to limit the technology in order to keep it competitive, and a "driver's game". WRC cars use much of the EXACT same technology, just with different geometry. And those systems are actually pretty delicate. They need to survive for just a few hard hours of use, not months or years.


The same exact technology? I guess you have not worked on F1 or WRC otherwise you would know what you are talking about. I bet those race cars were pretty outdated or low tech ones.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Of course anyone who follows recent developments in naval architecture will know that today this is "state of the art". 65.45 knots!
> This the the real "ultimate sailing machine".


of course, state of the art in what regards sailing boats to beat the absolute sail record. They have very few in common with the AC catamarans on foils, another state of the art in what regards design.


----------



## skygazer

JonEisberg said:


> For his current boat, he's downsized to 42', largely because he wants a "simpler" boat, and one not so 'systems dependent'... With a young family, he wants to spend time with his kids when on the boat, not fussing around with trying to keep everything up and running...
> 
> Oh, btw, this very experienced sailor with a highly analytical approach to everything, has chosen one of Bob's long "outmoded" designs... Go figure...
> 
> ;-)


I think it's human nature to forget we are sailors because we want a "simpler" boat powered by wind instead of engines. No it is not the fastest way to go, just more enjoyable. Yes, we can get caught up in adding more and more complexity, and yes, that can take away from the enjoyment.

I recently gave up using my compound bow and now only use a simple recurve bow. I'm getting lots of pleasure from it. It is not 'state of the art' for archery. In fact, a compound is faster and easier to use, though more complex!!

But you know what? If I wanted fast, I could use a rifle instead of a bow and arrow. Sailing fast is fun, but sailing is not all about fastest or most complex. Neither is sunrise or natural beauty. Slow swimming can be wonderful, you don't have to swim faster than everyone else.


----------



## bobperry

I don't mean anything at all other than this is the state of the art in naval architecture today or very close to it. VESTAS is obviously THE state of the art. Everything else is just for fun.

"I guess that you would say the same when a Ferrari hits a tree. A "fleeting state of the art" LOL."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Again. Think first pcp. Type later.

State of the art is an ever moving target. It has nothing to do with crashes other than advances in structural technology. You hit things and things break. End of story.

Here is a perfect example of the type of rudeness we hear from pcp many times a day: This one addressed at XS:
"I guess you have not worked on F1 or WRC otherwise you would know what you are talking about".

The term "pompus ass" comes to mind. I'll get in trouble with Jeff for saying that but I think someone has to say it.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> This is kind of fun.
> FRANCIS LEE: The Ultimate Sailing Machine, Part 1 - The Design Spiral - OffCenterHarbor.com
> ..


"*the ultimate sailing machine*" Yes I agree with you on that, it is kind of funny.


----------



## XSrcing

You are confused. They both used gas filled dampers with springs for suspension. The both use hydrocarbon based fuel to power them. They both have 4 wheels and a steering wheel. The only difference is the geometry used in designing those systems.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> I don't mean anything at all other than this is the state of the art in naval architecture today or very close to it. VESTAS is obviously THE state of the art. Everything else is just for fun.


I don't know how you can say things like that, I mean not calling me pompous ass, that is expected given your lack of good manners, but in what regards sailing boats and state of the art. Do you really think this is not a state of the art sailboat? Of course, a different sailboat and a different state of the art (solo offshore racers):








bobperry said:


> ...
> Here is a perfect example of the type of rudeness we hear from pcp many times a day: This one addressed at XS:
> "I guess you have not worked on F1 or WRC otherwise you would know what you are talking about."
> What a pompous ass.


Bob, that is a guess, not rudeness. That poster can easily prove me wrong saying that he had designed and worked on Indy cars, F1, WRC top cars or any other high-tech series and that therefore his opinion is substantiated and that he really knows what he is talking about.

It was was him not me that refereed his experience on the racing car high tech world as a prof that he knows what he is talking about and I don't.


----------



## PCP

XSrcing said:


> You are confused. They both used gas filled dampers with springs for suspension. The both use hydrocarbon based fuel to power them. They both have 4 wheels and a steering wheel. The only difference is the geometry used in designing those systems.


Yes they have a lot in common LOL Actually the F1 don't have a wheel:










It is more like a super sophisticated play station command.


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> State of the art is not static. It is fleeting. Looks like this boat was only state of the art for only a while. Then it became WTF?


I think that was more "Bleeding Edge" than state of the art. :wink


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> The same exact technology? I guess you have not worked on F1 or WRC otherwise you would know what you are talking about.


"Working in the field" sure doesn't appear to have anything to do with your opinions - on anything.

Anyone who knows anything about various forms of racing knows that F1 is not "the best", it is only the best at racing fairly short distances on billiard table tracks.

American stock cars are faster and race farther.

WRC cars are better at long distances on very poor and variable surfaces.

Drag racing is better at mind boggling horsepower and acceleration.

Le Mans cars are better at racing on "streets" for extended periods of time.

All have extremely advanced and specialized technology suited to their specific purposes - well, maybe not so much with the stock cars. :wink


----------



## bobperry

"Bob, that is a guess, not rudeness."

Nope. PCP that is just plain rudeness and so typical of what we hear from you all day long. Don't try to hide behind the ESL excuse. You are transparent.

But I did call you a "pompous ass" and that is name calling and also rude so I am going to punish myself. ("Punish me Captain Ned! Punish me!") before Jeff can lower his hammer on my head.
For calling PCP a "pompous ass" I will give myself a one day suspension from SN.

I'm sure some will think that is not enough for calling PCP a "pompous ass" but that is in Jeff's capable and fair hands.


----------



## XSrcing

Buttons and knobs are centuries old. putting a bunch of them on a piece of molded carbon fiber doesn't make it advanced as you think. 

If you want true state-of-the-art, technologically forward thinking F1 car then you need to look at the Williams FW15C from 1993. It was so advanced that they outlawed pretty much every piece of technology that car used, throwing F1 back in to the Stone Age where everything relied on driver skill. And don't try to talk about the aerodynamics. Bernoulli's Principle has been around since 1738.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> For calling PCP a "pompous ass" I will give myself a one day suspension from SN.


That would be unfair to those of us who enjoy your posts!

Perhaps PCP could take a one day suspension instead, that would seem fair.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> "Working in the field" sure doesn't appear to have anything to do with your opinions - on anything.
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about various forms of racing knows that F1 is not "the best" it is only the best at racing fairly short distances on billiard table tracks.
> 
> American stock cars are faster and race farther.
> 
> WRC cars are better at long distances on very poor and variable surfaces.
> 
> Drag racing is better at mind boggling horsepower and acceleration.
> 
> Le Mans cars are better at racing on "streets" for extended periods of time.
> 
> *All have extremely advanced and specialized technology suited to their specific purposes - well, maybe not so much with the stock cars.* :wink


Yes that is about the point: all have specialized technology that define the state of the art in each type of racing car.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> ...
> But I did call you a "pompous ass" and that is name calling and also rude so I am going to punish myself. ("Punish me Captain Ned! Punish me!") before Jeff can lower his hammer on my head.
> For calling PCP a "pompous ass" I will give myself a one day suspension from SN.
> 
> I'm sure some will think that is not enough for calling PCP a "pompous ass" but that is in Jeff's capable and fair hands.


Bob, that does not make sense. If you admit you have done wrong going further than the limits of allowed bad manners, just apologize and that's it. I will accept your apologizes when you do provide them.


----------



## SloopJonB

Let us know how that works out for you PCP.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Let us know how that works out for you PCP.


I have apologized several times on this forum, not properly due to bad manners, but because I had misunderstood what someone had said and replied out of line.


----------



## PCP

Now, back on topic and talking about production boats and the limits I find that this one has stretched the limits in what regards quality for a prize. More information on my blog. This is the boat, a Maxi 1200 produced by Delphia and that I believe you all can get on the US through Delphia dealers:


----------



## amwbox

PCP said:


> Bob, that does not make sense. If you admit you have done wrong going further than the limits of allowed bad manners, just apologize and that's it. I will accept your apologizes when you do provide them.


Just don't delude yourself into thinking you've been well mannered. Your offensiveness is what drew me into this thread to begin with.


----------



## SloopJonB

Not bad for a latest gen Euro-cruiser. You wouldn't get much, or any change here from $1/2 mil by the time you left the dock - for a 40 footer.


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> Not bad for a latest gen Euro-cruiser. You wouldn't get much change here from $1/2 mil by the time you left the dock - for a 40 footer.


Cheap or expensive are not abstract numbers. For a Jeanneau 409 you have to pay in North America USD 280K and you pay for a Maxi 1200 320K but the Maxi does not only have as standard equipment a lot more (and that will raise the price of the Jeanneau) as the quality is better on all aspects, from the interior to the winches and deck gear.

A Blue Jacket 40 that in not a very different sailboat thab the Maxi 1200, and probably has a similar quality, costed new in 2014 425k.

Yes, for many even mass production boats are expensive, quality boats like the Blue Jacket 40, very expensive and a custom boat can cost the double of that.


----------



## seaner97

I'd still rather have a Bristol 35.5. And they go for 50kish


----------



## Don L

come on guys, knock off the insults, the one that does gets to be the bigger man (chance for all of you to win)


----------



## Brent Swain

"State of the art "is almost completely irrelevant in long term cruising boats. What works well in cruising boats was mostly figured out decades ago. Fragile, bendy trendy fractional rigs have no place on a long term cruising boat.Nor are low, decorative lifelines, gear designed to skimp a half an ounce,etc etc. If you hit a log or container in mid ocean, traditional bows, with a bit of overhang, will get a glancing blow, most of which simply lifts the bow, and dissipates the energy. With the plumb bows on so called "Modern " boats, there is no such dissipation of energy, and the boat will go from hull speed to a dead stop, a huge increase in impact, far more likely to severely damage the hull.
Racing fig leaf rudders are fragile , foul prone and have no place on a cruising boat.
T shaped keels will foul anything they can catch, and it will be extremely difficult to get off ,especially at night off a lee shore, an extremely dangerous situation. Traditional keels, skegs and rudders will simply slide over. 
We didn't have a problem with keels falling off, until they went for very high aspect keels with a narrow, short attachment to the hull.Keels falling off were almost unheard of back then. 
I just checked Nevins scantling rules. They specify an inch of cross sectional area of keel bolt for every 1500 lbs of keel weight. No mention of the width and length of the keel attachment to the hull, or the or aspect ratio, a huge factor in the strength required .
I have read of a some racing boats which lost sped when tacking, having "excessive directional stability. "
There is no such thing as too much directional stability on a cruising boat. The more the better. Racing boat priorities are , in many ways, the exact opposite of cruising priorities.


----------



## Brent Swain

Those who have suggested that I try mass produce my boats, sound a lot like this USanian tourist ( and I the Mexican fisherman)

A Mexican fisherman pulled alongside the quay. A Usanian tourist commented on the quality of his catch and asked
"How long did it take you to catch those."
"Not long ." replied the fisherman
The Usanian asked
"What do you do with the rest of your time."
The Mexican replied "I spend time with my children, take a siesta with my wife every day and, during the evening I go into the village and drink a little with my friends , play guitar and sing songs . I have a very full life."
The Usanian interupted " I can help you. I have a business degree from Harvard . You need to fish for longer, catch more fish , sell the extra fish and buy a bigger boat, catch more fish, and buy a few boats and go on like this until you have a whole fleet of trawlers."
"How long will this take ." asked the Mexican.
" About 25 years ." replied the USanian
"And then what." asked the Mexican.
" When you have a fishing empire, you can control it from Mexico City, Miami or even New York."
" And then what."
"Then you can realy make some money, millions in fact, by selling shares and you can retire."
" And then what?" asked the Mexican.
" You can live in a quiet coastal village , fish a little, spend time with your children, have a siesta with your wife, have a few drinks, play guitar and sing songs"


----------



## Brent Swain

PCP said:


> I don't know how you can say things like that, I mean not calling me pompous ass, that is expected given your lack of good manners, but in what regards sailing boats and state of the art. Do you really think this is not a state of the art sailboat? Of course, a different sailboat and a different state of the art (solo offshore racers):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, that is a guess, not rudeness. That poster can easily prove me wrong saying that he had designed and worked on Indy cars, F1, WRC top cars or any other high-tech series and that therefore his opinion is substantiated and that he really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> It was was him not me that refereed his experience on the racing car high tech world as a prof that he knows what he is talking about and I don't.


Yank and European designers follow, and imitate each other very closely these days. So there is no technology gap and is unlikely to be in the forseeable future.

That aint gonna change. Some old dogs simply can't be taught new tricks.


----------



## Don L

Brent Swain said:


> That aint gonna change. Some old dogs simply can't be taught new tricks.


Considering the poster that is extremely funny :grin


----------



## PCP

Brent Swain said:


> Yank and European designers follow, and imitate each other very closely these days. So there is no technology gap and is unlikely to be in the forseeable future.
> 
> That aint gonna change. Some old dogs simply can't be taught new tricks.


I am not sure if I understand you well, but yes, state of the art yacht design is the same in what regards NA top cabinets on America (the continent), Europe or elsewhere.

We live on a global world an American NA top cabinets design also European boats, in fact in what regards sailing and production boats they work more for European boat builders than for American ones not only because the European production and demand of sailboats is much bigger but also because inexplicably the American brands do not resource to the best American NA cabinets.


----------



## PCP

Brent Swain said:


> "State of the art "is almost completely irrelevant in long term cruising boats. What works well in cruising boats was mostly figured out decades ago.


Some would say a century ago, in fact I remember a poster that used to say that. And I would add, figured out for all eternity.


Brent Swain said:


> .. If you hit a log or container in mid ocean, traditional bows, with a bit of overhang, will get a glancing blow, most of which simply lifts the bow, and dissipates the energy. With the plumb bows on so called "Modern " boats, there is no such dissipation of energy, and the boat will go from hull speed to a dead stop, a huge increase in impact, far more likely to severely damage the hull.
> ....


I will just reply to this point, not that the others have merit but because I think it is not worth it. If you think cruising yacht design development stopped decades ago, nothing I can say or add will change your opinion, that I believe to be very wrong.

Anyway regarding the shape of the bow to be modern or not (Plumb bow) it does not matter in what regards hitting a container. A sailboat sails with heel and the area that will hit a submerged container it is not the bow but the the forward sections below the waterline. That's where the boats that have kevlar protections on the case of that eventuality have them.


----------



## Faster

Folks..

Guitar Guy made a comment a few posts (pages?) back that the mods have gone to sleep. Not true, but there's no question that the tone of this thread has become far more appropriate for PRWG than General Discussion, which is unfortunate. The topic, however, is not PRWG.

That it's devolved largely into personality issues is a shame because the potential for meaningful dialogue is being lost among the ridicule and name calling. Equally sad is that there's a hell of a lot of 'pot, meet kettle' going on at the same time.

I suggest that the participants reel in it significantly and keep the personal comments and ridicule out of the discussion. If we must, we will wade in and start editing and deleting such commentary - perhaps we're a bit late on that score - but we can try to get back on course. Preferably you can all collectively accomplish this with a bit of restraint. There's a lot of good info amongst all the nonsense, but filtering it out is becoming tiresome and outweighs the entertainment(??) factor.

For similar reasons we've had to close other 'popular' threads in the past.. hoping we don't need to do the same here.


----------



## PCP

seaner97 said:


> I'd still rather have a Bristol 35.5. And they go for 50kish


That one stopped being made almost 10 years ago and I believe it was a expensive sailboat. The only ones I can find with that price are 33 or 33 year old boats.








that had the interior volume of a modern designed 33ft like the Azuree 33.










The Bristol were heavy and slow, with a PHRF around 160, but if that is what you want as sailboat the market can offer you a better sailboat along the same characteristics but slightly faster, the Ruster 37:








But you have to hurry because I have heard that they are not selling it and probably it will not take long to be discontinued. Bob Perry called it :*"a modern design built for bluewater sailing"*.

That boat, even if smaller it will costs more than the Maxi 1200, around 400k.
You can have the previous model cheaper, you can find a 6 year old Rustler 36 for 216k.


----------



## Maine Sail

Wow, I suspect we have a couple of individuals here who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Bob is not one of them....:wink

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a *cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.* Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to *the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately*.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

*fail to recognize their own lack of skill
*fail to recognize genuine skill in others
*fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
*recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill"

Some here entirely lack the ability recognize when they are being rude, obnoxious, condescending, arrogant, pompous, self-centered, conceited, self righteous, insulting, egotistical & are preaching and talking down to others as if it is everyone else in the world who is wrong and not them...

Perhaps some introspection is in order...:wink


----------



## XSrcing

And stop comparing race cars to sail boats. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Ninefingers

I've always thought the salon area in sailboats from the 70's through 90's to be excessively large. And newer ones are still a little too big in my opinion. 

On most sailboats, you can seat far more people than you can sleep. I assume they do this for folks who like to entertain, but I have yet to be a part of that volume of people sitting around a dining table on a boat. 

Rather see the galley expanded instead.


----------



## SloopJonB

Ninefingers said:


> I've always thought the salon area in sailboats from the 70's through 90's to be excessively large. And newer ones are still a little too big in my opinion.
> 
> On most sailboats, you can seat far more people than you can sleep. I assume they do this for folks who like to entertain, but I have yet to be a part of that volume of people sitting around a dining table on a boat.
> 
> Rather see the galley expanded instead.


The *saloon* area is the living room and dining room so it needs a decent size. Remember the old rule of thumb - a boat should drink 6, feed 4 and sleep 2.

A salon is where women get their hair & nails done.


----------



## Ninefingers

This why we should convert to common English and call it a living room.


----------



## PCP

Faster said:


> Folks..
> 
> Guitar Guy made a comment a few posts (pages?) back that the mods have gone to sleep. Not true, but there's no question that the tone of this thread has become far more appropriate for PRWG than General Discussion, which is unfortunate. The topic, however, is not PRWG.
> ....
> For similar reasons we've had to close other 'popular' threads in the past.. hoping we don't need to do the same here.


This is a thread with an interesting content and about an interesting subject. Maybe one of the things that can be made to continue to maintain it as a productive one is to make sure it will remain on topic, taking the moderators the necessary measures, if needed.

Along this thread a lot of custom boats have been posted and the discussion went sideways to the definition of what is a contemporary design, what is state of the art design, interesting topics but that doesn't have directly to do with the topic in discussion.

Almost all boats are production boats but I think that Smack was referring to mass production modern sailboats and modern is not necessarily a boat designed today. There are modern designs since the 80's, the boats that were the predecessors of contemporary cruising sailboats, I mean the ones that are mass produced and represent what most sailors want as a sailboat.

I believe that if we center the discussion on the original topic we will have a richer and more productive thread, with less conflictuality.


----------



## bobperry

"with less conflictuality."

PCP, check your dictionary.

Funny, we had far less "conflictuality" before you got involved in the discussion PCP. Go back and check the thread.

I certainly will pay no attention whatsoever to you telling me what I can and cannot post.

As for an apology: Why would I apologize for speaking honestly and saying what I feel? I stand by my comment from this morning.
I make it a practice to say today only what I can say again tomorrow.

If that bothers anyone beside PCP, he's always bothered, I'll do this. I'll go to the sin bin again tomorrow. I have to go to the boatyard anyway. But tonight I'll speak my mind.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Anyway regarding the shape of the bow to be modern or not (Plumb bow) it does not matter in what regards hitting a container. *A sailboat sails with heel and the area that will hit a submerged container it is not the bow but the the forward sections below the waterline.* That's where the boats that have kevlar protections on the case of that eventuality have them.


I don't see how anyone can know that with such certainty...

As always, I would suggest _IT DEPENDS..._

Sometimes, on the boat...










...and sometimes, on the container...










Some of us still sail outmoded slugs whose bow sections do not vary significantly above and below the waterline, and it appears not all containers lost at sea are fully immersed...

Some of even sail downwind from time to time, where clobbering something at an angle of heel may not necessarily be an ironclad guarantee...

;-)


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> "*with less conflictuality*."
> 
> *PCP, check your dictionary*.
> 
> Funny, we had far less "conflictuality" before you got involved in the discussion PCP. Go back and check the thread.
> 
> I certainly will pay no attention whatsoever to you telling me what I can and cannot post.
> 
> As for an apology: Why would I apologize for speaking honestly and saying what I feel? I stand by my comment from this morning.
> I make it a practice to say today only what I can say again tomorrow.
> 
> If that bothers anyone beside PCP, he's always bothered, I'll do this. I'll go to the sin bin again tomorrow. I have to go to the boatyard anyway. But tonight I'll speak my mind.


Hum!!! What about this? Changed ideas?


bobperry said:


> ...
> But I did call you a "pompous ass" and that is name calling and also rude so I am going to punish myself. ("Punish me Captain Ned! Punish me!") before Jeff can lower his hammer on my head.
> For calling PCP a "pompous ass" I will give myself a one day suspension from SN.
> 
> I'm sure some will think that is not enough for calling PCP a "pompous ass" but that is in Jeff's capable and fair hands.


 And there you go again.... regarding "*conflictuality*" I don't need to look at the dictionnaire it is a term used currently in Architecture and other disciplines, maybe a bit erudite but I guess everybody understood what I mean. Some example of the use of the word:

on *"Measuring Conflictuality: Application in Urban Conflicts*"
(google for it, it is a PDF)

On the book : *"Comprehensive Systems design: A new educational theory"*
" A meaningful cooperation might therefore be enhanced by the claim that the degree of cooperation or its *conflictuality*, including potential *conflictuality*, be expressed and "advertised" explicitly for the purpose of self-control or self development."
https://books.google.pt/books?id=3v...v=onepage&q=conflictuality definition&f=false

More "erudite" books were the word is used:
*"Affective Methodologies: Developing Cultural Research Strategies for the study of affect"*.
https://books.google.pt/books?id=6R...v=onepage&q=conflictuality definition&f=false

and in Journalisme on "*Journalism for Democracy*"
https://books.google.pt/books?id=nh...v=onepage&q=conflictuality definition&f=false

It does not seem to me that I have used the word in an inappropriate way.


----------



## bobperry

PCP:
Thanks for posting that again. Maybe you'll get banned for posting it now!

I see absolutely nothing to apologize for.
I trust the moderators to handle it if they need to. I do my job, they do theirs.

Jon: 
Your boat looks great. I just got a copy of THE GRAND GESTURE by Roger Vaughan the story of the 12m MARINER. It has a lot of stuff on Britt Chance. Can't wait to find some time to read it. Have you read it?


----------



## albrazzi

Bob I know how you feel, I tried to take a day off one time and it didn't work put. I feel your pain. Or did I lose track of time maybe you did get the day.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> The Bristol were heavy and slow, with a PHRF around 160, but if that is what you want as sailboat the market can offer you a better sailboat along the same characteristics but slightly faster, the Ruster 37:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to hurry because I have heard that they are not selling it and probably it will not take long to be discontinued. Bob Perry called it :*"a modern design built for bluewater sailing"*.


I'd bet almost anything that sub-head was written by an editor at SAILING, rather than Bob himself... The third line of that review sounds more like Bob, to me:

_"The company's style is in contrast to what my buddy Tom calls the "Euro bloated tennis shoe" look." _

;-)



PCP said:


> That boat, even if smaller it will costs more than the Maxi 1200, around 400k.


I done a fair bit of sailing on Bristols, back in the day. Some of the sweetest boats I've ever run, the Little Harbor 38 and Bristol 38.8 have always been on my list of 'realistic' Dream Boats...

So, for roughly $300K less, I think I'd stick with Ted Hood...

Besides, when I do run into one of those containers at sea, I'd just as soon be going _slower_ than that Latest & Greatest Azuree 33 blowing past me, anyway...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
I don't write the sub-heads. I didn't even know what a "sub-head" was till now. But I think I probably said that. It was the nicest thing I could think of for that awful design. It's a pig. But I can't say that in the mag. It's just my subjective opinion. I was working hard to find something nice to say. That's what I'm like. I always like to end on something nice. Really.

"Euro bloated tennis shoe" come from my Danish pal Tom. He has a keen eye for lines.

Let me know if you want to borrow that book. I'll send it to you when I'm done. I am not a book collector.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Jon:
> Your boat looks great. I just got a copy of THE GRAND GESTURE by Roger Vaughan the story of the 12m MARINER. It has a lot of stuff on Britt Chance. Can't wait to find some time to read it. Have you read it?


Thanks... No, I haven't seen it, but thanks for the heads-up...

Right now I'm docked a couple of slips away from a real beauty from another of your old colleagues...

A Tanton 44 cutter named GREY GHOST out of Owl's Head, Maine... What a sweet looking boat...


----------



## outbound

Way back when this thread was about production boats and the limits. By this I thought it was understood these boats would be used for cruising. Regardless of the direction PCP tries to pull it toward cruising implies several basic styles.
1. Marina to marina cruising on a part time basis.
2. Long term cruising to different countries.
3. Permanent cruising following the sun and seasons.
4. Short term cruising in one geographic area as the seasons permit. 


It is not about racing. Be that beercan racing, ocean racing, single handed racing. To a true cruiser shaving a few hours or even a day or two off a passage is meaningless if it impacts in anyway on safety at sea, comfort at anchor or sea, or imposes higher levels of vigilance while cruising.

Multiple posters have pointed out for various reasons the current production boats in the main are aimed at groups 1 and 4 to the detriment of 2 and 4. Production boats, semi-custom boats and one offs aimed at groups 2 and 3 are priced out of the market for many or require major commitment of assets ( selling or downsizing the house, curtailing other activities etc.). 

Very few boats actually cruise in categories 2 and 3. Most purchasers don't expect a "you bet your life" experience or need for total self reliance. Most have not dedicated their lives and resources to the cruising lifestyle so the concerns Jon, I and others have raised are not on their dance card. 

Even Paulo admits the big boats he references will have professional crew so the owner and purchaser of these boats has little concern about servicing them. Owner will write a check. Crew will struggle with service. However, for the mom and pop type 2 or 3 cruisers they are the wrench. Either because of economics or commonly lack of knowledge of where to find a reliable wrench where they are.

The twin doubles aft on anything under 50' are just foolish. If you are living on the boat that space can be better utilized. I have 7 berths. I only once had 5 people sleep on the boat. 90% of the time 2 people. The rest of the time two couples. It's nice to have 7 berths which allow people to always sleep to leeward, never need to hot bunk and not sleep in the bows underway. Putting three doubles in a 30-40' makes sense for groups 1and 4 but not for groups 2 and 3.

We have dropped the hook and not moved for days. Sometimes weeks. Then be forced to move quickly due to weather or other issue. Given 90% plus of the time it's just me and the bride or just me ease in getting underway, anchoring, raising and striking sail is important but must be done in a fashion that reliability is not compromised. 

When the boat serves as your house your priorities change. When you experience adverse conditions or occurances in unfamiliar surroundings your priorities change. When you intend to hang on to your boat for at least a decade if not more your priorities change. 

Paulo dismisses Bob's boats but they are endearing because they speak to basics of our humanity. All his boats throughout his career show awareness that people with live on these boats. The ergonomics are correct. The lines of sight are correct. They are durable. Some thought was given to servicing. The aesethetics are such that even decades later they have timeless beauty.

Other designers also have had this skill. I believe even the ones designing for the "big cabinets" as Paulo refers to them. We see this in their custom designs. Still there are weird distortions like the daysailers from Morris or the Fontaine boats of Friendship. They are beautiful creations and "state of the art" for that paradigm but they do not purport to be cruisers but rather day boats. 

At the other end very purpose built "voyagers" where speed and VMG is the one all and be all of the design. Weight is the enemy and concessions to comfort or life on the hook seem secondary.

It is because of this I think there is a hole in the market. I have yet to see anything Paulo or others have posted that disproves this statement.

As an aside a big saloon is real nice. It allows two secure berths protected by lee clothes. Or even a pilot berth. It allow you to lie down with a table right at hand. It allows heavy stores to be stood below the settees in the middle of the boat. It allows a crowd in the boat sharing dinner or drinks on a rainy day. You can spread out charts(yes paper) and plan. Even with just two on the boat other than the cockpit it is the most lived in space.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Way back when this thread was about production boats and the limits. By this I thought it was understood these boats would be used for cruising. Regardless of the direction PCP tries to pull it toward cruising implies several basic styles.
> 1. Marina to marina cruising on a part time basis.
> 2. Long term cruising to different countries.
> 3. Permanent cruising following the sun and seasons.
> 4. Short term cruising in one geographic area as the seasons permit.
> 
> It is not about racing. Be that beercan racing, ocean racing, single handed racing. To a true cruiser shaving a few hours or even a day or two off a passage is meaningless if it impacts in anyway on safety at sea, comfort at anchor or sea, or imposes higher levels of vigilance while cruising.
> 
> Multiple posters have pointed out for various reasons the current production boats in the main are aimed at groups 1 and 4 to the detriment of 2 and 4. Production boats, semi-custom boats and one offs aimed at groups 2 and 3 are priced out of the market for many or require major commitment of assets ( selling or downsizing the house, curtailing other activities etc.).
> 
> Very few boats actually cruise in categories 2 and 3. Most purchasers don't expect a "you bet your life" experience or need for total self reliance. Most have not dedicated their lives and resources to the cruising lifestyle so the concerns Jon, I and others have raised are not on their dance card.


You won't be surprised that I don't precisely agree with your summary above. There are far too many production boats out there doing 2 and some of 3. Just because the majority of the market doesn't do those (which is correct) doesn't mean the boats _are incapable_ of doing them.

That's been the thrust of the thread from the beginning.

Of course, I do love watching the FightClub between Paulo and Bob. It's good stuff.

Carry on chaps. I'm learning oodles.


----------



## PCP

Ninefingers said:


> This why we should convert to common English and call it a living room.


That's interesting you saying that and I agree. Regarding converting it to common English the space should not be called saloon, that means a public living space, but salon that means a big living room.


----------



## mstern

bobperry;3137602) said:


> I just got a copy of THE GRAND GESTURE by Roger Vaughan the story of the 12m MARINER. It has a lot of stuff on Britt Chance. Can't wait to find some time to read it. Have you read it?


I found a copy of that at a used book store a few years back. The stuff about Chance is interesting, but what really struck me was how casual an America's Cup campaign was back then compared to now. Sure, they spent some serious coin (for the time), but the team meetings in the back of a diner, the lack of training, and so on. And I loved the descriptions of Ted Turner! But maybe most interesting was the portrayal of Dennis Conner. He was brought in late in the campaign to help Ted with the starts and proceeds to clean everybody's clocks. He is clearly the best skipper out there and winds up replacing Ted. Just blows my mind that there was a time not too long ago when someone could be that good and that unknown. Reminds me of the pre-ESPN days when UMASS showed up at the NCAA tourney with the then unknown Julius Erving. After seeing Dr. J play, everyone was screaming "who is this guy?!?!?"


----------



## bobperry

Mstern:

I agree. The whole "security" issue was pretty relaxed in those days and there was a lot less money at stake. It was a "Corinthian" effort and pretty much good old boys having boat fun. I think the Cup lost it's sparkle when it became diluted by losing the "nationality" rules and professionals invaded the event. Oh well. I was never in favor of taking the Cup out of 12m's. But I must say I find the foiling cats very exciting. It's the legal complexity of the event that bamboozles me now.

Smacker:
"Fight club" with PCP? Hardly. He's a lightweight, a little guy. I'm using 16 oz gloves so I don't hurt him. I may have to go to Socker Boppers soon. He sounds a bit bruised.

Salon/saloon?
I just call it "the main cabin".

A "salon" is where ladies get their hair done.
A "saloon" is where men spit on the floor.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. Bob you would have loved the FightClub thread. It was definitely a classic. And it was definitely bare knuckles.

Ah - yesteryear.


----------



## outbound

Smack 
Referring to boats mentioned on this thread.
Compare your Hunter or my prior PSC or T37 to current offerings. You have windless es BELOW deck, inadequately secured bow rollers, exposed plumb bows, wide open decks requiring great balance to walk on in a seaway, inadequate cleats and runs from cleats and placement of cleats, need for rubber man skills to service systems, under deck lines that can't be seen for chafe or are hard to clear or re rove, dangerous open spaces in the cockpit and down below, questionable scantlins, chainplates rigging, backing washers instead of plates, poor wiring with thickness just meeting load, hull liners, nothing stick built etc. etc.
It's that to which I and others have been referring to. There is a division between what makes a good long term cruiser and was present on most prior decent production boats. Yes there are very good production boats now Rustler, HR, Outbound, Morris etc. but they are premium not mainstream boats built for the long haul. The mainstream is increasingly becoming schlock if put in type 2 or 3 service I agree there are notable exceptions to this. I agree they are excellent in type 1 or 4 service and offer great bang for the buck. But I still think there is a hole in the marketplace. With Outbounds costing $525 and going out the door for 100-150 more with all the bells and whistles where is the equivalent of a T37. Maybe the Outbounds are the V40s of today but there was a step down that still was just fine in the past. Now there is isn't. There is a hole in the market. Tell me specifically what current offerings discount this statement and hopeful Jon will chime in to point out where its lacking. Paulo will post more go fast machines that would make my cat puke and my wife frown "I'm not living on this". Want to hear from you not him.


----------



## eko_eko

And this is another example of why the "newer must be better" refrain is so obviously bunk:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/225346-filling-recessed-thru-hull-2.html#post3137018

Newer _may_ be better. It might even be _more likely_ to be better, but it absolutely is not _always_ better. It is often worse.

I like outbound's description of the hole in the market. Smack's right that there aren't _zero_ production boats capable of filling niches 2 and 3, but that wasn't the main thrust in my reading of out's post. Many of the new boats don't serve those users and boat buyers who think they will do #2 may wind up with a boat designed for #1. Those people may be in danger off-shore.

I do think that the number of production models even trying to hit markets 2 and 3 have steadily diminished over the past decades and that this is why several people here are A) surprised that Smack's Hunter is a good boat, and B) convinced that the old boats are better built.


----------



## seaner97

But, but it's got a Cat A rating....!


----------



## smackdaddy

Now this is funny, out - you're actually saying you'd _rather_ argue with me than PCP now? Heh-heh.



outbound said:


> Smack
> Referring to boats mentioned on this thread.
> Compare your Hunter or my prior PSC or T37 to current offerings. You have windless es BELOW deck, inadequately secured bow rollers, exposed plumb bows, wide open decks requiring great balance to walk on in a seaway, inadequate cleats and runs from cleats and placement of cleats, need for rubber man skills to service systems, under deck lines that can't be seen for chafe or are hard to clear or re rove, dangerous open spaces in the cockpit and down below, questionable scantlins, chainplates rigging, backing washers instead of plates, poor wiring with thickness just meeting load, hull liners, nothing stick built etc. etc.


We've had this discussion many, many times already. And I've not changed my stance.

Your above list is the problem. The standard that you and Jon and others hold for a boat is just higher and narrower than what is likely necessary for most blue water cruising - even long-term, even round-the-world. This is clearly evident by the many production boats out there doing it as we speak. Paulo actually put together an incredible list of such boats in my thread over on CF.

I am not at all saying that your standards or Jon's standards are not good standards. They are. But they are typically standards that relate to your own preferences and/or very nasty conditions. And conditions that nasty, even according to Hal Roth who has got over 200K miles around the world, are very rare. I take his word for these things over pretty much anyone else's.

In other words, for example, if the u-bolt rigging terminations with fender washers (or whatever), etc. were the liability that is typically held out - we would see far more rigging failures. We just don't. We see one example here and there out of thousands of boats. That's not matching the hype.

Much of the other stuff in your list is more preference and perception than dogma. What you guys label "inadequate" and "exposed" and "dangerous" and "questionable" is just your view based on your own standards. And before you ask, yes, I know full well that Jon has sailed many boats thousands of miles. But that doesn't make him or anyone else infallible and immune to bias and a bit of exaggeration.

So, as I've always held, until we see widespread problems in these production boats that match the level of hyperbole you guys typically inject (like above) - it's just hyperbole.

So, Jeanneaus, Beneteaus, Hunters, Catalinas, etc. - with appropriate modifications such as those made by Micheal to his Hunter 49 such as watermakers, etc. - they are not only able to do extended voyages and handle pretty severe conditions, they are actually _out there doing it_.

Are there stronger, better boats? Absolutely. But that's not really the point of this thread. Rated production boats are, for all intents and purposes, definitely good enough.


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> We've had this discussion many, many times already. And I've not changed my stance.
> 
> Your above list is the problem. The standard that you and Jon and others hold for a boat is just higher than what is likely necessary for most blue water cruising - even long-term, even round-the-world. This is clearly evident by the many production boats out there doing it as we speak. Paulo actually put together an incredible list of such boats in my thread over on CF.
> 
> I am not at all saying that your standards or Jon's standards are not good standards. They are. But they are typically standards that relate to very nasty conditions. And conditions that nasty, even according to Hal Roth who has got over 200K miles around the world, are very rare. I take his word for these things over pretty much anyone else's.
> 
> In other words, for example, if the u-bolt rigging terminations with fender washers (or whatever), etc. were the liability that is typically held out - we would see far more rigging failures. We just don't.
> 
> Much of the other stuff in your list is more preference and perception than dogma. What you guys label "inadequate" and "exposed" and "dangerous" and "questionable" is just your view based on your own standards. And before you ask, yes, I know full well that Jon has sailed many boats thousands of miles. But that doesn't make him or anyone else infallible and immune to bias and a bit of exaggeration.
> 
> So, as I've always held, until we see widespread problems that match the level of hyperbole you guys typically inject (like above) - it's just hyperbole.


What I find especially funny is that those same comments (regarding wide open decks, inadequate cleats, chainplates, rigging and wiring..) could all be said about 'blue-water cruising' yachts going back 50 or even 100 years ago...

Perhaps fewer people are lost overboard these days, but otherwise, apparently, nothing much has changed.


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


> I don't see how anyone can know that with such certainty...
> 
> As always, I would suggest _IT DEPENDS..._
> 
> Sometimes, on the boat...


Wow! - what an iceberg.

Is that a Chance design? The deck looks like it but that displacement? :eek


----------



## outbound

Smack I'd be the first to admit I have nowhere near the experience of Hal, Jon, or possibly even Paulo. But I know what I've seen. Before my current boat sailing one Bermuda race a year and otherwise being primary coastal I've seen storms and gales. I've been declared overdue. That was on a short sail from Maine to Massachusetts. Those prior boats looked after me. The proof is I'm still here. They were production boats but solid. Since owning my current boat and always using a weather routing service, and having benefit of 500mb and grib downloads at sea have seen multiple squalls and several gales. We've had occasion to reef late. To miss chafe on a line. To do stupid things like catch the main on the reefing horn. To have the vang fitting shatter, to have blocks blow up. To have over rides. To be hurt or indisposed( watch where you buy food) or have crew unable to stand watch. In other words to do the stupid stuff we all do and to experience the unexpected. But I'm still here and the boat is as sound as the first day it got wet.
On the other hand with recent offerings I've seen the dream turn into a nightmare. Seen this when stopping off in George Town, Road Town and Nanny Key. So I respectfully disagree with you. I continue to believe at present there is a hole in the market. I see production boats where changes in construction or design would have kept the dream alive. I see all too many occurances where the statement penny wise pound foolish is applicable. For all to many people the dream is crushed. So maybe I'm foolish getting a boat I totally trust and believe is the proverbial brick outhouse. But from what I've seen in just two years I think not.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> That's interesting you saying that and I agree. Regarding converting it to common English the space should not be called saloon, that means a public living space, but salon that means a big living room.


*sa·loon*
səˈlo͞on/
noun
1.
a public room or building used for a specified purpose.
"a billiard saloon"
North Americanhistoricalhumorous
a place where alcoholic drinks may be bought and drunk.
* a large public room for use as a lounge on a ship.*
British
a luxurious railroad car used as a lounge or restaurant or as private accommodations.
* "a dining saloon"*
2.
British
an automobile having a closed body and a closed trunk separated from the part in which the driver and passengers sit; a sedan.

*sa·lon*
səˈlän/
noun
1.
* an establishment where a hairdresser, beautician, or couturier conducts business.*
synonyms:	establishment, premises; More
boutique, store, shop;
beauty parlor, beauty shop, hair salon;
nail salon;
tanning salon

2.
*a reception room in a large house.*
synonyms:	drawing room, sitting room, living room, lounge;


----------



## blt2ski

Jon,

your boat looks like it needs a big diet! That WL looks about 6-8" too high!

Marty


----------



## Classic30

SloopJonB said:


> *sa·loon*
> səˈlo͞on/
> noun
> ....
> 
> *sa·lon*
> səˈlän/
> noun
> .....


So.. I guess you wouldn't choose that other word either?!?

*ca.bin/*










:wink :grin


----------



## SloopJonB

Cabin is the whole of the inside (or "below"). :wink

As you've no doubt noticed, I'm a bit of a spelling & grammar Nazi. That extends to such corruptions as "salon" and "cutter/ketches".

English as she is goodly spoke is right up there with table manners in the impression it creates.


----------



## Classic30

SloopJonB said:


> Cabin is the whole of the inside (or "below"). :wink
> 
> As you've no doubt noticed, I'm a bit of a spelling & grammar Nazi. That extends to such corruptions as "salon" and "cutter/ketches".
> 
> English as she is goodly spoke is right up there with table manners in the impression it creates.


Well.. then you're obviously not American (he says, ducking for cover..) That's a whole other language entirely!!! :devil


----------



## XSrcing

Do you know the difference between a ship and a boat? A boat fits on the deck of a ship, and not the other way around.

So by the definition posted above, is it still a saloon?


----------



## eko_eko

*Saloon/Salon*

To relieve any further doubts, y'all must replace your companionway hatchboards with swinging double doors, and stock up on the whiskey.


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> In other words, for example, if the u-bolt rigging terminations with fender washers (or whatever), etc. were the liability that is typically held out - we would see far more rigging failures. We just don't. We see one example here and there out of thousands of boats. That's not matching the hype.


"Good enough"...? Tell that to this guy....

Just because _you_ don't see them does not mean they don't exist..

You'll never see these issues from behind your keyboard, and clearly it does not matter or happen from behind a keyboard, but I actually get to see this level of _cost cutting,_ and the results, day to day and these failures do not even happen in "blue water".....











smackdaddy said:


> Rated production boats are, for all intents and purposes, definitely good enough.


Sure _"good enough"_ to lose spars during _inshore sailing_ due to hokey chain plate construction.... How soon we forgot the boats I posted above one with a completely failed hull deck joint and one with a hokey chain plate design and neither of these boats were in "Hal Roth" weather..........


----------



## PCP

SloopJonB said:


> *sa·loon*
> səˈlo͞on/
> noun
> 1.
> a public room or building used for a specified purpose.
> "a billiard saloon"
> North Americanhistoricalhumorous
> a place where alcoholic drinks may be bought and drunk.
> * a large public room for use as a lounge on a ship.*
> British
> a luxurious railroad car used as a lounge or restaurant or as private accommodations.
> * "a dining saloon"*
> 2.
> British
> an automobile having a closed body and a closed trunk separated from the part in which the driver and passengers sit; a sedan.
> 
> *sa·lon*
> səˈlän/
> noun
> 1.
> * an establishment where a hairdresser, beautician, or couturier conducts business.*
> synonyms:	establishment, premises; More
> boutique, store, shop;
> beauty parlor, beauty shop, hair salon;
> nail salon;
> tanning salon
> 
> 2.
> *a reception room in a large house.*
> synonyms:	drawing room, sitting room, living room, lounge;


Yes, I agree with those definitions, as I said a saloon is always a public place and that's the case on a ship.

A salon is used to mean a private living room on a large house. That is a private place but, inside the house the one that is used to receive guests. I know well that meaning that is extensively used in architecture , specially on XIX and XX centuries. Later it become used as the biggest living space on a house even if the house was not particularly big.

Regarding the common use of the word regarding what it describes nothing better then to put the words on Google images and see what you got for "salon" and Saloon".

The term used on a boat has obviously a derived meaning and derived meanings have many times little connection with the original sense or meaning of the word, like the terms galley or head and I was not implying that the term saloon is not a correct term to use one a boat in what concerns the largest living space.

I was only saying that it would make more sense to call the head WC (because it is what it is), galley a kitchen and saloon a salon, because it is what they are functionally regarding a boat: the WC, the kitchen and the largest living space. I was not trying to change the meaning of the words in English regarding the nomenclature of a yacht, simply looking at the logic (or lack of it) on a semiologic way.

It seems anything on this thread is a valid issue to raise an argument LOL


----------



## bobperry

"It seems anything on this thread is a valid issue to raise an argument LOL"

You would know PCP.

Maine Sail writes:
"Some here entirely lack the ability recognize when they are being rude, obnoxious, condescending, arrogant, pompous, self-centered, conceited, self righteous, insulting, egotistical & are preaching and talking down to others as if it is everyone else in the world who is wrong and not them... "

Well said.


----------



## PCP

bobperry said:


> Jon:
> I don't write the sub-heads. I didn't even know what a "sub-head" was till now. But I think I probably said that. It was the nicest thing I could think of for that awful design. It's a pig. But I can't say that in the mag. It's just my subjective opinion. I was working hard to find something nice to say. That's what I'm like. I always like to end on something nice. Really.
> ...


*A pig?*
Your comment on the Rustler 37 starts with your name and immediately below:

*"Classic-looking on the outside, this cruiser is a modern design built for bluewater sailing*" so evidently you subscribe that statement otherwise it would be very odd to be there, just behind your name.
Rustler 37

It does not seem to me a pig, just an old design, that sails like a good old designed boat. The boat was tested and that was the impression that it give to the testers of several boat magazines: a sailing boat that sails as a good old designed boat.

Rustler 37 - Yachting Monthly review
Rustler 37 boat test ? Yachting World
Rustler 37 - review and test - Sailing Today









This yacht would fit the bill for the ones that like old designs and the type of sailing they provide. in my view they are as entitle to see this as their perfect offshore cruising boat as the ones that will chose a Pogo 36 as the perfect offshore cruising boat, obviously for different reasons.

Both, the ones that would chose the Rustler 37 and the Pogo 36 belong to minorities in what regards the more commons choices regarding offshore boats even if the ones that prefer the Pogo type are much more, given the number of the boats sold and the several brands that propose similar typed boats.

I only strongly disagree with the qualification of the Rustler 37 as being a modern design. Putting it on the funny words of on of the testers, it is a good "old-fashioned teapot" ;-).


----------



## outbound

Smack
Again trying to return to the OP.
MSs post is an important one. It speaks to my basic premise.

BASIC structural elements of many current production boats with cat A certificates are not durable in use. Basic ergonomics that permit comfort and safety underway are not adequately addressed.

One sees keel bolt failures. Rudder bearing failures. Bulkhead failures. Rig failures.Engines move on mounts. Hull deck joint failures. Delamination of interior elements in boats just few years old. The last is cosmetic but the others are not. This is in mid to mid/high price point boats. 


I continue to believe there is a hole in the marketplace. A low to mid 40' boat at $350-450k that is a durable, safe, visually and ergonomically pleasant ocean cruising boat. Ideally the design and construction are such that it retains a high residual value after the first owner moves on. 
So maybe there's more laminate than wood inside. More Garhauser than Harken. Al not CF sticks. These choices would not impact the structural integrity nor exclude a visually pleasant boat. 

V40' Mason 44, Sweden, Malo, etc. fit these parameters in the past but at upper limit of price. Still the good quality Formosa boats did as well and even some American builders such as Cape Dory in the mid range price point- 
Smackie-in the current market where is the equivalent?


----------



## JonEisberg

Maine Sail said:


> "Good enough"...? Tell that to this guy....
> 
> Just because _you_ don't see them does not mean they don't exist..
> 
> You'll never see these issues from behind your keyboard, and clearly it does not matter or happen from behind a keyboard, but I actually get to see this level of _cost cutting,_ and the results, day to day and these failures do not even happen in "blue water".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure _"good enough"_ to lose spars during _inshore sailing_ due to hokey chain plate construction.... How soon we forgot the boats I posted above one with a completely failed hull deck joint and one with a hokey chain plate design and neither of these boats were in "Hal Roth" weather..........


Just yesterday afternoon, I was chatting on the dock with a guy from one of the foremost yacht rigging shops on the East coast, regarding some prep work they'd done for an exhibitor at the Annapolis Show... Names or brands will not be named, to protect my source, and other innocents... ;-)

This year they put the rig in a new multihull, fresh from the factory in Europe, from a very popular builder... The dealer took it out for a quick daysail on the Chesapeake, to snap some photos, and so on...

Next day, the rigger gets a call, with a request to come back to the boat to "re-tune" the rig, and to "take up some slack" in one particular spot...

Turns out that an underlying structural bulkhead or support had failed, and the deck attachment point had been lifted about 1.5 inches from where it's supposed to be...

So, basically, _*The simple act of stepping and tuning the rig had CAUSED this failure...*_

UFB...

Needless to say, to their credit they refused to touch the boat again, until a proper repair of the failed structure was made...

His guess was that they either "took out the slack" themselves, or perhaps a call went out to another rigging shop...

;-)

Hmmm, now that I think of it, perhaps _that's_ why some of the standing rigging I saw on some of the Latest & Greatest looks like this, with plenty of room for further _'adjustment'..._

;-)


----------



## bobperry

"I only strongly disagree with the qualification of the Rustler 37 as being a modern design"

I really don't care what you think PCP. You are all talk all the time and as usual wrong.

Let's do it your way, with the dictionary.

Check your dictionary:

Read slowly PCP.

mod·ern
ˈmädərn/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.
"the pace of modern life"

You may struggle with English. I don't. I am very comfortable with it and according to the dictionary that Rustler is a "modern" design.

But I sure as hell am not going to argue semantics with you today. I think I'll go back to the boat yard. Enough talk. I'm ready for some boat reality. But first I have new drawings to plot. I always like to show up at the yard with new drawings. It's what I do. Produce the drawings, plot them, take them to the yard and then talk.


----------



## blt2ski

I was thinking a saloon was what eko_eko posted. But forgot to mention you could get a room upstairs with a message of different sorts too. Not saying what is or what was messaged......

one thing in life, what goes around, come back around. I've seen some of the dayglo colors of the early 80s on the ski slopes again. same with boat designs. IE flush bows.......

I did see a Swan Club 50 in the works last night. Reverse bow, but a hell of a long bow sprit! to one get the anchor forward enough so the anchor will not hit the lowest point of the bow. Might as well designed it with a normal forward bow! While from an open racer look ala Volvo races, America's cup etc, the wave slicing bow look cool! But from a normal weekend, cruising, even weekend racers/cruisers as I am, this advance design looks useless to a degree. Especially from an anchoring standpoint. 

Then again, that is my opinion! oh, and my a-hole stinks too. Had Chili last night for dinner!

marty


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> I done a fair bit of sailing on Bristols, back in the day. Some of the sweetest boats I've ever run, the Little Harbor 38 and Bristol 38.8 have always been on my list of 'realistic' Dream Boats...
> 
> So, for roughly $300K less, I think I'd stick with Ted Hood...
> 
> Besides, when I do run into one of those containers at sea, I'd just as soon be going _slower_ than that Latest & Greatest Azuree 33 blowing past me, anyway...;-)


Jon, I have no disagreement with you regarding that, I mean that you and others would prefer a Bristol 35.5 over an Azuree 33. I would have a disagreement with you if you had stated that all should prefer a Bristol 35.5 over a Azuree 33 for offshore work.

The fact that you have a lot experience does not make your choice of boat more valid than the ones that chose modern lighter and faster boats for the job. This is a forum that has very few very experienced sailors that sail modern fast boats, at least among the frequent posters, but on Cruisers & Sailing Forum, where you post too, you find many experienced sailors, with 200 000nm and over, that prefer as offshore boats sail light modern boats and even performance light cats.

So let's agree once and for all that the preference for a giving type of boat, providing it is a seaworthy one, is just a personal choice and that there is no right or wrong here except in assuming that the boat one sees fit for himself should be the ideal boat to everyone or the style of cruising and sailing should be the same for everybody.

The ones that would prefer a Bristol 35.5 or a Rustler 37 would find a Pogo 36 very spartan and with a very unsettling type of movement on the water, the ones that would prefer a Pogo would find the Rustler hopelessly slow very unresponsive and boring to sail. Different boats for different sailors and different tastes and that's all.

Actually in what regards the market demand there are much more sailors that identify themselves with the type of sailing and cruising a Pogo provide, than with the ones that want an old designed boat like the Rustler and the type of sailing it provides.

Also, the fact that I state the obvious, that there are sailors that prefer the type of Pogo's boats for offshore sailing (and several builders are making them) does not mean, at all, that I would prefer them for myself. In fact I don't and my boat even if relatively light and fast does not belong to that type of boats.

You have only to look at the market and the number of brands that provide boats not very different from the Pogo (and the total of boats sold) and the number of brands that propose boats like the Rustler 37, and the number of boats sold, to see where the minority in what regards choosing between those two types of boats lies....and boats like the Pogo are expensive, much more than a mass production main market cruiser.

Regarding that story about hitting a container or an iceberg, you seem to be obsessed with it. Maybe Icebergs are a problem to you and frequent on the waters you sail and then an aluminium or steel boat probably would be the more indicated to you, but the huge majority of the ones that sail boats like the Pogo 37 or the Rustler 37 has no desire whatsoever to sail on very cold waters where you can find icebergs.

Regarding containers afloat on the 40 000nm I have sailed I never saw one afloat (and I sail on waters with a deep maritime traffic) and among the sailors I know personally I don't know of any that have hit one. Obviously that can happen and it has happened but regarding the number of yachts that have been abandoned by their crews, the abandons due to having hit a container are just a very tiny percentage and among those the ones that were abandoned by open water created by a container hitting the bow, really rare.

Getting back to the Azuree 33 and its seaworthiness, on a recent offshore race that boat experienced 60k winds and sailed for many hours with 40k winds and nasty seas that made almost half the fleet retire, some with the problems on the boats, like an old and famous Oyster 48 with a broken rudder (the boat did not hit anything).

The Azuree 33 was one of the smallest boats on the fleet and had only a crew of two and even so they finished the race winning their category. Has a curiosity, one of the two has the boat designer.











I agree that the sea is not as bad as the one they (and the others) got when they had 60K gusts, but then, it is understandable that on that moment they had more to do then filming, particularly being only two aboard and being racing not doing survival sailing ;-).


----------



## Don L

I don't think anyone says that there aren't ever any problems with production boats. But the constant use if a small number of failures to condemn 1000s and 1000s of boat out there is foolish. At best you can use it to make a statement maybe on that model, but lots of bashers post an "example" but don't bother to tell the model and year etc.

Then there's the money aspect where a boat with twice the base cost is thrown of as an example of a boat you should get instead. Let's be real, most people can not afford one of those boats. But if you could I bet you almost are able to afford a lot more in maintenance and that this plays just as much a factor in the life of the boat.

I'm going to state my position again: Not all production boats are good for bluewater sailing, but that doesn't mean none of them are. There are lots of great production boats that are.


----------



## bobperry

SKI:
Exactly why I gave STARBUCK and FOXFIRE and MOBISLE raked bows"
Gain foredeck where you need it.
Make an effective anchor roller set up simple
Eliminate need for short bowsprit and save money
Make the boat dryer.

Why go plumb and then add a bowsprit when you can achieve the same result with no penalty in performance (given DWL is static) and add some foredeck?
I'll tell you why and you can apply this to faux "weave piercing" bows also, FASHION!

If you look at FREE RANGE CHICKEN you can see I did a plumb stem. I did it because the owner wanted it. I explained the advantages of a raked stem but he liked the look of the plumb stem. 
So we had to add a bowsprit. He liked that fashion.

The moment I get the last drawing plotted I see a change I need to make. One of the downsides to working alone.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack I'd be the first to admit I have nowhere near the experience of Hal, Jon, or possibly even Paulo. But I know what I've seen. Before my current boat sailing one Bermuda race a year and otherwise being primary coastal I've seen storms and gales. I've been declared overdue. That was on a short sail from Maine to Massachusetts. Those prior boats looked after me. The proof is I'm still here. They were production boats but solid.


I'm sure I don't have the miles you do - but I've seen the same while offshore (well not a Beaufort-rated storm, we work hard to avoid those, but definitely squalls and gales). I've posted photos here and there and have a few videos floating around. Hell, I've even plowed our Hunter straight into a bulkhead at 4-5 knots when a dude was towing me after I lost my engine...not a lick of damage...except to the bulkhead.

Like you say, production boats can generally take it. That's been my point for quite a while now.



Maine Sail said:


> "Good enough"...? Tell that to this guy....
> 
> Just because _you_ don't see them does not mean they don't exist..
> 
> You'll never see these issues from behind your keyboard, and clearly it does not matter or happen from behind a keyboard, but I actually get to see this level of _cost cutting,_ and the results, day to day and these failures do not even happen in "blue water".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure _"good enough"_ to lose spars during _inshore sailing_ due to hokey chain plate construction.... How soon we forgot the boats I posted above one with a completely failed hull deck joint and one with a hokey chain plate design and neither of these boats were in "Hal Roth" weather..........


If I'm remembering the right example, that failed hull deck joint wasn't a rated production boat like we're talking about here. So let's at least try to keep the story straight. This is what I mean by hyperbole. It's not helpful to anyone except you when you're trying to make a weak point (like the hull/deck joint).

On the other crappy chain plate design on the Hunter 43 (I think it was) - yes...that's bad. No argument there. They don't do it anymore if you've noticed. Bluewater boats also stopped using these a while back...










..they figure dout how to do it better and lighter and stronger.

Meanwhile, Oyster has gotten rid of their "blue water strong" deck salon port lights....










...in favor of very "coastal production boat" wrap-arounds (remember Hunter and Beneteau and Jeanneau?) and Swiss-cheesed the hull with port lights...










Why would they go with something so "weak and dangerous" on a vaunted blue water boat?

And I could go on and on...

Like I said Maine, there will always be an example here and there of failures. You'll find the very same things on older "blue water" boats. It happens. No one is shocked. But it doesn't really mean much when the industry at large is moving away from what you guys prefer.

PS - And on the whole keyboard thing - get over it bro. You can do better.


----------



## JonEisberg

SloopJonB said:


> Wow! - what an iceberg.
> 
> Is that a Chance design? The deck looks like it but that displacement? :eek


It's a Chance 30-30, built by the old Allied Boat Company in Catskill, NY, builders of the first fiberglass boat to ever complete a circumnavigation...

Mine is actually Hull #1, originally named BOOMERANG... A very successful race boat in her day, kicked a lot of butt in Long Island Sound and Southern New England, I still occasionally bump into someone who remembers racing against her...

Allied Chance 30-30



blt2ski said:


> Jon,
> 
> your boat looks like it needs a big diet! That WL looks about 6-8" too high!
> 
> Marty


Well, you've got that right, but it's not as bad as it looks, that pic is a bit deceiving...

She was originally drawn with 11,200 lbs displacement, so there is a lot of volume below the waterline to begin with...










I've changed the keel and rudder, and have added a LOT of weight to the boat, after completely gutting the interior and starting all over... She now carries 50 gals of fuel, and 106 of water, and I generally travel with a lot of additional crap on board, so she's definitely down on her lines by several inches...

However, I really like the look of a higher bootstipe than average, I think it lowers the freeboard to the eye, and adds length, so I may have a bit more bottom paint showing than most...

Still, no doubt about it, there is a LOT of my boat below the waterline... I don't mind that one bit, she may not be the fastest 30-footer around, but she still gives a pretty sweet ride...

;-)


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> Rated production boats are, for all intents and purposes, definitely good enough.


Smackers,

I know you are the _default expert_ on "rated production boats" so perhaps you can tell us all what the strength and design standards are for oh, let's go with _seacocks_ for 2 cents Alex, on an "A" rated vessel.....???

I'm looking for the metallurgy, strength standards, corrosion standards, classification standards, thread standards, materials standards, and installation standards for "A rated"..?

This should be easy for an expert on "rated production boats". Once you've provided this we can then go over examples of installations that meet or don't meet the standards despite the boat being sold as "A rated"... Seems fair..?

After that perhaps you can point us to the "strong points" standards for A rated. We have two boats in this thread where the _strong points_ actually_ failed_ and essentially resulting in the total loss of two "A rated production" vessels. It would nice to know the standard behind the strong points.

I like to see the engineering data and "standards" for "good enough". Should not be too much to ask eh....:wink


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> Smackers,
> 
> I know you are the _default expert_ on "rated production boats" so perhaps you can tell us all what the strength and design standards are for oh, let's go with _seacocks_ for 2 cents Alex, on an "A" rated vessel.....???
> 
> I'm looking for the metallurgy, strength standards, corrosion standards, classification standards, thread standards, materials standards, and installation standards for "A rated"..?
> 
> This should be easy for an expert on "rated production boats". Once you've provided this we can then go over examples of installations that meet or don't meet the standards despite the boat being sold as "A rated"... Seems fair..?
> 
> After that perhaps you can point us to the "strong points" standards for A rated. We have two boats in this thread where the _strong points_ actually_ failed_ and essentially resulting in the total loss of two "A rated production" vessels. It would nice to know the standard behind the strong points.
> 
> I like to see the engineering data and "standards" for "good enough". Should not be too much to ask eh....:wink


I never said I was the expert. I do, however, _believe_ the experts. And design and engineering experts were behind the CE rating standards. That's a fact.

_You_ might not like the standards they devised (in fact knowing your work and approach to things through your posts and blog - I KNOW you don't) - but those standards are what they are. And pretty much the entire industry uses them. And until there is a rash of failures/recalls/etc. that exposes those standards as deficient, or certain builders as not up to that standard, or until there are no production boats out there doing what you don't think they can do because their seacocks are deficient, you're just barking up a tree.

So take it up with the experts.

http://imci.org

(PS - I've watched your load test video on the seacocks. It's good.)


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
Was your boat a half tonner? Looks like a big half tonner or a small tree quarter tonner.

I love that high bootstripe. To my eye it's a great lookiing boat. I'm a Chance fan.


----------



## XSrcing

JonEisberg said:


>


I think this looks absolutely gorgeous. Much better than all the new stuff PCP keeps posting.


----------



## Shockwave

Most Cat A price point production boats are built for light duty weekend sailing in coastal waters. That's fine but they aren't the boat I want to use to take my family 500 miles offshore on.

We all make decisions and live with the consequences.


----------



## Shockwave

Paulo, I'll make a bet that my 40 some year old, heavy, slow boat cost less then yours but will outsail yours in any and all conditions. You seem to have a disdain for anything designed less then 3 years ago.

Do you or have you ever raced?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Most Cat A price point production boats are built for light duty weekend sailing in coastal waters. That's fine but they aren't the boat I want to use to take my family 500 miles offshore on.
> 
> We all make decisions and live with the consequences.


Okay - this is one of the more ridiculous statements in this thread. But whatever.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Paulo, I'll make a bet that my 40 some year old, heavy, slow boat cost less then yours but will outsail yours in any and all conditions. You seem to have a disdain for anything designed less then 3 years ago.
> 
> Do you or have you ever raced?


Shock, What kind of boat do you have?


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Regarding that story about hitting a container or an iceberg, you seem to be obsessed with it. Maybe Icebergs are a problem to you and frequent on the waters you sail and then an aluminium or steel boat probably would be the more indicated to you, but the huge majority of the ones that sail boats like the Pogo 37 or the Rustler 37 has no desire whatsoever to sail on very cold waters where you can find icebergs.
> 
> Regarding containers afloat on the 40 000nm I have sailed I never saw one afloat (and I sail on waters with a deep maritime traffic) and among the sailors I know personally I don't know of any that have hit one. Obviously that can happen and it has happened but regarding the number of yachts that have been abandoned by their crews, the abandons due to having hit a container are just a very tiny percentage and among those the ones that were abandoned by open water created by a container hitting the bow, really rare.


I'm not at all "obsessed" with hitting containers, I'd rate the odds of that as about equal to being struck by a meteorite while at sea ;-) Nor was I the one who broached the subject, I was simply taking issue with your contention that if such an impact were ever to occur, it would always happen below the waterline...

The far more likely occurrence, at least with the sort of sailing most of us do on this side of the pond, is an underwater impact due to a grounding... As such, I stand by my preference for being on one of those Bristols, as opposed to that Azuree, in the event of such a mishap...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> ..they figured out how to do it better and lighter and stronger.
> 
> Meanwhile, Oyster has gotten rid of their "blue water strong" deck salon port lights....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in favor of very "coastal production boat" wrap-arounds (remember Hunter and Beneteau and Jeanneau?) and Swiss-cheesed the hull with port lights...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they go with something so "weak and dangerous" on a vaunted blue water boat?
> 
> And I could go on and on...


Here's a perfect example of how wrongheaded some of your arguments can be... ;-)

Based upon what I witnessed that day in Charleston when I snapped those pics of that "bloated Euro tennis shoe" pinned against the dock, there is _NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER_ between the lack of integrity of those picture windows on that boat, and the likely quality of a similar feature on a build like an Oyster...

Just because Swan or Hinckley are using pop-up deck cleats, that doesn't mean those pieces of junk Hunter is slapping on the transom of their new 47 are their equal...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> ...there is _NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER_ between the lack of integrity of those picture windows on that boat, *and the likely quality of a similar feature on a build like an Oyster.*..


This is exactly what I mean.


----------



## Don L

gee now it seems the argument is the feature doesn't matter, just who uses it :|


----------



## bobperry

I come back from a day at the boatyard expecting you guys to be arguing the definition of "modern".

Damn it, you let me down.

PCP probably spent the day at the bookstore looking for a dictionary that would back up his definition of "modern". Couldn't find one I suspect.


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> That one stopped being made almost 10 years ago and I believe it was a expensive sailboat. The only ones I can find with that price are 33 or 33 year old boats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that had the interior volume of a modern designed 33ft like the Azuree 33.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bristol were heavy and slow, with a PHRF around 160, but if that is what you want as sailboat the market can offer you a better sailboat along the same characteristics but slightly faster, the Ruster 37:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to hurry because I have heard that they are not selling it and probably it will not take long to be discontinued. Bob Perry called it :*"a modern design built for bluewater sailing"*.
> 
> That boat, even if smaller it will costs more than the Maxi 1200, around 400k.
> You can have the previous model cheaper, you can find a 6 year old Rustler 36 for 216k.


1986 for 55 on yachtworld. Why the heck would I want a 10 yo Rustler when I could get a better boat for 1/4 the price? And if you haven't figured out that most of us don't care about speed yet, you're hopeless.


----------



## outbound

Been watching boats leave the last few days to go to the islands.
See big CF cat
See a Shannon
A couple of Valiants 
A couple of Outbounds 
A Bristol
A Hood
A J160
A Few one offs
A few Swans
A Baltic 
A Island Packet 
Don't see any B,H,J and C boats leaving.,their rags are gone and they are waiting to go on the hard.
'Nuff said.


----------



## blt2ski

Either that, or they already left! when the weather might be a bit better. Be that a good or bad thing.....I'll let you decide. 

I know of one Jeanneau 49iP with at least 20K under its bottom. One trip from Seattle to Oz and back. A few trips ea year since to Alaska and back......... 

I also do not have an issue with calling some boats or brands and models weekenders, vacation, ie a week or two here and there models, Snowbird where one lives in it say 5-6 months, goes back to land, or a live aboard. Some parts and pieces of a live aboard needs vs one of these others, DOES NEED to be higher quality or better constructed. To say EVERYONE needs this level of "build" if you will is false. I personally do not need house quality faucets for example in my boat. Some like outbound probably do. I would still bet this % of boaters is pretty small. Less than 5 if not as little as 1-2% or smaller. My swag on this frankly.

Just like the wave piercing bow of the new Club Swan 50 I mentioned earlier. If you race to a box rule, do not have an anchor up front, This bit o "Fashion" using Bobs words, may be a good thing. I would bet for 99+% of folks on SN, probably the same for SA where there are more racers posting. We would not see the minute advantage of a wave piercing bow. This is not to say looking at the CS50 did not give me a hard on......But I feel the CS42 would be a better overall boat. I did like the interior of it, deck plan, etc. It seems to follow the quote someone did re need rom for 6, diner for 4, sleep 2! I could easily see my bride and I on that boat. Be it swan, jeanneau or custom build quality. I have not looked at it super close to see if it meets performance wants of myself. I'm going to guess it will be very close if not better than. 

Where as the Jeanneau 349 Paulo has brought up. I like the look of it better overall than the CS50, I can see bride and I in it too......BUT, that 20-1 SA/Disp for the stock main and jib.....too little SA. I would like about 25-1 for the lighter wind days around here. Then add a Code 0 when racing with crew. Its easy to reduce SA, not gain it when the winds are under 10 knots, which is common here in the Salish Sea. Along with, 7-7.5' of draft. 6.5 or so is ok, but deeper is better, might be a bit lighter too! LOLOL

My 02, for what it is worth, not that you have paid for it!

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

Bob,

If you were to custom a boat for me, I have to say, it would probably be on the plumber side of things, with a small sprit or the anchor and Asym useage. I would also have the forestay aft 6 or so inches so a below deck furler could be installed. This setback design also seems to make it easier to get to the tack of a jib for easier change outs when racing, allowing a furler and still have a full foretriangle jib SA %. Which in my mine would be best considering I would probably have a fractional rig setup vs masthead. This also allows a mast head spin, along with a cheater if the wind pipes up a bit much in winds over say 20-25, upwards of 35 using a spin of some sort, and a reefed main. 

not that this how I would design a boat works for some........I doubt John or Out would do as I do, but frankly, based on there preferred useages of their boats. I would fully expect their boats to be different in lots of ways! As I would expect smacky's to be somewhere between what I want, and they want. Mostly because of the fact I race, along with cruise, mostly weekend to a week here and there. My tankages would be less.......

That is not to say my boat would be the lessor of the boats, but built to MY needs, not theirs!

marty


----------



## NCC320

outbound said:


> Been watching boats leave the last few days to go to the islands.
> See big CF cat
> See a Shannon
> A couple of Valiants
> A couple of Outbounds
> A Bristol
> A Hood
> A J160
> A Few one offs
> A few Swans
> A Baltic
> A Island Packet
> Don't see any B,H,J and C boats leaving.,their rags are gone and they are waiting to go on the hard.
> 'Nuff said.


That's your survey. Not really scientific. I have been spending a lot of time in Morehead City, Beaufort area. More specific, I been spending a lot of time on the Inland Waterway in Bogue Sound. To a large degree due to this thread, I've paid a fair amount of attention to boats going south. Can't say for sure that they're headed to the islands, but you can generally look at a boat and tell if it's making a long trip. First of all, it's really amazing the amount of traffic headed south. Almost nothing heading north. The boats seem about evenly divided between motor vessels and sailboats. Of the sailboats, B, H, J and C, and other older "production boats" seem to account for half or more. The other half seem to be what has been described as older and new bluewater plus high end boats. But the message is that B,H,J,and C are well represented. It's going to be pretty crowded down south this year. My survey is not very scientific either. And I recognize that bluewater and high end boats, in many cases, may be going offshore so they wouldn't be seen if they don't come into or depart from Morehead City/Beaufort.

If you are talking about going down to the Bahamas and other islands down south, the argument that B,H,J and C are fully suited for voyaging/cruising to these areas is enhanced. In the greater sense, these are not bluewater voyages for the most part, but are coastal in nature.

I'm sure the next step will be to discredit me as a poster. And yes, I've never cruised to the islands.

Of course, the sides are pretty well defined in this thread and have been from the start. Positions are hard, and no one is going to change.


----------



## outbound

Meant eastern Caribbean. Maybe that's why list is different. Even Bahamas from here is often done as go a bit South of Bermuda then head south.


----------



## bobperry

Marty: That's the fun of it as I see it. Making your boat an accurate refection of your needs and only yours.

I tell my clients, "Assume you can have everything you want. Then item by item we will slim the picture down to what is reasonable."

Very long day at the yard today. Very productive and pleasant way to spend the time. But tiring, demanding. Some important decisions were made. Fun to meet with Alan the Ronstan rep.


----------



## JonEisberg

NCC320 said:


> That's your survey. Not really scientific. I have been spending a lot of time in Morehead City, Beaufort area. More specific, I been spending a lot of time on the Inland Waterway in Bogue Sound. To a large degree due to this thread, I've paid a fair amount of attention to boats going south. Can't say for sure that they're headed to the islands, but you can generally look at a boat and tell if it's making a long trip...


Hate to break the news to you, but the chances are anyone motoring down Bogue Sound will be motoring most - if not all of the way - down the ICW, inside... Maybe, just _MAYBE_, they'll summon the nerve to jump outside at Ft Pierce, or Lake Worth...

;-)

Very few boats running inside south of Beaufort/Morehead are destined for the Eastern Caribbean, or anywhere beyond the Keys or Chicken Harbor, Bahamas... If they are, chances are they will be relying on Bruce van Sant's guide, and motoring all the way there, as well... The likelihood that any boats running the ICW south of Beaufort planning to sail offshore to the islands is slim, to none...

Hardly seems 'representative' of production boats being taken offshore...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> 
> ...there is NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER between the lack of integrity of those picture windows on that boat, and the likely quality of a similar feature on a build like an Oyster...
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I mean.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could expand on that a bit?

Sorry, but I haven't a clue what you mean...


----------



## bobperry

Fight Club!


----------



## blt2ski

No fight club here, time for IC and Chocolate sauce......

marty


----------



## Capt Len

Did we just witness a case of snidely doublespeak ,well aimed and totally targeted. or am I just as confused as another. Xpounding on the subject may open up a window to clarity


----------



## jerryrlitton

No iminate chance of clarity here.


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> Been watching boats leave the last few days to go to the islands.
> See big CF cat
> See a Shannon
> A couple of Valiants
> A couple of Outbounds
> A Bristol
> A Hood
> A J160
> A Few one offs
> A few Swans
> A Baltic
> A Island Packet
> Don't see any B,H,J and C boats leaving.,their rags are gone and they are waiting to go on the hard.
> 'Nuff said.


FWIW 9000nm down the road over the past couple of months watching boats arrive here from across the Pacific.

A big Swan( From Portsmouth UK)
An Amel (French)
A Hallberg Rassy ( From Sweden)
A Tayana(US)
An Island Packet( US)
A Durbeck(US)
An Ovni (France)
An Elan( Europe)
A Dehler(Europe)
A Nissen ( Holland)
A Pearson (US)
A Vancouver (Canada)
A Moody( UK)
A Bavaria (Europe)
A Dufour ( Europe)
A old Bene and a newer Bene. 
An old Jeanneau.

Don't know what that means or what conclusions one can draw.

It is very anecdotal as we don't notice what we don't notice 
IE if a singlehander did arrive in a small steel boat, cleared in and anchored up the river we would not notice his arrival as easily as the Swan that's been sitting at the end of the Marina for two months.

It is probably also not surprising that we see Bene's more than Outbounds given the sheer difference is production numbers.

I do think it is fair to say that we are more likely to see Europeans arriving in lighter/faster boats than their North American counterparts.

The Europeans arriving are also typically younger.

We do tend to be the end of the road for many, the next ocean along can bite boats in the butt, I would be very interested in what the breakdown of boats arriving in Richards Bay, South Africa looks like.


----------



## Shockwave

The title of the thread is "production boats and their LIMITS". Funny how Smack gets his dander up when limits are actually discussed. As an example, Hunter openly claims their outward turned flange is done for manufacturing convenience but isn't very strong and is vulnerable to damage. 
This is a major limitation in strength.

Funny how Catalina houses the fact the majority of thier hull deck joints are glued and screwed but through bolted.

As I said, the boat you choose is yours.


----------



## bobperry

"Snidely Doublespeak"? Good one Len.

I think I know that guy.


----------



## Don L

Shockwave said:


> Hunter openly claims their outward turned flange is done for manufacturing convenience but isn't very strong and is vulnerable to damage.
> This is a major limitation in strength.


I'll wait for you to provide a link to support this made up statement of yours.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> I do think it is fair to say that we are more likely to see Europeans arriving in lighter/faster boats than their North American counterparts.
> 
> The Europeans arriving are also typically younger.


I think that's a big part of the difference between the thinking of many Europeans like Paulo, and many of us Americans. Due to the comparative ease with which many Europeans can take cruising sabbaticals earlier in their lives than many Americans, the difference between the demographics of the respective cruising communities is not insignificant, with the majority of Americans having to wait until retirement before they're in a position to take off for a period of extended/worldwide voyaging...

Throughout my back and forth with Paulo and others, my primary gripe about so many of today's production offerings, and the sort of sportier boats Paulo fancies, are how much more tiring they can be to sail over the course of an extended passage, with a shorthanded crew... As such a large percentage of American Mom & Pop cruisers tend to be well up there in years, I don't think it should come as any surprise that many tend to lean more towards comfort and seakindliness, as opposed to 'performance' in their choice of a boat to be sailed offshore...


----------



## aeventyr60

The Sail Indonesia Rally boats are arriving in Langkawi now. Nothing really special here, a big mix of just about everything. No pie shaped wedgies either...I'll give the anchorage a better look in the next few days. Plenty of old farts for sure on humble old style cruising boats will be the rule, as it has been in the past.


----------



## Jeff_H

Shockwave said:


> Hunter openly claims their outward turned flange is done for manufacturing convenience but isn't very strong and is vulnerable to damage.
> This is a major limitation in strength.


Originally posted by Don190: "I'll wait for you to provide a link to support this made up statement of yours."

About 15 years ago, I moderated an online Question And Answer discussion between Hunter and the Cruising World magazine online forums. Hunter was amazingly forthcoming and candid.

In that discussion, Hunter was asked about their outward flange hull to deck joint. They said that they chose it because it was easier to manufacture and easier to repair if damaged. They did not say it was weaker than other hull to deck joints. On the contrary, with modern glues they said that they achieved an equal strength. They acknowledged that there was a limit to how strong an outward flange joint can be because of the limits to the area of the faying surfaces. And they readily admitted that an outward flange joint is more likely to be damaged and suffer weakening due to fatigue over time.

That entire discussion was copied and pasted into several websites and so used to be available online but I have not searched for it in years. I have most, if not all of it on my office computer, but that is not the same as seeing it on line.

Jeff


----------



## Don L

Jeff_H said:


> Originally posted by Don190: "I'll wait for you to provide a link to support this made up statement of yours."
> 
> About 15 years ago, I moderated an online Question And Answer discussion between Hunter and the Cruising World magazine online forums. Hunter was amazingly forthcoming and candid. In that discussion, Hunter was asked about their outward flange hull to deck joint. They said that they chose it because it was easier to manufacture and easier to repair if damaged. They did not say it was weaker than other hull to deck joints. On the contrary, with modern glues they said that they achieved an equal strength. They acknowledged that there was a limit to how strong an outward flange joint can be because of the limits to the area of the faying surfaces. And they readily admitted that an outward flange joint is more likely to be damaged and suffer weakening due to fatigue over time.
> 
> That entire discussion was copied and pasted into several websites and so used to be available online but I have not searched for it in years. I have most, if not all of it on my office computer, but that is not the same as seeing it on line.
> 
> Jeff


Yes I have read that discussion so:

yes - it is easier to build
yes - is is easier to repair 
no - it is weak
yes - it is easier to smash (about the same as smashing your hull into anything)

The points being it not weak and it is easy to repair if you do. It really all that easy to smash it as the whole join is protected with a rubber rail and the only part of it that can be smashed in normal use is the aft section if one to to see how hard they can back into something.

Just how easy is it to repair an inward flange leak? Can you even get to most of it with out taking the inside of the boat apart?


----------



## NCC320

JonEisberg said:


> Hate to break the news to you, but the chances are anyone motoring down Bogue Sound will be motoring most - if not all of the way - down the ICW, inside... Maybe, just _MAYBE_, they'll summon the nerve to jump outside at Ft Pierce, or Lake Worth...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Very few boats running inside south of Beaufort/Morehead are destined for the Eastern Caribbean, or anywhere beyond the Keys or Chicken Harbor, Bahamas... If they are, chances are they will be relying on Bruce van Sant's guide, and motoring all the way there, as well... The likelihood that any boats running the ICW south of Beaufort planning to sail offshore to the islands is slim, to none...
> 
> Hardly seems 'representative' of production boats being taken offshore...
> 
> ;-)


Jon, Thanks for clearing up things. I knew there must be a reason why I was seeing all those production boats (J, B, H, C) on the Inland Waterway headed south. I was sure that you could explain it. Just to make sure that I understood correctly. Brave and real sailers go outside in open ocean on real boats, chickens and those without nerve will go via inland waterway, in production boats, but stop short of the islands somewhere in the Keys. In the photo of the Hunter, I see he has reduced sail early. The wind and waves do seem to be kicking up a bit. By reducing sail early, he'll probably won't lose his rig this trip. I did notice that SeaTow and TowBoat US both seemed to have an increased presence in the area recently...probably are going to be needed for the increase in production boats.

I seem to remember something like the following which might explain the mindset of the production boats.

A brave man is not afraid of the sea, but he shall soon drown, for he will go out on a day when he should not, but we be afraid of the sea and only drown now and then.


----------



## WharfRat

JonEisberg said:


> I think that's a big part of the difference between the thinking of many Europeans like Paulo, and many of us Americans. Due to the comparative ease with which many Europeans can take cruising sabbaticals earlier in their lives than many Americans, the difference between the demographics of the respective cruising communities is not insignificant, with the majority of Americans having to wait until retirement before they're in a position to take off for a period of extended/worldwide voyaging...
> 
> Throughout my back and forth with Paulo and others, my primary gripe about so many of today's production offerings, and the sort of sportier boats Paulo fancies, are how much more tiring they can be to sail over the course of an extended passage, with a shorthanded crew... As such a large percentage of American Mom & Pop cruisers tend to be well up there in years, I don't think it should come as any surprise that many tend to lean more towards comfort and seakindliness, as opposed to 'performance' in their choice of a boat to be sailed offshore...


Spot on!

I think this gets very much to the heart of the two different schools of thinking, and the two different markets that respond to them.


----------



## blt2ski

John,

you will find that what you typed, can respond to boats, cars, houses, landscapes from 30+ yrs in biz, shoes, clothing......name it, it will have different variables and tastes. To say who is right or wrong on "wrong" in my book. As whoever is the final user should be the one to say who, what and how they want that item to be for their tastes. Hence why in one of the posts, I talked about what I would want, and also said, I would expect your boat to be different than what I would want. A problem or big deal. Not really IMHO.

It is when people assume that there vision is the ONLY vision, is when we people have issues. Be it politics, boats, homes, etc. There is always a middle ground per say. 

Marty


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ....
> Very few boats running inside south of Beaufort/Morehead are destined for the Eastern Caribbean, or anywhere beyond the Keys or Chicken Harbor, Bahamas... If they are, chances are they will be relying on Bruce van Sant's guide, and motoring all the way there, as well... The likelihood that any boats running the ICW south of Beaufort planning to sail offshore to the islands is slim, to none...
> 
> *Hardly seems 'representative' of production boats being taken offshore*...
> ...


You imply that not many modern main market production boats are being taken offshore but they are among the ones that are more used to circumnavigate (or made extensive passages) and I guess that even in your book that has to mean sailing offshore, some examples:

a *Bavaria 40* (2003) circumnavigating:









A cheap* Beneteau Cyclades 50.3*, bought new in 2006 and sailed extensively for 6 years (almost a circumnavigation). Their owners said about the boat on the blog after having sold it:...."as Bondi Tram has been sold in New Zealand! All good things come to an end sooner or later, and we are settling back in Sydney for the moment...*Bondi Tram was a great boat, and we had very few problems during the six years that we owned her. Very strong, easy to handle, and reasonably quick. Beneteau make great yachts at amazing prices.*"








Bondi Tram - The Launch

A *Beneteau 393* that circumnavigated solo sailed, this one with a well known sailor on this forum:








He says about his boat: "Our boat, the beautiful Sea Life is a Beneteau 393. She is 39 feet (11.9 meters). She is a spacious owners version with 2 cabins and 2 heads. Sea Life is a very beamy (wide) boat with a spacious cockpit perfect for catching up with friends both new and old. We have 12 opening hacthes, with an extra 8 windows and a large companion way which light the sunshine and ocean breeze flow through. We have loads and loads of storage space for provisions and 4 HUGE lazerettes (3 deep enough for Nic to disappear in standing up). *She is a very fast and dry boat at sea, very comfortable at anchor and underway.....we just love her so much....we even give her cuddles...and she likes that!*"
and on an interview:
"*We were extremely lucky to be able to buy a production boat ex-charter. Production boats have put good cruising boats at a price-point low enough so many people can set off, and ex-charter boats are even cheaper.*"








Our Life At Sea - Mark

Scott, Donna, Nathan, and Celeste circumnavigated from 1988 to 1996 on Bluejay, a *J-36*, then a very fast performance cruiser and today still a fast modern performance cruiser.








Regarding the choice of the best boat to cruise extensively, taking into consideration their vast experience they said:
"*We have always believed in the phrase, "a fast passage is a safe passage". We have always had borderline racing boats. A teak interior is beautiful but you are going to want to move without running an engine constantly, choose a boat that can sail.* "
They changed boat in 2009 and the choice show that their convictions remain, they had chose a recent boat of the same type a very fast Tripp 47 performance cruiser and the reasons had to do with the kids that are now grown ups and need more space and privacy to receive friends.
Production Boats Fit For Blue Water - Page 7 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

Some of the production boats that on the last two years appeared on the Puddle Jump (Western Mexico to South Pacific) - data posted by Tacomasailor. He points also that none of those boats sunk or disappeared: *Jeanneau i39, J/120, J/130, Jeanneau 42 (2), Jeanneau 45, Hanse 531, Jeanneau 53,Dufor 32, Hunter 45, Beneteau 43, Bavaria 38, Beneteau 423, Beneteau 50 (2), Hunter 50, Dufour 51, Bavaria 42, Beneteau 445, Jeanneau 47, Beneteau First 40.7, Jeanneau 39, Bavaria 49, Beneteau First 44.7, Jeanneau 37, Hunter 386, Jeanneau 42*.

He took also the trouble to make a count regarding the brands with more boats that made that Pacific 2500k passage between 2012 and 2015. Here are the numbers:
*Beneteau 35, Morgan 13, Jeanneau 12, Catalina 9, Hunter 8, Islander 6, Pearson 4, Dufour 4*. Of course if we were talking about an Atlantic crossing, that I do no even care to mention, the percentage of Beneteaus, Jeanneaus and Bavarias would be overwhelming.

A Brand new 2005 (at the the time )* Bavaria 36* that circumnavigated solo without problems.








the sailor said about the boat and some of the conditions he encountered:
"The weather was like a washing machine for days, endless squalls, incredible cloud formations, changing winds, gusts over 40 knots, irregular seas of 5m and visibility of less then two miles. Most of the time it was impossible to sleep due to alarms, squalls and beating sails. Nautilus was bashed by waves and rolled so much, *'I really wondered how easily she seemed to handle the situation!* .. My best 24 hour run was 182 miles....I outpaced many mono hulls and even a catamaran which left at the same time - the mono hulls by as much as 2 - 5 days and the catamaran by 1 day! .."
sail-world.com -- Bavaria 36 Cruiser Nautilus - World Tour

A 1998 *Beneteau First 40.7*, a performance that are making a many year's long circumnavigation that includes high latitude (Antarctic) sailing and cruising:








Giebateau: 058 Bestemming Zuid Korea...

A *Bavaria 36* that circumnavigated not once, but twice and one of them *by the horn*, solo:








Genuíno Madruga em volta ao Mundo

A *Jeanneau 34ft*. Circumnavigated solo, *by the horn and non-stop*:








Alain Maignan, il en rêvait, il l'a fait!

A Canadian 2007 *Bavaria 42*, a circumnavigation in 5 years:








Voyage autour du monde

A new *Delphia 40.3* circumnavigated by the horn with a single stop.








Tomasz Cichocki in DELPHIA 40.3 completes solitary around-the-world sail

A Jeanneau SO 49 sailing since 2008. Derry Ryder, an Irish retired doctor, first circumnavigated on one direction and now is circumnavigating on the opposed direction, heading East to West, this time with his wife. 








Avocet's Adventures Around the World - Re: ex hiva oa

A First 44.7 that is now circumnavigating. A boat that they own since 2008 and that has sailed extensively, including an Atlantic loop and 4 Fastnet races among many smaller ones.








6 ways to sail around the world ? Yachting World

A *Bavaria 44* that after being used as charter boat on the med during the 5 or 6 years of his life was bought by Kathrin et Uwe Petraschek that without any significant modifications on the boat started from Greece a *circumnavigation by the Northwest passage* (2009). They had no special problems and returned to Greece two years and 38000nm later...and to their jobs.








Perithia

Another *Bavaria 44* that circumnavigated with a family:








zeilboot senang

A* Beneteau Oceanis 423* that circumnavigated during 6 years with a family:








Gryphon II - Chris and Lorraine Marchant

A *Lagoon 400* at the middle of a circumnavigation with a family (3 years sailing): 

http://le-zorus-oceanique.over-blog.fr/]Le blog de Fabrice, Sandrine, Chloé et Amandine - Journal et lien de communication avec nos proches et amis pendant notre boucle autour du monde[/IMG]

Another *Bavaria 44* that circumnavigated:








Weltumseglung 2011 bis 2013

A *Bavaria 38* that circumnavigated:








Weltumsegelung der SY Blue Pearl

More production boats that are circumnavigating, this time with the 2014 ARCWorld: A J*eanneau SO 39*, a *Beneteau 40*, a *Jeanneau SO 49*, a *Lagoon 38*, a *Lagoon 620* and a *Hanse 47*. In 2012/2013: *Jeanneau SO 49, Jeanneau SO 45, Beneteau 50, Beneteau Oceanis 461, Bavaria 44, Jeanneau SO 52.2, Jeanneau SO 54DS, a Catana 522, a Catana 581 and a Lagoon 380*. On the ARC world 2010/2011 among the 19 boats : *Alliaura Previlege 435; Alliaura Privilege 435, Alliaura Privilege 445, Lagoon 440, Bavaria 47, Benetau Cyclades 50.5, Hanse 531*. On the 2008 ARCWorld finished a circumnavigation: *Beneteau Oceanis 393, Beneteau First 42S7, Beneteau First 44.7, Bavaria 44, Bavaria 46, Jeanneau SO 49, Jeanneau SO 49DS*. Bigger number the boats by brand: a match between Beneteau and Oyster.
.....

So, I would say that you are wrong in implying that modern mass production cruisers are not used extensively offshore by the sailors that want to sail offshore. It seems to me that it is also evident that they are the ones that now are more used to do offshore passages.


----------



## smackdaddy

^^^^^Like.


----------



## bobperry

One old guy did a solo circumnavigation on this boat. Slocum I think his name was.

So many of my boats have done circumnavigations that I have lost track. It says a lot more about the sailor than it does about the boat. A bricklayer from Baltimore did a solo circumnavigation on a Baba 30! One of my boats did two solo circumnavigations Mark Schraeder ( NON-STOP) and Bill Pinkney, two great sailors and one great boat.
We could post all sorts of whacky boats that have done circumnavigations. Proves nothing, nada, mayola.


----------



## slap

bobperry said:


> One old guy did a solo circumnavigation on this boat. Slocum I think his name was.
> 
> So many of my boats have done circumnavigations that I have lost track. It says a lot more about the sailor than it does about the boat. *A bricklayer from Baltimore did a solo circumnavigation on a Baba 30!* One of my boats did two solo circumnavigations Mark Schraeder and Bill Pinkney, two great sailors and one great boat.
> We could post all sorts of whacky boats that have done circumnavigations. Proves nothing, nada, mayola.


Bob - wasn't the bricklayer in his 80's?


----------



## bobperry

Slap:
As I recall he was a retired guy but I'm not sure how old he was. I never met him. He kept sending me postcards as he went and one day I finally figured it out, "This guy is really doing a circumnavigation."

I have a Baba 40 owner getting ready for a solo non-stop circumnavigation now.


----------



## bobperry

I have some work to do today on the PSC 63 but maybe I'll take the time to put together some cut and paste images of whacky circumnavigators. It would be very easy to put forward the case that any boat can do it given the right skipper.

It is an extremely eclectic group.
Take TILLICUM for example. If you can do it in this a Euro production boat would have seemed like the QUEEN MARY


There is no end of Hunters ad Catalina's that have circumnavigated including a Cat 27. I once owned one. Not my idea of an "offshore boat".


----------



## bobperry




----------



## bobperry

Check this out.
"The baba is a classic looking modern yacht." I got this out of WIKIPEDIA.


----------



## SloopJonB

* He points also that none of those boats sunk or disappeared*

That brings up an interesting point - is there any sort of record on the Interweb of boats that have been lost or abandoned? That might tell more of a story than the successful ones.

That 40' Delphia is a gorgeous boat - how "contemporary" is it? :wink


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
That sounds like your afternoon assignment. That's going to be tough. Not sure quitting and crashing were well publicized. 

" Wooo Hooo! Look at me on the rocks!"


----------



## slap

SloopJonB said:


> * He points also that none of those boats sunk or disappeared*
> 
> That brings up an interesting point - is there any sort of record on the Interweb of boats that have been lost or abandoned? That might tell more of a story than the successful ones.


But the unsuccessful ones may be due to lack of skills by the sailors, bad maintenance, or even bad luck. And not due to the construction or design of the boat.


----------



## bobperry

And the successful ones may be a function of pure luck and good weather. Lots of variables.


----------



## Scotty C-M

A very interesting post, PCP. It does prove some interesting points. Most interesting to me is that there is a long list of production boats making serious passages. I agree that there are many other lists of boats that are "marginal" that are also doing so. As pointed out, the sailor's skills are the real bottom line. However, true to the topic of this thread, "The Limits of Production Boats", there are significant numbers of production boats, as you showed anecdotally and with some (rather basic) statistics, that are out there. 

As I've watched this discussion, I've mostly stayed silent. I will however, share an opinion. I can't afford many of the boats that are talked about as "true BBBs". I'm a simple guy. Got a family, retired from 34 years as a public school teacher, and can barely afford the boat I do have. I'd love to have a fancy boat, but not really. Nor do I want to get one of the "build it yourself for pennies" really rough boats. I also like the accomodations of more modern designs. The Catalina 400 is the perfect middle ground for me. With the proper preparation it would take me anywhere. It might not take you anywhere, but it represents a reasonable alternative for a fellow like me, both financially and seawothynesswise (I just made that word up!). I also love my boat. It makes me warm and tingly inside.

A side note: The sea is a whole lot bigger than any boat made, much less our little pleasure sailboats. You just can't engineer, or build, a boat to be able to "take anything". ALL boats are a series of compromises and trade offs. I've really enjoyed different takes on what make acceptable compromises. There have been some great boats discussed here. Looking forward to more of that.


----------



## XSrcing

De skulle på langtur, men så gikk det galt. - Båtforumet - baatplassen.no

Hit a marked jetty.


----------



## seaner97

Read this recently by a NA about a "newish" boat (designed circa 200) that isn't a pizza boat, but was moving in that direction.
Interesting.

"On the down side, a wide stern increases wetted surface and makes a boat sticky in the light stuff. Heeled over, a wide, low-deadrise stern coupled with short aft overhang can give you a transom that drags and gurgles, sucking the bay along with you. It can also force the boat to roll bow down as it heels, which can give you a demanding helm. Most of these issues can be handled with prudent design, but it's tricky. I prefer a more moderate approach to beam aft. The D/L of this design is 210 (using the displacement listed for the beavertail keel model). The range of positive stability is listed as 125 degrees, and that's textbook normal for this type of boat."


----------



## Jeff_H

Jeff_H said:


> Originally posted by Don190: "I'll wait for you to provide a link to support this made up statement of yours."
> 
> In that discussion, Hunter was asked about their outward flange hull to deck joint. They said that they chose it because it was easier to manufacture and easier to repair if damaged. They did not say it was weaker than other hull to deck joints. On the contrary, with modern glues they said that they achieved an equal strength. They acknowledged that there was a limit to how strong an outward flange joint can be because of the limits to the area of the faying surfaces. And they readily admitted that an outward flange joint is more likely to be damaged and suffer weakening due to fatigue over time.
> Jeff





Don0190 said:


> Yes I have read that discussion so:
> 
> yes - it is easier to build
> yes - is is easier to repair
> no - it is weak
> yes - it is easier to smash (about the same as smashing your hull into anything)
> 
> The points being it not weak and it is easy to repair if you do. It really all that easy to smash it as the whole join is protected with a rubber rail and the only part of it that can be smashed in normal use is the aft section if one to to see how hard they can back into something.
> 
> Just how easy is it to repair an inward flange leak? Can you even get to most of it with out taking the inside of the boat apart?


Don,

Lets be clear here about what I was saying. I was trying to clear up what Hunter has said about that joint in reference to Shockwave's comments. I was not trying to describe the pluses and minus's of the outward flange hull to deck joint in detail.

If you have read that discussion you should be aware that your statements " it is easier to smash (about the same as smashing your hull into anything)
The points being it not weak and it is easy to repair if you do." ....gloss over both what was said, and the realities of the situation.

What was said is that the kind damage that occurs when a boat rolls against a solid object (like a piling or edge of a dock) might leave scrapes on the side of boat with an inward facing flange, vs a boat with outward facing flange literally tearing off the hull to deck joint. In follow-up discussions, a number of people who managed, or owned or worked in boatyards and several marine surveyors weighed in that this is a pretty common occurrence with outward facing flange joints. It is not the same as an inward facing joint.

Similarly, both Hunter and the follow-up discussions agreed that a horizontal impact on the rail, creates a large force (perpendicular to the glue surface and a bending moment on the glass) which tries to pry the joint apart (rather than the sheer forces of a inward flange) and so are much more likely to damage the joint as well. This is so common in Catalina's that it has a name (The Catalina Smile).

But that is only a part of the story. In a outward flange joint, the laminate makes a near perpendicular turn out to the flange. For aesthetic reasons that turn is a very sharp turn and the glass cannot be made appreciably thicker at that turn or else the rubber would get to be be very clumsy. The result is that there is a large concentration of bending forces that occur where the flange rotates horizontally and that takes a toll over time.

In the follow-up discussion, several of the surveyors and boat yard personnel posted images and discussion on this topic. While only anecdotal, they did tell a clear story. The most dramatic was a boat which rolled against a dock and it's outward flange caught a piling top. It tore the hull parallel to the joint for a distance of only a foot or two. The surveyor who told the story said that the repair was approved according to his recommendation to cut and grind back the hull and joint to a point beyond which delamination was observed. The rubber rail was removed and the yard began cutting and grinding with each extension of the length being removed being approved by the surveyor. After incremental approvals, the area cut away extended approximately 6 feet either side of the impact and there was still noticeable delamination in the hull matrix parallel to the joint. On observing the exposed gelcoat on the joint beyond the cut open area, there was nearly continuous stress cracking, suggesting that the delamination condition extended most of the length of the boat and on both sides of the boat, in other words it was not the result of this or any other impact, but from the service stresses on the boat. At that point the insurance company refused to pay for any repairs beyond those which has previously been incrementally approved.

Similar stress cracking was observed and images posted from other boats by the boat yard personnel.

This is not a minor issue to be dismissed lightly. So while Hunter claimed that the joint is as strong as a inward flange joint, that may be true when that joint starts life, but it will weaken over time more rapidly than a typical inward flange (since the inward flange does not experience routine withdrawal and bending loads on the magnitude of an outward facing flange, has larger radiuses, can be and typically is made heavier than the hull laminate, and can have larger mating surfaces) and will be significantly more likely to incur significant damage over time.

Hunter's response to that discussion is that their boats are designed for a specific user and price point, and that their typical user does not expose their boats to the regular hard use that higher end boats are designed for.

So while it may be argued that any one owner might roll the dice and decide to take a boat with an outward facing flange offshore, and come back without damage, the risk in doing so goes up over time.

On the current point being debated, I am very much a subscriber to the idea that the fact that a particular boat manages to sail mostly around the world does not mean that that design is particularly well suited for offshore work. My typical example of a small plywood boat with a concrete external fin keel that I knew well, and which made it to Miami from Australia does not provide any proof that this boat was an ideal vessel for such a voyage.

Jeff


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> You imply that not many modern main market production boats are being taken offshore but they are among the ones that are more used to circumnavigate (or made extensive passages) and I guess that even in your book that has to mean sailing offshore, some examples:


Well, it was not my intention to imply that whatsoever, I was simply addressing the mention of the parade of boats transiting one very specific portion of the Intracoastal Waterway, when compared with outbound's list of boats he's seen prepping for the offshore passage from New England to the Caribbean...

Make no mistake, there are plenty of "Bluewater Boats" motoring down that stretch of the Ditch, as well, with jerry cans lining the rail... But for those heading for the Eastern Caribbean offshore for the winter, it makes little sense to proceed south on the ICW beyond Beaufort/Morehead City. The only logical exception, is if one is late into December or January, in which case Don Street's route from Jacksonville is a viable option... There's nothing at all 'wrong' with heading down the ICW, it's a wonderful trip, but it bears little resemblance to heading direct from the NE to Bermuda and beyond, offshore... The overwhelming percentage of East coast snowbirds will do very little actual sailing over the course of 1,000 miles or more, and then wait for a flat calm day to motor across the Stream from FL to the Bahamas, if that's where they're headed...

East coast American sailors are remarkably 'spoiled', in that regard... No other coastline in the world that I'm aware of has such a network of protected waterways over such a great distance, and many of us do most of our sailing in comparatively benign and protected waters such as Chesapeake Bay, or Long Island Sound... Entirely different ballgame than the Atlantic coast of France, for example, or South Africa, where even the shortest daysail puts you right out into the open ocean... By contrast, the equivalent for a New England snowbird heading down the East coast of crossing the Bay of Biscay, or battling the Aghulas Current around South Aftrica, is the 'treacherous' 120 mile run down the coast of New Jersey... ;-)

Yup, we're spoiled, alright... biggest challenge many of us face is squeezing under a 65' bridge at high tide, or making the next hourly bridge opening on time...

;-)


----------



## PCP

I waited very patiently for this post to be edited or even erased:



Maine Sail said:


> Wow,* I suspect we have a couple of individuals here who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Bob is not one of them.*...:wink
> 
> "The Dunning-Kruger effect is a *cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.* Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to *the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately*.
> 
> Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
> 
> *fail to recognize their own lack of skill
> *fail to recognize genuine skill in others
> *fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
> *recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill"
> 
> Some here entirely lack the ability recognize when *they are being rude, obnoxious, condescending, arrogant, pompous, self-centered, conceited, self righteous, insulting, egotistical* & are preaching and talking down to others as if it is everyone else in the world who is wrong and not them...
> 
> Perhaps some introspection is in order...:wink


I fail to understand how a collective insult directed to the ones that don't have the same opinions as Bob (since Bob is explicitly left out) is less severe than and individual insult since the object of the insult is clear. The post above as no substance besides insulting others as a group. How can that post remain a after the previous warning Faster had posted saying that the moderators would not allow precisely that type of posts?

Hollow words I would say:


Faster said:


> Folks..
> Guitar Guy made a comment a few posts (pages?) back that the mods have gone to sleep. Not true, but there's no question that the tone of this thread has become far more appropriate for PRWG than General Discussion, which is unfortunate. The topic, however, is not PRWG.
> 
> That it's devolved largely into personality issues is a shame because the potential for meaningful dialogue is being lost among the ridicule and name calling. ...
> I suggest that the participants reel in it significantly and keep the personal comments and ridicule out of the discussion. If we must, we will wade in and start editing and deleting such commentary - perhaps we're a bit late on that score - but we can try to get back on course. ...
> For similar reasons we've had to close other 'popular' threads in the past.. hoping we don't need to do the same here.


After that post I received an email from a member saying that he was not participating more on this thread neither on this forums. He was not on the disposition of being insulted and bullied and asked me why I was still participating on this Forum?

He is right, it is time I do the same. Hope is the last thing to die and I was really hopping that post of Faster to have any meaning and that moderators really were interested in maintaining a civil level of discussion preventing that, on the lack of valid arguments, insults and bullying were used as last resource.

Unfortunately that is not the case and even if I have been participating here on the last 11 years and made a substantial contribution, including most of the more popular thread on sailnet ever, I cannot stand bullying, bad manners, incivility and rudeness. I had suffered that for a while waiting something to be done, but it is really too much and nothing had changed.

So, I left you with :
"a* modern design built for bluewater sailing*"" or is it a *"Pig?"* (you can chose among them the most inadequate qualification).









With *"the ultimate sailing machine"*









and sailboats with a "*"bloated tennis shoe look"*":



















*If you are among the few ones that cannot understand the sad irony of this, you can always do something about it: trow some more insults at me!*


----------



## SloopJonB

*In a outward flange joint, the laminate makes a near perpendicular turn out to the flange. For aesthetic reasons that turn is a very sharp turn and the glass cannot be made appreciably thicker at that turn or else the rubber would get to be be very clumsy. The result is that there is a large concentration of bending forces that occur where the flange rotates horizontally and that takes a toll over time. *

Jeff, I don't understand this at all - I have owned inward, outward and H joint hull & deck joints - they all had about the same radius (or lack thereof) to the turn into the joint surface. It's always more than 90 degrees except where the hull side is vertical or tumblehome.

In fact, due to the usual flare of hull sides, I'd say that outward turned flanges exhibit LESS of a turn on average than inward turned flanges.


----------



## NCC320

PCP,

I, for one, think you have been mistreated by lots of people on this forum. You speak to us in English and sometimes it's a little hard to understand since things are often stated in different ways in different languages. By contrast, no one here seems to be able to talk to you in your native language. So, in my book, you deserve recognition for that ability. I have no doubt that you know a lot about sailing and the boats. Most of the boats you present are European, and that is to be expected. And if you didn't, lots of us would never even see what is going on in Europe regarding boats with exception of some that are sold in the US. I enjoy those postings and your comments. It is often pointed out that you are not a boat designer and thus have no designs of your own to present. I'm guessing that since you are an architect, you could show many of your architectural projects if you were so inclined, but that would be off subject for this forum. As to the boats you show as being state of the art voyaging boats, it is my belief that you are correct to a large degree in that those are what future boats everywhere will look like, including in the US. The traditional style boats that are popular here will still remain, but there will likely be a shift towards the European concepts gradually. Probably first by the production builders that everyone have been bashing on these forums. As to some of the technical details you have discussed, it has been expressed to you that you are wrong in those. Maybe so. After all, many of these are things that only a boat designer is likely to know. But your ideas are not always wrong and often seem right to some of us. No one is right all the time and lots of people fail to understand this. Hope you will change your mind and keep posting.


----------



## NCC320

Jeff,

Isn't the Catalina Smile a reference to the line that develops at the keel to hull joint on some older Catalinas where wood spacers were used, which in some cases deteriorated and resulted in movement at the joint. It has been fixed on many of the older boats, and to my knowledge, does not occur on recent Catalinas since wood spacers are not used now.

I don't think that the term has any thing to do with the hull to deck joint. Am I mistaken?


----------



## Scotty C-M

Jeff, The "Catalina Smile" refers to a hull to keel crack (leading edge of keel). It does not refer to a hull to deck issue.

Also, I agree with NCC320. I have been interested in PCP's thoughts. Some of the responses have been rude. I too am really bored/tired of people slamming each other.


----------



## bobperry

I'll miss PCP's participation. I enjoy looking at those latest Euro boats and he has his finger on what is happening in Europe. But I have SEAHORSE, SAILING ANARCHY, YACHTING MONTHLY and the German mag YACHT.

Put me in the column of "those who can't understand the sad irony of this." I have no idea what he is going on about. I went through his post three times. I respect PCP for his effort to argue in English but while I respect it I fear it may put him at a severe disadvantage in terms of accurate communication on technical subjects. His chose to jump in here.

My apologies to the mod's for making their job difficult.
Sorry you are leaving Paulo.


----------



## XSrcing

Curmudgeons! The whole lot of you!


----------



## bobperry

320: 
Are you certain about the"wood spacers"?

Several years back Frank Butler called me in as an expert witness on a hull to deck failure case. This was about 20 years ago. I don't recall wood spacers being used.

I think one of the benefits of the outboard flange is that leaks are better kept out of the boat. MIRAGE in Canada built many of my boats and they liked the outboard or "coffee can" flange becauise they had less trouble with it in terms of warrantee issues.


----------



## Scotty C-M

Bob, The wooden spacers refered to spacers in the bildge, which compressed over time, thus allowing a hull-to-keel crack to appear because the keel bolts loosened. Not a problem for quite some time now due to a design change. This has nothing to do with deck to hull connections.


----------



## SloopJonB

Re: PCP's departure - deja vu all over again.


----------



## WharfRat

True but that doesn't mean we have to like it.


----------



## bobperry

Scotty: 
Are you referring to "floors" i.e vertical ,transverse structural members under the cabin sole?

Wharf: 
You don't "have to like" anything. You have choices too.


----------



## seaner97

Paulo,
I had to wait until I got to a real keyboard-too hard to do on a mobile.
I'm impressed with your language skills- no way I'd even try in Portuguese. And I'm sorry to see you go, if you really do.
But the insults and manners haven't been nearly as one sided as you profess.
I'm not saying you haven't been affronted- you have. But you've been rude and condescending to many in return as well. It is possible that, due to you arguing in a language that is not your first, you have not meant to, but you have. Some of us have answered in kind, others have attempted to be more oblique, and others have just ignored it (I think I have, personally, ran that gamut), but in all cases, not one of us has quit and flamed people on the way out.
I hope you cool off and decide to stay as, regardless of if I agree with you, your opinions do add some flavor and depth to the discussion.


----------



## chall03

aeventyr60 said:


> Plenty of old farts for sure on humble old style cruising boats will be the rule, as it has been in the past.


I think we miss a lot of those guys in Australia because of the relatively high cost/hassle factor of clearing in.


----------



## Scotty C-M

You know Bob, I think that they were more in the line of simple spacers, as opposed to structural sections. More than that, I do not know!!

What do I know? Not much apparently! But, I do know that my wife and I took a long weekend trip up the coast to Half Moon Bay. Motored up Friday in grey skys and bumpy seas, stayed in the harbor rafted up with a bunch of friends over the weekend, and then had a terrific sail (blue skys, gentle waves, 8-15 knots of wind) back to Santa Cruz on Sunday. The only (production boat) limits we tested were the limits of pure fun! That and how many Painkillers I could handle on Saturday night. Back to topic ….


----------



## Capt Len

Flange in or out? Strong ? leaks? looks? It's mostly about the mold you pop the hu;ll out of. Building flange in allows more meat on the corner and a bigger return flange which has got to be a superior method. however the mould may need a separate bolt on return to glass to. So much easier to glass up and out and cut off the excess. Builders can keep the price point if their market doesn't look too close or will accept explanations that don't reflect the honest pros and cons of their product


----------



## Shockwave

People don't want to hear the engineering Capt, they want to buy the fluff and believe they are getting something they haven't paid for. They just isn't any free lunch.


----------



## Shockwave

Sorry to hear Paulo is leaving but he never answered the question of whether or not he raced. This is a cogent point, if you don't understand a PHRF rating of 90 for a new 50 footer is very slow then you have no right to claim only new boats are quick.


----------



## SloopJonB

Shockwave said:


> Sorry to hear Paulo is leaving but he never answered the question of whether or not he raced. This is a cogent point, if you don't understand a PHRF rating of 90 for a new 50 footer is very slow then you have no right to claim only new boats are quick.


Actually, he did answer it back a ways - he raced twice, both very low key. In at least one the boats weren't even rated.

That's a perfect example of what bothered me (and apparently others) about Paulo - he didn't race, they don't use PHRF in Europe yet he felt qualified to lecture Perry on the fine points of all of it - in a language he was something less than fluent in to boot.

I don't know about you but when people like Perry, Y.M. Tanton, Tad etc. are posting, my inclination is to ASK them things, not TELL them things.

For an amateur sailor to do otherwise is pretty presumptuous IMO, blog or no blog.


----------



## SloopJonB

Capt Len said:


> Flange in or out? Strong ? leaks? looks? It's mostly about the mold you pop the hu;ll out of. Building flange in allows more meat on the corner and a bigger return flange which has got to be a superior method. however the mould may need a separate bolt on return to glass to. So much easier to glass up and out and cut off the excess. Builders can keep the price point if their market doesn't look too close or will accept explanations that don't reflect the honest pros and cons of their product


I think the big benefit to a production builder of the out turned flange is that one person can bolt the joint together instead of one inside & one outside


----------



## blt2ski

Shockwave said:


> Sorry to hear Paulo is leaving but he never answered the question of whether or not he raced. This is a cogent point, if you don't understand a PHRF rating of 90 for a new 50 footer is very slow then you have no right to claim only new boats are quick.


Overall I do not have issues with Paulo. BUT, as noted, 90 for a 40' boat is on the slow side depending upon the type.

Along with the Jeanneau 349 at 141 is also slow vs previous Jeanneau boats. Even the SO/SF32 and SO33i more direct predecessors of the 349 were 10-20 secs faster. If one wants to add a C0 to go upwind.....now you rule break your way faster per say. But how many of us truly want 170-180% equal jib/C0 up? I bought a fraction to make things easier, not harder with a large overlapping head sail. No matter what you want to call it. If one were to use the C0 in the mess as a jib in the rating, vs a spin if made correctly, then the rating for the 349 would probably go down in to the low 100 range.

I personally would go after a first 40.7 if I wanted a 40' race cruise boat. 25-1 fraction SA/Disp boat, you can put a 0 on it if you wish for light airs, But one can reduce easy enough for higher days, or if it is spouse and I, to keep her happy in lighter days.

My 02 for what and why I want what I do. I can also see how Bob mentioned a boat in the 18 or 20-1 ratio too......

Now one is IMHO splitting hairs as to which is better per say. When in reality, the SA/D ratios I am referring to, help or hinder you depending how you wish to use the boat. To use Bill Lee's quote, "fast is fun" lighter the boat, the more sa to the weight, faster the boat. A bit fatter Asset than a canoe WL hull shape, one can plane and get over hull speed. Not too much bullet shape tho, or you can not go as efficiently upwind. One will need a balance.

Hence why some J-Boats, older SCruz's, The Jeanneau SO boats from the early 2000-2010 or so, WOXII imho is better than Rambler from an overall pure 100' racing standpoint, unless the course is ALL down wind, then Rambler should get away from WOXII. But throw in a 30-40% upwind part of the race, WOXII has a chance, ALL upwind, Rambler IMHO has to be ON there game, and WOXII off of it for rambler to win.

My 02!

Marty


----------



## XSrcing

SloopJonB said:


> I don't know about you but when people like Perry, Y.M. Tanton, Tad etc. are posting, my inclination is to ASK them things, not TELL them things.


If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.

No one ever learned anything by telling everyone what the "answer" is.


----------



## Capt Len

Must be more that, I mean whats the cost of an extra minimum wage minion ? maybe we should ask for a cost analysis from an NA.


----------



## bobperry

I have never claimed to be the smartest person in the room. I'm a bit of a savant. I'm not smart at a lot of things. But on a typical day here I'm the only one posting who has designed boats steadily for the past 48 years. I'd say that gives me a slight advantage in discussing yacht design and naval architecture. I have a well established track record that covers a huge variety of craft. I like to share what I have learned. Like Jeff I try hard to explain things in a less than pedantic and dogmatic manner. I try to always leave room for personal sailing style and I am constantly saying "lots of variables involved" and "It's a subjective call".

I don't suffer fools and fakes. I like it when everyone's opinion is heard and no one tries to jam their sense of right and wrong in boat design down our throats.
Don't let anyone tell you you can't enjoy your boat just the way it is and just the way you choose to sail it.


----------



## Faster

Amazingly, I (we) have lives and obligations outside of SN.. a big family gathering this weekend so little time.



bobperry said:


> I'll miss PCP's participation. I enjoy looking at those latest Euro boats and he has his finger on what is happening in Europe. But I have SEAHORSE, SAILING ANARCHY, YACHTING MONTHLY and the German mag YACHT.
> 
> Put me in the column of "those who can't understand the sad irony of this." I have no idea what he is going on about. I went through his post three times. *I respect PCP for his effort to argue in English* but while I respect it I fear it may put him at a severe disadvantage in terms of accurate communication on technical subjects. His chose to jump in here.


Then why the endless, over-the-top ridicule? To what purpose?(rhetorical, btw)



bobperry said:


> My apologies to the mod's for making their job difficult.
> Sorry you are leaving Paulo.


Both these statements are hard to credit, given numerous back channel attempts to avoid exactly this situation (again)

I personally extend my apology to Paulo.. IMO we obviously failed to find a proper way to deal with all of this, but I gotta go..


----------



## NCC320

bobperry said:


> 320:
> Are you certain about the"wood spacers"?
> 
> Several years back Frank Butler called me in as an expert witness on a hull to deck failure case. This was about 20 years ago. I don't recall wood spacers being used.
> 
> I think one of the benefits of the outboard flange is that leaks are better kept out of the boat. MIRAGE in Canada built many of my boats and they liked the outboard or "coffee can" flange becauise they had less trouble with it in terms of warrantee issues.


Bob,

From some older other threads and discussions on Sailnet, it is my understanding that the deck to hull joint is not at all related to the Catalina Smile. It was due to a simple wood spacer that, if I recall correctly, may have been used in 1970's era boats. The spacer was not related to the floors, but just a wood spacer placed between the hull keel stub and the keel. Some compressed or got water into them and deteriorated, allowing movement at the keel to hull joint, giving a small opening, or smile at the joint. I think that the repair was relatively straight forward, and there are probably members on this forum who have actually made such repairs. At some point, the wood spacers were eliminated, and to my knowledge, there have been no such "Smiles" with more recent boats.


----------



## bobperry

320:
It's common to have longitudinal stiffeners port and starboard of the centerline running through the keel area. On many boats with big rigs these longitudinals are critical parts of the structure. You cannot do it with only floors. On FRANCIS LEE the floors tie into these longitudinals and help spread out the keel loads. Maybe that's what you are seeing. But structural longitudinals cannot be broken i.e. chopped up between floors. You work to maintain continuity in the structure. Maybe if I had a photo to show what you are talking about it would help. I put longitudinals in all my fin keel boats. I run them out forward and aft as far as possible.

On a boat like the full keel carbon cutters the envelope of the keel fin itself provides the fore and aft stiffening when reinforced with floors.

Faster:
Rhetorical silence.


----------



## outbound

Returning to the OP.
The point about differences in age and agility between Euro and US cruisers is quite salient.
As is the point about differences in the live aboard and sabbatical mentality. 
Although folks around SF and off Newport see some windy days and with kite season and Xmas winds you do in the Islands the point about average cruising conditions off Atlantic France and Portugal seems correct as well.

I think this is reflected in the variance in opinions offered by different posters. I've never had argument with Paulos point of view. I only had difficulty accepting it was the only valid point of view.

Still, I continue to believe there is a hole in the market. Several posters have pointed out this may be due to the absence of a significant market. Early it was said this segment is perhaps only 2-3% of new boat buyers. In that case small houses such as my boat, bigger houses with strong history of producing such boats such as HR and Rustler will survive. The demand will probably decrease so fewer and fewer stick built boats will be made. Paulo may be right. We'll end up with one offs for the ultra rich and last man standing for the production builders. I sincere hope not as it was a delight to have so many different builders in my region back in the day. 

But for the American cruiser not willing or able to make such a commitment to a "high end" builder or to NEB or Betts the hole still exists. Some of what is posted about various boats making various transits may reflect using a hammer when no screwdriver is available. Maybe that's just fine if the screws are dipped in 5200 first. So be it. Still be nice to have a newly built handsome boat that will look good decades down the road that could comfortable and safely sail the ocean blue. I'm a happy camper but I hope that I'm not so egocentric as to not see the presence of this deficiency.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'd really like this thread to stay in the general forum simply because it is a great thread with tons of great information for newbs out there looking for boats.

So chill the hell out everyone. Or at least take it to FC.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's something I'd HONESTLY like to do with this thread...

Personally, I think the old saw that "production boats don't belong in blue water" is well and truly dead. It's just a ridiculous position to hold if we're talking category-rated boats.

So, let's shift the focus onto the REAL gorilla in the room...that is, the "half-life" of today's production boats. I've already made the somewhat controversial (for whatever reason) statement - that production boats aren't built to last for many decades like the tanks of yesteryear. But I've also said that this is not a bad thing if it's getting more people out sailing in _newer_ boats.

In other words, to hold that if you are going to buy used, you HAVE to have a 45 year old Hans Christian (or Oyster, or similar) to rate bluewater safe (_Rebel Heart_ anyone?) is simply ridiculous. Those boats are WAY past their half-lives - yet the forum world holds them up as stalwart. It's stupid.

In the "Yard Guys" and "Production Boats Fit for Blue Water" threads on CF, I posted plenty of examples of Moodys, Oysters, and Swans, etc. having the same kinds of problems you see in photos in this thread. But people over there couldn't get past the same old debate. Maybe we can here on Sailnet - which is FAR more viewed than CF anyway.

So what is that middle-ground? When exactly do the newer production boats lose their safety factor? THAT is the most important thing I think we could discuss here. Because it is critical that we have some kind of handle on that as a USED boat buying audience.

Buying a 45 year-old vaunted brand for blue water cruising is WAY more dangerous in the whole as buying a newer production boat. But there definitely is a "crossing point" in that graph when it comes to used boats.

So - show me/us the problems being seen - COMMONLY AND REPEATEDLY - in production boats that are 5 or 10 or 15 years old. Maine did his typical hyperbolic photo above of some failure which means nothing. Let's really get down to it. When do these category-rated production boats ACTUALLY become dangerous? If we can show that - and show it reliably - we've actually done something useful for the sailing world.


----------



## blt2ski

Smack, 

Not sure you can. Just like cars of yesteryear were good to 100K miles or there abouts, todays getting 200-300K is pretty common, and still be in better shape than yesteryears cars!

When to dump a boat?!?! will if the rot in the wood is meaning a what I would call a complete new boat, altho some call it a rebuild, where you tear it down to dang near nothing, and replace more than IMHO 25% of the wood, most it is closer to 75-90%, That boat is shot! plan and simple. 

One could probably say the same thing about the FRP equal in newer boats. If the FRP is delaminating, there is a point, it is better to junk the boat. Some like R Grahms original Dove floated around the Caribbean long after it should have been junked, but a hurricane took it to its grave. It was a leaking sieve as I recall the book from my teen years. 

On the other hand, if the main hull is good, still strong, these things should last a long long time! Yeah one needs to replace components, But, the rebuild vs scrap also has a dollar price too. At some point in time, it is cheaper to junk the thing, start with a newer used for some of us, or new new for others. 

My boat is close to the should have bought a new one. being what I had to replace to a degree, etc. Bought for 20K, put 60K into it, have 80 total, new boat like this 10 years ago was 100K! 10 years of payments would have been easier. I still have the original 30 yr rig and engine. Rig worries me more than anything. 

My 02

marty


----------



## blt2ski

Forgot the fellow in YC, bought an Amel for 500K. Already been around the globe twice. He is planing the same trip with family. Boat will make it per say. But so far the things he has had to replace etc, he may have another 200K into it before he leaves. Things like Generator, main sail furling motor. Mizzen motor is probably not too far behind frankly. Needs new sails. Not sure about interior cusions etc..........

Not going to say a smart investment. but that is his choice, not mine.

marty


----------



## mitiempo

NCC320 said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Isn't the Catalina Smile a reference to the line that develops at the keel to hull joint on some older Catalinas where wood spacers were used, which in some cases deteriorated and resulted in movement at the joint. It has been fixed on many of the older boats, and to my knowledge, does not occur on recent Catalinas since wood spacers are not used now.
> 
> I don't think that the term has any thing to do with the hull to deck joint. Am I mistaken?


You're not mistaken.

Early Catalinas - 27, 30 pre 1988 and maybe others - had the bottom of the keel stub - the section the keel bolts pass through - cored with plywood. Over time any water entering the plywood caused rot and the the keel bolts lost their torque, causing the "smile" effect of a visible gap between the ballast and the hull. The ideal fix is to drop the keel, remove all wood - rotted or not - and build up layers of glass to bring the area up in both thickness and strength, then re-bed the keel. Many added lag bolts from the inside through the stub and into the lead - probably not a very durable fix.

I do not know of any hull/deck problems on Catalina's boats. No wood was used in the hull/deck joint.

Here is a diagram showing the issue.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Let's really get down to it. When do these category-rated production boats ACTUALLY become dangerous?


For some, it's the moment they leave the factory...


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Here's something I'd HONESTLY like to do with this thread...
> 
> Personally, I think the old saw that "production boats don't belong in blue water" is well and truly dead. It's just a ridiculous position to hold if we're talking category-rated boats.
> 
> So, let's shift the focus onto the REAL gorilla in the room...that is, the "half-life" of today's production boats. I've already made the somewhat controversial (for whatever reason) statement - that production boats aren't built to last for many decades like the tanks of yesteryear. But I've also said that this is not a bad thing if it's getting more people out sailing in _newer_ boats.
> 
> In other words, to hold that if you are going to buy used, you HAVE to have a 45 year old Hans Christian (or Oyster, or similar) to rate bluewater safe (_Rebel Heart_ anyone?) is simply ridiculous. Those boats are WAY past their half-lives - yet the forum world holds them up as stalwart. It's stupid.
> 
> In the "Yard Guys" and "Production Boats Fit for Blue Water" threads on CF, I posted plenty of examples of Moodys, Oysters, and Swans, etc. having the same kinds of problems you see in photos in this thread. But people over there couldn't get past the same old debate. Maybe we can here on Sailnet - which is FAR more viewed than CF anyway.
> 
> So what is that middle-ground? When exactly do the newer production boats lose their safety factor? THAT is the most important thing I think we could discuss here. Because it is critical that we have some kind of handle on that as a USED boat buying audience.
> 
> Buying a 45 year-old vaunted brand for blue water cruising is WAY more dangerous in the whole as buying a newer production boat. But there definitely is a "crossing point" in that graph when it comes to used boats.
> 
> So - show me/us the problems being seen - COMMONLY AND REPEATEDLY - in production boats that are 5 or 10 or 15 years old. Maine did his typical hyperbolic photo above of some failure which means nothing. Let's really get down to it. When do these category-rated production boats ACTUALLY become dangerous? If we can show that - and show it reliably - we've actually done something useful for the sailing world.


By the time any boat is 15+ years old, its going to need some pretty serious refit for long distance duty. We're talking about the rig/chainplates and sails at least, possibly even a repower. To say nothing of the various systems that are going tits up and the antiquated and salt-air weathered electronics.

Considering this, I'm not sure where it follows that a 30 year old boat is by some magical process more "dangerous" than the 15-20 year old boat that also requires the same sort of refit. Quite the opposite, really, considering that the older boat is also quite a bit simpler, and therefor intrinsically has fewer points of failure. Kinda like considering the difference in mechanical complexity and therefor the reliability between a tiller and a wheel. A boat with larger and more numerous deck openings has larger and more numerous points of failure that can allow the sea in. An unprotected prop is an unprotected prop. An unprotected rudder is an unprotected rudder. And so on and so fourth. Also, the older boat has probably already been having work done over the years. Frankly, if its decades old and still factory stock, its pretty awesome that its even floating, and is not a good purchase. Most of the older boats I'd consider purchase worthy have been well kept, updated, and are usually packing new engines and rigs, often even spars.

Personally, for long distance I'd subscribe to the simplest methods possible, with the minimal number of points of failure possible. I'd be removing thru-hulls and installing heavy duty stainless or bronze portlights, converting to tiller steering if its not already present, and so on. But, I'm a worst-case sort of pessimist. You, on the other hand, have pretty much written off bad weather as a concern due to it being a less likely outcome with proper planning, so I think we approach this from very different directions. _I'm claiming no objectively correct methods_. Its my own preferences for preparedness.

I suppose its possible that if the older boat has structurally come unbuttoned somewhere, as in lost bulkhead connections or something, and has for years been having the hull and deck themselves subject to repeated twisting and bending due to that loss of rigidity...there could be issues of the material itself going into failure at particular load points? Its a possibility...and of course something this major should have been dealt with as a matter of course. And of course, this is a possibility with any boat.

But, considering the sort of heavy construction involved in older designs, this concern is lessened quite a bit relative to a lighter weight design.


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> Some of what is posted about various boats making various transits may reflect using a hammer when no screwdriver is available.


Bingo.

Boat shopping with a limited budget what matters to us is not the philosophy expunged on about the ideal bluewater boat, but rather simply what we can afford and what we can't, what will suit our purposes with appropriate compromises and what won't.



smackdaddy said:


> Here's something I'd HONESTLY like to do with this thread...


Where the hell you been? Got an engine yet?



smackdaddy said:


> Personally, I think the old saw that "production boats don't belong in blue water" is well and truly dead.


Ummmm..... ok.



smackdaddy said:


> So, let's shift the focus onto the REAL gorilla in the room...that is, the "half-life" of today's production boats. I've already made the somewhat controversial (for whatever reason) statement - that production boats aren't built to last for many decades like the tanks of yesteryear.


Maybe they weren't build to last and we do agree they are not as strong but....I think this is the Y2K bug of boats.

When the 'production boats' (as we are loosely defining them and calling them) turned up in the 90's and into the 2000's all the old salties warned me that they would all fall apart soon enough. 15-20 years on they are not falling apart. Osmosis is far rarer now than some of their older counterparts.



smackdaddy said:


> In other words, to hold that if you are going to buy used, you HAVE to have a 45 year old Hans Christian (or Oyster, or similar) to rate bluewater safe (_Rebel Heart_ anyone?) is simply ridiculous. Those boats are WAY past their half-lives - yet the forum world holds them up as stalwart. It's stupid.


I don't think it is stupid, but you have a point.



smackdaddy said:


> Buying a 45 year-old vaunted brand for blue water cruising is WAY more dangerous in the whole as buying a newer production boat. But there definitely is a "crossing point" in that graph when it comes to used boats.


Way more dangerous? I wouldn't quite draw that long bow. It depends.

But yes the level of refit and maintenance required to prepare a 45 year old boat for long term cruising is substantial and often glossed over in these discussions. Not much point have a seakindly design if your old electrics catch your boat on fire....Ergo good old boats can be dream killers, a real money trap.



smackdaddy said:


> So what is that middle-ground? ...............


I'm glad you asked, der it's in the middle of course 

So we are looking closely at some of the more bluewatery of the production boats built in middle of the 1990s. We are looking very very closely at Moody 425s/44s.

Good (moderate)design, good build, old enough we can afford them, not so old that our grandparents used to sail them. Readily found in Europe which suits our cruising plans.

Ultimately though our vote will be cast when we purchase( and we are also looking at bluewater equipped newer production boats and substantially refitted Peterson 44/46's etc).


----------



## aeventyr60

chall03 said:


> I think we miss a lot of those guys in Australia because of the relatively high cost/hassle factor of clearing in.


Yep, and the visa requirements hurt too. Just back from an Indonesian cruisng seminar, looks like the required CAIT and TIP is now over. VOA visa on arrival for 30 days and extendable for another 30 days. 6 month visas available at consulates. Boat can stay in the country for three years.. Lots more cruisers just gonna keep on heading West through the Torres Strait bound for Indonesia...
Sumatra looking good In December...hurry on over!


----------



## chall03

aeventyr60 said:


> chall03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we miss a lot of those guys in Australia because of the relatively high cost/hassle factor of clearing in.[/QUOT
> 
> Yep, and the visa requirements hurt too. Just back from an Indonesian cruisng seminar, looks like the required CAIT and TIP is now over. VOA visa on arrival for 30 days and extendable for another 30 days. 6 month visas available at consulates. Boat can stay in the country for three years.. Lots more cruisers just gonna keep on heading West through the Torres Strait bound for Indonesia...
> Sumatra looking good In December...hurry on over!
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is fantastic news.
> 
> If we bought in Oz we had been thinking PNG/Philippines rather than Indonesia. Might need a rethink.
Click to expand...


----------



## aeventyr60

chall03 said:


> aeventyr60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is fantastic news.
> 
> If we bought in Oz we had been thinking PNG/Philippines rather than Indonesia. Might need a rethink.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd suggest a trip up to the "Raja Ampat" region....Darwin to Ambon and then up to the Ampat..fantastic diving here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, why do you dismiss those in the industry that point out problems of production boats? Maine explained the hull deck failure that Hunter now recognizes but defends as "good enough" for our customers. 

Again, do you want your family on board when you have to beat into heavy seas for three or four days to get out of the way of a developing low?

Incidentally, I feel the same way about Catalina's hull/deck shoe box construction that is glued and screwed though glass and plywood. It's fine for how "most customers" use their boats but it's not fine for that open ocean beat away from the path of a low.

The title of the thread is "the limits of production boats". Many pro's have posted substantive bits of information that help show those limit, why dismiss them?


----------



## Shockwave

Regarding refitting an older boat, it depends on the boat, how much has been done to it previously, the quality of the initial construction and a whole host of other variables. 

If you're going to do a refit: try to find a good quality boat and make sure you know all the costs to replace aging systems BEFORE you buy.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Personally, I think the old saw that "production boats don't belong in blue water" is well and truly dead. It's just a ridiculous position to hold if we're talking category-rated boats.


That's a gross oversimplification, and I really don't see anyone arguing that... Some boats may, and others may not... As always, _It Depends..._



smackdaddy said:


> So - show me/us the problems being seen - COMMONLY AND REPEATEDLY - in production boats that are 5 or 10 or 15 years old. *Maine did his typical hyperbolic photo above of some failure which means nothing.*


What you consistently fail to appreciate, is that any such failure hardly "means nothing", _when it happens to YOU..._

;-)

It's cold comfort to know that others may be happily sailing and blogging their way across the Pacific on a sister ship of a boat I might be having issues with... I'm not _imagining_ the sorts of problems I've had on a variety of boats over the years, but rather have experienced or witnessed pretty much every sort of problem/failure one can have on board... I seem to have a highly developed talent for breaking things by simply pressing the "ON" button, for example, so as a result I view with a bit more skepticism than most the reliance upon more complex systems over simpler systems... But, perhaps I'm just _unluckier_ than everyone else...

;-)

However, I think my assessments are reasonably fair about most of this stuff... I had plenty of teething problems with the earliest versions of the Leisure-Furl, for instance, and the closest I've ever felt to the danger of losing a rig on a big boat occurred as a result of a L-F snafu in a blow off the Georgia coast... But L-F made refinements and improvements over the year, and I'm very happy today to have any of the larger boats I run equipped with such a system...

I will say for the umpteenth time here and elsewhere, your focus on the _AGE_ and _BRANDS_ of yachts suited for sailing offshore is misguided, and your question re the "half-life" of today's production is so much akin to "how long should a piece of string be?" as to be impossible to answer in a meaningful way... Again, _It Depends..._

So, yet again I will state my opinion that "The Limits" of a particular brand or model of boat will have far more to do with its design and construction _CHARACTERISTICS,_ than its age... Features like poor deck ergonomics, or difficult access to machinery or other systems are factors right from the get go, and as the saying goes, "You can't fix Stupid"...

Sure, it may be somewhat dated in certain respects, but for those looking at boats with the intention of really going places, I think looking at them thru this sort of lens is still the best approach, by far...


----------



## Don L

You know I think for the most part these type of threads I've read over the years is really mostly "I read it on the internet so it must be true". But they developed a more advanced form of "I read it on the internet and now I'm an expert and therefore can repost it as fact".


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> I cannot stand bullying, bad manners, incivility and rudeness.


You have been doing *exactly all of those things* in this thread but don't want to accept how your insults & rudeness are _received by others_. Until you can accept the consequences of your own _manners_ your posts will likely continue to net responses based on what _YOU_ put forth in manners, rudeness, condescension or insults.

I think you have a LOT to offer and perhaps _reading before posting_ would help you see the_ tone_ you often present...


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Incidentally, I feel the same way about *Catalina's hull/deck shoe box construction that is glued and screwed though glass and plywood*. It's fine for how "most customers" use their boats but it's not fine for that open ocean beat away from the path of a low.


Shock,

Which one of the below Catalina hull/deck joints are you referring to, exactly:


----------



## jorgenl

jorgenl said:


> Shock, What kind of boat do you have?


I am still interested in which 40 yr old boat you happen to have that can so easily outsail Paulo's?


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> You have been doing *exactly all of those things* in this thread but don't want to accept how your insults & rudeness are _received by others_. Until you can accept the consequences of your own _manners_ your posts will likely continue to net responses based on what _YOU_ put forth in manners, rudeness, condescension or insults.
> 
> I think you have a LOT to offer and perhaps _reading before posting_ would help you see the_ tone_ you often present...


Maine - let's not get pot and kettle here dude.


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> Maine - let's not get pot and kettle here dude.


Likewise Smack...:wink



smackdaddy said:


> In other words, to hold that if you are going to buy used, you HAVE to have a 45 year old Hans Christian (or Oyster, or similar) to rate bluewater safe (_*Rebel Heart*_ anyone?) is simply ridiculous. Those boats are WAY past their half-lives - yet the forum world holds them up as stalwart. *It's stupid*.


Hello pot... You insult an entire group of boat owners as "stupid" based on n=1 data....



smackdaddy said:


> It's just a ridiculous position to hold if we're talking *category-rated boats.*


You have once again _moved the goal post_. I would urge you to look at the title of the thread you created.

*Production Boats and the Limits*



smackdaddy said:


> Maine did his typical hyperbolic photo above of some failure which means nothing.


A "hyperbolic photo" of a design on a _production boat_ which you yourself called "lousy"...



smackdaddy said:


> Even so, *this sure seems like a lousy design to me* (as a novice). Yet Bob said that this technique is used on other boats. So maybe Hunter just screwed it up. Who knows.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sure, it may be somewhat dated in certain respects, but for those looking at boats with the intention of really going places, I think looking at them thru this sort of lens is still the best approach, by far...


Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts

By the Technical Committee of the Cruising Club of America
Edited by John Rousmaniere
Illustrated by Stephen L. Davis
New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, *1987*, 310 pages

- Yeah, it's dated. It's older than my boat...which is old. So I don't think it's really applicable to the subject at hand.


----------



## jorgenl

Smack, haven't you heard? The sea has not changed since 1987 ;-)


----------



## Don L

Maine Sail said:


> Hello pot... You insult an entire group of boat owners as "stupid" based on n=1 data....


Isn't that what most of these threads become? People dig up the same example over and over and apply it to the 1000s of boats don't have the problem.


----------



## Maine Sail

Don0190 said:


> Isn't that what most of these threads become? People dig up the same example over and over and apply it to the 1000s of boats don't have the problem.


Pretty much, and for the record I don't condemn production boats as "unsafe" for offshore use but I DO URGE buyers to do more than look at the flowers and throw pillows when buying a boat, ANY BOAT!

BTW I owned THREE Catalina's.....


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

I would say the book is applicable to a point! No different than the "20 Best boat builders" ver 1 and 2. Books like this have granted comments about how boats were built at the time, but if taken with in that context, look at individual points of a given boat or builder to find and figure out what is really a good boat for YOU! Not not everything with in the book is appropriate for buying lets say a new boat. But it might point out some issues with boats of that era to a bit newer.

The 20 best boats under x feet that is tossed around occasionally, I would say the same about it. From a todays standpoint, both good and bad in the book, but if one can pull out the good from the bad, worth reading.

It is no different than I said earlier. If John E, out and myself were to have BP design the three of us a say 40' boat, I am positive the things I would want vs those two would be different based on how I use my boat vs them. Even tween those two thing would be different as they too use there boats different. Look at the pics of Johns boat posted, HERE is mine. Similar, but yet different.

Marty


----------



## Shockwave

Jorgenl, all you have to do is go to the Catalina web site and look at construction details. They outline the three hull/deck construction methods they use. The shoe box method is used on the 42, not sure what size they build before the go to an inward flange. But even on the larger boats utilizing inward flanges the hull/deck joint is only glued and screwed, not through bolted.

Again, this construction methodology is fine for how MOST Catalina customers use their boats. Again we are talking LIMITS of production boats.


----------



## bobperry

Valiant 40's had a glued and screwed hull to deck joint for years. This is the way the Navy spec'd the joint on their Viet Nam gunboats.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Jorgenl, all you have to do is go to the Catalina web site and look at construction details. They outline the three hull/deck construction methods they use. The shoe box method is used on the 42, not sure what size they build before the go to an inward flange. But even on the larger boats utilizing inward flanges the hull/deck joint is only glued and screwed, not through bolted.
> 
> Again, this construction methodology is fine for how MOST Catalina customers use their boats. Again we are talking LIMITS of production boats.


The image in my post is from Catalina's web site....

Care to enlighten me to what the problem is with method 3?

And, I am still interested in what your 40 year old boat that out sails Paulo's is?

/Jorgen


----------



## NCC320

Shockwave said:


> Jorgenl, all you have to do is go to the Catalina web site and look at construction details. They outline the three hull/deck construction methods they use. The shoe box method is used on the 42, not sure what size they build before the go to an inward flange. But even on the larger boats utilizing inward flanges the hull/deck joint is only glued and screwed, not through bolted.
> 
> Again, this construction methodology is fine for how MOST Catalina customers use their boats. Again we are talking LIMITS of production boats.


Jorgenl posted the construction details from the Catalina site. For shoe box, Catalina stated for shoe box (the second diagram/text) "both screws and bolts". You don't talk about anything but screws....maybe they changed over time, but I'm just wondering whether this might be another case of someone who just wants to beat on production boats. This time it's Catalina. You've made two posts regarding this joint, neither very good. You've also stated your boat can out sail Paulo's, but you won't even reveal what boat, if any, you really own. So, why should we give any credit to such statements?

As to screws only, I don't know. I read an article in the past describing Bavaria's state of the art production plant, and it was stated there that they used screws because it enhanced the automation process...screws can be worked from one side, bolts require two sides. I don't even know if that's true and so far as I know, both Bavaria and Catalina have not had big issues with the hull to deck joints. Both have made many boats, so I feel sure that if you look hard enough, you can find some examples of joint problems. But, I suspect that if you investigated the reason for the problems, it will relate back to abuse on the joint. Almost nothing is indestructible.


----------



## Shockwave

Certainly it's easier and cheaper for the manufacturer to drive a screw then through bolt. Is a driven screw stronger then a through bolt? Not hardly. Is this construction method better for the customer, yes better for the pocketbook, but maybe not better the longevity of the hull/deck structure. I was suprised to hear Bob say this construction method was used on his Valiant, must be good enough.


----------



## Maine Sail

NCC320 said:


> Catalina stated for shoe box (the second diagram/text) "both screws and bolts". You don't talk about anything but screws....maybe they changed over time, but I'm just wondering whether this might be another case of someone who just wants to beat on production boats. This time it's Catalina. You've made two posts regarding this joint, neither very good.


Catalina uses both screws and bolts on their shoe box, usually alternated screw, bolt, screw but sometimes there are two screws then a bolt etc.......


----------



## Shockwave

Jorgen, maybe one day I'll post what I sail but with Paulo now gone it really doesn't matter. I was just tired of him bashing older boats stating old and heavy boats were slow and ready for the trash bin.


----------



## jorgenl

still no boat, Shockie?

Is it an imaginary one?


----------



## SloopJonB

Shockwave said:


> Jorgen, maybe one day I'll post what I sail but with Paulo now gone it really doesn't matter. I was just tired of him bashing older boats stating old and heavy boats were slow and ready for the trash bin.


So you're saying you were just baiting PCP with a comment about a boat that wouldn't really outsail his?


----------



## Shockwave

Doesn't matter now Jorgenl but you're free to believe whatever you like. ?


----------



## Shockwave

Sloop, you know my boat, I might just post under another name on other sites. Like I said I was tired of Paolo bashing old and heavy, ready for the trash heap.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Doesn't matter now Jorgenl but you're free to believe whatever you like. ?


Yes, I know what I believe ;-)

It might could just matter a wee bit when it comes to your credibility...


----------



## Shockwave

This is an internet forum, there is no credibility for an anonymous poster.


----------



## bobperry

Amen to that Shock.

Hull to deck joints:

I think any of those three methods works if done correctly. As I said earlier Mirage chose the outboard flange because they has fewer warrantee issues with it.
I had the outboard flange on my boat THE MIGHTY P'WINKLE. I never paid much attention to it until after I bought the boat. The boat was a Cirrus 7.8 built by Albin in Sweden. Over 15 years of ownership I had manu occasions to look hard at tat joint. I never had a single issue with it (zero leaks) and I think it was probably the strongest part the topsides.

As for the plywood "spacer" in the bilge of the Cat I don;t like that at all. PW has very little compression strength and it's sure to rot in that application. Solid build up of mat and roving would have been the better detair there.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> Valiant 40's had a glued and screwed hull to deck joint for years. This is the way the Navy spec'd the joint on their Viet Nam gunboats.


pretty crazy justification


----------



## amwbox

Maine Sail said:


> You have once again _moved the goal post_. I would urge you to look at the title of the thread you created.
> 
> *Production Boats and the Limits*


If only we could back through time and specify.

When someone says "production boat" the image I get is...Catalina 27. Or, Hunter 30. Maybe with swept shrouds and not even a backstay. Thousands of them. They're all over every marina.

This is not the same as the larger, far more expensive, and less common boats by the same companies that actually _are_ capable if not ideal.

Similarly, when someone says, "That guy is driving a Hyundai." I think..._4 cylinder economy car. Probably gets good mileage._ I don't immediately assume its a brand new Hyundai Genesis that looks and drives like a Mercedes Benz.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> pretty crazy justification


Having only a general understanding of how these boats are manufactured, I think I get why they choose to put them together with fasteners. Obviously a screw sucks compared to a bolt and a backing plate...but end of the day its still just holes and bits of threaded stainless slapped together with some joint sealant that is certain to eventually fail.

Ideally, we could check a box and have the joint glassed together so we could enjoy a continuous, one piece hull and deck. Then we wouldn't have to do it ourselves, eventually.


----------



## blt2ski

amwbox said:


> If only we could back through time and specify.
> 
> When someone says "production boat" the image I get is...Catalina 27. Or, Hunter 30. Maybe with swept shrouds and not even a backstay. Thousands of them. They're all over every marina.
> 
> This is not the same as the larger, far more expensive, and less common boats by the same companies that actually _are_ capable if not ideal.
> 
> Similarly, when someone says, "That guy is driving a Hyundai." I think..._4 cylinder economy car. Probably gets good mileage._ I don't immediately assume its a brand new Hyundai Genesis that looks and drives like a Mercedes Benz.


In this example, both MB and Hyundai are production CAR builders. They make both of these on a production line, and build more than 2 units of the same thing. To me anyhow, anything made in more than 2 units to a degree, in the same facility, using the same molds etc, is a production built item. Including the 4 carbon cutters BP is overseeing right now.

So while you are thinking smaller 25-35'ish foot boats, I would include some of the 100' Swan/Oyster's as production boats. Out in Port Angelas Wa. Westport yachts builds "PRODUCTION" power boats upwards of 200' in length. Delta in Seattle is similar. I would probably call this more semi-custom, as the shell is the same, but being as one is spending upwards of $100mil for these things, the interiors are custom per buyer. Morris Yachts, production, but like Westport, semi-custom, they will do things special to the interior if need be. Swan and Oyster to a degree, are probably on the semi-custom end too.

The thing they have in common, all use the same basic plan and build technique for a given line design of boats.

As noted tho, actual build technique where there is more than one way to do things, can vary. THIS is where many of us, need to realize, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and get something to work.

If one has been in the design biz, spec biz etc, one realizes there is not always one BEST way of doing things.

hence I under stand JohnE's wanting and liking the Hershoff (sp) cleat. I would not want one on my boat amidship. I would not want to be that days rail meat, nor do I want normal rail meat to have to sit on that thing for a given tack or two. So one of the popup/flush cleats would be a better option for me. Very fore and aft, and cleat more like the hereshoff would work fine.

There is not a right or wrong in this. Even Smacky seems to be trying to get a single answer, not sure that is the correct way to look at the original question, nor the one he threw out last night, as to when is something truly done and gone. The goal post will move based on many factors frankly.

Marty


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> In this example, both MB and Hyundai are production CAR builders. They make both of these on a production line, and build more than 2 units of the same thing. To me anyhow, anything made in more than 2 units to a degree, in the same facility, using the same molds etc, is a production built item. Including the 4 carbon cutters BP is overseeing right now.
> 
> So while you are thinking smaller 25-35'ish foot boats, I would include some of the 100' Swan/Oyster's as production boats. Out in Port Angelas Wa. Westport yachts builds "PRODUCTION" power boats upwards of 200' in length. Delta in Seattle is similar. I would probably call this more semi-custom, as the shell is the same, but being as one is spending upwards of $100mil for these things, the interiors are custom per buyer. Morris Yachts, production, but like Westport, semi-custom, they will do things special to the interior if need be. Swan and Oyster to a degree, are probably on the semi-custom end too.
> 
> The thing they have in common, all use the same basic plan and build technique for a given line design of boats.
> 
> As noted tho, actual build technique where there is more than one way to do things, can vary. THIS is where many of us, need to realize, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and get something to work.
> 
> If one has been in the design biz, spec biz etc, one realizes there is not always one BEST way of doing things.
> 
> hence I under stand JohnE's wanting and liking the Hershoff (sp) cleat. I would not want one on my boat amidship. I would not want to be that days rail meat, nor do I want normal rail meat to have to sit on that thing for a given tack or two. So one of the popup/flush cleats would be a better option for me. Very fore and aft, and cleat more like the hereshoff would work fine.
> 
> There is not a right or wrong in this. Even Smacky seems to be trying to get a single answer, not sure that is the correct way to look at the original question, nor the one he threw out last night, as to when is something truly done and gone. The goal post will move based on many factors frankly.
> 
> Marty


Wish I could "like" way more than once.


----------



## amwbox

blt2ski said:


> In this example, both MB and Hyundai are production CAR builders. They make both of these on a production line, and build more than 2 units of the same thing. To me anyhow, anything made in more than 2 units to a degree, in the same facility, using the same molds etc, is a production built item. Including the 4 carbon cutters BP is overseeing right now.
> 
> So while you are thinking smaller 25-35'ish foot boats, I would include some of the 100' Swan/Oyster's as production boats. Out in Port Angelas Wa. Westport yachts builds "PRODUCTION" power boats upwards of 200' in length. Delta in Seattle is similar. I would probably call this more semi-custom, as the shell is the same, but being as one is spending upwards of $100mil for these things, the interiors are custom per buyer. Morris Yachts, production, but like Westport, semi-custom, they will do things special to the interior if need be. Swan and Oyster to a degree, are probably on the semi-custom end too.
> 
> The thing they have in common, all use the same basic plan and build technique for a given line design of boats.
> 
> As noted tho, actual build technique where there is more than one way to do things, can vary. THIS is where many of us, need to realize, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and get something to work.
> 
> If one has been in the design biz, spec biz etc, one realizes there is not always one BEST way of doing things.
> 
> hence I under stand JohnE's wanting and liking the Hershoff (sp) cleat. I would not want one on my boat amidship. I would not want to be that days rail meat, nor do I want normal rail meat to have to sit on that thing for a given tack or two. So one of the popup/flush cleats would be a better option for me. Very fore and aft, and cleat more like the hereshoff would work fine.
> 
> There is not a right or wrong in this. Even Smacky seems to be trying to get a single answer, not sure that is the correct way to look at the original question, nor the one he threw out last night, as to when is something truly done and gone. The goal post will move based on many factors frankly.
> 
> Marty


Well said. Of course, since very nearly all of the blue water cruisers being derided in this thread are also production boats, assuming they aren't one-offs, the topic is even more moot than it already was.


----------



## bobperry

Don: 
Don't recall where I said the Nam gunboats were a "justification". Maybe you can point that out to me in the interest of accuracy.

The reason the Navy spec'd screws was they contended that a bolt with a generous washer could "bind" and not make the complete bond while a screw would not "bind". To my knowledge there was never a hull to deck joint failure on any Valiant.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> Don:
> Don't recall where I said the Nam gunboats were a "justification". Maybe you can point that out to me in the interest of accuracy.


Oh come on now you wrote it, I didn't retype your words!


----------



## bobperry

Don. 
I simply made a statement of fact, pure and simple. I made no attempt to "justify" anything.

I do think that Uniflyte justified the use of the screwed joint based on the Navy studies into that detail. Maybe that's what you meant.


----------



## NCC320

Good ideas can come from anywhere, and sometimes, maybe often, from people not actively involved in the subject matter....in our case here, sailboats. Just now, some of us are focused on the use of screws, or bolts, or fasteners of any sort to join major parts of a boat together. The same people will often fuss about the quality, or cost, or some other parameter that they don't like about a given product. It's easy to say, why don't you do this or that? Almost any product in our lives is very complex. A designer, engineer, manufacturer has to take all the various wants, needs, restrictions, limitations, laws of physics, cost, raw materials, safety, environmental, governmental, available facilities, production techniques available and many other things into consideration. To the extent they are successful, we get some desired product which actually works and meets most of the original goals. If they aren't successful, they lose lots of money and go out of business. That is not a small thing, and they will try like crazy to avoid that outcome. So, they want a successful product too that will reward them with an income. Most likely, a majority of us are somehow involved in this system, maybe not boats, but something else. If we are, and our group is not successful in the outcome, that loss of income becomes very personal. Now, there are some organizations kind of isolated from this process, and often are a drag on the successful outcome. But even here, if all businesses fail, even government can't cover the costs. If a manufacturer chooses to use screws for deck joints, they have made an assessment that this will be satisfactory for the product being made, and is a necessary step to get a positive outcome. No manufacturer will specify a component or technique which he knows will make his product fail. Each wants his product to succeed, so he can make and sell more. The exact equation that a given manufacturer uses is different. Some target high end, top quality, unlimited cost items. Others say their niche is a good product that will sell many copies that meets the needs of a greater group of consumers at a lesser price...this is done with a product that is not quite as nice as the high end group, but still does the task and can be sold to the bigger group. For us, we can fuss about screws for deck joints, but typically, we don't have the real knowledge and facts to say whether that move is good or bad. And besides, that is only a small part of the final product. If the use of screws is really a big thing to us individually, we can always seek out a boat that didn't use that technique. Of course, we'll probably find something else we don't like on the same product...veneer cabinets, iron instead of lead keels, too big or too small a engine or deck hardware, etc. So it's a big compromise. And although we fuss about the product, but few of us individually can do better. Or if we think we can, we have a real opportunity...anybody willing to invest all you have and lots you don't currently have to try to produce your idea of a better boat?


----------



## SloopJonB

amwbox said:


> Having only a general understanding of how these boats are manufactured, I think I get why they choose to put them together with fasteners. Obviously a screw sucks compared to a bolt and a backing plate...but end of the day its still just holes and bits of threaded stainless slapped together with some joint sealant that is certain to eventually fail.


Not a certainty anymore - modern structural adhesives are pretty amazing goo. I'm no chemist but I've used consumer level products that will tear the substrate apart before they fail. I'm sure the industrial grade products out there are even better. Our cars are largely glued together with them, particularly aluminium stuff.

With adhesives like that, the fasteners really only serve to locate the structural pieces until the goo cures.

They ain't using polysulphide anymore. :wink


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Not a certainty anymore - modern structural adhesives are pretty amazing goo. I'm no chemist but I've used consumer level products that will tear the substrate apart before they fail. I'm sure the industrial grade products out there are even better. Our cars are largely glued together with them, particularly aluminium stuff.
> 
> With adhesives like that, the fasteners really only serve to locate the structural pieces until the goo cures.
> 
> They ain't using polysulphide anymore. :wink


It's always escaped me why 5200 isn't a standard bonding material for hull to deck joints. Could probably tack them together with staples until the stuff cured and from there on out you'd be golden. I'm sure I'm missing something, but that stuff is tough and permanent with a Capitol p.


----------



## Don L

seaner97 said:


> It's always escaped me why 5200 isn't a standard bonding material for hull to deck joints.


Far as I know it is, at least for those "trashy" Hunters.


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always escaped me why 5200 isn't a standard bonding material for hull to deck joints.
> 
> 
> 
> Far as I know it is, at least for those "trashy" Hunters.
Click to expand...

Then if they've had failures I'd guess they were either due to the laminate or improper application or assembly. If it's the laminate, then you'd be getting at the heart of Smack's question.


----------



## blt2ski

I know of 2 local builders that us 5200 or equal in hull deck joints. Granted not sail boats. Boats still.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts
> 
> By the Technical Committee of the Cruising Club of America
> Edited by John Rousmaniere
> Illustrated by Stephen L. Davis
> New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, *1987*, 310 pages
> 
> - Yeah, it's dated. It's older than my boat...which is old. *So I don't think it's really applicable to the subject at hand.*


Sorry, but that last bit is probably one of the sillier comments in this thread... Matters such as _"Thoughts on Stability" by Olin Stephens_, or _"Assessing Capsize Vulnerability" by Richard McCurdy_ are not considered applicable to boats built after 1987 ???

Damn, who knew?

;-)

CLUB CARP, the Jeanneau 54 pictured below, is currently sailing in the Salty Dawg rally... They've had a few jams with their in-mast furling system, which has required putting crew aloft to straddle the boom, in order to free it up...

I'll bet Rod Stephens, the old-timer who wrote the chapters on Sails and Rigging and stresses bulletproof simplicity on a mainsail reefing system, would get a chuckle out of that one...


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> CLUB CARP, the Jeanneau 54 pictured below, is currently sailing in the Salty Dawg rally... They've had a few jams with their in-mast furling system, which has required putting crew aloft to straddle the boom, in order to free it up...
> 
> I'll bet Rod Stephens, the old-timer who wrote the chapters on Sails and Rigging and stresses bulletproof simplicity on a mainsail reefing system, would get a chuckle out of that one...


I'm sure he would.. if he didn't know that the system he developed way back when didn't have similar issues. 

Truth is, there's no such thing as "bulletproof simplicity" when it comes to reefing a Bermudian mainsail - and I'm fairly sure from his other writings that he knew that already.

EDIT: On the subject of in-mast furling, here's a quote from him from "Motor Boating & Sailing" magazine, July 1978, which I found quite amusing:

_"Luff rolling, then, has the lowest performance potential, but in return it needs less manpower and allows you to stow and set the sail with the least time and effort. If you haven't yet learned to mistrust electricity afloat, here's your opportunity for pushbutton operation."_


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> ....CLUB CARP, the Jeanneau 54 pictured below, is currently sailing in the Salty Dawg rally... They've had a few jams with their in-mast furling system, which has required putting crew aloft to straddle the boom, in order to free it up.......


Damn. I sailed my 54 for long time, with zero jamming. I just had a couple nasty ones this past year or so.

My theory is that it's the sails, not the furler. As the sails age and bag out a bit, they don't furl properly. It's just a theory.

Club Carp is a charter boat. Blown sails are nearly a given.


----------



## bobperry

I can't imagine when John Rousmanier's book that Jon mentions will be out of date. We may be able to add to the information there but what's there now will always have some validity.

Lots of decks are just "glued" to the hull today. They use a few fasteners to hold it in place and bond with glue. Plexus is a very commonly used adhesive. Check current J Boat specs.


----------



## SloopJonB

*Recently, organic−inorganic hybrid nanobuilding blocks of methacrylate-functionalized polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (T8, T10, and T12) were easily prepared and separated in their pure forms, which are promising candidate monomers to prepare any hybrid polymer nanocomposites*

Do you think that stuff is going to ever pull apart?


----------



## Capt Len

Sounds pseudopodally lik'in good food for some of nature's lesser known critters that can nibble singe atoms from a matrix of nano molecular polyamides


----------



## bobperry

Len:
That's along the same lines I was thinking. My though was going with monoamides first.


----------



## SloopJonB

I'm stickin' with good old silsesquioxanes myself.

And I do mean *stickin'*


----------



## blt2ski

SloopJonB said:


> *Recently, organic−inorganic hybrid nanobuilding blocks of methacrylate-functionalized polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (T8, T10, and T12) were easily prepared and separated in their pure forms, which are promising candidate monomers to prepare any hybrid polymer nanocomposites*
> 
> Do you think that stuff is going to ever pull apart?


That hurt me brain electron reading that............

Me answer, none of the above!


----------



## outbound

So finally there appears to be some acceptance of some basic points I alluded to hundreds of posts ago.

Other that one offs all boats are production.

To some extent at a given price point sailboats are mainly a zero sum game. Improvement in one aspect may and often degrades another. To deny there have been progressive improvements in design is to deny reality but many if not most improvements can only occur after improvements in various working materials. Design is the cart. Materials are the horse. Skilled designer maximize the possibilities. Very skilled designers optimize to a given use in service. Full keels with dead wood were possible in wood. GRP allows other designs to exist and function. CF still further design possibilities. 

The wizard of Bristol designed the first American racing cats. They were outlawed. But he couldn't design functional high aspect fins with bulbs. He could design balanced spade rudders. But he couldn't design functional unstayed rotating masts. 

Lastly, often bias reflects experience. Sometimes this is illogic but often not. I purposefully looked for boats with internal ballast. Ideally with a bulb. This severely limited my choices. This was due to a prior bad experience. Is this totally logical? Probably not given when done correctly external ballast need place no additional reason for concern . But for my given use it makes perfect sense and that concern is totally eliminated. Still, there are good and bad practices in boat construction. That's why I pay so much attention to the posts of those with more experience and knowledge.


----------



## JonEisberg

Classic30 said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> CLUB CARP, the Jeanneau 54 pictured below, is currently sailing in the Salty Dawg rally... They've had a few jams with their in-mast furling system, which has required putting crew aloft to straddle the boom, in order to free it up...
> 
> I'll bet Rod Stephens, the old-timer who wrote the chapters on Sails and Rigging and stresses bulletproof simplicity on a mainsail reefing system, would get a chuckle out of that one...
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm sure he would.. if he didn't know that the system he developed way back when didn't have similar issues. *
> 
> Truth is, there's no such thing as "bulletproof simplicity" when it comes to reefing a Bermudian mainsail - and I'm fairly sure from his other writings that he knew that already.
> 
> EDIT: On the subject of in-mast furling, here's a quote from him from "Motor Boating & Sailing" magazine, July 1978, which I found quite amusing:
> 
> _"Luff rolling, then, has the lowest performance potential, but in return it needs less manpower and allows you to stow and set the sail with the least time and effort. If you haven't yet learned to mistrust electricity afloat, here's your opportunity for pushbutton operation."_
Click to expand...

I believe you may be thinking of Ted Hood, and not Rod Stephens, no?



> Most of us know that the original in-mast furling was invented and brought to market by Ted Hood, sometime in maybe the early 1970's. They were unique at the time, had the Hood Cache and were almost the default spar on a long list of various sized Little Harbor yachts and then later other yachts particularly bigger ones, up to 80 footers which were big then.


Here's a very interesting read on the metamorphosis of in-mast furling from Joe Cooper... It appears to be a classic example of the "New and Improved" systems on modern boats not necessarily having fewer "Issues" than the original... I, for one, never had a problem with the First Generation of Hood Spars on any of the Bristols I ran years ago... Here are some reasons why the in-mast furling systems and sails of today, are not likely to be as robust and trouble-free as those originally made by Hood 3-4 decades ago...



> *Compared to the current crop of in mast furling spars, the Hood spars were really easy to work with from a sailmaker's perspective. Not the least because they were designed by a sailmaker rather than a mast maker. There are two primary reasons related to this ease: The cavity into which the sail rolled was large. Second, the slot through which the sail passed was wide, perhaps an inch or more. Boat for boat both these items were larger than the same parts on spars today.*
> 
> Between the time of the Hood Spars introduction and the early/mid 1980's Hood was the 800 Lb Gorilla: There was Hood Sailmakers and Hood Yacht Systems with the latter incorporating the Sto-Away masts and later on an in-boom furling arrangement for a time plus the Hood Sea Furl furler, another virtual monopoly-No Harken, Profurl, Schaefer, Facnor, Furlex. There were a couple of older makes of furling (not reefing) head stays, one by Hyde and another by Stearns but they were not designed for using the headsail reefed. There was a particular part of the Hood Sea Furl Systems that made this viable. Regardless, if you wanted an in mast furling spar you went to Ted.
> 
> But things change. Hood sailmakers was sold in 1986, which is when I went to work for the new owner but Ted kept Hood Yacht Systems and brought it with him from Marblehead/Little harbor to Melville in Portsmouth RI.
> 
> *Over time other mast makers began copying the Hood Spar, but of course they needed to be among other things, cheaper than the original (Hood Spar) in order to get a foot in the door.* Anyway we now fast forward to the 21'st. C. Hood Yacht Spars was sold to the UK distributor of Hood Spars who sold it to another UK spar company who eventually went broke. Hood Yacht SYSTEMS, largely the furler's, remains in business based in Florida and is a division of POMPANETTE. Roughly parallel with this progression many spar makers who used to do production aluminum spars have switched over to carbon and so today there are three remaining heavy weights in the production aluminum spar (In-mast furling) business:
> 
> Z spars, Charleston Spars/SparCraft both French and Selden, Swedish.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Very broadly speaking, as viewed from my perch at Hood Sails for 15 years, there has been since the 1980's an increase in people coming to sailing who did not grow up with it and so have a different seamanship background than say my generation who was sailing from age naught. Thus people buying boats (as well as a lot of others) were attracted to the idea of doing everything from the cockpit, so the in-mast furler's, are now more common again than for a while. *Without doubt the ability to "get the sail out and be sailing in one minute" or variations on same are pitch's that do not quite fill the air at boat shows but is close.
> 
> *Remember though there are two primary differences between the present in-mast spars and the original Hood Spars and they are the internal diameter of the cavity-Where the sail rolls up and the width of the slot through which the sail enters and leaves this cavity.
> 
> For all sorts of reasons the newer masts are smaller on the inside and the slot is much narrower than a Hood spar.* Since the customer has a specific boat with a specific mast sailmakers are obliged to come up with ways of making their sails fit what the owner has, at a price they can sell them for while making money and having them work with sufficient success that the owner can use it, maybe enjoy it and so may return for other sails.
> 
> ...
> 
> *With regard to sails, we know that the corners of a sail are reinforced with layers of fabric, the so called corner patches. The bigger the sail the larger, in area, are the patches. They are also thicker-more layers of material laid into the corner. This latter issue has a direct impact on the process of getting the sail in and out of the spar. The short answer is that for the current range of production spars the patches need to be thinner than they should be. This has a direct impact on the life, the shape retention life, of a sail because the corners distribute the loads into the body of the sail, less distribution surface, more load.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *Now connect the particulars of a sail so designed and built with the newer masts with smaller cavities and narrow slots. The end result is that sailmakers need to make the sails "thinner" in order to fit into the spar.* Plus the batten's are thicker and there is added thickness for the batten pocket assembly.On more than one occasion a prospect was unable to purchase a battened in-mast sail for his boat, at least from us, because when I looked into the particulars of the mast he had and the boat (so I could spec. the sail appropriately) comparing the width of the slot to the thickness of the battens and related structure, there was barely enough wiggle room and this was without the sail skin or the pockets. I can recall one spar I was looking at, from one of three makers cited above and the slot was quoted as being only 16 mm wide, perhaps 9/16″. The battens, the pocket and sail was close to 12 or 13 mm.
> 
> The same problems or issues occur too with full length vertical battens only there is the additional complication of having to install the battens in the sail with the sail fully unrolled. Think about this for a minute&#8230;Would you willingly unroll (or hoist) your mainsail at the dock in the marina and let it flap around for the time it took to get the battens in? Perhaps not. This drill is required though with the full length battens in order to get the batten (s) into the sail. For instance on a Little Harbor 46 footer with in fact a Hood Spar, so it was actually pretty easy to operate the sail once the battens were in the sail, it would take me 45 minutes to an hour to assemble the battens get the sail into the spar and the battens into the sail. And it could only be done either on a calm morning or with only a light air wafting across the boat from the direction in which the bow was pointed.
> 
> Full Length Battens: 2b. In mast furling | joecoopersailing.com


----------



## Classic30

Out, I was agreeing with you until you got to this bit:



outbound said:


> Lastly, often bias reflects experience. Sometimes this is illogic but often not. I purposefully looked for boats with internal ballast. Ideally with a bulb. This severely limited my choices. This was due to a prior bad experience. Is this totally logical? Probably not given when done correctly external ballast need place no additional reason for concern . But for my given use it makes perfect sense and that concern is totally eliminated. Still, there are good and bad practices in boat construction. That's why I pay so much attention to the posts of those with more experience and knowledge.


You're mixing design and construction into one basket which is simply is not the case.

A good designer can produce a design with all the handling qualities you want - inside ballast or not - which when well-built will last a lifetime and give you no trouble at all; but the same boat badly built will still fall apart... with you categorically blaming the design.


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> I believe you may be thinking of Ted Hood, and not Rod Stephens, no?


At that point we were speaking of mainsail reefing in general, not in-mast furling in particular...

IIRC, Mr Stephens was responsible for the development of a roller-reefing system *for the boom* using a crank-handle and worm-drive at the gooseneck. In line with his philosophy, his system seems simple enough, but the people who sail the boats I know that are fitted with his system (one of my regular race competitors in particular) swear at it on a regular basis.. :laugher



JonEisberg said:


> Here's a very interesting read on the metamorphosis of in-mast furling from Joe Cooper... It appears to be a classic example of the "New and Improved" systems on modern boats not necessarily having fewer "Issues" than the original... I, for one, never had a problem with the First Generation of Hood Spars on any of the Bristols I ran years ago... Here are some reasons why the in-mast furling systems and sails of today, are not likely to be as robust and trouble-free as those originally made by Hood 3-4 decades ago...


Interesting reading indeed!


----------



## outbound

Classic you're right I didn't expressed my self well if that's what you walked away with. Your point is spot on. It's the reason I started with "at a fixed price point". 
I continue to believe that given all sailboat building is a low volume business we will remain dependent on skilled labor to construct really good boats for some time to come and it's just unavoidably expensive to have that labor. It's not like computerized robots building cars where you actually get a better weld time and again from the robots with little labor costs. But the capitalization is huge.
Still think NAs work with the builder and the design reflects what the builder is capable of doing and the back office will pay per unit.

Be real interesting to hear Bob's take on this. He knows I'm guessing. At least in projects he posts it seems builder and NA work synergistically.


----------



## Classic30

outbound said:


> Classic you're right I didn't expressed my self well if that's what you walked away with. Your point is spot on. It's the reason I started with "at a fixed price point".
> I continue to believe that given all sailboat building is a low volume business we will remain dependent on skilled labor to construct really good boats for some time to come and it's just unavoidably expensive to have that labor. It's not like computerized robots building cars where you actually get a better weld time and again from the robots with little labor costs. But the capitalization is huge.


Out, you might be surprised how much impact automation/robots are starting to have on the industry. Sure, it's small steps at the moment, but there's still a lot of layup and NDT work that can be better done by machine...

FWIW, what I see has happened is simply this: 100 years ago parts were expensive and labour was cheap; in this century it's the other way around. By reducing labour costs, automation is then key to bring back the balance.



outbound said:


> Still think NAs work with the builder and the design reflects what the builder is capable of doing and the back office will pay per unit.
> 
> Be real interesting to hear Bob's take on this. He knows I'm guessing. At least in projects he posts it seems builder and NA work synergistically.


It will be interesting indeed, although I do know that not all of the NAs out there work closely with builders.. particularly at the small-size/low-cost end of the market.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> But, I'm a worst-case sort of pessimist. *You, on the other hand, have pretty much written off bad weather as a concern* due to it being a less likely outcome with proper planning, so I think we approach this from very different directions. _I'm claiming no objectively correct methods_. Its my own preferences for preparedness.


You're definitely stretching that one. I have not, by any measure, "written off bad weather as a concern". When I quote Hal Roth, he is talking F10-F11 as "bad weather". Look at his book to see exactly what I mean. In over 200K nm of sailing, he saw a sustained F11 one time (never sustained F12). With over 40 years of sailing - he saw 6 strong storms (up to F9-F10). And he says that "violent weather is infrequent, and with care and planning bad days can be avoided or certainly minimized".

I simply ascribe to his advice...and will always work very hard to do as he says regarding "bad days".

Even so, I'm confident that category-rated production boats can handle some pretty bad weather. I've seen a first-hand accounting of a Hunter 49 (S/V Sequitur) easily handling an F10-11 off Cape Horn. You can find it somewhere in this thread.

So these boats can handle much more weather than I would be able to "handle" myself. In other words, the boat won't fail me. And it's up to me not to fail the boat.

You pick whatever you want. But I too am a pessimist (with good reason obviously). But I also know that even "blue water boats" have their limits.


----------



## smackdaddy

Holy crap, Maine - you got all edit-y on me...

Seriously, don't be all hysterical here. Let's look at what I said - not what you THINK I said...



Maine Sail said:


> Hello pot... You insult an entire group of boat owners as "stupid" based on n=1 data....


To hold that *if you are going to buy used, you HAVE to have a 45 year old Hans Christian (or Oyster, or similar) to rate bluewater safe* (Rebel Heart anyone?) is simply ridiculous. Those boats are WAY past their half-lives - yet the forum world holds them up as stalwart. It's stupid.[/quote]

See the bolded part? Yes - it's stupid. I'm not insulting any boat owner. I'm insulting those that hold the above as dogma. I doubt most of those boat owners even hold that opinion. Can you see the difference? Nevermind. I already know the answer.



Maine Sail said:


> You have once again _moved the goal post_. I would urge you to look at the title of the thread you created.
> 
> *Production Boats and the Limits*


Okay - and I would urge you to look at the first post under that title...



smackdaddy said:


> We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing.
> 
> So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?


So the "goal post" has always been "blue water" - from day one. And ONLY category-rated production boats make the claim to be capable of such. It's the BlueWater Chuckleheads that insist that even such rated production boats are _really_ only coastal boats - despite that rating. So I think it's you who is walking around with a goal post sticking out of your pants.



smackdaddy said:


> A "hyperbolic photo" of a design on a _production boat_ which you yourself called "lousy"...


It was lousy. That's why they don't do it anymore. What the hell does that have to do with anything regarding the bigger picture being discussed here?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> I was suprised to hear Bob say this construction method was used on his Valiant, must be good enough.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

That's awesome.


----------



## seaner97

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MSPJW4xtzc0/VMlOxhAPPLI/AAAAAAAAB94/oe7JmOvkDq0/s1600/wonka.gif


----------



## smackdaddy

blt2ski said:


> There is not a right or wrong in this. Even Smacky seems to be trying to get a single answer, not sure that is the correct way to look at the original question, nor the one he threw out last night, as to when is something truly done and gone. The goal post will move based on many factors frankly.
> 
> Marty


Honestly, I got my single answer many, many pages ago. The answer is this:

*Modern production boats that are CE Cat A rated are suited for offshore cruising in "blue water". *

It's really that simple.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MSPJW4xtzc0/VMlOxhAPPLI/AAAAAAAAB94/oe7JmOvkDq0/s1600/wonka.gif


Link troubles?










Good day sir! Heh-heh.


----------



## seaner97

Mobile. Site doesn't play well.


----------



## seaner97

Having either been part of or in the room for the making of several guidelines, I wouldn't put so much trust in the Cat A thing, Smackeroo. Once you've been part of that sausage fest, I think you gather a healthy respect for how flawed the output is.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but that last bit is probably one of the sillier comments in this thread... Matters such as _"Thoughts on Stability" by Olin Stephens_, or _"Assessing Capsize Vulnerability" by Richard McCurdy_ are not considered applicable to boats built after 1987 ???
> 
> Damn, who knew?


Okay - I'll admit I might be a _little_ off-base on this one - in _certain_ aspects. In other words, if we're talking _principles_ - then many of them apply, certainly (though the understanding of them has increased dramatically over the past 30 years). But when we're talking about the following:

Chapter 1 - Trends in Yacht Design - *Modern Trends* ("modern" being 1986 when I was just 2 years old)

Chapter 5 - Steering Control - *Boat Shape* (pre-JuanK pizza slices)

Chapter 6 - *Modern Yacht Construction* (I don't think Plexus even existed back then. They used Elmer's.)

Chapter 9 - *The Cabin* (Try finding those configurations now days...even in Oysters and Swans.)

Chapter 15 - Ground Tackle (don't even get us started)

Part V - *Five good boats*

Pearson 386
-Pearson is now defunct.










Sequin 44
-She is absolutely a beautiful boat - no doubt...










But this is what Lyman-Morse is doing these days...



















Arches, wrap-arounds, centerline beds, you name it - all kinds of "production boat" features (except the painting of the Blue Water Stalwart on the wall).

So - this is what I mean about the book not really being applicable to this discussion. The design principles definitely remain relevant. It's their execution that has faded and/or drastically evolved over time.

For example, I love this quote in the foreward: "If speed made sailing safer, it also made it more fun." JohnR had it exactly right...even then.



JonEisberg said:


> CLUB CARP, the Jeanneau 54 pictured below, is currently sailing in the Salty Dawg rally... They've had a few jams with their in-mast furling system, which has required putting crew aloft to straddle the boom, in order to free it up...
> 
> I'll bet Rod Stephens, the old-timer who wrote the chapters on Sails and Rigging and stresses bulletproof simplicity on a mainsail reefing system, would get a chuckle out of that one...


An Amel Super Maramu had similar problems. And I'm sure Rod laughed at that boat too. And any boat doing the SDR is just asking for trouble. Heh-heh.

PS - You notice how much that LM Deerfoot looks like the Jeanneau?



















Both even have rolling furlers. Crazy.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Having either been part of or in the room for the making of several guidelines, I wouldn't put so much trust in the Cat A thing, Smackeroo. Once you've been part of that sausage fest, I think you gather a healthy respect for how flawed the output is.


You wouldn't? Okay..

Of course, I'm certainly not going to put more faith in you than the Cat A thing.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Honestly, I got my single answer many, many pages ago. The answer is this:
> 
> *Modern production boats that are CE Cat A rated are suited for offshore cruising in "blue water". *
> 
> It's really that simple.


_NOTHING_ is that simple, but you're free to believe what you want to believe...



smackdaddy said:


> Sequin 44
> -She is absolutely a beautiful boat - no doubt...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is what Lyman-Morse is doing these days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arches, wrap-arounds, centerline beds, you name it - all kinds of "production boat" features.


LMFAO!

Guess you missed the fact that LM has been trying to sell that boat for _YEARS_, and _*they even resorted to trying to auction it off on freakin' eBay...*_

Auction of Lyman-Morse 70' Performance Cruiser - Cruising Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums

She's 60% finished, $1.8 million already invested in the project, and yet they can't even find a buyer @$395K...

Yeah, folks are sure beating a path to snap up this multi-million custom build loaded with all those "production boat features", at a mere fraction of her true cost, alright...



smackdaddy said:


> So - this is what I mean about the book not really being applicable to this discussion. The design principles definitely remain relevant. *It's their execution that has faded and/or drastically evolved over time.*


Like this modern production treatment of a companionway, I presume?












smackdaddy said:


> And any boat doing the SDR is just asking for trouble. Heh-heh.


Obviously, you haven't been following their progress... given the difficult weather this year, and the fact that many of the fleet is currently in close proximity to INVEST 94L, seems to me they're doing pretty well...

Many boats are nearing the BVIs, while the Caribbean 1500 fleet still sits in Portsmouth, and probably will for another 2 days...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, folks are sure beating a path to snap up a multi-million custom build loaded with all those "production boat features", at a mere fraction of her true cost, alright...


Why get the poorly executed LM Deerfoot when you can get the Jeanneau instead - ready to go? Did you see the proposed interior of that Deerfoot? It's hideous! I think that's the real issue here. Production boat builders just do production boats better. You can't fake that kind of design prowess. You gotta stick with what you know.


----------



## smackdaddy

Holy crap, Bob?!?!?!?

When did you design a trawler for Snoop Lion?




























http://www.lymanmorse.com/boats/lionheart-concerto-bob-perry-30

That thing is awesome!


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> Holy crap, Bob?!?!?!?
> 
> When did you design a trawler for Snoop Lion?
> 
> That thing is awesome!


I can think of lots of words to describe it ("freaky", "extraordinary" and "WTF?" inclusive), but, nope, "awesome" isn't on the list.

Methinks Bob needs to be more choosy with his clients...


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> So - this is what I mean about the book not really being applicable to this discussion. The design principles definitely remain relevant. It's their execution that has faded and/or drastically evolved over time.


And that is part of the problem. Just because a design meets the minimum standards of Cat A doesn't mean that it is well built.

I believe C&C was using Plexus before you were born Smack.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> You wouldn't? Okay..
> 
> Of course, I'm certainly not going to put more faith in you than the Cat A thing.


You're hopeless. But I would expect no less. I think Bob himself could point out all the ways he could "cheat" that rule that would make a boat inferior and you'd still be touting it as a good thing. The reason it exists is that the market drove builders to make substandard products, and the euros wanted to give a baseline minimum to how bad it could be. That doesn't make boats that hit that mark good. It makes them less bad.


----------



## Shockwave

Cat A allows the use of brass valves and skin fittings. Shouldn't that be all you need to know about Cat A as a measure of quality and construction practices? 

Beneteau, Jeaneau, Dufour and Hanse use brass, the internet is rife with stories and pictures of these failed valves. 

Makes you wonder what other unseen corners were cut but still meet Cat A. Like keels falling off or rudders bulkheads breaking free of the hull.

Price point, price point, price point....


----------



## bobperry

That is not the layout I drew.

Well, it is and it isn't. I laid out the components but the "decorator" touches are not mine. It's not to my taste. I have done several projects with that client. He is an independent thinker and a very nice guy.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Even so, I'm confident that category-rated production boats can handle some pretty bad weather. I've seen a first-hand accounting of a Hunter 49 (S/V Sequitur) easily handling an F10-11 off Cape Horn. You can find it somewhere in this thread.
> 
> So these boats can handle much more weather than I would be able to "handle" myself. In other words, the boat won't fail me. And it's up to me not to fail the boat.
> .


You must be counting on people having short memories, or that whatever memory they have is swamped by your thousands of posts of drivel.

In your statement above you left out the inconvenient fact that after that storm, Sequitur's crew decided to abandon the planned circumnavigation. Instead, they took a sharp left and put up the boat for sale in Florida. Last I heard, they are now exploring European canals in a barge.

And yes, their blog says how well they liked their Hunter. Then again, they were selling it. Honi soit qui mal y pense.


----------



## seaner97

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> You must be counting on people have short memories, or that whatever memory they have is swamped by your thousands of posts of drivel.
> 
> In your statement above you left out the inconvenient fact that after that storm, Sequitur's crew decided to abandon the planned circumnavigation. Instead, they took a sharp left and put up the boat for sale in Florida. Last I heard, they are now exploring European canals in a barge.
> 
> And yes, their blog says how well they liked their Hunter. Then again, they were selling it. Honi soit qui mai y pense.


I actually agree with young Smack that the boats will take more than we will, but I further agree with Jon that the more comfortable you are at sea, the more you can take.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> You must be counting on people have short memories, or that whatever memory they have is swamped by your thousands of posts of drivel.
> 
> In your statement above you left out the inconvenient fact that after that storm, Sequitur's crew decided to abandon the planned circumnavigation. Instead, they took a sharp left and put up the boat for sale in Florida. Last I heard, they are now exploring European canals in a barge.
> 
> And yes, their blog says how well they liked their Hunter. Then again, they were selling it. Honi soit qui mai y pense.


Mast, you really aren't very good at this. You should take up bocce ball or crochet.

We've been over this already - many times. I've repeatedly posted Micheal's explanation for why they decided to turn left. _It was not the Hunter_. He made that crystal clear.

But feel free to drivel on brother.


----------



## blt2ski

Shockwave said:


> Cat A allows the use of brass valves and skin fittings. Shouldn't that be all you need to know about Cat A as a measure of quality and construction practices?
> 
> Beneteau, Jeaneau, Dufour and Hanse use brass, the internet is rife with stories and pictures of these failed valves.
> 
> Makes you wonder what other unseen corners were cut but still meet Cat A. Like keels falling off or rudders bulkheads breaking free of the hull.
> 
> Price point, price point, price point....


IF the cat a had required the valves to last more than 5 years, you would find that manufactures would use better products than brass. Most of the brass valves seem to be lasting in the 5.5-6.5 year range. Yeah some go out sooner, but a very high% are in this range per folks replacing valves on the Jeanneau owners site.

These valves meet spec. Maybe not YOUR spec, but meet these specs.

No different than if I built a boat vs johne on some things. Where Bob might spec 5 layers of glass for the hull, I would probably accept that, John would probably want 6 or 7! Who is right? neither of us. John probably goes places I would not, I race, want strong but light construction, he to a degree could care less. Both boats would meet cat a specs.

I would agree to the price point reasons for many issues to a degree.

Marty


----------



## Jeff_H

outbound said:


> The wizard of Bristol designed the first American racing cats. They were outlawed. But he couldn't design functional high aspect fins with bulbs. He could design balanced spade rudders. But he couldn't design functional unstayed rotating masts.


Actually, Nat Herreshoff did design a boat with an amazingly high aspect ratio (for its day) bulb keel, (Google Herreshoff Dilemma), which was also quickly penalized out of being competitive. Nat Herreshoff also designed a balanced spade rudder (look a the drawing of Dilemma and also Mischief (not the S-Boat but the earlier sloop). Nat Herreshoff also designed a functional rotating unstayed mast based on the sharpie rig with a teardrop shape. It was rotated by its boom which passed through the mast. That design was later cribbed by the Finn class and Okay dinghy. Never sell old Nat short.

In fairness, post hung counterbalanced rudders had been used on steamships and power boats long before Nat came on the scene. Nat was not the first to do a fin keel with a bulb, only the first to use one on a boat that large. By the time that Nat did his rotating wing mast, others were experimenting with teardrop shaped spars, and early experiments in aerodynamics were starting to look at the ideal plan form of a sail (see the mainsail on an S-Boat), most efficient mix of headsail and mainsail for a given efficiency and sail area (also see the S-Boat). (That plan form was believed to produce the smallest tip vortex and was later used on early higher speed planes like the Spitfire.)

Jeff


----------



## blt2ski

bobperry said:


> That is not the layout I drew.
> 
> Well, it is and it isn't. I laid out the components but the "decorator" touches are not mine. It's not to my taste. I have done several projects with that client. He is an independent thinker and a very nice guy.


Nothing wrong with this quote or thinking. Designer drawing something, may spec something, but at the end, the owner is who really specs some parts of the boat. Even tho not to the designers tastes. Been there done that. Even some clients asked if I wanted the landscape I did in my back yard. Had to admit, I like the end result, but due to certain colors, types of plants etc, not my taste. But, I loved doing there project, because I finished the project doing what THEY wanted, not what I wanted.

Boats are the same way.......

There is also nothing wrong with sequiter quiting the round about. They thought it would be fun and interesting. Got to a point and said, lets go do this. Maybe in the future they will finsh. then again, does it matter?

Marty


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> We've been over this already - many times. I've repeatedly posted Micheal's explanation for why they decided to turn left. _It was not the Hunter_. He made that crystal clear.


Dude, they were _selling_ the boat. Would you expect them to trash-talk it?

In every other of your posts you say how much you like facts. Here are four facts:

1) For years, Michael and Edi have declared they were going to circumnavigate

2) They made it to Cape Horn where they experienced a pretty bad storm

3) Immediately after the storm, they abruptly changed plans and sold their Hunter

4) After which they bought a barge in Europe and are now enjoying life on inland canals

These are FACTS, Smack. Or are are you disputing any of them?

You can have whatever opinion you want but you cannot get around these FACTS.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Dude, they were _selling_ the boat. Would you expect them to trash-talk it?
> 
> In every other of your posts you say how much you like facts. Here are four facts:
> 
> 1) For years, Michael and Edi have declared they were going to circumnavigate
> 
> 2) They made it to Cape Horn where they experienced a pretty bad storm
> 
> 3) Immediately after the storm, they abruptly changed plans and sold their Hunter
> 
> 4) After which they bought a barge in Europe and are now enjoying life on inland canals
> 
> These are FACTS, Smack. Or are are you disputing any of them?
> 
> You can have whatever opinion you want but you cannot get around these FACTS.


The critical thing you're leaving out is _why_ they sold the sailboat. If with this _partial_ list of "facts" of yours you're trying to imply that they didn't trust the Hunter to continue on - you're flat wrong. Micheal made that very clear _in his own words_.

Of course, to maintain _your_ silly story line, you now start to publicly impugn Michael's character and integrity - making it about dishonesty for financial gain. This a seriously douchey move to try to get around the actual FACTS, mast.

So if you're going to harp on "facts" - then don't be selective with them. Now go back to your bocce ball.


----------



## bobperry

"Never sell old Nat short. " Right on Jeff.

PCP got all upset because of the German magazine article that called FRANCIS LEE "the ultimate sailing machine". If he had ever studied the work of L.F. Herreshoff he would have known that LFH did a design he called the "sailing machine". It was a long, skinny double ender. Does that sound familiar? In fact LFH's sailing machine was the boat my client presented to me and said, "I like the treatment of the ends on this boat."
Note the canting keel. This feature was beyond their build technology of the time but LFH knew it was the way to go. One of these boats was built and you can Google it, FIERY CROSS was built by down under and is rather a famous boat in that area. It has a fixed fin keel I believe.

Doesn't hurt to know a bit about yacht design if you are going lock horns with someone who does it for a living.


----------



## blt2ski

bobperry said:


> "Never sell old Nat short. " Right on Jeff.
> 
> PCP got all upset because of the German magazine article that called FRANCIS LEE "the ultimate sailing machine". If he had ever studied the work of L.F. Herreshoff he would have known that LFH did a design he called the "sailing machine". It was a long, skinny double ender. Does that sound familiar? In fact LFH's sailing machine was the boat my client presented to me and said, "I like the treatment of the ends on this boat."
> Note the canting keel. This feature was beyond their build technology of the time but LFH knew it was the way to go. One of these boats was built and you can Google it, FIERY CROSS was built by down under and is rather a famous boat in that area. It has a fixed fin keel I believe.
> 
> Doesn't hurt to know a bit about yacht design if you are going lock horns with someone who does it for a living.


I recall reading a blurb about this boat somewhere, along with a few other things he thought of, but could not build. A number of designers have had this issue. Star Wars movies are another. ep 4,5,6 were made when they were, as tech was available to do those parts. 1-3 had to wait until a different tech in movie making was designed. 7-9 coming out now, might even be a bit sooner than Spielberg wanted. He even thought about not making them as tech was not there......
Some of the stuff being argued about here is silly IMHO.
That boat paulo showed that "HE" thought was better than Francis Lee, I seem to recall a 60'ish foot boat Bob designed for a client on Lake Pend Oreille that had some similar lines. I'm sure I am off abit, and Bob WILL correct me......I am recalling something similar........
As for me, I would take the boat Paulo mentioned, this is not to say having seen Frankie that she is not a beautiful boat etc. Just not my style of boat!

Marty


----------



## Noelex

I think the Cat A standard is in many ways is quite detrimental.

Smack is only expressing the (in my view misguided) sentiment of many new boat buyers - if a boat meets the minimum requirements for Cat A, it must be safe for offshore sailing.

Unfortunately, this seems to be encouraging buyers not to investigate important requirements for themselves.

The net effect is to encourage manufacturers to meet the minimum specs, as laid out by the standard. Why build a stronger and more expensive rudder if much of the boat buying public have been convinced that any rudder that meets Cat A requirements is fine?


----------



## JonEisberg

seaner97 said:


> I actually agree with young Smack that the boats will take more than we will, but I further agree with Jon that the more comfortable you are at sea, the more you can take.





smackdaddy said:


> *For example, I love this quote in the foreward: "If speed made sailing safer, it also made it more fun." JohnR had it exactly right...even then.*


Perhaps someday, you may come to appreciate such things are not always as _SIMPLE_ as your blanket assertions, and the sort of variables expressed by _"Not Always", _ or _"It Depends"_ come into play...

John Rousmanierre also has it exactly right, when he writes on page 327 of his ANNAPOLIS BOOK OF SEAMANSHIP:

_"As Rod Stephens, the American yacht designer and sailor put it, *'Nothing makes a boat more comfortable, than taking 2 knots off her speed...'*_


----------



## bobperry

Marty: 
That Lake boat was not mine. Are you thinking of the big wooden Castro boat on Lake Couer d'lene? Maybe I have my lakes confused.


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - and I would urge you to look at the first post under that title...


I did and it said absolutely nothing about CE Category A and even includes Irwin and MacGreggor who never built CE Cat A boats. Heck Catalina & Hunter never had CE Cat A boats until sometime around 2000..



smackdaddy said:


> So the "goal post" has always been "blue water" - from day one. And ONLY category-rated production boats make the claim to be capable of such. It's the BlueWater Chuckleheads that insist that even such rated production boats are _really_ only coastal boats - despite that rating. So I think it's you who is walking around with a goal post sticking out of your pants.


Except that is not what you implied in the OP. Nothing about Category CE A Ocean Rated in there at all and references to boats that never had any CE rating....

Once again Smack you write the rules of thread engagement then change the rules mid stream. I think we've come to _accept_ your _games_... And selectively quoting yourself, wow that's pretty epic...:wink

This is the thread title and your first post in its entirety.. I see NOTHING about Cat A rated... Macgregor, Irwin.......??



smackdaddy said:


> *
> Production Boats and The Limits*
> We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing. Furthermore, in my blissful ignorance, I'd say that quite a few sailors inhabit this aether plain.
> 
> Sure you can buy a Hinckley or a Brewer or a Tayana or Cheoy Lee and take them wherever the hell you wanna. *But where exactly can you take a Catalina, a Hunter, an Irwin, a Beneteau, a Jenneau, even.....yes....even.....a MacGregor (dum-dum-duuuuum).
> *
> Do you make sure you never leave sight of land in these boats? Do you keep land 50 miles away? 100 miles? Do you run from a 40 knot squall? Do you live in morbid fear of encountering a freak 50 knot storm - where you're cool with it in an S&S design from 1927? Can you "outrun" such storms in these "new fangled keel" boats - where in a full-keel Formasa you just heave to and ride it out with a Dark-n-Stormy and a tiparillo in your hand?
> 
> Giu had a good write up comparing Beneteaus/Catalinas/Hunters from a "sailability" standpoint. And CD has had some great input regarding the capabilities of various production boats. And we've seen the exhaustive list of blue water boats with great input from Cam and Jeff_H.
> 
> Furthermore, Val and others have pointed out the critical elements in any heavy weather situation is actually the skipper and crew. And this makes a heap of sense too.
> 
> So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: *From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why? *


In that last sentence you don't even ask about Blue Water you ask about the "outer limits" of "coastal".. Always about "blue water"..? No Category A reference? Yep, you moved the goal posts...

As for CE classification the IMCI directive 94/25/EC (currently 2003/44/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council for Recreational Craft (commonly known as the European RCD) went into effect on June 16, 1996. However, builders did not need to comply with it until June 16, 1998. This is no different as to how major changesin the ABYC or NMMA build guidelines are phased in.

Hunter sold boats in Europe, so European models were CE as early as June of 1998. However they began placing a CE classification page in US manuals for vessels sold in the US that were NOT actually CE CERTIFIED and this was very, very misleading for many owners who thought they bought a CE A boat, when in fact they did not..

This _blip_ caused quite a stir for some US customers who thought they bought a CE Class A boat and later found out it was really marketing double-speak..

The reality of CE A is that in the US Catalina & Hunter really only began offering CE A boats sometime around the year 2000. European builders of European boats had to be compliant by 1998, but not in the US. This CE classification precludes a _LOT of US production boats_ if your _goal post move_ excludes pre 2000 US marketed boats. This move also increases the cost of such "affordable" boats to newer post 2000 higher cost used vessels.. There were no official CE A boats prior to 1998 which is when the RCD requirement became effective in Europe.

Hey its fine to move goal posts and I guess we just throw all pre 2000 US boats and pre 1998 Euro boats out the window for "Blue Water" eh... :wink


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> IF the cat a had required the valves to last more than 5 years, you would find that manufactures would use better products than brass. Most of the brass valves seem to be lasting in the 5.5-6.5 year range. Yeah some go out sooner, but a very high% are in this range per folks replacing valves on the Jeanneau owners site.
> 
> These valves meet spec. Maybe not YOUR spec, but meet these specs.
> 
> No different than if I built a boat vs johne on some things. Where Bob might spec 5 layers of glass for the hull, I would probably accept that, John would probably want 6 or 7! Who is right? neither of us. John probably goes places I would not, I race, want strong but light construction, he to a degree could care less. Both boats would meet cat a specs.
> 
> I would agree to the price point reasons for many issues to a degree.
> 
> Marty


Raise your hand if you expect to replace all your thru hulls and rig, as well as most of the electronics on a new 250K boat every 5 years. Nobody? Maybe Smack and Paulo if he's still around somewhere. Y'know- I'd be ok with it if a 40ftr was the price of a Subaru, but not at the coin you're going to have to lay out for one.

Well, the Cat A rating basically says that's what you should expect, regardless of if you take it offshore or not. So the Cat A, is, again a minimum standard that tells you what the boat is minimally built to, and, does not, tell you if it is a good or bad boat for offshore (or hell, coastal or lake) purposes.

If you understand that fully, and are willing to take those chances and either do the maintenance or sell to some other unsuspecting sop before they need to be done in the name of "staying modern", by all means, go for it. But, PLEASE, stop holding the Cat A up as some sort of Holy Grail of yacht manufacturing. Regardless of if you have faith in me or not (even I have limited amounts of faith in myself- it's not about me, or my relative credibility).


----------



## seaner97

Maine Sail said:


> I did and it said absolutely about CE Category A and even includes Irwin and MacGreggor who never built CE Cat A boats. Heck Catalina & Hunter never had CE Cat A boats until sometime around 2000..
> 
> Except that is not what you implied in the OP. Nothing about Category CE A Ocean Rated in there at all and references to boats that never had any CE rating....
> 
> Once again Smack you write the rules of thread engagement then change the rules mid stream. I think we've come to _accept_ your _games_... And selectively quoting yourself, wow that's pretty epic...:wink
> 
> This is the thread title and your first post in its entirety.. I see NOTHING about Cat A rated... Macgregor, Irwin.......??
> 
> 
> 
> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Production Boats and The Limits*
> We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing. Furthermore, in my blissful ignorance, I'd say that quite a few sailors inhabit this aether plain.
> 
> Sure you can buy a Hinckley or a Brewer or a Tayana or Cheoy Lee and take them wherever the hell you wanna. *But where exactly can you take a Catalina, a Hunter, an Irwin, a Beneteau, a Jenneau, even.....yes....even.....a MacGregor (dum-dum-duuuuum).
> *
> Do you make sure you never leave sight of land in these boats? Do you keep land 50 miles away? 100 miles? Do you run from a 40 knot squall? Do you live in morbid fear of encountering a freak 50 knot storm - where you're cool with it in an S&S design from 1927? Can you "outrun" such storms in these "new fangled keel" boats - where in a full-keel Formasa you just heave to and ride it out with a Dark-n-Stormy and a tiparillo in your hand?
> 
> Giu had a good write up comparing Beneteaus/Catalinas/Hunters from a "sailability" standpoint. And CD has had some great input regarding the capabilities of various production boats. And we've seen the exhaustive list of blue water boats with great input from Cam and Jeff_H.
> 
> Furthermore, Val and others have pointed out the critical elements in any heavy weather situation is actually the skipper and crew. And this makes a heap of sense too.
> 
> So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: *From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why? *
> 
> In that last sentence you don't even ask about Blue Water you ask about the "outer limits" of "coastal".. Always about "blue water"..? No Category A reference? Yep, you moved the goal posts...
> 
> As for CE classification the IMCI directive 94/25/EC (currently 2003/44/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council for Recreational Craft (commonly known as the European RCD) went into effect on June 16, 1996. However, builders did not need to comply with it until June 16, 1998. This is no different as to how major changesin the ABYC or NMMA build guidelines are phased in.
> 
> Hunter sold boats in Europe, so European models were CE as early as June of 1998. However they began placing a CE classification page in US manuals for vessels sold in the US that were NOT actually CE CERTIFIED and this was very, very misleading for many owners who thought they bought a CE A boat, when in fact they did not..
> 
> This _blip_ caused quite a stir for some US customers who thought they bought a CE Class A boat and later found out it was really marketing double-speak..
> 
> The reality of CE A is that in the US Catalina & Hunter really only began offering CE A boats sometime around the year 2000. European builders of European boats had to be compliant by 1998, but not in the US. This CE classification precludes a _LOT of US production boats_ if your _goal post move_ excludes pre 2000 US marketed boats. This move also increases the cost of such "affordable" boats to newer post 2000 higher cost used vessels.. There were no official CE A boats prior to 1998 which is when the RCD requirement became effective in Europe.
> 
> Hey its fine to move goal posts and I guess we just throw all pre 2000 US boats and pre 1998 Euro boats out the window for "Blue Water" eh... :wink
> 
> 
> 
> In his defense, if we are to believe the timeline he put up above, he was 26 when he wrote that (born in 1984 based on being 2 in 1986 in a post a couple pages back, wrote that in 2009). How many of us remember what we wrote 7 years ago (although it is pretty Fing easy to look it up in this case)?
> But, why get in the way of a good narrative with facts....
Click to expand...


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, folks are sure beating a path to snap up a multi-million custom build loaded with all those "production boat features", at a mere fraction of her true cost, alright...
> 
> 
> 
> Why get the LM Deerfoot when you can get the Jeanneau instead - ready to go? I think that's the real issue here. Production boat builders just do production boats better. You gotta stick with what you know.
Click to expand...

Why buy a jeanneau when you can spend a fraction where the denominator starts with a very crooked number and get a good old boat? See GOB April 2014.


----------



## blt2ski

Seaner,

I will not hols cat a to a holy grail std. It is a min std! I deal with Gvmnt studs daily. Which circ is at.minimum the 2nd writing of this std since the 79 fastnet initiated these studs. 

Grass vs bronze or the.third valve make for boats, Marlon, maybe even using the different kinds of stainless is like asking who h of the cleats mentioned earlier are best! Or the screen vs bolt for the.deck.joint. 

The European gvmnts got together, came up with minimum specs, be it I, you, we like them or not, builders need to follow. Yes some will use materials that.beat the spec, others barely. Some so far beyond its not worth.comparing to.the others.

At the.end, brass.valves meet spec. If I were to.spec valves for my boat, it would not be a metal style. I would go with Marlon flush thru hulls and valves. Should gain about .02-.05 knots due to flush thru.hulls mostly, maybe due to loss of 20 lbs of weight. 

No right or wrong, only.What is right for you!

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

As far as something lasting or not 5 years, the electronics folks, like Microsoft and software for home office computers, uric, it is min/ max 5 yrs support. Are typing on a 5+ yr old computer? 

The more solid parts, motor, rig, etc, yes, I should get more than 5yrs..... But if sailing, racing real hard, one might get a season out of the sails in a competitive race class. Or if I do a non-stop around the world, my sails depending upon type and wether conditions may be stretched beyond normal use, need recutting etc. 

All depends. 
Hopefully.this.post my.Android phone and thumbs typed better and did not auto correct me too bad.

Marty


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> Why buy a jeanneau when you can spend a fraction where the denominator starts with a very crooked number and get a good old boat? See GOB April 2014.


Because you want a new boat and have the money?


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Marty:
> That Lake boat was not mine. Are you thinking of the big wooden Castro boat on Lake Couer d'lene? Maybe I have my lakes confused.


Small world, turns out one of of the crew on my next ride is the skipper of SIZZLER...

He told a good story at dinner last night, regarding Complexity and the modern yacht...

That boat is highly dependent on hydraulics to lift the keel, among other things... One of the things they regret about the build, is not having gone with a domestic supplier of the system, it's from some fancy outfit in Italy...

Towards the end of the summer is usually when the hydraulics on that boat might need some "attention"... Last year, the keel stopped working, and with 12' of draft in the down position, they could no longer bring the boat into the owner's dock, and a lot of the lake shoreline and bays and coves were off limits...

Of course, pretty much everyone in Italy takes the entire month of August off, so they had to wait a few weeks before they could obtain the right stuff to service it, and get it working again...

;-)

Sizzler: Daysailer, 700 Meters Above Sea Level « www.yachtworld.com www.yachtworld.com


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> The critical thing you're leaving out is _why_ they sold the sailboat. If with this _partial_ list of "facts" of yours you're trying to imply that they didn't trust the Hunter to continue on - you're flat wrong. Micheal made that very clear _in his own words_.
> 
> Nonsense. Of course he would not trash-talk a boat that he was selling.
> 
> Of course, to maintain _your_ silly story line, you now start to publicly impugn Michael's character and integrity - making it about dishonesty for financial gain. This a seriously douchey move to try to get around the actual FACTS, mast.
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I impugn Michael's character? Don't make stuff up.
> 
> There is no 'story line.' I gave you the actual FACTS. Seems like you don't like them?
> 
> So if you're going to harp on "facts" - then don't be selective with them. Now go back to your bocce ball.


Bocce ball?? What are you talking about???


----------



## SloopJonB

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Bocce ball?? What are you talking about???


Refer back to post 3557.


----------



## blt2ski

As noted by Bob and John, a Castro design. My apologies to Tony Castro. My boat was designed by him 30 yrs ago built by Jeanneau. Djodenda's CS Merlin was also designed by him. Very similar features, dilute mine being more on the race/cruise end of.things, David's more a cruise/race style of boat. 

Marty


----------



## Minnewaska

Standard argument from Smack that you are all besmirching others, when you only identify facts or issues. Or course, he refers to every post contrary to his own as "silly" or from a "chucklehead" with immunity. Serious character flaw here.

Indeed, why would Michael volunteer his boat's limitations on their cruise. That doesn't make him a bad person, nor did anyone suggest he is.


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> Because you want a new boat and have the money?


Hard to argue with that if that's what you want to spend it on. I, personally, would pick a better constructed boat that I can access all the systems on and don't have to replace all the thruhulls, but to each their own.


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> As far as something lasting or not 5 years, the electronics folks, like Microsoft and software for home office computers, uric, it is min/ max 5 yrs support. Are typing on a 5+ yr old computer?
> 
> The more solid parts, motor, rig, etc, yes, I should get more than 5yrs..... But if sailing, racing real hard, one might get a season out of the sails in a competitive race class. Or if I do a non-stop around the world, my sails depending upon type and wether conditions may be stretched beyond normal use, need recutting etc.
> 
> All depends.
> Hopefully.this.post my.Android phone and thumbs typed better and did not auto correct me too bad.
> 
> Marty


I think I'd like those thingies that keep the water out of the boat to last longer than 5 years and to be accessible for replacement easily as well. Not so on most of the modern boats I've been on. But yeah, I'm ok with some of the stuff (mostly electronics and standing rigging/lifelines) being shortly disposable. But I don't race so I could care about 0.2knots, and I use a Mac, so they last a decade. I don't, generally, like disposable.
But I don't besmirch your wish to have a disposable boat, I just don't understand why anyone would buy something at that pricepoint that is virtually guaranteed to need fixing/replacement of items before it's even paid off.


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> I think I'd like those thingies that keep the water out of the boat to last longer than 5 years and to be accessible for replacement easily as well. Not so on most of the modern boats I've been on. But yeah, I'm ok with some of the stuff (mostly electronics and standing rigging/lifelines) being shortly disposable. But I don't race so I could care about 0.2knots, and I use a Mac, so they last a decade. I don't, generally, like disposable.
> But I don't besmirch your wish to have a disposable boat, I just don't understand why anyone would buy something at that pricepoint that is virtually guaranteed to need fixing/replacement of items before it's even paid off.


Maybe because it is paid off the day it is bought?

I once met a 79 yr old (or 76, can't remember) retired airline pilot in the Bahamas. He had a fully tricked out brand new Bene 46. Just upgraded from a Bene 423.

Why?

I guess because he wanted to and had the means to pull it off.


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> Seaner,
> 
> I will not hols cat a to a holy grail std. It is a min std! I deal with Gvmnt studs daily. Which circ is at.minimum the 2nd writing of this std since the 79 fastnet initiated these studs.
> 
> Grass vs bronze or the.third valve make for boats, Marlon, maybe even using the different kinds of stainless is like asking who h of the cleats mentioned earlier are best! Or the screen vs bolt for the.deck.joint.
> 
> The European gvmnts got together, came up with minimum specs, be it I, you, we like them or not, builders need to follow. Yes some will use materials that.beat the spec, others barely. Some so far beyond its not worth.comparing to.the others.
> 
> At the.end, brass.valves meet spec. If I were to.spec valves for my boat, it would not be a metal style. I would go with Marlon flush thru hulls and valves. Should gain about .02-.05 knots due to flush thru.hulls mostly, maybe due to loss of 20 lbs of weight.
> 
> No right or wrong, only.What is right for you!
> 
> Marty


That's my point. It's a minimum standard made for new boats when they leave the yard the first time. Not for any length of time.


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd like those thingies that keep the water out of the boat to last longer than 5 years and to be accessible for replacement easily as well. Not so on most of the modern boats I've been on. But yeah, I'm ok with some of the stuff (mostly electronics and standing rigging/lifelines) being shortly disposable. But I don't race so I could care about 0.2knots, and I use a Mac, so they last a decade. I don't, generally, like disposable.
> But I don't besmirch your wish to have a disposable boat, I just don't understand why anyone would buy something at that pricepoint that is virtually guaranteed to need fixing/replacement of items before it's even paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it is paid off the day it is bought?
> 
> I once met a 79 yr old (or 76, can't remember) retired airline pilot in the Bahamas. He had a fully tricked out brand new Bene 46. Just upgraded from a Bene 423.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I guess because he wanted to and had the means to pull it off.
Click to expand...

Can't take it with you, and at 79, probably not doing his own maintenance. Good on him.


----------



## blt2ski

Seiner,
Cars have.minimum studs, as do homes etc. I never said I agreed with said minimums no matter the product. But they exist. 

No different than the 3-4 generation members of family.that have worked at Boeing. First one was building spruce canvas planes, then aluminum, now different plastics etc for bodies etc. Things.change, standards change, be them good bad or.indifferent.

No I do not think New.Boats are disposable, even the ones barely.meeting cat a/abyc etc standards. I could rattle.off a.few other studs.My boat.has.to follow from a race perspective..... Or coast guard std. Also pretty reckless to be on an open ocean with t  is really bare bone standards.
Shall we go on?
I understand you'm may think they are too slim, if you read all the.multiple pages of.the.standard, it's actually.not too bad. Not great or supercalfragalistic! But it is a Minimum. Even if the standards were stricter, something thing would be amiss for someone. It does not matter the minimum for what ever item one needs a standard or spec.

The.standards for the.parts stepdad designed for.the.lunar modular would scare you, today.the.specs are.tighter yet. 

There is not a right.Or wrong per say with cat a. It is as noted, minimums to avoid a fastnet style debacle with multitudes of BAD overall designed boats. This is to keep boats like wing nuts a few years back from doing the.chi-mac or equal in Europe. US and other parts of.the.world do 'm it have to build to this spec, only.if they.want to sell the.boat to a European, or transfer in some day. 
This spec includes things.like righting moment.needs, min packages of fluids, sizing like abyc for electrical runs etc.
It's a.complex standard frankly if you look it up.

Marty


----------



## NCC320

Now we are fussing about CE A standard (again). It's alleged to be a minimum standard for "ocean rating" and allows some components or things that posters don't like...i.e. brass through hulls on some boats, Catalina, for one, uses Marlon. And it is stated the rating does nothing to indicate which boats only meet the minimum and which far exceed the minimum. Thus, one is left on their own to rate the better boat (and on his own to see if those things are worth the extra price.) But there again, not all manufacturers exceed or barely meet for all components. So, if they have some items that you like and some you don't like, you have a decision to make which boat does best for you. Now, generally, you can go to a Beneteau, Hunter, or Catalina and then look at a Sabre, or Tartan of same age, you'll quickly decide that the last two are more expensive, fancier, and therefore probably better built in all respects. And to a certain degree you'd be right. But, if I recall correctly, there were some quality issues (or at least questions) around some of the new Tartans. I'm not sure how the outcome was and I guess it was ok, since there haven't been any threads regarding this lately. My point is that you can get problems on any boat, but even a minimum standard is better than no standard. 

For those who want every aspect nailed down, it can restrict a designer/builder in being creative in using new techniques and materials, or require them to go through third party testing and evaluations (think about car requirements). I started a small personal project recently, but abandoned it after I found that it would be impossible to meet the National Electrical Code requirements without undergoing expensive testing at third party labs and spending far more money than I wanted to spend. Now the NEC is a good thing, and if I were building a house or buying an machine of some type, I'd want it to meet the standards. But my project was (at the initial point) only a one off, hobby device. But I could see where it might have commercial possibilities if it worked out. I didn't need that extra expense and trouble, so I abandoned the project. Now, a big corporation wouldn't blink twice if they wanted to try the concept, but a retired or small guy is going to balk at these costs and hassles. The most often reason stated for tight standards (electrical) is safety or fire hazard. My little project was going to be safe, but it was going to have certain things that the code doesn't allow. If I had ever decided to commercialize, the second version could have incorporated changes and testing to meet the NEC before going to market.


----------



## blt2ski

Do not know how to hit like on phone. McCain, very correct. Hopefully I have been saying what you too are saying. Cat a is min for open ocean. Cat b iirc is more shore bound to bigger bay, great , lakes sailing, cat c salish sea, larger lakes w/o shores you can see side to side, cat d is a day sailor. 
Wave wind speeds and heights go lower for the b-day ratings. Lower fluid requirements, some cases more passengers than a higher category.

Choose your poison.

Marty


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> Do not know how to hit like on phone. McCain, very correct. Hopefully I have been saying what you too are saying. Cat a is min for open ocean. Cat b iirc is more shore bound to bigger bay, great , lakes sailing, cat c salish sea, larger lakes w/o shores you can see side to side, cat d is a day sailor.
> Wave wind speeds and heights go lower for the b-day ratings. Lower fluid requirements, some cases more passengers than a higher category.
> 
> Choose your poison.
> 
> Marty


Marty- I'm not disagreeing with you- just pointing out that you were saying same as I was. Which is not what Smack was saying.
I was, however, pointing out one of the many areas where they went for very low standards as a starting point. Yes, brass keeps the water out for 5 years, and yes you have other choices, but the point was that the Cat A isn't a great marker for if a boat is 'good enough' as Smack keeps trying to throw it out as. Can a new boat with brass thruhulls go offshore? Sure. Would you want to do it in one that is 6 years old? Up to you. I sure wouldn't. And to me (and only me), I expect more for my money than that. You may not. And that's ok, I guess. I'm not that old, but I certainly remember when the a segment of the market (not just in boats) pushed on quality and value rather than just on price, but those days seem to be long gone.


----------



## seaner97

NCC320 said:


> Now we are fussing about CE A standard (again). It's alleged to be a minimum standard for "ocean rating" and allows some components or things that posters don't like...i.e. brass through hulls on some boats, Catalina, for one, uses Marlon. And it is stated the rating does nothing to indicate which boats only meet the minimum and which far exceed the minimum. Thus, one is left on their own to rate the better boat (and on his own to see if those things are worth the extra price.) But there again, not all manufacturers exceed or barely meet for all components. So, if they have some items that you like and some you don't like, you have a decision to make which boat does best for you. Now, generally, you can go to a Beneteau, Hunter, or Catalina and then look at a Sabre, or Tartan of same age, you'll quickly decide that the last two are more expensive, fancier, and therefore probably better built in all respects. And to a certain degree you'd be right. But, if I recall correctly, there were some quality issues (or at least questions) around some of the new Tartans. I'm not sure how the outcome was and I guess it was ok, since there haven't been any threads regarding this lately. My point is that you can get problems on any boat, but even a minimum standard is better than no standard.
> 
> For those who want every aspect nailed down, it can restrict a designer/builder in being creative in using new techniques and materials, or require them to go through third party testing and evaluations (think about car requirements). I started a small personal project recently, but abandoned it after I found that it would be impossible to meet the National Electrical Code requirements without undergoing expensive testing at third party labs and spending far more money than I wanted to spend. Now the NEC is a good thing, and if I were building a house or buying an machine of some type, I'd want it to meet the standards. But my project was (at the initial point) only a one off, hobby device. But I could see where it might have commercial possibilities if it worked out. I didn't need that extra expense and trouble, so I abandoned the project. Now, a big corporation wouldn't blink twice if they wanted to try the concept, but a retired or small guy is going to balk at these costs and hassles. The most often reason stated for tight standards (electrical) is safety or fire hazard. My little project was going to be safe, but it was going to have certain things that the code doesn't allow. If I had ever decided to commercialize, the second version could have incorporated changes and testing to meet the NEC before going to market.


The only fuss- as I've said and Jon has as well- is that the standard is only a minimum, and therefore is just to keep a minimum. It does not mean that any boat that is Cat A rated, no matter how old or new, is an offshore boat as Smack has repeatedly said. It means that boat ticked the Cat A boxes regarding construction. Thing could be a dog design. Could meet unanticipated forces at sea. Could be older than 5 years and components start to break as that seems (from several of the parts that I've read of it) to be the operative timeframe. Which, for me, would be ok if it was priced like a car, which it's not.


----------



## blt2ski

Seiner, 
Was having a hard time.seeing you say.minimum. while you.we're, you.we're not. 

It's a Minimum New build standard. If you.buy.used, be it a.car, house, boat, it's buyer beware. Things may.not meet current year.standards, much less the 1985 standards my Jeanneau was built too. 
I have brass original.valves, original rig. 
If you or.any one wants to look up bad build quality, see.Carroll marine. Builder of Mumm/Farr 30, Farr 40, 1D35. ALL of these have delam and gel.coat issues. Even some mid 70's J-boats built by Pearson composite have delam issues. Hence why a lot of j30's are heading to.the.trash/land fill.
I see very.few.issues.like.these.currently.from.the.BIG builders being bashed. Ie Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau, or Catalina. 
I believe smack is trying to point out, if all these boats were bad, we would see headlines left and right about sinking, loss of life etc. We are not.
But yes, if I bought a 5-10 year old boat, I would expect some refitting of items. 

Marty


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> That is not the layout I drew.
> 
> Well, it is and it isn't. I laid out the components but the "decorator" touches are not mine. It's not to my taste. I have done several projects with that client. He is an independent thinker and a very nice guy.


Whew!!! I'm glad to hear that, Bob. You had me worried there... :grin


----------



## seaner97

I expect my seat heaters to last longer than 5 years. I certainly don't want vital parts of a boat to last less.


----------



## Classic30

seaner97 said:


> I expect my seat heaters to last longer than 5 years. I certainly don't want vital parts of a boat to last less.


Well, in that case, you have to be willing to (a) choose carefully and (b) pay top dollar.

The term "marinised" on a generic box of boat parts used to mean they were expensive because they were good quality, well-built and could be expected to last for years. Nowadays it just means they're expensive..


----------



## blt2ski

Seat heaters?!?!?!?
What are those? Boats have seat heaters? Wow!
Those for.Those small things I.run over in my dump truck called cars?!?!?!? 
I've never owned one of.them car thingies. Trucks of all different doers yes. Don't see abuser a car thank you. 
Seat heater, really wow!
Marty


----------



## Jeff_H

Endless circles. Somewhere back at the beginning of this thread there is a similar discussion about the CE Open Ocean Standards. FWIW, I attended a number of presentations on the CE Directive on Recreational Craft when they were being developed. In all cases, what was said, was that the CE stardards were intended to reduce trade barriers between the EU countries. These standards were the result of very heavy research into what a reasonable set of standards should be that were reduced in stringency due to their political purpose.

These standards were developed in large committees and any provision could be vetoed by any member country. The standards were set at the absolute minimum levels since many of the member countries were concerned about the impact of more stringent standards.

The standards make no effort to define what is or is not a vessel suited in its design or detailing for offshore use, other than to set limits on specific aspects of the structure, equipment installations, labeling, and stability. In many cases, those standards are well below the standards for design of vessels for offshore use that pre-existed the Directive (such as, ABS, ABYC, Deutsche Lloyds, Lloyds).

Per the introduction of the standards,_ "Whereas, therefore, this Directive sets out essential requirements only; whereas, in order to facilitate the task of proving compliance with the essential requirements, harmonized European standards are necessary for
recreational craft and their components as referred to in Annex II; whereas harmonized European standards are drawn up by private bodies and must retain their non-mandatory status"_

In other words, these previously existing stricter standards are voluntary. (Interestingly, Hunter used to meet the ABS standards, so in many ways meeting only the CE standards would be a set backward, but that is another story.)

And so while having standards is better than no standards at all, like building codes, these are a minimum and should not be construed as a recommended standard of construction, nor does the standards regulate the suitability of the design for offshore use in terms of motion comfort, adequacy of hardware for the given loads and cyclical loads over time, or the attachment of the hardware.

I would also like to comment on the quote below:



blt2ski said:


> Seiner,
> I have brass original.valves, original rig.
> 
> If you or.any one wants to look up bad build quality, see.Carroll marine. Builder of Mumm/Farr 30, Farr 40, 1D35. ALL of these have delam and gel.coat issues. Even some mid 70's J-boats built by Pearson composite have delam issues. Hence why a lot of j30's are heading to.the.trash/land fill.
> 
> I see very.few.issues.like.these.currently.from.the.BIG builders being bashed. Ie Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau, or Catalina.
> Marty


I don't think you have brass thru-hulls. More likely they are bronze. Brass does not play well with saltwater.

That is a gross exaggeration about Carroll Marine. Unlike the Mumm 36, while some Mumm/Farr 30's, and Farr 40's built by Carroll have experienced delamination, most did not and are still being actively raced.

I also think that its an oversimplification to say, "very.few.issues.like.these.currently.from.the.BIG builders being bashed. Ie Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau, or Catalina." There are a comparatively large number of Catalina's going to the dump here on the Bay. (Mostly 27's and 30's). 18 years ago, when my mother was looking to buy a Hunter 30, they looked at literally a dozen of more of them and not one was free of large areas of core rot in the deck.

Jeff


----------



## XSrcing

We can all agree that the main limiting factor with boats is the loose nut between the tiller and halyards. 

Any boat can be modified to be a blue water boat. It all comes down to budget and ability. 

I buy absolutely nothing new. I buy old and fix it to my standards. But not all people are comfortable or have the knowledge to fix and restore many systems in boats/cars/airplanes (I don't have an A&P cert, yet). Or they can afford someone else to do the work.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
> For example, I love this quote in the foreward: "If speed made sailing safer, it also made it more fun." JohnR had it exactly right...even then.
> 
> 
> 
> John Rousmanierre also has it exactly right, when he writes on page 327 of his ANNAPOLIS BOOK OF SEAMANSHIP:
> 
> _"As Rod Stephens, the American yacht designer and sailor put it, *'Nothing makes a boat more comfortable, than taking 2 knots off her speed...'*_
Click to expand...

So you're saying John is talking out of both sides of his mouth?

If you put the above quotes together - I think you'd come up with "it's more comfortable to go slow, but it's more fun and more safe to go fast".

Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## smackdaddy

noelex77 said:


> I think the Cat A standard is in many ways is quite detrimental.
> 
> Smack is only expressing the (in my view misguided) sentiment of many new boat buyers - if a boat meets the minimum requirements for Cat A, *it must be safe for offshore sailing.*
> 
> Unfortunately, this seems to be encouraging buyers not to investigate important requirements for themselves.
> 
> The net effect is to encourage manufacturers to meet the minimum specs, as laid out by the standard. Why build a stronger and more expensive rudder if much of the boat buying public have been convinced that any rudder that meets Cat A requirements is fine?


Noel - on the one hand I see what you're saying. On the other your expectation for the general purchasing public to fully educate themselves on the intricacies and many contradictions of what we've been debating over the thousands of posts in this thread is just not reasonable.

A standard is required. Period. As for now, that standard is the CE rating. And to that end, the bolded part above is being too broad. That's not what the rating says. There are conditional limits within that standard that people should know about - the point of this thread. But, also the point of this thread, they are not limits that would preclude these boats being able to cruise blue water. So, let's keep the focus where it needs to be.

Unless you, and the other guys in this thread who don't like it, can present a better standard, then your talk is useless. In fact, the attempt to undermine public confidence in this standard is actually FAR more detrimental to safety than the standard itself could ever be. Why? Because then the only "standard" left is what a bunch of knuckleheads on sailing forums say is right or wrong. That's Armageddon.

So, you guys whinge all you want. But the standards makes for more sense - both logically and as evidenced by the rated boats out there doing what they are rated to do - than you guys.


----------



## seaner97

I think Jeff just did, Smack. And he pointed out that the older ones were better.


----------



## Don L

Jeff_H said:


> I also think that its an oversimplification to say, "very.few.issues.like.these.currently.from.the.BIG builders being bashed. Ie Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau, or Catalina." There are a comparatively large number of Catalina's going to the dump here on the Bay. (Mostly 27's and 30's). 18 years ago, when my mother was looking to buy a Hunter 30, they looked at literally a dozen of more of them and not one was free of large areas of core rot in the deck.
> 
> Jeff


See this is part of the problem. Who here has ever said that the "production" 27-30' boats should go off shore??????????? If someone has they are just as crazy as most of old school in a box posters!

Meanwhile if I say my 2001 Hunter 410 has had ZERO hull/deck problems that statement would just get thrown out as so kind of weird thing.

The real problem is deep down you guys with old boats are all put out because others aren't choosing to sail on the same. So they just start making **** up.


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> Seat heaters?!?!?!?
> What are those? Boats have seat heaters? Wow!
> Those for.Those small things I.run over in my dump truck called cars?!?!?!?
> I've never owned one of.them car thingies. Trucks of all different doers yes. Don't see abuser a car thank you.
> Seat heater, really wow!
> Marty


I was pointing out that my luxury item (let's face it- even in NE you don't NEED warm cheeks) is expected to last longer than a brass thru hull in salt water, and the clear inadequacy of them as "minimum" spec for an ocean going boat. And I'm pretty sure they install them in trucks, too.


----------



## seaner97

Classic30 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expect my seat heaters to last longer than 5 years. I certainly don't want vital parts of a boat to last less.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in that case, you have to be willing to (a) choose carefully and (b) pay top dollar.
> 
> The term "marinised" on a generic box of boat parts used to mean they were expensive because they were good quality, well-built and could be expected to last for years. Nowadays it just means they're expensive..
Click to expand...

I attempt to, although, like wine, you can find some good stuff at a bargain. It's also why I bought an old boat and am addressing her systems as I go at far less than new boat costs.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So you're saying John is talking out of both sides of his mouth?


No, not at all...



smackdaddy said:


> If you put the above quotes together - I think you'd come up with "it's more comfortable to go slow, *but it's more fun and more safe to go fast".*
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.


Not to me... Going "fast" can sometimes be a good way to beat up your crew, and break stuff... But, hey, if you don't mind doing that, and believe that's safer, go for it...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> I did and it said absolutely nothing about CE Category A and even includes Irwin and MacGreggor who never built CE Cat A boats. Heck Catalina & Hunter never had CE Cat A boats until sometime around 2000..
> 
> Except that is not what you implied in the OP. Nothing about Category CE A Ocean Rated in there at all and references to boats that never had any CE rating....
> 
> Once again Smack you write the rules of thread engagement then change the rules mid stream. I think we've come to _accept_ your _games_... And selectively quoting yourself, wow that's pretty epic...:wink
> 
> This is the thread title and your first post in its entirety.. I see NOTHING about Cat A rated... Macgregor, Irwin.......??
> 
> In that last sentence you don't even ask about Blue Water you ask about the "outer limits" of "coastal".. Always about "blue water"..? No Category A reference? Yep, you moved the goal posts...


Good grief, dude, you are more high maintenance than your boat! And I'm not nearly as motivated to take care of you as you are your boat.

BUT, I'll be a sport and spoonfeed you again so you'll get it, maybe...I started this thread over 6 YEARS AGO. As you see in the OP, it started as a very broad question about what production boats were worthy of "typical" blue water cruising (not survival storm blue water that everyone always focuses on, just blue water - which in itself had to be defined). No, Cat A boats were not part of that OP because I had no idea what that meant in 2009. I do now.

Now, with that knowledge and everything else I gleaned from this thread, I started one of the most popular threads ever on CF entitled "Production Boats Fit For Blue Water". Please pay attention to the OP:



> Up until now, it's been a never-ending debate. And I've enjoyed discussing it in some other threads like "The Yard Guys", "Production Boats and The Limits" and "Rudder Failures". But I thought it best to cut to the chase. So here it is:
> 
> Modern Category A "Production Boats" - also referred to in forums as "BeneHunterLinas" and "Bleach Bottles" and other interesting names - are built for and perfectly suited to bluewater cruising. Period.
> 
> Now - there is a lot of debatable minutiae in there, and a lot of subjective viewpoints surrounding it, which is why the debate has continued way past its "sell by" date - but that's fact. "Production Boats" are NOT just "coastal cruisers" as some would have us believe. There's far too much evidence out there to debunk these kinds of claims.
> 
> My point in starting this thread is simply to provide some factual accuracy to what can be very silly and misleading arguments. So, I'd like this thread to be dedicated to examples of the many production boats out there very happily and safely cruising blue water.
> 
> For instance, you have years of very reliable information from the ARC as to how various boats perform, you have members around here like MarkJ who has circumnavigated on his Bene and is still going, and you have many other sailors out there like Michael of Sequitur who have successfully taken their "Production Boats" to some very challenging places (e.g. - Cape Horn). Then you also have very knowledgeable guys like Polux who can walk you through the design and construction advantages of 150 different modern boats.
> 
> Now, if you are one who believes that ONLY the "traditional bluewater brands" are suited to this type of cruising, you should probably find another thread. This one ain't for you.
> 
> But, if you're considering a boat for off-shore cruising, and have an even remotely open mind, hopefully you'll find some good facts in this thread as it goes to help you make a rational decision. Because when weighing cost and safety - you can easily go down an expensive, or even dangerous path, if you only hear one side of the story.


I don't see how I can be any more clear than that. So I don't really see what you're so worked up about here. Just keep up with the program and you'll be fine.



Maine Sail said:


> As for CE classification the IMCI directive 94/25/EC (currently 2003/44/EC) of the European Parliament and the Council for Recreational Craft (commonly known as the European RCD) went into effect on June 16, 1996. However, builders did not need to comply with it until June 16, 1998. This is no different as to how major changesin the ABYC or NMMA build guidelines are phased in.
> 
> Hunter sold boats in Europe, so European models were CE as early as June of 1998. However they began placing a CE classification page in US manuals for vessels sold in the US that were NOT actually CE CERTIFIED and this was very, very misleading for many owners who thought they bought a CE A boat, when in fact they did not..
> 
> This _blip_ caused quite a stir for some US customers who thought they bought a CE Class A boat and later found out it was really marketing double-speak..


Okay - so if that's all true, I smell litigation. But what does that have to do with the standard itself? That's what we're discussing.



Maine Sail said:


> The reality of CE A is that in the US Catalina & Hunter really only began offering CE A boats sometime around the year 2000. European builders of European boats had to be compliant by 1998, but not in the US. This CE classification precludes a _LOT of US production boats_ if your _goal post move_ excludes pre 2000 US marketed boats. This move also increases the cost of such "affordable" boats to newer post 2000 higher cost used vessels.. There were no official CE A boats prior to 1998 which is when the RCD requirement became effective in Europe.
> 
> Hey its fine to move goal posts and I guess we just throw all pre 2000 US boats and pre 1998 Euro boats out the window for "Blue Water" eh... :wink


If they ain't rated - they ain't rated. My 1989 boat isn't. But I still personally trust it to cruise blue water - at least the kind we'll do.

Again, as to the question of whether production boats are suited for off-shore work, I'm talking about CE Cat A rated boats. I'm doing so because they meet a standard that is accepted across the industry that says they can safely do just that within a set of limitations. What some dudes on a forum think about all that really doesn't sway me much at all. It is the current standard.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Not to me... Going "fast" can sometimes be a good way to beat up your crew, and break stuff... But, hey, if you don't mind doing that, and believe that's safer, go for it...
> 
> ;-)


Ahm, Jon, John Rousmaniere said that. Why are you arguing with _me_ about it?


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Raise your hand if you expect to replace all your thru hulls and rig, as well as most of the electronics on a new 250K boat every 5 years. Nobody? Maybe Smack and Paulo if he's still around somewhere. Y'know- I'd be ok with it if a 40ftr was the price of a Subaru, but not at the coin you're going to have to lay out for one.


This is really kind of stupid. If you have something on your boat that is rated for 5 years of use and you refuse to change it after 5 years of use - then I'd say you're definitely doing it wrong, and the outcome is on you - not anyone else.

In any case, I've only seen that 5 year limit in these discussions regarding the seacocks. Are you now saying there is the same limitation on the electronics and the rigging? Where do you get that?



seaner97 said:


> Well, the Cat A rating *basically says that's what you should expect, regardless of if you take it offshore or not.* So the Cat A, is, again a minimum standard that tells you what the boat is minimally built to, and, does not, tell you if it is a good or bad boat for offshore (or hell, coastal or lake) purposes.
> 
> If you understand that fully, and are willing to take those chances and *either do the maintenance or sell to some other unsuspecting sop* before they need to be done in the name of "staying modern", by all means, go for it.


You really don't need to own a boat. Or post anymore. Ever. Heh-heh.



seaner97 said:


> But, PLEASE, stop holding the Cat A up as some sort of Holy Grail of yacht manufacturing. Regardless of if you have faith in me or not (even I have limited amounts of faith in myself- it's not about me, or my relative credibility).


I don't think anyone did. It's a standard - not a grail, holy or otherwise. And, judging by the above hyperbole and mischaracterization, it _is_ about your credibility.



seaner97 said:


> The only fuss- as I've said and Jon has as well- is that the standard is only a minimum, and therefore is just to keep a minimum. It does not mean that any boat that is Cat A rated, no matter how old or new, is an offshore boat as Smack has repeatedly said. It means that boat ticked the Cat A boxes regarding construction. Thing could be a dog design. Could meet unanticipated forces at sea. Could be older than 5 years and components start to break as that seems (from several of the parts that I've read of it) to be the operative timeframe. Which, for me, would be ok if it was priced like a car, which it's not.


A good start would be to actually read what Cat A means.


----------



## smackdaddy

NCC320 said:


> Now we are fussing about CE A standard (again). It's alleged to be a minimum standard for "ocean rating" and allows some components or things that posters don't like...i.e. brass through hulls on some boats, Catalina, for one, uses Marlon. And it is stated the rating does nothing to indicate which boats only meet the minimum and which far exceed the minimum. Thus, one is left on their own to rate the better boat (and on his own to see if those things are worth the extra price.) But there again, not all manufacturers exceed or barely meet for all components. So, if they have some items that you like and some you don't like, you have a decision to make which boat does best for you. Now, generally, you can go to a Beneteau, Hunter, or Catalina and then look at a Sabre, or Tartan of same age, you'll quickly decide that the last two are more expensive, fancier, and therefore probably better built in all respects. And to a certain degree you'd be right. But, if I recall correctly, there were some quality issues (or at least questions) around some of the new Tartans. I'm not sure how the outcome was and I guess it was ok, since there haven't been any threads regarding this lately. My point is that you can get problems on any boat, but even a minimum standard is better than no standard.
> 
> For those who want every aspect nailed down, it can restrict a designer/builder in being creative in using new techniques and materials, or require them to go through third party testing and evaluations (think about car requirements). I started a small personal project recently, but abandoned it after I found that it would be impossible to meet the National Electrical Code requirements without undergoing expensive testing at third party labs and spending far more money than I wanted to spend. Now the NEC is a good thing, and if I were building a house or buying an machine of some type, I'd want it to meet the standards. But my project was (at the initial point) only a one off, hobby device. But I could see where it might have commercial possibilities if it worked out. I didn't need that extra expense and trouble, so I abandoned the project. Now, a big corporation wouldn't blink twice if they wanted to try the concept, but a retired or small guy is going to balk at these costs and hassles. The most often reason stated for tight standards (electrical) is safety or fire hazard. My little project was going to be safe, but it was going to have certain things that the code doesn't allow. If I had ever decided to commercialize, the second version could have incorporated changes and testing to meet the NEC before going to market.


Bingo.


----------



## bobperry

Some how I have never equated meeting the CE standards to "quality construction". I equate it to quality standards. They are not the same thing.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> This is really kind of stupid. If you have something on your boat that is rated for 5 years of use and you refuse to change it after 5 years of use - then I'd say you're definitely doing it wrong, and the outcome is on you - not anyone else.
> 
> In any case, I've only seen that 5 year limit in these discussions regarding the seacocks. Are you now saying there is the same limitation on the electronics and the rigging? Where do you get that?
> 
> You really don't need to own a boat. Or post anymore.
> 
> I don't think anyone did. It's a standard - not a grail. And, judging by the above hyperbole and mischaracterization, it is about your credibility.
> 
> A good start would be to actually read what Cat A means.


Good thing I really don't care what you think. You clearly can't read, and have an incredible ability to be willfully ignorant of what you've said.
I did say it was a standard. A minimum one. You are the one that is holding it up as some sort of qualification of excellence. Which it is not.
And yes- electronics last about 5 years before they are obsolete, as Paulo and others repeatedly pointed out. Rigging should be replaced after milage(there are some suggestions on that that I don't know off the top of my head as they relate to circumnavigations, which at this point I'm unlikely to do) and every 5-7 years for offshore use. Chainplates every 15. So, yeah, I expect those expenses. I certainly expect thru hulls to last longer. Maybe it's not me that should sell their boat if you didn't know that? 
Calling me stupid (I'm not) and suggesting that I need to read the Cat 
A (I did, although I will admit not until I read you saying rather false things about it that didn't pass a straight face test) or throwing hyperbole around (I do not think that word means what you think it means...) doesn't change that. So, yeah, you can ignore me, but being FOS is being FOS, and I'm pretty comfortable with the company that disagrees with you here.


----------



## blt2ski

Jeff, 
Phat thumbs on a droid phone. I have bronze valves.
Probably should not be ALL CM boats, it is a higher % for how old the boats. Yes used hard. 
A lot of boats with improperly taken care of I'm going to say wood core be it balsa, plywood etc, will have issues. 2 of 4 boats like mine have had the plywood in mast step rot with mast failures. Mine frankly is showing some of the signs. 
Time to fix one of these days. 
Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Some how I have never equated meeting the CE standards to "quality construction". I equate it to quality standards. They are not the same thing.


I completely agree with that, Bob. From my reading, the standards simply set a bar for what the boat should be designed and built to handle - at a minimum. It's really nothing more than that. Can boats _exceed_ those standards in design and construction quality? Of course! Many do.

But to say that the boats that _are_ designed and built to that standard somehow _STILL_ don't meet that very standard is ludicrous. This is the problem in these forums...because there are lots of dudes here and elsewhere who rabidly hold to that misguided argument.

Just as a reminder to everyone who is too lazy to look it up, here is the wording for the CE Cat A rating (from a *2012 IPOL doc*):

*A. OCEAN : Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient. *

And before some of you chuckleheads get started, read the doc. This is a HIGHER rating than "Offshore". It is _decidedly_ "blue water".

So - it is what it is.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Calling me stupid (I'm not) and suggesting that I need to read the Cat
> A (I did, although I will admit not until I read you saying rather false things about it that didn't pass a straight face test) or throwing hyperbole around (I do not think that word means what you think it means...) doesn't change that. So, yeah, you can ignore me, but being FOS is being FOS, and I'm pretty comfortable with the company that disagrees with you here.


I didn't call you stupid. You asked the "crowd" in your post who was actually going to do the required maintenance on their $250K boat. I think it would be generally accepted that knowing about it and NOT doing it would be stupid...regardless of how many hands are in the air.


----------



## Don L

I don't see the need anymore to type any facts to dispute the **** some of you just make up (mostly on the hater/basher end of things).


----------



## seaner97

No. I asked the crowd how many people were going to switch out their thruhulls IN ADDITION to routine maintenance five years after they bought a brand new boat. Again- reading comprehension and accuracy. Try them.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay sean.


----------



## seaner97

Try "I was wrong". I promise it won't hurt too much.


----------



## Capt Len

That doesn't have to be scheduled maintenance. Just replace the thruhulls and valves when they fail. I mean how important can they be?


----------



## blt2ski

Len,
Issue with some failed thru hulls be them bronze, brass, Marlon etc, depending upon the how and when, your boat could sink literally in minutes. 
To say it is an important to non important item can be true or false. Really no different than a sewage hose breaking and getting a leak below the water line with that valve open. 
A lot of water can go thru a typically 2" hole pretty quick. 
Items like this should be on a replace every few years. Number of years can depend on many variables.
Marty


----------



## NCC320

Jeff_H said:


> I also think that its an oversimplification to say, "very.few.issues.like.these.currently.from.the.BIG builders being bashed. Ie Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau, or Catalina." There are a comparatively large number of Catalina's going to the dump here on the Bay. (Mostly 27's and 30's). 18 years ago, when my mother was looking to buy a Hunter 30, they looked at literally a dozen of more of them and not one was free of large areas of core rot in the deck.
> 
> Jeff


I assume it's the same with Hunter, Jenneau and Beneteau, but I know that, over the years, Catalina has made significant quality/structural improvements in their boats, so referencing boats from 18 years ago going to the junk yard (which would indicate these were some of the much older boats) is not a fair gauge of what is being produced by Catalina now. Catalina built a lot of both the 27 and 30, so there are literally many thousands of both out there. Many more than most other builders for a given model. Catalina tends to make long runs on their boats but also making changes incrementally as they find better ways to do things. The early models of a given boat, 30 for example are not nearly as good as the later models, 30 MIII. If they make a significant group of changes, they have typically called them MKII or change the number series...30..320..355.

In my case, there a number of changes and improvements made in my boat model between the time it was introduced in 1993 and when mine was made in 2000, and the MK II had still more. Production of my model ceased in 2012 after 1175 boats were built. Also, the larger boats (Cat A) are built more rugged than the smaller boats. So it's not fair to judge Catalina by boats built in the early 70's-80's vs. today's boats, even though those boats were pretty decent too. Nor the construction of the smaller boats vs. the largest in the line.

Also, (I think this is true for any brand), sailing seems to have lost some of its pizzaz in recent years and there isn't much of a market for really old boats, especial the smaller ones and ones that have not received good care over the years. With just a few thousand dollars, if you are shopping older boats, there are lots and lots of them. Most will show neglect and with no market and still having to pay slip fees, and bottom jobs, many have and many more will become candidates for the landfill.


----------



## seaner97

NCC320 said:


> Jeff_H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that its an oversimplification to say, "very.few.issues.like.these.currently.from.the.BIG builders being bashed. Ie Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau, or Catalina." There are a comparatively large number of Catalina's going to the dump here on the Bay. (Mostly 27's and 30's). 18 years ago, when my mother was looking to buy a Hunter 30, they looked at literally a dozen of more of them and not one was free of large areas of core rot in the deck.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> I assume it's the same with Hunter, Jenneau and Beneteau, but I know that, over the years, Catalina has made significant quality/structural improvements in their boats, so referencing boats from 18 years ago going to the junk yard (which would indicate these were some of the much older boats) is not a fair gauge of what is being produced by Catalina now. Catalina built a lot of both the 27 and 30, so there are literally many thousands of both out there. Many more than most other builders for a given model. Catalina tends to make long runs on their boats but also making changes incrementally as they find better ways to do things. The early models of a given boat, 30 for example are not nearly as good as the later models, 30 MIII. If they make a significant group of changes, they have typically called them MKII or change the number series...30..320..355.
> 
> In my case, there a number of changes and improvements made in my boat model between the time it was introduced in 1993 and when mine was made in 2000, and the MK II had still more. Production of my model ceased in 2012 after 1175 boats were built. Also, the larger boats (Cat A) are built more rugged than the smaller boats. So it's not fair to judge Catalina by boats built in the early 70's-80's vs. today's boats, even though those boats were pretty decent too. Nor the construction of the smaller boats vs. the largest in the line.
> 
> Also, (I think this is true for any brand), sailing seems to have lost some of its pizzaz in recent years and there isn't much of a market for really old boats, especial the smaller ones and ones that have not received good care over the years. With just a few thousand dollars, if you are shopping older boats, there are lots and lots of them. Most will show neglect and with no market and still having to pay slip fees, and bottom jobs, many have and many more will become candidates for the landfill.
Click to expand...

My reading of Jeff's statement was that the Hunters they looked at were problems when they looked 18 years ago and that he noticed many Catalinas going to scrap now(no age of boat cited).


----------



## Classic30

blt2ski said:


> Len,
> Issue with some failed thru hulls be them bronze, brass, Marlon etc, depending upon the how and when, your boat could sink literally in minutes.
> To say it is an important to non important item can be true or false. Really no different than a sewage hose breaking and getting a leak below the water line with that valve open.
> A lot of water can go thru a typically 2" hole pretty quick.
> Items like this should be on a replace every few years. Number of years can depend on many variables.
> Marty


Huh?!? Seriously, Marty - there are plenty of things I can think of that might require replacement every few years, but thru-hulls ain't one of them. Mine get checked every year when the boat comes out, but just like the keel bolts that have been in there for decades, if they're in there and check out okay, why replace them just for the hell of it?

Sure, a hose could break (only opening valves when you need to helps) or a valve could fail (if the hose is attached, what's the issue?) but I'm more likely to spring a leak somewhere else and have the boat go down on me that way than I ever will worrying about a thru-hull. And that's on an old timber boat where cathodic protection is a known issue - not some modern plastic fantastic where it isn't.

EDIT: ..and congrats on reaching 7,000 posts, Marty... I'm only a coupla thousand behind! :grin


----------



## seaner97

Capt Len said:


> That doesn't have to be scheduled maintenance. Just replace the thruhulls and valves when they fail. I mean how important can they be?


Is there a replacement schedule on bronze? I've never seen one. Most people around here do yearly maintenance and replace when they start to get hard to free up.


----------



## Classic30

seaner97 said:


> Is there a replacement schedule on bronze? I've never seen one. Most people around here do yearly maintenance and replace when they start to get hard to free up.


S, Len is being sarcastic. Best not to take any notice.. :grin


----------



## seaner97

I got the sarcasm. It was an honest question.


----------



## Classic30

seaner97 said:


> I got the sarcasm. It was an honest question.


Ok, then the honest answer is there isn't one. Yearly maintenance and replace is the way it's done.

'Struth, if there was a replacement schedule on bronze, I'd be needing a new boat!


----------



## seaner97

FWIW I've actively avoided brand naming with the occasional exception of baiting Don with a tongue in cheek Hunter jab or two. I think all manufacturers have done some suspect things to cut costs. The Catalina smile is one that was easily foreseeable. Pearson using plywood under the compression post and stapling wires is another. I think Hunter has been beat to death in this thread mostly due to their main champion here, but they've got some, too. I'm sure with enough time we could come up with some for the high end guys (those pop up cleats certainly would qualify for me).


----------



## seaner97

Classic30 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got the sarcasm. It was an honest question.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, then the honest answer is there isn't one. Yearly maintenance and replace is the way it's done.
> 
> 'Struth, if there was a replacement schedule on bronze, I'd be needing a new boat!
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, but figured maybe one of the know it alls on here would have something different. Love to learn.


----------



## Classic30

seaner97 said:


> ...I think all manufacturers have done some suspect things to cut costs. The Catalina smile is one that was easily foreseeable. Pearson using plywood under the compression post and stapling wires is another. I think Hunter has been beat to death in this thread mostly due to their main champion here, but they've got some, too. I'm sure with enough time we could come up with some for the high end guys (those pop up cleats certainly would qualify for me).


Sure. And for that reason, people like Our Bob have a job to go to, since custom-builds don't typically suffer from the same issues when there's more foks than just the owner looking over the builder's shoulder.

FWIW, my boat is a one-off (obviously) but we've only recently discovered the trouble the NA, the owner-builder and his boat-builder accomplice went to to make sure she'd survive through the decades relatively unscathed. It's attention to detail in the hidden places that makes all the difference..


----------



## NCC320

seaner97,

I did misread Jeff's post. The Catalinas going to the dump was a current observation. Actually, that makes sense, given the poor market for very old, small boats of most any brand currently. Catalina started in 1969 with the 22 which is still in production today with around 16,000 having been produced. The 27 was introduced in 1971 and 6662 boats were made. The 30 was started in 1976 and 6430 boats were made. The 25 was begun in 1978 and 5861 were made. So, there are lots of them out there, and one would expect that the ones being junked are the older ones, or the ones abused or wrecked. Given the age of some of them, it is about time for many of them to make that last trip...the one to the landfill.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> FWIW I've actively avoided brand naming with the occasional exception of baiting Don with a tongue in cheek Hunter jab or two. I think Hunter has been beat to death in this thread mostly due to their main champion here, but they've got some, too. I'm sure with enough time we could come up with some for the high end guys (those pop up cleats certainly would qualify for me).


Well at least you're starting to gravitate toward some objectivity. I do respect that.


----------



## outbound

I learned some more about H and thank you. Still, think the basic point stands although the examples don't. At the museum I saw his catamaran and his boats with balanced spade rudders. But he was clearly a genius and was held back in his designs by the materials available to him.

To my mind to the cruising sailor having the ability to carry the spares necessary for years to come is a good thing. Folks may take years to do the clock. Even more don't haul until the bottom requires. This discussion about thru hulls, cat A and when certification started speaks to a mindset I just don't understand.

Think some of this is "pay me now or pay me later". If the keel is designed correctly and constructed correctly to that design it should be sound for the entire life of the boat. If the thru hulls are of good design and construction and protected from,corrosion the same. Similarly, given the wear and tear a cruising boat is subjected to incorporating a hull deck joint whose integrity will become suspect after a few years of docking is not a good cruising boat.

Believe Cat A is a minimum standard because the various builders in the various countries wanted it that way. Believe Norske Veritas or Lloyds were more rigorous because insurance companies wanted them that way. This is what I was told. Not know the truth of that.

But do know many cruisers want a boat where they need not be concerned about the structural integrity of the boat for decades to come. This means it will have more residual value when they can sail no more and need to sell. This means they need not be concerned when weather or mishap occurs. Not the first year or the tenth year of ownership. I know few people with the resources or desire to be flipping boats every 5-7yrs. once they are cruising and the regular paycheck stops. Apparently from what PCP posted I'm naive and this is the prevalent current mentality. The folks I know would pay extra for a sound boat at the front end of their embracing the cruising lifestyle. Unfortunately that extra is more than some can or want to pay.

There is a hole in the market.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> .....I'll be a sport and spoonfeed you again so you'll get it......


The narcissist in chief here has just argued that he needs to spoonfeed MaineSail. Can you imagine the nads on this guy?

That says it all about how much computer research he's done in the past 7 years and how confident he now knows it all. I've counted about a half dozen "stupid", "knucklehead" and "chucklehead" arguments from him since.

The bottom line is that following these ratings is like buying a parachute that may have been made to the absolute minimum standards, but you wouldn't know by just referencing the rating. Nobody would be that stupid, silly, or chuckleheady as to jump based on minimum trade negotiation standards. Strike that ,there is apparently one exception to nobody.


----------



## smackdaddy

NCC320 said:


> seaner97,
> 
> I did misread Jeff's post. The Catalinas going to the dump was a current observation. Actually, that makes sense, given the poor market for very old, small boats of most any brand currently. Catalina started in 1969 with the 22 which is still in production today with around 16,000 having been produced. The 27 was introduced in 1971 and 6662 boats were made. The 30 was started in 1976 and 6430 boats were made. The 25 was begun in 1978 and 5861 were made. So, there are lots of them out there, and one would expect that the ones being junked are the older ones, or the ones abused or wrecked. Given the age of some of them, it is about time for many of them to make that last trip...the one to the landfill.


Another aspect of this is that those old, lightly built boats don't really deserve the amount of money it would take to bring them back.

As I've shown on here before, the side deck (and chainplate) on our old C27 was starting to buckle...










No way was I going to put the money into fixing that. Instead I sailed it, knowing it was a time-bomb. Luckily, it sank before the rig failed. So that was good.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Think some of this is "pay me now or pay me later".
> 
> But do know many cruisers want a boat where they need not be concerned about the structural integrity of the boat for decades to come.
> 
> The folks I know would pay extra for a sound boat at the front end of their embracing the cruising lifestyle. Unfortunately that extra is more than some can or want to pay.
> 
> There is a hole in the market.


I'm just not sure about your premise. First, you're a freakin' brain surgeon. Your (and maybe your friends') tastes and abilities to sate them might be in a different league than most.

For most, a mid 6-figure payout _for a rapidly depreciating luxury item_ is definitely substantial. If what you're talking about is an "Ultra Production Boat" or even a "Limited Build Custom" boat - then we're likely moving into nine figures. And at that point, just call Bob. Why screw around?

So, I just don't see this gaping hole that you do. And in any case, not worrying for decades is just not part of our culture - _especially_ not our boating culture.

To be honest, what amazes me is that there ARE so many people who are able to clunk down six figures for such a huge short-term liability. The fact that boats are just getting bigger and more expensive really tells you that this hole you see IS being filled. Just not in the way you see it. For example...



outbound said:


> This means it will have more residual value when they can sail no more and need to sell.


I don't believe this is really true any more. Residual value _in a boat_? As long as people buy into the "old boats are the only good boats" mentality, then you have market. But that's dying off very quickly from what I can see - with old, very expensive boats sitting on the market forever. See Yachtworld.



outbound said:


> I know few people with the resources or desire to be flipping boats every 5-7yrs. once they are cruising and the regulations paycheck stops. Apparently from what PCP posted I'm naive and this is the prevalent current mentality.


It's not about "flipping". Not by any means. It's about getting the best, biggest, and newest possible boat you can for the money. If a person has $150K to spend, it is becoming increasingly hard to convince that person that a 30 year-old, relatively small, "blue water" brand is a "better deal" than a 2-4 year old big production boat with all the bells and whistles. That's just the reality of the market. And part of that goes back to what I said above, spending that $150K on the 30 year-old "blue water" brand is a HUGE leap of faith that the market will still value that boat in 10 years the way it does today. The numbers just don't work.

Anyway, lots of complexities. But I don't think there's a hole - I think there's simply a good deal of growth in the middle-market which doesn't much care for the arguments of yesteryear.


----------



## Maine Sail

Minnewaska said:


> The narcissist in chief here has just argued that he needs to spoonfeed MaineSail. Can you imagine the nads on this guy?
> 
> That says it all about how much computer research he's done in the past 7 years and how confident he now knows it all. I've counted about a half dozen "stupid", "knucklehead" and "chucklehead" arguments from him since.
> 
> The bottom line is that following these ratings is like buying a parachute that may have been made to the absolute minimum standards, but you wouldn't know by just referencing the rating. Nobody would be that stupid, silly, or chuckleheady as to jump based on minimum trade negotiation standards. Strike that ,there is apparently one exception to nobody.


To make his "spoon feeding" point he copied and pasted his own OP not from SAILNET but rather from Cruisers Forum.....??

Last time I checked we were on SAILNET so what point he was making by copy & pasting his own post from Cruisers Forum is beyond me as to the relevance here? We are discussing "Production Boats & The Limits" on Sailnet are we not?

I am still waiting for Smack to show us if he actually knows anything at all about the RCD standards other than the titles.

On a brighter note we now know, according to our in-house standard and classification society expert, that no production boat built before 1998-2000 is suitable for blue water because it lacks a CE Cat A......:wink


----------



## bobperry

You guys are great. I know you are just doing this so I don't feel like "the bad guy". Nicely done. Hang in there Smackers.

But I have this feeling that there is a double standard at work behind the scenes here. You guys will get away with the fighting Scott free.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> You guys are great. I know you are just doing this so I don't feel like "the bad guy". Nicely done. Hang in there Smackers.
> 
> But I have this feeling that there is a double standard at work behind the scenes here. You guys will get away with the fighting Scott free.


Oh you're definitely the bad guy. Just kidding. I'm the most hated man in the world of sensitive sailors.

And when were we Scots ever free? To kilts, pipes, and haggis!!!!

PS - and yes, my nads are impressive. Heh-heh.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> On a brighter note we now know, according to our in-house standard and classification society expert, that no production boat built before 1998-2000 is suitable for blue water because it lacks a CE Cat A......:wink


Really? You're putting that in writing, Mainesail?

Look, here is your position on this matter - stated very clearly:



> The Only Reason.....The builders get away with installations like this because we the buyers allow it.
> 
> If you want better construction techniques keeping your family afloat it needs to start with us the customers!


Now, I have HUGE respect for your work. I truly do. You are one of the best out there.

BUT, if you had your way with _standards_, the industry would crash. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. Because your maintenance-and-repair-based cost to benefit analysis is a FAR smaller scope than designing and building yachts for a mass market - it's EASY for you to hold this position. It's just that it's Quixotic. It doesn't scale. And that's a VERY important component of business.

The reason the uprising you call for doesn't happen is because any buyer knows that there is a very high cost associated with perfection (which is YOUR standard). So, buyers are willing to gamble a bit. And as long as the industry standard is producing boats that can do what they say they can do (which they can) - then you don't really have much of a case...at least not yet.

That said, once that new production boat is 5 years old - anyone would be a FOOL not to call you and make sure it's done absolutely right.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW I've actively avoided brand naming with the occasional exception of baiting Don with a tongue in cheek Hunter jab or two. I think Hunter has been beat to death in this thread mostly due to their main champion here, but they've got some, too. I'm sure with enough time we could come up with some for the high end guys (those pop up cleats certainly would qualify for me).
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you're starting to gravitate toward some objectivity. I do respect that.
Click to expand...

Reread my posts. Find something non objective I didn't label that way or that wasn't meant with sarcasm. I'll wait. 
It'll happen right around the time you admit you are wrong.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Reread my posts.


Way too much work. Way too little interest.


----------



## outbound

Smack followed your advice. There are two 2008 Outbounds for sale on yachtworld. One for ~435. One ~535. Have followed prior sales. Will sell for ~10% less but no more. Not bad when the base for those boats was below the current 525. Suspect those boats won't sit for long unless there are issues. They haven't in the past. As expense for other production boats rise think there will be a sub set of the market who will want them in the future.
Agree it won't be the thirty somethings, agree few entrepreneurs with money to burn will want them. But don't agree there aren't a lot of mom and pops who will. 
Do agree the market is changing. Do agree it's shifting in a way that is not favorable to the long term cruiser. Agree that for what was available when your Hunter was built on a structural level there was less difference between a quality production boat at the middle level and the high level compared to now. I would get on Steves old Mason or a Valiant and after going through systems and inspection just head out. Also agree the NAs haven't been sitting on their thumbs. There have been significant advances in boat design and construction. But still hold the myriad deficiencies resulting in need to hold to a price point has resulted in boats less suited to long term ownership by a cruiser. The quest for speed has changed the character of some boats making them less comfortable for long term living aboard.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reread my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Way too much work. Way too little interest.
Click to expand...

No worries. Maybe just tone it down a bit or actually read things before going off half cocked? Probably too much to ask. 
I note you still haven't owned up to any of your previous reading comprehension or accuracy errors despite repeatedly claiming them from others. A shame as I think some good points are getting lost in your bluster.


----------



## tdw

bobperry said:


> You guys are great. I know you are just doing this so I don't feel like "the bad guy". Nicely done. Hang in there Smackers.
> 
> But I have this feeling that there is a double standard at work behind the scenes here. You guys will get away with the fighting Scott free.


Oh poor baby. Jaysus you really don't get it do you ? It is not the fighting, it is not the disagreeing, it is not the debate, it is not even the level of acrimony that exists between various souls. It is lying, it is calling others delusional, it is the outright abuse hurled at other members. These are the kinds of things that have us stinking moderators editing your posts and/or telling you to pull your head in.


----------



## eko_eko

One of the nice things about buying an old boat is that I don't feel bad replacing the wiring, rigging, and through-hulls to meet my own specifications. Sure, the ones that were on it were junk. Now they are (mostly) not.

I'd be unhappy to buy a new boat that had brass through hulls and no flanges. I'd feel ripped off. I expect that a new boat will be built with today's understanding of rugged engineering. I'd expect the systems to be at least as good as what I, a software guy, can do with my Harbor Freight tools and ancient ShopSmith. I'm disappointed at every single boat show I visit.


----------



## seaner97

eko_eko said:


> one of the nice things about buying an old boat is that i don't feel bad replacing the wiring, rigging, and through-hulls to meet my own specifications. Sure, the ones that were on it were junk. Now they are (mostly) not.
> 
> I'd be unhappy to buy a new boat that had brass through hulls and no flanges. I'd feel ripped off. I expect that a new boat will be built with today's understanding of rugged engineering. I'd expect the systems to be at least as good as what i, a software guy, can do with my harbor freight tools and ancient shopsmith. I'm disappointed at every single boat show i visit.


+1.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack followed your advice. There are two 2008 Outbounds for sale on yachtworld. One for ~435. One ~535. Have followed prior sales. Will sell for ~10% less but no more. Not bad when the base for those boats was below the current 525. Suspect those boats won't sit for long unless there are issues. They haven't in the past.


Yeah - this is what I mean. I think this indicates a real "bubble" in the market that is driven by the typical sentiment we see in these forums. I could be wrong. We'll see.



outbound said:


> As expense for other production boats rise think there will be a sub set of the market who will want them in the future.
> Agree it won't be the thirty somethings, agree few entrepreneurs with money to burn will want them. But don't agree there aren't a lot of mom and pops who will.


That may be true regarding the moms and pops. But you have to remember that many of the vaunted blue-water brands are in trouble - AND they are moving their design features and aesthetics toward the production boat market (e.g. - Swan, LM, Oyster, and even IP to a degree with its liners, etc.). I mean, who is _currently_ building the kind of boat JonE wants?



outbound said:


> Do agree the market is changing. Do agree it's shifting in a way that is not favorable to the long term cruiser.


Now THIS is a critical point. The long term cruiser has always been a pretty small segment of the boating market. BUT, as I've said before, I think there is somewhat of a resurgence in interest by the younger crowd (see the Young Punks thread). And they are picking USED boats that are all over the place (Benetueau, Hans Christian, Amel, Pearson, etc.). It will be interesting to follow these sailors and find out more about what drove their purchases.



outbound said:


> Agree that for what was available when your Hunter was built on a structural level there was less difference between a quality production boat at the middle level and the high level compared to now. I would get on Steves old Mason or a Valiant and after going through systems and inspection just head out. Also agree the NAs haven't been sitting on their thumbs. There have been significant advances in boat design and construction. But still hold the myriad deficiencies resulting in need to hold to a price point has resulted in boats *less suited to long term ownership by a cruiser.* The quest for speed has changed the character of some boats making them less comfortable for long term living aboard.


As I've said in this thread already, I agree with you here - especially the bolded part. And THAT is the real elephant in the room that gets clouded when chuckleheads only want to argue whether production boats belong off-shore at all.

How many buyers know that they need to potentially change out their seacocks (or whatever) in 5 years? How many care?


----------



## outbound

I continue to learn something from all the posters. They all have very valid points and perspectives. But I do wish the discussion stayed more on focus. We are talking about boats. Except for Jon and Bob we are all amateurs and dilitantes. First step in learning is to admit you don't know what you don't know. It's good to be surprised.


----------



## seaner97

I'd be interested to know how much the incremental costs are on some of these things. I've got the impression that some of them are pennies, which isn't enough to justify them over the range of an 1100 boat run. You need to get into the 100k unit range for that level of cost savings to be worth it.


----------



## bobperry

tdw:
I knew that would get to you. Bingo!

"It is lying,"
Well there you go making things up to bolster your personal case against me. So provide the proof so we can all see. Your call. I do not have to lie.


----------



## blt2ski

seaner97 said:


> I'd be interested to know how much the incremental costs are on some of these things. I've got the impression that some of them are pennies, which isn't enough to justify them over the range of an 1100 boat run. You need to get into the 100k unit range for that level of cost savings to be worth it.


Not sure what items you are referring too.....

I looked up ball valves at WM, yeah expensive retail.....

Chrome brass $25
Bronze $ 53
Marlon $108

Figure wholesale is 40-60% less than this cost depending upon the where they can get the part from. IE direct from manufacture, local wholesale place etc.

Some brands like Lewmar you buy from a local wholesale place UNLESS you are building 100+ units, and buying $x from them.
So lets say using retail, I have 5 1" valves as priced on my boat, looking at 125 vs 550 in low vs high valve total cost.

If as a builder/contractor need say 50-100 of these a year or more, you've saved a pretty penny/dollar going with the cheap valves, if that is your price point you are shooting for.

Not pennies difference, but dollars real quick.

marty


----------



## Classic30

blt2ski said:


> Not sure what items you are referring too.....
> 
> I looked up ball valves at WM, yeah expensive retail.....


You want buy ball valves?!??? I get them for you really cheeep!!!! Fell off truck from China yesterday.. Top quality. Any brand you like. Come with me and I make you good deal!! :devil


----------



## blt2ski

Cam,

I wish you were online in MY morning time, so I could be more awake to harazz you! 10pm here.....time for bed. 

With that, how is tomorrow shaping up?

Fuzzy appears to be NOT in a good mood, so he mustof woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Or mrs fuzzy was not nice to him last night......

I'm sure you will make me a good deal on them low quality knock offs! Saw a Rolwx for $25 the other day, said were the same as the real ones that cost $5000! yeah right!

Marty


----------



## Classic30

blt2ski said:


> Cam,
> 
> I wish you were online in MY morning time, so I could be more awake to harazz you! 10pm here.....time for bed.
> 
> With that, how is tomorrow shaping up?
> 
> Fuzzy appears to be NOT in a good mood, so he mustof woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Or mrs fuzzy was not nice to him last night......


You live on the wrong side of the world, old friend. 

It's raining now, but tomorrow's not looking too bad. Another race this Sunday, followed by a couple more this side of Christmas. Might even get out on the water tomorrow if I'm lucky!

Mr Fuzzy has a lot on his plate right now work-wise, so go easy on him. You might not even see much of him around here for a while - but don't worry, he's doing fine.

These are crazy times we live in wot with various free-trade agreements flying around and all. Pretty soon there'll be no telling where anything is made or how good it is and no-one nearby to complain to either.. only an automated message system in the language of your choice..


----------



## blt2ski

Classic30 said:


> You live on the wrong side of the world, old friend.
> 
> It's raining now, but tomorrow's not looking too bad. Another race this Sunday, followed by a couple more this side of Christmas. Might even get out on the water tomorrow if I'm lucky!
> 
> Mr Fuzzy has a lot on his plate right now work-wise, so go easy on him. You might not even see much of him around here for a while - but don't worry, he's doing fine.
> 
> These are crazy times we live in wot with various free-trade agreements flying around and all. Pretty soon there'll be no telling where anything is made or how good it is and no-one nearby to complain to either.. only an automated message system in the language of your choice..


If fuzzy is busy at work, that must mean he is making some coin, or at least we hope so!

Rained a lot of the day today here too. Spent most of it working at an office building complex I maintain in my Grundens! Yesterday was pretty nice. Was just looking at a utube of some folks racing last weekend........

lets see if this works eh!



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10206175362917621



one may need face book to make it work. But 24 knots on I believe an RP55. Need to look it up in specs.....That thing has a 10' keel length, only 750 lbs in the fin part, 10,300 lbs of lead in the bulb, 12' total draft!

marty


----------



## blt2ski

Cam,

I have what , 7000 posts seem to recall there was a when would Mr Super Dog in the past in 20K.......Wonder when fuzzball and smackers will hit join him? shall we start a collection etc? Im a LONG ways off!lolol

marty


----------



## seaner97

I


blt2ski said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to know how much the incremental costs are on some of these things. I've got the impression that some of them are pennies, which isn't enough to justify them over the range of an 1100 boat run. You need to get into the 100k unit range for that level of cost savings to be worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what items you are referring too.....
> 
> I looked up ball valves at WM, yeah expensive retail.....
> 
> Chrome brass $25
> Bronze $ 53
> Marlon $108
> 
> Figure wholesale is 40-60% less than this cost depending upon the where they can get the part from. IE direct from manufacture, local wholesale place etc.
> 
> Some brands like Lewmar you buy from a local wholesale place UNLESS you are building 100+ units, and buying $x from them.
> So lets say using retail, I have 5 1" valves as priced on my boat, looking at 125 vs 550 in low vs high valve total cost.
> 
> If as a builder/contractor need say 50-100 of these a year or more, you've saved a pretty penny/dollar going with the cheap valves, if that is your price point you are shooting for.
> 
> Not pennies difference, but dollars real quick.
> 
> marty
Click to expand...

Was thinking of plywood in the bilge, proper fasteners for wire, a modular design that still allows access to systems, etc. but see why you went for the valves. The economic argument for them is strong, I would agree. My main point on them is that they are inferior and one of the places it seems silly to cut costs. It's also something I'd replace myself within 3-5 years if I ever bought a brand new boat that had them. Problem is that in many of the newer designs with liners and modular builds, you can't get at them.


----------



## Don L

I'm glad I don't have one of the these production boats with the build that exists in some of your minds. While some have the "I read it on the internet so it must be true" going pretty good it is pretty advanced when you apply it to your posts in a "I posted it on the internet so it must be true".


----------



## JonEisberg

eko_eko said:


> One of the nice things about buying an old boat is that I don't feel bad replacing the wiring, rigging, and through-hulls to meet my own specifications. Sure, the ones that were on it were junk. Now they are (mostly) not.
> 
> I'd be unhappy to buy a new boat that had brass through hulls and no flanges. I'd feel ripped off. I expect that a new boat will be built with today's understanding of rugged engineering. I'd expect the systems to be at least as good as what I, a software guy, can do with my Harbor Freight tools and ancient ShopSmith. I'm disappointed at every single boat show I visit.


Yeah, I never did get an answer from Paulo or anyone else, as to how much one should be expected to pay for a boat these days, in order to get something as elementary as the proper alignment of a deck fitting right...

Apparently for some brands, $750K is not quite enough...

;-)


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> I'm glad I don't have one of the these production boats with the build that exists in some of your minds. While some have the "I read it on the internet so it must be true" going pretty good it is pretty advanced when you apply it to your posts in a "I posted it on the internet so it must be true".


Is there something in particular you are referring to? I'm not sure I've seen that argument used.


----------



## seaner97

JonEisberg said:


> eko_eko said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the nice things about buying an old boat is that I don't feel bad replacing the wiring, rigging, and through-hulls to meet my own specifications. Sure, the ones that were on it were junk. Now they are (mostly) not.
> 
> I'd be unhappy to buy a new boat that had brass through hulls and no flanges. I'd feel ripped off. I expect that a new boat will be built with today's understanding of rugged engineering. I'd expect the systems to be at least as good as what I, a software guy, can do with my Harbor Freight tools and ancient ShopSmith. I'm disappointed at every single boat show I visit.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I never did get an answer from Paulo or anyone else, as to how much one should be expected to pay for a boat these days, in order to get something as elementary as the proper alignment of a deck fitting right...
> 
> Apparently for some brands, $750K is not quite enough...
> 
> ;-)
Click to expand...

I think the response was akin to 'it'll be ok. I'm sure their engineers thought about that and its overbuilt enough'

Otherwise known as the 'we don't need no stinking riggers' tactic.


----------



## aeventyr60

^Nah, it's CE rated AAA for blue water, should make smakky sleep well at night...don't worry worry about the installation, it meets all the current standards....guess the riggers are highly trained in modern production boat rigging as well. Must be guys from Kemah.


----------



## seaner97

NCC320 said:


> seaner97,
> 
> I did misread Jeff's post. The Catalinas going to the dump was a current observation. Actually, that makes sense, given the poor market for very old, small boats of most any brand currently. Catalina started in 1969 with the 22 which is still in production today with around 16,000 having been produced. The 27 was introduced in 1971 and 6662 boats were made. The 30 was started in 1976 and 6430 boats were made. The 25 was begun in 1978 and 5861 were made. So, there are lots of them out there, and one would expect that the ones being junked are the older ones, or the ones abused or wrecked. Given the age of some of them, it is about time for many of them to make that last trip...the one to the landfill.


See- this is how it's done. Admit you made a mistake and move on. Further your argument with data and a theory. Don't call anyone or their statements stupid, or chuckleheads or some other denigrating name. 
The problem with the above is if you look at some of the older production boats like Pearsons, Bristols pre 80s, Cals and Columbias similar percentages of their production aren't in the landfill and are still sailing. So something changed massively for the worse either in their perceived worth or their construction that has led to less longevity. Exploring those elements is what I've been interested in (that and pointing out blatantly false statements like a Cat A rating means you're good for offshore or that newer is always better. FWIW I'd go after the statement older is always better as well. I think Jon says it best- it depends.)


----------



## aeventyr60

^Yep, the old depends...some of our more incontinent members may want to catch up on the latest offerings from Amazonhttp://www.amazon.com/Depend-Incontinence-Underwear-Absorbency-Packaging/dp/B004M3CPDG:


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> Maybe because it is paid off the day it is bought?
> 
> I once met a 79 yr old (or 76, can't remember) retired airline pilot in the Bahamas. He had a fully tricked out brand new Bene 46. Just upgraded from a Bene 423.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I guess because he wanted to and had the means to pull it off.


Thinking more about this, I think the major issue I've got with this is that most of us aren't 79, retired or independently wealthy. 100-300k for a new boat would be something even the relatively wealthy among us would need to finance. Most boat loans I investigated started around 36-48 months and went out to 60. Clearly not everyone needs to worry about that, but I think I'm safe to say the majority do.


----------



## NCC320

seaner97 said:


> See- this is how it's done. Admit you made a mistake and move on. Further your argument with data and a theory. Don't call anyone or their statements stupid, or chuckleheads or some other denigrating name.
> The problem with the above is if you look at some of the older production boats like Pearsons, Bristols pre 80s, Cals and Columbias similar percentages of their production aren't in the landfill and are still sailing. So something changed massively for the worse either in their perceived worth or their construction that has led to less longevity. Exploring those elements is what I've been interested in (that and pointing out blatantly false statements like a Cat A rating means you're good for offshore or that newer is always better. FWIW I'd go after the statement older is always better as well. I think Jon says it best- it depends.)


Trouble is we don't have an actual percentage number for the Catalinas, Bristols, Persons, Cals, Columbias being junked vs. number made, nor actual data on the age of the boats. So, it's impossible to say that the production brands J B H C are failing at a quicker rate that the other brands. All we can say, is some manufacturers made lots of boats over a long period of time and it would be reasonable that in the junk yard, we'd see more of those than boats from brands where considerably fewer were made. Also, we'd need data on size of boats, since bigger boats are typically made more rugged than smaller boats. And then it gets even more complicated, because larger boats are more likely to have had owners who were experienced boat handlers and knew how to protect the boats in operation/docking, and also were likely more financially able to have boats well maintained. So, the larger boats would be expected to have a considerably lower ratio of boats junked to number built.


----------



## blt2ski

Pics like the one of the rigging shown. Seen that on a few boats. Heck, there is a boat (for sale too) with halyards that run from the mast thru a riser for the cabin top main sail traveler, to the clutch directly behind the riser......yeah, the line goes around rubbing on the fiberglass riser.......A Catalina 34 mind you.

Hence why one of our posters who WANTED mind you a Cat 36, went with another brand. Too many goofs like this for that brand. Which is too bad, as he had 3-4 previous cats around the country. 

BUT, items like this do not make or break a cat A vs B vs C vs D in this issue. It might from the insurer Lloyds as mentioned that has some stricter guidelines for boats it insures, so you get a cheaper rate etc I would swag. A basic initial build design flaw, that has not been fixed in early boats, where it will in later......or ?????

With ALL things great and small, be it a boat, house car, pair of shoes, suit.......one needs to many times look up reviews etc to figure out what is a better quality build, vs lower cost price point build. There is a reason(s) the Jeanneau 50 is 500K vs an Oyster 50 at 5mil! 

I will admit, it would be nice in the build sheet, which it might be, but no one has pointed this out.....IF, one can pre buy a boat from a builder that uses say brass valves, and spec bronze for the difference in price. Just as some brands allow one to upgrade from say from a 32 jib sheet winch, to 40's. Maybe even choose the black plastic to SS! 

The only TRUE way to do this, is go with a semi custom builder, like Morris, Swan, Oyster, Tartan on the lower end of this type of builder. But the MASS ones, like Hunter, Jeanneau, Beneteau and Catalina, this will be harder until you get into the larger than X, will swag mid 40 or some of the larger Jeanneaus like the Jeanneau line itself which is nicer than the Sun Odyssey line. Ie the Cadillac vs Chevy version of there model boats.

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

seaner97 said:


> Thinking more about this, I think the major issue I've got with this is that most of us aren't 79, retired or independently wealthy. 100-300k for a new boat would be something even the relatively wealthy among us would need to finance. Most boat loans I investigated started around 36-48 months and went out to 60. Clearly not everyone needs to worry about that, but I think I'm safe to say the majority do.


I had a 120 month 14 yrs ago, before crash, for our boat. Seem a lot since. Depends upon the type of boat, length, cost etc. Credit rating of person etc. That is with min 20% down. Seems to be on par with today too.

Marty


----------



## seaner97

NCC320 said:


> Trouble is we don't have an actual percentage number for the Catalinas, Bristols, Persons, Cals, Columbias being junked vs. number made, nor actual data on the age of the boats. So, it's impossible to say that the production brands J B H C are failing at a quicker rate that the other brands. All we can say, is some manufacturers made lots of boats over a long period of time and it would be reasonable that in the junk yard, we'd see more of those than boats from brands where considerably fewer were made. Also, we'd need data on size of boats, since bigger boats are typically made more rugged than smaller boats. And then it gets even more complicated, because larger boats are more likely to have had owners who were experienced boat handlers and knew how to protect the boats in operation/docking, and also were likely more financially able to have boats well maintained. So, the larger boats would be expected to have a considerably lower ratio of boats junked to number built.


There are some incomplete data for individual boats/runs like the Pearson 35. Harris used to keep up a pretty good website, but that has been lacking for a couple years (I hope he's OK). But I'll grant no complete database. So we are stuck to a certain extent with anecdotal evidence, which, right or wrong, isn't flattering for more modern 'value' (probably more accurate than production) builds, regardless of size, when compared to older 'value' builds of similar size. Could be skippers have gotten pinched more economically or they have lost skills, or as more millennials have entered the market, the ability to fix mechanical things (and initiative to do so) has decreased. I've heard all theories floated. Not sure I agree with any of them. From crawling around on boats (from new to old) and talking to the yard guys who get paid to fix these things, generally, the feeling by they and I, is that the newer builds have put less thought into things breaking and the need to maintain stuff other than the engine. In that ones area, newer does seem to be a small improvement.


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> I had a 120 month 14 yrs ago, before crash, for our boat. Seem a lot since. Depends upon the type of boat, length, cost etc. Credit rating of person etc. That is with min 20% down. Seems to be on par with today too.
> 
> Marty


I didn't look longer than 60. I don't like borrowing money if I don't have to. But good to know you could go longer. It speaks to the issue I was bringing up, however, that I'd want my thuhulls to outlast my loan.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> "Good enough"...? Tell that to this guy....
> 
> Just because _you_ don't see them does not mean they don't exist..
> 
> You'll never see these issues from behind your keyboard, and clearly it does not matter or happen from behind a keyboard, but I actually get to see this level of _cost cutting,_ and the results, day to day and these failures do not even happen in "blue water".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure _"good enough"_ to lose spars during _inshore sailing_ due to hokey chain plate construction.... How soon we forgot the boats I posted above one with a completely failed hull deck joint and one with a hokey chain plate design and neither of these boats were in "Hal Roth" weather..........


The above is the mascara-running post/image I was talking about. Turns out this is the original piece from a freakin' *1987 Ericson 34*. You posted about this way back in 2009:

Chain Plate Failure !!

(I love the exclamation marks by the way.)

So even at that point, the piece was 22 years old.

Again, I don't really see how this applies to our current conversation about production boats that are fit for bluewater.

Here's a Hallberg Rassy with blisters...










Is this a mascara-running image for vaunted blue water boats?


----------



## blt2ski

Seiner,
Do you expect you furnace in home to outlast you 30 yr home loan? Or water heater? Or paint job? There are a LOT of.thing that will not outlast a loan, even a five year loan on a home, boat or car or trucks in my landscape business case.

Marty


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> Thinking more about this, I think the major issue I've got with this is that most of us aren't 79, retired or independently wealthy. 100-300k for a new boat would be something even the relatively wealthy among us would need to finance. Most boat loans I investigated started around 36-48 months and went out to 60. Clearly not everyone needs to worry about that, but I think I'm safe to say the majority do.


My personal view is that a boat is a toy, so I always paid cash for mine. I am far from being 79, not retired nor independently wealthy.

I think that boat financing can probably be had for pretty decent rates nowadays and it may work good for some, not just for me.


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> Hard to argue with that if that's what you want to spend it on. I, personally, would pick a better constructed boat that I can access all the systems on and don't have to replace all the thruhulls, but to each their own.


I think the idea is that when time comes to replace the thru hulls, it is someone else's problem....


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> I think the idea is that when time comes to replace the thru hulls, it is someone else's problem....


I think that was what I was getting at.


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> Seiner,
> Do you expect you furnace in home to outlast you 30 yr home loan? Or water heater? Or paint job? There are a LOT of.thing that will not outlast a loan, even a five year loan on a home, boat or car or trucks in my landscape business case.
> 
> Marty


I would expect my walls and windows to outlast my home loan, which I would view as being analogous to hull and thruhulls. The rest you put up are similar to the electronics and rigging and the roof would be like chainplates in this analogy.


----------



## RobGallagher

Smack... You are aware that blisters are more than likely cosmetic and rarely effect hull integrity?

Being a wise ass to one who is probably the most helpful and knowledgable member of this forum is just plain stupid. More than likely you are just trying to get a rise out of people to keep your post going so you can brag about how many views you have. Still, stop being an ass.

If you want to sell sailing teeshirts, a better use of your time would be to get a booth at a boat show.


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> The above is the mascara-running post/image I was talking about. Turns out this is the original piece from a freakin' *1987 Ericson 34*. You posted about this way back in 2009:
> 
> Chain Plate Failure !!
> 
> (I love the exclamation marks by the way.)
> 
> So even at that point, the piece was 22 years old.
> 
> Again, I don't really see how this applies to our current conversation about production boats that are fit for bluewater.
> 
> Here's a Hallberg Rassy with blisters...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a mascara-running image for vaunted blue water boats?


That photo was in direct response to you saying:



smackdaddy said:


> In other words, for example, *if the u-bolt rigging terminations* with fender washers (or whatever),* etc. were the liability that is typically held out - we would see far more rigging failures. We just don't.*


The facts of this thread and that photo are;

-This is a thread started by you about "*Production Boats & The Limits*" not "*CE Category A boats and the Limits*".

-I posted a second photo of a PRODUCTION BOAT with a failed U-Bolt chain plate.

-Yes Ericson is a PRODUCTION boat too....

If you want this to be about Category CE A only then go back and change the title, if not, it is still about "Production Boats and the Limits"...

I will ask again for you to please let us in on what the Euro RCD CE A entails & requires.... If you are going to put it up on a pedestal you really should know the standard inside and out otherwise you are shooting darts blindfolded...

Unlike most here I do have access to both the Euro requirements and the ABYC, NMMA & Canadian standards (pretty much ABYC). So it is giving me some good entertainment to see you hold CE A on such a pedestal when you really know nothing about the actual requirements or the actual differences when compared an ABYC built vessel or the ABYC/NMMA or other build standards.

When you have _educated_ yourself on the actual standards and requirements then we can have an _educated_ discussion. Until then I would guess you will keep blindly chugging along calling others names such as "chucklheads"...


----------



## jorgenl

seaner97 said:


> I would expect my walls and windows to outlast my home loan, which I would view as being analogous to hull and thruhulls. The rest you put up are similar to the electronics and rigging and the roof would be like chainplates in this analogy.


Dang.

I just replaced most windows in my home which is only 18 yrs old.

High end wood framed windows that had started to rot....


----------



## seaner97

jorgenl said:


> Dang.
> 
> I just replaced most windows in my home which is only 18 yrs old.
> 
> High end wood framed windows that had started to rot....


Sounds like your builder needs lessons on flashing. High quality materials improperly installed won't last, but they will last longer than low quality even if installed wrong. I'm thinking about doing some on my home that are 30 +, but mostly due to a couple bad seals. I've got some in older houses I've owned that were 70+ still going strong with routine maintenance. I've got a couple bronze thruhulls in my 1968 boat that function like new. I find them analogous. But 18 years would get you beyond a 15 year fixed mortgage, so that would still be acceptable in this analogy.


----------



## Jeff_H

Don0190 said:


> See this is part of the problem. Who here has ever said that the "production" 27-30' boats should go off shore??????????? If someone has they are just as crazy as most of old school in a box posters!





NCC320 said:


> I assume it's the same with Hunter, Jenneau and Beneteau, but I know that, over the years, Catalina has made significant quality/structural improvements in their boats, so referencing boats from 18 years ago going to the junk yard (which would indicate these were some of the much older boats) is not a fair gauge of what is being produced by Catalina now. Catalina built a lot of both the 27 and 30, so there are literally many thousands of both out there.





NCC320 said:


> seaner97,
> I did misread Jeff's post. The Catalinas going to the dump was a current observation. Actually, that makes sense, given the poor market for very old, small boats of most any brand currently.


To perhaps clear up why I mentioned the boats that I did. In the post that I was quoting from blt2ski (I believe), he mentioned that there were a lot of delam problems with boats built by Carroll Marine and that J-30's from the 1970's were being destroyed, which seems to be the case due to extensive core damage vs. overall value. I agree with the part about 1970's era J-30's (and 24's) being destroyed because they don't have enough value to make it worth while restoring one with bad core problems.

He then went on to say, That older Hunters, Catalinas and Beneteaus are not being destroyed. I was objecting to that by citing similar length Hunters and Catalinas from roughly the same period in the 1970's and into the early 1980's that were having similar problems to the J-30's, and in the case of the Catalina's were being destroyed pretty regularly. The reason that I mentioned the Hunter 30's was that these were 12 and 15 year old boats at the time that my Mother was buying hers, while the J-30s being destroyed for similar core rot are 30-35 year old boats.

For what it is worth, and to be fair, Mom actually did buy a Hunter 30, one which had pretty extensive core rot. She did not repair the core rot, the boat served her well, and she was able to sell it (even after disclosing the core problems to the buyer) for pretty much what she paid for it. Those issues were baked into the price and made these boats very affordable.

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> That photo was in direct response to you saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by smackdaddy
> In other words, for example, if the u-bolt rigging terminations with fender washers (or whatever), etc. were the liability that is typically held out - we would see far more rigging failures. We just don't.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts of this thread and that photo are;
> 
> -This is a thread started by you about "*Production Boats & The Limits*" not "*CE Category A boats and the Limits*".
> 
> -I posted a second photo of a PRODUCTION BOAT with a failed U-Bolt chain plate.
> 
> -Yes Ericson is a PRODUCTION boat too....
Click to expand...

And after all that, my point is STILL exactly right. One post of a failed 22-year-old chain plate connection on an Ericson 34 is NOT "far more rigging failures" of u-bolt terminations on production boats. Good lord, man.

Your photo really has nothing to do with the topic at hand aside from being a poor example in relation to the current discussion. It's just more mascara.



Maine Sail said:


> If you want this to be about Category CE A only then go back and change the title, if not, it is still about "Production Boats and the Limits"...


Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean the world has to change for you. As I said, this thread began 6 years ago with the question of which productions boats were "limited" from being in blue water. The discussion evolved from there.

Even so, there are certain production boats _that make the claim to be worthy of blue water_ - the Cat A boats. And this standard is widely recognized by the entire industry as valid. So, that's the current focus that's still perfectly related to the original question from 6 years ago.

As Jeff has already mentioned, in his interview with Jim H from Hunter, they made the claim then that all their larger boats were offshore, blue water boats. But no one ever believed that. There was no real standard - I guess - just a claim.

Now we have a standard to compare with.



Maine Sail said:


> I will ask again for you to please let us in on what the Euro RCD CE A entails & requires.... If you are going to put it up on a pedestal you really should know the standard inside and out otherwise you are shooting darts blindfolded...
> 
> Unlike most here I do have access to both the Euro requirements and the ABYC, NMMA & Canadian standards (pretty much ABYC). So it is giving me some good entertainment to see you hold CE A on such a pedestal when you really know nothing about the actual requirements or the actual differences when compared an ABYC built vessel or the ABYC/NMMA or other build standards.
> 
> When you have _educated_ yourself on the actual standards and requirements then we can have an _educated_ discussion.


You're really out in left field now. I don't put CE A on a pedestal. I simply put it up here on SN for exactly what it claims. Everyone else argues that it's not what it is.

See, _it's the yachting industry at large_ that has "put it on the pedestal" by adopting it _as a standard_, the language of which is surprising clear. And those behind it put a tremendous amount of effort into it. And they might be smarter and more talented than even you. Who knows/

So it is you, good sir, with the darts in your hand and a sash on your brow. If you want to enact your world vision of ABYC for all - go for it. But I'm not the place to start your windmill tilting. I just accept the standard along with virtually everyone else in the industry.



Maine Sail said:


> Until then I would guess you will keep blindly chugging along calling others names such as "chucklheads"...


You misspelled chucklehead.


----------



## rgscpat

It would be expensive, but perhaps informative, to tow some hulls with different keel attachment techniques, instrument some with gauges, and test to failure via repeated simulated groundings. If nothing else, some boats on their way to the dumpster could be volunteered as test subjects.


----------



## seaner97

rgscpat said:


> It would be expensive, but perhaps informative, to tow some hulls with different keel attachment techniques, instrument some with gauges, and test to failure via repeated simulated groundings. If nothing else, some boats on their way to the dumpster could be volunteered as test subjects.


Cool experiment.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean the world has to change for you. As I said, this thread began 6 years ago with the question of which productions boats were "limited" from being in blue water. The discussion evolved from there.


Except, "production boats" has been shown to mean very different things to different people. The proven blue water boats you have been working so hard to diminish are _also_ production boats.

So...we need to get specific if this is to mean anything at all. Pretty good bet that when the phrase "production boats" is heard, most people are thinking about the mass market stuff found all over any marina that is designed to create a low price of entry, rather than with any intention of offshore passage making.


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> So it is you, good sir, with the darts in your hand and a sash on your brow. If you want to enact your world vision of ABYC for all - go for it. But I'm not the place to start your windmill tilting. I just accept the standard along with virtually everyone else in the industry.


Thanks for making my point Smack and for putting words in my mouth.......

You just _"accept a standard"_ you know absolutely nothing about other than a glossy title and then also insist that everyone else in the _industry_ also accepts it, which you also do not know to be true.

When we can converse on this in an _educated manner_ let me know. When your knowledge of the _standards_ and the _industry_ grows beyond a glossy title please let us know because I will be the first to discuss this with you in an adult-like manner..

The fact that you are throwing all pre 1998 boats out the window is as insulting as anything I've seen here. Sadly it is a direct result of your lack of knowledge on the subject. If you only knew what you don't know you would have stopped "Chuckleheading" a while ago, on second thought, no, you would have kept right on going......:wink

Someone tap me on the shoulder when Smack has even the slightest understanding of which he speaks. For now I am placing him back on the Weev level...:2 boat:


----------



## blt2ski

Seiner,
I would.put.thru h you ills with.chain plates and rigging. In Europe, many insurance companies REQUIRE 15 yr replacement of rigs. While this works.to.A.degree with you out last a loan standard on your pat. It may not always outlast a.loan.
As you said John said "it depends" I do not believe we are disCUSSing the adult diaper depends. 
Racers replace jobs in highly.competitive.fleets every year. Cruisers seem to want to keep.sails for 20 years. By.then, they are so stretched etc. You spend more time.heeling than going forward. So real lifetime for some, is 10ish years. 
One has to figure out, realistic life expectancy, vs longest to shortest potential. I personally.assume.shortest, if I get ave, great, longest expectancy, major.bonus. 
Not saying I am right, but.probably.keeps me happier with product lifespans.
Marty


----------



## davidpm

Just another data point for everyone.

My son got a boat in his shop that lost it's rig.

Apparently the guy was moving his Beneteau '95 37.6 to Annapolis from NY or CT.

About a 100 miles off Montaulk he caught some weather. He tried to sail for a few hours then became exhausted and took in the canvas, laid ahull and slept.

The rig came down. The failure was attributed to be partly light construction and partly a rig not properly tuned.

It basically shook itself to death.

He was able to cut the spars away and eventually motor to Annapolis.

The problem with all these stories is that they are just individual data points with dozens of variables. The fact remains that some boats are built stronger, and therefore, have a larger margin of error. The error can be weather, operator, maintenance, light design, single point of failure design and lots of other things.


----------



## seaner97

blt2ski said:


> Seiner,
> I would.put.thru h you ills with.chain plates and rigging. In Europe, many insurance companies REQUIRE 15 yr replacement of rigs. While this works.to.A.degree with you out last a loan standard on your pat. It may not always outlast a.loan.
> As you said John said "it depends" I do not believe we are disCUSSing the adult diaper depends.
> Racers replace jobs in highly.competitive.fleets every year. Cruisers seem to want to keep.sails for 20 years. By.then, they are so stretched etc. You spend more time.heeling than going forward. So real lifetime for some, is 10ish years.
> One has to figure out, realistic life expectancy, vs longest to shortest potential. I personally.assume.shortest, if I get ave, great, longest expectancy, major.bonus.
> Not saying I am right, but.probably.keeps me happier with product lifespans.
> Marty


Marty, having a bit of trouble with your typos, but I think, if I understand you, I generally agree.


----------



## davidpm

I see mainsails point. Any standard is going to include a bunch of items to put a number on. The first problem is what items are included and what ones are not included. It is possible that the standard is not going to address some important stuff for political or practical reasons.

Every standard probably has some numbers associated with it. Let's say passing is 100 and higher is better. One boat could have a 100 a passing grade and another boat a 300 which is three times better.

If you do your own research on the specific point you may not be happy trusting your life to a 100 boat.

So I think that the point mainsail is making is that it is all in the details. I don't know, but it is possible that the certification has little meaning once you examine the details. 

Maybe mainsail will mention some certification details, it would be an interesting discussion.


----------



## Jeff_H

davidpm said:


> Just another data point for everyone.
> 
> My son got a boat in his shop that lost it's rig.
> 
> Apparently the guy was moving his Beneteau '95 37.6 to Annapolis from NY or CT.
> 
> About a 100 miles off Montaulk he caught some weather. He tried to sail for a few hours then became exhausted and took in the canvas, laid ahull and slept.
> 
> The rig came down. The failure was attributed to be partly light construction and partly a rig not properly tuned.
> 
> It basically shook itself to death.
> 
> He was able to cut the spars away and eventually motor to Annapolis.
> 
> The problem with all these stories is that they are just individual data points with dozens of variables. The fact remains that some boats are built stronger, and therefore, have a larger margin of error. The error can be weather, operator, maintenance, light design, single point of failure design and lots of other things.


The problem that I have with that story is that there is no such thing as a 1995 Beneteau 37.6.

There was a Beneteau 36s7 and a Beneteau 38s5 during this period. I have sailed both. I sailed the 38s5 in Savannah on day with gusts into the low 30's. (reefed mainsail, small working jib, a whole lot of backstay) We ended up beating offshore into pretty big, very square waves at the mouth of the Wilmington River. At times we were launching off waves, missing the back of the wave, and coming down pretty hard.

I went below quite a few times to make sandwiches and use the head and I was amazed at how solid that boat felt given the beating we were subjecting her to. I did not hear creaking or notice doors sticking. The rig was not pumping, the leeward shrouds were not sagging appreciably.

There has to be more to that story because as it was told to your son, it just does not make sense.

Jeff


----------



## Maine Sail

davidpm said:


> I see mainsails point. Any standard is going to include a bunch of items to put a number on. The first problem is what items are included and what ones are not included. It is possible that the standard is not going to address some important stuff for political or practical reasons.
> 
> Every standard probably has some numbers associated with it. Let's say passing is 100 and higher is better. One boat could have a 100 a passing grade and another boat a 300 which is three times better.
> 
> If you do your own research on the specific point you may not be happy trusting your life to a 100 boat.
> 
> So I think that the point mainsail is making is that it is all in the details. I don't know, but it is possible that the certification has little meaning once you examine the details.
> 
> Maybe mainsail will mention some certification details, it would be an interesting discussion.


My point is that very, very, very little changed from 1997 to 1998 except for the fact that some politicians in Europe passed it as law. Because it is _law_ the standard is arguably less stringent in many critical areas than some countries where _voluntary compliance_ is used. The seacock requirements under the current RCD/ISO/CE are a prime example of this.

Scary thing is that Canada is very, very close to making the ABYC standards Federal law. A lot of the ABYC standards are already law under Transport Canada but these changes would reportedly adopt all of it. Sad thing is the vast majority of Canadian builders are already voluntarily complying with ABYC..

Making these things Federal law goes down a very slippery road even for those of us with older boats. Think it is bad now with insurance surveys and "compliance", just wait until the ABYC standards are adopted as Federal law....

What did change vastly under the RCD/ISO/CE is that there became a lot more "pay to play" in the industry. This meaning many parts used for CE boats needed to be "certified CE" a huge expense for small companies. The effect of the Euro RCD CE law change caused prices of marine parts to go up for all of us and yet the products did not really change. They only got a little CE sticker to show that the company paid its Federally mandated _ransom_. Some of the products that do have a little CE sticker I would not install on my worst enemies boat, yet they pass CE. There are also tons of _great products_ now being forced to emblazon the CE mark but they were already GREAT PRODUCTS before they paid for the _CE sticker_. CE made them no better just more costly to you and I.

Some companies are not only paying for CE but also for far stricter standards such as UL, SAE, AGA, NMMA, NFPA, ETL, NMEA etc. etc. testing and compliance. Does testing make the products safer? Sure UL, ETL etc. can give us safer products but I have yet to see a previously marketed CE product that actually had to change to get the CE sticker vs. what the product had been before the sticker. They are really just paying their dues which raises the prices for you and I.

Again very, very, very, very little actually changed but the costs just went up to become "CE Compliant" and the cost of vessels and parts went up as a result. The previous RCD was really not that much different to the mandatory post 1998 criteria except that now it is law and they could force and squeeze more money from the industry to "be compliant" for the European market. They have now moved it downward to now encompass "personal watercraft" too..

In regards to IP in engine spaces...

"_Electrical items in engine compartments or other
compartments with gasoline tanks and petrol system
connections and/or joints, shall be ignition protected
according to ISO 8846 *and marked with the CE
mark*_."

So a part that has already been SAE, UL, NFPA, IEC, ETL etc. tested, and already has been proven to meet IP standards is not good enough until a manufacturer also pays for the little CE _mark_. Yep, this makes us safer how...? More costly products but safer...?

In regards to fuel tanks:
"_Only tanks *carrying the CE mark* may be used in
boats complying with ISO 10088. 33CFR/ABYC
tanks *do not fully meet the requirements for CE
marking*; subsequently CE tanks do not fully meet 33CFR/ABYC requirements._"

What this basically says is that a tank that is built to a better US/USCG/US CFR standard still needs a little CE sticker, but that the little CE sticker still won't make it an ABYC/USCG/US CFR compliant tank. Wow..... These examples go on and on and on...

This little _CE marking_ game Europe has blessed us with has not really made us any safer, but has certainly given some out there a belief that it has. If you read the standards and compare them to other standards and requirements the _gaming_ of the marine industry becomes painfully obvious.


----------



## davidpm

Jeff_H said:


> The problem that I have with that story is that there is no such thing as a 1995 Beneteau 37.6.
> 
> There was a Beneteau 36s7 and a Beneteau 38s5 during this period. I have sailed both. I sailed the 38s5 in Savannah on day with gusts into the low 30's. (reefed mainsail, small working jib, a whole lot of backstay) We ended up beating offshore into pretty big, very square waves at the mouth of the Wilmington River. At times we were launching off waves, missing the back of the wave, and coming down pretty hard.
> 
> I went below quite a few times to make sandwiches and use the head and I was amazed at how solid that boat felt given the beating we were subjecting her to. I did not hear creaking or notice doors sticking. The rig was not pumping, the leeward shrouds were not sagging appreciably.
> 
> There has to be more to that story because as it was told to your son, it just does not make sense.
> 
> Jeff


The exact model Steve was guessing at so I'm sure you are right.

In your encounter did you have sails up?

If so maybe that stablized the load enough.

Also, if the rig was slack and the sails down and beam to wind with a lot of rolling action for a few hours would that account for it.

Of course, it could just be as simple as a missing cotter pin couldn't it?

Doesn't take much.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> Thanks for making my point Smack and for putting words in my mouth.......
> 
> You just _"accept a standard"_ you know absolutely nothing about other than a glossy title and then also insist that everyone else in the _industry_ also accepts it, which you also do not know to be true.


I know a little bit about it. I already posted the link to the IPOL "Design Categories of Watercrafts" document from 2012 that outlines the categories/ratings - along with a crap ton of other information regarding same:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2012/475122/IPOL-IMCO_NT(2012)475122_EN.pdf

I've also in the past linked to the NMMA site where they discuss the CE rating from a US-based perspective and why the certification would apply:

CE Certification | NMMA

These standards are required for boats sold in Europe.

The NMMA also talk about the ABYC standards - and how they are not uniformly followed in the US (it appears to be voluntary):

Boat & Yacht Certification Program | NMMA



> NMMA Certified boats and yachts are known throughout the world as the benchmark for product quality. That's why more than 90% of boats sold in the United States each year are NMMA Certified, and a recent study showed that NMMA Certified boats are 7 times less likely to be reca lled by the US Coast Guard for a safety issue.


Now, couple all this with the fact that most production boats on the market are coming from Europe - and being marketed based on the CE rating (see Youtube) - then it's clear which standard is more widely recognized today in at least the sailing yacht industry.

No glossy titles required. Just acceptance of reality.



Maine Sail said:


> When we can converse on this in an _educated manner_ let me know. When your knowledge of the _standards_ and the _industry_ grows beyond a glossy title please let us know because I will be the first to discuss this with you in an adult-like manner..


Well, I'm obviously doing my part. It's your turn.



Maine Sail said:


> The fact that you are throwing all pre 1998 boats out the window is as insulting as anything I've seen here. Sadly it is a direct result of your lack of knowledge on the subject. If you only knew what you don't know you would have stopped "Chuckleheading" a while ago, on second thought, no, you would have kept right on going......:wink


Back to the "educated manner" discussion. Though you can't seem to grasp it, the conversation has always been about which boats belong in blue water. The Chucklehead Concensus has always been that production boats DON'T belong out there. The only expert-based OBJECTIVE line that is currently out there which clearly refutes said Chuckleheads is the CE Category rating. So, I'm not throwing those boats out. I personally never have. *Its the Chuckleheads who did that LONG before this thread ever started.* This is why I started the thread in the first place!

So, please, try to understand the context of the discussion before zooming off to your strange conclusions. It will definitely help your blood pressure.



Maine Sail said:


> Someone tap me on the shoulder when Smack has even the slightest understanding of which he speaks. For now I am placing him back on the Weev level...:2 boat:


Actually, it might be best to just let him rest. He's not making any sense.

PS - I just saw this post..



Maine Sail said:


> My point is that very, very, very little changed from 1997 to 1998 except for the fact that some politicians in Europe passed it as law. Because it is _law_ the standard is arguably less stringent in many critical areas than some countries where _voluntary compliance_ is used. The seacock requirements under the current RCD/ISO/CE are a prime example of this.
> 
> ...
> 
> Again very, very, very, very little actually changed but the costs just went up to become "CE Compliant" and the cost of vessels and parts went up as a result. The previous RCD was really not that much different to the mandatory post 1998 criteria except that now it is law and they could force and squeeze more money from the industry to "be compliant" for the European market.
> 
> ...
> 
> This little _CE marking_ game Europe has blessed us with has not really made us any safer, but has certainly given some out there a belief that it has. If you read the standards and compare them to other standards and requirements the _gaming_ of the marine industry becomes painfully obvious.


It seems painfully obvious to me that most of your complaints are political in nature - not empirical. Even so, the issue of cost is exactly what I brought up in a previous post where I quoted your blog. If you insist that everything is done by your standards of quality - there will be no boating market.


----------



## XSrcing

Blindly assuming that every vessel a builder makes will meet or exceed set standards is foolish.


----------



## Jeff_H

davidpm said:


> The exact model Steve was guessing at so I'm sure you are right.
> 
> In your encounter did you have sails up?
> 
> If so maybe that stablized the load enough.
> 
> Also, if the rig was slack and the sails down and beam to wind with a lot of rolling action for a few hours would that account for it.
> 
> Of course, it could just be as simple as a missing cotter pin couldn't it?
> 
> Doesn't take much.


We were under sail on that sail that I mentioned above, but there was nothing gentle about the way we were sailing that boat. I also later sailed and motored on that boat up here in the Chesapeake and never saw any sign of wracking or the rig pumping.

My point being that I think that there is more to this than, "The rig came down. The failure was attributed to be partly light construction and partly a rig not properly tuned. It basically shook itself to death."

In my experience with these boats, something was very wrong in this particular case other than 'light construction'. On any boat, things do happen, cotter pins come out or fail allowing clevis pins to escape, turnbuckles unscrew allowing shrouds to come free, spreader bolts come out and a spreader can depart the premises. But if properly maintained, and in decent shape, 'shaking to death' does not sound like the correct pathology.

Jeff


----------



## Maine Sail

XSrcing said:


> Blindly assuming that every vessel a builder makes will meet or exceed set standards is foolish.


Yep this boat was CE Cat A and claimed to be ABYC/NMMA too.. Sad part is this seacock installation is not actually ABYC compliant, but they lied to the customer and the customer likely believed it. Fair? Hardly..

For the most part US builders do a good job under the standards but they occasionally make glaring blunders that are not even defensible, if you are to claim the boat is built to a particular standard.

Boat Claimed ABYC/NMMA Compliance But this is not:









_"*Materials:* The *components of a through-hull fitting or sea valve shall be formed of galvanically compatible materials* having the strength and resistance to corrosion necessary to withstand intended and abnormal use to which they are likely to be subjected."_

Nope
_
"A seacock shall be securely mounted so that *the assembly will withstand a 500 pound (227 Kg) static force applied for 30 seconds to the inboard end of the assembly*, without the assembly failing to stop the ingress of water."_

Won't pass that either....


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> So, I'm not throwing those boats out. I personally never have. *Its the Chuckleheads who did that LONG before this thread ever started.* This is why I started the thread in the first place!


As has been pointed out already (I can repost if necessary) "production boats" in the sense you are presenting it in the title of this topic isn't a practical way to describe what we're actually talking about here...because, as has been pointed out...*the boats you besmirch are also production boats.* If you wanted to limit the discussion only to high dollar boats you view as seaworthy because of some rather arbitrary foreign rating standards, you should have stipulated as much in OP.

In fact, in the OP, you make no mention of European classification standards, and instead pose the question as: _"So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: *From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising* - what are the best production boats and why?"_

Which of course sends us directly down the path of discussing coast cruisers as opposed to the passage makers you are now moving the goalposts over to sit next to.

And, without actually throwing the proven blue water boats out per se, you've been referring to boats not made by a mass market builder as "tanks" "derelicts" "dogs" and etc. throughout this entire thread, as well as claiming them to be "dangerous" relative to something from the mass market builders. You aren't just suggesting that your preference is capable...you are claiming it to be _superior_ in some sort of objective sense.

Is it possible you've got an inferiority complex over these boats? Are you overcompensating by simultaneously overstating one side and understating the other? Seems kinda textbook.


----------



## mstern

I thought Smack's main point has always been that "production" boats (really any boat) rated CE are suitable for blue water cruising, not because the standard is a great standard, but because there are so many of those boats out there doing just that. Some manufacturers may meet the bare minimums, some may over comply, but the real test is if we see Beneteaus, Jenneaus, Hunters, Catalinas, etc. out and about in the world cruising. I have, perhaps, less comfort than Smack or others that the CE rating is in and of itself meaningful enough to trust my ocean-going life to it. However, I have no doubt that there are CE rated boats that are taking their owners across oceans.


----------



## jorgenl

Maine Sail said:


> _
> "A seacock shall be securely mounted so that *the assembly will withstand a 500 pound (227 Kg) static force applied for 30 seconds to the inboard end of the assembly*, without the assembly failing to stop the ingress of water."_
> 
> Won't pass that either....


That is not very scientific - where is the load being applied a what is "direction" of load vector?


----------



## amwbox

mstern said:


> I thought Smack's main point has always been that "production" boats (really any boat) rated CE are suitable for blue water cruising, not because the standard is a great standard, but because there are so many of those boats out there doing just that. Some manufacturers may meet the bare minimums, some may over comply, but the real test is if we see Beneteaus, Jenneaus, Hunters, Catalinas, etc. out and about in the world cruising. I have, perhaps, less comfort than Smack or others that the CE rating is in and of itself meaningful enough to trust my ocean-going life to it. However, I have no doubt that there are CE rated boats that are taking their owners across oceans.


I don't doubt the larger big 3 boats are doing it. They are _meant _to be able to do it, though its not their ideal use case. You see plenty of them out there. That they can do it goes without saying...and considering none of this was specified in the OP, I think this discussion has evolved into something else.

The real problem is with the term "production boat". Somehow, Pacific Seacraft, Westsail, and Hans Christian are not production boats, but Hunter, Catalina, and Beneteau _are_.

So this isn't about whatever "production boat" means to somebody, its about expensive production boats as opposed to more expensive production boats. Even a Hunter is going to cost a lot by the time its scaled up to the point where its competent for ocean crossings. This is about _brands_, all the baggage and nonsense that comes with them.

In order to cut through the ********, we have to abandon "production boat" as the basis of discussion. Because, as I've pointed out before, that usually brings to mind something like a Catalina 27, as opposed to a Hallberg-Rassy 372, for example.


----------



## Maine Sail

jorgenl said:


> That is not very scientific - where is the load being applied a what is "direction" of load vector?


In the case of the above photo the load would be applied at the end of the male adapter where the hose attaches and either pulled up vertically or pushed down towards the hull. It should withstand 500 pounds for 30 seconds but it won't as installed.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> Except, "production boats" has been shown to mean very different things to different people. The proven blue water boats you have been working so hard to diminish are _also_ production boats.
> 
> So...we need to get specific if this is to mean anything at all. Pretty good bet that when the phrase "production boats" is heard, most people are thinking about the mass market stuff found all over any marina that is designed to create a low price of entry, rather than with any intention of offshore passage making.


I agree. That's exactly why I'm trying to focus the conversation by focusing on broadly recognized mass-produced boats (that are still being produced today) that adhere to a "blue water" standard, CE Cat A rating. From there, most of the silly subjective variables and terminology about what constitutes a production boat, or what constitutes blue water, or what constitutes heavy whatever, fall away.

Then it becomes a debate about facts - leaving some chuckleheads to try to dismiss the validity of the standard altogether - along with all the evidence of those boats out there doing what they say can't be safely done.

So, we have our definitions. It's now simply a debate on why certain people just can't accept that reality. And that's a fun thing to behold.

Much less subjectivity - far more entertaining zaniness.

As for this stuff...



amwbox said:


> If you wanted to limit the discussion only to high dollar boats you view as seaworthy because of some rather arbitrary foreign rating standards, you should have stipulated as much in OP.
> 
> In fact, in the OP, you make no mention of European classification standards, and instead pose the question as: _"So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: *From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising* - what are the best production boats and why?"_
> 
> Which of course sends us directly down the path of discussing coast cruisers as opposed to the passage makers you are now moving the goalposts over to sit next to.
> 
> Is it possible you've got an inferiority complex over these boats? Are you overcompensating by simultaneously overstating one side and understating the other? Seems kinda textbook.


You've been here, what, a couple of months? Get back to me in 6 years - after you've read the entire thread - and I _might_ listen. Until then - get over it junior.


----------



## smackdaddy

mstern said:


> I thought Smack's main point has always been that "production" boats (really any boat) rated CE are suitable for blue water cruising, not because the standard is a great standard, but because there are so many of those boats out there doing just that. Some manufacturers may meet the bare minimums, some may over comply, but the real test is if we see Beneteaus, Jenneaus, Hunters, Catalinas, etc. out and about in the world cruising. I have, perhaps, less comfort than Smack or others that the CE rating is in and of itself meaningful enough to trust my ocean-going life to it. However, I have no doubt that there are CE rated boats that are taking their owners across oceans.


You're exactly right. You have to remember the chucklehead argument has long been that NO mass production boats (BeneJeneHunterLinas, etc.) really belong in blue water.

It is _their_ extreme position, one that has been widely held in the forums, that set the parameters for the debate. And they are clearly wrong.

The comeback from them is to try to paint me into exactly the opposite extreme corner - which is not at all what I belive, nor what I've ever argued.

For example, I don't believe, nor have I ever said that CE Cat A is the Holy Grail as Maine states (putting words into my mouth?). And I also don't believe that these mass produced boats are "better" than (or even as good as) OutOystSwaRassyPackets as Jon usually tries to imply. I simply illustrate the same trends and occasional problems in these high-end boats that these guys use to trash production boats. For the most part, it's a _boat_ issue - it's not a production boat issue.

So, you nailed it. We have a very widely adopted standard. And that standard has held up remarkably well for around 20 years? Yes, there have been a few issues (some of them serious) here and there with the mass production boats - but there HAS NOT been the widespread failure rates these guys are trying to gin up. It just hasn't happened.

Until we see something like the doom and gloom these guys are saying are upon us all, it certainly seems that the CA Categories are serving the public pretty well. But they are hell on Chuckleheads.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Back to the "educated manner" discussion. Though you can't seem to grasp it, the conversation has always been about which boats belong in blue water. The Chucklehead Concensus has always been that production boats DON'T belong out there. The only expert-based OBJECTIVE line that is currently out there which clearly refutes said Chuckleheads is the CE Category rating. So, I'm not throwing those boats out. I personally never have. *Its the Chuckleheads who did that LONG before this thread ever started.* This is why I started the thread in the first place!


Speaking of Chuckleheads, did you hear about that guy who tried to beat the closure of the Amtrak RR bridge over the Connecticut River as it was being lowered a couple of days ago? Guess his Hunter 41 wasn't quite as fast as he thought it was, huh?

He should have stuck to Blue Water, I guess... Or maybe used the Waterway Guide app instead of Active Captain, perhaps?

;-)

The Day - Sailboat snaps mast on Connecticut River bridge - News from southeastern Connecticut


----------



## Don L

XSrcing said:


> Blindly assuming that every vessel a builder makes will meet or exceed set standards is foolish.


But it seems reasonable in this thread. After all many don't have a issue with applying a problem on a 30 year 27' to every boat a builder has ever made.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> You're exactly right. You have to remember the chucklehead argument has long been that NO mass production boats (BeneJeneHunterLinas, etc.) really belong in blue water.
> 
> It is _their_ extreme position, one that has been widely held in the forums, that set the parameters for the debate. And they are clearly wrong.
> 
> The comeback from them is to try to paint me into exactly the opposite extreme corner - which is not at all what I belive, nor what I've ever argued.
> 
> I don't believe, nor have I ever said that CE Cat A is the Holy Grail as Maine states (putting words into my mouth?). And I also don't hold that these mass produced boats are "better" than OutOystSwaRassyPackets as Jon usually tries to imply. I simply illustrate the same trends and occasional problems in these boats that these guys use to trash production boats. For the most part, it's a _boat_ issue - it's not a production boat issue.
> 
> So, you nailed it. We have a very widely adopted standard. And that standard has held up remarkably well for around 20 years. Yes, there have been a few issues (some of them serious) here and there with the mass production boats - but there HAS NOT been the widespread failure rates these guys are trying to gin up.
> 
> Until that happens, it certainly seems that the CA Categories are serving the public pretty well. But they are hell on Chuckleheads.


So...to be clear. If someone disagrees with you, they get called names? For real?

In any case, I think you'll have to quote somebody saying that any boat manufactured by the big 3 isn't capable of making passages. What I've seen in this thread isn't that...but rather you throwing out their stipulations that these boats are capable of doing it.._.if not as well as more purpose built boats._ You're demanding ideological purity.

You're trying to create a false equivalency between boats at different price points with different design and build standards. Its as if your claiming blue water equality between a Hunter and a Swan. Or between a Catalina and a PSC.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> I agree. That's exactly why I'm trying to focus the conversation by focusing on broadly recognized mass-produced boats (that are still being produced today) that adhere to a "blue water" standard, CE Cat A rating. From there, most of the silly subjective variables and terminology about what constitutes a production boat, or what constitutes blue water, or what constitutes heavy whatever, fall away.
> 
> Then it becomes a debate about facts - leaving some chuckleheads to try to dismiss the validity of the standard altogether - along with all the evidence of those boats out there doing what they say can't be safely done.
> 
> So, we have our definitions. It's now simply a debate on why certain people just can't accept that reality. And that's a fun thing to behold.


There are a lot of these sorts of boats still in production today. For good reasons. As for the ratings, as has been pointed out already, they are merely arbitrary minimums that have been agreed to under the aegis of trade pressures. We can do a lot better than that. End of the day it means very little. Be careful to avoid an appeal to authority fallacy.



> You've been here, what, a couple of months? Get back to me in 6 years - after you've read the entire thread - and I _might_ listen. Until then - get over it junior.


So, you're waving the white flag then? No rebuttal, no attempt to defend your inconsistencies...just a cop out and a retreat?

C'mon. You can do better, Junior. Dry your eyes and we can get back to talking boats.


----------



## Shockwave

Let's be honest here, the big builders (Benahuntalina's) build boats to a price point for customers who will never test their blue water capabilities. Cat A or Cat C, it doesn't matter, these boats sail the cocktail circuit and the fact that they have transom mounted cleats, weak hull to deck to deck fabrications, substandard rigging and gear or substandard brass through hulls is inconsequential. These boats are for the most part marina queens and their owners are perfectly happy with that.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> As for the ratings, as has been pointed out already, they are merely *arbitrary *minimums that have been agreed to under the aegis of trade pressures.


I doubt very much that the ratings are *arbitrary *


----------



## amwbox

Shockwave said:


> Let's be honest here, the big builders (Benahuntalina's) build boats to a price point for customers who will never test their blue water capabilities. Cat A or Cat C, it doesn't matter, these boats sail the cocktail circuit and the fact that they have transom mounted cleats, weak hull to deck to deck fabrications, substandard rigging and gear or substandard brass through hulls is inconsequential. These boats are for the most part marina queens and their owners are perfectly happy with that.


Some of them, sure. The big ones can do long distance cruising. And are doing it. Lots of them all over youtube doing it even as we speak. I'm not so sure they're going to stand up to it for decades as well as tougher built boats, but when reasonably new they seem to be adequate.

Can't blame people for not being into long passages. It can get boring, spending weeks surrounded by a thousand miles of saline aquatic desert. And frankly, most people don't have the time for it. Jobs, kids, mortgages, etc.


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> I doubt very much that the ratings are *arbitrary *


Probably more fair to say..._compromised_. Any time international standards are put into place the agreement comes about with trade and political pressures factored in. If France for example decided that it would hurt their domestic boat builders too much, they'd gum up the process by holding out for a standard they can adhere to without damaging themselves beyond a certain point. Or, to a point that would damage a competitor to a desired degree.

Its seaworthiness second, business and trade realities first.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Let's be honest here, the big builders (Benahuntalina's) build boats to a price point for customers who will never test their blue water capabilities. Cat A or Cat C, it doesn't matter, these boats sail the cocktail circuit and the fact that they have transom mounted cleats, weak hull to deck to deck fabrications, substandard rigging and gear or substandard brass through hulls is inconsequential. These boats are for the most part marina queens and their owners are perfectly happy with that.


Off the meds again?

I think there is enough evidence that there is plenty of Benehuntalina customers that are testing the blue water capabilities of said boats.

Just check our the ARC or the list Paulo provided of circumnavigators.

You could also travel to Europe, where sailors are, if I may generalize, a bit more hard core. Plenty of blue water in Bay of Biscayne and the North Sea. Plenty of BeneJene's sailing there (without the pre-requisite North American full enclosures.)

I think we already concluded that Valiants have a similar hull deck joint to some "production" boats and Uncle Bob (who knows a bit) said that joint type works perfectly OK.

A lot of prod boats use Selden spars, nothing substandard about Selden.

During my sailing days, I have found many owners of BW boats to be old dudes that were too scared to depart when it blows over 20 kts and wave height is >4ft.

We used to call them "crispy cruisers" because they were obviously too poor to maintain there boats properly, thought it was OK to wear the same t-shirt for a week, never showered and ate ****e food.

But hey, they owned a half derelict BWB from 1972 with ****e sails and managed to motor all the way to Bahamas.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> Probably more fair to say..._compromised_. Any time international standards are put into place the agreement comes about with trade and political pressures factored in. If France for example decided that it would hurt their domestic boat builders too much, they'd gum up the process by holding out for a standard they can adhere to without damaging themselves beyond a certain point. Or, to a point that would damage a competitor to a desired degree.
> 
> Its seaworthiness second, business and trade realities first.


So, you would consider the ISO standards compromised?

Another example is European emission regulations for new heavy-duty diesel engines (Trucks, Buses, not VW passenger cars), that are international and considered comparable in stringency to the US standards.


----------



## amwbox

Nooo. ISO is an entirely different thing. Sailboats are a niche product, very low volume, relatively small industry. ISO on the other hand is just about everything.

And no, I wouldn't compare emissions standards to the ISO, either. That is just a matter of environmental policy. China, for example, has practically no standards. (Not actual, enforced ones, anyways.) In the case of emissions, its all about cost. Its why diesels are so much less common in the US than in Europe. Well, that and fuel being taxed something like 10 times more heavily over there.


----------



## Classic30

Maine Sail said:


> _
> "A seacock shall be securely mounted so that *the assembly will withstand a 500 pound (227 Kg) static force applied for 30 seconds to the inboard end of the assembly*, without the assembly failing to stop the ingress of water."_
> 
> Won't pass that either....


HAH!! On more than one boat I know, if you did that the planking would fail.. not the seacock. :laugher


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> In the case of emissions, its all about cost. Its why diesels are so much less common in the US than in Europe. Well, that and fuel being taxed something like 10 times more heavily over there.


Nope, I am taking about emission standards for Heavy Trucks (Euro 4, US10 etc). Diesel is pretty much the norm for heavy duty trucks on both continents.


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> Nope, I am taking about emission standards for Heavy Trucks (Euro 4, US10 etc). Diesel is pretty much the norm for heavy duty trucks on both continents.


Same thing: Costs. Emissions control is expensive.


----------



## jorgenl

amwbox said:


> Same thing: Costs. Emissions control is expensive.


Yes - they are. Fleet operators of trucks know math.

I thought your argument was that because a standard is international it is compomized, I am saying that Euro emission control is international and is comparable in stringency to US emission controls which are not international.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> Yep this boat was CE Cat A and claimed to be ABYC/NMMA too.. Sad part is this seacock installation is not actually ABYC compliant, but they lied to the customer and the customer likely believed it. Fair? Hardly..
> 
> For the most part US builders do a good job under the standards but they occasionally make glaring blunders that are not even defensible, if you are to claim the boat is built to a particular standard.
> 
> Boat Claimed ABYC/NMMA Compliance But this is not:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"*Materials:* The *components of a through-hull fitting or sea valve shall be formed of galvanically compatible materials* having the strength and resistance to corrosion necessary to withstand intended and abnormal use to which they are likely to be subjected."_
> 
> Nope
> _
> "A seacock shall be securely mounted so that *the assembly will withstand a 500 pound (227 Kg) static force applied for 30 seconds to the inboard end of the assembly*, without the assembly failing to stop the ingress of water."_
> 
> Won't pass that either....


Maine - if you're going to publicly accuse builders of committing fraud you either need to provide evidence backing up that claim - or you need to not make it.

Throwing out a photo that could be of absolutely anything and accusing some anonymous builder out there of fraud is not really helpful to anyone...at all.

Additionally, who knows who actually put that fitting in. Was it really the builder? Was it the yard that commissioned it? How old is the boat? Is it fresh from the factory? Has it been owned previously?

Again, this kind of thing is kind of useless.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Speaking of Chuckleheads, did you hear about that guy who tried to beat the closure of the Amtrak RR bridge over the Connecticut River as it was being lowered a couple of days ago? Guess his Hunter 41 wasn't quite as fast as he thought it was, huh?
> 
> He should have stuck to Blue Water, I guess... Or maybe used the Waterway Guide app instead of Active Captain, perhaps?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> The Day - Sailboat snaps mast on Connecticut River bridge - News from southeastern Connecticut


You bring up a couple of good points. First, he probably was using AC - had is head down looking at that bridge marker to know the precise moment he was under the bridge so he would know when to look up. So there are LOTS of chuckleheads in the world in all kinds of boats. Did I tell you the one about the SDR where several blue water boats...oh never mind.

Second, I actually FAR prefer sailing offshore to staying in the ditch. I just don't like the hassles of the ICW for the most part.


----------



## Shockwave

Jorgenl, maybe you haven't seen that bene recinded their Cat A cert for a .7? Says allot about them hey... ?

Smack, you never opened a cabinet and took a good look around the new stuff at a boat show have you? NPS skin fittings with an NPT valve spun on it. I guess we all see what we want to see, love that faux Corrian counter top don't you. ?


----------



## amwbox

jorgenl said:


> Yes - they are. Fleet operators of trucks know math.
> 
> I thought your argument was that because a standard is international it is compomized, I am saying that Euro emission control is international and is comparable in stringency to US emission controls which are not international.


No, I'm just talking about boats.

Emissions standards are an environmental issue. Far more political.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> ...they are merely arbitrary minimums that have been agreed to under the aegis of trade pressures...


Great vocabulary. Ridiculous summation.



amwbox said:


> So, you're waving the white flag then? No rebuttal, no attempt to defend your inconsistencies...just a cop out and a retreat?
> 
> C'mon. You can do better, Junior. Dry your eyes and we can get back to talking boats.


No. I don't own a white flag. But sometimes some people just say goofy things and it's not really worth the effort.

If you can bring good arguments about boats backed by evidence that can be evaluated by everyone I'm always willing to discuss it. But if you're going to stamp your feet and insist that I change the title to the thread because you feel disoriented and unsafe - I'm not really interested.


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> I doubt very much that the ratings are *arbitrary *


Exactly. Who are these people?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You bring up a couple of good points. First, he probably was using AC - had is head down looking at that bridge marker to know the precise moment he was under the bridge so he would know when to look up.


Nah, my guess is that he was simply piloting from beneath the Dodger/Bimini Canvas Continuum that virtually every late model production boat is featuring these days...

;-)





















smackdaddy said:


> So there are LOTS of chuckleheads in the world in all kinds of boats. *Did I tell you the one about the SDR where several blue water boats...oh never mind.*


Hmmm, are you sure you want to go down that road? If so, the salient difference between losing the mast on a freshly re-rigged Hans Christian 38 in a near-gale off Hatteras, and losing a diesel engine right at the start of a summer cruise in the Gulf of Mexico would be ???



smackdaddy said:


> Second, I actually would FAR prefer sailing offshore to staying in the ditch. I just don't like the hassles of the ICW for the most part.


Better check your WG app, I don't believe the Connecticut River is part of the ICW...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, my guess is that he was simply piloting from beneath the Dodger/Bimini Canvas Continuum that virtually every late model production boat is featuring these days...
> 
> ;-)


Ouch. You're likely right. But did also have his VHF off?



JonEisberg said:


> Better check your WG app, I don't believe the Connecticut River is part of the ICW...
> 
> ;-)


Hey man, it's just another ditch as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, I prefer offshore. Far fewer bridges.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Great vocabulary. Ridiculous summation.
> 
> No. I don't own a white flag. But sometimes some people just say goofy things and it's not really worth the effort.
> 
> If you can bring good arguments about boats backed by evidence that can be evaluated by everyone I'm always willing to discuss it. But if you're going to stamp your feet and insist that I change the title to the thread because you feel disoriented and unsafe - I'm not really interested.


I'm correct on both counts. _And you know it_. Which is why you have declined to even attempt a rebuttal, and are instead having a tantrum.

In online debates, its always the surest sign of defeat.

If you aren't going to respond to what I've posted, and instead subsitute your own invented narrative, I'll just take to reposting it. :laugh


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Better check your WG app, I don't believe the Connecticut River is part of the ICW...


Heh-heh. It's funny you said that. I took your advice and look what I found...

AC









WG









Maybe he WAS using AC!


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Exactly. Who are these people?


Already addressed. Read the thread.


----------



## seaner97

Am, don't bother. The MO is say something outlandish. Get called on it. Deny that's what you said, say something just different enough to cause confusion, and when you get called on it start calling names. Then say something about evidence, knowing damn well you can't possibly do an experiment that would disprove you and that many of the boats in question are tied to the dock, so even if there is an issue that could come up, the denominator allows you to push it away as a single event. Then change the topic as quickly as you can. I will admit I've tried to be reasonable and point out flaws in the logic, or clearly avoidable engineering errors, but when someone says something so stupid as "You shouldn't sail or post anymore" as if they are the god of Sailnet, their credibility and need to be paid attention to is shot.
I find it interesting that I've followed this thread and had some interesting exchanges all day long in between patients, and when a certain poster starts in the tone goes in the toilet. Free country and freedom of speech and all, but sometimes insight is a good place to start.

For the record as I think I'm giving Smack what he wants and leaving this thread:
Yes, any stupid boat can float across an ocean. There's a damn garbage pile doing it. Saying only a Swan can is stupid. Saying a Hunter is a Swan is an Oyster is a Pearson is equally dumb.
Does that make it smart? No.
Does a Cat A make a boat capable? No. It insures that there is a minimum standard of equipment. Having read it, there are holes in it that would allow a smart and unscrupulous builder to make them essentially meaningless. So it is essentially meaningless.
Is new always better? No.
Is old better? No. There are crap old boats just like there are crap new ones. The benefit to old ones is that if they were built well, the kinks have been worked out, they are cheaper to obtain, the really stupid stuff has probably been removed or remedied. If you buy a nearly new one, that may also be the case. The downside is that they are older and you have to be more careful about the maintenance done, or be willing to go over them very carefully. I've come to the conclusion that even the brand new ones may not be different in that respect, straight out of the factory.
As someone said- the limiting factor is usually the captain, but the best captains are the ones that are insightful, circumspect, careful, understanding, thoughtful and respectful. Both of the ocean, themselves and the people around them.


----------



## amwbox

Could've been worse. Could have pinned the mast between the girders:


----------



## amwbox

seaner97 said:


> Am, don't bother. The MO is say something outlandish. Get called on it. Deny that's what you said, say something just different enough to cause confusion, and when you get called on it start calling names. Then say something about evidence, knowing damn well you can't possibly do an experiment that would disprove you and that many of the boats in question are tied to the dock, so even if there is an issue that could come up, the denominator allows you to push it away as a single event. Then change the topic as quickly as you can. I will admit I've tried to be reasonable and point out flaws in the logic, or clearly avoidable engineering errors, but when someone says something so stupid as "You shouldn't sail or post anymore" as if they are the god of Sailnet, their credibility and need to be paid attention to is shot.
> I find it interesting that I've followed this thread and had some interesting exchanges all day long in between patients, and when a certain poster starts in the tone goes in the toilet. Free country and freedom of speech and all, but sometimes insight is a good place to start.
> 
> For the record as I think I'm giving Smack what he wants and leaving this thread:
> Yes, any stupid boat can float across an ocean. There's a damn garbage pile doing it. Saying only a Swan can is stupid. Saying a Hunter is a Swan is an Oyster is a Pearson is equally dumb.
> Does that make it smart? No.
> Does a Cat A make a boat capable? No. It insures that there is a minimum standard of equipment. Having read it, there are holes in it that would allow a smart and unscrupulous builder to make them essentially meaningless. So it is essentially meaningless.
> Is new always better? No.
> Is old better? No. There are crap old boats just like there are crap new ones. The benefit to old ones is that if they were built well, the kinks have been worked out, they are cheaper to obtain, the really stupid stuff has probably been removed or remedied. If you buy a nearly new one, that may also be the case. The downside is that they are older and you have to be more careful about the maintenance done, or be willing to go over them very carefully. I've come to the conclusion that even the brand new ones may not be different in that respect, straight out of the factory.
> As someone said- the limiting factor is usually the captain, but the best captains are the ones that are insightful, circumspect, careful, understanding, thoughtful and respectful. Both of the ocean, themselves and the people around them.


Quoted for Truth.


----------



## RobGallagher

Boats from all over the area head up the CT River this time of year for winter haul out. There are several marinas with lots of acreage to stay on the hard for the winter and the prices are very reasonable.

I'm not defending the captain of the boat without more knowledge, but, that bridge operator can be a jerk. He will do partial openings and tell you to stay to port to get boats through as soon as possible. He ignores VHF calls unless you call the exact name of the bridge (if the name LYME is not in your VHF call, good luck). Even the article does not have the name correct enough for him to respond.

Last fall he insisted I pass under on a partial opening and I refused, waited for the next full opening because I could not be sure he had opened enough for me to safely pass through. Depth perception with that height and distance can be tricky and although I was pretty sure I could make it and he seemed confident to the point of sarcasm ("unless you have a 100 ft mast on a 30something foot boat..."), I was not prepared for the alternatives.

I don't doubt he starts the closing process before the last boat is through and looking up as you are moving close, you can't really tell if the bridge is moving.

For the record, that photo is not the Rail Bridge in question.

I'm sure Smack will now tell us all about his offshore experience...


----------



## XSrcing

I can tell you one thing, between all the bickering and chuckleheads (I like that word) there is a lot of really good information in this thread. 

Even Smack has good info, it's just all over the map...errr...chart...errr Waterway Guide.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ....Second, I actually FAR prefer sailing offshore to staying in the ditch. I just don't like the hassles of the ICW for the most part.


Since you've made this argument, tell us all how many times you've made a meaningful passage where there was a choice between the ICW and an offshore route. Goes to credibility.


----------



## RobGallagher

Minnewaska said:


> Since you've made this argument, tell us all how many times you've made a meaningful passage where there was a choice between the ICW and an offshore route. Goes to credibility.


...and did you play Call of Duty while your hired mechanic changed fuel filters offshore? :captain:


----------



## aeventyr60

^Yep, a real hassle deciding on using AC or the Waterway Guide. Then again, you might need a functioning engine too.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Saying only a Swan can is stupid. Saying a Hunter is a Swan is an Oyster is a Pearson is equally dumb.
> Does that make it smart? No.
> Does a Cat A make a boat capable? No. It insures that there is a minimum standard *of equipment. Having read it, there are holes in it that would allow a smart and unscrupulous builder to make them essentially meaningless. So it is essentially meaningless.*
> Is new always better? No.
> Is old better? No. There are crap old boats just like there are crap new ones. The benefit to old ones is that if they were built well, the kinks have been worked out, they are cheaper to obtain, the really stupid stuff has probably been removed or remedied. If you buy a nearly new one, that may also be the case. The downside is that they are older and you have to be more careful about the maintenance done, or be willing to go over them very carefully. I've come to the conclusion that even the brand new ones may not be different in that respect, straight out of the factory.
> As someone said- the limiting factor is usually the captain, but the best captains are the ones that are insightful, circumspect, careful, understanding, thoughtful and respectful. Both of the ocean, themselves and the people around them.


The bold part is incorrect. But apart from that, this is a very reasonable post. Well done.


----------



## RobGallagher

aeventyr60 said:


> ^Yep, a real hassle deciding on using AC or the Waterway Guide. Then again, you might need a functioning engine too.


Buddha and the baby Jesus both know you can't unbolt a motor mount without a factory trained technician.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> I can tell you one thing, between all the bickering and chuckleheads (I like that word) there is a lot of really good information in this thread.
> 
> Even Smack has good info, it's just all over the map...errr...chart...errr Waterway Guide.


Thanks X. It's all about edutainment as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## bobperry

Boy oh boy,
I go to the boat yard for a day. Meet with John Condon the auto pilot guru from CMS. Spent six hours going over final spar specifications and then meeting with John. My head was ready to burst.

Glad to see you guys got so much accomplished today. At least the overall tone is fun and entertaining.

I was hoping to see an explanation from TDW backing up his claim that I lied. But I know I am no liar so I really did not expect anything from him. All talk , no substance. We've seen this before.


----------



## Ninefingers

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, my guess is that he was simply piloting from beneath the Dodger/Bimini Canvas Continuum that virtually every late model production boat is featuring these days...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, are you sure you want to go down that road? If so, the salient difference between losing the mast on a freshly re-rigged Hans Christian 38 in a near-gale off Hatteras, and losing a diesel engine right at the start of a summer cruise in the Gulf of Mexico would be ???
> 
> Better check your WG app, I don't believe the Connecticut River is part of the ICW...
> 
> ;-)


Well, at least they went for the carbon fibre wheel option.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

jorgenl said:


> So,
> 
> Another example is European emission regulations for new heavy-duty diesel engines (Trucks, Buses, not VW passenger cars), that are international and considered comparable in stringency to the US standards.


That is actually a great example.

I know nothing about truck engines but I know that the European pollution norms for passenger cars are a joke compared to the American ones. And the reason is that the European car manufacturers are very powerful. In their quest for the mighty Euro they couldn't care less about the environment and the health of citizens. Let them breath NOx!

Now, closer to our discussion here, we have another powerful industry, the European boat manufacturers. And we are supposed to adopt a standard ("Category A") that they shaped to their needs?

I am not going to trust the safety of my family to some government bureaucrat in Brussels or Bratislava.


----------



## tdw

bobperry said:


> You guys are great. I know you are just doing this so I don't feel like "the bad guy". Nicely done. Hang in there Smackers.
> But I have this feeling that there is a double standard at work behind the scenes here. You guys will get away with the fighting Scott free.





tdw said:


> Oh poor baby. Jaysus you really don't get it do you ? It is not the fighting, it is not the disagreeing, it is not the debate, it is not even the level of acrimony that exists between various souls. It is lying, it is calling others delusional, it is the outright abuse hurled at other members. These are the kinds of things that have us stinking moderators editing your posts and/or telling you to pull your head in.





bobperry said:


> tdw:
> I knew that would get to you. Bingo!
> "It is lying,"
> Well there you go making things up to bolster your personal case against me. So provide the proof so we can all see. Your call. I do not have to lie.


Be there done that but to go over it yet again ... some time back you made the claim in this forum that I had threatened to ban you. At the time I PMed you asking that you either withdraw the claim or provide proof. You responded rudely, failed to provide said proof and failed to correct the record. At no time had I ever threatened to ban you from the site, your claim was an outright lie, indeed at the time there had been zero discussion involving moderators, stinking or otherwise, that mentioned you and banning. No discussion at all, no public posts, no posts in the mod private forum, no PMs, no emails. Absofuckinglutely nothing.

For some reason you seem to harbour the belief that there is a backroom plot, presumably led by me, to have you banned from the site. That is absolute twaddle and as you are on friendlier terms with Jeff H than you are with me might I suggest you ask him. He can confirm what I have just said. He knows that what I have said is correct. He well knows that while I may not like you, indeed I may well consider you to be a rather nasty piece of ****e I still admire your talent, acknowledge your undoubted success and fully accept that many here take great delight in reading your contributions. I am not now nor have I ever waged this supposed campaign yet you have the gall to accuse others of being delusional.

So to be absolutely clear. Yes, in *recent* times, your behaviour here, including your recent rudeness to one of my fellow moderators has been discussed by us but an overwhelming majority of moderators have strongly advocated that you not be banned, either temporarily or permanently, from the site. So before you go throwing your snide wee accusations about I suggest, oh ever so 'umbly Mr Perry sir, that you get your facts straight cos your bs is not going to go unanswered. Oh, and btw, I am part of that overwhelming majority.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Hey man, it's just another ditch as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, I prefer offshore. Far fewer bridges.


Spoken like a true man!

So, Smack, how many thousand miles have you sailed offshore? Let's make this easy on you and define it as 'beyond the sight of land,' so you don't derail us into a discussion of what true bluewater is or some nonsense.

We all know you were railmeat for a couple days on ONE race a few years ago. We know that because you write about that in every other of your posts.

How about letting us know about your other exploits? Other than being towed from one marina to the next.


----------



## smackdaddy

Ninefingers said:


> Well, at least they went for the carbon fibre wheel option.


Yeah, and that's actually a damn fine looking cockpit...










But Jon, are you sure that's a Hunter?



JonEisberg said:


> Guess his Hunter 41 wasn't quite as fast as he thought it was, huh?












Looks like a Bene.



JonEisberg said:


> Speaking of Chuckleheads...


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> Since you've made this argument, tell us all how many times you've made a meaningful passage where there was a choice between the ICW and an offshore route. Goes to credibility.


Oops, you beat me to it -- I had the same question.

Just, I was asking not in how many cases he made a _choice between different passages _-- but how many _passages_ he has done. Period.

A hint: Sailing across the bay from one marina to the next (or getting towed from one marina to the next) is not usually considered a passage.


----------



## NCC320

Shockwave said:


> Let's be honest here, the big builders (Benahuntalina's) build boats to a price point for customers who will never test their blue water capabilities. Cat A or Cat C, it doesn't matter, these boats sail the cocktail circuit and the fact that they have transom mounted cleats, weak hull to deck to deck fabrications, substandard rigging and gear or substandard brass through hulls is inconsequential. These boats are for the most part marina queens and their owners are perfectly happy with that.


Really? You are stepping forward with definitive, indisputable data to back this up? I didn't think so. I submit that you don't know what you are talking about.

By the way, you never did tell us what boat you have. Perhaps, just as you tried to torpedo Paulo, maybe you're doing the same now again. Very helpful.


----------



## blt2ski

I personally know of more than ONE Jeanneau that has done open ocean no problems.

Another, those Cat 27's folks ae dishing, had a cat b or c rating. They do not meet cat A.

Lets add two other boats that are very much better build quality that a Jeanneau 519 that IS cat a rated; I know of one here in Puget Sound that was delivered in August, now being prepped for next summers Vic-Maui race. Probably needs at least 50% more dollars to get it ready than the boat itself cost!

But back to two other 50' boat that ARE NOT (my swag and will show why) cat a rated. .........drum roll please......

A Morris M52 and BP's design Francis Lee. Yep!

I bet that just got some blood boiling in a few of you!

Neither boat has life lines! a requirement for Cat A. Hence why yes, both are better built etc etc. BUT, do not meet the cat a std. The M series IIRC is B or C rated. I doubt Kym cares if Frankie has a European rating......probably does not give a rats ass either.

marty


----------



## chall03

I love this thread.

I have learn't so much about boats, anchors, yacht design, cars, architecture, pop culture, phycology and human nature from this thread. 

Smack whatever else you may suck at and despite what you do or do not know about boats (whether they be production, blue watery, certified, steel, fibreglass, pre or post 1988).You have a knack of setting up a thread that will get forum denizens all stirred up. 

I suspect the end of this thread is near. It's been a hoot, let's do it again sometime.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, and that's actually a damn fine looking cockpit...


Well, as long as it's kept level, I suppose... And as long as you'd never have to run after dark...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> But Jon, are you sure that's a Hunter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a Bene.


No, the boat that hit the Amtrak bridge a few days ago was a Hunter 41...

The one pictured is a Beneteau that hit the Kent Narrows bridge earlier this summer...

Did you happen to read the Comments posted to the news account I originally cited? Sounds like some of those posters think those who sail "The Bayliner of Sailboats" are chuckleheads, or similar...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> No, the boat that hit the Amtrak bridge a few days ago was a Hunter 41...
> 
> The one pictured is a Beneteau that hit the Kent Narrows bridge earlier this summer...
> 
> Did you happen to read the Comments posted to the news account I originally cited? Sounds like some of those posters think those who sail "The Bayliner of Sailboats" are chuckleheads, or similar...
> 
> ;-)


Well then use some captions dammit!

As for the comments - this from chuckleheads with names like "Wylie" and "Rascals" who seem have a 6th grade English education? Who gives a damn what they think?

That said, I'm not a fan of the new Hunters either.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> I have learn't so much about boats, anchors, yacht design, cars, architecture, pop culture, phycology and human nature from this thread.
> 
> Smack whatever else you may suck at and despite what you do or do not know about boats (whether they be production, blue watery, certified, steel, fibreglass, pre or post 1988).You have a knack of setting up a thread that will get forum denizens all stirred up.
> 
> I suspect the end of this thread is near. It's been a hoot, let's do it again sometime.


You got that right pal!

I don't think it will get the Chastity Belt. If I were to continually bat around with my yapping groupies - maybe. Especially since they are now following me everywhere I go and are in the "Show me your miles!" and the "I know you are but what am I?" phase. But I won't. I just like the sport of it sometimes. They're cute.

This is actually an extremely educational thread...especially for newbs. So, as long as everyone can stay focused on boats - and take their personal crap to FightClub - it will live on unencumbered by the crotch lock.

What a tart, this thread!


----------



## mitiempo

amwbox said:


> If France for example decided that it would hurt their domestic boat builders too much, they'd gum up the process by holding out for a standard they can adhere to.....
> 
> Its seaworthiness second, business and trade realities first.


I recall reading that France did demand a lower standard to protect their boat building industry.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> This is actually an extremely educational thread...especially for newbs.


It is touching how you are looking out for 'newbs.' They will surely be learning a lot from old salts like yourself.

But wait, there were several people including myself who asked you to tell us how much sailing experience you actually have. Just yesterday, right in this thread. Did you, by chance, overlook every single one of those posts?

You would not want to create the impression that you are avoiding to answer this question, would you?

We are waiting.


----------



## bobperry

TDW:
Fair enough. But that's just your version of what went on. I have my version. History is like that. But I won't muck the thread up with it anymore.


----------



## Minnewaska

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> It is touching how you are looking out for 'newbs.' They will surely be learning a lot from old salts like yourself.
> 
> But wait, there were several people including myself who asked you to tell us how much sailing experience you actually have. Just yesterday, right in this thread. Did you, by chance, overlook every single one of those posts?
> 
> You would not want to create the impression that you are avoiding to answer this question, would you?
> 
> We are waiting.


Smack has done a ton of internet research these past 7 years. He's been pretty good at it from time to time and very misguided on others.

A few take aways.

First, without practical experience, one can achieve knowledge, but not wisdom. He is indeed a newb himself. He hasn't answered the experiential query, which is not intended to degrade him, but to put his wisdom in context. Smack no longer wants to be viewed as only a 7 year sailor with virtually no cruising experience, which is why he won't answer the question and attempts to lampoon it. That's narcissism.

Smack has seemed to evolve from being inquisitive to authoritative, in his own mind, on several subjects, particularly in this thread. He props up his own view, by altering the view of others and refusing to answer questions that would degrade his position. For a bit, I thought it was just a game, but now believe it's how he achieves his self-worth. That would be sad, wouldn't it. Questions about him are only relevant so that the newb, as he pointed out, would know who's advice they are reading.

When you discuss or disagree with Smack's position, you are doomed to being called silly or stupid or a chucklehead. He walks right up to the line of forum posting rules, if not crosses them routinely. He knows them well, as he's been banned virtually everywhere else and temporarily here. It's like the loud funny kid in the corner, that everyone eventually gets tired of. I, for one, am tired of him. If he would cut the nonsense, particularly the name calling, and come here as a sailor, like everyone else, that would be terrific. I'm afraid it's hard to get through to juveniles, but we may be surprised.


----------



## jorgenl

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> It is touching how you are looking out for 'newbs.' They will surely be learning a lot from old salts like yourself.
> 
> But wait, there were several people including myself who asked you to tell us how much sailing experience you actually have. Just yesterday, right in this thread. Did you, by chance, overlook every single one of those posts?
> 
> You would not want to create the impression that you are avoiding to answer this question, would you?
> 
> We are waiting.


What about yourself, Mast?

How many offshore miles do you have under your belt?


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> This is actually an extremely educational thread...especially for newbs.


I doubt any of these threads help newbs really. But I do feel there are more "pro" type posts regarding production boats than there was in the past so maybe a newb might pause a moment before joining the herd and limiting their options.


----------



## Capt Len

Yesterday I was thinking that there is little or no agreement here on designs ,standards and acceptable qualities of what ever a 'blue water boat' is or isn't .Then I see that boat stuck in the blue bridge.First thought was ,Gee , I wonder if he considers himself a blue water seaman.? Next thought was,maybe we are not asking ourselves an even more interesting and revealing question. On an open ended scale ,where does the other guy fit? Then this morning I see the thread is already morphing that way. Made the popcorn,hope the mods don't pull the plug.


----------



## Shockwave

One of our dock mates bought a french boat three years ago. This spring the boat was launched and immediately began to take on water. The boat was hauled and it was discovered the hull was cracked along the centerline. Being three years old it was out of warranty and the repair cost fell to the owner. During the repair it was found the crack was a manufacturing defect but the manufacturer still refused to pay.

Be careful what you buy, especially when spending upwards of $750,000.


----------



## skygazer

Capt Len said:


> Then I see that boat stuck in the blue bridge.First thought was ,Gee , I wonder if he considers himself a blue water seaman.?


He may be an excellent and experienced blue water sailor. That would not give him experience squeezing through air holes with solid land on three sides and water under. 

You only have to worry about hitting land structures when you are near land............ very near!


----------



## overbored

Shockwave said:


> One of our dock mates bought a french boat three years ago. This spring the boat was launched and immediately began to take on water. The boat was hauled and it was discovered the hull was cracked along the centerline. Being three years old it was out of warranty and the repair cost fell to the owner. During the repair it was found the crack was a manufacturing defect but the manufacturer still refused to pay.
> 
> Be careful what you buy, especially when spending upwards of $750,000.


boat is Ok when it comes out of the water and cracked sitting on the hard. how does that happen? more to the story we are not being told.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

jorgenl said:


> What about yourself, Mast?
> 
> How many offshore miles do you have under your belt?


Well over 10,000 offshore miles, over the last 45 years. These are only the ones that I have official documentation for, like from clearing into and out of countries, miles on passages needed for licences/permits, and other official paperwork. Not much compared to some others on this site, I know, but not a complete newb either.

But why do you even ask? What if I were a newb, to use the term that Smackdaddy likes to apply to those that he attempts to teach with his 'educational' threads like this one? Would I not have the right to ask the big teacher the sources from which his wisdom springs?

So, Smack, still haven't heard from you.

At how many occasions have you succeeded to avoid those pesky bridges and instead taken the manly offshore route, as you claim is your wont?

And we still haven't heard about how many miles/days you have sailed out of the sight of land. In your whole freaking life.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> Smack has done a ton of internet research these past 7 years. He's been pretty good at it from time to time and very misguided on others.
> 
> A few take aways.
> 
> First, without practical experience, one can achieve knowledge, but not wisdom. He is indeed a newb himself. He hasn't answered the experiential query, which is not intended to degrade him, but to put his wisdom in context. Smack no longer wants to be viewed as only a 7 year sailor with virtually no cruising experience, which is why he won't answer the question and attempts to lampoon it. That's narcissism.
> 
> Smack has seemed to evolve from being inquisitive to authoritative, in his own mind, on several subjects, particularly in this thread. He props up his own view, by altering the view of others and refusing to answer questions that would degrade his position. For a bit, I thought it was just a game, but now believe it's how he achieves his self-worth. That would be sad, wouldn't it. Questions about him are only relevant so that the newb, as he pointed out, would know who's advice they are reading.
> 
> When you discuss or disagree with Smack's position, you are doomed to being called silly or stupid or a chucklehead. He walks right up to the line of forum posting rules, if not crosses them routinely. He knows them well, as he's been banned virtually everywhere else and temporarily here. It's like the loud funny kid in the corner, that everyone eventually gets tired of. I, for one, am tired of him. If he would cut the nonsense, particularly the name calling, and come here as a sailor, like everyone else, that would be terrific. I'm afraid it's hard to get through to juveniles, but we may be surprised.


A very good analysis. I entirely agree that Smackdaddy has potential and it is a real shame that he wastes it in such a non-productive (and annoying) way. He really could contribute something valuable here if he could get over his antics.


----------



## smackdaddy

You guys really seem obsessed with me. That's not healthy. First, off I've never claimed to be a "teacher" or "expert" (like Maine was trying to challenge me to be). I think that's how you guys seem to look at _yourselves_ on most subjects...and why you get so offended when someone disagrees with you. I have opinions, strong ones at times, I state those opinions very clearly, I do a lot of research on those opinions, which most of you whiny guys don't do. On the other hand, JonE, BobP, JeffH, PCP, Maine etc. are always willing to put in the legwork - even though they don't have to. You guys don't. You just whine - mostly about me. And even though I rarely agree with JonE (for example) I have HUGE respect for him. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything he says as gospel. Same with even guys like Maine or even Jeff. That's not how things work - especially on more subjective matters. But do you see JonE whining? No. You see him presenting his side of the arguments and fighting back as true sailors should and do. It's all in good fun - and it's actually very educational for anyone reading along. You should take lessons from these guys and do something meaningful...or at least stop pissing in pockets like some of these other newer guys. That doesn't help anyone.

As for my current miles, I've documented 2,160 in the last 6 years since I started sailing. Of that, 1,540 are offshore (out of the sight of land even) on races and/or deliveries in the Gulf of Mexico. I've either co-skippered and/or skippered most of those miles. Over the next 3 summers, my sons and I plan to cover another couple of thousand as we continue our planned Carib cruise. Then we'll decide where to go next after that.

So, if all goes well (which is certainly never a given - that much I know), I will be nearing 5K miles by the time I reach 10 years of sailing. If I keep that up, I'll be WAY up there in another 35 years - like you, just with more miles. But I'll still be WAY less whiny.

So what's your point again?


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Of that, 1,540 are offshore (out of the sight of land even) on races and/or deliveries


And to think, you were just calling _me_ "junior" the other day.:laugh

I love the interwebs.


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> And to think, you were just calling _me_ "junior" the other day.:laugh
> 
> I love the interwebs.


When it comes to SN, you are a "junior" - regardless of how many miles you've sailed (that's how this works, right?). So, put up something meaningful to the discussion instead of just pissing in pockets or sniping at me and we can go from there.

I have no problem being honest about where I stand. I have a lot more miles than most a lot less than some. That's fine with me. The real issue is, the number of miles one has typically has little to do with whether his opinion on something is infallible. That's why there are always disagreements and discussions.

And in any case, I'm the perfect representative of those who look at these issues from a new perspective. Right or wrong. Because I'm doing it.

So, as always, throw out your opinion. I'll either agree with it - or I won't. And the proof will be in the ocean.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> .....and why you get so offended when someone disagrees with you...


Please...... the offense only starts after you start calling names or referring to others input as stupid.

It's like that little kid that keeps tweaking someone in class and when they burst, he points a finger at them and tries to tell the teacher it was their fault. Grow up.



> You guys don't. You just whine.


Not in much of a reconciliatory mood, are you. I can think of several examples I've given you, where you were dead wrong. I've seen everyone you mentioned do the same. The response has always been name calling, or in some instances, you just never answered, changed the subject or twisted the facts to support your position.



> ....fighting back as true sailors should and do...


In over 40 years on the water, I've found sailors to generally be more mature. Even young ones.



> It's all in good fun.


Are you listening? Fun is not a one way street.

Doesn't matter if you find it fun, or whether you claim to have respect for your opponent. I don't think most find you fun anymore. You've morphed from the fun goofball to someone insisting they are right and everyone else is "stupid". Your word. And you've become vindictive, when you feel you were wronged (read waterway guide review). Not fun. You've let it go to your head.



> Over the next 3 summers, my sons and I plan to cover another couple of thousand as we continue our Carib cruise. Then we'll decide where to go next after that.


Be careful with your boys in FL and/or the Caribbean in the summer months, particularly as you experience a cruise like this for the first time. Unlike us, they have no choice, but to trust you and the choices you make. I suspect you'll learn quite a bit along the way and I hope it goes well.


----------



## smackdaddy

So like I said - there are some that are obsessed with me and can think of nothing else (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - heh-heh).

Look Minne, if I'm proven "dead wrong" - I admit it. I just did so in the WG thread. I have no problem with that - it just happens very rarely. But again, when it comes to just personal battles, I'm not interested. I've not called any specific person "stupid", etc. I've directed that at certain_ statements_ - which certainly can be stupid (I'm sure you think that about some of my own - and I could probably even find examples). Also I think if someone is actually offended by the term "chucklehead" or "silly" - they really need to harden up. I've already been called much worse. So if you guys want to continue this particular line of discussion - take it FightClub. Otherwise, put up your best on *Production Boats* and we'll continue the conversation.



Minnewaska said:


> Be careful with your boys in FL and/or the Caribbean in the summer months, particularly as you experience a cruise like this for the first time. Unlike us, they have no choice, but to trust you and the choices you make. I suspect you'll learn quite a bit along the way and I hope it goes well.


Trust me - I will. And thanks for the kind words, Minne.


----------



## bobperry

Fun is not a one way street?


Damn.
I thought sometimes it was. Good thing I was schooled here by an expert.

Come on Waska, exactly how much fun have you had? I mean documented fun.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> You just _"accept a standard"_ you know absolutely nothing about other than a glossy title and then also insist that everyone else in the _industry_ also accepts it, which you also do not know to be true.


I'd actually like to go back and pick up on this piece of the debate. Here is what the CE Cat A rating states:

*OCEAN : Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient. *

And, once again, to be clear, this is obviously a higher rating than Cat B - which is "Offshore". It is, without a doubt, "blue water".

So, when a boat is rated CE Cat A - it is presented to be able to do the above - which is precisely blue water sailing...within a set of common-sense limits.

Now, NO ONE is stating that boats that minimally meet this standard are "better" or even "as good as" boats that _exceed_ this standard. But, if they _meet_ this standard - they *ARE* deemed worthy (by most of the real world - excluding SN and CF) of handling what is shown in this rating..that is, "blue water" sailing. Nothing more, nothing less.

And this is what I've been saying forever, now.

So, what do you do with that?

1. You can try to undermine the entire CE system to somehow prove the ratings are "deficient" (either because the experts/bureaucrats who took part are stupid, or they are all in the pockets of the chuckleheaded manufacturers, or that the silly manufacturers were getting around them, or whatever). BUT, aside from the tin foil hat nature of this argument - the evidence out there doesn't support it. If these ratings were truly deficient, or if manufacturers were uniformly skirting them, we would see FAR more failures. We don't. And these boats are all over the place (the ARC, circumnavigations, in charter, etc.).

2. You can argue that there are far better standards that should be implemented instead of the CE. And until that happens, these production boats don't deserve blue water status. Again, the evidence doesn't support this - but it is certainly reasonable for people to argue for better, more stringent standards across the industry. But is it really necessary?

Maine, you put forth the NMMA/ABYC standards. The fundamental question here is - how would these standards make a respected Chucklehead on these forums accept production boats as blue water worthy? Is it all about the seacocks or cleats or whatever? What exactly is that game-changer? And does NMMA/ABYC provide it - either with voluntary participation or mandatory rule?

Finally, back to the cost issue you bring up. If the CE rating is so "minimal" as some say, and it increased costs across the board as you say - how would you reconcile a _more stringent_ rating system with what it would do to cost? Is there a middle ground?

To me THAT is one of the most interesting issues in all this.


----------



## Minnewaska

bobperry said:


> Fun is not a one way street?
> 
> Damn.
> I thought sometimes it was. Good thing I was schooled here by an expert.
> 
> Come on Waska, exactly how much fun have you had? I mean documented fun.


Me? I'm the bloody life of the party. In fact, we literally can't keep everyone happy that wants to come sailing with us. My wife and I get about 2 weekends to ourselves all season and have to rotate people over 2 - 3 seasons, just to see them all. We even have people frequently along for our summer cruise and have led a flotilla for some that are new to the area.

I've no fun disability. Add tequila, as necessary. Curious, how many people are begging to come sailing and have fun with you? Not talk about ship design or boats, but come have fun with you. Good question for Smack too. I really wouldn't know. You could tell me you have a line at the door and I'll take your word for it.

As far as you're concerned, we're all well aware that you and Smack are simpatico.

If that was a disguised question about my experience, I have no idea how many sea miles I've accumulated. I do know that I've been sailing my current boat for about as long as Smack has been sailing at all. Her chartplotter log just tripped over 10,000 miles this summer. How many I logged in the 35 years prior to that, I never really kept track.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> I'd actually like to go back and pick up on this piece of the debate. Here is what the CE Cat A rating states:
> 
> *OCEAN : Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient. *........


Sounds good. I have a clarifying question for you. Would you be willing to take any boat, whatsoever, that had a Cat A rating, across the Atlantic as delivered by the factory? I'll allow that we assume the crew is qualified.

For purposes of the question, that boat is still Cat A rated, no matter how she's equipped. Off the factory floor, there is NO radio, navigation equipment, etc. Still has a Cat A placard.

The point is, the boat gets the rating, no matter whether it's suitable or not. I'm not arguing that only full keelers are capable. I'm saying that your faith in the Cat A rating is misguided, as the ability of the plastic and rigging to stay intact in 34-40 kt winds, doesn't mean the boat is properly suited suited to cross an ocean.

Modify her, upgrade her, make her capable, of course you can in many circumstances. But, if these are necessary, what did the Cat A rating mean? I think little more than the boat is likely to remain floating when exposed to wind the 30s.

Ironically, 4m wave heights, in the proclaimed Beaufort scale, would be consistent with high Force 6 or low Force 7 winds, or approx 30 kts. That's a pretty low bar, don't you think?


----------



## bobperry

Waska: 
You may be assuming way to much.

I was just having fun.

Remember fun?


----------



## Don L

Interesting that some will say to buy an old boat and then put $$$$ into it for refit, but for some reason the same thought that even a new production boat needs some equipment added is so hard for them to accept.


----------



## NCC320

Minnewaska said:


> Sounds good. I have a clarifying question for you. Would you be willing to take any boat, whatsoever, that had a Cat A rating, across the Atlantic as delivered by the factory? I'll allow that we assume the crew is qualified.
> 
> For purposes of the question, that boat is still Cat A rated, no matter how she's equipped. Off the factory floor, there is NO radio, navigation equipment, etc. Still has a Cat A placard.
> 
> The point is, the boat gets the rating, no matter whether it's suitable or not. I'm not arguing that only full keelers are capable. I'm saying that your faith in the Cat A rating is misguided, as the ability of the plastic and rigging to stay intact in 34-40 kt winds, doesn't mean the boat is properly suited suited to cross an ocean.
> 
> Modify her, upgrade her, make her capable, of course you can in many circumstances. But, if these are necessary, what did the Cat A rating mean? I think little more than the boat is likely to remain floating when exposed to wind the 30s.
> 
> Ironically, 4m wave heights, in the proclaimed Beaufort scale, would be consistent with high Force 6 or low Force 7 winds, or approx 30 kts. That's a pretty low bar, don't you think?


If your requirement is for radios, navigation equipment, etc to be on the boat to get the CE A rating badge, then don't all manufacturers fail the test? i.e., maybe I don't understand, but I was under the impression that the more upscale the boat is, the less this kind of equipment is included in the base price. The idea being that the buyer will want lots of custom features in regards to electronics and special devices. But also, I think that most of the manufacturers offer such items as options, and will install them to customer's needs. So, if one elects, the boat may be well equipped in this respect coming out of the factory, or not (with the idea that the buyer will have these installed to his desire by third parties).

I don't recall now, but some years ago, questions about the suitability of their boats for open ocean, one of the manufacturers (Hunter or Beneteau if I remember) indicated that their big boats going overseas were delivered afloat on their own bottoms. Perhaps someone else remembers this?

The rating says that "winds may exceed Force 8", and wave heights above 4M. How much above these conditions apparently isn't specified.


----------



## Minnewaska

NCC320 said:


> If your requirement is for radios, navigation equipment, etc to be on the boat to get the CE A rating badge, then don't all manufacturers fail the test?......


That is not what I meant, so perhaps my point was not clear.

That Cat A placard goes on the hull, regardless of what is or isn't installed. Those were just obvious examples.

Sure, one would fit it out, just like one would put food and water aboard. However, the rating doesn't know or care if you do, so therefore, what does it mean?

I say it means little. Only that the structure has met some minimum negotiated standard, not that the boat is suitable for crossing an ocean. The standard itself defines what "ocean" means in terms of wave height and wind levels, that are well below those one should actually be prepared for.

I'm in the camp that you can sail a Jene/Bene in bluewater, with sufficient planning and modification. But the Cat A rating doesn't know or care, if you do. It's not really about crossing an ocean, it's about the plastic and rigging being able to live through the defined wind/waves.


----------



## bob77903

Minnewaska said:


> I don't think most find you fun anymore.


You'd be surprised how many find Smackers a lot of fun :svoilier:
Oh, and I have a tad of sailing experience, enough to open my pie hole here anyway..:devil


----------



## Brent Swain

PCP said:


> Some would say a century ago, in fact I remember a poster that used to say that. And I would add, figured out for all eternity.
> 
> I will just reply to this point, not that the others have merit but because I think it is not worth it. If you think cruising yacht design development stopped decades ago, nothing I can say or add will change your opinion, that I believe to be very wrong.
> 
> Anyway regarding the shape of the bow to be modern or not (Plumb bow) it does not matter in what regards hitting a container. A sailboat sails with heel and the area that will hit a submerged container it is not the bow but the the forward sections below the waterline. That's where the boats that have kevlar protections on the case of that eventuality have them.


There is a very high tech Morgan design in the harbour here, taking on water. Bumped a log , which would do zero damage to any of my boats. He bought her because she was cheap, but said his next boat would be designed to take such impacts with impunity. Another friend on a stock plastic boat, is dreaming of the day she has a boat in which it simply doesn't matter if she bumps anything . Those who have never had such a boat don't have a clue of how much more relaxed it is cruising on one. Owners of such boats tend to cruise a lot more, instead of being stuck in marinas, while trying to get up the nerve to leave the dock and go cruising.
The closer you get to log strewn northern waters, the more popular metal boats become, for good reason.
Plumb bows have little reserve buoyancy there, and tend to go thru a wave rather than over it, which is definitely quicker, but whole lot wetter


----------



## Brent Swain

Don0190 said:


> Interesting that some will say to buy an old boat and then put $$$$ into it for refit, but for some reason the same thought that even a new production boat needs some equipment added is so hard for them to accept.


The older boats, completely refitted ,will still cost a fraction the cost of a new one with no equipment, leaving enough money left over to cruise for years, while the guy with the new boat stays tied to the dock, making payments.


----------



## XSrcing

Do your boats carry a Cat A cert?


----------



## Classic30

Brent Swain said:


> The older boats, completely refitted ,will still cost a fraction the cost of a new one with no equipment, leaving enough money left over to cruise for years, while the guy with the new boat stays tied to the dock, making payments.


I think the point is: A new boat, completely optioned out, has a fixed, declared, price tag and a fixed warranty period to cover anything that goes astray; an older boat - even one "completely refitted" - can still produce some expensive after-sales surprises (some even more than the cost of the boat itself!) with no warranty whatsoever to fall back on.


----------



## Minnewaska

bob77903 said:


> You'd be surprised how many find Smackers a lot of fun :svoilier:
> Oh, and I have a tad of sailing experience, enough to open my pie hole here anyway..:devil


I would not be surprised. I said most. There are always several left over.

Whatever you want to open your pie hole to say, is welcome. Try not to call other poster's input, stupid, when you do.

I believe Smack has heard the point and will tone down the name calling. We'll see.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> The real issue is, the number of miles one has typically has little to do with whether his opinion on something is infallible. That's why there are always disagreements and discussions..


It is possible to do something for a long time and still suck at it


----------



## bobperry

Bill Russell, the famous basketball player and coach of the Seattle Supersonics once said, " Experience don't mean ****." He was a wise man.

I see BS is still fixated on me like a spurned groupie.


----------



## Jeff_H

Brent Swain said:


> There is a very high tech Morgan design in the harbour here, taking on water. Bumped a log , which would do zero damage to any of my boats. He bought her because she was cheap.


Er, Brent, Almost by definition there is no such thing as "a very high tech Morgan design" or "a very high tech" anything that would be "cheap". Charlie Morgan did a lot of things well, but he did not do "very high tech".



Brent Swain said:


> Plumb bows have little reserve buoyancy there, and tend to go thru a wave rather than over it, which is definitely quicker, but whole lot wetter


You and I have had this discussion a number of times. Whether a boat has a plumb bow or not does not automatically impact the amount of reserve buoyancy that a boat has. Reserve buoyancy comes in the form of volume above the waterline. Reserve buoyancy can be obtained by flaring the topsides or having flam no matter what the bow profile looks like.

Jeff


----------



## blt2ski

I thought Mr Russell was some kingpin for the Boston Celtics........


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> You guys really seem obsessed with me. That's not healthy. First, off I've never claimed to be a "teacher" or "expert" (like Maine was trying to challenge me to be). I think that's how you guys seem to look at _yourselves_ on most subjects...and why you get so offended when someone disagrees with you. I have opinions, strong ones at times, I state those opinions very clearly, I do a lot of research on those opinions, which most of you whiny guys don't do. On the other hand, JonE, BobP, JeffH, PCP, Maine etc. are always willing to put in the legwork - even though they don't have to. You guys don't. You just whine - mostly about me. And even though I rarely agree with JonE (for example) I have HUGE respect for him. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything he says as gospel. Same with even guys like Maine or even Jeff. That's not how things work - especially on more subjective matters. But do you see JonE whining? No. You see him presenting his side of the arguments and fighting back as true sailors should and do. It's all in good fun - and it's actually very educational for anyone reading along. You should take lessons from these guys and do something meaningful...or at least stop pissing in pockets like some of these other newer guys. That doesn't help anyone.


No, you don't call yourself a teacher. Nobody calls himself or herself a teacher/expert here. Well, maybe Bob, but he has every damn right in the world to do so. But you sure make it sound as if you are in the same league as the very experienced people you point out ("JonE, BobP, JeffH, PCP, Maine etc.").

Sorry to break it to you: You are not, smackie.

It got really comical when you felt the urge to 'spoonfeed' Mainesail the fine points of boat maintenance. Or, in the "WonderWaterWay Guide beat Active Captain" thread where, based on your skillful reading of your computer display, you told people that they did not know the area where they have been sailing for decades. Of course while you have never been there, within hundreds of miles.

And I see you added 'whiny' to 'stupid,' 'silly,' and 'chucklehead.' Keep going!


----------



## WharfRat

Brent Swain said:


> The closer you get to log strewn northern waters, the more popular metal boats become, for good reason.


Unless you can provide proof, this is quite likely incorrect.

Among other things, "log strewn" waters exist all over the globe, including the Southeastern U.S. (the Cape Fear basin near Wilmington NC) and the northern section of the Chesapeake. That's to say nothing of the Amazon mouth and such.

If what you say is true, then the Baltic and North Sea recreational sailing fleets would be rife with steel sailboats, but they are not. There are some aluminum sailboats, and the vast majority of the remainder there are GRP.

I for one have been to Valdez, Alaska (twice, even), the northernmost ice-free port in North America. Sure there were plenty of metal boats there, but those were all of the larger, commercial, and motor variety. Among the _recreational_ boats there, both motor and sail, none were steel, at any length. Perhaps other members have also been there, and can confirm or deny this.

I'm not expecting to change your mind, Mr. Swain. You only see what you want to see. So, go on believing whatever it is you want to believe. Just don't expect the same of everyone else.


----------



## Ninefingers

Brent Swain said:


> The older boats, completely refitted ,will still cost a fraction the cost of a new one with no equipment, leaving enough money left over to cruise for years, while the guy with the new boat stays tied to the dock, making payments.


Yes, the older boat has stronger bones, but the newer has bigger volume.


----------



## amwbox

Don0190 said:


> Interesting that some will say to buy an old boat and then put $$$$ into it for refit, but for some reason the same thought that even a new production boat needs some equipment added is so hard for them to accept.


The depreciation curve is the worst part. With a new boat people generally lose enough to depreciation alone to be able to buy and refit a used boat.

Look at all the 15 year old hunters going for a third of their new price...with all the extras being very nearly a total loss on top of that.

Its a hard enough pill to swallow with cars...but cruising boats coast as much as houses...and that sort of capital loss gets tough to rationalize.

My last boat was about 12 years old when I got it, and it was just under half its new price. Plus, the guy who bought it new got to eat the cost of adding instruments, canvas, ground tackle, etc etc and replacing the cheesy winches it came with. So, in very real terms, he lost his shirt on it. But I'm sure he had the money and it was worth it to him to buy new. Or maybe he just got really enthusiastic at a boat show.

In any case, I was very happy to get about 20 grand worth of extras and a 55% discount for a boat that worked perfectly well. Downside was I got to be the one doing all the little tasks the last guy didn't want to. Like rebedding all the deck hardware and portlights, and some teak maintenance that should have been better kept up with.

And, of course, I too ate a nice loss when I sold it. That's how it is with boats. But I sure as hell didn't take a 6 figure bath on it!

Different strokes. Different priorities.


----------



## NCC320

amwbox said:


> The depreciation curve is the worst part. With a new boat people generally lose enough to depreciation alone to be able to buy and refit a used boat.
> 
> Look at all the 15 year old hunters going for a third of their new price...with all the extras being very nearly a total loss on top of that.
> 
> Its a hard enough pill to swallow with cars...but cruising boats coast as much as houses...and that sort of capital loss gets tough to rationalize.
> 
> My last boat was about 12 years old when I got it, and it was just under half its new price. Plus, the guy who bought it new got to eat the cost of adding instruments, canvas, ground tackle, etc etc and replacing the cheesy winches it came with. So, in very real terms, he lost his shirt on it. But I'm sure he had the money and it was worth it to him to buy new. Or maybe he just got really enthusiastic at a boat show.
> 
> In any case, I was very happy to get about 20 grand worth of extras and a 55% discount for a boat that worked perfectly well. Downside was I got to be the one doing all the little tasks the last guy didn't want to. Like rebedding all the deck hardware and portlights, and some teak maintenance that should have been better kept up with.
> 
> And, of course, I too ate a nice loss when I sold it. That's how it is with boats. But I sure as hell didn't take a 6 figure bath on it!
> 
> Different strokes. Different priorities.


Agree with your post for the most part. But I elected to buy new, and sold just recently after 16 yrs. So I complement your position in the market place. I wanted the new and shiny. It was worth that to me on a personal basis. New comes sometimes with problems, but they should be few, small, and often covered by warranty. And with new, comes the expectation that you will be freed of many of those pesky maintenance tasks that come with a bit of age on the boat. Was completely happy with the boat, never had serious maintenance problems, took care of the boat and it looked like new when I sold it. I could see coming those expected things like rebedding, remounting hatches, etc. and they definitely figured in the time when elected to sell. There were other personal factors too, so it was time. The buyer got a good boat and he'll have years of good use out of the boat, then somewhere along the line, he'll sell to another buyer, who will view an older boat as being a bargain, even if he needs to replace sails, rigging, etc. at that point. We all win. Each enters with his eyes open and hopefully each of us comes away satisfied. The depreciation does hit, but in my case not so bad. Twenty-five percent reduction from price I paid to price I received. Not too bad in my way of thinking. Where to buy in this sequence, will often be determined by how much one wants to put into this hobby and what you intend to do with the boat. Obviously, for the same money, one will get a much larger boat if they buy used vs. new, or a higher quality boat having some wear and tear of the same size if buying used.


----------



## outbound

Smack
I consider myself a newbie. If blue water is considered "out of sight of land" I have >10X more experience than you and I consider myself a newbie. It is very different being the captain on your own boat on passage. It is then you have full responsibility for what preparation you've done, the boat you choose and the decisions you make. It is here the limits of current mainstream production boats become manifest. Issues that interfer with quality of life become wearing. Do they directly endanger thee crew. No. A poorly done boat will make a passage miserable but the boat will do it. Your basic premise "they are doing it" seems so wrong headed. A passage of over a week is a very different thing then doing long hops down the coast. Because of this I'm very respectful of those with more knowledge ( Bob, Jeff, Maine etc.) or experience such as JonE. 

You are never bored. As Ben Franklin said " boredom is a sign of lack of intelligence ". The reality is there are so many chores and things to do it's really hard to be bored. And is so beautiful. 

I think we should cherish being newbies as we should always be gaining new experiences and new wisdom. 

Ocean Cruising Club considers for them a passage is over 1000 miles. That seems reasonable as it is in a passage of that length or greater that any small weakness in design or construction will have a chance to become manifest. As you say, Smack, time will tell but from the little I know from personally seeing it or being told first hand current boats built to a price point aren't holding up too well after long passages. Multiple posters with more knowledge of and more intimacy to the industry and/or more real life experience are telling you the same. 

This is the hole. A purpose built boat at reasonable cost for long term cruising.

I have no argument with you that current price point boats are out there doing it. Nor do I have any argument with those who say in an attempt to maintain market share some of the high end builders are not stressing ocean cruising features or incorporating features that may detract from safe ocean cruising. I do have argument with those who feel any certificate tells you how the boat will fare in a mishaps or with aging and hard use. 

I'm not a marine surveyor. I do not know who is the best vendor for a particular component. I do not know "best practices " for multiple aspects of boat construction. I don't know how to critically look at all aspects of a boat to know when something is at risk of failure. Im constantly learning new details to inspect and test. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a professional level knowledge base from the average sailor. I do think it's reasonable to expect this from the NA and builder. 

I've been fully satisfied with Phil Lambert and Outbound. But as you point out you pay a premium for this. Much more do for Swan, Morris or Hinckley. In the past the premium wasn't so steep and there were midrange boats were aimed at long term ocean use. That's the current limit of production boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> Another friend on a stock plastic boat, is *dreaming of the day she has a boat in which it simply doesn't matter if she bumps anything *.


I can pretty much guarantee this has never happened in the history of mankind.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> I believe Smack has heard the point and will tone down the name calling. We'll see.


HAHAHAHAHA!

Minne - I am what I am. My volume only goes to 11...and the knob came off.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> It got really comical when you felt the urge to 'spoonfeed' Mainesail the fine points of boat maintenance. Or, in the "WonderWaterWay Guide beat Active Captain" thread where, based on your skillful reading of your computer display, you told people that they did not know the area where they have been sailing for decades. Of course while you have never been there, within hundreds of miles.
> 
> And I see you added 'whiny' to 'stupid,' 'silly,' and 'chucklehead.' Keep going!


Mast - look, let's be honest, you get so many things so wrong so often that it's exhausting to be your peer. But I'm a really nice guy - so...

I didn't spoonfeed Maine "the fine points of boat maintenance". I had to spoonfeed him on what this current production boat conversation was all about. He was 6 years behind the curve. I didn't want him to embarrass himself. I really like the guy. So I was catching him up.

On the WG humiliates AC thread - you really just need to move on. You were wrong. That's not my fault. And we can still be friends.

Now - do you have ANYTHING to add to this conversation? Or are we going to talk about hurt feelings for freakin' ever? Because this is your last chance.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> Sounds good. I have a clarifying question for you. Would you be willing to take any boat, whatsoever, that had a Cat A rating, across the Atlantic as delivered by the factory? I'll allow that we assume the crew is qualified.
> 
> For purposes of the question, that boat is still Cat A rated, no matter how she's equipped. Off the factory floor, there is NO radio, navigation equipment, etc. Still has a Cat A placard.


I really don't understand why you (and others) feel the need to push everything to the extreme. You're conflating so many things here it just doesn't make any sense.

I see that NC has already given you a very measured response above - and I agree with him.

If you look at the standard and its language, the boat will be designed and built to meet these parameters:

-extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m
-vessels largely self-sufficient.

This encompasses things like the hull, structure, rig, keel, rudder, tankage, etc. And all of that is within limits. Some of those limits are defined - some of them will be the buyers'.

For example, Bob has already pointed out that some of these boats have too little tankage based on what he would design for "extended voyages". And this is likely why you see so many boats with watermakers these days. For me, I would almost definitely add a watermaker if I was going on an extended voyage on a production boat.

Does that mean that the boat with less tankage is suddenly unfit for an "exteneded voyage"? Of course not. I just means that the person will have to find another way to carry extra fuel or water...which is a pain in the butt (see my rail) and will make you think, "Why didn't I call Bob?"

So - the rated boat can do what it says. Then it's up to you to prepare based on how you want to sail it (like NC said).



Minnewaska said:


> The point is, the boat gets the rating, no matter whether it's suitable or not.


You're just flat wrong on this. It's only true in your mind because you're conflating so much. The boat gets the rating when it meets the standard above. Period.



Minnewaska said:


> I'm saying that your faith in the Cat A rating is misguided, as *the ability of the plastic and rigging to stay intact in 34-40 kt winds*, doesn't mean the boat is properly suited suited to cross an ocean.


Sorry - but this is silly (no offense, of course). I'm going assume this is hyperbole and move on.



Minnewaska said:


> Modify her, upgrade her, make her capable, of course you can in many circumstances. But, if these are necessary, what did the Cat A rating mean? *I think little more than the boat is likely to remain floating when exposed to wind the 30s.*


Again, a huge eyeroll at the level of silliness in this statement. I honestly don't even know where to start. If you can't read the rating objectively - and look at the ABUNDANT evidence of those rated boats out there (including your own model) doing far more than this - then there is no hope in trying to have an adult conversation with you.



Minnewaska said:


> Ironically, 4m wave heights, in the proclaimed Beaufort scale, would be consistent with high Force 6 or low Force 7 winds, or approx 30 kts. That's a pretty low bar, don't you think?


Now this is actually a good question. Where should that bar be? I'd honestly like to know. Are you saying that if your boat is rated for F11, you'll happily sail it into an F11 storm? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that.

Additionally, if your logic is sound, why doesn't Oyster or HR or Hinckley or IP seek a higher CE category rating? It would be a tremendous market differentiator for them to be "Class AAA - SuperOcean" rated - wouldn't it? "Our boats can easily handle F11. Bring it on!" It would underline their superior quality. Why don't they do that? Why do they stay in the same class as these lesser production boats that _only remain afloat_ in 30 knots (as you say)? Could it be that it's a silly expectation because NO ONE wants to be caught in an F11? And they'll do everything they possibly can to avoid storms? And no manufacturer wants to (or even can) guarantee that kind of robustness?

You really need to think that one through, Minne.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack
> I consider myself a newbie. If blue water is considered "out of sight of land" I have >10X more experience than you and I consider myself a newbie.


Less than 10X more experience than me? That's a vague range. In any case, I totally understand what you're saying. That's why I have no problem putting up my numbers. And I think I will ALWAYS be a "newbie". There's just too much to learn about everything to assume you've arrived.

What happens when the numbers go up though is that it becomes a wienie ruler to some of these more whiny guys. And that's precisely because they think they've arrived. They think they are experts. And they think they shouldn't be disagreed with. It makes them crazy.

So, as I have with JonE and others, we two have gone round-and-round on many of these issues. And I think we are still on perfectly good terms. And I really think that's because we all _like to learn_ - not just measure wienies.



outbound said:


> It is very different being the captain on your own boat on passage. It is then you have full responsibility for what preparation you've done, the boat you choose and the decisions you make.


Oh I know that. I'm in the thick of it.



outbound said:


> It is here the limits of current mainstream production boats become manifest. Issues that interfer with quality of life become wearing. Do they directly endanger thee crew. No. A poorly done boat will make a passage miserable but the boat will do it. Your basic premise "they are doing it" seems so wrong headed. A passage of over a week is a very different thing then doing long hops down the coast.


This is your view. I am very familiar with it from our long-running discussions. And, as you already know, I just think it's very subjective and somewhat narrow-minded.

On the one hand, you are right TO A DEGREE. On the other, that degree of separation is not NEARLY enough to categorically justify the MANY factors (cost, etc.) of consideration between a new Jeanneau and a new Outbound. The Jeanneau will take me virtually where ever I want to go - very comfortably. The Outbound will add to that a certain degree of comfort and satisfaction - and maybe confidence (tougher, higher quality details, etc.). No doubt. But it's not enough of a difference to warrant the cost - for me. No way.

So I completely understand your view of my view as "wrong headed". I honestly don't think you could see it any other way based on the path you've chosen. But that's _your_ path.



outbound said:


> Because of this I'm very respectful of those with more knowledge ( Bob, Jeff, Maine etc.) or experience such as JonE.


I have great respect for all of those guys. But I also have no problem disagreeing with any of them if I have reason to disagree with them. It's just that if and when I do, I know damn well I better have some evidence to back up my position. Because they'll crush me in a heartbeat if I don't. BUT - most of them will also LISTEN AND CONSIDER what I'm presenting. And if they do crush me - I take it and learn. See, they don't need their pockets pissed in. I really think they appreciate discussion and debate about boats - because that's their passion. THAT'S the difference between them and most goofballs who like to just measure wienies.



outbound said:


> You are never bored. As Ben Franklin said " boredom is a sign of lack of intelligence ". The reality is there are so many chores and things to do it's really hard to be bored. And is so beautiful.
> 
> I think we should cherish being newbies as we should always be gaining new experiences and new wisdom.


I agree with that.



outbound said:


> Ocean Cruising Club considers for them a passage is over 1000 miles. That seems reasonable as it is in a passage of that length or greater that any small weakness in design or construction will have a chance to become manifest. As you say, Smack, time will tell but from the little I know from personally seeing it or being told first hand current boats built to a price point aren't holding up too well after long passages. Multiple posters with more knowledge of and more intimacy to the industry and/or more real life experience are telling you the same.


Well, those posters may be saying things like this - but just as you lay out above...what are they saying. In other words, are they saying things like Minne where Cat A production boats are lucky to be floating in 30 knots? Are they saying that these boats are falling apart after 1000 miles?

If they are saying things like this - I don't care how much knowledge, experience, and intimacy to the industry they may claim to have - it's just ridiculous hyperbole. So, if someone wants to use their knowledge, experience, and intimacy to present valid arguments - I'll listen. But the other stuff is just blather.



outbound said:


> This is the hole. A purpose built boat at reasonable cost for long term cruising.
> 
> I have no argument with you that current price point boats are out there doing it. Nor do I have any argument with those who say in an attempt to maintain market share some of the high end builders are not stressing ocean cruising features or incorporating features that may detract from safe ocean cruising. I do have argument with those who feel any certificate tells you how the boat will fare in a mishaps or with aging and hard use.


As I've said, I think you've nailed it. It's the aging factor that is the most critical component of these conversations. What is the half-life of a new Cat A rated boat? Is it the warranty period plus 2 years? More? If you're replacing brass seacocks after 5 years - is that the line? If you've successfully weathered one F8 - are you done? Or is it 2 or 3 or 5?

It's really a very interesting question to me. And instead of arguing CE versus NMMA - trying to get clarification on THIS would be far more helpful to the boating community. Remember, the NEW buyer typically doesn't care. He's under warranty. It's when these boats his the USED market (which represents the vast majority of members in these forums) that this issue becomes EXTREMELY important.



outbound said:


> I'm not a marine surveyor. I do not know who is the best vendor for a particular component. I do not know "best practices " for multiple aspects of boat construction. I don't know how to critically look at all aspects of a boat to know when something is at risk of failure. Im constantly learning new details to inspect and test. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a professional level knowledge base from the average sailor.


Agreed. That's why the standards are so important - and why Maine's expertise challenge to me was so silly.



outbound said:


> I do think it's reasonable to expect this from the NA and builder.


Agreed. And I would also add the CE rating committees/bodies.



outbound said:


> I've been fully satisfied with Phil Lambert and Outbound. But as you point out you pay a premium for this. Much more do for Swan, Morris or Hinckley. In the past the premium wasn't so steep and there were midrange boats were aimed at long term ocean use. That's the current limit of production boats.


Agreed.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh...


----------



## chall03

Strangely when it comes to experience can it really be said that only inexperienced sailors go offshore in production boats and those who have achieved the mythical number of miles behind them that 'makes' them a real sailor only venture offshore in 'Bluewaterys'?

I don't think so.


----------



## ScottUK

I find these questions on the amount of experience as a crude attempt at marginalisation with the added benefit of inflating their own egos.


----------



## chall03

ScottUK said:


> I find these questions on the amount of experience as a crude attempt at marginalisation with the added benefit of inflating their own egos.


i will show you my miles if you show me mine


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Now - do you have ANYTHING to add to this conversation? Or are we going to talk about hurt feelings for freakin' ever? Because this is your last chance.


"Hurt feelings?" Not quite sure what you are talking about. But thank you for giving me one last chance. (maybe I better mark this as [sarcsm] [\sarcasm] for you?)

Anyway, yes I did contribute something but you choose to ignore it, I suppose you must not like it:

You have what I consider an unhealthy belief in The Government. If some bureaucrat comes up with a rating system for boats, you start talking about 'rated boats' as if they were a class apart. A boat ranked 'Cat A' gets you all aflutter. Nevermind that this is just a marketing ploy essentially devised by the powerful European boat manufacturers. As long as The Government puts its stamp on it, you swallow it. Hook, line and sinker.

Or, in the WWG guide thread, where you were incredulous that someone would take local knowledge into account, while the Holy Government Chart tells you everything you need to know. The unmarked shoal in Worton Creek MD that someone warned about on Active Captain, and on which I ran aground myself just a few days earlier, does not exist because you cannot see it on your screen in Texas.

I am done with wasting my time with this.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> HAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Minne - I am what I am. My volume only goes to 11...and the knob came off.





smackdaddy said:


> ..Sorry - but this is silly (no offense, of course).





> Again, a huge eyeroll at the level of silliness in this statement.





> I honestly don't even know where to start. If you can't read the rating objectively





> ..Could it be that it's a silly expectation


I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but was indeed wrong about that. Keep up your epic callow posting until you get banned. It's going to happen. I will be the first to cheer. Bye, bye.



> ....and look at the ABUNDANT evidence of those rated boats out there (including your own model) doing far more than this - then there is no hope in trying to have an adult conversation with you.


I put this clip last, only because it makes the point that you didn't followed mine. If you read it a few times more and it comes to you, let me know.


----------



## eko_eko

The Titanic was compliant with the lifeboat standards at the time of its sinking:


> Yet the Titanic was fully compliant with all marine laws. The British Board of Trade required all vessels above 10,000 metric tonnes (11,023 U.S. tons) to carry 16 lifeboats. The White Star Line ensured that the Titanic exceeded the requirements by four boats. But the ship was 46,328 tonnes.


I deal with standards all the time. The content of the standard is what it should be judged by, not its titles or headings. I suggest that you consider standards titles as advertising copy. Believe them as you would believe an advertiser's claim.

If you believe that a CE A rating (advertised as Ocean Ready) really does imply ocean readiness, even after the evidence provided in this forum and others, you may be in the market for a nice bridge.

New standards introduced into an existing industry _can_ have a positive improvements on substandard (sorry!) manufacturers. It raises the minimum bar. It also, unfortunately, may reduce the quality of output of the best manufacturers as they have to shift investment from building the best to building the compliant.

The CE rating increased costs by mandating the purchase of a stamp. That money came from somewhere. Did _none_ of it come from other areas of manufacturing that actually increase quality?

Go to the headquarters of the company of your choice and ask the compliance officer if they were building better gear before or after the standard went into effect, if they ever wanted to build something even better but were hampered by the need to comply with a standard.

If you're really interested an willing to read with an open mind, here's more on the negative impacts some standards have had in other industries:
Analyst: PCI Security a Devil, 'Like No Child Left Behind' | CSO Online


----------



## bobperry

This is my "front yard" at high tide during a bit of a blow, nothing too serious. I know a little about "log strewn". There are times when you could almost walk to the other shore log hopping. Or, it looks like you could. I have been coming here for 35 years and I don't recall ever seeing a steel boat sail by. There is a guy with a newer Hunter who sails by very regularly. Lots of my grp boats have cruised Alaska. BS does not know what he is talking about. He has proven that over and over.


----------



## Minnewaska

Is this the same CE marking we're talking about?

CE marking - European Commission



> There are two main benefits CE marking brings to businesses and consumers within the EEA:
> 
> Businesses know that products bearing the CE marking can be traded in the EEA without restrictions.
> 
> Consumers enjoy the same level of health, safety, and environmental protection throughout the entire EEA.





> Please note that a CE marking *does not indicate that a product have been approved as safe* by the EU or by another authority.


----------



## bobperry

This sailor is doing a solo circumnavigation in his Baba 40. That boat was designed and built before anyone heard of CE categories. I have never needed a government agency to tell e how to dseign a good offshore boat. I don't trust government agencies of any kind.

"In the morning as I gazed out upon the rugged seas it was wonderful to see a small pod of black dolphins frolicking in Sailors Run's bow wake; there commotion was putting hundreds of flying fish into flight. I had to wonder does the school of fish suddenly become a flock of fish during those 100 yards of flight.
It makes one wonder if the fish have evolved to flight status, to avoid predators from the deep. What might it be like sailing a million years into the future after the dolphins might have accomplished the same thing, as I know just how much it hurts to be hit by one of those flying fish?
Today was laundry day and it was accomplished by using a bucket and several lines strung up in behind the dodger. This all seemed well and good until a squall sought us out, and pounced upon us. Things were suddenly chaotic in the cockpit as I struggled to roll in the head sail while being slapped in the face with a wet T-shirt.
Later in the morning I peeled the not so good leaves off of 6-cabbages and got them rewrapped in fresh newspaper.
I learned from my Cape Horn trip six years ago to bring lots of cameras along, and they have to be able to endure getting washed down, to capture some of the best footage. I also learned where to burn lots of film and less film, as a result this video will have considerably less "nude shots".
The shower experience at sea entails taking the planned every third day shower and the many unplanned showers that materialize either salty from the sea or fresh and cold from the sky above, all just part of the sailing experience.
Day-11
We are now just south of Lima Peru and over 1200 miles off shore of South America. Out here a long ways from help you are forced to balance the forces of nature and the desire to go further faster. You might think 7-9kts. is not that fast, but when you are heeled over 20 plus degrees and the water is raging along the side of the boats hull and then you are suddenly struck broad side by a very steep 9-foot wave that explodes into one of those unexpected "showers, you suddenly feel "extremely alive", and pray that things stay that way.
So far we are sailing great with good speed as I attempt to nearly circumnavigate the South Pacific High, using it much like a giant pinwheel to sling shot us into the "Roaring Forty's". The transition from the winds on the outside of the high to the "Westerly Winds" in the Southern Ocean is one of the key parts to me having a fast Circumnavigation. "Let's see how this works out"???
Two days ago I found out I'm not solo on this voyage as it seems I have a stow away."What"!!
Yes the cockroach must have got on in Ecuador and of course the question is there only one, or maybe now none as that one met a horrible end to his life. Now I'm not sure but should there be more I have taken special precautions, placed poison everywhere except in the fresh produce, and I'm "packing" a can of Raid where ever I go. Oh yea and I placed a huge tarantula looking rubber spider left over from Halloween by my birth in hopes to "scare" them away. I just hate waking up to the feeling of a big cockroach crawling across my face, as I usually give myself a bloody nose and the thing disappears before I can get a light on.
Day-12
Yesterday I seen a ship on the A.I.S. its closet point of approach was 31NM. And that is the first one I have seen since the encounter with the fishing boat at night a week ago.
I think I have narrowed down the problem with the wind generator. I was out in the cockpit adjusting the wind vain steering and got the wind coming in over the stern and while looking at the wind hawk at the top of the mast I noticed the wind generator facing aft and thought what the hell lets turn it on and see what happens, much to my surprise it started generating properly. Now it seems almost for certain the problem is dirty slip rings in the unit that I will clean once the seas lay down. Even if I never get up there the thing should work in much of the southern Ocean.
I have struggled a bit trying to get my head around this great adventure. The planning took a year and a half and for over 5-months I had not sailed before embarking on this voyage. Once at Sea it all felt somewhat overwhelming for the first week, and my sailing skills rusty and my movements methodically thought out and revalued continually. Now I'm happy to say that things just come to me naturally once again and Sailors Run and I are one with "nature". The one thing that will never be right until I return is the yearning to once again hold Debbie in my arms."
"Ripping across the South Pacific", the Jefe'


----------



## blt2ski

I need electronics to sail across an ocean......hmmmm......better not tell Columbus among others that! So yes, A boat that is built to Cat A min stds, "SHOULD" be able to be sailed across an ocean as equiped from the factory. A smackers points out, as shown in the thread for the X group THEIR open ocean rated boats, which do HAVE higher stds, such as fuel, water etc stds. So get on of those boats. No different than the IRC/PHRF or equal open ocean race standards. Slightly different than CE, maybe better in some cases, ie solas vs non solas flares etc required vs say USCG requirements. 

One has to upgrade where they feel they need to. Others may do minimums. Robin Lee Graham seemed to do just fine generally speaking with a mid 60's 1/4 ton sail boat of 24' OA in length for much of his voyage. Not saying it was the best choice. Not saying it was the worst either. 

As noted, for us that have to deal with standards, and or specs to build too, we have have to know if we need to upgrade, go beyond, or equal to the base spec depending upon the end user. I have some of the same issue many of you have with a new SAE tow rating for pickups. It is not hard enough per say, Hence why I have burned up many a transmission in the past towing things where I thought it was normal, but the min spec is half as steep as I travel up roads etc loaded to the spec they quote. So I fry trannies, there is no other part that says how to reduce the load towed if you are traveling up steeper grades etc. While it is a std, it is not to MY useage specs. 

CE is nothing more than this, minimum specs, if you want a higher spec, you need to find a manufacture that goes higher, or buy a used boat, maybe out of a Moorings/Sunsail fleet, bring home and upgrade the bajeesus. Or maybe a Varanta, which is the last version of a Hanse, stripped interior, CHEEP $$$ wise, I can get a 44' on here to the NW US for around $200K, including shipping.....I still have plenty of difference to upgrade parts as needed, tear out interior put in a MUCH nicer one. And have a good sailing boat. 

More than one way to skin a cat in anything if one puts there mind to it!

marty

Marty


----------



## NCC320

Minnewaska,

It seems to me that there is a perception that J B H C boats are somehow inferior and substandard. True, they are not built to the same fine detail and appearance that some other boats are and may not be as rugged in construction as selected other brands. In these threads, this idea is promoted most often by people having older versions of "high quality, better built boats", or often just older boats of different brands that they have spend lots of time and money rehabilitating so they are now "blue water capable", or a second group who have the financial means to own one of the finer/better built brands that come with a price often double or more vs. J B H C boats. I suspect that the first group sometimes take this position to justify to themselves that they did the right thing by spending lots on an old boat. The second group sometimes seem to be gloating over their good fortune to have a better boat and want to just put down those with a less expensive boat. I, for one, believe that the J B H C boats are better than these people would have us believe. I say that from having owned one. My boat, at 32 ft., was relatively small. However, it did carry the CE A rating. But your boat, a Jenneau 54, if I recall correctly is on the high end of the J B H B boats, is definitely CE A, and you have many miles and years of experience. If you don't mind, will you talk a little about your boat and your experience with it. How has your experience been with it in open ocean passage? If you modified it in some way for blue water, how? In your opinion, are they up to extended open sea passages and why or why not? Have you had significant equipment failures that related to the boat itself and not to some added vendor equipment. How has your experience been with the boat in bad weather? In general, please brief us on your experience with your boat on the issues that we have been discussing on this thread. People talk about those with experience as being best qualified to judge boats, but many on the forum are doing the judging with experience on other boats. You actually own one and are experienced, so I'd tend to put lots of faith in what you have to say about your experience with a top end version of these boats. And lastly, I guess the age of your boat should perhaps been mentioned. Thanks.


----------



## davidpm

Jeff_H said:


> But if properly maintained, and in decent shape, 'shaking to death' does not sound like the correct pathology.
> 
> Jeff


You are probably right.

It does bring up a good question, though. How much wear does extended bad conditions put on a boat?

Let's say a boat like the Bene above lays ahull for several days in serious weather and experienced several near knockdowns. It doesn't capsize or take on significant water. What would you expect to find after inspection in these two scenarios:

Would the rig be sufficiently stressed that it was no longer safe and most stuff should just be replaced as a matter of course or would a normal inspection be OK?

1. Rig was properly tuned.

2. Rig was loose but nothing was so bad that anything failed.

There are many boats that have lost their crew that sail themselves to distant shores, but you always wonder how much life they had left in them. Everything breaks eventually.


----------



## aeventyr60

chall03 said:


> i will show you my miles if you show me mine


Let's just say my wiene is bigger then yours...


----------



## aeventyr60

chall03 said:


> i will show you my miles if you show me mine


Let's just say my wiene is bigger then yours...


----------



## bobperry

"More than one way to skin a cat in anything if one puts there mind to it!"

Marty, I have been trying to say that over and over for weeks. But I'm afraid it does not make for good conversation.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> "Hurt feelings?" Not quite sure what you are talking about. But thank you for giving me one last chance. (maybe I better mark this as [sarcsm] [\sarcasm] for you?)
> 
> Anyway, yes I did contribute something but you choose to ignore it, I suppose you must not like it:
> 
> You have what I consider an unhealthy belief in The Government. If some bureaucrat comes up with a rating system for boats, you start talking about 'rated boats' as if they were a class apart. A boat ranked 'Cat A' gets you all aflutter. Nevermind that this is just a marketing ploy essentially devised by the powerful European boat manufacturers. As long as The Government puts its stamp on it, you swallow it. Hook, line and sinker.
> 
> Or, in the WWG guide thread, where you were incredulous that someone would take local knowledge into account, while the Holy Government Chart tells you everything you need to know. The unmarked shoal in Worton Creek MD that someone warned about on Active Captain, and on which I ran aground myself just a few days earlier, does not exist because you cannot see it on your screen in Texas.
> 
> I am done with wasting my time with this.


Okay, so let me get this straight. You start calling for my miles to try to show I've never _really_ been sailing but instead only sitting in front of my computer screen in Texas.

Then you pull out your elementary school ruler and start loudly measuring your offshore wienie at more than 10K miles over 45 years. Harumph!

Then then you bring up this beauty from another thread...



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> As recently as last Sunday I ran aground on a shoal unmarked on the NOAA charts, just south of G3 in Worton Creek. Chart says 8', I touched the bottom with my 4'6" draft. I know this area pretty well but the last couple times I have stayed in the outside anchorage so it has been a couple years since I went inside the Creek. Turns out it has shoaled in, way more than is shown on the charts.
> 
> You may want to actually try some sailing, rather than just keyboard cruising, and believing everything the pixels tell you. Blindly trusting the 'freakin CHARTS' is what is "really, really dangerous."


Now, with 45 years and 10K offshore miles, not only do you run aground south of G3 in an area CLEARLY marked on the charts with "Shoal rep"...










You boast about how the AC app lets you know that there is indeed shoaling just like it says on the charts, even though that marker is WEST of G3 and talking about the entrance to the creek to the southeast at G5 (again as already shown on the chart).

Being surprised that you've run aground in an area clearly marked by the evil Government as sketchy and instead relying on some chucklehead's AC marker that's in the wrong place _while running aground_? This is what decades of sailing wisdom and prowess leads to?

Nice.

On the running aground thing, it happens. Even to legendary 5-digit offshoremen like yourself...obviously. But you can avoid a lot of it if you just pay attention to navigational charts and not rely on apps to do it for you. On the government thing, take it to PRWG.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> This sailor is doing a solo circumnavigation in his Baba 40. That boat was designed and built before anyone heard of CE categories. I have never needed a government agency to tell e how to dseign a good offshore boat. I don't trust government agencies of any kind.


The proof for your boats is all over the world's oceans. They are clearly their own standard and need no help from anyone. So no argument there.

As for mass production boats (BeneJenneHunterBavaLinas), I think the CE categorization is helpful in setting a commonly understood bar...but again, the proof, as always, is out there on the ocean. Designers and builders who sell boats that commonly fail offshore - categorized or no - go down with those boats...government or no government.


----------



## RobGallagher

Once again and predictably, Smack is wrong.

If Smack had not been banned from AC, he could have read:

"There is shoaling on the northeast side of the channel extending out further than previous years."

And

"give the day marks plenty of room. On 5/12/14 i noticed shoaling on the left side of the channel (northeast side) extending further out than last year. The bar between the channel and Tims Creek is now solid and built up more than reflected on the charts..."


Anyway,

The bulk of the iceberg is marketing. Sales departments love brochures that say the next boat is built to xyz specs and weighs this much or draws that much. I think if you asked most designers who work for production builders they might tell you that the marketing department is a big thorn in their side.

'That's a lovely design, we'd love to sell it, can you just tweak it a bit so we can market it as on offshore racer/cruiser with a shoal draft and a tall rig that is short enough to sell at the boat shows to blue water sailors who want to stay in the intercostal? Now just widens that ass but keep those classic lines, a plumb bow is definitely in fashion this year, lengthen it and add a third head, our numbers say that's what the demographic is leaning towards this week but we need to keep it under 37 ft as the latest polls say that's the best length for a cruising couple with a cat.


----------



## bobperry

Smack:
I see no harm in the CE requirements at all. There are some good ideas there. I'm just not ready to equate CE certification with a "quality build". I see them as two distinct elements. I have done several designs to CE certification.


----------



## smackdaddy

RobGallagher said:


> Once again and predictably, Smack is wrong.
> 
> If Smack had not been banned from AC, he could have read:
> 
> "There is shoaling on the northeast side of the channel extending out further than previous years."
> 
> And
> 
> "give the day marks plenty of room. On 5/12/14 i noticed shoaling on the left side of the channel (northeast side) extending further out than last year. The bar between the channel and Tims Creek is now solid and built up more than reflected on the charts..."


Siiiiiggggghh. For a guy who is so hysterical about being right - you sure are wrong a lot.

First, as we've discussed over and over and over - I wasn't "banned" from AC. I told the owner to close my account after witnessing his outrageous behavior here on SN in publicizing very personal information about a member here. Demanding that an organization close your account doesn't not equate to being "banned" - at least not for those who are being honest about things. Surely even you can see the difference, Rob?

Second, compare what you see above for that marker with what Mast himself told me it contained several weeks ago:



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I just checked and, sure enough, there is an entry in AC reporting that hazard *("The bar between the channel and Tims Creek is now solid and built up more than reflected on the charts")*.


Is it my fault he wasn't posting the whole truth and nothing but the truth - for whatever reason? That mistake of _his_ doesn't make _me_ "wrong". But it was a nice try.

Regardless, the charts already make it very clear that shoaling is a problem in that area. And even despite that vaunted AC marker with the incredibly confusing information in it, a seasoned off-shore veteran ran his boat right into the muck. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.



RobGallagher said:


> Anyway,
> 
> The bulk of the iceberg is marketing. Sales departments love brochures that say the next boat is built to xyz specs and weighs this much or draws that much. I think if you asked most designers who work for production builders they might tell you that the marketing department is a big thorn in their side.
> 
> 'That's a lovely design, we'd love to sell it, can you just tweak it a bit so we can market it as on offshore racer/cruiser with a shoal draft and a tall rig that is short enough to sell at the boat shows to blue water sailors who want to stay in the intercostal? Now just widens that ass but keep those classic lines, a plumb bow is definitely in fashion this year, lengthen it and add a third head, our numbers say that's what the demographic is leaning towards this week but we need to keep it under 37 ft as the latest polls say that's the best length for a cruising couple with a cat.


Yes, you're right. Marketing and sales are important in pretty much every industry. And there is always tension between designers/engineers and marketing/sales. Those who find that balance are usually very successful.


----------



## hasher

smackdaddy said:


> Less than 10X more experience than me? That's a vague range.


Greater Than and Less Than Symbols

Date: 05/30/2000 at 09:25:07
From: Angelo Gagliano
Subject: Greater/Less Than

I am assisting my Middle School Son with his Math Homework.

His teacher claims that '> 25' represents greater than 25. I was 
taught that it meant less than. The number that the angle points to 
was always less than and the wide angle was greater than... perhaps 
his teacher erred?

Can you help?

Thank you.

Date: 05/30/2000 at 11:27:03
From: Doctor TWE
Subject: Re: Greater/Less Than

Hi Angelo - thanks for writing to Dr. Math.

No, the teacher is correct, > 25 would be read as "greater than 25." 
You are right, too, when you say "the number that the angle points to 
was always less than and the wide angle was greater than..." In your 
example, the angle 'points to' the 25, so the 25 is less than 
whatever, or in other words, whatever is greater than 25.

Perhaps it would help if we put a number or a variable in front of the 
greater than sign: 50 > 25. Now we can see that the wide angle is 
facing the 50, the larger number.

There's a mnemonic (memory aid) for remembering which way the symbol 
goes. Perhaps your rule is based on this or some variation. The way I 
learned it (with appropriate illustration) was that an alligator - 
which is notoriously hungry - always wants to eat the larger number. 
The symbol, < or > , represents its mouth, with the wide end being the 
open jaw. The alligator should always face the larger number. I guess 
you can modernize it and simplify the drawing by calling it a hungry 
Pac-Man instead.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Smack:
> I see no harm in the CE requirements at all. There are some good ideas there. I'm just not ready to equate CE certification with a "quality build". I see them as two distinct elements. I have done several designs to CE certification.


And again, I TOTALLY agree with you. I've not made that claim - though many have tried to put those words in my mouth.

The weird twist in these debates is that the BWC say that despite the certification, these mass production boats _are generally not fit to be offshore_. In other words, these boats don't even have _that_ level of quality/reliability - _despite_ the certification (see Minne's descriptions above). This was the reason for the "limits" part of this thread. I wanted to know what production boats, if any, the BWC deemed worthy of being out there.

Conversely, they try to argue that when I (or anyone else) say that these certified boats DO meet a minimum standard of quality/reliability to, in fact, be offshore in blue water - I'm somehow suddenly claiming that their level of quality is just as good as a high-end boat.

Neither of these arguments hold water. And, as I say, the evidence is out there sailing on the world's oceans.

Yes, these Cat A mass production boats are fit for blue water cruising within the limits stated. And yes these Cat A mass production boats are built to a level of quality and price point that is generally lower than a high end boat. But lots of guys just can't let these two things stand. It doesn't fit their view of the world - one which I think NC did a great job of describing above.

So, when someone points out a feature or a problem on these "unworthy" production boats that seems to "prove" they are not fit to be offshore, I can typically find a very similar feature on the vaunted blue water brands (e.g. - liners in IPs, the Hinckley 50 hull design, modular furniture, split rudders or keels on an Oyster, fold-down cleats, blisters, whatever). In doing so, I'm NEVER saying that a Hunter equals a Hinckley in terms of quality. I am saying that even these high end boats seem to be adopting features the BWC don't think are worthy of blue water and that ALL boats, regardless of brand, experience problems over time.


----------



## smackdaddy

hasher said:


> ...whatever is greater than 25...


Well that certainly cleared that up. I'm now up to my ass in some vague number of alligators and PacMen.


----------



## RobGallagher

smackdaddy said:


> First, as we've discussed over and over and over - I wasn't "banned" from AC.


How you managed to get your posting abilities banned does not matter. You may not post there. You did not decide to make that happen. Maybe you asked, but we are all pretty sure that you don't have administrative access to accounts on Active Captain, so you could not have banned yourself. You might have talked yourself into believing it's possible, but it ain't.

Anyway, you continue to post your opinions on a web application that you cannot access. You do this because of some personal problem with the owner. Flogging a good product because you don't like the owner is a waste of everyone's time. I will continue to call you out on it when it suits my fancy.

Your words concerning Active Captain or worthless. You might as well post a review of your test flight on Russia's latest attack helicopter. You can't access that either.


----------



## smackdaddy

RobGallagher said:


> How you managed to get your posting abilities banned does not matter. You may not post there. You did not decide to make that happen. Maybe you asked, but we are all pretty sure that you don't have administrative access to accounts on Active Captain, so you could not have banned yourself. You might have talked yourself into believing it's possible, but it ain't.
> 
> Anyway, you continue to post your opinions on a web application that you cannot access. You do this because of some personal problem with the owner. Flogging a good product because you don't like the owner is a waste of everyone's time. I will continue to call you out on it when it suits my fancy.
> 
> Your words concerning Active Captain or worthless. You might as well post a review of your test flight on Russia's latest attack helicopter. You can't access that either.


Wow.


----------



## Shockwave

Any boat with a Cat A cert is safe for any and all blue water sailing when said sailing is at a keyboard.

Carry on...


----------



## Don L

Shockwave said:


> Any boat with a Cat A cert is safe for any and all blue water sailing when said sailing is at a keyboard.
> 
> Carry on...


I think this probably is especially true for posters that don't appear to even read posts because they are so sure they already know the answer or they aren't ever going to agree with anything other than their already predetermined view. In my opinion based on your insightful post above you are in this category.


----------



## Minnewaska

I'm happy to take a cack at your questions, if you are sincere in caring about the answers.

For starters, read my posts above. I've not taken the Democrats vs. Republicans, all one way or the other, position. Even farther back, I pointed out that my Jeanneau does have cleats with backing plates and I find places in my dual helm open cockpit to wedge in during watches. I've not said they are all unsuitable.

However, I do not agree that CE Cat A means anything other than a European manufacturing standard. Unless I'm mistaken with the link I posted a few back, neither do they!

It seems the acrimony that Smack likes to foster has caused everyone to line up on one side of the isle or another. I'm pretty independent on this one.

My electronics example was not to suggest they are required to cross an ocean. That's a typical D vs. R argument. Twist the meaning. I was pointing out the CE Cat A standard made no effort to pass judgement on whether boats are suitable to cross oceans, just whether they were built to some minimum standard that could handle their define conditions, i.e. Extended time above force 8 (how far above exactly?). Even the term "extended" isn't defined. Is that a few nights or a month? Makes a big difference in suitability, IMO.



NCC320 said:


> Minnewaska,
> 
> .....But your boat, a Jenneau 54, if I recall correctly is on the high end of the J B H B boats, is definitely CE A, and you have many miles and years of experience......


I've never criticized a Jeanneau, by saying she can never make a blue water passage, and certainly don't know what a high end one is vs another. They make two models larger than mine, but I assume your not simply talking about LOA.



> If you don't mind, will you talk a little about your boat and your experience with it. How has your experience been with it in open ocean passage? If you modified it in some way for blue water, how? In your opinion, are they up to extended open sea passages and why or why not? Have you had significant equipment failures that related to the boat itself and not to some added vendor equipment. How has your experience been with the boat in bad weather?


I hope I catch them all, but here goes.

First, we love our boat. It does what we need it to do, 90% of the time. I plan to cross her to Bermuda in '17, but would never consider her appropriate to cross direct to Europe. That's my point on Cat A, it doesn't distinguish.

Of the 10,000 miles on her, I can't know how many were in the Bay vs Outside, but it has to be 9 to 1. Just no where to go to rack up miles in the Bay. On virtually all of it, I have only one other sailing mate aboard, despite the number of bodies along. More often than not, I'm technically single handing, with a ton of spectators.

We've sailed her all over the East Coast, many overnights, usually at anchor regardless of where we are. She's fast and reasonably stable upwind, but can be squirrelly downwind (ocean crossing is usually done downwind). She will pound terribly in the wrong conditions and I've had to alter course more than once, off the rumb line, to calm it down. This issue gives me concern offshore. When coastal, I can decide not to go or duck in somewhere.

I can theoretically sit 12 in our cockpit (at anchor). The point being, the cockpit is not a super tight place, with everything easily at hand. All lines are lead to the cockpit, sans the boom topping lift. I can jam myself in at either helm, but it takes some leg effort. Hard to describe in writing. The next best place is up by the companionway (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Very comfortable, with the main sheet at hand. But, of course, the foresail sheet and helm are now 6-8 ft away. The cockpit is not impossible, but far from well suited to difficult conditions.

The major mod I have is a removable inner forestay, to carry a stormsail. There are other configurations this could be useful for too.

As for failures, the most worrisome is the salon cabin windows, above the side decks. They have leaked and are only held on by glue. Very poor design for "ocean" passages, IMO. We've frequently taken waves into the front one. The iron keel is the latest PITA. Long story. From the factory, she was hung wrong (but the CE Cat A placard is straight and shiny). It's not death defying, but has been very hard to tune the rig, as a result. I have to drop it to fix. Another that comes to mind was hitting something submerged (we never saw what it was) and taking 2" out of the front of the spade rudder, about 2-3ft below the waterline. A protected rudder is far superior offshore. I was able to haul and repair, but wonder what would have happened, if I still needed a few days to make landfall. The Volvo diesel has had many failures, although, only one where I couldn't limp back. While not my boat, I have a buddy with the same make/model and year. He's taken her direct to the Caribbean and back several times. It can be done. However, her doors don't close properly anymore (pretty sure her Cat A placard didn't fall off). We both have about the same total miles, mine still closes perfectly.

I believe you can pick a 5 (maybe 7?) day weather window and that's the ocean conditions I'm comfortable in with this boat. Beyond that, I don't think she's the right hull to "take whatever you get", which is the necessary mentality for anything further. Worst we've seen aboard her (not nearly the worst of my lifetime) has been 40 kts and 10 ft seas. These were ironically not at the same time. She held up okay in both, but you're holding on for dear life. If the deck is being tossed around, like she was in the heavy seas, that gets tiring fast, because you have no choice but to move around the large cockpit eventually.

My bottom line is she is a first rate coastal cruiser. She can make ocean passages and she has, but they need to be well controlled and limited. A few days, but not a month. CE Cat A may only mean she's okay for a 2 day trip. How would we know?



> You actually own one and are experienced, so I'd tend to put lots of faith in what you have to say about your experience with a top end version of these boats. And lastly, I guess the age of your boat should perhaps been mentioned.


We'll see if others agree. She an '04, they only made them from '04 to '08.


----------



## Minnewaska

Back to regular programming. I see that posting some facts in 3808 is going ignored. Must be blowing Smack's mind, or he's spending his day at his keyboard, like I planned.


----------



## Brent Swain

Ninefingers said:


> Yes, the older boat has stronger bones, but the newer has bigger volume.


True, but you can buy a bigger, older boat and refit it, for far less money than a smaller, newer boat.


----------



## blt2ski

Smack, 
You forgot to add in the skinned cats and everything else. So you are in worst shape than you thought....

Marty


----------



## Brent Swain

Classic30 said:


> I think the point is: A new boat, completely optioned out, has a fixed, declared, price tag and a fixed warranty period to cover anything that goes astray; an older boat - even one "completely refitted" - can still produce some expensive after-sales surprises (some even more than the cost of the boat itself!) with no warranty whatsoever to fall back on.


The trick for ocean cruising is learn how to do your own work ,instead of paying others,and becoming totally dependent on others. That drastically reduces any cost of changes or repairs. You wont find a repairman at Fanning Island or Trutch Island.


----------



## NCC320

Minnewaska said:


> Is this the same CE marking we're talking about?
> 
> CE marking - European Commission


It seems to me that they are doing double speak here. In the first quote they say that the standard will yield the same level of safety from place to place. Then, in the last quote, they deny that there is any inference of safety due to something carrying the mark. (For clarity, look at post 3808). Looks like lawyers here. The governing body that implements and imposes the CE standards apparently doesn't want to get sued either. The Europeans aren't the only governmental bodies doing that....take a look at some of the OSHA, building codes, and NEC. They make requirements and then deny responsibility for safety issues arising when the standards are met. This kind of stuff is usually in the forward part of the documents.


----------



## Brent Swain

Jeff_H said:


> Er, Brent, Almost by definition there is no such thing as "a very high tech Morgan design" or "a very high tech" anything that would be "cheap". Charlie Morgan did a lot of things well, but he did not do "very high tech".
> 
> You and I have had this discussion a number of times. Whether a boat has a plumb bow or not does not automatically impact the amount of reserve buoyancy that a boat has. Reserve buoyancy comes in the form of volume above the waterline. Reserve buoyancy can be obtained by flaring the topsides or having flam no matter what the bow profile looks like.
> 
> Jeff


The boat in question looks far more like a copy of high tech than older more traditional designs ,by a wide margin.

Topsides fairing into a bit of overhang with a curved stem, have far more reserve buoyancy than topsides fairing into a plumb straight stem, unless there is a huge bulge in the topsides behind the plumb bow , something I have never seen on a plumb bow.


----------



## bobperry

Brent would not know "high tech" if he stepped in it. He simply has zero experience with it. Just look at his boats. They were "low tech" in 1964.


----------



## Brent Swain

WharfRat said:


> Unless you can provide proof, this is quite likely incorrect.
> 
> Among other things, "log strewn" waters exist all over the globe, including the Southeastern U.S. (the Cape Fear basin near Wilmington NC) and the northern section of the Chesapeake. That's to say nothing of the Amazon mouth and such.
> 
> If what you say is true, then the Baltic and North Sea recreational sailing fleets would be rife with steel sailboats, but they are not. There are some aluminum sailboats, and the vast majority of the remainder there are GRP.
> 
> I for one have been to Valdez, Alaska (twice, even), the northernmost ice-free port in North America. Sure there were plenty of metal boats there, but those were all of the larger, commercial, and motor variety. Among the _recreational_ boats there, both motor and sail, none were steel, at any length. Perhaps other members have also been there, and can confirm or deny this.
> 
> I'm not expecting to change your mind, Mr. Swain. You only see what you want to see. So, go on believing whatever it is you want to believe. Just don't expect the same of everyone else.


As I pointed out , friends looking for a steel boat found them rare, until they moved closer to Washington, BC and Alaska. Yes, for 90% of boat owners, who need only fair weather sailing marina queens, for weekends and 2 week summer cruises, plastic is adequate, and plentiful, whether they be Alaskan marina queens, Swedish marina queens, or east coast marina queens.


----------



## NCC320

Minnewaska,

Thanks for posting your experience with Jeanneau 54DS. Another owner may have a different set of concerns and thoughts, as each boat, and each owner may have a different experience upon which to base the concerns and thoughts. And very significant, maybe most important of all, you, like me, really like your boat after a relatively long period of ownership. There will always be some problems, and people can focus on those to try to detract from a brand, but the overall assessment, good and bad considered, is that you like the boat very much. As I said before, input from an actual owner far outweighs the input of a non owner. 

I, for one, am very glad that the J B H C boat manufacturers put out the products they do. If not, I and many others would never have had the opportunity to enjoy sailing at the level that we did..


----------



## bobperry

I just don't see any steel boats except at the dock, rusting away and looking pitiful. When we have our all live aboard "Sail the house" regatta for the last two years there has not been one single steel boat. I think that train has gone done left the station BS. All that's left is you standing on the landing with a WTF look on your face.


----------



## WharfRat

Brent Swain said:


> As I pointed out , friends looking for a steel boat found them rare, until they moved closer to Washington, BC and Alaska. Yes, for 90% of boat owners, who need only fair weather sailing marina queens, for weekends and 2 week summer cruises, plastic is adequate, and plentiful, whether they be Alaskan marina queens, Swedish marina queens, or east coast marina queens.


I have seen _zero_ steel sailboats in Alaska. Can you provide _any_ evidence whatsoever that steel sailboats are common or plentiful _anywhere_ other than your own head ?

There are plenty of GRP boats that get ridden hard and often. Just because a boat doesn't look like a garbage scow does not mean it is condemned to be tied up 360 days a year.

And why are you the only person on the entire planet who has "friends" looking for a steel sailboat?


----------



## bobperry

Ratty: That is a very funny post.
I'm afraid that most of BS's world exists only in his head.


----------



## Brent Swain

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> A very good analysis. I entirely agree that Smackdaddy has potential and it is a real shame that he wastes it in such a non-productive (and annoying) way. He really could contribute something valuable here if he could get over his antics.


 I have received many personal emails, and very valid and relevant questions from people who don't want to pose their questions here ,to avoid the automatic ,childish jeering and ridicule from Smack, questions which are of interest to many, and which could add greatly to this site. It is obvious that Smacks childish jeering and ridicule continue to cost this site and those who come here for information, a lot ,and seriously undermine the usefulness of this site, due to his sabotage. He costs this site a lot of good input and info, from some very experienced cruisers and builders, with a lot to give. It would be lot better site without Smack's sabotage .


----------



## bobperry

"I have received many personal emails, and very valid and relevant questions from people who don't want to pose their questions here ,to avoid the automatic ,childish jeering and ridicule from Smack"

I feel left out.


----------



## Classic30

NCC320 said:


> I, for one, am very glad that the J B H C boat manufacturers put out the products they do. If not, I and many others would never have had the opportunity to enjoy sailing at the level that we did..


I'm sorry to tell you this, but that's complete rubbish.

For starters, there are far more and far better plastic-boat manufacturers than J, B, H & C.. but there are also a myriad of other yachts of different types and styles that allow anyone, whatever their age, ability and circumstances, to enjoy sailing at whatever level they like without resorting to the likes of those.. and it's been that way for at least the last 100 years.


----------



## Don L

Classic30 said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this, but that's complete rubbish.
> 
> For starters, there are far more and far better plastic-boat manufacturers than J, B, H & C.. but there are also a myriad of other yachts of different types and styles that allow anyone to enjoy sailing at whatever level they like without resorting to the likes of those.. and it's been that way for at least the last 100 years.


and that's just snob rubbish


----------



## Classic30

bobperry said:


> "I have received many personal emails, and very valid and relevant questions from people who don't want to pose their questions here ,to avoid the automatic ,childish jeering and ridicule from Smack"
> 
> I feel left out.


Bwahahaha!!! That's brilliant, Bob. :grin


----------



## RobGallagher

smackdaddy said:


> Wow.


Wow. Explain how you compare and contrast a product you don't have access to.


----------



## Classic30

Don0190 said:


> and that's just snob rubbish


You MUST be joking. The biggest snobs I've ever come across sail exclusively on Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Hunters and Catalinas.. Everyone else makes sure they take time out at least once in a while to sail on something else, just to keep some perspective.


----------



## Brent Swain

Classic30 said:


> Bwahahaha!!! That's brilliant, Bob. :grin


They also avoid (gratuitous personal attack removed) Jeff_h Sailnet moderator


----------



## XSrcing

Between me, my friend who works the boat yard, and the several live-aboards I know we're talking at the bar again and out of all of us we only knew of one steel boat in Squalicum Harbor. I posted a video in the Big Freaking Sails thread and I don't think you will see a single steel boat in the race. 

So no steel boats here in Bellingham.


----------



## Don L

Classic30 said:


> You MUST be joking. The biggest snobs I've ever come across sail exclusively on Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Hunters and Catalinas.. Everyone else makes sure they take time out at least once in a while to sail on something else, just to keep some perspective.


That's just extra rubbish (be sure to use more capital words next time to ensure you are being correct).


----------



## Brent Swain

Classic30 said:


> You MUST be joking. The biggest snobs I've ever come across sail exclusively on Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Hunters and Catalinas.. Everyone else makes sure they take time out at least once in a while to sail on something else, just to keep some perspective.


Well said ! Right on!


----------



## WharfRat

XSrcing said:


> Between me, my friend who works the boat yard, and the several live-aboards I know we're talking at the bar again and out of all of us we only knew of one steel boat in Squalicum Harbor. I posted a video in the Big Freaking Sails thread and I don't think you will see a single steel boat in the race.
> 
> So no steel boats here in Bellingham.


Ah, excellent! _That's_ the way to do research.

I'd buy you gents the next round if only I were there.

And if there is one steel sailboat in Squalicum Harbor, then I concede to Mr. Swain that steel sailboats are more numerous there than elsewhere.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> "I have received many personal emails, and very valid and relevant questions from people who don't want to pose their questions here ,to avoid the automatic ,childish jeering and ridicule from Smack"
> 
> I feel left out.


Bask in my glory, Bob. Heh-heh.


----------



## Minnewaska

NCC320 said:


> It seems to me that they are doing double speak here. In the first quote they say that the standard will yield the same level of safety from place to place. Then, in the last quote, they deny that there is any inference of safety due to something carrying the mark. (For clarity, look at post 3808). Looks like lawyers here. The governing body that implements and imposes the CE standards apparently doesn't want to get sued either. The Europeans aren't the only governmental bodies doing that....take a look at some of the OSHA, building codes, and NEC. They make requirements and then deny responsibility for safety issues arising when the standards are met. This kind of stuff is usually in the forward part of the documents.


Read it very carefully and you'll see the point I've been trying to make.

This is my point......... It assures the "same level of safety", although, makes no promises on what that level is and does not "indicate it is approved as safe"

That means they all meet a defined manufacturing "level", but that standard does not mean it is necessarily "safe".

Therefore, you can't rely upon the placard to know the boat is suitable for a month long Trans Pac. It might be. It might not. The only assumption I can make is that some governments agreed that a Cat A could survive some undefined level of wind above 30 kts and waves of 13 ft, for some undefined period of time. That tells me nothing about ocean crossing suitability. It's not intended to, it's only intended as a common manufacturing and trading standard.


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> Well said ! Right on!


Well that ought to make you feel good Cam. Not everyone gets that kind of endorsement.


----------



## Bleemus

I remember fondly a steel boat that was cruising the world. It was a Frenchman in a little homemade bugger in the lagoon in Rangiroa. He grew tomatoes in his main cabin. The thing was so rusted it was hard to tell what the original color was. He had no money and no water and very little food left. We invited him to tie up to our GRP boat and with two water makers pumping 60 gallons an hour we quickly filled him up, gave him a bunch of food and some old halyards to use as dock lines as his were worn out. Gotta help those poor buggers on those steel boats. Feels good. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> Well that ought to make you feel good Cam. Not everyone gets that kind of endorsement.


Hey I don't mind, Smacky. You can't argue with the truth... :wink :grin


----------



## NCC320

Classic30 said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this, but that's complete rubbish.
> 
> For starters, there are far more and far better plastic-boat manufacturers than J, B, H & C.. but there are also a myriad of other yachts of different types and styles that allow anyone, whatever their age, ability and circumstances, to enjoy sailing at whatever level they like without resorting to the likes of those.. and it's been that way for at least the last 100 years.


Actually, it's truth. I agree that there are other manufacturers who build and price at essentially J, B, H, C levels. I'd tend to put Bravaria in that class and I don't exclude those others, it's just that it adds nothing more to try to list them. And I agree that there are many manufacturers that make a better product, although, of necessity, those are priced much higher. But one typically comes with a certain amount of money to devote to the boat, and given most are not going to be crossing oceans or doing other extreme things, J B H C class of boats gives us more in size, comfort, fun for the money...at least that's what I believe. Now, if money were not an issue, a good many, if not most, of those owners would be seeking the finer boats such as the ones Bob is designing. But realistically, you pretty much have to at least double the money when you move up from J B H C level boats. And to those who suggest the used market provides a chance for an excellent quality boat, that's true to a point. But go look at a used Outbound, or Morris, or Island Packet, and you'll still pay a lot, likely more than many of us want to commit.


----------



## NCC320

Classic30 said:


> You MUST be joking. The biggest snobs I've ever come across sail exclusively on Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Hunters and Catalinas.. Everyone else makes sure they take time out at least once in a while to sail on something else, just to keep some perspective.


Well, how about that. All this time, I thought those people trying to put down those brands were the snobs, and all the time, they were just feeling insecure and trying to get back at us because of that feeling. Sorry for being a snob....but I really did enjoy my boat.


----------



## Classic30

NCC320 said:


> Well, how about that. All this time, I thought those people trying to put down those brands were the snobs, and all the time, they were just feeling insecure and trying to get back at us because of that feeling. Sorry for being a snob....but I really did enjoy my boat.


I'm sure you do. But if those brands you mention didn't exist there would be others to take their place.

I never cease to be amazed at folks (the true snobs) who have eyes only for the benehuntalinas of the world and are even happy to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy one (second-hand - more for new), whilst passing by a classic from the pen of a master with gleaming brightwork and shiny varnish never thinking for a split-second that not only might it be more affordable but since it's actually designed for SAILING (not just sitting in a marina pen) it might actually be more fun.. But I do feel sorry for them.

Sorry to hear you've fallen for the marketing, but there's truly far more to life on the water than can be experienced on one of those.


----------



## Brent Swain

Bleemus said:


> I remember fondly a steel boat that was cruising the world. It was a Frenchman in a little homemade bugger in the lagoon in Rangiroa. He grew tomatoes in his main cabin. The thing was so rusted it was hard to tell what the original color was. He had no money and no water and very little food left. We invited him to tie up to our GRP boat and with two water makers pumping 60 gallons an hour we quickly filled him up, gave him a bunch of food and some old halyards to use as dock lines as his were worn out. Gotta help those poor buggers on those steel boats. Feels good.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I often help out stock plastic boaters ( poor, useless buggers) who have no means of welding aboard. I also help them build watermakers, furlers , anchor winches ,self steering, blocks, heaters, composting heads ,Lavac style heads, etc etc, all of which I have built in my cockpit while at anchor; for 1/10th the cost of buying one. When it comes to helping themselves ,most are as useless as tits on a boar, and have neither tools, knowledge nor materials aboard to help themselves. We become the adult day care workers for these useless twits, when they aren't sarcastically ridiculing us..Who do they go to when they need something fixed ? To the other stock plastic boats ? Not a chance! The go to the boat which looks home built ,who's owner probably knows how to help himself , instead of simply knowing nothing more than how to throw money at things. No one to throw money at at Trutch Island , or mid ocean ,if something breaks in such remote areas. (Marina queeners will never understand the concept. Most never go very far from the repair men)

I see more and more of these "no maintenance" plastic boats, breaking up , covered in mold and barnacles, in our anchorages. Being sold as no maintenance, that was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to look after themselves, without maintenance ,weren't they?
Incredible how many still believe that!
After all the talk about the work you have to do to get an older plastic boat up to snuff, on this site?
Duuuhhh!!!
I've seen my share of plastic boaters in the situation you describe.


----------



## bobperry

You need to take that dead mouse out of your pocket BS and have a sense of humor. But I think you make a good point. With your welding skills I'm sure you are in demand in any port. The world does need welders like you and my son Spike. The world needs plumbers too. But you stay tied up to that dock in BC 90% of the time. I have a buddy who lives there. So it's a bit of an empty argument. The need for welders has zero to do with the paucity of steel boats.


----------



## bobperry

"I see more and more of these "no maintenance" plastic boats, breaking up , covered in mold and barnacles, in our anchorages. Being sold as no maintenance, that was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to look after themselves, without maintenance ,weren't they?
Incredible how many still believe that!
After all the talk about the work you have to do to get an older plastic boat up to snuff, on this site?
Duuuhhh!!!"

This is what is known in psychology as "projecting". You take your fear and try to lay it on someone else. It's transparent. And yes, I'm glad you asked that, I did study psychology in college. Duuuuuhhh!

BS lives in a world where he is not even a footnote.


----------



## Don L

Wouldn't the need to be able to weld be a real minus for having a steel boat? Ithey are so great why would I need to be welding it all the time?


----------



## amwbox

Classic30 said:


> You MUST be joking. The biggest snobs I've ever come across sail exclusively on Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Hunters and Catalinas.. Everyone else makes sure they take time out at least once in a while to sail on something else, just to keep some perspective.


Snobbery. That's a new wrinkle.

The ones with the older, cheaper, less stylish, less trendy boats are the snobby ones?

How does that track? In this thread for example its been the opposite and _extremely._


----------



## amwbox

Brent Swain said:


> I often help out stock plastic boaters ( poor, useless buggers) who have no means of welding aboard. I also help them build watermakers, furlers , anchor winches ,self steering, blocks, heaters, composting heads ,Lavac style heads, etc etc, all of which I have built in my cockpit while at anchor; for 1/10th the cost of buying one. When it comes to helping themselves ,most are as useless as tits on a boar, and have neither tools, knowledge nor materials aboard to help themselves. We become the adult day care workers for these useless twits, when they aren't sarcastically ridiculing us..Who do they go to when they need something fixed ? To the other stock plastic boats ? Not a chance! The go to the boat which looks home built ,who's owner probably knows how to help himself , instead of simply knowing nothing more than how to throw money at things. No one to throw money at at Trutch Island , or mid ocean ,if something breaks in such remote areas. (Marina queeners will never understand the concept. Most never go very far from the repair men)
> 
> I see more and more of these "no maintenance" plastic boats, breaking up , covered in mold and barnacles, in our anchorages. Being sold as no maintenance, that was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to look after themselves, without maintenance ,weren't they?
> Incredible how many still believe that!
> After all the talk about the work you have to do to get an older plastic boat up to snuff, on this site?
> Duuuhhh!!!
> I've seen my share of plastic boaters in the situation you describe.


You are an extremely poor ambassador for the steel boat world. Or, niche, as the case may be.


----------



## bobperry

Snobbery,,,,,,I kind of think that is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think I like that word. It's so vague. So obtuse.

Ok, maybe "obtuse" was not the right word but it sounded good. " Obscure"?

I have a huge vocabulary. I'm just not sure what all the words mean.


----------



## bob77903

bobperry said:


> Snobbery,,,,,,I kind of think that is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think I like that word. It's so vague. So obtuse.
> 
> Ok, maybe "obtuse" was not the right word but it sounded good. " Obscure"?
> 
> I have a huge vocabulary. I'm just not sure what all the words mean.


Hey Brent,

Bob left a lesson here for you...study his words carefully BS, make you a better person if you can understand the meaning


----------



## outbound

The comment about sailing other boats is spot on. Find when cruisers hang out in a spot for awhile you end up with a lot of boat cards. Find it not infrequent someone asks "can you help me move my boat". Sometimes it's due to regular crew being gone to deal with stuff at "home". Sometimes it's due to owner being injured ( broken toe on a cleat-hahha).
In any case enjoy doing this whenever I can. You make a deeper friendship and experience a difference boat. No boat is the best boat especially your own.

Now in Charleston sc. At laundry at city dock met a cruiser today who just got in yesterday. Had just come in on a ketch of good design. Said to be a good offshore boat . Came from Virginia. He sent his crew home and he was thinking of putting his boat up for sale. He has had the boat for a year. He had chartered in the BVIs several times. Did some prior lake sailing on a 31' but no real cruising. He was so downcast the bride tried to cheer him up. I tried as well.
We discussed how to use sailing polars ( subtract a third) to estimate transit times until you know what your boat really does. How to use the 500mb, Passageweather, commanders, chris Parker etc. to pick a window and use the information to inform your estimated transit time. I explained everyone has had a passage where at the end you question your sanity for doing the sailing life and think about packing it in. Wife chimed in with our miserable passages but noted she is still doing it. Point is he had no idea what was important in cruising. But was lucky he was on a good boat and was able to make a safe passage inspite of this.
After last SDR owner of a sister ship had the same sentiments as this fellow. Had issues with his leisure furl. Had issues accepting regardless of what you're on sometimes it just sucks. No sleep. Hard to cook if you can. Motion wears you down.
In short they where both on boats known for their prowess as ocean boats. Both are rethinking passagemaking be it down the east coast or snow birding to BVIs. 
Brent is just wrong. Weather on the east coast and western Atlantic when people are going south can be brutal. Cold, windy, wind against wave washing machine seas and you are going against the prevailings.
Anything that decreases the risk someone will bail from the cruising life is a good thing. That's why I was upset with PCPs obsession with speed as the be all and end all for a cruiser. And anything that increases discomfort or risk is a bad thing.
The distinction between blue water boats and coastal is also just wrong. Often the worse weather is coastal. Often coastal weather is less predictable than in the ocean. Rather the distinction should be day sailors, 20-30kkt boats, gale boats, storm boats. You and your boat could care less about where you are and everything about sea state and apparent wind speed.
But even with an ultimate cruiser, let's say the CF cutters which I think come real close, sometimes the boat isn't enough.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> ...
> 
> Had issues accepting regardless of what you're on sometimes it just sucks. No sleep. Hard to cook if you can. Motion wears you down.
> 
> In short they where both on boats known for their prowess as ocean boats. Both are rethinking passagemaking be it down the east coast or snow birding to BVIs.
> ...
> The distinction between blue water boats and coastal is also just wrong. Often the worse weather is coastal. Often coastal weather is less predictable than in the ocean..


Bingo.


----------



## Shockwave

Outbound, what you say about speed is very true. Transporting the boat this fall to the yard we encountered a clocking breeze with the wave train lagging on starboard tack. The result was an upwind bash right into the waves at 9~10 knots. It's uncomfortable and makes moving on deck dangerous. If this was a passage we would have slowed the boat and cracked to reduce the motion. It felt like being on a powerboat, no fun.


----------



## Classic30

outbound said:


> Anything that decreases the risk someone will bail from the cruising life is a good thing. That's why I was upset with PCPs obsession with speed as the be all and end all for a cruiser. And anything that increases discomfort or risk is a bad thing.


I remember reading a short article in a motorbike mag some years back, proposing that the faster you went through an intersection the safer you were, since the risk of you getting hit on the way through was proportional to your time in the intersection.

I think they were joking...


----------



## amwbox

I've been a motorcyclist a long time...and its very true that you need to ride a bit offensively if you want to survive. Everyone in a car is trying to kill you, all the time. Intersections are the worst. Can't tell you the number of times I've been trying to cross an intersection and the jackass on the other side fails to yield to oncoming traffic. Bikes don't count, I guess? So, there I am trying to roll across the intersection while some oblivious ostrich faced soccer mom is trying to mow me down with her SUV while talking on the phone, drinking coffee, and playing the mirror all at the same time. You basically have to wave and flip your visor up and wait to make eye contact before going...or eventually they will kill you. Got boxedin on the freeway between a couple cars fore and aft and the divider on the left, with a suburban trying to merge into me from the right. I was literally reaching out and beating on the fender before she finally noticed I was there and decided I was going to get to live another day.

The majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by people in cars. So that statistic actually makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## blt2ski

bobperry said:


> I just don't see any steel boats except ON THE HARD, rusting away and looking pitiful. When we have our all live aboard "Sail the house" regatta for the last two years there has not been one single steel boat. I think that train has gone done left the station BS. All that's left is you standing on the landing with a WTF look on your face.


Fixed it for ye!

Being as I travel to more than one chanlery, boat yard, boat manufacture many times in a given day for work, I do see a LOT of steel boats.....mostly on the hard. I see a lot of fiberglass ones too. But the % on the hard of steel to fiberglass vs IN the water, is one heck of a lot higher %.

I do wonder how many steel boats ACTUALLY float per say!

Not that having a steel hulled boat is an issue actually. They make sense in some area's of how folks want to cruise etc, as does aluminum.....want a fast aruminum boat, check out Safe Boats International. There is now a persona safe boat available too. Kewl boats, was at both factories today.....30'ish foot boat, with quad 250 mercs or Honda's on the back, doing 40-50 knots. A safe boat with a smallish gun they put on the front would do wonders to BS"s boats. They be sunk in no time! SOrry BS, these guns are a bit bigger than the analogy you use to show steel boats are bullet proof! Not sure a 25mm will bounce off your boat.

ANy way, different strokes, different boat types, styles, build materials, quality if you will, for different folks. If I coudl afford a BP boat, I'm sure it would not look like John E's, Smacks, Outs, Maines, maybe close to PCP's, but still different! Assuming all of us asked for a design based on OUR usages of OUR boats.

marty


----------



## XSrcing

amwbox said:


> I've been a motorcyclist a long time...and its very true that you need to ride a bit offensively if you want to survive. Everyone in a car is trying to kill you, all the time. Intersections are the worst. Can't tell you the number of times I've been trying to cross an intersection and the jackass on the other side fails to yield to oncoming traffic. Bikes don't count, I guess? So, there I am trying to roll across the intersection while some oblivious ostrich faced soccer mom is trying to mow me down with her SUV while talking on the phone, drinking coffee, and playing the mirror all at the same time. You basically have to wave and flip your visor up and wait to make eye contact before going...or eventually they will kill you. Got boxedin on the freeway between a couple cars fore and aft and the divider on the left, with a suburban trying to merge into me from the right. I was literally reaching out and beating on the fender before she finally noticed I was there and decided I was going to get to live another day.
> 
> The majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by people in cars. So that statistic actually makes a lot of sense to me.


This is why I ride a 1994 DR350SER on DOT knobbies. It is a tractor off road and on road I have far more escape routes than a bagger or a sport bike.

It was also inexpensive, gets awesome mileage, and I've dragged knees with the sport bike crowd on the way up to Mount Baker.

I went the same route with my first sailboat.


----------



## amwbox

XSrcing said:


> This is why I ride a 1994 DR350SER on DOT knobbies. It is a tractor off road and on road I have far more escape routes than a bagger or a sport bike.
> 
> It was also inexpensive, gets awesome mileage, and I've dragged knees with the sport bike crowd on the way up to Mount Baker.
> 
> I went the same route with my first sailboat.


Wow, dragging a knee on a dual sport? That's nuts! I was on a GSXR600 in those days. Didn't do much knee dragging even on that. 

Yeah, my taste in boats is a bit...utilitarian as well.


----------



## jgragrg

No such thing as a boat rated for the X versions casesam of what mother nature throws out. When you have a scenario they waves and wind conditions promote scenarios where the wave height case sam factor alone is 4 times your waterline length


----------



## Minnewaska

outbound said:


> ...The distinction between blue water boats and coastal is also just wrong. Often the worse weather is coastal. Often coastal weather is less predictable than in the ocean. Rather the distinction should be day sailors, 20-30kkt boats, gale boats, storm boats. You and your boat could care less about where you are and everything about sea state and apparent wind speed.
> But even with an ultimate cruiser, let's say the CF cutters which I think come real close, sometimes the boat isn't enough.


I agree with your general distinction between coastal and ocean conditions. The steepest, nastiest wave action is often within sight of shore. Just this past summer we crossed the Gulf of Maine (which I technically consider coastal), but is far enough offshore to present more like ocean conditions. Many friends we haven't seen, since the summer, still ask what conditions were like. I tell them we started out in 7 ft seas and the non-sailors are aghast that we could sail for 26 hrs like that. I tell them the period was something like 10 seconds and it wasn't fatiguing at all. For me, the issue is fatigue brought on by motion, not the motion itself.

Fatigue to the boat is the other issue, we were rolling up and rolling down, no pounding. As I mentioned above, a buddy has pounded his Jeanneau 54 to the Caribbean a few times and the doors no longer close properly. If coastal, he could have bailed out, before over stressing the hull.

The more fatiguing the boat is going to be to the crew, the more I consider it a coastal boat. When coastal, you can choose your conditions and bail out, if wrong. I'm not even sure there is a definition of coastal, but I've always thought of it as within 24 hrs of shore.

However, that does not mean that a good coastal boat, by my definition anyway, can't make an ocean passage. Only that's it's better designed for the former. Where the line is drawn is subjective, but I do think one exists.


----------



## jerryrlitton

bobperry said:


> I just don't see any steel boats except at the dock, rusting away and looking pitiful. When we have our all live aboard "Sail the house" regatta for the last two years there has not been one single steel boat. I think that train has gone done left the station BS. All that's left is you standing on the landing with a WTF look on your face.


Many Steel boats here in SE Asia putting in lots of miles.


----------



## bobperry

One of the factors behind the 35,000 lb. displ of my carbon cutters was fatigue. It's all well and fine to have a boat capable of planing speeds but how long are you and Mom going to be able to sustain that level of action and physical effort? If you have to dial down the speed you will end up in displ speed mode and the design concessions made to get planing speeds are now useless and often worse than useless. If you think my 71 year old client is going to go planing off to New Zealand then you are not thinking it through. <y job was to give him a stiff and stable, comfortable ride in a boat that can sustain hull speed 24 hours a day in comfort.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> ....on the way up to Mount Baker.
> 
> I went the same route with my first sailboat.


Impressive.


----------



## XSrcing

amwbox said:


> Wow, dragging a knee on a dual sport? That's nuts! I was on a GSXR600 in those days. Didn't do much knee dragging even on that.
> 
> Yeah, my taste in boats is a bit...utilitarian as well.


I've been eyeing a set of 17's for it to run street tires. That would make these mountain roads even more fun.

The only problem with a dirtbike is I can't fit my wife and kid on it to have fun for a day.

But yes, utilitarian is a great description. I've always thought that function should always precede form.


----------



## Donna_F

Brent Swain said:


> I often help out stock plastic boaters ( poor, useless buggers) who have no means of welding aboard....


Wow. You sure know how to belittle the people you claim are paying you to provide a service. Nice marketing strategy.

Since when did welding equipment become a "must have" on board a sailboat? Any boat for that matter.



Brent Swain said:


> We become the adult day care workers for these useless twits,...


Nice.



Brent Swain said:


> when they aren't sarcastically ridiculing us..


And what you are doing here is...what...exactly?


----------



## smackdaddy

DRFerron said:


> Wow. You sure know how to belittle the people you claim are paying you to provide a service. Nice marketing strategy.
> 
> Since when did welding equipment become a "must have" on board a sailboat? Any boat for that matter.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> And what you are doing here is...what...exactly?


Donna meet Brent. Brent, Donna.


----------



## Mr. Bubs

Brent Swain said:


> I often help out stock plastic boaters ( poor, useless buggers) who have no means of welding aboard. ...When it comes to helping themselves ,most are as useless as tits on a boar, and have neither tools, knowledge nor materials aboard to help themselves. We become the adult day care workers for these useless twits, when they aren't sarcastically ridiculing us...


I'm a "plastic boater". And yes, I do not have a welder on board, as I have no room for it between my roll of carpet, bags of cement, and Galaga arcade cabinet. I do have tools, however, and the mad skilz to use them, like most other plastic yachtsmen I know. I also do have a few parts and materials around for making repairs such as fixing leaks, repairing rigging, mending sails, etc.

I take offense to generalizing us as "useless twits" (said the pot to the kettle). You're the biggest condescending arsehole on this forum. You and your rusty flotsam can go [er, edited] for all I care.


----------



## Donna_F

smackdaddy said:


> Donna meet Brent. Brent, Donna.


Oh yes. I'm aware of him. I'm not sure why I wasted my time responding.


----------



## Don L

DRFerron said:


> Oh yes. I'm aware of him. I'm not sure why I wasted my time responding.


Sport!


----------



## mstern

Brent Swain said:


> I often help out stock plastic boaters ( poor, useless buggers) who have no means of welding aboard. I also help them build watermakers, furlers , anchor winches ,self steering, blocks, heaters, composting heads ,Lavac style heads, etc etc, all of which I have built in my cockpit while at anchor; for 1/10th the cost of buying one. When it comes to helping themselves ,most are as useless as tits on a boar, and have neither tools, knowledge nor materials aboard to help themselves. We become the adult day care workers for these useless twits, when they aren't sarcastically ridiculing us..Who do they go to when they need something fixed ? To the other stock plastic boats ? Not a chance! The go to the boat which looks home built ,who's owner probably knows how to help himself , instead of simply knowing nothing more than how to throw money at things. No one to throw money at at Trutch Island , or mid ocean ,if something breaks in such remote areas. (Marina queeners will never understand the concept. Most never go very far from the repair men)
> 
> I see more and more of these "no maintenance" plastic boats, breaking up , covered in mold and barnacles, in our anchorages. Being sold as no maintenance, that was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to look after themselves, without maintenance ,weren't they?
> Incredible how many still believe that!
> After all the talk about the work you have to do to get an older plastic boat up to snuff, on this site?
> Duuuhhh!!!
> I've seen my share of plastic boaters in the situation you describe.


Wow. Such naked contempt for the overwhelming majority of your fellow sailors. Here I've been thinking that your barbed responses to Bob and Smack have been limited to them; but you really have nothing but venom and contempt for everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do. You've made some good points in the past on the benefits of steel hulled boats, but I'll be damned if I can think of a good reason to pay any attention to anything you say at this point.

Ignore.


----------



## bobperry

Mstern:
I have been saying this for over a year. The BS way is "Do it my way or you are all idiots." This has not changed since he began posting here. This is most certainly not new. Imagine mu business if I told all my potential clients that they were " Marina queeners". No wonder BS is just a voice crying in a wilderness of his own creation.


----------



## skygazer

mstern said:


> Wow. Such naked contempt for the overwhelming majority of your fellow sailors. Here I've been thinking that your barbed responses to Bob and Smack have been limited to them; but you really have nothing but venom and contempt for everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do. You've made some good points in the past on the benefits of steel hulled boats, but I'll be damned if I can think of a good reason to pay any attention to anything you say at this point.
> 
> Ignore.


I know this will be unpopular here, but everyone is picking up on the plastic boat trashing. Personally, I think of them as "plastic fantastic", I love them, yet I'm not offended. I like accuracy, so let's not imagine Brent's post occurred in a purely self motivated void.

It was a few pages back so you may not remember that Brent was simply reversing the attitude that steel boat people were helpless losers, just reversing who was helpless or not, from this post:



Bleemus said:


> I remember fondly a steel boat that was cruising the world. It was a Frenchman in a little homemade bugger in the lagoon in Rangiroa. He grew tomatoes in his main cabin. The thing was so rusted it was hard to tell what the original color was. He had no money and no water and very little food left. We invited him to tie up to our GRP boat and with two water makers pumping 60 gallons an hour we quickly filled him up, gave him a bunch of food and some old halyards to use as dock lines as his were worn out. *Gotta help those poor buggers on those steel boats. Feels good. *
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Let's see,,,,there are " poor buggers" and then there are " "poor useless buggers". There is a world of difference. One is a term of pity while the other one a term of derision.


----------



## Minnewaska

bobperry said:


> ..... The BS way is "Do it my way or you are all idiots." .....


Same as the B(F)S owners mentality now too.


----------



## bob77903

Minnewaska said:


> Same as the B(F)S owners mentality now too.


Let me ask you a question, what exactly are you trying to accomplish in your Smackdaddy crusade?


----------



## Minnewaska

bob77903 said:


> Let me ask you a question, what exactly are you trying to accomplish in your Smackdaddy crusade?


A couple of things I've not made a secret.

His hostile name calling, in your face, callowness needs to stop. At best, it's keeping good information from being posted at all, as some refuse to engage. That's doing us all a disservice. At worst, he's misleading people, with his insistence that he is right in many circumstances.

I'm also feeling like a pawn in a marketing scheme of his and want clarity on that. If he's provoking these arguments for the sake of attention, page hits, views to his website, perhaps even proposals he makes to others on this expertise, we have a right to know. The forum rules are both intended to clarify behavior, but also clarify the members expectations of what they are participating in.

I submit that if SN is complicit in permitting a marketing scheme against its own posted rules, or fails to provide any diligent enforcement of its posting rules, than other protections its provided for itself, within those rules, are equally invalid.


----------



## bob77903

Minnewaska said:


> A couple of things I've not made a secret.
> 
> His hostile name calling, in your face, callowness needs to stop. At best, it's keeping good information from being posted at all, as some refuse to engage. That's doing us all a disservice. At worst, he's misleading people, with his insistence that he is right in many circumstances.
> 
> I'm also feeling like a pawn in a marketing scheme of his and want clarity on that. If he's provoking these arguments for the sake of attention, page hits, views to his website, perhaps even proposals he makes to others on this expertise, we have a right to know. The forum rules are both intended to clarify behavior, but also clarify the members expectations of what they are participating in.
> 
> I submit that if SN is complicit in permitting a marketing scheme against its own posted rules, or fails to provide any diligent enforcement of its posting rules, than other protections its provided for itself, within those rules, are equally invalid.


Well, lets see.

You made some accusations, expressed some personnel opinions, but didn't answer my question.

Let me help, do you want him banished to the netherworld, banned for all time from SN? Feel free to speak your mind sir!


----------



## NCC320

Minnewaska said:


> A couple of things I've not made a secret.
> 
> His hostile name calling, in your face, callowness needs to stop. At best, it's keeping good information from being posted at all, as some refuse to engage. That's doing us all a disservice. At worst, he's misleading people, with his insistence that he is right in many circumstances.
> 
> I'm also feeling like a pawn in a marketing scheme of his and want clarity on that. If he's provoking these arguments for the sake of attention, page hits, views to his website, perhaps even proposals he makes to others on this expertise, we have a right to know. The forum rules are both intended to clarify behavior, but also clarify the members expectations of what they are participating in.
> 
> I submit that if SN is complicit in permitting a marketing scheme against its own posted rules, or fails to provide any diligent enforcement of its posting rules, than other protections its provided for itself, within those rules, are equally invalid.


Please be specific...marketing scheme....exactly what marketing scheme?


----------



## Minnewaska

bob77903 said:


> Well, lets see.
> 
> You made some accusations, expressed some personnel opinions, but didn't answer my question.
> 
> Let me help, do you want him banished to the netherworld, banned for all time from SN? Feel free to speak your mind sir!


Huh? I exactly answered your question. You asked what I hoped to accomplish. I told you exactly what I wanted to see stop and for what reason. I also pointed out the clarity I would like on whether BFS is a marketing scheme. One that drives endless, circular logic, chatter for the purpose of Smack putting his BFS website in front of us in the maximum number of exposures. I'm highly suspecious that we're all pawns in that regard, but he's outright ignored multiple questions to that effect. He hasn't denied it, either.

Whether that will take a volunteer effort on Smack's part or mod intervention is not my call. If that requires banning, I would cheer, but that not what you asked. You asked what I wanted accomplished.


----------



## XSrcing

Smackers coined the phrase BFS and decided to sell small trinkets with said phrase on it. I've viewed his website once but haven't ourchased anything. Doesn't mean I won't, and I don't care if he makes a buck from it.


----------



## Minnewaska

NCC320 said:


> Please be specific...marketing scheme....exactly what marketing scheme?


In the Waterway Guide thread, I asked multiple times (many did), if Smack has been in contact with the owner of the Guide, to understand if his overwhelmingly deliberated and flawed argument on his behalf of WG was somehow motivated by a connection.

I've also asked in the BFS thread, about whether he sponsors this site. His BFS thread title, the trademarked stamps, the website link on every single one of his posts are to a for-profit company that he owns, by that name. I understand that sponsors are permitted to peddle their product here. Perhaps he is one. I'm also curious, if Smack's purpose is to drive endless views and touches, so that he can resell his expertise in driving "epic" (his word) threads. That would make us pawns, in that we wouldn't be debating a fellow sailor, but rather a businessman that is on a mission and should take that into account before engaging.


----------



## bob77903

Minnewaska said:


> Huh? I exactly answered your question. You asked what I hoped to accomplish. I told you exactly what I wanted to see stop and for what reason. I also pointed out the clarity I would like on whether BFS is a marketing scheme. One that drives endless, circular logic, chatter for the purpose of Smack putting his BFS website in front of us in the maximum number of exposures. I'm highly suspecious that we're all pawns in that regard, but he's outright ignored multiple questions to that effect. He hasn't denied it, either.
> 
> Whether that will take a volunteer effort on Smack's part or mod intervention is not my call.


I for one don't feel like a pawn in anybody's game. Have never felt threatened by any posters here, or on any forum.

A wise man once told me that no matter how much I wished, the world would never be exactly to my wishes. So live and let live.

390 pages, seems like this and all Smacks threads get a lot of interest.

And alas, seems you like to name call ...questioning Smacks mentality in a post...whats up with that?


----------



## Minnewaska

bob77903 said:


> I for one don't feel like a pawn in anybody's game. Have never felt threatened by any posters here, or on any forum.
> 
> A wise man once told me that no matter how much I wished, the world would never be exactly to my wishes. So live and let live.
> 
> 390 pages, seems like this and all Smacks threads get a lot of interest.
> 
> And alas, seems you like to name came ...questioning Smacks mentality in a post...whats up with that?


Smack has successfully pushed my buttons from time to time. He's self described that he likes to do that. My bad, if I bit. But I do question if it was intentional, just to keep things rolling.

My query is not about the world being my way or feeling threatened, its about clarity in what we're dealing with and participating in. As you and I joust, the post count and view continue to rise. Is that simply the point

There are very direct, basic, easy Yes/No questions, in several threads, that have gone completely ignored and are directly relevant to the issue being discussed.


----------



## bobperry

Minne: 
You are sounding paranoid. "Marketing scheme"? That is really ridiculous. So much for "the adult in the room" attitude.

HTFU!


----------



## BentSailor

I get that you don't like Smack's attitude, "callowness", and name-calling Minnewaska... but the marketing scheme thing? I think you're stretching a bit for that.


----------



## Minnewaska

bobperry said:


> Minne:
> You are sounding paranoid. "Marketing scheme"? That is really ridiculous. So much for "the adult in the room" attitude.
> 
> HTFU!





BentSailor said:


> I get that you don't like Smack's attitude, "callowness", and name-calling Minnewaska... but the marketing scheme thing? I think you're stretching a bit for that.


When I first raised the question, I fully allowed that it may not be the case. He responded to the post, but skipped that answer. I'm losing track of which thread is which, so it may not have started here.

In the end, Smack (maybe the mods with respect to his sponsorship) can clear this up, but haven't.

He's also skips questions that several asked about on other appearances of impropriety. If I'm dreaming, it's all easily clarified.


----------



## Minnewaska

bobperry said:


> .....
> HTFU!


p.s. This crass acronym doesn't apply to me. I'm hard enough to stay and make my point known, ask the tough questions. What I think you're missing is that the environment created by Smack has driven away other people you might wish were still contributing.


----------



## bob77903

Minnewaska said:


> Smack has successfully pushed my buttons from time to time. He's self described that he likes to do that. My bad, if I bit. But I do question if it was intentional, just to keep things rolling.
> 
> My query is not about the world being my way or feeling threatened, its about clarity in what we're dealing with and participating in. As you and I joust, the post count and view continue to rise. Is that simply the point
> 
> There are very direct, basic, easy Yes/No questions, in several threads, that have gone completely ignored and are directly relevant to the issue being discussed.


Thank you for this response.

I know that Smack does push buttons, as do others here and on the other forums. To be very honest with you, I was doing the same with you, not to anger you, but to hopefully let you see that some members have a certain style, and button pushing is one of those.

I got involved with trying to defend my stance with one of the button pushers, and realized after baring my ass, that its a no win situation with them.

As you can see, I don't have a big post count for my time here. If I posted everytime I disagreed with a poster, I to might have thousands....life's too short, enjoy 

I trust that SN will take care of there business, I'm here for entertainment, and to learn new things to me. I figure if they need my help policing the site they'll holler.....haven't heard anything yet.


----------



## BentSailor

With all due respect, Minne, and I honestly get where you are coming from on the name-calling and attitude (both from smack & from bob)... but Smack doesn't owe you an answer on anything. Him not answering means precisely nothing. 

More importantly, how could you tell the difference between an honest answer, one designed to tweak your nose (again), or a lie. If he said "No", would you believe him? If it really was a marketing scheme, why would he actually tell you it was one? If he says "Yes, I'm doing it all for the monies!" - how are you going to know whether he's bullsh%tting you to push buttons or telling the truth?

All you've got is Smack acting exactly the same way he always has (after all, many have pointed out how he's been banned / made not welcome elsewhere)... what exactly do you think makes this a marketing scheme but acting the same way before the BFS store existed was not?

I think you're looking for a reason / foundation that need not exist. Smack has been this way as long as I've read his posts.


----------



## XSrcing

Smack daddy is the classic forum troll. He knows exactly how to push the buttons to a lot of members (he's got you nailed, minne), but in the end he is harmless and has the propensity for keeping debates alive by any means necessary. 

I've only been on forums since 1999, but members like him have always existed.


----------



## bobperry

Who cares?
No one has a gun to anyone's head to be here. Why whine when all you have to do is leave. " Marketing scheme" is pretty darn silly Minne. But very creative.

I think we need a big group hug. This is a pretty good group. Maybe a weirdo or two but on the whole a very good group. Rigorous debates are fun.

Ok I'll start:
Let's have some fun.

I'm not sure if this boat was CE certified.
I'm pretty sure the guy was certified. He did the Atlantic twice on boats under 7' LOA. He probably stayed in shape by doing a few laps around the deck each day.


----------



## bob77903

bobperry said:


> Who cares?
> No one has a gun to anyone's head to be here. Why whine when all you have to do is leave. " Marketing scheme" is pretty darn silly Minne. But very creative.
> 
> I think we need a big group hug.
> 
> Ok I'll start:
> Let's have some fun.
> 
> I'm not sure if this boat was CE certified.
> I'm pretty sure the guy was certified. He did the Atlantic twice on boats under 7' LOA. He probably stayed in shape by doing a few laps around the deck each day.


And, he has a sense of humor, check the boat name :laugh


----------



## seaner97

XSrcing said:


> Smack daddy is the classic forum troll. He knows exactly how to push the buttons to a lot of members (he's got you nailed, minne), but in the end he is harmless and has the propensity for keeping debates alive by any means necessary.
> 
> I've only been on forums since 1999, but members like him have always existed.


He reminds me of a guy I play hockey with. He's out there essentially being an ass and pissing people off just to do that. The downside is half the guys don't show up anymore. The upside is he shows up every week and pays for his ice time. He's been kicked out of every league he's ever been in and will in short order from this as well. 
I could give two if Steve makes a few bucks off his website, but I would also appreciate it if he grew a pair, answered things directly and learned to own up to when he was wrong. 
His "taking responsibility" on the WG thread was laughable. And he's only harmless if people like Minne have guts, because people like me, who know we aren't jackas* whisperers and just leave (until now- when I will again) won't put in the time to fight with him.


----------



## bobperry

Sean:
Then clearly you know very little about Smackers. He could not be more different than the guy you describe.

Hey! How about my little "offshore cruiser"? It's a plastic fantastic!

Bob: I think that boat was 60" LOA!


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Sean:
> Then clearly you know very little about Smackers. He could not be more different than the guy you describe.
> 
> Hey! How about my little "offshore cruiser"? It's a plastic fantastic!
> 
> Bob: I think that boat was 60" LOA!


Bob, I like and generally respect you. But I can't say the same about Smack's recent interactions with myself and others. 
I've found you over the line from time to time, but never to the same predictable extent. I've also seen you actually say "yeah, not my finest moment- probably wrong there" and actually answer a direct question. I'm a big boy and can take it, but I also know when to walk away.


----------



## Brent Swain

mstern said:


> Wow. Such naked contempt for the overwhelming majority of your fellow sailors. Here I've been thinking that your barbed responses to Bob and Smack have been limited to them; but you really have nothing but venom and contempt for everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do. You've made some good points in the past on the benefits of steel hulled boats, but I'll be damned if I can think of a good reason to pay any attention to anything you say at this point.
> 
> Ignore.


Just giving back what has been steadily dished out to my attempts to give a fair assessment of the advantages of steel boats, from the only guy here with decades of experience in owning one, maintaining one , living aboard and cruising full time on one, building dozens of them ,for decades, including many Pacific crossings, something none of my critics have any such qualifications to comment on. 
Gratuitous attack removed. Jeff_H moderator
So if you would rather get your advice on steel boats from those who have little or no such experience on the subject, go right ahead. The consequences are all yours.Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. My posts are for those readers who seek their advice from someone with decades of hands on experience ,not from armchair experts, who's advice you obviously value over experience. You are obviously more impressed by skillful self promotion, than you are by decades of hands on experience.My clients are definitely not. They the kind of people I prefer dealing with


----------



## XSrcing

bobperry said:


> I'm not sure if this boat was CE certified.
> I'm pretty sure the guy was certified. He did the Atlantic twice on boats under 7' LOA. He probably stayed in shape by doing a few laps around the deck each day.












:devil


----------



## bobperry

Sean: 
Then that time may have come. I hope not. I like your posts. Let the dust settle before making a decision.

" "yeah, not my finest moment- probably wrong there"

That was most probably in a moment of weakness while savoring a pot of exquisite Taiwanese tea. I won't let t happen again.

As for BS: He's like a broken whiny record. " If I just keep saying this over and over things will change and people will respect what I have done." Nope BS, you can't change reality. You will always be BS.


----------



## Brent Swain

blt2ski said:


> Fixed it for ye!
> 
> Being as I travel to more than one chanlery, boat yard, boat manufacture many times in a given day for work, I do see a LOT of steel boats.....mostly on the hard. I see a lot of fiberglass ones too. But the % on the hard of steel to fiberglass vs IN the water, is one heck of a lot higher %.
> 
> I do wonder how many steel boats ACTUALLY float per say!
> 
> Not that having a steel hulled boat is an issue actually. They make sense in some area's of how folks want to cruise etc, as does aluminum.....want a fast aruminum boat, check out Safe Boats International. There is now a persona safe boat available too. Kewl boats, was at both factories today.....30'ish foot boat, with quad 250 mercs or Honda's on the back, doing 40-50 knots. A safe boat with a smallish gun they put on the front would do wonders to BS"s boats. They be sunk in no time! SOrry BS, these guns are a bit bigger than the analogy you use to show steel boats are bullet proof! Not sure a 25mm will bounce off your boat.
> 
> marty


I don't recall ever stating that a steel boat will stop a bullet. I do recall stating that a 308 will shoot thru 3/8th inch mild steel plate( my hulls are 3/16th) I also recall stating that I have shot thru 23 inches of douglas fir with one, a good demonstration of the comparative impact resistance of both materials. Fibreglass is smewhere in the middle.
I can count on one had the number of my boats which I have seen on the hard, after they began sailing. No those of you who spend 95% of their time in marinas wont see them, as they are mostly out cruising, you know, that activity which cruising boats are supposed to be for.
My current boat is 31 years old, and I have hauled her out twice in that time.
As you get further and further from so called "civilization", the percentage of steel cruising boats increases especially European boats in the South Pacific,often outnumbering the plastic boats. This is something those who rarely leave marinas will see. Mine have outnumbered active( not marina dwelling) cruising boats in my current anchorage, from time to time, certainly outnumbering plastic boats from any one designer.


----------



## Brent Swain

*Soi much fo the hteory thta al can crap on steel boaters woiithout us beingalowed ot*



skygazer said:


> I know this will be unpopular here, but everyone is picking up on the plastic boat trashing. Personally, I think of them as "plastic fantastic", I love them, yet I'm not offended. I like accuracy, so let's not imagine Brent's post occurred in a purely self motivated void.
> 
> It was a few pages back so you may not remember that Brent was simply reversing the attitude that steel boat people were helpless losers, just reversing who was helpless or not, from this post:


Post 3890
Great post! Sums things up well!
So much for the theory that plastic boaters can insult all steel boaters, and we are not allowed to respond in kind( a very cowardly attitude)
What goes around comes around.
Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## bobperry

*"My current boat is 31 years old, and I have hauled her out twice in that time."*
That says a lot about you BS and little about your rusty boat.

BS in your wildest dreams you will never have as many boats cruising as fraction of the number I have. Once again you are making up your own reality.
What I can't figure out is what it must feel like to live in a world of utter BS. I enjoy reality. Well, most of the time anyway. Life has it's ups and downs. That's normal. But at least it's real. What payoff is there to continue to lie to yourself and others who already know you are lying? You sound like a fool BS.

.


----------



## XSrcing

Brent Swain said:


> I also recall stating that I have shot thru 23 inches of douglas fir with one, a good demonstration of the comparative impact resistance of both materials.


This I do not believe. Unless the wood was dried for a year or more.


----------



## Brent Swain

XSrcing said:


> This I do not believe. Unless the wood was dried for a year or more.


It was a fir stump, solid ,but soaking wet with rain,at the start of the trail to Wiley Lake in Von Donup inlet. Looke like a fairly recent cut, at the time.


----------



## NCC320

I move that we lay off Smack. The forum wouldn't be the same without him. As for him throwing out some harsh comments towards some posters, in all fairness, people have been hitting him pretty hard. When that happens, some go away, but some fight back...Smack doesn't go away. He has an ability to start threads, that while controversial, seem to attract lots of interest. PCP was the same way, and in the end, he was driven away...too bad, because he worked hard in presenting info on European boats. When people start insulting a person regarding their experience or ideas, that's a bit much. Brent, lay off beating the plastic boaters and they'll ease up on you...and you especially seem to be taking it to Bob, and you know what's going to happen, he's going to hit you hard in return, he doesn't go away either.


----------



## mikel1

I second the motion . . .


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> Sean:
> Then that time may have come. I hope not. I like your posts. Let the dust settle before making a decision.
> 
> " "yeah, not my finest moment- probably wrong there"
> 
> That was most probably in a moment of weakness while savoring a pot of exquisite Taiwanese tea. I won't let t happen again.
> 
> As for BS: He's like a broken whiny record. " If I just keep saying this over and over things will change and people will respect what I have done." Nope BS, you can't change reality. You will always be BS.


Pity, as your ability to acknowledge the fact you may have misstepped is a positive trait, not a sign of weakness. But yeah, I'm done with smack. Just, as you'll note, I've stopped responding to Brent.


----------



## bobperry

Ok Sean. See you around hopefully. Maybe I'll see you on my carbon cutter thread. It's not very exciting but we have some fun.

320: You have that correct. I'm not going away. If someone posts stupid comments about yacht design ,as PCP did and BS does, I will call them out every time. I've worked way too hard at this to put up with fakes and impostors. Sure I liked PCP's cut and paste stuff but his views on design were jejune and at worst laughable.


----------



## aeventyr60

I move that we keep giving Smack heaps. He is a big boy with a thicker skin then most of the whinging, whining, chuckleheaded weine wagging trolls here. Funny to see folks getting their knickers in an uproar. Minnewankas latest outburst has to be the best. Seaner you can do better too....poor old PCP, could dish it out but couldn't take it, sounds very euro like to me. BS will be BS and the rest of us will have a few laughs watching you guys get your panties in a knot. Carry on.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> Let's see,,,,there are " poor buggers" and then there are " "poor useless buggers". There is a world of difference. One is a term of pity while the other one a term of derision.


Sounds British, but in any event, definitely above my pay grade. Does the tone it's sung in matter?

You have a way with words. I'm still chuckling about your "I have a very large vocabulary, I just don't know what all the words mean" or however you phrased it.


----------



## seaner97

aeventyr60 said:


> I move that we keep giving Smack heaps. He is a big boy with a thicker skin then most of the whinging, whining, chuckleheaded weine wagging trolls here. Funny to see folks getting their knickers in an uproar. Minnewankas latest outburst has to be the best. Seaner you can do better too....poor old PCP, could dish it out but couldn't take it, sounds very euro like to me. BS will be BS and the rest of us will have a few laughs watching you guys get your panties in a knot. Carry on.


Oh, I can, but I've decided it's not worth my time. If I really felt like it, I'd go Full Jeff H on him and post a 30 page dissertation that Smack wouldn't bother to read, much less understand. But I'm deleting my 'subscription' to this one now, so have fun without me.


----------



## travlin-easy

Brent Swain said:


> It was a fir stump, solid ,but soaking wet with rain,at the start of the trail to Wiley Lake in Von Donup inlet. Looke like a fairly recent cut, at the time.


Brent, if you were firing an old military round, WWII .308 rounds were mostly made of steel and they would pass right through that stump and hardly slow down. A lead projectile, however, would mushroom and never make it half way. Those old .308 British rifles were pretty deadly, but the theory behind the steel jacket rounds was that it would produce a nasty wound that would require at least two more combatants to assist in removing the wounded person from the battlefield. The same round in lead would have likely killed that same person and only taken one person out of the battle.

Old guys like me know this kind of trivial stuf. 

Gary


----------



## XSrcing

Some might say that is not trivial knowledge. And also not only known among th older.


----------



## Capt Len

Have both lead and full military steel for my .308 The steel is hard on the barrel so I'm keeping it for the day after. 7.62 will be all over the place


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> Huh? I exactly answered your question. You asked what I hoped to accomplish. I told you exactly what I wanted to see stop and for what reason. I also pointed out the clarity I would like on whether BFS is a marketing scheme. One that drives endless, circular logic, chatter for the purpose of Smack putting his BFS website in front of us in the maximum number of exposures. I'm highly su*specious* that we're all pawns in that regard, but he's outright ignored multiple questions to that effect. He hasn't denied it, either.
> 
> Whether that will take a volunteer effort on Smack's part or mod intervention is not my call. If that requires banning, I would cheer, but that not what you asked. You asked what I wanted accomplished.


Wow.

First off, Minne, I owe you and your pals (Rob, Mast, Exile, Fallard, Serenade, Frye, etc.) _*nothing*_. This is a sailing forum not your sandbox. But I will go ahead and answer the above with some actual history. I started the BFS thread after going round and round on what adventurous sailing meant with several past SN members with sour dispositions much like yours and your pals'. That thread was called "FightClub For Sailors". It was the first sailing forum thread I'd ever posted in. And it was awesome. Of course, things got heated - people started quoting rules and demanding bannings, all the typical stuff you'd expect from a thread called FightClub. As I say, it was awesome. Kind of like the best pub in town.

I was asked to let FC die - since it had come with so much previous baggage before I ever joined - and to start my own thread. So I obliged and started the BFS thread on 09/22/08 - just a couple of months after I'd joined. As you can see, despite some of those guys sniping early on, it has obviously been a great thread with really great stories of adventurous sailing.

A couple of months into that thread sww914 posted this:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ted/47351-big-freakin-sails-7.html#post400539



sww914 said:


> Are there any graphics dudes on board who can slice out some cool BFS stickers? I'd sport one with pride.


I took sww up on it - just for fun. About a year later, I put the store online with those stickers, hats, shirts, etc. And, immediately, those FC people started the very same conspiracies you're now trying to run. I addressed that here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ed/47351-big-freakin-sails-17.html#post544732



smackdaddy said:


> No - that's not it Tom. This post above, on page 67 was the spark. The idea for BFS stuff came out of this thread - the thread wasn't started to pimp gear. That's completely wrong. There was nothing underhanded here...ever.
> 
> Run a whois search on the site and you'll see what I mean. Look at the date of the above post and compare it with the registration date of the site:
> 
> Domain Name: BFSSHOP.COM
> Created on: 12-Nov-08
> Expires on: 12-Nov-10
> Last Updated on: 13-Nov-08
> 
> This is what I mean when I say..."You started it."
> 
> It was all in fun - based on what was a bunch of us Sailnet members enjoying great sailing stories. I just ran with sww's question and made it happen. What's wrong with that?


As you can see, the timing certainly didn't fit their conspiracies then...and it certainly doesn't fit yours and your pals' now.

At that time, I got permission from the previous SN owners to post a link to the new site and showed my support to SN by paying for monthly advertising here for a while. The rule then was that "vendors" needed to disclose their "interests" in a link which is why the link is in my sig. So I did that too. It was all perfectly kosher.

BFS started here - _with Sailnetters_. It's that simple.

So - there is absolutely no "marketing scheme" and nobody is a "pawn". That is complete and utter crazy talk that sounds a lot like someone I know that used to post here - especially when you're threatening to "out me" via my incorporation info (exactly something he would do which is exactly why I did what I did - so you're now in that club). I give away more stuff than I sell. If you look on Reddit, you'll see where I recently donated a bunch of BFS Gear to a youth sailing program in Minnesota. And I've given big honkin' trophies to young Opti sailors for having the "BFS of The Year". Why? Because I love sailing and want everyone else to as well. This BFS thing has always really been just for fun. It's certainly not a retirement plan.

Now, what the mods here want to do about yours and others' current complaints is completely up to them. I'm happy to remove any links in my sig and even take the store offline if it's causing any problem to SN. It's certainly no big deal to me. So I'll await their word and will honor their decision.

Finally, to calm your obviously mounting hysteria, and though they'd probably never want to admit it in public, yes, I was fortunate enough to meet, for the first time, the owner of WG as well as several of their team at the end of last month (October). I found out they were sponsors of Wally Moran's Sail to The Sun ICW Rally and that there was an event being held in Deltaville. So I went....completely on my own dime. They were all incredibly nice people - and thought I was absolutely insane to fly all that way just to say hello and thanks. They were actually kind of dumbstruck - and probably a little nervous at this BFS chucklehead who showed up from Texas. I just told them that's the way I roll - because it is.

And, to be crystal clear, as I've already said over and over, I have not received a penny from WG or anyone else. I did take some BFS Gear with me on that visit and traded several hats for a guide and a couple of Skipper Bobs. But that's it. And they obviously came out WAY ahead. I then flew home happy that I'd met more cool cruisers who love this stuff as much as I do.

So, yet again, as you can see, even the timing of your little theory doesn't fit. Before I started the WG vs AC thread *in May*, I knew virtually nothing about WG. I'd only heard about the printed guides a bit in the forums. I'd never owned or even opened one. It was pure chance I came across their web app. And this visit where I first met these people was just last month - _5 months after_ I started that thread and did my review.

So there is no grand conspiracy...except in your head.

And I owe you nothing more. Ever. So get over it.

Now, you guys _really_ need to go find a new hobby...or a tin foil lined AC hat. In the mean time, I look forward to your and your pals' humble apology.


----------



## XSrcing

dude...whoa


----------



## ScottUK

Wow Smack I think you just made a couple of posters here appear...'silly'. 

Good on ya!


----------



## seaner97

Holy sh*t. You answered the question. Good job.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> Wow.
> 
> First off, Minne, I owe you and your pals (Rob, Mast, Exile, Fallard, Serenade, Frye, etc.) _*nothing*_. This is a sailing forum not your sandbox. But I will go ahead and answer.......
> 
> And I owe you nothing more. Ever. So get over it.


Thanks for the reply, it's all I asked for. Everyone can now make of it, whatever they like. The history of how it developed does not totally clarify what you are doing with it now, however.

Some have asked whether I would believe you. How could I believe or not? Indeed, it's entirely up to SN what they do with your reply. A trademarked, incorporated business that essentially advertises here is a slippery slope, but not my call. I don't follow how making charitable donations changes that. I dropped 10k on my local food bank, that doesn't buy me a pass on anything.

Pals? I don't actually know any of the posters above. Are you simply referring to the fact that they are also tired of your antics? Many more than they should be included.

Owe me? I'm not in this for me. I decided to take you on, because very few will walk up to the bully on the playground and say "enough". I would like to hear what the rest of this board's members have to contribute, without them being shouted down. You draw in those that like to watch or participate in the boxing match, but push away those that prefer a professional debate.

To be clear, I wasn't threatening to out you. You put BFS out there and it's incorporation records appear on the first page of a google search, when looking for it. Perhaps you would argue that I should only use the link in your posts? If so, that would be telling. Seeing them caused me to wonder why BFS needs to be incorporated at all. It's essentially public record you pointed us to.



> In the mean time, I look forward to your and your pals' humble apology.


You would now advocate anyone apologize for something they post? Maybe there is hope.

It's ultimately the real point here. You push until people break and then cry about it being all their fault. You have followers that like that kind of persona, but I know for a fact, there are substantially more qualified sailors than you who are avoiding this place because of your bullying.

But, let's give it a try, if you've turned over this new leaf. Care to humbly apologize for all the silly, stupid, moron, chucklehead, bullying, etc?

If so, I'm happy to move on.


----------



## seaner97

Aw crap. Now my email is going to be full of this crap all day again.


----------



## bobperry

I don't even know what BFS is. I take it it's the Big Freaking Sails thread. I've never been there.


----------



## outbound

Hopefully not.

Merit to both sides of argument. But at end of day this forum is hopefully about sailing not personalities.

Let's see if Smackie and the others are actually adults not truculent teenagers and drop this. It has nothing to do with the limits of high volume production boats.

I grew up in Manhattan. I'm use to children playing "dozens" but not adults.


----------



## chall03

+1 Outbound.

Take this crap to fightclub. If egos need to bounce around go do it on your own time and let us know who wins later. 

Some of us are here for the sailing


----------



## Shockwave

There is no sailing here, it's just a bunch of people posting about sailing. Internet sailing hero's....


----------



## chall03

I feel all offended....

Im not sure what about or whether it was actually Smack, Paulo, Bob or Brent that did it. But I feel affronted, wronged and all out of sorts. 

My keyboard demands I type upon it loudly. I will not be silenced. I might even go and start my own blog/forum. At the very least I am definitely going to threaten to leave this one. 

I might even do so for a week while I visit my mummy.


----------



## Don L

Is there a thread topic here?


----------



## Minnewaska

Sure, what are commonly known as production boats are limited. CE Cat A provides absolutely no clarity on how limited. I provided a link back about a hundred posts. Let's continue to discuss.



Minnewaska said:


> Is this the same CE marking we're talking about?
> 
> CE marking - European Commission


----------



## bobperry

Don:
I think it's just general pissing and moaning. Must be some planetary alignment artifact.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> Don:
> I think it's just general pissing and moaning. Must be some planetary alignment artifact.


Got it. Luna phase causing saliva to drip off of people's fangs. :wink


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> +1 Outbound.
> 
> Take this crap to fightclub. If egos need to bounce around go do it on your own time and let us know who wins later.
> 
> Some of us are here for the sailing


I've tried. But it's a scary place for [tender gents].

Hey chall, aren't you in the market for a new boat? What are looking for and why? Just curious. Well, that, and I'm happy to tell you all the reasons you're wrong. Heh-heh.


----------



## Minnewaska

This is a discussion about behavior and motivations, within the sailing forums, not fighting for sport. No wonder, no one showed up for your after school challenge. More "silly chucklehead" name calling in a production boat discussion. Nice.

I see your post was edited to "tender gents". Has no less intent to provoke and adds nothing else. It's still name calling.


----------



## bobperry

Minne:
Relax, slow down and take time to smell the 5200. You seem a bit uptight. Why don't you attack me and get it out of your system so we can move on.


How about we discuss Catalina's new 425 model. Looks like they have gone Euro on us. PCP would love that. I have to write a review on the boat Monday so I am in need of a way to approach this shift in styling gears. The images I have from Catalina are in "read only" format.


----------



## Minnewaska

bobperry said:


> Minne:
> Relax, slow down and take time to smell the 5200. You seem a bit uptight. Why don't you attack me and get it out of your system so we can move on.


Sorry Bob, no can do. For that matter, Smack has continued to provoke in new threads, by cross referencing some of these. No one else brought it up.

Not sure you would be aware that a few very knowledgeable posters have checked out, directly as a result of the environment created by Smack. They don't all announce their departure.


----------



## RobGallagher

bobperry said:


> Minne:
> Relax, slow down and take time to smell the 5200. You seem a bit uptight. Why don't you attack me and get it out of your system so we can move on.
> 
> How about we discuss Catalina's new 425 model. Looks like they have gone Euro on us. PCP would love that. I have to write a review on the boat Monday so I am in need of a way to approach this shift in styling gears. The images I have from Catalina are in "read only" format.


Like the new Euro style or not, they seemed in need of a makeover. Mind you, I'm not referring to how the boat will perform or how far apart the handholds are and such.... strictly the overall look of their boats seemed to have gone stale.

edit, sounds like they might be following the pack, rather than trying to take the lead....


----------



## bobperry

Minne:
You see what you want to see. I've been hanging out here for quite a while. I have seen no such exodus. There are really very few people here anyway and a big drop in numbers would be very noticeable.
Sounds to me like you are trying to manufacture a situation where none exists. Kind of like the "marketing scheme" accusation.

But like PCP and me. you and Smack will never get along. That's OK. Might be time to move on and drop this whinging.


----------



## ScottUK

Boy, Minne the dissounance you are exhibiting here is quite astounding. Do you not realise you are perpetuating what you want to stop?


----------



## Minnewaska

Bob,

I'm not going to out them and this is a recent occurrence. I'm not trying to prove it, I'm only trying to explain my motives.

Smack and I used to get along, so I don't see why that can't happen again. However, when you beat his argument, ask a question he doesn't want to answer, or call out a fact that is relevant to the conversation, but may degrade his argument, one gets smacked with name calling. When that stops and I'll be happy to get along.


----------



## Minnewaska

ScottUK said:


> Boy, Minne the dissounance you are exhibiting here is quite astounding. Do you not realise you are perpetuating what you want to stop?


Scott, I've taken to responding to it, such as your comment. I even tried to post something to get us back on topic, but no one replied to it. When it stops, I'm done.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Minne:
> Relax, slow down and take time to smell the 5200. You seem a bit uptight. Why don't you attack me and get it out of your system so we can move on.
> 
> How about we discuss Catalina's new 425 model. Looks like they have gone Euro on us. PCP would love that. I have to write a review on the boat Monday so I am in need of a way to approach this shift in styling gears. The images I have from Catalina are in "read only" format.


I have to say, I've never quite understood Catalina (though I owned one). They seem to be so incredibly incremental with their design evolution - which I can understand from a cost perspective. But it also seems to keep them in a real corner.

And you're right, they certainly seem to be moving in the Euro direction for size and style - but it certainly makes sense:



> Due to increasing demand for mid-range boats, Catalina is introducing the new 425.


I love this too...



> The 425 is the 6th model in the 5 Series, where there is a bold emphasis on strength; a five-part construction with a dedicated structural grid insures ruggedly-built boats that stand up to the test of time. Unique design features include a watertight StrikeZone™ collision bulkhead forward; DeepDefense™ rudder system for failsafe steering and a T-Beam MastStep™ structure, with all the benefits of a deck-stepped mast and the strength of a keel-stepped mast. The SecureSocket™ mast support/chainplate system facilitates perfect load resolution and watertight integrity. Knitted fabrics create a stronger laminate without additional weight. Catalina's trademark lead keels absorb impact for safety and require less maintenance than other materials.


Cue the Blue Man Group.

Finally, how about this beautiful nugget of info...



> All systems are designed following the recommendations and standards of the ABYC and IMCI to earn the highest rating of Category A - Unlimited Offshore. The suggested base price of a Catalina 425 is $262,900 with electronics and sails.


That's going to warm the cockles of Maine's heart.

I look forward to your article Bob.


----------



## XSrcing

Minnewaska said:


> Scott, I've taken to responding to it, such as your comment. I even tried to post something to get us back on topic, but no one replied to it. When it stops, I'm done.


----------



## ScottUK

> I even tried to post something to get us back on topic, but no one replied to it.


A non-response does not imply a contrary response.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


>


Dude, that's worse than a RickRoll.

I'm sorry - may I call you dude?

Actually Rick's song says a lot about how I feel about each and every member on SN:


----------



## bobperry

"Boy, Minne the dissounance you are exhibiting here is quite astounding. Do you not realise you are perpetuating what you want to stop?"

That's how I see it too.

"A non-response does not imply a contrary response."

Yeah, didn't you ever watch A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS? 
sheesh!


----------



## XSrcing

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, that's worse than a RickRoll.
> 
> I'm sorry - may I call you dude?
> 
> Actually Rick's song says a lot about how I feel about each and every member on SN:


 I'm hoping some fool clicks on that with their daughter present.

I've been called far worse than dude.

Rick Astley was deathly afraid of flying.


----------



## bobperry

I should never have clicked on that.
I need ear bleach!


----------



## blt2ski

Have not clicked it yet, probably a good thing I have lost probably 50-70% of hearing eh!

The few pics oft he Cat 425 put it mroe modern if you will than past versions. Have not found specs etc.

Martin


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Hey chall, aren't you in the market for a new boat? What are looking for and why? Just curious. Well, that, and I'm happy to tell you all the reasons you're wrong. Heh-heh.


Yep. So the topic of this thread is more than academic for us at the moment. Happy for all and any feedback 

We are currently looking really closely at Moody 425s, 44 or 42 in Europe from the 90's.

Why? They IMHO represent the middle ground of everything being expounded in this thread. A moderate design with good build quality(but still a production boat with a few things to watch out for), mid priced(a LOT cheaper than a HR/Oyster etc) and they are old enough to be affordable but not too old.

We are also looking at a bunch of other boats including a few Peterson 46/44s down here in Oz/SE Asia BUT in less they have had substantial refit work these boats are feeling tired.


----------



## outbound

What local boats are built in series down by you? The only things I've seen from NZ and Oz have been one offs and beautifully done. 


Just curious from a builders point of view why are Rustlers, Oysters, HR, and my boat more than twice the cost of the Catalina? Where does the money go? Is it just because they can? These boats are not CF/foam core. I understand the components are a grade or two up and there is more labor involved in glassing both sides of stick in place furniture and bulkheads. I understand using high grade benzeel ply and other materials is more expensive. But I don't understand why such a big jump. 
Compared to other "quality " 46' boats my boats cost is at the lower end even though the run is smaller. Is this due to Chinese labor? Lower margin? Name and branding?


----------



## jgragrg

I think you make an excellent point, many production costal sailors are much more capable than the sailors sailing them, regardless as to how far off shore they are.


----------



## mitiempo

The Catalina 425


----------



## mitiempo

Catalina 425 Specifications and features:


----------



## Sleddriver

I kinda agree with this. Being a newcomer, I don't have much pull, nor do I expect ever to have the respect some on here have. I do not want to step on anybody's toes, but it seems to me that this thread probably should have been closed about 300 pages ago. I am sorry, but hasn't it lost it's way?


----------



## XSrcing

It absolutely has. Many times. But it keeps coming back around.


----------



## blt2ski

Sleddriver said:


> I kinda agree with this. Being a newcomer, I don't have much pull, nor do I expect ever to have the respect some on here have. I do not want to step on anybody's toes, but it seems to me that this thread probably should have been closed about 300 pages ago. I am sorry, but hasn't it lost it's way?


300 pgs ago!?!?!?!?! I'm only reading on page 199.......so it should have been closed before it was started! ahhhhhhhhhh

I like that ideaer!

Yep, I really do..........


----------



## Bill-Rangatira

getting back to the point though if Bob would sell me one of his custom boats for the price i paid for my production boat then i would definitely buy but even custom boats have shortcomings 
i have to admit to not being a fan of a boat built with darts cut in a sheet of steel and welded with a small truckload of bondo to cover the buckles


----------



## Jaramaz

outbound said:


> Just curious from a builders point of view why are Rustlers, Oysters, HR, and my boat more than twice the cost of the Catalina? Where does the money go? Is it just because they can?


We are living in a market driven world ... not cost driven. Prices are market price. A higher price just means that it is possible to get customers to pay the higher price. 
Costs are another dimension. Hopefully a manufacturer can achieve a positive margin, where costs are lower (< for Smack) than the price.



outbound said:


> These boats are not CF/foam core.


Not? Are you sure? In order to stay competitive (reasonably fast, independent if you personally like it or not) production boats also in the higher price range most be (comparably) light. 
Also note what has been said here many times: the cost of the hull is a small factor in the complete budget. Bob has stated somewhere, I think, the (extra) costs of using CF. Yes, more money, but ... not impossible. 
Some production boats (no, please, do not ask me to list. Has been done elsewhere) are made in CF. Foam core is another matter, of course.



outbound said:


> I understand the components are a grade or two up and there is more labor involved in glassing both sides of stick in place furniture and bulkheads. I understand using high grade benzeel ply and other materials is more expensive. But I don't understand why such a big jump.


Good to understand, better to know. What you call components are usually about the same. The low cost brand Bav ... uses high rated components like Lewmar, Seldén (just giving two examples here).
Labour costs are tricky, of course. That's why "production boats" producers introduce robots - still, all work cannot be made by robots.

But there is a lot to do on efficiency. I will just mention that the aforementioned Bav spends about 2 hours for the complete installation of the engine - a work that for me would take a week ...



outbound said:


> Compared to other "quality " 46' boats my boats cost is at the lower end even though the run is smaller. Is this due to Chinese labor? Lower margin? Name and branding?


Again, this is market. Your boat is not as known as Hustler, HR etc. Of course, production in China helps, but not as much (we do not repeat hat discussion here, do we?). 
Just consider the brand value of Coca-Cola (a totally worthless drink) or the recent loss of brand value of VW (made possible by the top management culture where one thought it was possible to dictate technology advancements ... idiots).
So Brand market value is very important. Often it has little to do with content. There are exceptions, as the german car manufacturer Audi has demonstrated with "Vorsprung durch Technik" which actually is quite true (even though they belong to the same group as VW, and then are, nearly by definition, idiots).

/J


----------



## XSrcing

Bob doesn't own the boats he designed.


----------



## Sleddriver

blt2ski said:


> 300 pgs ago!?!?!?!?! I'm only reading on page 199.......so it should have been closed before it was started! ahhhhhhhhhh
> 
> I like that ideaer!
> 
> Yep, I really do..........


WOW! I must be on the wrong forum. I'm on page 398


----------



## bobperry

This guy sailed single handed around Cape Horn and decided he liked it. Now he is doing a single handed, non stop circumnavigation on his Baba 40. I love the line about "cannitarian". He writes very well.

Around Alone days-13-14-15

Day-13 
24hr.Run=159NM Pos,=Lat.19*21'S Long.102*55'W Weather=Barometer=1012mb. Wind=12-18Kts.SE. Seas=5-8ft. Cabin Temp 71*-75*. Many squalls during the day but tranquilo overnight with lots of stars, including the Southern Cross.
Day-14
24hr. Run=154NM. Position=Lat. 21*21' Long.104*33'. Weather=Barometer=1012mb. Wind=8-18ktsSE. Seas=6-8ft.ESE. cabin Temp 73*-75*. We have sailed clear of the cold Humboldt Current keeping Sailors run a little warmer at night. This day was the sunniest and nicest day so far.
Day-15
24hr, Run=135NM. Position=Lat.23*03'S.Long.106*57'W. Weather=Barometer=1015mb. Seas=4-6ft.SE. Wind= 8-18kts SE.
Total miles sailed so far=2210
Total Miles sailed the last 3-days=448NM4.
Miles to go to turning point=103NM.
Top speed so far=9.9kts.
Time to Easter Island about two days
The Rest of the Story.
Day-13
"Mystery aboard Sailors Run" I awoke from a sound sleep to the sound of a motor running. The sound was different from anything I had ever heard. I struggled to get clear of my birth, and glanced at the blank Radar on my way by. Climbing the companion way stairs I knock the cabin doors open with a "bang", sliding back the hatch allowing me to get out in the cockpit. I peered into a pitch dark night scanning 360* looking for lights of another vesel to find nothing, and outside could no longer here the motor.
Once back below I noticed it was still quiet so I crawled back in my birth. Suddenly there it was again, only this time I just wait and listened, and sure enough, it stops then starts again in about one minute. I thought maybe the r refrigeration is going bad sounding different and cycling on and off. I climb out of the birth again and stick my head under the sink and listen to the refrigeration purring quietly along.
Now I'm setting on the birth with my head between my hands thinking "What the Hell". Once again the motor turns and suddenly a light bulb comes on in my head. I dive on to the cabin sole and lift the floor board over my fuel tanks, and sure enough there it is, sitting between the two tanks the automatic bilge pump I had installed for this trip over a year ago. Apparently when a large wave slammed into sailors Run it had forced about a quart of water back through the pump, that was now roaming around under the tanks, setting off the pump every time it got it wet, It turns on for about 12 seconds then shuts off until it is splashed again and never pumps any water out. Hmmmmm????
I go hunt down the fuse removing it and suddenly there is silence. No worry I will continue to monitor the water level and if it ever comes up will get the pump back running. I also have a high water alarm just in case I forget to check.
Day-14
I'm sure you have all heard of Cannibalism being a survival technique aboard ships that remain out to sea just a "little to long". It was also quite common among many of the South pacific Islands.
Well I'm sure I to will soon become a Cannibal as just about everything I will be eating will come from a can. It really isn't much different than being a vegetarian. The one slight difference is the cannatarian needs a can opener;"that's about it".
Putting a line out for catching a fish is starting to sound like a good idea.
After two weeks I'm still on the first 75 gallon tank of water, when that goes dry it will be time to start up the water-maker.
The sailing over the past two weeks has been some of the very best I have ever experienced, sailing fast along the course line. Just a reminder this voyage is unassisted meaning no motoring and no outside help.
I do weather by receiving weather faxes on the long range SSB Radio along with grib files and weather descriptions about what is happening in my area.
Day-15
High Seas drama Aboard Sailors Run.
It all started about 10:30am when I decided to run the motor to circulate the oil and get the moisture out of the engine. I started the motor taking it out of reverse and leaving it in neutral, this allows the prop and shaft to spin freely. After 20-minutes I shut the motor down, and as I went below I felt a strange vibration and could hear something spinning and rubbing, and it sounded like the shaft which should be impossible as I had put the transmission back in reverse locking the shaft.
I immediately tore into the outside locker clearing out all that was stowed there to gain access to the shaft below decks."Holy ****" the shaft had come free of the coupler and was spinning madly about as we were sailing at over 7-knots. Now unattached to the transmission it was really wobbling and had tried to slide out of the boat but was stopped by the rudder, that was now currently being eaten by the whirling three blade prop. I grabbed a 15-foot length of 7/16inch line and secured one end to some frame work below putting five wraps around the whirling shaft and synched it down, just barely enough to stop the shaft from turning. Next I activated the electric high volume bilge pump as a large stream of water was coming in around the packing gland on the shaft. Next I went on deck and rolled in the Genoa sail and dropped the staysail the other forward sail and hove to under main and mizzen slowing the boat speed down to about two knots.
I worked feverously to separate the coupling hoping to find the nut that had come off the end of the shaft and the key that locks the shaft to the coupling. Once the two halves were separated I found the nut but the key had obviously vanished into the flooding bilge that was only kept under control by going and turning on the pump every ten minutes. I could not slow the flow of water until I once had the shaft back in the coupler attached to the transmission, there by locking it down.
I got my extendable high powered magnet and went fishing in the bilge for the missing key, for the keyway. On my second try I was relieved to have come up with it and it looked to be in good condition. I slid the coupler down the shaft and over the key, then screwed the nut on the end of the shaft by hand tightening as far as I could turn it before getting a socket to tighten it.
I won't even go into how hard it is to get at the large socket set, just believe it takes time. I gathered up the three most likely sockets to fit the shaft nut and was real disappointed to find that I did not have a socket to fit the nut. This was even more unbelievable as I had installed this new shaft made in Argentina and tightened that very same nut 6-years ago. I could devise no way to get anything in the hub other than a socket to further tightening it. So I reassembled the couplings placing the four bolts back in them to secure the coupling. You cannot even imagine the feet that was, pulling the shaft up to the transmission lining up that first bolt and getting the nut on the end of the bolt, as all the time the shaft wants to pull away and turn if you don't keep a firm grip on it. After way too much time that was as right as I could get it, and then I had to take the stuffing gland apart and add more Teflon stuffing around the shaft. Once the gland was tightened the water flow was stopped I could take several huge deep breaths.
This entire drama from start to finish took over 5-hours, and my body ached and hurt afterwards. All that work had to be performed hunched over in a confined space working below the level of my feet.
Going onward I have a less than perfect fix do to the missing socket. I have decided that if I want to run that engine again in the future to dry it out I will have to go below and tie off that shaft so it cannot spin. I don't know how long I could motor before the nut might vibrate off, it could be five minutes or five months but I don't want to find out. I would tie the shaft off temporary permanently but if suddenly I needed that motor to avoid impending doom I at least want to be able to try and power the boat.
Looking forward to "better days"
The Jefe'


----------



## bobperry

Life is thread drift. Get used to it.

Bill:
XS is correct. I can't afford a million dollar plus custom Perry boat. I'd have to sell my house. Then I'd be a live aboard. What would I do with all my hi-fi gear and guitars? My cat would be pissed. The divorce would be very expensive. Nope, not gonna hoppen. I'm happy just the way things are now.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> ...I grabbed a 15-foot length of 7/16inch line and secured one end to some frame work below putting five wraps around the whirling shaft and synched it down, just barely enough to stop the shaft from turning... The Jefe'


Note to fellow sailors: I have found that starting with a clove hitch and drawing it very tight, then adding whatever you want really helps grab any shaft shaped object to keep the wraps from turning.

Great story, thank you Bob!

Feet = feat in the first mention in the story. I hate auto spell check.



> ...You cannot even imagine the *feet* that was, pulling the shaft up to the transmission lining up that first bolt and getting the nut on the end of the bolt...


----------



## blt2ski

sleddriver,

Go to almost upper port corner, click your name, then click edit settings, you can change the how many posts you see from 10 to 20. For threads like this one that can get a lot of posts in a given day, this is easier than trying to go thru a lot of pages. Well, at least I find it is easier to scrol thru 20 posts a page vs 10.....

Marty


----------



## Sleddriver

Well, being a very recent newbie, I haven't taken the time to set up any preferences. As soon as I submitted that post, I realized it might be something like that.

Thanks for the info Marty.


----------



## bobperry

Don't worry Sled, in the tradition of SN I'll tell you what to read.


----------



## Don L

bobperry said:


> Don't worry Sled, in the tradition of SN I'll tell you what to read.


how do we know when to read your posts so we know what to read?


----------



## Brent Swain

travlineasy said:


> Brent, if you were firing an old military round, WWII .308 rounds were mostly made of steel and they would pass right through that stump and hardly slow down. A lead projectile, however, would mushroom and never make it half way. Those old .308 British rifles were pretty deadly, but the theory behind the steel jacket rounds was that it would produce a nasty wound that would require at least two more combatants to assist in removing the wounded person from the battlefield. The same round in lead would have likely killed that same person and only taken one person out of the battle.
> 
> Old guys like me know this kind of trivial stuf.
> 
> Gary


It is a very good impact resistance comparison between the two materials. Impact is impact, period.
Don't take my word for it, borrow a 308, some hard points, and some soft points, and try it.


----------



## XSrcing

I have tried it with several 7.62 mm calibers. I don't believe you.


----------



## Brent Swain

I agree with Jeff, that long overhangs on older boats were a hairbrained idea, developed to beat the racing rules of the time. However, there are other advantages of older boats. The long, wide keel attachments to the hulls back then, meant that keels falling off was unheard of. The layups were thicker and stronger. Osmosis was almost unheard of back then. Narrower hulls had a far better AVS number.
They can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials for a new boat, leaving a lot of money left over for using the boat, instead of going to work to pay for a new one.
Those with short keels, with rudder attached, like Albergs, can be drastically improved, by removing the rudder from the keel and hanging a rudder on a skeg, 6 ft futher aft.


----------



## Brent Swain

XSrcing said:


> I have tried it with several 7.62 mm calibers. I don't believe you.


Hardwoods put up a lot more resistance than fir, which is far more porous. Works for me. Nowhere near that kind of penetration in alder.


----------



## Brent Swain

Bill-Rangatira said:


> getting back to the point though if Bob would sell me one of his custom boats for the price i paid for my production boat then i would definitely buy but even custom boats have shortcomings
> i have to admit to not being a fan of a boat built with darts cut in a sheet of steel and welded with a small truckload of bondo to cover the buckles


Origami boats don't buckle, and need absolutely zero bondo to be as fair as any plastic boat. That only happens when you put plate over frames and weld it to the frames ,before welding the seams, and thus shrinking the edges.Then it cant bow out , in a beautiful compound curve, and thus can do nothing but buckle. 
The only fair framed boats are those in which the builder left the longitudinals and the plate they are welded to, free to float out of the frames while the seams are being welded ,then only welded to the frames after all plate seam welding has been completed.

As I row past a fully framed Roberts design, which is terribly buckled by this , I wonder, if one had caught it in the bare steel stage, and cut the longitudinals free from the frames, then wedged them out to where they would have gone, had they not been welded to the frames first , how much of the buckling would disappear?
Haven't had the opportunity to try it, but it would be interesting.


----------



## XSrcing

Not at 23". You probably saw splintering on the backside, but I doubt the round passed through. Not in a piece of green wood, even fir. I have a backyard that is 2.5 acres of fir, pine, spruce and a couple vine maples. I've cut many down with my rifles for fun.


----------



## outbound

Have an AR and a 308. Mass X velocity equals the latent energy in a projectile. Steel jacket, beaver tail, hollow nose and other features of the projectile will modify how that energy is dissipated. Will is tumble, mushroom, pass through. The gas operated Bennelli has a kick. The Bushmaster doesn't. Depending on load mussle speeds can be comparable. There is no question the 308 projectile even with store bought standard hunting loads will penetrate 3/16 mild steel. 
Best friend works part time teaching folks to be gun safety teachers and to run ranges. We spent a pleasant afternoon writing our names in steel plate with 308s some years back. Had literally hundreds of old rounds from ranges, law enforcement and military AR. Choice was shoot them off in his back 40 or disassemble for safe disposal. Even with misfires it was fun. 
You can cut down trees with an AR as you chip away the wood. But for penetration a full metal jacket on a 308 would be a better choice. Would note that a 45 out of a 1911 has more mass but less penetration given lower speed just like a Minnie ball. But greater stopping power.
This has nothing to do with sailboats and is silly. Penetration by a projectile has entirely difficult physics then a boat striking rock, coral, or ice. If this is your concern put arimid in your layup. 

Agree with the premise that for high latitude sailing metal has much to be said for it. Don't agree that metal should be Fe especially given advances in Al metallurgy. Shame corten is basically no better than mild steel in the ocean. Remember seeing plans for a cute boat called Corten. Wonder if any were built.


----------



## albrazzi

Brent Swain said:


> I agree with Jeff, that long overhangs on older boats were a hairbrained idea, developed to beat the racing rules of the time. However, there are other advantages of older boats. The long, wide keel attachments to the hulls back then, meant that keels falling off was unheard of. The layups were thicker and stronger. Osmosis was almost unheard of back then. Narrower hulls had a far better AVS number.
> They can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials for a new boat, leaving a lot of money left over for using the boat, instead of going to work to pay for a new one.
> Those with short keels, with rudder attached, like Albergs, can be drastically improved, by removing the rudder from the keel and hanging a rudder on a skeg, 6 ft futher aft.


I never got this argument, it assumes everyone has the same amount of money. How Ridiculous.


----------



## outbound

Been learning from Bob and others. Remember earlier it was pointed out

Overhang in bow allows easier handling of ground tackle.
Allows easier design of reserve buoyancy in the bows.
Quieter stern at rest. 
Less waterline upright but more effective waterline once boat moving and heeled.
If I understood Jeff correctly you lose lwl for a given loa so decrease hull speed.

None of this as anything to do with IOR rules.

Some overhang is considered pretty by some observers.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sleddriver said:


> I kinda agree with this. Being a newcomer, I don't have much pull, nor do I expect ever to have the respect some on here have. I do not want to step on anybody's toes, but it seems to me that this thread probably should have been closed about 300 pages ago. I am sorry, but hasn't it lost it's way?


If you want arbitrarily closed threads you need to go to Cruisersforum.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jaramaz said:


> ...osts are lower (< for Smack) than the price.


YOU BASTARD!



Jaramaz said:


> ... idiots.
> 
> ...idiots.
> 
> /J


Oh, okay, nevermind - I like you.


----------



## Brent Swain

The suggestion that anyone can predict exactly where a log or container is going to impact a hull. is incredibly naive , 
wishful thinking. That clearly shows the huge divide between theory and reality.
Yes,carbon or Kevlar in the bow is a good idea ,but it's extremely rare , especially on older boats.
Could and should be retrofitted.


----------



## bobperry

Carbon added to the bow for impact resistance is a really a dumb idea. That's where carbon is useless. Carbon does not like to share loads. You would have to build up a massive thickness of carbon beyond your normal laminate. On the cutters where we want impact resistance down the centerline and in the bow area we added e glass layers to the carbon to get a build up of thickness. BS has no clue.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> Been learning from Bob and others. Remember earlier it was pointed out
> 
> Overhang in bow allows easier handling of ground tackle.
> Allows easier design of reserve buoyancy in the bows.
> Quieter stern at rest.
> Less waterline upright but more effective waterline once boat moving and heeled.
> If I understood Jeff correctly you lose lwl for a given loa so decrease hull speed.
> 
> None of this as anything to do with IOR rules.
> 
> Some overhang is considered pretty by some observers.


Yes, some overhang is good idea, but not the extreme overhang on some classics. I found it far noisier on my first boat. Stern slammed hard in certain conditions. 
It eliminates transom drag , but with modern racing boats suffering no ill effects from their transoms going under in a quarter wave ,it seems that is less of a factor than extending the waterline that much further for a given boat length. For a given boat length, the less the overhang, the longer the waterline.
Yes, some overhang looks far better than the hideously ugly benecatatahunt snub nose trendies, but no need to go to extremes, a big mistake. 
Hard to imagine how they get an anchor up without banging hell out of the hull.
I guess they simply go from marina to marina and don't anchor. Hard to do in remote parts of the world.
Moderation looks good.


----------



## Bleemus

Uhhh, carbon hates point loading Mr. Swain. Not a good use. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Bleemer:
I don't think BS has ever worked with carbon fiber. Not likely. I have witnessed two carbon fiber point loading failures up close. It happens very fast.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> There is no question the 308 projectile even with store bought standard hunting loads will penetrate 3/16 mild steel.
> 
> Agree with the premise that for high latitude sailing metal has much to be said for it. Don't agree that metal should be Fe especially given advances in Al metallurgy. Shame corten is basically no better than mild steel in the ocean. Remember seeing plans for a cute boat called Corten. Wonder if any were built.


They make it thru 3/8th inch plate ,barely.
I was moored off a shipyard in Auckland for a year. They said they tried Corten and it was not worth the e trouble and expense. No real advantage over mild steel .
Some boats have been built with corten , but not many.
Aluminium is great, but just too damned expensive, and finicky, when it comes to welding it.


----------



## albrazzi

bobperry said:


> Bleemer:
> I don't think BS has ever worked with carbon fiber. Not likely. I have witnessed two carbon fiber point loading failures up close. It happens very fast.


To the luddite can you explain point loading, following curiously.


----------



## Bleemus

bobperry said:


> Bleemer:
> I don't think BS has ever worked with carbon fiber. Not likely. I have witnessed two carbon fiber point loading failures up close. It happens very fast.


I too have witnessed a few. One was a boom on a Santa Cruz 70 hull #12 during a squall returning from Bermuda. Crew on deck eased sheets too much as they bore off during the squall and the minute it touched the shrouds in 55 knots wind Boom! Side loading a boom designed for vertical loads doesn't work. She still sailed at 12 plus knots all the way home under storm trysail and headsails though. It wasn't a steel boat but to my eye she was pretty.


----------



## Bleemus

albrazzi said:


> To the luddite can you explain point loading, following curiously.


Carbon is best when the load is spread over area. The bigger the better. Carbon is also typically laid to deal with stresses in certain directions and when a load of intensity is directed at this structure in a small area that it wasn't intended to anticipate it can fail.

For example I worked on Santa Cruz 70s which were ultralight boats with lots of carbon. Fantastically strong and light and fast. The downside was that delivery crew coming back to the boat from the bars at night had to be reminded that jumping 10 feet from the dock at low tide onto the deck would point load the deck and possibly cause damage was something we never thought about on Swans of the era. But, I have heard, the new Swans are similar.

I hope that is clear enough but am sure Bob can clarify.


----------



## bobperry

Beemer: 
I did a spin pole on a baby stay in a jibe on a 70'er. Damn baby stay! I also was on the dock when they were hauling out a Melges and the crane bar got over the spreader. I kept watching thinking, surely they must see this. But no, they kept hoisting and bang! In both cases alu would have said, " I can take this. See you tomorrow." Carbon fiber was not forgiving.

I'd use chopper gun mat for impact before I'd use carbon.


----------



## albrazzi

I guess that's why it makes good crumple zones in F1, you want it to break when things get unpredictable.


----------



## Thunderchild001

Hello. I have just found this thread and have read it all the way through. I am a total newbie as far as ownership goes. I have sailed on friends boats for years but just never got my own. That is about to change. I am looking to get my first boat next spring. I am looking to coastal sail from the Chesapeake bay to Key West once I get a good handle on the boat. You all here are very informative and I see I have a lot of reading to do to learn from you all. This is a great web site and I look forward to being here. I will be totally coastal sailing the east coast and one day the Caribbean.


----------



## outbound

TC welcome to the site!!!

Different people have different perspectives. When reading posts have found it helpful to check public profiles to understand perspective. Have also found it helpful to see what that person has posted on several threads to assess how much weight to ascribe to that persons posts. In general have found JonE, Bob Perry, Jeff H, Maine posts very helpful.


----------



## smackdaddy

Thunderchild001 said:


> Hello. I have just found this thread and have read it all the way through. I am a total newbie as far as ownership goes. I have sailed on friends boats for years but just never got my own. That is about to change. I am looking to get my first boat next spring. I am looking to coastal sail from the Chesapeake bay to Key West once I get a good handle on the boat. You all here are very informative and I see I have a lot of reading to do to learn from you all. This is a great web site and I look forward to being here. I will be totally coastal sailing the east coast and one day the Caribbean.


Welcome Thunder. This is a great place to learn A LOT. Some very, very good sailors, designers, fixers, etc. around here.

You'll like the place.


----------



## Thunderchild001

Thanks a lot for the information. Greatly appreciated.


----------



## Brent Swain

Bleemus said:


> Carbon is best when the load is spread over area. The bigger the better. Carbon is also typically laid to deal with stresses in certain directions and when a load of intensity is directed at this structure in a small area that it wasn't intended to anticipate it can fail.
> 
> For example I worked on Santa Cruz 70s which were ultralight boats with lots of carbon. Fantastically strong and light and fast. The downside was that delivery crew coming back to the boat from the bars at night had to be reminded that jumping 10 feet from the dock at low tide onto the deck would point load the deck and possibly cause damage was something we never thought about on Swans of the era. But, I have heard, the new Swans are similar.
> 
> I hope that is clear enough but am sure Bob can clarify.


Good points. It was Jeff who suggested carbon for impact. I guess kevlar would be better. What Bob is telling us is that his very high priced carbon cutters a cant take an impact with a sharp point( rock or container,) without shattering. Point load is exactly the kind of load his carbon rudder shafts experience where they pass thru the hull. I have heard they have a high failure rate at that point. That explains why. Sounds like a useless material for a cruising boat. 
The archery folks tell the same story. A carbon fibre arrow is super strong, end on, but if they ricochet they shatter. When I asked about carbon fibre for bows They said it has been done , but it is super finicky to build one. A slight screw up and they shatter.
No, I have had no reason to ever use the stuff, and it sounds like I never will have. 
I have been told that it smells like raw sewage when you grind it.


----------



## Shockwave

Huh? Have you seen how they are being built?


----------



## Bleemus

For impact Kevlar would be better than carbon. It holds things together a bit longer while you get the life raft ready.


----------



## outbound

My nightmare is not sinking but fire. Have watertight bulkhead forward and heavy solid glass layup with integral tanks. See plenty of stuff out there but think odds of hitting something that will sink you is low. Nearly every year see a boat fire. Every year hear about one or two on 16
. Even on a metal boat this is a disaster. Maralon melts. Interiors burn as does paint - especially coal tar derivatives. You'll be abandoning a metal boat just like CF or GRP. You can get Al to burn or melt. Burning sprayed in insulation is toxic.

We carry fire blankets and more than required extinguishers but still worry so go through fire protocol with new crew. Would be reluctant to have a heating stove in a boat unless I could restrict use to me alone. 

Believe many if not most marinas won't even let you barbecue on a boat in their slips.

Brent do you standpipes on your boats?


----------



## XSrcing

Bob's boats are being built by Jim Betts. They will not shatter with impact.


----------



## skygazer

outbound said:


> ...My nightmare is not sinking but fire. Would be reluctant to have a heating stove in a boat unless I could restrict use to me alone...


18° F. here right now and dropping. I agree with all you say, except I'm willing and happy to have heat on board. I do not want propane on board and am surprised it's popular just for convenience.


----------



## Maine Sail

skygazer said:


> 18° F. here right now and dropping. I agree with all you say, except I'm willing and happy to have heat on board. I do not want propane on board and am surprised it's popular just for convenience.


Remember most every boat has an electrical system:

Propane fires, as a percentage, are infinitesimal compared to electrical fires. In a recent article by Boat US they found that 52% of on-board originated fires are electrical in nature and propane fires did not even get mentioned.. This is very, very close to the data complied by Insurance, the ABYC and the USCG years ago which found 55% of boat fires were electrical in nature.

Here is a direct quote from that investigative data set:

*"Only one fire was started by propane; a portable stove fell off a counter and ignited a cushion." *

Hard to even call that a propane related fire when someone was using a non approved, non-ABYC complaint "portable" stove to begin with..

Course almost every boat has a motor too:
_*"But it should come as no surprise that, in those cases where a cause can be determined, at least half of all boat fires originate around the motor."*_

In terms of stoves or heat alcohol stoves have proven to be far more dangerous over the years than propane.
*
"Stoves. The incidence of fires due to stoves has decreased with the gradual replacement of alcohol stoves with propane stoves and electric ranges. Two percent of fires were caused by stoves, more than half resulting from problems with lighting alcohol stoves. Given how few alcohol stoves there are on boats these days, they are significantly more dangerous than those that use other fuel sources. If you still have an alcohol stove on board, you may want to consider upgrading. Most people agree that they don't heat very well, anyway."*

Even electric space heater ranked far higher in overall fire related incidents than propane;
*
"Electric heaters, another hazard Seaworthy has addressed before, continue to be a major source of AC electrical fires aboard. While safer heaters have been developed that are less prone to being tipped over or to igniting anything combustible that falls on them, they still draw a great deal of power, and any corrosion in the shorepower system (or worse, household extension cords powering heaters) will tend to build up heat somewhere that can result in a fire. BoatUS continues to recommend not using heaters in lieu of winterizing, and never to leave a heater running if there is no one aboard."*

Propane does deserve respect but a SAFE ABYC compliant installation has proven, with actual insurance data, to be far safer than engines, AC shore power, DC electrical systems and even alcohol stoves. In every single propane incident I know of the fire was caused by a _non-safety compliant system_. While propane fires are usually big news from the "boom" perspective propane systems are far from _unsafe_ if they are installed to current safety standards..

I hate to see boaters potentially limit their enjoyment over issues that really don't warrant the concern level, especially when other on-board systems present a far greater risk of fire..

If you worry about boat fires start with the electrical system and engine....


----------



## outbound

Syke
Agree about propane. Dangerous,heavy,and limited availability in many places such as carribean. However best fuel for cooking. High flame temperature, and easy to modulate.
We use reverse AC if water temperature allows. If not the wesbasco running diesel . No explosion risk.


----------



## eko_eko

I wonder why we don't see more CNG on boats. It's lighter than air so you don't have to live in (unreasonable?) fear of a bilge full of an invisible explosive like I used to when I had propane.


----------



## Maine Sail

eko_eko said:


> I wonder why we don't see more CNG on boats. It's lighter than air so you don't have to live in (unreasonable?) fear of a bilge full of an invisible explosive like I used to when I had propane.


The vast majority of CNG owners I know of, including myself, converted away from CNG due to parts availability and tank availability. This even at a _huge expense_ to do so.. We had a two week cruise ruined back in 1997 or 98 due to a lack of CNG availability. Every one of the hand full of distributors who stocked tanks was out all the way to NY that summer. Quotes I had to ship a tank in were astronomical and completely unrealistic.. As a result of this we spent two weeks using a camp stove in the cockpit thanks to a lack of CNG tank availability. My wife loves to cook and was NOT a happy camper. The CNG was gone shortly after than incident...

I was chatting last week with my friend Tony, a local surveyor, who owns a Sabre about his winter project list; "_Ripping out the CNG system and going to propane._". He too is having real trouble finding places to get CNG and when they run out, they are often out for a while. In Maine in the 80's we used to have in excess of 40 locations that did CNG tank exchanges and we are now down to just 5 that _claim to_ yet most rarely have a tank in stock to actually exchange for you. This usually necessitates having at least two tanks at all times.

In a _properly installed LPG system_, which would always include a propane sniffer, and should include a propane sniffer with solenoid cut off, the concerns of boaters over LPG are simply not backed up by actual data. It is the #1 cooking fuel in use on boats today with many millions of installed systems.

You are far more likely to have your boat burn down from your own electrical system or your engine causing a fire than you are from propane. In terms of the _data_ propane is at or darn near the absolute bottom of the risk list in terms of boat fires.....


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Maine Sail said:


> Remember most every boat has an electrical system:
> 
> Propane fires, as a percentage, are infinitesimal compared to electrical fires. In a recent article by Boat US they found that 52% of on-board originated fires are electrical in nature and propane fires did not even get mentioned.. This is very, very close to the data complied by Insurance, the ABYC and the USCG years ago which found 55% of boat fires were electrical in nature.
> 
> Here is a direct quote from that investigative data set:
> 
> *"Only one fire was started by propane; a portable stove fell off a counter and ignited a cushion." *
> 
> Hard to even call that a propane related fire when someone was using a non approved, non-ABYC complaint "portable" stove to begin with..
> 
> Course almost every boat has a motor too:
> _*"But it should come as no surprise that, in those cases where a cause can be determined, at least half of all boat fires originate around the motor."*_
> 
> In terms of stoves or heat alcohol stoves have proven to be far more dangerous over the years than propane.
> *
> "Stoves. The incidence of fires due to stoves has decreased with the gradual replacement of alcohol stoves with propane stoves and electric ranges. Two percent of fires were caused by stoves, more than half resulting from problems with lighting alcohol stoves. Given how few alcohol stoves there are on boats these days, they are significantly more dangerous than those that use other fuel sources. If you still have an alcohol stove on board, you may want to consider upgrading. Most people agree that they don't heat very well, anyway."*
> 
> Even electric space heater ranked far higher in overall fire related incidents than propane;
> *
> "Electric heaters, another hazard Seaworthy has addressed before, continue to be a major source of AC electrical fires aboard. While safer heaters have been developed that are less prone to being tipped over or to igniting anything combustible that falls on them, they still draw a great deal of power, and any corrosion in the shorepower system (or worse, household extension cords powering heaters) will tend to build up heat somewhere that can result in a fire. BoatUS continues to recommend not using heaters in lieu of winterizing, and never to leave a heater running if there is no one aboard."*
> 
> Propane does deserve respect but a SAFE ABYC compliant installation has proven, with actual insurance data, to be far safer than engines, AC shore power, DC electrical systems and even alcohol stoves. In every single propane incident I know of the fire was caused by a _non-safety compliant system_. While propane fires are usually big news from the "boom" perspective propane systems are far from _unsafe_ if they are installed to current safety standards..
> 
> I hate to see boaters potentially limit their enjoyment over issues that really don't warrant the concern level, especially when other on-board systems present a far greater risk of fire..
> 
> If you worry about boat fires start with the electrical system and engine....


All what you say makes sense (as usual). And I agree that we may have a skewed perception of propane dangers because explosions create so much more press.

OTOH, I wonder if there is another section in the report (that I did not read) that is not about fire but about explosions. I find it not surprising that there are few fires started by propane. You really would have to work hard to start a fire with a propane stove, like tipping over a non-approved stove in the example you list. Much easier to spill a little alcohol and see the flames spread...

I would expect that if there is any serious issues with propane, it will not be classified as a fire but as an explosion. And therefore not appear in the list you are citing.


----------



## Maine Sail

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> All what you say makes sense (as usual). And I agree that we may have a skewed perception of propane dangers because explosions create so much more press.
> 
> OTOH, I wonder if there is another section in the report (that I did not read) that is not about fire but about explosions. I find it not surprising that there are few fires started by propane. You really would have to work hard to start a fire with a propane stove, like tipping over a non-approved stove in the example you list. Much easier to spill a little alcohol and see the flames spread...
> 
> I would expect that if there is any serious issues with propane, it will not be classified as a fire but as an explosion. And therefore not appear in the list you are citing.


Fires or explosions were included in both data sets.


----------



## RobGallagher

In case someone hasn't seen this video, it's a tiny bit harder to blow up your boat with propane than one might think but the results are devestating....

These may have been posted here before, but they are sure worth watching. I don't know that anyone else has ever tested the limits of a production boat while having this much fun with their foulies on.

Through hulls: 




Dismasting: 




Capsizing: 




Boat is holed: 




Boat on fire: 




And there are still more!


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> The vast majority of CNG owners I know of, including myself, converted away from CNG due to parts availability and tank availability. This even at a _huge expense_ to do so.. We had a two week cruise ruined back in 1997 or 98 due to a lack of CNG availability. Every one of the hand full of distributors who stocked tanks was out all the way to NY that summer. Quotes I had to ship a tank in were astronomical and completely unrealistic.. As a result of this we spent two weeks using a camp stove in the cockpit thanks to a lack of CNG tank availability. My wife loves to cook and was NOT a happy camper. The CNG was gone shortly after than incident...
> 
> I was chatting last week with my friend Tony, a local surveyor, who owns a Sabre about his winter project list; "_Ripping out the CNG system and going to propane._". He too is having real trouble finding places to get CNG and when they run out, they are often out for a while. In Maine in the 80's we used to have in excess of 40 locations that did CNG tank exchanges and we are now down to just 5 that _claim to_ yet most rarely have a tank in stock to actually exchange for you. This usually necessitates having at least two tanks at all times.
> 
> In a _properly installed LPG system_, which would always include a propane sniffer, and should include a propane sniffer with solenoid cut off, the concerns of boaters over LPG are simply not backed up by actual data. It is the #1 cooking fuel in use on boats today with many millions of installed systems.
> 
> You are far more likely to have your boat burn down from your own electrical system or your engine causing a fire than you are from propane. In terms of the _data_ propane is at or darn near the absolute bottom of the risk list in terms of boat fires.....


I can second this. We have CNG on our boat. I couldn't find a single place in Texas that would fill our tank. They used to sell nozzle/connector converters online so that you could use automobile fill stations - but it looks like those were discontinued (probably due to safety regs since the pressure is much higher). I've also seen plans for making such a device - but it makes me nervous.

I wish there was a good solution. I really don't want to convert to propane. I know it's used everywhere - but it's such a complex system (sniffers, solenoids, lockers/drains, etc.) that it's still a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Maine Sail

RobGallagher said:


> In case someone hasn't seen this video, it's a tiny bit harder to blow up your boat with propane than one might think....


It is an excellent video but unfortunately continues to help spread the fear that propane systems are somehow more dangerous than other on-board systems.

Even after 13 minutes of free running gas, not just a small leak but wide open gas flow, they could not ignite the propane even when the igniters started a small on-board fire. When they move the bottles into the cabin the LP gas is visible like smoke they are injecting so much of it........... Yep eventually you can get to a level of boom but you would first need to have a very poorly installed system, ignore any alarms and or not even have one and have nostrils that don't work. :wink

I also think folks tend to forget that in much of the country our houses & business are often heated off LPG. About 30% of our neighborhood is LPG heat and every homes owner has a boiler or furnace in the basement. There are only six homes that are "walk out" basement and those owners heat with oil anyway. The basement is where the furnaces and boilers running off LPG are usually located. A basement, a large cement hole in the ground, is really no different than a boats bilge. From the data I have seen LPG explosions in houses are no more common than natural gas explosions. It is all about how the system is installed and maintained. When people don't do work properly and install systems in an unsafe manner yes, you do open yourself up to higher risk. The most recent explosion I recall was the guy on the Rio Dulce in Guatemala. There was nothing about that install that even came close to meeting the acceptable safety standards.

*"According to Brandes, the destroyed boat was an older 37-foot Hunter Cherubini named Panacea. The owner had been complaining of a rat problem, and it seems that overnight, a rat chewed a hole in a flexible hose in the propane supply line. When the owner lit a cigarette in the morning, it ignited an explosion that decimated the boat, fatally injured the owner, and damaged two neighboring boats.

The LPG-fueled stove, LPG tank, and supply hoses were later recovered from the wreckage. It was obvious that the system was an aftermarket, DIY setup that ignored basic safety standards, such as those established by the American Boat and Yacht Council. Brandes reported that the tank had no remote shutoff valve and that it was found almost empty with the valve open, but it still had a little gas remaining that was flowing from the hose."*

If we install propane systems in an unsafe manner, completely and utterly ignore well accepted industry safty standards, and then ignore proper use protocol, we will get unsafe outcomes.

The frustrating thing is the Boat US data will classify the ONE propane related fire incident in their claims files (portable stove fell off counter and started fire) as "cause = propane" when propane really had little to do with that one fire. The fire was caused by ignoring safety standards and using non approved and unsafe practices. A propane bottle should NEVER be in your cabin, portable propane devices should NEVER be used inside your boat yet these incidents get chalked up to "Cause = Propane".... Is it fair to blame propane when the practices used were akin to smoking a cigarette while filling your car with gas? It should read "Cause = Owner ignored safety standards" but instead that n=1 data point will be forever inappropriately blamed on _propane_....

Again I have yet to see or hear of a propane fire or explosion where the system was installed to meet the accepted safety standards. If someone has evidence of such a fire or explosion, please direct me to it.

As it sits today, based on actual data, propane systems on boats are far safer than AC systems, DC systems, engines, gasoline and even alcohol stoves.


----------



## skygazer

Maine Sail said:


> Fires or explosions were included in both data sets.


Hey Maine Sail, glad to see you back, I always like your posts and learn from them. Plus, I appreciate that you really do science with your tests, you don't just talk about it. Total respect!

Thank you for your info on fires and propane. I agree propane is the best, hottest cooking fuel.

I also agree with Mast, I never thought that propane started fires, I expected that to be electrical.

But I once saw the remains of a house (what little there was) after a propane explosion and it left an indelible impression. And since a boat is a perfect vessel to hold a heavy gas, that is what worried me. Not tiny fuel cans for camp stoves and torches, but larger cylinders that have vents. I may be paranoid about it. I also remember when our home burned when I was a small child I saw flame rocketing from the vents on 100 pound propane tanks. I do always carry a propane torch in my tool kit, nozzle off the can of course, and I check the can when I remove it. Last summer we stopped at little whaleboat and made coffee in the cockpit with a tiny propane camp stove.

I also wonder how many alcohol fires were with pressurized alcohol stoves, like the one I just ripped out of my 'new to me' older boat. Scary! 

The non-pressurized alcohol stoves (Origo) where the frame is screwed down and you remove the wick filled tank and take it outdoors to fill seem fairly safe. My wife and I find them OK for cooking, just not as hot as propane. But I'm rarely in a big rush when I'm on a sailboat.

Thanks again.


----------



## skygazer

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Much easier to spill a little alcohol and see the flames spread...


Except not very easy to see alcohol flames in bright light!


----------



## RobGallagher

Maine Sail said:


> It is an excellent video but unfortunately continues to help spread the fear that propane systems are somehow more dangerous than other on-board systems.
> 
> Even after 13 minutes of free running gas, not just a small leak but wide open gas flow, they could not ignite the propane even when the igniters started a small on-board fire.


To the contrary, I think it shows just how hard it is to ignite. It also shows how much time one may have if the alarms go off as it is more difficult to get to the proper level of saturation than I always thought.

Being "in the business" you might see something different than a layman will.


----------



## XSrcing

RobGallagher said:


> To the contrary, I think it shows just how hard it is to ignite. It also shows how much time one may have if the alarms go off as it is more difficult to get to the proper level of saturation than I always thought.
> 
> Being "in the business" you might see something different than a layman will.


That's kind of the point. Even if every safety system on your boat has failed, your nose should tell you that you shouldn't light a cigarette and to open all the hatches.


----------



## Maine Sail

skygazer said:


> Hey Maine Sail, glad to see you back, I always like your posts and learn from them. Plus, I appreciate that you really do science with your tests, you don't just talk about it. Total respect!
> 
> Thank you for your info on fires and propane. I agree propane is the best, hottest cooking fuel.
> 
> I also agree with Mast, I never thought that propane started fires, I expected that to be electrical.
> 
> But I once saw the remains of a house (what little there was) after a propane explosion and it left an indelible impression. And since a boat is a perfect vessel to hold a heavy gas, that is what worried me. Not tiny fuel cans for camp stoves and torches, but larger cylinders that have vents. I may be paranoid about it. I also remember when our home burned when I was a small child I saw flame rocketing from the vents on 100 pound propane tanks. I do always carry a propane torch in my tool kit, nozzle off the can of course, and I check the can when I remove it. Last summer we stopped at little whaleboat and made coffee in the cockpit with a tiny propane camp stove.
> 
> I also wonder how many alcohol fires were with pressurized alcohol stoves, like the one I just ripped out of my 'new to me' older boat. Scary!
> 
> The non-pressurized alcohol stoves (Origo) where the frame is screwed down and you remove the wick filled tank and take it outdoors to fill seem fairly safe. My wife and I find them OK for cooking, just not as hot as propane. But I'm rarely in a big rush when I'm on a sailboat.
> 
> Thanks again.


We had a house explosion in Yarmouth two years ago and we felt it here in Cumberland. It was LPG. Still the data on LPG house explosions is in the infinitesimal % range. The problem is when people do see these explosions they get scared and forget the risk %. We are far more likely to die in our cars yet everyone has one and barely bats an eye at the death rates.......

As you know we have thousands and thousands and thousands of homes in Maine, most with basements, heated with propane yet there are very, very, very few incidents. When they do happen they make big news but big news does not change _actual statistics_.....


----------



## Faster

We had flare-ups, stinging fumes, invisible fires during 10 years of stubbornly using the 'safer' pressurized alcohol stove, now going on 15 years using propane without incident. We won't go back. 

We Canadians also have the same CNG availability issues, and it is a shame because aside from the risk of high pressure cylinder storage it would seem that CNG on a boat makes most sense.


----------



## RobGallagher

Faster said:


> We had flare-ups, stinging fumes, invisible fires during 10 years of stubbornly using the 'safer' pressurized alcohol stove, now going on 15 years using propane without incident. We won't go back.
> 
> We Canadians also have the same CNG availability issues, and it is a shame because aside from the risk of high pressure cylinder storage it would seem that CNG on a boat makes most sense.


I also thought alcohol was a safer alternative. Then you live with a pressurized alcohol stove for a decade and you learn to use the grill whenever possible. 

Plus, the idea of burning alcohol, in any form, goes agains the grain of any proper whiskey enthusiast.


----------



## Jeff_H

Brent Swain said:


> Good points. It was Jeff who suggested carbon for impact.I gueSs kevlar would be beter. What Bob is telling us is that his carbon cutters a cant take an impact with a sharp point( rock or container,) without shattering. Point load is exactly the kind of load his carbon rudder shafts experience where they pass thru the hull. I have heard they have a high failure rate at that point.


First of all, to set the record straight, I have always been a fan of Kevlar/ vinylester hulls when impact resistance to weight is a major criteria, and I personally would never suggest that carbon fiber would be preferable. I do not view as carbon as having inherently good properties for impact, or for fatique when heavily stressed.

That said, I am not a professional nor do I have working experience with carbon fiber (other reinforcing a small bracket that I made and constructing a deck frame for a small hatch), and my hands on experience working with Kevlar is comparatively limited as well. Certainly Bob, his structural engineer, and Jim Betts are professionals who do this routinely. Bob made it clear that they don't work with Kevlar anymore, and that carbon is the material of choice. I therefore have to assume that my data on Kevlar vs carbon fiber is incomplete or out of date.

But back to the fatigue/impact issue, if you look at the general scantlings for Bob's carbon cutters, there is a very large amount of carbon fiber going into these boats (especially as compared to the more normal carbon applications on race boats) and consequently, there is so much reserve strength that I cannot imagine that even a high force/ small contact area point load impact, or that long life cycle fatigue would be an issue. In the case of fatigue its the number of cycles and a mix of elongation and percentage of total working stress of these cycles that determines the fatigue rate. I would have to think that the layup on the cutters would have an extremely high working stress capability as compared to the actual loads, and so would pretty much negate any chance of significant fatigue over the life of the boat.

Carbon rudder post failures used to happen pretty frequently in race boats, but again, there is a huge difference between the safety factors on race boats and cruisers, and I cannot recall hearing of recent failures in the comparatively large fleet of cruisers with carbon fiber rudder posts that are out there these days.

Jeff


----------



## skygazer

XSrcing said:


> ....your nose should tell you that you shouldn't light a cigarette and to open all the hatches.


No worries there, my wife has a sense of smell seemingly as good as a police dog, she used to kiss me in the evening and tell me what I had for lunch on the job - back when I purchased my lunch. Can't get away with anything.

I was more concerned for the times no one is onboard and everything is shut except the dorades. Every electric motor that turns on - bilge pump, fridge, whatever - makes a spark.

I like the solenoid idea, other than the fact that I've replaced dozens of solenoids on my plow trucks lately. They don't last like they used to, lowest bidder I guess.


----------



## Jeff_H

On the alcohol issue, I would agree that tyhe old fashioned pressure alcohol stoves are more dangerous to use than propane, and put out less heat. 

As we have discussed in seemingly endless debates before non-pressurized alcohol stoves (Origo), have an excellent safety record, and a typical Origo burner puts out slightly more heat than the typical small propane burner but considerably less heat than a large burner. In 27 years of using Origo's I have never had a flare up and despite the mythology, frankly their flames are no less visible than propane in direct sunlight. They burn blue just like propane and with slightly yellow tinges when the flap is partially closed. 

On the safety issue, at one point, I spoke with BoatUS's underwriters. They tried to charge me a surcharge for alcohol vs. propane. I asked for an explanation and it turned out that they thought that I had pressurized alcohol. When I explained that I did not, it was explained that their base rate is for propane with pressurize alcohol at an increased cost, and non-pressurized at a reduced cost based on their actuarial data. 

Jeff


----------



## skygazer

Jeff_H said:


> ...On the safety issue, at one point, I spoke with BoatUS's underwriters. They tried to charge me a surcharge for alcohol vs. propane. I asked for an explanation and it turned out that they thought that I had pressurized alcohol. When I explained that I did not, it was explained that their base rate is for propane with pressurized alcohol at an increased cost, and non-pressurized at a reduced cost based on their actuarial data.
> 
> Jeff


I added the underlines in Jeff's quote.

Thank you Jeff, that is good to know and fits with my experience. Also, as far as I know, alcohol doesn't explode and can be put out with water. Now I feel better about my second Origo that I intend to install as a replacement for the pressurized Kenyon or whatever it was I pulled out.


----------



## RobGallagher

skygazer said:


> I added the underlines in Jeff's quote.
> 
> Thank you Jeff, that is good to know and fits with my experience. Also, as far as I know, alcohol doesn't explode and can be put out with water. Now I feel better about my second Origo that I intend to install as a replacement for the pressurized Kenyon or whatever it was I pulled out.


Water might not be your best choice for putting out an alcohol fire. I'll let an expert chime in, but I'd reach for that fire blanket or dry extinguisher first.... Am I wrong?


----------



## skygazer

We are careful with fire. The tide is going OUT in this photo, I made a breakwater and a raised stone platform. This is why we carried firewood in our dinghy, beautiful sunset too. The veggies are from our organic garden. The whiskey is in the photographer' hand. The quiet party went late.


----------



## skygazer

RobGallagher said:


> Water might not be your best choice for putting out an alcohol fire. I'll let an expert chime in, but I'd reach for that fire blanket or dry extinguisher first.... Am I wrong?


Me too, I was "just saying". On the Origo I just turn it off, disc rotates over the burner. Blanket would work fantastic.


----------



## skygazer

Took a page out of Maine Sail's experiment book...:wink

I used a 9 inch aluminum pie plate and poured stove alcohol in it, then swirled a loosely crumpled paper towel in it to soak and represent a curtain or whatever - not sure why one would be soaked.

I lit it and got quite a decent sized fire, made noise.

I tossed 1/4 cup of water on it and it greatly reduced but the paper towel stood proud and kept burning slowly.

I tossed some more water on it and it went out, but a bit slowly.


I drained and refilled the pan and did it again. This time I had a kind of fuzzy cotton shirt - my wife's, mine are too flat woven, I wanted a challenge - and threw it flat on the pan.

Instantly out, no question, dead out, and the shirt was not visibly singed. 

Blanketing the alcohol flame wins hands down, and you don't need a proper fire blanket. Don't need to shoot off a fire extinguisher inside your cabin either, but I always have one ready.


----------



## bobperry

BS is just not getting it. I'll say it one more time:
We have a mix of the initial carbon fiber laminate with e glass added to a total thickness well over an inch down the centerline and lapping up the sides of the keel fin where impact resistance is needed. I have gone over this several times. BS is learning disabled.

Would someone please quote this so BS sees it. He can only be wrong if he cannot get all the information.


----------



## bobperry

Not sure if you guys are interested in this but it is a production built Baba 40 in GRP and he is attempting a non stop solo circumnavigation So while fools and small thinkers would tell you that you can't do it. This guy does not listen to fools.


> Day-16
> 24hr. Run=146NM. Pos=Lat.24*40'S. Long.107*50'W. Weather=Bar.1016mb.Wind=8-15kts. Seas=3-5ft. Cabin Temp=72*-78*. Squalls in the early am then nice the rest of day.
> Day-17
> 24hr.Run=160NM. Pos. Lat.26*26'S. Long.109*56'W. Weather=Bar.1018mb. Winds 8-28kts. Seas=5-7ft. Cabin Temp=71*-75*. Wind squally during daylight hours then clear and good sailing overnight.
> Day-18.
> 24hr. Run=157NM Pos,Lat.28*24'S.Long111*46'W. Weather=Bar.1018mb.Wind=8-15kts. Seas=5-7'. Cabin Temp=71*-75*. A few squalls around overnight but nothing serious and the day was sunny and nice.
> Total miles sailed so far=2672NM
> Total miles last 3-days=463NM.
> Miles left to go to turning point for the Horn=585NM.
> Top speed so far=9.9kts.
> The rest of the story.
> Day-16
> I awoke to a loud screeching noise outside in the cockpit. I climbed out into the cockpit looking around for what was getting ready to go bad next. Then I heard the noise coming from aloft off the stern of the boat, there I was amazed to see 5-white birds of Paradise soaring about kicking up the biggest fuss. I thought possibly they were warning of some impending danger, but nothing was found and I could only wonder where they came from and where were they going, perhaps they were wondering the same thing.
> I feel compelled to mention that later that evening, after all the shaft problems, I had this strange feeling of another's presence aboard, and had first picked up on it when I was finally cleaning up and putting things away. I know there was twenty times during the episode that I wanted to cry out to Debbie to turn on the bilge pump, or get me this or that, but I knew better as this was me and only me the "Around Alone Crew". All I can say is it was that kind of feeling that makes you look back over your shoulder when you are walking down the street at night and you sense someone is there.
> Today started fishing by dragging a pink squid on a meat line[heavy 200lb. test line on a rubber snubber]. Since I have found so many pink squids on the boat I figured why not try one.
> After the squalls seemed to have let up it was time to shake out the reef in the main sail, when I went to release the reef line at the mast I was "shocked to see it had chafed 95% of the way through. The line was brand new and the reef tied in for only about 12 days. I ended up having to use the fish tape to pull in a new 45ft. piece of ½ inch line. I also made some changes in the bottom of the boom configuration that I believe will eliminate the chafe.
> Day-17
> I just want to thank everyone for their great ideas on solving the shaft problem and they are note worthy, also thanks for all the prayers and encouragement.
> A few of the ideas were put thread tight on the threads, I should have thought of this one as I have plenty of it, but I fear my thought processes were on overload as I worked with a stream of water pouring into the bilge.
> Another great idea put epoxy on the shaft and handtighten the nut on, that would definitely fix it. Amore aggressive idea was filling the coupler with epoxy and pray you "die' before you ever after take the shaft out.
> A truly quick temporary fix is put a shaft Zinc on inside the boat right up against the packing gland. This one I tried but only had collar zincs and the diameter is two wide and the zinc hits the packing gland bolts, If I would have had the torpedo zinc it would have worked. What I did do until I get the nut secured with thread lock is put a piece of heavy hose that was the same inside diameter of shaft and split it then hose clamped it on to the shaft up against the packing gland. That should keep the shaft from sliding out of the coupler for a littlewhile.
> Today dragging a cedar plug for the fish, as I had no luck with the squid.
> Day-18
> This am Easter Island lays 48NM. off the port beam. I'm sad I never got close enough to see it but the wind Gods are dictating sail more to the west to get over the top of the high.
> Yes it's almost barometer soup time, and as you might have noticed the barometric pressure is gradually rising as I near the center of the South Pacific High. I do not want to cross the center as there will be no wind, or little fluky winds. The problem is the high wanders around, and yesterday it was centered on Longitude 111* today it is at 113*, and I want it to go back to 111* or even further east.
> I can only hope that the 120* longitude is far enough west for me to be able to skirt along the outside edge of the high to a point where I pick up the westerly winds that are currently at about 40* south.
> Still trying to catch a fish the Jefe'


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Maine Sail said:


> Fires or explosions were included in both data sets.


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## bob77903

bobperry said:


> BS is just not getting it. I'll say it one more time:
> We have a mix of the initial carbon fiber laminate with e glass added to a total thickness well over an inch down the centerline and lapping up the sides of the keel fin where impact resistance is needed. I have gone over this several times. BS is learning disabled.
> 
> Would someone please quote this so BS sees it. He can only be wrong if he cannot get all the information.


Here Brent.....


----------



## bobperry

Thank you Bob 77903.

Here is one photo showing the beautiful working going on inside the upside down hull No. 1 carbon Cutter. For more Carbon cutter pics go the the dedicated thread. Look how neat and tidy this binding work is.


----------



## Brent Swain

Shockwave said:


> Huh? Have you seen how they are being built?


I doubt carbon hulls can be built in three days without a mold, for less than $9K worth of materials, so why would any cruiser  give a rat's ass?


----------



## bobperry

"I doubt carbon hulls can be built in three days without a mold, for less than $9K worth of materials, so why would any cruiser give a rat's ass?"

My clients simply don't want the boat built in three days for $9,000.


----------



## outbound

Glad I diverted the thread to talk about fire. Thank you Maine for your excellent input. It reinforces my decisions about propane for cooking and diesel for hydronic heat. Have two propane tanks and they are a PIA to carry especially when full. Would suggest for a cruiser two are better than one. Good to have the back up and easier to carry.
We also have CO detectors. Several of the most tragic cases I cared for in my professional life were survivors of CO inhalation. The alarms are on DC circuit with battery backup just like in your house.

One thing to look at in foreign made boats is whether fire retardant fabrics and components were used. To my knowledge there is no UL or other requirements. Believe ABYC and EU boats do need to be compliant but don't know for a fact.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> Glad I diverted the thread to talk about fire. Thank you Maine for your excellent input. It reinforces my decisions about propane for cooking and diesel for hydronic heat. Have two propane tanks and they are a PIA to carry especially when full. Would suggest for a cruiser two are better than one. Good to have the back up and easier to carry.
> We also have CO detectors. Several of the most tragic cases I cared for in my professional life were survivors of CO inhalation. The alarms are on DC circuit with battery backup just like in your house.
> 
> One thing to look at in foreign made boats is whether fire retardant fabrics and components were used. To my knowledge there is no UL or other requirements. Believe ABYC and EU boats do need to be compliant but don't know for a fact.


A folding granny cart makes packing propane bottles, etc, far easier. Every cruiser should have one.


----------



## Brent Swain

bob77903 said:


> Here Brent.....


Bob also has mentioned that the carbon fibre takes up the strain and breaks, long before the fibrglass does anything to share the strain.. Kinda like putting hard epoxy over a much softer primer
So who is learning disabled.
Looks like it's the guy who cant learn from his own posts.


----------



## bobperry

Read slowly BS. You are very confused about how the CF and the E glass do different jobs.

Think more.
Type less.


----------



## albrazzi

Loving the tag team here, PCP finally gave up, now BS is apparently his proxy. This is better than binge watching my HULU.


----------



## bobperry

Don't worry Al, I can handle it just fine and produce nice boats while I'm at it. Check out the Carbon Cutters thread.
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/sailboat-design-construction/223386-bob-perrys-carbon-cutters-23.html


----------



## albrazzi

I'm following both, and I have faith in you. Its the serial second guessers that I don't understand, but what do I know. Entertaining none the less.


----------



## Bleemus

Assuming all cruisers want a hull that can be thrown together in three days for 9k is ridiculous. I worked for a sheik from Saudi Arabia on his 67 foot boat for a cruise across the Pacific. Wonderful man. Before we even got to the equator we started working on what he wanted in his next boat which ended up being 137 footer which we ended up building in New Zealand. His major requirement was a seat in front of the fore stay so he could watch the dolphins. He smiled ear to ear when they were about. Before we left Tahiti I built him a nice teak one for the 67 footer. He was thrilled. He was a true cruiser in every sense and money was no object. 9k LOL!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## albrazzi

Bleemus said:


> Assuming all cruisers want a hull that can be thrown together in three days for 9k is ridiculous. I worked for a sheik from Saudi Arabia on his 67 foot boat for a cruise across the Pacific. Wonderful man. Before we even got to the equator we started working on what he wanted in his next boat which ended up being 137 footer which we ended up building in New Zealand. His major requirement was a seat in front of the fore stay so he could watch the dolphins. He smiled ear to ear when they were about. Before we left Tahiti I built him a nice teak one for the 67 footer. He was thrilled. He was a true cruiser in every sense and money was no object. 9k LOL!
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I agree this is a nice feature. I have the same seat on my lowly 30 fotter. Best seat in the house. Now on a 137' Boat I bet you get a recliner with a foot rest.


----------



## bobperry

Bleems:
Great story. Sailors come in a variety of flavors. To me they are just all sailors and a tailor my work to suite the client. I don't look down an anyone who loves to sail.

My client on the PSC 63 wants the exact same seat! It's a requirement for his wife.


----------



## albrazzi

bobperry said:


> Bleems:
> Great story. Sailors come in a variety of flavors. To me they are just all sailors and a tailor my work to suite the client. I don't look down an anyone who loves to sail.
> 
> My client on the PSC 63 wants the exact same seat! It's a requirement for his wife.


I will add that I sure would like a foot rest on mine somehow.


----------



## bob77903

bobperry said:


> Read slowly BS. You are very confused about how the CF and the E glass do different jobs.
> 
> Think more.
> Type less.


Brent....


----------



## Regors

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so a quick summary of the wildly varying sentiment of the past pages, which is now close to becoming the definitive gospel on BAPDs for all time...
> 
> General Rules:
> 1. "Blue water" and/or "offshore" can be defined for our purposes as a 5 day passage from anchorage to anchorage (due to the modern weather window). It's beyond what most think of as "coastal" cruising, but it's not a pull across the Pacific either. (That said - these boats CAN also do a longer hop without major issues. See Givens below).
> 2. The unforeseen weather limit we seem to have set is a strong gale/"weak" storm (e.g. Force 9-10). This means that if you were unlucky enough to get caught in one, you'd still feel relatively safe in your production boat with appropriate heavy weather precautions (e.g. - storm sails, drogues, etc.). In other words, it's not going to fall apart around you.
> 
> General Givens:
> 1. It is understood that the vast majority of modern production boats can and have indeed circumnavigated - some with major modifications and strengthening, others without. Virtually any boat can indeed be sailed virtually anywhere in the right conditions. But this particular conversation is centered around the rules above as this is where most sailors will play.
> 2. It is understood that the boat typically outlasts the sailor's will/ability even in the worst of conditions.
> 3. It is understood that there are a million variables in all these estimations from tankage, to crew size, to boat size, to gear, etc. But this discussion is a wildly irresponsible rule of thumb exercise - so there you go.
> 4. When it comes to separating the first and second tiers - it probably comes down more to comfort than toughness. But, few will argue that comfort ain't a good thing in the long run. So there you go.
> 
> The True Contenders:
> 1. Beneteau: seems to get high marks all-round as a boat that is well-built, fast, serviceable, comfortable, and sturdy. All-round winner.
> 2. Catalina: seems to be the next in line in the above areas - though CD will protest wildly that "Bene's got nothin'. Jeff likes my boat best."
> 3. Jenneau: Right in the hunt - but arguable as to where it finally falls. Serviceability? Better than newer Hunters?
> 4. Hunter: seems to still be suffering from "poor design" during previous runs - yet has seemingly improved in the last few years. It seems the jury is still out on this one.
> 
> The Second Tier:
> 1. Tartan: older ones at least (say pre '90?). problems with hatch design, etc. discussed, but still liked.
> 2. Sabre: tough boats - but some problems listed.
> 3. Hallberg Rassy: starts to move out of typical "production boat" world and into high-priced "elite" boats (same with OVNI, etc.) that are more "blue" than "production".
> 4. From here we probably pass into the realm of "lesser" blue water boats. So I'll stop here.
> 
> Fugedaboudit?:
> 1. Irwin: still personally not convinced of that this one fails the test. built lighter and for a lower cost point - but does that completely move it out of the contender category?
> 2. O'Day: a lot of them around, but no one willing to go to bat for it.
> 3. McGregor: the big ones rock - but anything less than 45'+ gets a nose thumb and a good heckling.
> 4. Any multi-hull. Those things are just abominations to sailing. Heh-heh.
> 
> What have we left out?


I resent that Multi-hull remark. Smack


----------



## Regors

Anyway here a list of boats that I like the look of and satisfied some of my initial criteria. I would be really interested how people would rank these based on quality and blue water "ability" ease of maintenance. Any in the list that could be ruled out? 

I like the Jeanneau 57 2013/2015 They have raised the life lines, moved the engine dials below the chart plotter and moved the throttle up higher.


----------



## WharfRat

bobperry said:


> "I doubt carbon hulls can be built in three days without a mold, for less than $9K worth of materials, so why would any cruiser give a rat's ass?"
> 
> My clients simply don't want the boat built in three days for $9,000.


Last month Mr. Swain said it was $10K in two days. But that's an empty steel hull, not a boat.

The hull is the cheap part of the boat. Turning an empty hull into an actual sailing boat is the long and expensive phase of the job.

Either way, you could not come up with more widely opposed ends of the market.

Mr. Swain is allowed to have a thread detailing the construction of one of his designs if he so wishes. It would make an interesting counterpoint to this thread.


----------



## Minnewaska

Regors said:


> ....I like the Jeanneau 57 2013/2015 They have raised the life lines, moved the engine dials below the chart plotter and moved the throttle up higher.


You mean they moved the morse control back where it was on the 54? 

I personally don't care where the engine dials are, as I may not be in front of them anyway. However, having the throttle where you can conveniently reach it, while docking, is important. Especially, if you have to back in. (and I do)

I've always hated having the throttle down by my calf. I do understand the issue with having it above, as I've had people bump it up and/or down. Not very often, but it does happen. Although, only while underway. I have everyone seated while docking and I'm on the throttle.


----------



## outbound

Problem is
Most passages are greater than 5 days. Hell even the SDR or 1500 is over a week even for fast boats. Thought blue water included crossing oceans. It's after 5 days that weather predictions are mostly an educated guess. It's after 5 days that you find out if the boat is liveable on passage. 

No one chooses to be in a storm but this years passage south was rough for many people. Friend on CF big cat got caught out. Broke steering but still made it. Heard many boats in SDR had troubles as well. Some going south this year saw winds well in excess of your restriction thinking they would get ahead of the hurricane but failing. 

Your qualifiers make your discussion of limits much less robust. My yugo can cross Sahara . As long as the dunes aren't too high and there are paved roads in the tough spots. It will be beat up. But that's ok we'll just get another one.


----------



## bobperry

Wharfy:
Great idea!
I have my carbon cutter project thread. 

BS can have "Build a BS boat" thread where he chronicles the entire build process of one of his boats. I'd follow that. 
I think you should push for that.

3 days? 4 days? $9,000, $10,000? This are just numbers to BS and he admitted to having a problem with numbers. To start with, you would not have a "hull". You would have an empty, crude and rusty shell, no deck and a gaping hole where the keel would eventually go. This is not exactly what my clients have in mind when they come to me. It does make me chuckle to think about it.


----------



## bobperry

Minne:
"I've always hated having the throttle down by my calf. "

Thanks for the great idea. I read your post and I thought, "Me too." But on my new cutters I have a tiller and no binnacle so I have the throttle, Spinlock, down at calf height. I am going to see today if I can mount it in the inside face of the cockpit seat back. Not sure it will work but not sure it won't either. I'll be at the yard tomorrow and I can mock it up on the deck.


----------



## eko_eko

bobperry said:


> Minne:
> "I've always hated having the throttle down by my calf. "
> 
> Thanks for the great idea. I read your post and I thought, "Me too." But on my new cutters I have a tiller and no binnacle so I have the throttle, Spinlock, down at calf height. I am going to see today if I can mount it in the inside face of the cockpit seat back. Not sure it will work but not sure it won't either. I'll be at the yard tomorrow and I can mock it up on the deck.


This is why I love SailNet.


----------



## Faster

On our Choate 40 the throttle/shift was a Morse at calf height.. it was inside a recess so that sheets and lines rarely snagged it. Perhaps a similar recess could be incorporated into a seatback too.

We got very accustomed to shifting and throttling with by foot, esp when docking... didn't find the lower position that big a deal.


----------



## blt2ski

hmmm, throttle by calf......I think that is where the one for my boat is, starboard side in my case. I like it, as I use my foot a lot when docking, or if I am standing while motoring. If sitting, I use my hand. The pivot point is maybe 4" or so off the floor. 

On the other hand, it is about as far back as one can put it, before it goes under a removable rear seat part that makes the cockpit have a U shape seating. Very usable when docked with the tiller raised and tied to the back stay.

My 02 on the subject! you know what you paid for this post and opinion!

Marty


----------



## outbound

With all the moola going into the Cf cutters could the throttle and shift be incorporated into the tiller itself? Fly by wire control. Perhaps a twist grip. Engine on and off could be elsewhere.


----------



## bobperry

Faster:
I'm using the Spinlock unit which uses a winch handle and is flush mounted. I don't need a recess. I'll take a winch handle with me and try it out tomorrow.

Out:
I think the Spinlock unit is best and easiest to install.


----------



## Brent Swain

WharfRat said:


> Last month Mr. Swain said it was $10K in two days. But that's an empty steel hull, not a boat.
> 
> The hull is the cheap part of the boat. Turning an empty hull into an actual sailing boat is the long and expensive phase of the job.
> 
> Either way, you could not come up with more widely opposed ends of the market.
> 
> Mr. Swain is allowed to have a thread detailing the construction of one of his designs if he so wishes. It would make an interesting counterpoint to this thread.


You can see the detail construction of one of my boats on the origami boats site.

I have posted a quote from a guy who built one of my 36 footers, back in the 90's ( and who has been cruising the South Pacific in her ever since ) who quoted other backyard builders as saying it would have saved a year off their projects. Yes, there is a lot of work to do once the hull is together, but adding another year for the hull sure doesn't help matters any.
Three days includes welding.
With steel, once the steel work is done, you have all your cleats , engine mounts, thru hulls, bow roller, anchors, mooring bits, handrails , tankage, etc etc, all for the price of the metals, at scrap prices for stainless , plus welding rods, gear you have to buy afterwards and bolt down, on a plastic boat.
This saves a huge amount of money and time.


----------



## Brent Swain

Regors said:


> Anyway here a list of boats that I like the look of and satisfied some of my initial criteria. I would be really interested how people would rank these based on quality and blue water "ability" ease of maintenance. Any in the list that could be ruled out?
> 
> I like the Jeanneau 57 2013/2015 They have raised the life lines, moved the engine dials below the chart plotter and moved the throttle up higher.


How high did they raise the lifelines? Smackdaddy said they should be so low, that you are forced to crawl around on your hands and knees, like a sewer rat.


----------



## Brent Swain

Bleemus said:


> Assuming all cruisers want a hull that can be thrown together in three days for 9k is ridiculous. I worked for a sheik from Saudi Arabia on his 67 foot boat for a cruise across the Pacific. Wonderful man. Before we even got to the equator we started working on what he wanted in his next boat which ended up being 137 footer which we ended up building in New Zealand. His major requirement was a seat in front of the fore stay so he could watch the dolphins. He smiled ear to ear when they were about. Before we left Tahiti I built him a nice teak one for the 67 footer. He was thrilled. He was a true cruiser in every sense and money was no object. 9k LOL!
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Your assumption that all sailors want to go deeply in debt, and take ten years to get out cruising, in a boat which cant survive a collision with a container, or anything else, when they can built a far better, safer boat in a fraction the time, for a fraction the cost ,is far more ridiculous.


----------



## mitiempo

Brent Swain said:


> Your assumption that all sailors want to go deeply in debt, and take ten years to get out cruising, in a boat which cant survive a collision with a container, or anything else, when they can built a far better, safer boat in a fraction the time, for a fraction the cost ,is far more ridiculous.


Brent

I doubt the sheik financed either the 67' boat or the 137' boat.


----------



## mitiempo

bobperry said:


> I have my carbon cutter project thread.
> 
> BS can have "Build a BS boat" thread where he chronicles the entire build process of one of his boats. I'd follow that.


Interesting that Bob Perry (the designer) has a thread showing how his designs are built but Brent Swain (the builder) cannot or will not do the same.

Come on Brent - even if you have to take pictures of a new build it will only take 3 days of your time.


----------



## Brent Swain

Jeff_H said:


> I do not view as carbon as having inherently good properties for impact, or for fatique when heavily stressed.
> 
> Carbon rudder post failures used to happen pretty frequently in race boats, but again, there is a huge difference between the safety factors on race boats and cruisers, and I cannot recall hearing of recent failures in the comparatively large fleet of cruisers with carbon fiber rudder posts that are out there these days.
> 
> Jeff


What you are saying is that the first carbon rudder posts, designed with the most meticulous of math and theory ,didn't work out, so they had to replace that with experience and reality ( called anecdote, my way of doing things). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.I am flattered . They ended up following in my footsteps.
That is what I have been pointing out all along


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> How high did they raise the lifelines? Smackdaddy said they should be so low, that you are forced to crawl around on your hands and knees, like a sewer rat.


Yep - as usual, that's a precise quote. Now crawl you damn production boat sewer rats!


----------



## Brent Swain

mitiempo said:


> Interesting that Bob Perry (the designer) has a thread showing how his designs are built but Brent Swain (the builder) cannot or will not do the same.
> 
> Come on Brent - even if you have to take pictures of a new build it will only take 3 days of your time.


Check out the origami boats site.


----------



## mitiempo

Brent Swain said:


> Check out the origami boats site.


We're all on this site Brent. If Bob can do this so can you.


----------



## bobperry

Come on Mr. BS. Let's see you post a build thread to match my carbon cutter thread. If you have something to show then show it. But all I see are nonsensical words. If you have nothing to show then STFU.

No, the Sheik probably did not take out a loan to build his boat. That's actually very funny.
Neither did my client to build four boats. BS just doesn't understand that we all don't live in his hand to mouth world.

Miti:
Will you quote this for me so BS sees it please?
Thanks.


----------



## mitiempo

bobperry said:


> Come on Mr. BS. Let's see you post a build thread to match my carbon cutter thread. If you have something to show then show it. But all I see are nonsensical words. If you have nothing to show then STFU.
> 
> No, the Sheik probably did not take out a loan to build his boat. That's actually very funny.
> Neither did my client to build four boats. BS just doesn't understand that we all don't live in his hand to mouth world.
> 
> Miti:
> Will you quote this for me so BS sees it please?
> Thanks.


Bob, do you think BS has you on ignore?


----------



## bobperry

Miti: 
Absolutely. He is a bit intimidated by me. 
i think that makes sense given the quality of his work.


----------



## Don L

what's this thread really about now days?


----------



## mstern

Brent Swain said:


> Check out the origami boats site.


Is this it?

How to Make an Origami Sailboat: 9 Steps (with Pictures)

That does look easy, although 3K for those materials seems steep.


----------



## Bleemus

I will confirm that the Sheik didn't go into debt for his boat. If I remember correctly it was three bank transfers.

Here she is . .










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

I think I knew the skipper of his previous boat. An Irish guy, John Weatherup. He stayed at my house a while. The Sheik was considering a bigger boat at that time.


----------



## Bleemus

John was an interesting guy from what I heard. A bit quirky too! When I arrived in Long Beach to get the 67 footer ready for the trip south I found out quickly that John was quite the pack rat. Every spare bit of space had milk crates full of old broken parts and pumps. Some so rusted it was hard to tell what it was. We moved the boat to SanDiego for the refit and I filled two dumpsters with junk. She came up an inch on her waterline. 

I should clarify that I wasn't the captain. Just mate/engineer. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## outbound

I'd be curious to see more pictures showing vacuum bagging, infusion, using heat sinks in Al construction and things that cruising sailors have actual interest in. There are so many details in boat construction that are fascinating why post about an obsolete technique. Even strip planking, cold molding or plank on frame must have more general interest. 
The CF boat is a delight to watch coming together but the others things mentioned may be more relevant to us plebs.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
I'm going to the yard today with the north sails rep. I'll get photos of anything that might be interesting. I'll post them on the carbon cutter thread.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Problem is
> Most passages are greater than 5 days. Hell even the SDR or 1500 is over a week even for fast boats. Thought blue water included crossing oceans. It's after 5 days that weather predictions are mostly an educated guess. It's after 5 days that you find out if the boat is liveable on passage.
> 
> No one chooses to be in a storm but this years passage south was rough for many people. Friend on CF big cat got caught out. Broke steering but still made it. Heard many boats in SDR had troubles as well. Some going south this year saw winds well in excess of your restriction thinking they would get ahead of the hurricane but failing.
> 
> Your qualifiers make your discussion of limits much less robust. My yugo can cross Sahara . As long as the dunes aren't too high and there are paved roads in the tough spots. It will be beat up. But that's ok we'll just get another one.


Yup, this is something some simply refuse to acknowledge, along with the notion that a boat can deliver you to your destination in comparative comfort, and still prove to be as _"Fast"_ as a Hunter, or other comparable modern production designs...

Greetings from Nanny Cay on Tortola... Last night just before midnight, we crossed the finish line for this year's Caribbean 1500. I was sailing one of Bob's "obsolete, outmoded" designs, a meticulously prepared Valiant 42 named VALHALLA...

Best fall passage to the islands I have ever had. From the start to finish in 8 days, 16 hours, I doubt another V-42 has ever made a faster passage... Our rough calculation comes out to an average of about 6.7 knots...

Amazing what magic Bob worked with just 34.5' of waterline... We finished 2nd in our division, the winner was a foregone conclusion. Andy & Mia's Swan 48 ISBJORN was the winning boat in our class, some suggested partly due to a generous rating... When a Swan 48 in your class rates lower than a Hunter 430, and a Tanton 44, you know you're racing for 2nd place from the get-go... ;-)

Here are some of the better "performers" and boats with more waterline that we beat boat for boat, with a shorter overall elapsed time:

Bavaria 40
Catalina Morgan 440
Fontaine Pajot 43 catamaran
Prout 38 catamaran
St Francis 50 catamaran
Antares 44 catamaran

Last but not least, we finished about 2 hours behind the Hunter 430 DOUGI... But as they had started ahead of us, and tallied about 12 hours more engine run time than we did, we corrected out ahead of them... So much for a comparably-sized Hunter being so much "faster" than a Valiant, and in addition we probably sailed one of the longer routes in the fleet, getting East sooner and staying there longer than just about everyone else out there...

Of some of the other modern production boats in the rally, a Hanse 430 had to abandon, and divert to Bermuda with rudder bearing problems... No word on whether they will be taking the opportunity of hauling out to 'renew' their seacocks, while they're at it... And, the sole Beneteau in the 1500 - a 423 from Canada - is still about 100 NM from the finish at this time, so we'll have beaten them by about 2 days...

We had some pretty sporty conditions enroute, particularly the second night out after crossing the Stream, fast reaching in a near gale into confused seas in the wake of Hurricane Kate. I was very happy we were aboard a Valiant that night, it would have been a brutal ride aboard any of the Hunters or Beneteaus I have sailed... The damage report from this trip? One of the cams on a Harken cam cleat on our running backstay tackle lost its spring...

I'll post a fuller account later... But in the meantime, that Hunter owner here who's looking forward to mooning all those Bluewater Chuckleheads as he blows past them on his way to the Caribbean, may have to get ready to be dropping his pants for a _LOOOOONG_ time when he comes up alongside one of Bob's Bluewater Slugs...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Thanks Jon. I think I'll spend the rest of the night feeling good about myself. I truly appreciate your effort in making my old design look good. I think Jon under estimates the crew's contribution.

Wow!
Wow!
and wow.

Good on ya whipping those cats. 
Wow!

Anything I have for dinner will taste really good now.


----------



## smackdaddy

Good onya Jon. And when did I ever say a Hunter was faster than a Valiant? Bob's boats are in a different league than the BWC boats we talk about in this thread.

Regardless, it's obvious those people on the Hunter just didn't know how to get the most out of her. And it obviously didn't sink - even in sporty conditions - AND spanked the Hanse! Nuf said. Heh-heh.

Nice job you chucklehead! Pics or you came in last.


----------



## outbound

Smack just curious what are the BWC boats you talk about?


----------



## djodenda

I expect you sailed pretty well too, Jon.. 

Congratulations!


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack just curious what are the BWC boats you talk about?


Yeah, like I'm going to go down that rabbit hole.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that Hunters (and the like) can make these offshore passages right alongside legendary blue water boats like Bob's Valiants. That obviously doesn't make them "better" by any means (not possible) - it just makes them worthy.

That's really all I've ever said. And it's true. And the BWCs who always said different were wrong. Obviously.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Huh?
> 
> I kind of let reality do the talking.
> Too many words does not work for me.


Me too, Bob.

The reason this thread started many years ago was that the running mentality in this forum (and some others) was that production boats had no place offshore - even if they were rated as capable.

I've always disagreed with that. Reality itself says that these boats can do it - _because they are out there doing it_. But that is/was not enough for these guys.

So, I've never equated the level of quality or capability of ANY production boat with one of your boats or any other traditional "bluewater" brand usually brought up in these discussions. I've simply maintained, with plenty of evidence to back it up, that production boats (BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas) CAN AND DO cruise bluewater within a certain set of limitations.

That's it.


----------



## Shockwave

You know Smack, if you spent more time sailing and less time on the net... You're opinions might just change...


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> You know Smack, if you spent more time sailing and less time on the net... You're opinions might just change...


That's exactly what I mean Shock. If _your_ opinion is that production boats don't belong offshore in blue water, when so many production boats are offshore in blue water - then, no, my opinion likely won't change as I continue to sail my production boat offshore in blue water.

Remember, my boat search STARTED with Valiants. I just couldn't afford one.


----------



## Regors

Smack how long have you had you Hunter and did you do much to it to get it ready for you?


----------



## smackdaddy

Regors said:


> Smack how long have you had you Hunter and did you do much to it to get it ready for you?


We bought our 26 y.o. Hunter 40 in 2013. Our cruising is primarily in the Gulf of Mexico (where I've cruised, raced, and delivered over the past 6 years on various boats). Over the next 3 summers we'll take the ICW to Pensacola - then down to the Bahamas and on to the BVIs. Then we'll figure out what's next.

I would have absolutely NO reservations taking our boat straight across the Gulf to Florida and/or the Keys/Bahamas (I actually wish I'd done that). But I have two young sons as crew. So doing a week-long offshore passage with just us isn't realistic. Hence the ICW.

I've done very little to the boat itself to prepare for this trip (only new standing rigging). It's mostly been adding stuff (solar, new electronics, safety gear, etc.). I _fully_ trust the boat for what we'll be doing. And there is obviously a lot riding on that.

Conversely, I _wouldn't_ take our Hunter across an ocean without modifying certain things due to tankage limitations, etc. - and/or doing a very serious top to bottom run-through. In fact, I probably wouldn't do such a long passage in this particular boat anyway because she is a little long in the tooth - though I think she would still handle things fine if I sailed her well.

But I would have absolutely no reservations about taking a new production boat across. None whatsoever.

If you're interested, you can read how we arrived at our decision here: How We Got To Hunter | SmackTalk!


----------



## Regors

Thanks for the link I will check it out.


----------



## bobperry

Smackers:
Hard to argue with results.


----------



## outbound

Smack
If you look back you will see I NEVER said your "production boats" could not sail the ocean blue. I did say current design and construction trends unfortunately make them less suitable for that activity. I said the emphasis, even for fairly large boats, has shifted to primarily coastal use. 
You seem to consistingly lump old and new production boats together. They are different animals. Paulo did make a good point. There is a greater understanding of what makes a boat fast and how to achieve it. But the sea doesn't change. As as result the market has become more fragmented. The mass producers, appropriately, go after the largest segment. The very small segment requiring an purpose built ocean cruiser is vanishingly small and forced to pay a premium for such a boat. It wasn't so dramatically that way in the past. Also there is a huge divergence within current production boats. Some are quite suitable for open ocean cruising. Others are not.

Look at your own plans. You intend to do a variation of the gentlemans way south on an ancient boat by Paulos standards. Say what you want this is NOT a ocean passage. 
I wish you could talk to my friends who just completed the open water passage south. It was bumpy the whole way. Further compounded by a serious tropical system. They broke furlers but nothing on the boat itself. 

Suppose you intended to do an ARC, SDR or 1500 with your bride and family on a NEW boat. Which would you want? An Boreal, HR, Morris, Passport, Oyster, Outbound, Garcia, even a IP or a new "production" boat. There is no argument a production boat or even a Pogo could do it. But which would be more enjoyable, safer, with less requirement for refit, less likihood of damage, more comfortable. 

As I said, and I've yet to heard a meaningful counter,there is a hole in the market. Worse since Valiant went under and getting even worse as other stick built boat builders fold. As Jon pointed out even the vaulted builders have employed design features degrading the boat from the purpose of ocean cruising and liveaboard in the 30-50' range.


----------



## outbound

In a perfect world Bob would be bored one day. Wake up and call Steve Brodie or Phil Lambert and say " hey Steve /Phil let's build a 38-42' ocean cruiser. Not much wood inside but what there is solid and refinishable. No wood outside. Solid construction suitable for years of open water passages. Designed for cruising with good natural ventilation, excellent motion in a seaway, good GZ graph and easily driven. Better yet square stern so there's more useable space below. Incorporate collision bulkheads and no features increasing risk of down flooding. Ergonomics optimized for passagemaking. Can we do it at a reasonable price point? Say 3-350 and 4 to 450 out the door with electronics, ssb, all ocean gear ( epirb, satphone, raft etc.), AP, vane, watermaker, genset, solar and wind as a package?

Think a few ads in BWS and the like would make the orders come in. 


I bought my boat because it was the closest to the above. I'm delighted with it and after open water passages realize what a difference a purpose built boat makes. I have close friends on Valiants and they feel the same way about their boats. Others on Masons and Hylas offer the same statement. My interior is drop dead gorgeous but in truth I would have been happy with less of that labor intensive infill so less expense. I'm delighted with the after purchase support but believe Steve might come close to Phils excellent work. I mention Steve as Phil will have orders for years to come so maybe less inclined to this project.


----------



## Jeff_H

outbound said:


> There is a greater understanding of what makes a boat fast and how to achieve it. But the sea doesn't change. As as result the market has become more fragmented. The mass producers, appropriately, go after the largest segment. The very small segment requiring an purpose built ocean cruiser is vanishingly small and forced to pay a premium for such a boat. It wasn't so dramatically that way in the past. Also there is a huge divergence within current production boats. Some are quite suitable for open ocean cruising. Others are not.
> 
> Suppose you intended to do an ARC, SDR or 1500 with your bride and family on a NEW boat. Which would you want? An Boreal, HR, Morris, Passport, Oyster, Outbound, Garcia, even a IP or a new "production" boat. There is no argument a production boat or even a Pogo could do it. But which would be more enjoyable, safer, with less requirement for refit, less likihood of damage, more comfortable.


One of the things that I greatly dislike about this thread is that there is a tendency to generalize way too broadly. There are huge differences in the quality and design of both value oriented production boats (even from the same manufacturer) over time and some times from model to model. That spread is even broader in the limited production market.

Similarly, pages of this thread were devoted to debating semantics rather than dealing with specific traits, which in my mind is a wild goose chase since no matter what term was chosen, it would be too broad to describe a particular specific design concept, construction approach or outfitting, such that a meaningful commentary on the virtues and liabilities of those collective features could occur.

And then there seems to be this need to justify our own boat buying choice and belief system and then fight to the death to prove this should be the only universally right pattern of thought for everyone who wants to go offshore, when more realistically we all have our own needs. We all have our own skills, physical capabilities, and liabilities. We all have our own tastes, and prejudices. We all have our own sailing goals, venues and budgets. And within that personal mix there will be more and less suitable specific boats, and perhaps none that would be ideal within our particular mix, especially when budget rears its ugly head.

But I also want to address many of the platitudes within this thread. I really do not want this to be about the specifics of Outbound's post that I quoted, nor do I want to pick on Outbound in particular, but this particular post just happens to be one good example of the kind of accurate statement that has no real relevance to making this a meaningful and useful discussion. Outbound, I apologize profusely for picking one of yours, it was just too easy a target.

Starting from the beginning of the portion of the quote; at least within the length of yacht design history that I am aware of, there has been a steady evolution in the knowledge of what makes boats fast. In most cases the basics have not changed all that much, but how those basics get applied have changed dramatically as better science, design tools, materials, and technologies, have spawned a progressive although often non-linear, evolution.

So while the opening sentences are inherently correct, they are so incomplete as to be nearly useless. Designers have learned how to make boats faster, but they have also learned how to make them easier to handle, stronger, easier to build, more comfortable in all ways, and safer to sail in all conditions. And while that knowledge is out there not every designer, not every manufacturer, not every model, takes advantage of this knowledge.

And even when a particular design has an particular well conceived hull form or rig, details like a particular choice of a hull to deck joint, or glued in bulkheads, slurried in structural grid, rigging attachment method, might condemn that boat to a shorter service life than more purposefully chosen details. But even if condemned to a shorter service life by non-lifespan oriented decisions, there still may be a period of time when that design can reliably and safely make offshore passages.

And onto the second true but useless statement. It is true that the sea has not changed. But what has changed is our understanding of the dynamics of wind and waves, our ability to reasonably predict and communicate what is happening and about to happen, the vast number of people going offshore, and the vast number of sailors going offshore with limited experience and skills, and most significantly the technologies to address the dynamics of the sea.

And while the market for purpose built offshore cruisers has always represented a very tiny segment of the new yacht market, I would argue that Paulo is right that the number of boats built to serve that market has not changed much and perhaps has grown considerably. What has diminished is the market for older style offshore cruisers and the companies that build them. But historically that has always been the case.

As was pointed out somewhere back in this thread, when Bob's design for the Valiant first appeared on a landscape where the ultra heavy Bill Garden, and Atkins designs were considered the only proper way to go offshore, they were panned by old salts as too light and vulnerable. Over time the builders of the anachronistic heavy cruisers went away amidst hand wringing and teeth gnashing of sailing conservatives. Despite that, design concepts that Bob was very much a part of putting on the map have evolved and improved greatly over time as better materials, methods, and knowledge driven refinements have produced vastly safer, faster, and easier to handle offshore cruisers than could have been conceived of in my youth.

For better or worse that evolution has produced designs which more conservative sailors might dismiss as not being suitable for offshore use. And accurately these boats may not be suitable for them, but that does not make them unsuitable and less preferable for specific others to use for offshore passage making, and even if that design is well suited for one person or group that does not make all similar designs suitable or ill-suited for any other specific individual or group for the same purpose.

And so in my mind, if this is going to be a more meaningful conversation, it seems like it would be useful to focus on general design concepts and then drill down on their advantages and liabilities, trade offs and mitigations.

But maybe this is just me,
Jeff


----------



## bobperry

Jeff: 
I've been harping here for months for people to stop generalizing. Evaluate each boat individually. But that takes some skill and knowledge of design. Not a whole lot and it's well within the scope of most posters here.
This was Paulo's problem. He continually generalized and lumped far too many boats into a few categories that he arbitrarily and innacurately defined. It does not work. It would be about the same as lumping in the Valiant 40 with every other boat with a D/L range of 230 to 280, as Paulo did. "Cossi fan tutti!" It's not accurate. It's not productive and it's not smart.

No one here condemns all steel boats because of the BS boats that BS puts out. We segregate the good from the bad and define the components that make the differences.
Seems to me that we need the same approach with grp boats.
It's harder than generalizing but in the end we will have a better understanding of the differences.

But it might be hard work so screw that and maybe we should just continue to generalize.


----------



## WharfRat

It might have been more productive for the thread to have been about desired (or perhaps even required) boat characteristics for long ocean voyages. Then perhaps a different thread for desired characteristics of long distance racing.

Even then, different people have different care-abouts and different preferences.

In my line of work, we settle various arguments like this with data, so it would be nifty if we could compile data elements like initial stability (or some other analog of "seakindliness"), AVS, tankage, hull speed, sail plan, alloy composition of fitments, locations of handholds, and so on. It would be hard, tedious work -- far too difficult compared to hurling opinions and insults about. Doubly so since even the same make and model boat can change components, construction, or layouts over time.

Back before drug cartels were rife, adventurers used to drive the Pan American Highway end to end. There, off-roaders, baja-ers, and drivers and motorheads of all stripes would bicker endlessly about what makes and models of vehicles either could make the journey, or were best suited for the journey. Plus, there as ocean voyaging, considerable fitting out is usually wise regardless of the make, model or year. Their arguments sounded very similar to those that have gone on here.


----------



## smackdaddy

_Thank you_ Bob and Jeff. It's that generalization several years ago that started this thread in the first place. And Jeff, you're absolutely right in that most of the argument is about semantics.

Bob, as you said:



bobperry said:


> Smackers:
> Hard to argue with results.


Exactly right.

And, if we're talking about Jon's post, the result was that your Valiant 42 was the best all round boat. And I don't think anyone is surprised by that. It's well documented all over the place that Valiants are pretty much the best cruisers out there. That's just fact.

BUT, in relation to this thread where people generalize so much about how production boats are too flimsy or cheap or poorly designed/laid-out/built/etc. for offshore work - the result is also that the Hunter successfully made that same trip. Again, that doesn't mean it's a "better" boat or even a comparable boat to the Valiant. It's not by any means. But it held its own offshore. That too is fact.

So, to be very clear I've _never_ argued that modern production boats are "better" offshore boats than "blue water" brands - especially if we're talking your boats. In fact, I started out my boat search wanting a Valiant. But my budget led me to the Hunter. That's an obvious tribute to you and your boats in that they hold their value amazingly well.

I've simply said that modern, rated production boats will do what they say they can do offshore within the limitations being discussed rationally here by a very few (Jeff's point).

And it's hard to argue with the results.


----------



## RobGallagher

As strictly a coastal sailor, one who has spent a limited amount of time in what I consider bad weather, my worries remain standard. When I go the to boat show and stare longingly at the wonder of it all... I still see

Windows that are glued on without any supporting frame...Yes modern glues are wonderful, but, imperfect.
Interior hand holds...How do you make it from one end of the saloon to the other without breaking a bone? If there are hand holds, there are not enough of them. 
Spacious heads...that I think are wonderful...until I try to imagine taking a dump in horrible weather.
Unprotected props, and/or rudders.

I can't say for sure what boat will do what by looking at it. But I have taken a dump in tiny little 7 ft waves and a gentle breeze of 30 knots. That lets me know that I can't imagine offshore 15-20 ft seas and 50 knots.

And that reminds me, why don't we have offshore toilet seat hinges? I CANNOT, MUST NOT, be the only one who has broken those things coming down off a wave? Breaking them is one thing....trying to balance the damn thing unattached is a completely different ball game.


----------



## Bleemus

If the weather is that bad I just poop in the cockpit and let the next wave wash it over the stern. Save on the toilet hinges. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Thanks for the warning Bleems. I'll bring my tallest boots.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yet another SN classic:



RobGallagher said:


> I have taken a dump in tiny little 7 ft waves and a gentle breeze of 30 knots. That lets me know that I can't imagine offshore 15-20 ft seas and 50 knots.


Has JonE evaluated and photographed those hinges at boat shows?


----------



## RobGallagher

And that, my friends, explains the origin of the open transom.


----------



## Bleemus

Ha! Was hoping to get a few chuckles out of that one.

True story. In the 94 Doublehanded Transatlantic Race the first three days it was blowing over a gale right on the nose. Our Newick designed, Walter Greene built trimaran was famous for scooping up waves and dumping them in the cockpit. It had huge scuppers as a result. Instead of sitting on the little bucket down below 'twas a simple matter to do the business as described. We joked our toilet flushed itself every three waves and the plumbing never broke. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yet another SN classic:
> 
> Has JonE evaluated and photographed those hinges at boat shows?


No, not yet, but there's always next year... ;-)

However, once you do get around to doing a bit more sailing offshore, you might not be so quick to dismiss or make light of something so seemingly inconsequential...

Yes, on this trip the seat became 'unhinged' a number of times... One reason I prefer the Lavac, the gasketed seat is far more less likely to exhibit any movement underway... Likewise, my preference for heads facing athwartships, as opposed to fore and aft. I think they're far easier to keep stable when heeled or rolling, but perhaps that's just me...

Another example of simplicity ruling when it comes to heads on an offshore passage. One of the more miserable experiences in recent memory was on this passage a few years ago, on a very high end boat with fancy Euro toilets that were fresh water flush...

Shortly into the trip, the watermaker failed, so we went immediately into water conservation mode... So, each use of the head required filling a bucket with seawater while bashing to weather @ 8 knots, then toting the thing down the companionway and thru the elegant designer interior to the head(s)...

Repeat that drill for 7-8 days straight, it gets old pretty quickly, even you might begin to appreciate that a simpler, more traditional approach to boat systems can often have its advantages...


----------



## Geoff54

RobGallagher said:


> And that reminds me, why don't we have offshore toilet seat hinges? I CANNOT, MUST NOT, be the only one who has broken those things coming down off a wave? Breaking them is one thing....trying to balance the damn thing unattached is a completely different ball game.


Screw two blocks of something (I used left over nylon spacers) to the bottom of the seat so that they project below the top of the porcelain, close to the edge and just forward of a center athwart-head line, if you see what I mean. Prevents the seat sliding forward or twisting sideways, and breaking the hinges. Not a new idea and works on my Catalina. Not sure how well it would work on a Valiant though


----------



## bobperry

Nylon spacers would not work on a Valiant Geoff. We'd have to use Delrin or Marlon.


----------



## Geoff54

bobperry said:


> Nylon spacers would not work on a Valiant Geoff. We'd have to use Delrin or Marlon.


You'd better through bolt them then, so that they are strong enough for serious offshore use - blue water capable, if you like. And don't forget to pot the holes and seal them with epoxy... wouldn't want to develop soft spots on the seat.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> However, once you do get around to doing a bit more sailing offshore, you might not be so quick to dismiss or make light of something so seemingly inconsequential...
> 
> One of the more miserable experiences in recent memory was on this passage a few years ago, on a very high end boat with fancy Euro toilets that were fresh water flush...
> 
> Shortly into the trip, the watermaker failed, so we went immediately into water conservation mode... So, each use of the head required filling a bucket with seawater while bashing to weather @ 8 knots, then toting the thing down the companionway and thru the elegant designer interior to the head(s)...
> 
> Repeat that drill for 7-8 days straight, it gets old pretty quickly, even you might begin to appreciate that a simpler, more traditional approach to boat systems can often have its advantages...


We did a 6-day offshore race and return delivery on a Pacific Seacraft C37 a few years ago. On the first day, the head stopped flushing and there were a total of 6 of us on the boat. We also resorted to the bucket...

But, I'm curious, why didn't you guys just go into the bucket and dump it overboard? That's what we did. It was very easy.

You ACTUALLY still used the freakin' head down below and took 2 trips for a flush _every time_?

I'd say you were doing it wrong, dude.

(Oops - just saw where Geoff already covered the seat thing.)


----------



## outbound

I'm glad you picked on me. If you to re read the offending post I was trying to point the great divergence in production boats and thought I clearly said that. Throughout this whole thread have repetitively pointed out all boats are production boats unless you are fortunate enough to be one of Bob's clients. But upon rereading the post it sounds self referenced for which I apologize. As said there are good boats and not so much. And as Bob said " different boats for different folks." As Jon points out there are so many seemingly small details that need to be just right for a boat to work in a hostile environment. Devil is in the details. Have very much enjoyed having those details delineated. One of the problems with boats is for many of us we don't know these details until after the fact or if told. It's the hope of learning these details that keep me looking at this thread

Jons point is well taken. Just put in a watermaker last week. They had models with auto flush functions, electronics to run silver ions through system, electronics to monitor out put, electronics to control valves. Went with version that has no electronics. You manually flip the valves, manually back flush, manually test then decide when to manually flip valve and put product into your tanks, manually pickle if necessary etc. Agree with KISS ( keep it simple stupid). Will see this summer if it was a good decision.
Still electric heads keep the bride happy. So have manual up front and electric in back. Both have choice of fresh or salt. Advantage to having cats is the bucket the litter comes in is square. Square buckets are great on a boat. Always have a few in the boat stacked up. 

Another way to deal with a broken head is to take off your bibs. Put on a harness. Clip it to a spare halyard. Have another adjust length of halyard to suit. Stand on sugar scoop with butt over the edge. Do your business. If you wait a bit afterwards you will save on baby wipes but maybe talking with a high voice for awhile. And as George said "shrinkage".


----------



## Capt Len

No excuse for not just up and fixing a broken head .As for the seat not aligning with the bowl as the butt moves. I take off the little plastic pads on the underside and replace(same screw pattern) with shaped plastiics cut from scrounge. The two steps support the seat and fitting against the bowl edge prevents the hinges from taking the strain of a bowl movement at sea.


----------



## outbound

Len
Some of us nearly puke just replacing or clearing a clogged joker valve when in a slip. 
Old trick is to rub oil of peppermint or like agent on upper lip before job. Or wait until you have a cold or bad allergies. Then breathe through your mouth. Still, can see not wanting to do this when its bumpy.


----------



## Capt Len

My first Atlantic crossing was on a pre war Colin Archer. No plumbing of any kind. Just straddle a mizzen turnbuckle and hang out over the bulwark. We had an old pocket book that no one wanted to read hanging from a lanyard.Wasn't long before you had to sing out to make sure no one needed the page you were about to use. Production boats don't come cloae to that kind of class.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> We did a 6-day offshore race and return delivery on a Pacific Seacraft C37 a few years ago. On the first day, the head stopped flushing and there were a total of 6 of us on the boat. We also resorted to the bucket...
> 
> But, I'm curious, why didn't you guys just go into the bucket and dump it overboard? That's what we did. It was very easy.
> 
> You ACTUALLY still used the freakin' head down below and took 2 trips for a flush _every time_?
> 
> I'd say you were doing it wrong, dude.


well, could be just me, as usual... But when sailing hard to weather at a deep angle of heel, I find it far easier and more secure to do my business seated on a full size Italian toilet seat, than while squatting over a bucket...

And, when it comes to minimizing the consequences of an accident while toting a bucket through the interior of someone else's million dollar yacht, I think I'd favor spilling nothing more than seawater, instead of a bucket of human excrement down below or in the cockpit, every time...

The heads still worked, all they required was water to flush... But yeah, we were probably doing it all wrong, not to mention it would have been far more pleasant for my shipmates on watch or in the cockpit, to pass through carrying a bucket of freshly deposited crap, than one merely containing seawater...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh, we'll that's the difference right there. Ours was a full-size _American_ bucket. And it's not like we filled the freakin' thing to the brim when busting a grumpy. AND we had balance.


----------



## bobperry

"busting a grumpy"?


----------



## XSrcing

You know, when you gotta go see a man about a horse.


----------



## tanzertom

Just seeing if the speech Nazi from CF had me banned here too for expressing an opinion on the safety of going to Cuba just now.


----------



## tanzertom

Good. Freedom prevailed! I agree with Smackdaddy, et.al, that the Benehuntalina boats are fine for the 95% of us that use them as they were primarily intended. We don't need no slow, hard to maneuver tanks that are actually poor performers in the manner most of us use them.


----------



## outbound

Jeff made a plea for decreasing generalizations. Many would consider Valiants, the current circumnavigating baba 30, the Hans Christian 33, the Bristol Channel cutters, the Cape George series, the Tayana 37, the PSCs- tanks. Few would consider them poor performers in their intended use.
I owned a PSC34. For boat handling in tight quarters it was one of the easiest of any I've been on. The T37 not so much when backing down. Please don't generalize. Jeff is right.


----------



## bobperry

The guy solo, non stop circumnavigating in his Baba 40 has lost his wind gererator. He needs fuel to charge his batteries. Not sure you could have carried enough fuel on a boat with a D/L below 180 to do this. Fuel requires volume. Volume is displacement. Is the Baba 40 a tank? Yes, I think that's what I would call it. But it sails very well and I have sailed several of them. AIRLOOM, the Seattle, tall rig, Baba 40, has a very impressive PHRF race record in the PNW. The Valiant 40/42 has a D/L around 265. I'd say a D/L over 30 qualifies any boat as a "tank". My new carbon cutter has a displ of 35,000 lbs. but it has a 38.5' DWL and a D/L of 279. I am expecting Valiant style performance. VPP's look fine. Given the tankage the client required going light was not an option.


----------



## tanzertom

Outbound, I said OUR intended use, not the boat's. Generalizations, as does stereotyping, exist for a reason. How many of rightly deemed "blue water" boats are actually what works best in coastal cruising, daysailing, gunkholing, maneuvering in tight marinas or participating in club racing... even use as a dock condo... inclusively? Few, if any. (Okay, my dream boat, a Contessa 32, does most all things well :grin Factor in costs of capabilities not needed or wanted and you have the decision model some 95% of us likely use. Sail what you want; "needs" are a different issue. Blue water sailors need blue water boats. Others? Not so much.


----------



## outbound

Devils in the details. The OUR is key.
My bad. Your right most of us, including me, don't sail our boats anywhere near their capabilities.


----------



## Shockwave

Contrary to the wishes of the mods I'll generalize. The construction methodology and quality of price point boats today is crap. Sorry, no other way to say it. You guys are talking about "use by dates", that's bull! Keels and rudders falling off, grids delaminating, cleats and bow rollers pulling out? But their OK for 10 years. Really? That's crap and has to be called crap. Some stuff is not acceptable, structural failures are NOT acceptable. Any one that says that is ok is an apologist for the builder hawking this crap.
Shock out...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, we'll that's the difference right there. Ours was a full-size _American_ bucket. And it's not like we filled the freakin' thing to the brim when busting a grumpy. *AND we had balance.*


Yeah, that's probably it... Maybe in The Next Life, I'll have learned to "balance" myself as well as you guys, when beating into Christmas Winds 500 miles from Tortola...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> The reason this thread started many years ago was that the running mentality in this forum (and some others) was that production boats had no place offshore - even if they were rated as capable.
> 
> I've always disagreed with that. Reality itself says that these boats can do it - _because they are out there doing it_. But that is/was not enough for these guys.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that Hunters (and the like) can make these offshore passages right alongside legendary blue water boats like Bob's Valiants. That obviously doesn't make them "better" by any means (not possible) - it just makes them worthy.
> 
> That's really all I've ever said. And it's true. And the BWCs who always said different were wrong. Obviously.


Apparently, the owner of a Hanse 430e who just completed the Caribbean 1500 has joined the ranks of those who are "obviously" wrong, as well...

This morning I attended the Rally Debrief held here in Nanny Cay, where skippers and crews shared their impressions and experiences of the trip in a sort of roundtable format moderated by Andy Schell... Quite interesting, to say the least...

One gentleman in particular - Torstein on NORDIC BELLE out of Toronto - I think probably surprised everyone with his very candid assessment of the _"Limits"_ of his Hanse 430e...

He sailed with a crew of 4 friends, all experienced racing sailors on Lake Ontario...

They hand steered the boat for the initial part of the passage, as the autopilot was unable to control the boat in the sporty conditions to their satisfaction... No big deal for a crew of 4 guys, but a whole different ballgame for the typical Mom & Pop cruising couple... He said he feared that the autopilot would "tear the rudder out of the boat", a feeling that was compounded by the retirement from the passage and diversion to Bermuda by a sister ship very early into the trip due to a rudder bearing problem... Andy cited his own experience with a rudder problem on another Hanse he had delivered awhile ago...

But in his summary of his passage, I doubt i was the only one who was a bit taken aback by Torstein's unequivocal admission that he would never do another ocean passage on that boat... if he were going to repeat the trip, it would be on a quite different boat... He said, as close to verbatim as i can recall, that his boat _"was meant to go out and have fun with and beat yourself up for the day, but to be back at the yacht club in time for Happy Hour... It is NOT a boat well-suited for longer ocean passages..."_

One of his biggest complaints was in regards to the Wide Open Spaces down below... His biggest concern was that his crew might be injured trying to move about below decks in the heavier going... In a further conversation with him on the dock this afternoon, he flatly admitted he would never be willing to take his wife and their 10 year old son offshore in that boat, fearing especially that his boy would be tossed about while attempting to do something as rudimentary as using the head... Totstein had a great deal of difficulty cooking underway as well, and during the daily SSB net check in, would up basically having to lie down on the navigator's seat in an effort to extend his leg far enough across the cabin sole before finding something to brace himself against the boat's heel...

Finally, what makes his comments even more sobering, is that while we did have a couple of bouts of sporty weather during this year's passage, they were of a rather short duration... This year turned out to be tone of he easiest passages to the islands I have ever had. The Gulf Stream crossing was a total non-event, and this trip featured more sailing with the breeze aft of the beam than I have ever experienced on this ride, with even a heavy dose of sailing wing and wing...

I can only wonder what Torstein might have said at the skipper's debrief, had he made the trip 2 or 3 years previously...

;-)


----------



## Shockwave

Jon, you can sail with us, we have an old heavy boat.


----------



## outbound

Or me


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> One of his biggest complaints was in regards to the Wide Open Spaces down below... His biggest concern was that his crew might be injured trying to move about below decks in the heavier going... In a further conversation with him on the dock this afternoon, he flatly admitted he would never be willing to take his wife and their 10 year old son offshore in that boat, fearing especially that his boy would be tossed about while attempting to do something as rudimentary as using the head... Totstein had a great deal of difficulty cooking underway as well, and during the daily SSB net check in, would up basically having to lie down on the navigator's seat in an effort to extend his leg far enough across the cabin sole before finding something to brace himself against the boat's heel...


I'm guessing his experience includes older-style yachts designed way back when common-sense features like plenty of hand-holds, a galley *designed* for use when heeled +15degrees and proper lee-cloths that held you comfortably in the bunk were _de rigueur_?!?

It seems to me that, in a relentless pursuit of "space" and "comfort" down below, practicality has gone by the way-side and I do wonder just how many modern mass-production-yacht interior-designers have ever actually sailed before, leave alone been on a significant passage to anyplace... because looking at the interior layouts of most of these, it sure can't be all that many. ..but perhaps that's the appeal of an older yacht, sufficient to ensure a market for them into the foreseeable future.

EDIT: And how about quarter berths.. and the old pilot berths?? As I'm sure most of us know already, a double-bed is completely useless whilst close-hauled in any sort of sea.


----------



## bobperry

Here is the layout of my four carbon cutters. This layout could not be more different from the typical new Euro style layout. This layout is designed for a crew of four to be comfortable at sea. That's all. This would never sell on the mass market. People would go below, look at the pilot berths and say, "Oh look at those big, padded shelves!"

This thread is getting fun.


----------



## outbound

Gee Classic
Agree some boats both older and newer have berths better designed for passage but don't agree doubles are useless. You can divide them with a bundle board and they do fine. I have a small double as a quaterberth. Other than occasional engine noise (earplugs) it's fine even without board in place.you have the hull on one side and The vertical portion of cockpit settee seat on the other. Easy to wedge in on either tack.
What I miss on my boat and is rarely seen on current designs is the old time pilot berth. Its in the middle of the boat so least motion and totally out of traffic flow. The settees with lee clothes are fine but a pilot berth, but I think,even better.
Wonder how you and Jon feel about European style galleys. Think they work fine on big boats where they are confined in a hallway so there's something to lean on but not in smaller mono hulls with life on a slant. Mention was made of difficulties of fore and aft seating in heads think the c shaped galley allows secure standing when you need both hands.


----------



## skygazer

bobperry said:


> But it might be hard work so screw that and maybe we should just continue to generalize.


Bob, you have a knack for cracking me up!


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Apparently, the owner of a Hanse 430e who just completed the Caribbean 1500 has joined the ranks of those who are "obviously" wrong, as well...
> 
> This morning I attended the Rally Debrief held here in Nanny Cay, where skippers and crews shared their impressions and experiences of the trip in a sort of roundtable format moderated by Andy Schell... Quite interesting, to say the least...
> 
> One gentleman in particular - Torstein on NORDIC BELLE out of Toronto - I think probably surprised everyone with his very candid assessment of the _"Limits"_ of his Hanse 430e...
> 
> He sailed with a crew of 4 friends, all experienced racing sailors on Lake Ontario...
> 
> They hand steered the boat for the initial part of the passage, as the autopilot was unable to control the boat in the sporty conditions to their satisfaction... No big deal for a crew of 4 guys, but a whole different ballgame for the typical Mom & Pop cruising couple... He said he feared that the autopilot would "tear the rudder out of the boat", a feeling that was compounded by the retirement from the passage and diversion to Bermuda by a sister ship very early into the trip due to a rudder bearing problem... Andy cited his own experience with a rudder problem on another Hanse he had delivered awhile ago...
> 
> But in his summary of his passage, I doubt i was the only one who was a bit taken aback by Torstein's unequivocal admission that he would never do another ocean passage on that boat... if he were going to repeat the trip, it would be on a quite different boat... He said, as close to verbatim as i can recall, that his boat _"was meant to go out and have fun with and beat yourself up for the day, but to be back at the yacht club in time for Happy Hour... It is NOT a boat well-suited for longer ocean passages..."_
> 
> One of his biggest complaints was in regards to the Wide Open Spaces down below... His biggest concern was that his crew might be injured trying to move about below decks in the heavier going... In a further conversation with him on the dock this afternoon, he flatly admitted he would never be willing to take his wife and their 10 year old son offshore in that boat, fearing especially that his boy would be tossed about while attempting to do something as rudimentary as using the head... Totstein had a great deal of difficulty cooking underway as well, and during the daily SSB net check in, would up basically having to lie down on the navigator's seat in an effort to extend his leg far enough across the cabin sole before finding something to brace himself against the boat's heel...
> 
> Finally, what makes his comments even more sobering, is that while we did have a couple of bouts of sporty weather during this year's passage, they were of a rather short duration... This year turned out to be tone of he easiest passages to the islands I have ever had. The Gulf Stream crossing was a total non-event, and this trip featured more sailing with the breeze aft of the beam than I have ever experienced on this ride, with even a heavy dose of sailing wing and wing...
> 
> I can only wonder what Torstein might have said at the skipper's debrief, had he made the trip 2 or 3 years previously...
> 
> ;-)


First, I don't know much about Hanse. I actually thought they were a step UP the chain from the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas we usually discuss. But I do see that they didn't make this list from Peter Nielsen at Sail (where BeneJeneBavs do):

Twelve Top Bluewater Cruising Boats - Sail Magazine

And I really do like this bit:



> Armchair admirals and chat-room bores may warn dolorously of lightweight structures failing in big seas and rigs crumpling at the merest hint of a hurricane, but given good preparation and a capable crew, the typical production boat is quite capable of surviving some very nasty conditions. For the trade wind passages that make up the bulk of bluewater cruising, there should be no argument about whether a suitably prepared production boat will make it across an ocean. For sailors who can't afford or justify one of the high-ticket deluxe cruising boats, it's good to know there are plenty of good options among the ranks of moderately priced production cruisers.


That said, that same article lists Hanse as being one of the most popular boats in the ARC.



> > Most popular brands in the ARC, 2008-2012 (in order):
> Beneteau, Jeanneau, Swan, Oyster, Bavaria,
> Hallberg-Rassy, Lagoon, Hanse, X-Yachts


So, I'm certainly not discounting this C1500 guy's experience, especially in light of the other Hanse also experiencing rudder issues, but it's always important to maintain some perspective on accounts such as the above where there was no actual failure, just the fear of one - along with visions of 10-year-olds being flung around the boat while busting a grumpy (sounds like they need to sail with you) - when said youngster couldn't reach the handholds in a proper Oyster anyway.

For example, here is a family who did a 6-month full-time cruise around part of Australia on a Hanse 445:

Hanse 445 Lunacy Living the Dream |

Lunacy over and out! | Team Windcraft Blog










Even the children seemed to survive it. Maybe the Aussies are just more robust?

Anyway, you (and the guy above) do bring up something I've also brought up previously...that is the forces placed on the steering/rudder post assembly when using the AP. I'd be very curious to know if that one Hanse who DID have the bearing issue was under AP up until the problem - where this guy who DIDN'T have a failure hand-steered. It would be some valuable info.

Also, I'm curious - you make it sound like he knew about the other Hanse's failure. Is this the case? Could that have spooked him?

In any case, I certainly don't see this particular story as the boat failing the crew.

BTW - what is this sail on this HR42???










A paraspin? That's freakin' cool!


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> Even the children seemed to survive it. Maybe the Aussies are just more robust?


Have you ever met The Wombat?? or Mr Perry even?!? (he kinda defected.. but nonetheless):

OF COURSE WE ARE!!! :grin

:2 boat:

(it's the beer, I tell you)


----------



## bobperry

I have three large jars of Vegemite in the office,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just in case.


----------



## Capt Len

My ideal head position is facing aft at a 45 with strong surrounding furniture with handholds.It's on a raised shelf which acts as a knee support when kneeling before the throne. so the aim is more accurate. Place to brace feet within average leg distance when seated and the sink is close enough to hold the open mouth as you rest on your arm while seated .


----------



## Classic30

outbound said:


> What I miss on my boat and is rarely seen on current designs is the old time pilot berth. Its in the middle of the boat so least motion and totally out of traffic flow. The settees with lee clothes are fine but a pilot berth, but I think,even better.


+1 on that..



outbound said:


> Wonder how you and Jon feel about European style galleys. Think they work fine on big boats where they are confined in a hallway so there's something to lean on but not in smaller mono hulls with life on a slant. Mention was made of difficulties of fore and aft seating in heads think the c shaped galley allows secure standing when you need both hands.


Personally, I think some of them are plain dangerous. Whilst they're great at anchor, there aren't too many I've seen that have something behind you to lean against so the cook can maintain both hands free at the stove.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> BTW - what is this sail on this HR42???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A paraspin? That's freakin' cool!


Parasailor

www.parasailor.com


----------



## Classic30

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Parasailor


Looks more like an eyebrow to me!.. :laugh


----------



## outbound

I've had one for two years now but given its been windy very rarely used. We did put it up in very light air in L.i. sound and it worked just fine. 
Need more experience to render firm opinion but really like easy to do with one in cockpit and one forward. Next step is to see if I can do it myself on AP.
Also like there being no pole. Easy to get down quickly. Don't like mouth of Sally barely fits forward locker hatch. Going to sailmaker to see if I can do something about that.


----------



## RobGallagher

Oddly enough, Hanse was exactly the sort of boats I had in mind.

Let me be clear, I can say nothing about the build quality or how the boat would perform in heavy weather. I do not think the interior is well suited for days of getting tossed around like a rag doll.

In September at the Newport Boat show I ended up spending some time with the Hanse salesperson. I lurked about on a couple of models, then went back again to spend more time on those models. Not that I could afford it, but let's just say the bank would give me the money and I would be reduced to mac & cheese, mad dog 20/20 and Pabst Blue Ribbon tall boys for the next 30 years. The broker even agreed to take my current boat in trade and make it work as a down payment (imagine that!). He was a good salesman and nearly had me sailing the boat back to dealership CT after the show, just to see how I liked it. Well, I can tell you that I liked it a

So for a few days I went down that road of talking myself out of it. Even my girlfriend said, out loud, "really, only $XXX.00 per month". A tear welled up in my eye, no woman had ever said something so beautiful to me.

The Hanse boats are beautiful, and I feel they would perform to the tasks I would ask of them. Coastal cruising in the semi protected sounds of New England, never more than a day from the closest harbor.

Even cruising around Australia might be a series of day sails or overnight jaunts to the next port. I've never tried it, so maybe that's a stretch, but it's a hell of a lot different than Australia to Phuket.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> I have three large jars of Vegemite in the office,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just in case.


The boys and I aren't huge fans...



















They will no longer speak the name of Robert Perry without spitting on the ground.


----------



## smackdaddy

RobGallagher said:


> I would be reduced to mac & cheese, mad dog 20/20 and Pabst Blue Ribbon tall boys for the next 30 years.


You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Todd Boley

So after 416 pages of discussion, how many sailboats actually capsize or have structural failure? What are their characteristics? Where on this planet and under what weather conditions doe these events occur?

There seems to be a lot of angst, argument, opinion, etc......but at the end of of the day.....what really happens? What really is the quantified risk?

Or, can I really take just about any reasonably maintained boat through a reasonable weather window and go just about anywhere?


----------



## RobGallagher

smackdaddy said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.


It ain't such a bad thing. But I'd eventually miss the sex.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So, I'm certainly not discounting this C1500 guy's experience, especially in light of the other Hanse also experiencing rudder issues, but it's always important to maintain some perspective on accounts such as the above where there was no actual failure, just the fear of one - along with visions of 10-year-olds being flung around the boat while busting a grumpy (sounds like they need to sail with you) - when said youngster couldn't reach the handholds in a proper Oyster anyway.
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway, you (and the guy above) do bring up something I've also brought up previously...that is the forces placed on the steering/rudder post assembly when using the AP. *I'd be very curious to know if that one Hanse who DID have the bearing issue was under AP up until the problem* - where this guy who DIDN'T have a failure hand-steered. It would be some valuable info.


Not bloody likely... If there was one boat in the rally that I would bet was being hand-steered every inch of the way, it would have been AVANTI...

She was moored in the slip adjacent to ours in Portsmouth, and her owner Jeremi Jablonski was one of my favorite people I met in the week prior to departure... VERY cool guy, that boat was prepped to the absolute max, and those guys were chomping at the bit to get underway... Jeremi and his crew are very accomplished racers, they've done the 1500 4 times before, and we were all very disappointed to hear of their retirement and diversion to Bermuda, we were really pulling for those guys, they were totally gung ho about getting the best out of their boat, as they had done before:

Jeremi Jablonski?s Avanti Wins Carib 1500 - Cedar Point Yacht Club

Just got back from dinner and some drinks at the bar, and a conversation with one of the crew on the Bavaria 40 KRISTY SUE... They motored a hell of a lot longer than we did, and still had an elapsed time roughly half a day longer...

He said some of the pounding they endured was incredible... When I asked him whether he'd do it again, the reply was an emphatic _"No F_cking Way..."_, although he did concede that 9 months from now he might reconsider a ride on a "bigger, _HEAVIER_ boat..."



smackdaddy said:


> Also, I'm curious - you make it sound like he knew about the other Hanse's failure. Is this the case? Could that have spooked him?


Feel free to spin it any way you like, but the heaviest conditions the fleet would have seen the second night out occurred before we learned of AVANTI's decision to divert to Bermuda...



smackdaddy said:


> In any case, I certainly don't see this particular story as the boat failing the crew.


You're gonna believe what you want to believe, I doubt that comes as any surprise to anyone still reading this thread...

;-)


----------



## chall03

RobGallagher said:


> Even cruising around Australia might be a series of day sails or overnight jaunts to the next port. I've never tried it, so maybe that's a stretch, but it's a hell of a lot different than Australia to Phuket.


I hate to be in danger of proving Smack right :eek, but yes that is actually quite a bit of a stretch.

We have a large inhospitable coastline mostly with a pretty reef off the northeast corner  Not much in the way of ports and protection at times and you are off the grid for half of it.










Take the great Australian bite (Which Joshua Slocum sailed out of his way to avoid) the shortest route across guarantees several nights at sea at 35' south, spent crossing your fingers that when the next front hits, you don't get the snot beaten out of you, then there is Bass Strait.

In comparison taking a boat to Phuket from here would be a fairy party. 
Light winds and mostly day sails. As long as your AIS worked your biggest issue would be having enough beer, fuel and ice.

This illustrates the silliness of the term 'bluewater'.

I am more impressed with the Hanse circumnavigating Australia than I am with the Hanse's doing the ARC.


----------



## tanzertom

Follow up to my buy what you want/need comment: I would guess an owner survey would show the vast majority find their boat performs very satisfactorily in the conditions for which they were designed and purchased. Does a "production" boat make the best oceanic voyager? Nope. But who cares? Smackdaddy seems perfectly happy; whatever anyone else wants to believe is irrelevant. Reading Cruisers Forum to broaden my knowledge while recovering from a 20 year absence from sailing and to help in my search for a boat to explore the southeast US coast, I was initially shocked at the snobbery toward anything but the blue water boats. Cape Dorys, Bristols, Valiants and other full keel boats were sacrosanct. Benehuntalinas were crap. For me the opposite is true. For the sailing I plan, a blue water cruiser would be a miserable experience. I actually enjoy and prefer sailing to windward; out pointing other boats out with me is much more satisfying (to ME!) than down wind sailing. But then my plan doesn't include long passages. Why buy a boat that does few of the things you like well? This thread, as usual, has sailed well off subject. Can you take production boats far off shore? Sure. Would a blue water design/build be better? Sure. Can you enjoy a full keel, heavy cruiser doing coastal cruising? Sure. Would a production boat designed/built toward that purpose likely be more enjoyable? Sure. Will the production boat perform well and hold up to extended off shore cruising? If you're not doing that, what does it matter?


----------



## outbound

Reading the above think there are basic underlying tenets that inform this thread but have not been adequately discussed. Bob, JeffH and others could do a much better job but will try to sketch out to my limited ability. Please realize what follows is a gross simplification with wide variance depending on skill of the NA and builder.

We are talking about cruising boats. Therefore talking about displacement hulls. Physics is physics regardless of size.
We accept displacement equals weight equals mass equals inertia. Anyone who has sailed an unballasted centerboard skiff then a 12 1/2 on a blustery day going to weather knows from their gut the difference in ride and ease of getting through a tack. With a kite up on a kind day the skiff walks away.
We accept weight is slow. Displacement means more wetted surface and more parasitic drag. Yes, at much expense you can use CF and exotics to take weight out of the hull and top hamper and put it to more useful purposes such as ballast and pay load. Yes you can centralize weight to improve gyradius and ride. But weight is weight limiting you to displacement hull physics. 

Weight is expensive. Was briefly, tangentially involved in project attempting to build Peter Ibold endurance cutters in the 80s. Pricing project was exercise in which weight and labor were major determinants. If working in one paradigm such as solid grp or another such as CF/foam it still holds true within that paradigm. More material, more weight, more expense. In general this remains true even when clever engineering eliminates weight.
So weight is bad for speed. Effect is less apparent on passage when comfort and ability of the crew are often the limiting factors in working the boat and therefore generating VMG. Here a seakindly boat, sometimes with a worse PHRF, sailing polar or VPP, will sometimes in actual usage make a better days work than a theoretically faster boat.

The last AC was an eye openner. As was the clips showing open boats in the southern ocean. You have to be amazed at the balance, athletism, courage and endurance of these sailors. But does this have much to do with a fat, out of shape old man like me doing the SDR. I think not. We want a boat that will take care of us. Therefore it will be a compromise. Given limitations in resources and skill it will not be a scaled down open boat nor a CF cutter ( which breaks my heart). But as said in many different ways at each price point and at each length there are good boats and not so much. Furthermore, to some extent it is a zero sum game. Favorable attributes for going to weather may be unfavorable DDW. Favorable attributes for pure speed may degrade ride. Favorable attributes for safety when sideways to a large wave may increase area under the GZ curve.

This is why people like Bob are so respected. The ability to see the need for compromise and unabtrusively integrate them into a design remains an art not just a science such as applied and generated from a computer program. This is not to say a good cruising boat design doesn't make use of these advances but where and when and to what degree to compromise between conflicting demands remains a human choice.


----------



## bobperry

Tom: 
small correction:
The Valiant is NOT a "full keel boat". It has a fin keel and a skeg hung rudder.


----------



## JonEisberg

tanzertom said:


> ...But then my plan doesn't include long passages. Why buy a boat that does few of the things you like well? This thread, as usual, has sailed well off subject. Can you take production boats far off shore? Sure. Would a blue water design/build be better? Sure. Can you enjoy a full keel, heavy cruiser doing coastal cruising? Sure. Would a production boat designed/built toward that purpose likely be more enjoyable? Sure. Will the production boat perform well and hold up to extended off shore cruising? If you're not doing that, what does it matter?


But I thought this thread was about "Production Boats and the _LIMITS..."_, no? Perhaps there should be a separate thread about "Production Boats and the Manner in Which Most Owners Use Them"?

;-)

As I've said repeatedly, much of this stuff only "matters" when it happens to _YOU..._ I'm guessing Jeremi on AVANTI obtains little consolation from the fact that the other Hanse 430 completed the 1500 without having to divert to Bermuda to replace her rudder bearings, thus "proving" to some around here that such a boat is perfectly suitable for sailing offshore...










For instance, one of the trends I've mentioned that bothers me about today's boats is that towards the ever-increasing height of some of the booms above deck level. In my experience, that can become a serious liability when sailing anywhere away from shore...

In yesterday's debrief, the skipper of one of the cats in the fleet told of the failure of their first reefing line in the main the second night into the trip... Due to the extreme height of the boom, and the fact that the line had to be reeved through the boom, he was unable to effect a repair underway... As a result, his only option was to use the main at full hoist, or more typically using an underpowered configuration of 2 reefs in the main... Probably one reason why a Valiant 42 beat them to the finish, rather handily... ;-)

So, while the placement of the boom at an excessive height may not matter much to _YOU_, or some others reading this thread, it most certainly mattered to _THEM_, over the final 1000 miles of their passage... And, it will certainly matter to _me_, when assessing the prospect of being asked to deliver a particular boat on such a passage...

;-)

Torstein on NORDIC BELLE also mentioned that one of his reefing lines had almost chafed completely through, he was amazed at the amount of wear it had shown during the passage... he, too, admitted they would have been screwed if they had lost it, due to the difficulty of reaching the boom while at sea...


----------



## RobGallagher

chall03 said:


> I am more impressed with the Hanse circumnavigating Australia than I am with the Hanse's doing the ARC.


I don't think the family in question circumnavigated Australia. They sailed around part of australia. I sail around New England, that does not mean I make long passages or circumnavigate much of anything.

However, as they could have been in some barren places, I stand corrected.


----------



## bobperry

I sailed around Bainbridge Island.


----------



## RobGallagher

I regularly circumnavigate Fishers Island. So harsh it does not use an apostrophe.


----------



## skygazer

JonEisberg said:


> ...For instance, one of the trends I've mentioned that bothers me about today's boats is that towards the ever-increasing height of some of the booms above deck level. In my experience, that can become a serious liability when sailing anywhere away from shore...


I'm pleased to hear you talk about the high booms. They seem problematic even coastally.

A few years ago at a popular anchorage in the Casco bay islands I pointed out a rather large newish boat that motored in and anchored downwind of us.

This was on a perfect late summer day, getting to the end of the season.

What caught me eye was that the main sail was so perfectly furled and covered that I imagined it was done by the marina with a skilled crew, and I imagined it had been furled all summer. It was so high above the deck that I could not understand how the owners could reach it to uncover and raise the main. Stepladders?? Which also helped me understand why I see so many boats sailing around with just the genoa, and only motoring when going to windward. If it is made too difficult, who will use the main?

For me, that would not be my style of enjoyment. I like two sails at all times for the balanced ability to go in any direction the wind allows. I drop my jib when coasting up to anchor, then drop my main only after moving backwards to set the anchor - not as good as motoring backwards, but it works. I often dive on the anchor to make sure it set well. In light air my wife will steer while I try to backwind the main, and always wish for an old fashioned yawl. I've seen a good sized wooden yawl anchoring among the islands that did not carry any motor at all, just a sweep. I was impressed, and liked seeing their seamanship. I always have a motor and merely try to use it very little, and use the sails as much as possible, just my way of enjoying things.

Anyway, it's main up first, and down last for me.


----------



## Shockwave

I've always wondered where they trim to when not going upwind. When I asked the Hanse sales guy he didn't know.



















Once you ease the high profile jib it's going to open and shake. How do you trim out and forward? Or do you just go upwind and never reach?


----------



## smackdaddy

tanzertom said:


> Reading Cruisers Forum to broaden my knowledge while recovering from a 20 year absence from sailing and to help in my search for a boat to explore the southeast US coast, I was initially shocked at the snobbery toward anything but the blue water boats. Cape Dorys, Bristols, Valiants and other full keel boats were sacrosanct. Benehuntalinas were crap.


Finally!!! Thank you!!!

This is exactly why I started the "Production Boats Fit For Bluewater" over there - to go head-to-chucklehead with those goofballs (some of whom _still_ follow me around nipping at my heels). And I had freakin' MODS over there telling me they'd never seen any such bias on CF (when they weren't trolling me of course)!!!!!! Are you freakin' kidding me???

With that kind of head in the sand mentality, it was just a matter of time before I got the boot. And that's a boot I'm still proud of.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> But I thought this thread was about "Production Boats and the _LIMITS..."_, no?


It is. It's about the limits some try to place on them that really don't fit reality. For example...



JonEisberg said:


> As I've said repeatedly, much of this stuff only "matters" when it happens to _YOU..._ I'm guessing Jeremi on AVANTI obtains little consolation from the fact that the other Hanse 430 completed the 1500 without having to divert to Bermuda to replace her rudder bearings, thus "proving" to some around here that such a boat is perfectly suitable for sailing offshore...


I looked up the article you linked to about AVANTI's past. She looks like she's been sailed pretty hard for a while now...

1. Winning the C1500 in 2014 as you say
2. St. Thomas International in 2013 (http://stthomasinternationalregatta.com/2013-results/)
3. BVI Spring Regatta in 2013 (http://www.yachtscoring.com/event_results_cumulative.cfm?eID=712)
4. Another C1500 win in 2012 "Double Handed Award (1st double-handed crew on corrected time) - Avanti"

...and many more I could find if I thought it was worth spending the time.

This boat is being RACED! So, why are you surprised that stuff breaks when a boat is pushed competitively like this? Are you really trying to say that this means Hanses - and, by extension, all other production boats - are not fit for CRUISING blue water? Please.

You're seriously grasping at straws dude.

In any case, I have my suspicions that the AP had something to do with this failure as well...



> About Avanti, the Hanse 430 and the only double-handed crew this year, Jeremi and his wife having to hand-steer when the autopilot broke. We're expecting them to arrive tonight, and it ought to be to some considerable fanfare.


----------



## Shockwave

Our boom is high, we've found work arounds for that problem (lazy cradle with a continuous zipper, lazy jacks, leaving the halyard on the headboard, hay racks...). Just part of owning a larger boat and if you like to sail you learn how to deal with unconventional aspects of your boat.


----------



## Shockwave

Again it comes down to construction methodology and quality. It seems many here are OK with having to change out rudder bearings and seacocks every 5 years.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bob, I've got a serious question for you...

When designers are working through spec'ing out the steering/post/rudder assembly, what kind of force/load is taken into account for the autopilot input? In other words - is that apparatus an inherent part of the load calculus for the assembly? Do the ram-arm APs exert a different type and/or amount of force than is inherent in hand-steering?


----------



## tanzertom

bob, my bad. Apologies to Valiants everywhere.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I looked up the article you linked to about AVANTI's past. She looks like she's been sailed pretty hard for a while now...
> 
> 1. Winning last year's C1500 as you say
> 2. Another C1500 win in 2012 "Double Handed Award (1st double-handed crew on corrected time) - Avanti"
> 3. St. Thomas Cup in 2013 (2013 Results)
> 4. BVI Spring Regatta in 2013 (2013 BVI Spring Regatta and Sailing Festival on Yacht Scoring - A complete web based regatta administration and yacht scoring program)
> 
> ...and many more I could find if I thought it was worth spending the time.
> 
> This boat is being RACED! So, why are you surprised that stuff breaks when a boat is sailed competitively like this?


Actually, I'm not surprised at all...

However, I would expect that a modern "state of the art design", from one of the world's "finest naval architectural design teams", would have one of the boat's most vital components last a bit longer than 7 years... Or, are you suggesting that such a boat being marketed as being "performance oriented", citing the racing pedigree of Judel/Vrolijk & Co., should perhaps NOT be engaged in club racing? Or, perhaps should be retired after 5 years, or thereabouts?



smackdaddy said:


> Are you really trying to say that this means Hanse's - and all other production boats - are not fit for CRUISING blue water? Please.
> 
> You're seriously grasping at straws dude.


Well, then if the stresses imparted on a boat being actively raced in Long Island Sound and the Sir Francis Drake Channel are so much greater than when it's being cruised offshore, why did not this failure show up while racing in those waters, rather than a few days into a relatively benign offshore passage?

Jeremi is a superb sailor, who I think fully understood many of the imperfections of his boat... He commented to me in Portsmouth, for example, that the winches the boat came with were "ridiculously undersized" for any serious sailing... I doubt he or his crew pushed that boat recklessly



smackdaddy said:


> In any case, I have my suspicions that the AP had something to do with this failure as well...


Well, nothing to be done to allay your "suspicions", obviously... But, having hung out with Jeremi and his crew for roughly 8 days prior to our departure, I would be very surprised if their AP saw anything more than a momentary use from time to time during their passage...

Or, are you suggesting that today's production offerings may not be quite up to handling the demands placed upon them by "state of the art" autopilot systems commonly used today?


----------



## tanzertom

Guess we need a definition of LIMITS, huh. Design limits? User limits? Everything fails at some point. A railroad spike and tack hammer or sledge hammer and tack analogy seems appropriate here. If a sailor expects to encounter conditions where only heavy displacement cruisers make sense, that's his limit. If one does not expect those conditions, a coastal cruiser's limits works just fine. My perception is that the blue water boat folks consider coastal sailors and the boats that work best for them as somehow "limited". Some 95+% of sailors would find this attitude "limited".


----------



## bobperry

Smackers:
In the case of the carbon cutters we filed out a form on rudder geometry and boat specs provided by NKE and they will use this data to calculate the AP and ram required.
My calcs for rudder have everything to do with the strength of the post and not steering loads. I prefer NKE to determine that.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Smackers:
> In the case of the carbon cutters we filed out a form on rudder geometry and boat specs provided by NKE and they will use this data to calculate the AP and ram required.
> My calcs for rudder have everything to do with the strength of the post and not steering loads. I prefer NKE to determine that.


Got it. That makes sense.

So, in this case, the onus really falls on the AP provider to maintain/protect the designed spec.

The question is, when it comes to the mass producers is it more a one-size-fits all scenario for the AP where the fit might not be quite right for specific boats?

Interesting.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I'm not surprised at all...
> 
> However, I would expect that a modern "state of the art design", from one of the world's "finest naval architectural design teams", would have one of the boat's most vital components last a bit longer than 7 years... Or, are you suggesting that such a boat being marketed as being "performance oriented", citing the racing pedigree of Judel/Vrolijk & Co., should perhaps NOT be engaged in club racing? Or, perhaps should be retired after 5 years, or thereabouts?


I'm saying that if you're campaigning a boat hard you will DEFINITELY have to replace stuff much sooner than if you're CRUISING it. Surely even you can see the difference.

Blindly assuming that stress-affected components should last forever is one of the least seamanlike mentalities I can think of...regardless of the designer/builder of the boat.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, then if the stresses imparted on a boat being actively raced in Long Island Sound and the Sir Francis Drake Channel are so much greater than when it's being cruised offshore, why did not this failure show up while racing in those waters, rather than a few days into a relatively benign offshore passage?


Really? This is a serious question?



JonEisberg said:


> Jeremi is a superb sailor, who I think fully understood many of the imperfections of his boat... He commented to me in Portsmouth, for example, that the winches the boat came with were "ridiculously undersized" for any serious sailing... I doubt he or his crew pushed that boat recklessly


I never said they pushed the boat "recklessly". I said that any boat when pushed, even brand new VO65s or IMOCA 60s or whatever with the very best designers/builders/sailors in the world, will have breakages. It's just part of the equation. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, nothing to be done to allay your "suspicions", obviously... But, having hung out with Jeremi and his crew for roughly 8 days prior to our departure, I would be very surprised if their AP saw anything more than a momentary use from time to time during their passage...
> 
> Or, are you suggesting that today's production offerings may not be quite up to handling the demands placed upon them by "state of the art" autopilot systems commonly used today?


As Bob pointed out above, the AP seems to be designed for the boat - the boat is not designed for the AP. I can absolutely see scenarios where the two don't mesh...especially in the mass production market. I could be wrong - but that would be really strange in itself.


----------



## bobperry

Smacks:
It would depend on whether the builder offered an AP option as a package or the buyer chose his own. But as far as I recall we have always given rudder specs to the AP maker and let them spec it. I can see a builder of a production boat possibly undersizing the AP to help make the delivered price more attractive. When I first read Jon's post on this my first thought was that maybe the AP was undersized. The I thought that maybe the crew was not good at setting the trim so the loads on the AP were minimized. Quite a few variables involved.

My default setting is to trust Jon.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. I NEVER trust that pesky JonE!

Just kidding, he and I have had a pretty fun back-and-forth on this stuff for years now. But, as I think he'll attest, it's always been good-natured under the surface.

Like you say, there are quite a few variables involved in this question of the AP's role in these rudder issues. But when I was looking into reported rudder failures for a thread last year, many examples were in pretty rough conditions and seemed to indicate that the boat was being steered by the AP at the time. So it piqued my interest.


----------



## bobperry

Smacks:
One reason we went with the NKE because it has a great record with the Open 40 class. Those boats are pushed very hard. Who wants a "marginal" AP?


----------



## Bleemus

bobperry said:


> Smacks:
> One reason we went with the NKE because it has a great record with the Open 40 class. Those boats are pushed very hard. Who wants a "marginal" AP?


NKEs are the cream of the crop IMHO. Did lots of miles with one, upwind, downwind, heavy seas etc. Never skipped a beat.


----------



## JonEisberg

tanzertom said:


> Guess we need a definition of LIMITS, huh. Design limits? User limits? Everything fails at some point. A railroad spike and tack hammer or sledge hammer and tack analogy seems appropriate here. If a sailor expects to encounter conditions where only heavy displacement cruisers make sense, that's his limit. *If one does not expect those conditions, a coastal cruiser's limits works just fine. *


Well, perhaps at least until one happens to encounter _The Unexpected_, that is...

Yeah, right, like _THAT_ could ever happen...

;-)

Seems that some around here have a greater faith than I in the reliability of "Weather Windows", and such... And so much of this discussion is tethered to generalized distinctions between different "Brands", Production and BW boats, Heavy vs Light, Coastal and Offshore, Racing and Cruising, which to me can often be misleading or meaningless in the context of a particular boat's suitability for sailing offshore...

My opinions on all this are primarily informed by my own experiences over time with a pretty wide assortment of boats, both power and sail... And the funny thing is, if I were asked to compile a list of my Top Ten most challenging, dangerous, and punishing situations most testing to both boat and crew underway, the overwhelming percentage of them would likely have occurred within 10 or 20 miles of a coastline... The first that would have taken place in what most would consider to be truly "Bluewater", might not appear until around #7 or 8 on the list...

;-)



tanzertom said:


> My perception is that the blue water boat folks consider coastal sailors and the boats that work best for them as somehow "limited". Some 95+% of sailors would find this attitude "limited".


Perhaps somewhat due to the likelihood that such a percentage might never really have tested the "limits", to begin with?

;-)

At the debrief yesterday, Andy pointed out that this year's 1500 had a larger compliment of "rookies" than any in recent memory... And, despite the fact that the passage overall was one of the easier ones in a long time, not a single one offered that the trip was in any way less demanding than they had anticipated... Among other things, all the newbs were shocked at the amount of wear and tear their boats had experienced over such a short time, and how quickly settling into a mode that induced a relative degree of _COMFORT_ aboard became the top priority, and took precedence over _PERFORMANCE_...


----------



## bobperry

Thanks for the feedback Bleems. That's what I want to hear.


----------



## Bleemus

The only other autopilot I trusted completely was a Robertson that was spec'd for a North Sea trawler. Rock solid. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chall03

RobGallagher said:


> I don't think the family in question circumnavigated Australia. They sailed around part of australia. I sail around New England, that does not mean I make long passages or circumnavigate much of anything.
> 
> However, as they could have been in some barren places, I stand corrected.


My turn to stand corrected.

I was vaguely aware of this boat through friends etc and before they left on that trip and my recollection was that their plan was to circumnavigate Australia.

What they did do is cruise the East Coast( Which we have also done as with our family).

While no small undertaking and the Tasman sea particualrly can bite, you are correct in saying it can be done with only a few overnighters and the northern 1000nm is in semi protected waters behind the Great Barrier Reef. A far cry from the southern waters of Australia.

In which case I leave you with another Hanse 445 I know of.

Charm Offensive sailed from Europe to Australia (with it's rudder bearing intact).

Charm Offensive is sailing the world | Sailing a Hanse 445 from Europe to Australia


----------



## outbound

At the risk of putting more fat on the fire would say a cruising boat's sailing life is often more arduous and needs more safety quotients in its construction.

The race boat is pampered the cruising boat often is not. 

A boat maybe raced for a few years then downgraded to cruise. A cruiser has a longer horizon. Sails are replaced every season or less.

Simple things like having the rig always in tune or having the sails always in balance. God bless the crew of that Hanse. 

Would say the overwhelming majority of the time cruising boats on passage they are on the AP. Most the times on a bearing not a wind angle. As much as a captain rags on crew to look at the sails, take it off AP frequently and feel the boat it doesn't happen enough.

Whereas racers may change out headsails cruisers may give it a wrap. Often too many wraps so sail shape is lost. Many don't carry multiple headsails making due with a genny alone which wears and gets blown out. Sails are used well past their expiration date.

Often due to schedule or money or time or lack of expertise maintenance is deferred or done incorrectly. 

All too often I past cruising boats on their ear when I'm reefed and flat. Which boat is working harder?

Boat handling with full experienced skilled crew makes for less bumps and bangs. Boats spending much of their lives in cradles don't get banged into by other boats.

Clean bottoms and running gear makes for less stress on mechanical elements. Cruisers may haul when they can- where they can. Full hauls and repainting may occur a couple of years apart with just rubs and zincs done on dives in between.

I've had idiots having done all the ASA courses on my boat. Racers are usually more competent. Example- after fighting to go to windward for three days going from R.I. to Norfolk through unending line squalls wife said " go below you are exhausted. You need to sleep". Turned boat over to a crew. Told him" no closer than 45 apparent, leave double reefed main up and engine on, wake me if it builds more than current , otherwise wake me in 3h". The line jumped out or was pulled out of traveler jam cleats. Main was slamming back and forth. Woke me to find him running straight into the wind revs up from usual 2100 to 3200 and boat launching off waves to keel stub. This would never happen on a race boat. Don't get me going on powered winches in the wrong hands.

We cruisers learn from our mistakes and we make quite a few but the rock star racers make less and have more resources at hand to fix them.

So I don't buy a boat campaigned by skilled, well funded racers with access to the best yards suffers the same kind of day in day out abuse a cruising boat maybe exposed to. I don't subscribed to thinking the rig, sails and hull of a race boats in the hands of a skilled full crew has the same torture a cruising boat has.

I don't think the beercan racers who can scrub when it blows see the weather the cruisers do. 

Yes someone sailing the Southern Ocean is seeing unimaginable forces but we don't cruise the Southern Ocean too often. Yes, there is less force when you aren't always pushing the boat but I think for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with boat speed cruising boats are often ridden hard and put away wet.


----------



## Classic30

chall03 said:


> In comparison taking a boat to Phuket from here would be a fairy party.
> Light winds and mostly day sails. As long as your AIS worked your biggest issue would be having enough beer, fuel and ice.
> 
> This illustrates the silliness of the term 'bluewater'.


Agree totally!

FWIW, where I sail (Port Phillip) is classed as 'open water'.. Yachts have sunk and people have drowned here even before you get to Bass Strait, although none of it is necessarily dangerous - you just really need to know what you're doing and have an intimate knowledge of the local weather patterns.



chall03 said:


> I am more impressed with the Hanse circumnavigating Australia than I am with the Hanse's doing the ARC.


Personally, I'm impressed with anyone circumnavigating Australia in anything. It's not just the boat - it takes a determined and very well-prepared crew also. Besides the dangers of the Bight and the south coast in general, the North West Shelf offers little or no shelter and no harbours to speak off for hundreds of miles at a stretch.

The East Coast is the easy bit. :grin


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Thanks for the feedback Bleems. That's what I want to hear.


Here's a bit more "feedback", Bob...

Just staggered in from the final awards ceremony and dinner of the Caribbean 1500... The crew of the good ship VALHALLA were the Last Men Standing at the beach bar after the festivities tonight...

Your Valiant 42 took 2nd place in the Cruising Division B, behind the Swan 48 ISBJORN owned by the rallymanager... finishing 2nd was essentially preordained, a bit like being the runner-up in a golf tournament organized by the Supreme Leader of South Korea, in which he shot a final round score of 18...

;-)

But VALHALLA's owner also took home some additional silverware, receiving a more 'democratic' award decided by a vote of the rest of the participants in the fleet...

On our chart table sits a silver plate that reads:

_*2015 Caribbean 1500 - MOST BEAUTIFUL YACHT*_

I'd bet the voting was close to unanimous... All week long back in Portsmouth, I''d meet people, and the response was pretty much always the same:

_"Whoa, you're sailing on VALHALLA ? Damn, you lucky bastard, I LOVE the look of that boat, what a sweet ride that's gonna be..."_

To some of the more 'shallow' Bluewater Chuckleheads amongst us, looks still count for something...

;-)


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> What local boats are built in series down by you? The only things I've seen from NZ and Oz have been one offs and beautifully done.


Sorry Out I missed this post....

Unfortunately the boatbuilding industry here in Australia is on it's last legs.

The only boats getting built here( or in NZ) are one off's or very small niche runs which = $$$$

Buizen make beautiful boats but at a premium that places them well beyond the average cruiser.










The comparative equivalent of Outbound yachts here is perhaps Bluewater. 
They have been hurt by the high Australian Dollar over the past couple of years. They build solid no fuss cruising boats for people who actually want to go cruising.










Unfortunately these and other local offerings are premium priced and firmly out of our budget. Older boats here also seem to still be asking( but maybe not getting?) silly money.

Which is why we are looking at Moodys on the other side of the world


----------



## outbound

Chall- beautiful well thought out vessels. The B52 is gorgeous but I'm in the same boat. Money buys comfort not happiness. If wishes were kisses. Showed the bride some pics of the CF cutters. She said " doesn't make the sunsets prettier". From the little you posted about your search I'm sure you will pick a great boat and have too much fun. If you buy in the Newport area (other than winter) or the Cheasepeake during late summer early fall please PM me. Love to take you out to dinner. 
There's a Valiant 50 in my current yard which is structurally sound. Young family lived on it one year. They trashed the sole and interior but with elbow grease could be brought back to its glory. Was repainted so exterior is a very pretty blue. Heard it would sell for short money 
We hope to do the carribean again and then maybe South Pacific. Maybe buddy boat next year.


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
Many thanks for that update. Sure makes me feel good.
I never thought of the Valiant 40/42 as "beautiful". I think it's good looking but that cabin trunk has bothered me since the day I first saw it. I went back to the office and pulled out the drawings and asked myself, "Did I really draw it like that?" I turned, looked myself squarely in the eye and answered, "Yes." But I learned a lot on that deck and apparently it still works ok.

Glad so many people appreciate the boat. It's nice when I don't have to manufacture my own "glowing reports".

This is not the original sail plan. I gave that to a friend in Poland to hang on his wall. This is a later sail plan I drew for Valiant's founder Nathan Rothman. I like it. I was pretty good at hand drafting. Lots of love and attention to detail in that drawing. I have enjoyed my work.


----------



## Classic30

chall03 said:


> Sorry Out I missed this post....
> 
> Unfortunately the boatbuilding industry here in Australia is on it's last legs.
> 
> The only boats getting built here( or in NZ) are one off's or very small niche runs which = $$$$


Whilst you're correct that yachts built here tend to be small-run high-$$$ vessels, in fairness to the industry, it simply doesn't make sense to make high-volume sailing yachts in a country where (a) cruising options are severely limited and (b) the only serious racing action is a trip to Hobart once a year. Each of those criteria mean those folks with money to spend generally have their own requirements on what they want their vessel for - and it's been that way ever since the sailing boom post WWII eg. my boat was specifically designed for cruising Sydney Harbour and Pittwater with the occasional stint down the coast. That doesn't mean it's unsuitable for a Tasman crossing.. just that it's designed for a specific set of wind/weather/sea conditions requested by the original owner.

Yes, there was a boom-time in the '70s soon after the trailer-sailer was invented (in New Zealand, BTW) that resulted in a high demand for small cruising yachts (the Compass 28's and the like) once people wanted something bigger, but with a smaller market than Europe and the US and faced with high shipping and labour costs it was never going to last. Perhaps that's why folks like Ron Holland and Bruce Farr left when they did?

Interestingly though, Australia has several high-volume luxury powerboat and power-yacht manufacturers that export to the world - Riviera (built on the Gold Coast) being perhaps the biggest of them - and they are a long way from their last legs. Australia also appears to be leading the world in hull tech as evidenced by some of the stuff Austal put out and the latest Pilot Boats and fast launches that, being designed for the atrocious conditions over here, can easily handle anything found anywhere else on the planet and are thus in high demand.

Maybe the market here right now is for people who can only cope with the wild blue wet stuff for the shortest time possible?!? :grin


----------



## hpeer

Bob,

Jon has posted (on another thread) some pics of that big Oyster that went down off Spain recently. 

Any comments? Seems germane to the topic of this thread.


----------



## bobperry

hpeer:
No. I can't add anything to that discussion. I don't know any specifics as to the cause. I believe it was beat up over on SA too. I try to hold back unit I have what I feel is enough concrete information before speaking up. There are always so many variables and getting reliable information is always difficult. I'll check the SA thread and see if anything is happening.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bluewater boats.



JonEisberg said:


> Some pics have surfaced showing the damage to POLINA STAR after she was raised...
> 
> _WOW..._ "Compromised the integrity of the molded hull" pretty much sums it up, alright... ;-)
> 
> A guy claiming to be the captain posted over on CF, denying that there had ever been a grounding or other impact, etc...
> 
> This could get "interesting", to say the least...
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 6 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


Is that Plexus under that liner? Heh-heh.


----------



## djodenda

I like the Valiant cabin top just fine, Bob.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's the Oyster 885 under construction. Is it me or do Bob's new cutters exhibit much better craftsmanship?










Plexus for all my friends!!!!


----------



## bobperry

I see the floor system where the keel goes. They don't look very deep. I like deep floors. I see one floor forward. I'd like to see more floors. I put in as many as I can until I run out of hull depth. If I need more floor depth I'll raise the cabin sole. Sleek doesn't count if you can't keep the keel on.
The longitudinals inboard of the rudder stock "mounds" are not symetrical. That's a bit sloppy but not too critical. It strikes me as a "good enough" kind of approach.
Looks kinda like the skin just pulled away from the floor structure. I think I am seeing that floor system still intact. Could be a bonding issue.
This is an entirely different situation to what we have with the carbon cutters and their internal ballast. We have lots of floors going all the way to the bottom of the keel fin.
Smarter fellers than I will have to figure this one out.
I changed the deadrise and midsection on FRANCIS LEE so I could get deeper floors. Didn't want to, I wanted sleek. But I thought it was prudent.


----------



## chall03

Classic30 said:


> in fairness to the industry, it simply doesn't make sense to make high-volume sailing yachts in a country where (a) cruising options are severely limited and (b) the only serious racing action is a trip to Hobart once a year.


I agree.

Seawind have also done ok, but have just move operations offshore because of prohibitive costs.

In terms of racing yachts we still do ok I reckon. Sydney yachts are still quite popular.


----------



## smackdaddy

Aren't Oysters rated CE Cat A? Wow.

I'm glad I bought a properly-built Hunter. Heh-heh.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Here's the Oyster 885 under construction. Is it me or do Bob's new cutters exhibit much better craftsmanship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plexus for all my friends!!!!


Hmmm, weren't you just recently arguing that because Oyster is now putting picture windows in their hulls, it's proof positive that such features are 'just fine' for sailing The Deep Blue?

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Meanwhile, Oyster has gotten rid of their "blue water strong" deck salon port lights....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in favor of very "coastal production boat" wrap-arounds (remember Hunter and Beneteau and Jeanneau?) and Swiss-cheesed the hull with port lights...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they go with something so "weak and dangerous" on a vaunted blue water boat?
> 
> And I could go on and on...


----------



## bobperry

Hey Chall:
Some day, if you are out in the Ashfield area do you think you could snap a photo of our old flat?
10 Hillcrest Ave
Ashfield

I have some memories.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, weren't you just recently arguing that because Oyster is now putting picture windows in their hulls, it's proof positive that such features are 'just fine' for sailing The Deep Blue?
> 
> ;-)


Hell yes!!

So are we now in agreement that Oysters are nothing more than glorified "production boats" that just follow the same exact trends you hate....*except THEY actually sink*!?!?!?!?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I'm saying that if you're campaigning a boat hard you will DEFINITELY have to replace stuff much sooner than if you're CRUISING it. Surely even you can see the difference.


LOL! "Even me", huh?

Once you actually do some cruising, you may find that is not necessarily the case... for many of the reasons stated by outbound in Post # 4184...

As I've already said, one of the common themes from the Rally Debrief was the surprise at how hard such a comparatively short passage could be on their boats and their gear... this from many people who already have a fair amount of cruising under their belts...

For instance, virtually everyone was amazed at how much rust their boats were showing after their arrival in Tortola... A prime example of the difference between the routine of a boat that gets washed down after every day of racing on Long Island Sound, and one that spends 12 days offshore without any such benefit...

As always, _It Depends.._



smackdaddy said:


> Blindly assuming that stress-affected components should last forever is one of the least seamanlike mentalities I can think of...regardless of the designer/builder of the boat.


I'm not suggesting anything so absurd, of course... You, on the other hand, are the one "blindly assuming" that boats built to a standard that only requires seacocks to have a service life of 5 years are 'good enough' for bluewater passagemaking, and would sail any one of them across an ocean without hesitation simply because they've been Category A "certified"...



smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> 
> Well, then if the stresses imparted on a boat being actively raced in Long Island Sound and the Sir Francis Drake Channel are so much greater than when it's being cruised offshore, why did not this failure show up while racing in those waters, rather than a few days into a relatively benign offshore passage?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? This is a serious question?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, it is...

Torstein on the other Hanse NORDIC BELLE has raced her regularly for a few years on Lake Ontario... Never did he notice any serious wear on his reefing line setup before, yet it almost chafed through during the 1500... Why is it not a serious question to wonder why?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Torstein on the other Hanse NORDIC BELLE has raced her regularly for a few years on Lake Ontario... Never did he notice any serious wear on his reefing line setup before, yet it almost chafed through during the 1500... Why is it not a serious question to wonder why?


Perfectly good question Kitty...


----------



## chall03

bobperry said:


> Hey Chall:
> Some day, if you are out in the Ashfield area do you think you could snap a photo of our old flat?
> 10 Hillcrest Ave
> Ashfield
> 
> I have some memories.


Of course Bob it would be my pleasure.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Once you actually do some cruising, you may find that is not necessarily the case... for many of the reasons stated by outbound in Post # 4184...
> 
> As always, _It Depends.._


Ok. What does 'campaigning a boat hard' actually mean?

Is it code for a couple hundred nautical miles over canvassed to the crap while drinking beer and wearing in your new Musto hats?

I can say that because I have been there done that 

REAL cruising places far more wear and tear on a boat's components no doubt. 
REAL racer's though perhaps push their boat's far closer to limits than a typical cruiser. That normally leads to catastrophic failures though not wear and tear.


----------



## outbound

Smack- Chall has it just right. Given that believe it would be helpful to exam the CURRENT crop of boats with that in mind. Believe it could inform folks reading this thread when they go off to the boat shows or through the yards before purchase. 

Already issues of thru hulls and cleats and chainplates have been mentioned. Like to add appendages- rudders and keels. Once again it's a compromise. Full keels add wetted surface and make boat handling more difficult. Friend did the world ARC. There was a big IP in the rally. They were happy campers but always the very last in. Being out longer means need for more stores and longer time exposed to weather. Means higher likihood of bumps docking.
Friend has quality production racer/cruiser. Off Maine coast "touched" without stopping. Following week bilge pumps ran more than usual. Eventually hauled. Found forward keel bolts broken and spider cracks aft of keel stub. Big bill. ? Trust this boat in future. 
Internal ballast means chord of keel will be thicker. This can degrade performance. No keel bolts means obligate need for Pb not Fe for ballast. More expense if bulb added , bolted and glassed over. No exposed soft Pb to absorb impacts with ability to easily fair afterward.

All are compromises. I choose internal ballast with bulb. Is this the "right choice". NO. But it's my choice based on my past mishaps and difficulties. Can a bolt on be just as strong and care free. YES. But the buyer needs to carefully review the design, engineering, and execution. 

I look at the current trend to iron keels with no stub on the canoe body and t keels and wonder is this a good choice for a cruiser?

Same with rudders. All to often the rudder is holding on the skeg. With wear and tear this design adds nothing and means more steering effort for the AP to deal with. More wear and tear. G-d forbid you get some between leading edge of rudder and aft of skeg. Especially in cold waters or when you absolutely need steerage. But that design, if done right, can be ver strong. You also have a bearing you can't service without a haul and more wetted, unproductive surface.
The balanced spade can be every bit as strong but it takes engineering. Rudder tube needs to extend above waterline with massive supports. Bearings need to be well thought out. Post needs to be overbuilt. Even then a significant lateral grounding may bend the post with loss of steering. With twin rudders impact from a forward direction would seem more likely but performance can be enhanced. 
Now add in the steering linkage of two wheels. Cruiser beware. Yes, if done right (Italia) very strong but seems a increasing area of difficulty in some current boats. 
Aft hung rudders seem great with no hull piercing. However, the top of the rudder is exposed so at speed may have cavitation. Med moors are scary. Bearings are constantly exposed.
All are compromises. I have balanced spade. I believe it was engineered and executed correctly. If I hit the lottery and did a one off I would have something similar to the CF cutters but also have a sugarscoop over it projecting past trailing edge of rudder with rudder stopping at the bottom base of scoop. Still end up with a rudder post but no hull piercing and ability to have benefits of a balanced spade. 

In short, cruisers need to compromise. Issues are performance, ease of service, durability, strength, expense, simplicity, comfort etc. Smack please recognize this. Please recognize we are not talking about your Hunter but rather current boats. And they have limits. Sure like hearing from more experienced cruisers and professional sailors what those limits are. That way knowing those weaknesses can inform my decisions.


----------



## albrazzi

outbound said:


> Smack- Chall has it just right. Given that believe it would be helpful to exam the CURRENT crop of boats with that in mind. Believe it could inform folks reading this thread when they go off to the boat shows or through the yards before purchase.
> 
> Already issues of thru hulls and cleats and chainplates have been mentioned. Like to add appendages- rudders and keels. Once again it's a compromise. Full keels add wetted surface and make boat handling more difficult. Friend did the world ARC. There was a big IP in the rally. They were happy campers but always the very last in. Being out longer means need for more stores and longer time exposed to weather. Means higher likihood of bumps docking.
> Friend has quality production racer/cruiser. Off Maine coast "touched" without stopping. Following week bilge pumps ran more than usual. Eventually hauled. Found forward keel bolts broken and spider cracks aft of keel stub. Big bill. ? Trust this boat in future.
> Internal ballast means chord of keel will be thicker. This can degrade performance. No keel bolts means obligate need for Pb not Fe for ballast. More expense if bulb added , bolted and glassed over. No exposed soft Pb to absorb impacts with ability to easily fair afterward.
> 
> All are compromises. I choose internal ballast with bulb. Is this the "right choice". NO. But it's my choice based on my past mishaps and difficulties. Can a bolt on be just as strong and care free. YES. But the buyer needs to carefully review the design, engineering, and execution.
> 
> I look at the current trend to iron keels with no stub on the canoe body and t keels and wonder is this a good choice for a cruiser?
> 
> Same with rudders. All to often the rudder is holding on the skeg. With wear and tear this design adds nothing and means more steering effort for the AP to deal with. More wear and tear. G-d forbid you get some between leading edge of rudder and aft of skeg. Especially in cold waters or when you absolutely need steerage. But that design, if done right, can be ver strong. You also have a bearing you can't service without a haul and more wetted, unproductive surface.
> The balanced spade can be every bit as strong but it takes engineering. Rudder tube needs to extend above waterline with massive supports. Bearings need to be well thought out. Post needs to be overbuilt. Even then a significant lateral grounding may bend the post with loss of steering. With twin rudders impact from a forward direction would seem more likely but performance can be enhanced.
> Now add in the steering linkage of two wheels. Cruiser beware. Yes, if done right (Italia) very strong but seems a increasing area of difficulty in some current boats.
> Aft hung rudders seem great with no hull piercing. However, the top of the rudder is exposed so at speed may have cavitation. Med moors are scary. Bearings are constantly exposed.
> All are compromises. I have balanced spade. I believe it was engineered and executed correctly. If I hit the lottery and did a one off I would have something similar to the CF cutters but also have a sugarscoop over it projecting past trailing edge of rudder with rudder stopping at the bottom base of scoop. Still end up with a rudder post but no hull piercing and ability to have benefits of a balanced spade.
> 
> In short, cruisers need to compromise. Issues are performance, ease of service, durability, strength, expense, simplicity, comfort etc. Smack please recognize this. Please recognize we are not talking about your Hunter but rather current boats. And they have limits. Sure like hearing from more experienced cruisers and professional sailors what those limits are. That way knowing those weaknesses can inform my decisions.


Don't forget the shoal draft versions of production boats with the same rudder length. I have seen models with 12-18" more rudder than keel. Absolutely unacceptable on any level, but people buy them.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
I think my client was drawn to the outboard rudder design for ease of repair. If I were to change something on the design I'd move the rudder under the hull. But that would bugger up the tiller steering. So I'd have a wheel. No biggy. I can steer both ways.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Out:
> I think my client was drawn to the outboard rudder design for ease of repair. If I were to change something on the design I'd move the rudder under the hull. But that would bugger up the tiller steering. So I'd have a wheel. No biggy. I can steer both ways.


Hey Bob, overall results from the 1500 have finally been tabulated...

Your V-42 corrected out to 3rd Overall among both Cruising Divisions, sandwiched in between a pair of Swan 48s, and ALCEDO OF RYME pictured below, a custom built 56 from Stimson Yachts in New Zealand...

Not too shabby for such an "outmoded" design, and the 3rd-smallest boat in the monohull fleet, I'd say...

;-)

SAIL


----------



## outbound

Jon
Did you look at the Simpson 560 origami dinghy? Now that's an origami boat I can appreciate.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack- Chall has it just right. Given that believe it would be helpful to exam the CURRENT crop of boats with that in mind. Believe it could inform folks reading this thread when they go off to the boat shows or through the yards before purchase.
> 
> Already issues of thru hulls and cleats and chainplates have been mentioned. Like to add appendages- rudders and keels. Once again it's a compromise. Full keels add wetted surface and make boat handling more difficult. Friend did the world ARC. There was a big IP in the rally. They were happy campers but always the very last in. Being out longer means need for more stores and longer time exposed to weather. Means higher likihood of bumps docking.
> Friend has quality production racer/cruiser. Off Maine coast "touched" without stopping. Following week bilge pumps ran more than usual. Eventually hauled. Found forward keel bolts broken and spider cracks aft of keel stub. Big bill. ? Trust this boat in future.
> Internal ballast means chord of keel will be thicker. This can degrade performance. No keel bolts means obligate need for Pb not Fe for ballast. More expense if bulb added , bolted and glassed over. No exposed soft Pb to absorb impacts with ability to easily fair afterward.
> 
> All are compromises. I choose internal ballast with bulb. Is this the "right choice". NO. But it's my choice based on my past mishaps and difficulties. Can a bolt on be just as strong and care free. YES. But the buyer needs to carefully review the design, engineering, and execution.
> 
> I look at the current trend to iron keels with no stub on the canoe body and t keels and wonder is this a good choice for a cruiser?
> 
> Same with rudders. All to often the rudder is holding on the skeg. With wear and tear this design adds nothing and means more steering effort for the AP to deal with. More wear and tear. G-d forbid you get some between leading edge of rudder and aft of skeg. Especially in cold waters or when you absolutely need steerage. But that design, if done right, can be ver strong. You also have a bearing you can't service without a haul and more wetted, unproductive surface.
> The balanced spade can be every bit as strong but it takes engineering. Rudder tube needs to extend above waterline with massive supports. Bearings need to be well thought out. Post needs to be overbuilt. Even then a significant lateral grounding may bend the post with loss of steering. With twin rudders impact from a forward direction would seem more likely but performance can be enhanced.
> Now add in the steering linkage of two wheels. Cruiser beware. Yes, if done right (Italia) very strong but seems a increasing area of difficulty in some current boats.
> Aft hung rudders seem great with no hull piercing. However, the top of the rudder is exposed so at speed may have cavitation. Med moors are scary. Bearings are constantly exposed.
> All are compromises. I have balanced spade. I believe it was engineered and executed correctly. If I hit the lottery and did a one off I would have something similar to the CF cutters but also have a sugarscoop over it projecting past trailing edge of rudder with rudder stopping at the bottom base of scoop. Still end up with a rudder post but no hull piercing and ability to have benefits of a balanced spade.
> 
> In short, cruisers need to compromise. Issues are performance, ease of service, durability, strength, expense, simplicity, comfort etc. Smack please recognize this. Please recognize we are not talking about your Hunter but rather current boats. And they have limits. Sure like hearing from more experienced cruisers and professional sailors what those limits are. That way knowing those weaknesses can inform my decisions.


Okay - this is kind of getting weird again. I know we're not talking about my Hunter. We're talking about an Oyster that fell apart and sank in relatively benign conditions. From the captain of that Oyster:



> FACT 4: (the meteo)
> we sunk in a sunny day we were reaching in *18 kn of TW with about 1.3 m of wave, sailing with staysail and 80% main sail*.


And we're talking about a Hanse that had a rudder bearing issue and diverted to Bermuda on a 1500 mile offshore run.

And yes, Chall is exactly right for the most part:



chall03 said:


> REAL cruising places far more wear and tear on a boat's components no doubt.
> 
> REAL racer's though perhaps push their boat's far closer to limits than a typical cruiser. That normally leads to catastrophic failures though not wear and tear.


Though I would quibble with that last sentence as I know for sure that racing definitely does lead to wear and tear (hence, my eyeroll at Jon's question above).

In any case, when I say "campaigned hard" I mean that this particular Hanse was not simply "cruised". It was raced hard - inshore, offshore, etc. - pretty continuously for at least 3-4 years that I can find. And it won pretty consistently - which means it was campaigned hard. For you guys to ignore that fact and hold that the rudder bearing issue somehow casts a shadow on the reliability of Hanses, then production boats in general, *AS CRUISING BOATS* is ludicrous.

You push a boat hard for a long time, stuff wears out. Stuff breaks. This is not news to 99.99% of the sailing world. Yet it's somehow a revelation to some of the excitable hens around here who don't like modern production boats? Please.

The rest of your post is pretty reasonable. Everyone understands that every boat is compromise. This is certainly not news. What everyone does NOT seem to understand is that the appreciable distance in design, construction methodology, features, and "quality" between modern production boats and the traditionally vaunted "blue water brands" certainly seems to be decreasing as time passes. For people who like sailing production boats, this is great. They are getting better and better. For those who insist on sailing traditional "blue water brands" - well, you guys have some real work to do to generate enough demand to change this direction. That would be far better than the incessant whinging about how these traditional brands are "losing their way".

Because right now, it seems Oyster needs to seek advice from Hunter on how to build a REAL CE Cat A boat that won't fall apart and sink in slightly blue water in F4/5 conditions.


----------



## outbound

Smack- I'm so glad you agree with what I've been saying all along. 
All boats are production boats except one offs.
There are good boats and bad boats at nearly all price points for off shore cruising. Examples of weaknesses can be seen in recent Hunters, Benes, Hanse, Gunboats, and Oysters
Dedicated offshore cruisers are small market so current builds reflect that.
There are definite continuing advances in design and construction techniques but the basic physics and realities of ocean sailing remain so old solutions should not be discarded out of hand. New solutions should be critically examined for strengths and weaknesses as in field experience is accrued.
The problems and therefore the solutions for racers and ocean cruisers are different. The divergence between the two is more apparent as time goes by.

Therefore if we are going to discuss limits let's discuss limits. Here Jons posts have been very informative. Repetitively saying " they are doing it" is to point out the obvious. But what features make them better or less suited to do so?


----------



## RobGallagher

I think the definition of "REAL racer's" can be unintentionally misleading. I know "REAL" racers and they don't worry so much about wear and tear because anything and everything is replaced as needed. If there is a budget for this, it's generally what most of us would consider "nuts".  Things do break because they are made of the lightest and strongest materials possible that do in fact get pushed to the edge as often as possible. That is how you go as fast as possible and that is what "REAL" racing is.

One design "Real" racers might be considered, by the uninformed, as even more nuts. Owning a Fahr 40 with a yearly sail budget 10 times the value of the hull is kind of hard to get ones head around if one is not used to the idea. Then you can add the cost of getting your crew and the boat from NY to CA for a few weeks of sailing, and then back home.

Hauling a boat or dock fees, for most of us here, might be a large yearly expense. Trucking a boat, for many of us here on sailnet, might be a once in a lifetime expense. We lose sleep over replacing or repairing (again) an old mainsail.

Racer/cruisers are designed for those of us who cannot afford both a racer and a cruiser. As we all know, there is a lot of money in this little world and there are plenty folks out there who ship boats and fly crews around the world for race week here or there as a _hobby_. I'm not making a judgement on a guy's sailing skill or his net worth. I'm just saying if he's racing a Hanse he's not willing to spend it.

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with racing a Hanse, there is nothing wrong with volunteer crew. There is nothing wrong with being on a budget that allows both. Just because one is worth a hundred million doesn't mean one has to spend it all on sails


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack- I'm so glad you agree with what I've been saying all along.
> All boats are production boats except one offs.
> 
> Repetitively saying " they are doing it" is to point out the obvious. But what features make them better or less suited to do so?


Well, you're going much further than I would in these statements. But I'd say it's progress.

For example, if you can get the traditionalist BWC to accept your statement that Outbounds/Oysters/Island Packets/etc. are "production boats" in the way that has always been defined over the years in these debates (i.e. - BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas) - then I'll be impressed. But this equivalency has never quite been accepted as you lay out...though as has been shown, the appreciable distance between them is decreasing with time - not increasing.

On your second point, it's only valid if we've all finally agreed that the old notion that "production boats" aren't really fit to be cruising blue water is ridiculous. They are out there doing it - obviously. So something in that viewpoint certainly needs to change.

As for features, etc. - no way. That's always going to be all over the place. It's too subjective to ever reach a consensus. But that's never stopped us from arguing about it.


----------



## Shockwave

chall03 said:


> Ok. What does 'campaigning a boat hard' actually mean?
> 
> Is it code for a couple hundred nautical miles over canvassed to the crap while drinking beer and wearing in your new Musto hats?
> 
> I can say that because I have been there done that
> 
> REAL cruising places far more wear and tear on a boat's components no doubt.
> REAL racer's though perhaps push their boat's far closer to limits than a typical cruiser. That normally leads to catastrophic failures though not wear and tear.


Sailing/racing a boat hard at it's base level requires using 100% of the available power all the time.

When it's blowing 17 you don't step down from the #1 to the #3; you hike harder, max out the hydraulics, max out the halyard tensions, max the outhaul, ease the checks to induce more bend in the spar, drop the traveler, ease cars back and out. You carry on keeping the boat in balanced by using all of the previously mentioned techniques.

Sailing hard is carrying the 3/4 and a full main when the breeze is in the low 30's, the crew is riding the back of the bus to try and keep the bow from driving through too many waves, keeping the kite shy in the bigger puffs, choking the sheet to minimizing the rolling, maxing out the vang...

Trust me, there is wear and tear. I don't have a Musto hat but my wife wears OS1's. : )


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Though I would quibble with that last sentence as I know for sure that racing definitely does lead to wear and tear (hence, my eyeroll at Jon's question above).


Quibble away. But you will still be wrong 

Of course there is some wear and tear racing, but if we are comparing a typical club racer to typical live aboard long term cruising then there is no comparison for the reasons Out explained above.


----------



## Shockwave

Our boat has been raced hard and the rudder bearings are fine, actually they're bushings. It's 40 years old, raced on both coasts, the Great Lakes, the Caribbean, South America, the Med.. The keel is still attached, the rudder hasn't broken off, the rig is still standing, bulkhead tabbing is intact and doing fine.

Structure should not fail after a few years of racing for any racer/cruiser. I do expect to upgrade gear, replace sails, keep the bottom nice and replace rigging as needed. The rest should stay together.



smackdaddy said:


> Okay - this is kind of getting weird again. I know we're not talking about my Hunter. We're talking about an Oyster that fell apart and sank in relatively benign conditions. From the captain of that Oyster:
> 
> And we're talking about a Hanse that had a rudder bearing issue and diverted to Bermuda on a 1500 mile offshore run.
> 
> And yes, Chall is exactly right for the most part:
> 
> Though I would quibble with that last sentence as I know for sure that racing definitely does lead to wear and tear (hence, my eyeroll at Jon's question above).
> 
> In any case, when I say "campaigned hard" I mean that this particular Hanse was not simply "cruised". It was raced hard - inshore, offshore, etc. - pretty continuously for at least 3-4 years that I can find. And it won pretty consistently - which means it was campaigned hard. For you guys to ignore that fact and hold that the rudder bearing issue somehow casts a shadow on the reliability of Hanses, then production boats in general, *AS CRUISING BOATS* is ludicrous.
> 
> You push a boat hard for a long time, stuff wears out. Stuff breaks. This is not news to 99.99% of the sailing world. Yet it's somehow a revelation to some of the excitable hens around here who don't like modern production boats? Please.
> 
> The rest of your post is pretty reasonable. Everyone understands that every boat is compromise. This is certainly not news. What everyone does NOT seem to understand is that the appreciable distance in design, construction methodology, features, and "quality" between modern production boats and the traditionally vaunted "blue water brands" certainly seems to be decreasing as time passes. For people who like sailing production boats, this is great. They are getting better and better. For those who insist on sailing traditional "blue water brands" - well, you guys have some real work to do to generate enough demand to change this direction. That would be far better than the incessant whinging about how these traditional brands are "losing their way".
> 
> Because right now, it seems Oyster needs to seek advice from Hunter on how to build a REAL CE Cat A boat that won't fall apart and sink in slightly blue water in F4/5 conditions.


----------



## chall03

Shockwave said:


> Sailing/racing a boat hard at it's base level requires requires using 100% of the available power all the time.
> 
> When it's blowing 17 you don't step down from the #1 to the #3; you hike harder, max out the hydraulics, max out the halyard tensions, max the outhaul, ease the checks to induce more bend in the spar, drop the traveler, ease cars back and out. You carry on keeping the boat in balanced by using all of the previously mentioned techniques.
> 
> Sailing hard is carrying the 3/4 and a full main when the breeze is in the low 30's, the crew is riding the back of the bus to try and keep the bow from driving through too many waves, keeping the kite shy in the bigger puffs, choking the sheet to minimizing the rolling, maxing out the vang...
> 
> Trust me, there is wear and tear. I don't have a Musto hat but my wife wears OS1's. : )


So basically what I said 

How many days a year does an average club racer do that?

Compare that to putting 12000nm on a boat in a year and having your main up for a month....

Of course we can get silly with comparisons, A VOR boat would be different to your average club racer. But hey this thread is mean't to be all about gross generalizations.


----------



## Shockwave

It depends on how hard the boat is campaigned and where it travels. Some boats easily travel 10,000 miles a year racing and transporting.



chall03 said:


> So basically what I said
> 
> How many days a year does an average club racer do that?
> 
> Compare that to putting 12000nm on a boat in a year and having your main up for a month....
> 
> Of course we can get silly with comparisons, A VOR boat would be different to your average club racer. But hey this thread is mean't to be all about gross generalizations.


----------



## outbound

So it's here we disagree.
I'll agree a resin infused hull means more fabric in the matrix. But I'll not agree a non stick built is not able to be stronger. Especially when resin infusion is employed to generate a hull, although lighter, is less well supported by bulkheads and structure glassed in on both sides. 

I'll agree modern adhesives are an advance. But won't agree hull/deck joints that are on inner flanges, glued then bolted, then glassed over aren't strong and durable.

I'll agree that current technologies allow port lights previously unattainable. But won't agree they don't represent a point of vulnerability.

I'll agree twin rudders and wheels have multiple benefits. But don't agree they don't add complexity and potential vulnerability.

I'll agree we have the capability to build better offshore boats now than in the past. But I dissagree we always are.

The devil is in the details. I want to hear about those details. To design and engineer out those details has material and labor costs. To compound this further there is an intrinsic conflict between needs when on passage or in a slip. There is a further conflict between trends in "modern" aesthetics and function offshore. The needs of the long term cruiser, often off the grid, are different then the coastal sailor. 

So walk down your dock and look at anchoring systems. Or go to the boat shows and look for secure offshore berths. Or have everyone over for cockpit drinks and war stories. Then tell me if the emphasis hasn't changed for most current offerings.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Quibble away. But you will still be wrong
> 
> Of course there is some wear and tear racing, but if we are comparing a typical club racer to typical live aboard long term cruising then there is no comparison for the reasons Out explained above.


Oh - we're talking "typical club racers". Okay, I'll give you that one. You're right, I've never seen winches or travelers ripped out of an Opti. I've seen a rudder fall off however.






And she still sails that thing like a boss.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oy vey. So here's a boat described thusly:



> Voyageur 10.10
> 
> Built for ocean passages and equipped for a complete learning experience that is both safe and fun.


And it's protected skeg-hung bullet-proof rudder fell off.



TheSailingRode said:


> What is your plan if you lose your rudder offshore? Rig a cabin door rudder, windvane, drag a drouge, pray for rescue, something else?
> 
> We just interviewed a couple that lost their rudder hundreds of miles out after crossing the gulfstream.  You can hear how they dealt with it here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve - The Sailing Rode Podcast


I don't even think it was club racing.


----------



## outbound

Details
Know several Valiant owners. Having cockpit dinners or hors d'oerves and drinks is an uncomfortable exercise in "'cuse me's" and please can I have a little more room".
Have had island hops on a big Bene and no issue at all. Even could put the plate down. Woo hoo. But my daughter broke a toe in that boats cockpit doing an over night down the islands. 
Different emphasis.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> And it's protected skeg-hung bullet-proof rudder fell off


Smack rudder's very rarely just _fall off_.

So let's be good armchair sailors and use the google and solve this one.

The boat was a custom one off, Backyard built actually(Brent are you around??)
There is a thread about the build on CF HERE..

Where you will find this...



> My only worry is the way he did the rudder .. it looks like it could really grab a crab pot and hold it .. and yes that's 14 years he could have already been out there .. but looks like a job well done :thumb


So while a good boat based on a Brewer design, and by all accounts they did a sterling job on the build, it was a backyard built, highly custom glorified Brentboat  not a Oyster, Outbound, Hallberg Rassy etc.

So what's your point? What does this have to do the price of fish in Mongolia?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> In any case, when I say "campaigned hard" I mean that this particular Hanse was not simply "cruised". *It was raced hard - inshore, offshore, etc. - pretty continuously for at least 3-4 years that I can find.* And it won pretty consistently - which means it was campaigned hard. For you guys to ignore that fact and hold that the rudder bearing issue somehow casts a shadow on the reliability of Hanses, then production boats in general, *AS CRUISING BOATS* is ludicrous.


Well, the notion that a boat can be consistently "raced hard" over the course of a summer on Long Island Sound demonstrates a profound ignorance of the sailing conditions that typically prevail on those waters, at that time of year...

And, what "offshore raciing" has AVANTI done, actually? She hasn't been raced to Bermuda, for example, nor sailed in the Marblehead - Halifax or Annapolis - Newport races... When I first met Jeremi, he was wearing a Vineyard Race cap from 2015, the first time he's done the race at least during the past 4 years... Probably one of the biggest races each summer for LI Sound sailors, but it's hardly an "offshore" event...










And, no, participation in the Caribbean 1500 hardly constitutes "racing"... It's more like "cruising", as a matter of fact...



smackdaddy said:


> You push a boat hard for a long time, stuff wears out. Stuff breaks. This is not news to 99.99% of the sailing world. Yet it's somehow a revelation to some of the excitable hens around here who don't like modern production boats? Please.


What a crock of sh_t...

Care to cite a single post from one of the assemblage of Bluewater Chuckleheads and Excitable Hens that supports such a ridiculous assertion?



smackdaddy said:


> Because right now, it seems Oyster needs to seek advice from Hunter on how to build a REAL CE Cat A boat that won't fall apart and sink in slightly blue water in F4/5 conditions.


Perhaps they could work a deal, in exchange Oyster could teach Hunter how to keep rudders from failing, so no more Hunters have to be abandoned and scuttled in the ARC Rally...

ARC yacht abandoned - Yachting World

...or their 466s stand a better chance of making it across the Pacific without their rudders breaking off...



















Future Oyster owners can only pray, however, that the builder does not solicit input from Hunter re the design and construction of their anchor platforms and stem fittings...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, the notion that a boat can be consistently "raced hard" over the course of a summer on Long Island Sound demonstrates a profound ignorance of the sailing conditions that typically prevail on those waters, at that time of year...
> 
> And, what "offshore raciing" has AVANTI done, actually? She hasn't been raced to Bermuda, for example, nor sailed in the Marblehead - Halifax or Annapolis - Newport races... When I first met Jeremi, he was wearing a Vineyard Race cap from 2015, the first time he's done the race at least during the past 4 years... Probably one of the biggest races each summer for LI Sound sailors, but it's hardly an "offshore" event...


So now we're quibbling about what the word "racing" really means? As I posted earlier, once again, here are a few results that seem to indicate that AVANTI is not cruising leisurely along like most cruising boats...



smackdaddy said:


> 1. Winning the C1500 in 2014 as you say
> 2. St. Thomas International in 2013 (2013 Results)
> 3. BVI Spring Regatta in 2013 (2013 BVI Spring Regatta and Sailing Festival on Yacht Scoring - A complete web based regatta administration and yacht scoring program)
> 4. Another C1500 win in 2012 "Double Handed Award (1st double-handed crew on corrected time) - Avanti"


And just to be clear, here is what the opening sentence of the page THAT YOU LINKED TO says:



> Avanti Wins Carib 1500
> 
> Racing from Portsmouth VA to Tortola BVI, despite being the smallest boat in her division, Jeremi Jablonski's Avanti, took top Honors at the 2014 Carib 1500.


And it sounds like much of this was done offshore - for many miles. Then the BVI Spring Regatta uses the word "race" many, many times, as does the St. Thomas International Regatta. So what exactly are you talking about again? You're saying that this isn't _really_ racing because of some course you put up in LIS which has mild conditions - _which I've not even mentioned_ in my listing above?



JonEisberg said:


>


Dude???



JonEisberg said:


> And, no, participation in the Caribbean 1500 hardly constitutes "racing"... It's more like "cruising", as a matter of fact...


If you say so, your link doesn't agree with you.



JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps they could work a deal, in exchange Oyster could teach Hunter how to keep rudders from failing, so no more Hunters have to be abandoned and scuttled in the ARC Rally...
> 
> ARC yacht abandoned - Yachting World
> 
> ...or their 466s stand a better chance of making it across the Pacific without their rudders breaking off...


Yeah the composite posts were a problem for Hunter and others. I don't think they use those anymore do they?

From your ARC article, here's the difference between the Hunter and the Oyster:



> Despite attempts to sink the yacht it is still believed to be partially afloat and a securite alert has been issued.


The Hunter wouldn't go down. The Oyster didn't require much prodding.



JonEisberg said:


> Future Oyster owners can only pray, however, that the builder does not solicit input from Hunter re the design and construction of their anchor platforms and stem fittings...


You mean so that they can anchor in the pounding surf off the beach in a freakin' hurricane without consequence? I don't expect that from Oyster, why would I expect it from Hunter?


----------



## Brent Swain

Try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats.


----------



## Brent Swain

Shockwave said:


> Our boat has been raced hard and the rudder bearings are fine, actually they're bushings. It's 40 years old, raced on both coasts, the Great Lakes, the Caribbean, South America, the Med.. The keel is still attached, the rudder hasn't broken off, the rig is still standing, bulkhead tabbing is intact and doing fine.
> 
> Structure should not fail after a few years of racing for any racer/cruiser. I do expect to upgrade gear, replace sails, keep the bottom nice and replace rigging as needed. The rest should stay together.


My current boat is 31 years old, and has cruised, mostly full time, year round, for that time, including two trips to Tonga and back to BC and one to Mexico and back along with 9 to Haida Gwai and back, with absolutely zero rudder problems.
I once had an uncharted rock pass between my keels and hit the skeg at hull speed. Zero damage.


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> Try
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats.


I have. It's really quite a sad place if you dream of cruising.


----------



## Brent Swain

The British ( from rainy Britain) had a good trick for reducing deck leaks on plastic boats. They simply raised the fibreglass under hand rail bases, stanchion bases, winches, tracks etc, a bit above the deck, so any water running on deck would have to go uphill, to reach the bolt holes.
Then, even if the bedding goes completely, the amount of water leaking thru is minimalised to a tiny drip.
This could be easily arranged on existing molds with a router.
On existing boats these points could be built up with fiberglass, before bedding down fittings. An extra quarter inch of height would make a huge difference. 
While once common in Britain, I haven't seen this done on this side of the pond.


----------



## Brent Swain

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, weren't you just recently arguing that because Oyster is now putting picture windows in their hulls, it's proof positive that such features are 'just fine' for sailing The Deep Blue?
> 
> ;-)


What a Bob Perry design with only one transverse frame? I was told ( by Perry fans) that wouldn't work!
Relying on shape instead of a whole lot of transverse framing? I was also told ( by Perry fans) that doesn't work!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So now we're quibbling about what the word "racing" really means? As I posted earlier, once again, here are a few results that seem to indicate that AVANTI is not cruising leisurely along like most cruising boats...


Actually, I'm quibbling about what the meaning of a race boat being "campaigned hard", and "raced offshore" really is...



smackdaddy said:


> And just to be clear, here is what the opening sentence of the page THAT YOU LINKED TO says:
> 
> 
> 
> Avanti Wins Carib 1500
> 
> *Racing *from Portsmouth VA to Tortola BVI, despite being the smallest boat in her division, Jeremi Jablonski's Avanti, took top Honors at the 2014 Carib 1500.
> 
> 
> 
> And it sounds like much of this was done offshore - for many miles. Then the BVI Spring Regatta uses the word "race" many, many times, as does the St. Thomas International Regatta. So what exactly are you talking about again? You're saying that this isn't _really_ racing because of some course you put up in LIS which has mild conditions - _which I've not even mentioned_ in my listing above?
> 
> Dude???
Click to expand...

The BVI Spring Regatta cited, and the St Thomas International, are both 3 day round the buoy racing in protected waters...

Re the 1500, I don't care how the newsletter of the Cedar Point YC describes it... An event in which the winning boat (AVANTI) racks up 36 hours of engine run time to edge out a Bristol 57 by less than an hour of corrected time, doesn't exactly fit my definition of an offshore "race" in which the competitors were pressing hard... Again, sounds more like "Cruising', to me...

https://www.worldcruising.com/content/S635517499360262559/Results by Class_Final.pdf

btw, did you notice the awesome performance of the Latest and Greatest Production Boat in last year's 1500, the utterly amazing SenseBoat 50? Finishing DFL in their class, correcting a mere 3 days behind the 9th place Amel Super Mara Moo-Moo, with a tidy *136 hours* of engine running time?

LMFAO!



smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future Oyster owners can only pray, however, that the builder does not solicit input from Hunter re the design and construction of their anchor platforms and stem fittings...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean so that they can anchor in the pounding surf off the beach in a freakin' hurricane without consequence? I don't expect that from Oyster, why would I expect it from Hunter?
Click to expand...

LOL! Yeah, I knew that would produce some cackling from one of the "Excitable Hens" around here...



As was pointed out repeatedly at the time. tnat boat was on the beach well before anything even _REMOTELY _ approaching storm force winds made their way into the Chesapeake...

Your problem is, you refuse to look more closely at that pic, or acknowledge how half-assed the construction of the stem is, and how easily that ridiculous anchor prod pried it open like a can opener...


----------



## outbound

Smack
Please read post #36 on the Oyster thread. Says it all.


----------



## chall03

If Smack's point is that Oyster's are overpriced for what they are then I agree.

But there is a lot of adding 1 + 1 and getting an answer of 42 in this thread.


----------



## eko_eko

Brent Swain said:


> The British ( from rainy Britain) had a good trick for reducing deck leaks on plastic boats. They simply raised the fibreglass under hand rail bases, stanchion bases, winches, tracks etc, a bit above the deck, so any water running on deck would have to go uphill, to reach the bolt holes.
> Then, even if the bedding goes completely, the amount of water leaking thru is minimalised to a tiny drip.
> This could be easily arranged on existing molds with a router.
> On existing boats these points could be built up with fiberglass, before bedding down fittings. An extra quarter inch of height would make a huge difference.
> While once common in Britain, I haven't seen this done on this side of the pond.


GOB had an article in 2012 or so that described doing this for where chainplates exit the deck. I now have nice little raised platforms to help keep me from having to replace a bulkhead again. It seems like such an easy thing for a builder to have done.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack
> Please read post #36 on the Oyster thread. Says it all.


I read it. It certainly doesn't "say it all". It asks a question...one that Bob and/or Jeff could probably help answer.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Yeah, I knew that would produce some cackling from one of the "Excitable Hens" around here...
> 
> 
> 
> As was pointed out repeatedly at the time. tnat boat was on the beach well before anything even _REMOTELY _ approaching storm force winds made their way into the Chesapeake...
> 
> Your problem is, you refuse to look more closely at that pic, or acknowledge how half-assed the construction of the stem is, and how easily that ridiculous anchor prod pried it open like a can opener...


Good lord, Jon - at least keep it _somewhat_ real:






"REMOTELY"? Look at about 0:20 and tell me what boat is designed for that kind of thing at anchor. Oyster? Outbound? IP? Moody? Bristol? Swan? HR? I'll wait.

The only thing that's half-assed is your rhetoric - and spinability.

Cluck.


----------



## Noelex

smackdaddy said:


> "REMOTELY"? Look at about 0:20 and tell me what boat is designed for that kind of thing at anchor. Oyster? Outbound? IP? Moody? Bristol? Swan? HR? I'll wait.


It is hard to tell from a photo like this, but it is worth examining boats that have been damaged. I sometimes shake my head at the laminate thickness used in critical areas.










One nice thing about aluminium construction is that you can see exactly what you are getting. This is a similar sized production aluminium boat (upside down):


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> If you buy in the Newport area (other than winter) or the Cheasepeake during late summer early fall please PM me. Love to take you out to dinner.
> There's a Valiant 50 in my current yard which is structurally sound. Young family lived on it one year. They trashed the sole and interior but with elbow grease could be brought back to its glory. Was repainted so exterior is a very pretty blue. Heard it would sell for short money
> We hope to do the carribean again and then maybe South Pacific. Maybe buddy boat next year.


Unfortunately the Aussie $ has dived on the US, which leaves us in a poor position when looking at US vessels.

Either way though I would like to think our paths will cross in the next year or so in which case dinner is a must.


----------



## outbound

Smack
You gave me a hit so I'll hit back. Actually outbound is designed for that. Boat two after mine got caught in strong cell in L.I.S. of all places. Saw 60 then readings became inaccurate. Husband and wife team felt safest was to anchor which they did and rode it out with no issue or damage. Admittedly not a full blown hurricane.
Look at the construction of a IP, Rustler, HR, Malo, Boreal, Garcia etc. you will see much attention to anchoring systems. Or my boat where there is a massive SS platform spreading loads across the bow. Loads are also transferred to bob stay and head stays. We further spread loads with snubbers running to well supported bow cleats in usage. Lateral loads designed to transfer to the hull. Then look at your current Cat A boats. With no platform in calm waters anchor hits the hull. To get a clean deck windless is below deck and bow cleats under engineered.

The plumb bow looks good and may add lwl so speed but it is no joy for the cruiser living on the hook.

As Jon has inferred these are issues which cost a lot and detract from the sleek look wanted at the boat shows. A bunch of ugly crap on the fore peak. Loss of space. Toe stubbers. But it's easy to wash the chain and windless as anchor comes up. You can clear the mud off the anchor easily. The anchor doesn't hit the hull coming up. 

Devils in the details. 

Does this impact on ocean readiness and Cat A rating. NO. Is it something NAs know how to do right. YES. But the emphasis has shifted. This is not a design feature you would have seen on a boat at any price point in the past. It is not solely about the money. It's about how the big houses see their boats being used. I love to sit at the peak looking down at the cut water. It's a real wiggle to do it on my boat. Awkward at best. But see beautiful great sailing boats like X yachts hanging big ugly padded leather aprons off their bows to protect them. Compromise. Get max lwl for loa and a clean deck or best function for anchoring.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Good lord, Jon - at least keep it _somewhat_ real:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "REMOTELY"? Look at about 0:20 and tell me what boat is designed for that kind of thing at anchor. Oyster? Outbound? IP? Moody? Bristol? Swan? HR? I'll wait.
> 
> The only thing that's half-assed is your rhetoric - and spinability.
> 
> Cluck.


Those conditions are not as extreme, or as rare, as you're trying to make them out to be... What makes them appear worse than would be typical of the 33-35 knot windspeeds being seen at the time, is the extremely shoal depth of the water that is dramatically heaping up those seas... Obviously, few people would choose to anchor in such a spot, but the snatching loads at the bow in that situation might be less than those seen when riding to a parachute sea anchor in a big blow, or like aboard the Alden 54 ZULU being towed back thru the Gulf Stream by a CG cutter after losing their rudder in the SDR a few years back... Looking at the bows of the Outbound and the Oyster berthed right next to me here in Nanny Cay, seems to me either could have withstood those sort of forces, no problem...

I suppose one of those things that distinguishes us Bluewater Chuckleheads, is our theoretical preference for having our ground tackle being the weaker link, as opposed to the boat itself...

;-)

Here's the link to NOAA's historical data from 2011, from the nearby reporting station at the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel... The wind speed throughout that morning rarely exceeded 17 meters/sec - 38 MPH/33 Knots - and barely topped 50 MPH not until late that night, 12 hours after that boat was in the surf/on the beach...

Hell, if Ian van Tuyl had been out there that morning on a Jeanneau 57, he'd only be just starting to think about tucking in the first reef, no?

;-)

NDBC - Historical Data Download


----------



## NCC320

outbound said:


> Smack
> 
> Devils in the details.
> 
> Does this impact on ocean readiness and Cat A rating. NO. Is it something NAs know how to do right. YES. But the emphasis has shifted. This is not a design feature you would have seen on a boat at any price point in the past. It is not solely about the money. It's about how the big houses see their boats being used. I love to sit at the peak looking down at the cut water. It's a real wiggle to do it on my boat. Awkward at best. But see beautiful great sailing boats like X yachts hanging big ugly padded leather aprons off their bows to protect them. Compromise. Get max lwl for loa and a clean deck or best function for anchoring.


Let,s see.....the Hunter in the video cost how much and your Outbound cost how much? Maybe it's all about the money.

A vender that we used to work with loved to say "anything is possible, it just takes time and money". Those details that you describe take time and money.


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> Those conditions are not as extreme, or as rare, as you're trying to make them out to be... ......


Then again, how would he know. 

Happy TG to all. Even him.


----------



## outbound

Yes NCC there's no free lunch but the X yacht I mentioned is a well built boat in the same category of expense. The new Hinckley is a hell of a lot more. I think well more than double the price. So with the price point boats your argument may hold merit but I've owned Cape Dory with great anchoring systems, mid priced pacific seacraft as well and have seen very expensive boats where I wonder what were they thinking. 
There is no way around the fact that plumb bows add a complexity to anchoring systems. Desire for clean decks another layer. This has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with geometry.
I'm sure the new Hinckley has figured this out and has a stout design but would note with a reasonable degree of overhang and engineering so did the average production boat in the past at quite modest cost.


----------



## outbound

Looked at the Xc 42 price just now. Base is over $150k MORE than my boat and 4' less loa. Not about the money honey.
They show a short sprit that seems quite robust attaching to the sides of the boat. Basically a U shaped fitting. But you still have the lack of much overhang to deal with and the windlass below deck.
I have a vertical windlass. I wish I had a horizontal one or even better two windlasses so I could leave two anchors on their rollers ready to deploy. Compromise.


----------



## Don L

NCC320 said:


> Maybe it's all about the money.


Maybe????


----------



## outbound

Hey Jon are you berthed next to Practique? If so say hi for me. They are great people. 

Happy turkey day to everyone.


----------



## albrazzi

JonEisberg said:


> Those conditions are not as extreme, or as rare, as you're trying to make them out to be... What makes them appear worse than would be typical of the 33-35 knot windspeeds being seen at the time, is the extremely shoal depth of the water that is dramatically heaping up those seas... Obviously, few people would choose to anchor in such a spot, but the snatching loads at the bow in that situation might be less than those seen when riding to a parachute sea anchor in a big blow, or like aboard the Alden 54 ZULU being towed back thru the Gulf Stream by a CG cutter after losing their rudder in the SDR a few years back... Looking at the bows of the Outbound and the Oyster berthed right next to me here in Nanny Cay, seems to me either could have withstood those sort of forces, no problem...
> 
> I suppose one of those things that distinguishes us Bluewater Chuckleheads, is our theoretical preference for having our ground tackle being the weaker link, as opposed to the boat itself...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Here's the link to NOAA's historical data from 2011, from the nearby reporting station at the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel... The wind speed throughout that morning rarely exceeded 17 meters/sec - 38 MPH/33 Knots - and barely topped 50 MPH not until late that night, 12 hours after that boat was in the surf/on the beach...
> 
> Hell, if Ian van Tuyl had been out there that morning on a Jeanneau 57, he'd only be just starting to think about tucking in the first reef, no?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> NDBC - Historical Data Download


This happened literally in my back yard. We made T-shirts with pictures of the wreck and "Willoughby Yacht club" emblazoned just for a laugh. FWIW just a bone head move when he was tied to a dock just a few hours before and one of the safest anchorages in the area literally 2000 Yards around the point that he had to pass by to get where he was.
Damage or not he was dragging ashore no matter what. He just should have gotten there rig and bow intact no question about that.


----------



## RobGallagher

I would like to see a video of similar conditions with different weight, hull and keel configurations anchored or moored near each other. 

I know my (C&C30MKII) fat assed, relatively, light/tender, wing keel ,racer cruiser sails around at anchor or mooring like crazy.

My last boat (C&C 30)was a heavier fin keel with spade rudder and a narrower ass, behaved much better at anchor or moored in a storm. It still sailed around, just not as bad as my 'more modern-ish' design

I used to laugh at the newer Hunter in front of me in my mooring field. She would sail back and forth to nearly 90 degrees in weather. 

Now I have a boat that does that. But I can stand up straight when I pee.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Those conditions are not as extreme, or as rare, as you're trying to make them out to be... What makes them appear worse than would be typical of the 33-35 knot windspeeds being seen at the time, is the extremely shoal depth of the water that is dramatically heaping up those seas...


Wow - you must _REALLY_ need to believe what you believe. "Extreme or rare as _*I'm*_ trying to make them out to be?" I'm just saying what the video is saying. You're the one trying desparately to spin it.

And for the record, I'm not just talking about _the wind_ - it doesn't matter that much, why you would focus only on that I'm not sure - I'm talking about those "dramatically heaping up seas" you at least acknowledge driving against a lee shore. That's _exactly_ what will destroy an anchored boat.

Most importantly, these are exactly the seas they were STILL in despite you making the following strangely misguided claim:



JonEisberg said:


> As was pointed out repeatedly at the time. tnat boat was on the beach well before anything even _REMOTELY _ approaching storm force winds made their way into the Chesapeake...


So you get a fork and I'll get the crow.



JonEisberg said:


> Obviously, few people would choose to anchor in such a spot...


Ya think?

And now here we go with your desperate belief system that's showing some severe cracks at the stem...



JonEisberg said:


> but the snatching loads at the bow in that situation might be less than those seen when riding to a parachute sea anchor in a big blow, or like aboard the Alden 54 ZULU being towed back thru the Gulf Stream by a CG cutter after losing their rudder in the SDR a few years back...
> 
> Looking at the bows of the Outbound and the Oyster berthed right next to me here in Nanny Cay, seems to me either could have withstood those sort of forces, no problem...
> 
> I suppose one of those things that distinguishes us Bluewater Chuckleheads, is our theoretical preference for having our ground tackle being the weaker link, as opposed to the boat itself...


No it's theoretical desperation that distinguishes such distinguished gentlemen.



JonEisberg said:


> Here's the link to NOAA's historical data from 2011, from the nearby reporting station at the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel... The wind speed throughout that morning rarely exceeded 17 meters/sec - 38 MPH/33 Knots - and barely topped 50 MPH not until late that night, 12 hours after that boat was in the surf/on the beach...
> 
> NDBC - Historical Data Download


And now we're back on the wind. I honestly could give a damn what NOAA's data says. Have you looked at the video? THAT is reality for what that boat was facing at the time due to a series of well-documented, very ill-advised moves by the owner.

Surely even you can understand the wind didn't destroy that boat - despite Ian Van Tuyle's best efforts. The WAVES did.

And am I not correct that in a hurricane the seas get generally more whipped up than localized wind conditions might merit? Do I actually need to provide you video of this phenomenon too for you to stop being so intentionally misleading?

So close your eyes and cover year ears and hum loudly while you parse through a weather report so you don't have to look at the video and face reality. I don't care. But, really, stop with the silliness.


----------



## smackdaddy

noelex77 said:


> It is hard to tell from a photo like this, but it is worth examining boats that have been damaged. I sometimes shake my head at the laminate thickness used in critical areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One nice thing about aluminium construction is that you can see exactly what you are getting. This is a similar sized production aluminium boat (upside down):


I certainly won't argue that metal boat construction is a completely different animal than fiberglass.

But, I'm pretty comfortable that even if the laminate in that Hunter's bow was several millimeters thicker - having an anchor chain sawing down through it in crazy seas is still going to produce the same outcome - even if it has a BWC label on it.

For example, I will readily admit that this roller assembly on this Oyster 575 is impressive:










Would it easily stand up to the extreme lateral snatch loads you see in that video? How much do you want to bet?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack
> You gave me a hit so I'll hit back. Actually outbound is designed for that. Boat two after mine got caught in strong cell in L.I.S. of all places. Saw 60 then readings became inaccurate. Husband and wife team felt safest was to anchor which they did and rode it out with no issue or damage. Admittedly not a full blown hurricane.
> Look at the construction of a IP, Rustler, HR, Malo, Boreal, Garcia etc. you will see much attention to anchoring systems. Or my boat where there is a massive SS platform spreading loads across the bow. Loads are also transferred to bob stay and head stays. We further spread loads with snubbers running to well supported bow cleats in usage. Lateral loads designed to transfer to the hull. Then look at your current Cat A boats. With no platform in calm waters anchor hits the hull. To get a clean deck windless is below deck and bow cleats under engineered.
> 
> The plumb bow looks good and may add lwl so speed but it is no joy for the cruiser living on the hook.
> 
> As Jon has inferred these are issues which cost a lot and detract from the sleek look wanted at the boat shows. A bunch of ugly crap on the fore peak. Loss of space. Toe stubbers. But it's easy to wash the chain and windless as anchor comes up. You can clear the mud off the anchor easily. The anchor doesn't hit the hull coming up.
> 
> Devils in the details.
> 
> Does this impact on ocean readiness and Cat A rating. NO. Is it something NAs know how to do right. YES. But the emphasis has shifted. This is not a design feature you would have seen on a boat at any price point in the past. It is not solely about the money. It's about how the big houses see their boats being used. I love to sit at the peak looking down at the cut water. It's a real wiggle to do it on my boat. Awkward at best. But see beautiful great sailing boats like X yachts hanging big ugly padded leather aprons off their bows to protect them. Compromise. Get max lwl for loa and a clean deck or best function for anchoring.


Out - I'm not picking on you or your boat. I'm speaking generally, just like you and everyone else speaks generally about production boats...which drives Bob and Jeff crazy...but we all just can't seem to help ourselves.

But since you bring it up, here's a couple of photos of the roller on an Outbound 46:



















Do I know it would fail just like the Hunters did? Absolutely not. Is it possible for me to see that in extreme lateral snatch loads while anchored in large pounding surf how the chain might rip through that thin outside plate, jump the track, and start sawing through the fiberglass leading to eventual failure? Yeah, I could see that as a possibility.


----------



## WharfRat

Brent Swain said:


> What a Bob Perry design with only one transverse frame? I was told that wouldn't work!
> Relying on shape instead of a whole lot of transverse framing? I was also told that doesn't work!


As is often the case, we have no idea to what exactly do you refer, or what exactly you mean. Care to clarify?


----------



## outbound

Sue ( the lady in that picture) might disagree with you. She's seen some stuff.

Have you ever actually seen the set up on an Outbound. That "thin" lateral plate is actually very thick 316 stainless. I believe as thick as a BS hull or thicker. There is a very heavy rod above the deployed rode so extraordinarily unlikely it would jump out. The whole structure is through bolted in multiple places to thick solid glass and appropriately backed. Much like a keel. 

With them all over the world I'm sure they have seen worse then that video. Hell, we saw worse then that video for two days anchored off anagada. 

There has never been a failure of that structure in any Outbound. The video shows different for that model.

Here you are blowing smoke. Plain and simple. Please actually look at one then come back and we can have an educated conversation. As Jon said there is no doubt the hi test chain would fail before the boat. Even in that scenario I doubt damage to that structure beyond surface scratches to the stainless. 

Pick away but you're just showing folks who know HR, Outbound, and other ocean cruising boats how untenable your position is.

Please don't choke on your turkey. It's too much fun to do this back and forth.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And now we're back on the wind. I honestly could give a damn what NOAA's data says. Have you looked at the video? THAT is reality for what that boat was facing at the time due to a series of well-documented, very ill-advised moves by the owner.


Yes, I've watched it... And, through the eyes of a photographer who spent much of his professional life looking through a Nikkor 600mm f/4 lens, as a matter of fact... ;-)

That video is shot at a pretty high telephoto perspective, right at beach level... There's no easier way to impart greater visual drama to an image, than to shoot from a low angle, and greatly compress and flatten the distance between the camera, and the subject...












smackdaddy said:


> Surely even you can understand the wind didn't destroy that boat - despite Ian Van Tuyle's best efforts. The WAVES did.


Again, those seas are not as large as you appear to believe. They can't be, given the depth of the water. And even from such a low angle, and with such a telephoto perspective where the surf is seen breaking virtually on top of the beach grass in the foreground, the hull of that boat never completely disappears from view in a trough...

Once you actually start going places under sail, you may find that such wave action can easily be replicated in certain situations, in winds far less than are seen in that video... 20 knots of breeze against the Gulf Stream, for instance, could produce conditions matching those, as would many other situations around places like Nantucket Shoals, or the tidal races at the Fundy entrance near Cape Sable... The French who sail around Biscay off places like St Malo, would scoff at the notion that those waves are anything out of the ordinary...

In my experience, I believe the forces acting upon that boat are no more extreme than one who has resorted to lying to a sea anchor in a decent blow offshore... By your line of argument, you seem to be conceding that a production boat like that Hunter should not necessarily be expected to withstand the forces that might come with the application of that particular storm tactic... If you're comfortable crossing an ocean with such limitations, good luck...

I simply happen to disagree, and that would not be my preference...


----------



## hpeer

This is as much a question as anything else.

First, laying at anchor last fall some AH in a 60+' sort fisherman comes by at jut below plane, max wake. There is a nice 40' sloop next to us and the wake picked her out of the water to the popping where I could see a good bit of their rudder. The couple immeditly came rushing to the cockpit to see what was up, clearly alarmed. Another small sloop was rocking through 30° easy. My Wife, working below in our 44' steel tub, hardly noticed.

But more to the point, I had to rebuild our bowsprit, old one rusted out. While doing so I moved the anchors out on the sprit and separated them. So now I have two good sized anchors that don't hit the hull and don't foul the Bob stay.

The Bob stay attachment was 1/2" SS welded to the cut water. To that I added another bit of 1/2" SS welded to the cut water and to the Bob stay. I figured it would strengthen the whole assembly.

When I set my anchor, which I haven't done much yet, I run my snubber from the cut water. The chain hangs loose caught by an ABI chain stopper. If needed I could back that up to the Samson Post. The chain should never pull on the bow roller, unless the snubber snapped. But then the chain is caught in the roller assembly sides, 3/16" SS, and then lateral movement is caught by the chain stopper.

My sense is that is a pretty good arrangement, provided she doesn't sail at anchor too much.

Any thoughts or criticisms?

Bare assembly befor welding onto boat.


----------



## outbound

Simply beautiful hypeer.

Good on you!!!!!


Smackie doesn't seem to realize virtually all cruisers use snubbers routinely even with all chain rodes. Windlasses are expensive. When it's even a bit snotty or you are going to either leave the boat virtually everyone sets up two. I like two because I find the boat hunts a lot less.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Smack, even if I were to ignore Jon's comments about the effects of the telephoto lens (which of course I should not), those waves are not all that high. It is a nasty situation to be sure, but far from catastrophic in my view. As was pointed out, you can always see the gunwale of the boat so the waves are less than five feet. When we anchored at Easter Island we had swells in the five to six foot range. the following week, after we had gone, a couple of boats experienced swells in the 10- 12' range, but in deep water - anchors were down in 40 to 50 feet, obviously with lots of chain out.

An unrelated, but interesting, wrinkle to the story. The people on one of the boats that experienced the very nasty conditions continued on to Patagonia and up the Atlantic Coast to the Caribbean. We of course were heading west. We ended up sharing a Christmas Day potluck dinner in Grenada three years after both us were at Easter. It is a small world - or at least the cruising community is.


----------



## JonEisberg

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, even if I were to ignore Jon's comments about the effects of the telephoto lens (which of course I should not), those waves are not all that high. It is a nasty situation to be sure, but far from catastrophic in my view. As was pointed out, you can always see the gunwale of the boat so the waves are less than five feet. When we anchored at Easter Island we had swells in the five to six foot range. the following week, after we had gone, a couple of boats experienced swells in the 10- 12' range, but in deep water - anchors were down in 40 to 50 feet, obviously with lots of chain out.


Hmmm, perhaps Hunter needs to check with the Taiwanese builders of Captain Ron's boat, regarding how to build a front that won't fall off in those sort of seas...

Some more telephoto effects, from Pitcairn Island this time...


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, even if I were to ignore Jon's comments about the effects of the telephoto lens (which of course I should not), those waves are not all that high. It is a nasty situation to be sure, but far from catastrophic in my view. As was pointed out, you can always see the gunwale of the boat so the waves are less than five feet. When we anchored at Easter Island we had swells in the five to six foot range. the following week, after we had gone, a couple of boats experienced swells in the 10- 12' range, but in deep water - anchors were down in 40 to 50 feet, obviously with lots of chain out.
> 
> An unrelated, but interesting, wrinkle to the story. The people on one of the boats that experienced the very nasty conditions continued on to Patagonia and up the Atlantic Coast to the Caribbean. We of course were heading west. We ended up sharing a Christmas Day potluck dinner in Grenada three years after both us were at Easter. It is a small world - or at least the cruising community is.


You and I both know that swells are worlds apart from breaking waves.

So, you guys dance around that video all you want. But if all you've really got is conspiracy theories about telephoto lenses and grassy knolls, BS Yacht comparisons, and "my friends saw worse" - I got nothin' for you except pity. You completely jumped the shark...and missed.

Another way to look at that video could be that the Hunter handled those particular conditions just fine. It was only later when the seas built to monster 10'-12' breakers that things started to let go. She is holding strong you know...the video is proof of that.

Alternatively, if what you guys want people to take away from this is that anchoring by such a lee shore in a hurricane is fine as long as you have an Oyster or an Outbound, well, that's on you. I think that's absolutely insane...and I think even the Biscay French and Spanish would agree, regardless of lens.

So, hang on to what you need to hang on to to maintain your ideals. I really don't care. But some of the reasoning behind that desparate clutch is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## NCC320

JonEisberg said:


> Future Oyster owners can only pray, however, that the builder does not solicit input from Hunter re the design and construction of their anchor platforms and stem fittings...
> 
> ;-)


This conversation seems to have assumed that the anchor support ripped out of the hull first, leading to the chain sawing through the fiberglass hull, then going ashore. But is that how it happened? Isn't more likely that the boat went aground and over on its side first? Now the chain jumps the anchor roller or even gets wrapped around or under the anchor support, the boat is slammed against the bottom, rising, falling, twisting, snatching, etc. The jerking on the rode is totally different, and forces likely much higher than when "safely" at anchor with the boat bucking up and down due to the waves. Wind probably doesn't have much to do with it, just secondary. Wave motion while grounded is the primary problem here. So using this as an argument against the Hunter design is pointless, unless you can show some other boat experiencing the same forces which survived just fine.


----------



## outbound

I may not be a NA but I know having a hole in the front of your boat is not a good thing.

I also know that the installations I've seen on multiple new production boats do not look robust even to my uneducated eye and that's not a good thing.

The rest of it is people trying to avoid the obvious.

The devil is in the details. 

I don't care how the thing got ripped out. It got ripped out in conditions that should not produce that level of damage. A benefit to a bob stay securing that anchor platform from below would have likely prevented even NCCs scenario.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> I don't care how the thing got ripped out. It got ripped out in conditions that should not produce that level of damage.


Out - this is me rolling my eyes in your direction.










Look again. See it?

Why am I taking the time to make certain you see such an elaborate eyeroll? Because these "conditions that should not produce that level of damage" are AGAINST A LEE SHORE and as follows:



> HURRICANE IRENE was a large and destructive tropical cyclone, which affected much of the Caribbean and East Coast of the United States during late August 2011. Throughout its path, Irene caused widespread destruction and at least 56 deaths. Damage estimates throughout the United States are estimated near $15.6 billion, which made it the seventh costliest hurricane in United States history, only behind Hurricane Andrew of 1992, Hurricane Ivan of 2004, Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina of 2005, Hurricane Ike of 2008, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
> 
> Total fatalities: 56
> Highest wind speed: 121 mph
> Lowest pressure: 942 mb
> Category: Category 3 Hurricane (SSHS)


So out, please, stop posting stuff that just makes you look incredibly foolish. I really don't need that to be proven right. Especially from a brain surgeon. Any dufus like me can find these facts.

And NC, you're absolutely right. Why Jon continues to try to serve up this deceptive BS is beyond me. I really thought we had closed this particular chapter and that he was smarter and more honest than this. Here are other images from this boat that he and I have discussed at length before...

The moment of rescue after the boat has finally dragged onto the beach in what are obviously storm force conditions:









This crappy production boat obviously did its job and kept these two people who made very, very poor decisions, safe.

As you can clearly see AFTER the beaching/rescue, the roller/stem DID NOT fail in the surf. It only failed after the boat was beached and the entire front was sawn away by the chain as you can clearly see here.









And did you notice that in Jon's photo (taken with some kind of nice production lens I'm sure) the rig is still intact even though the forestay is completely gone AND AFTER this boat has pounded in the surf in a freakin' hurricane for who knows how long? And these guys want to talk about tough? Good lord.










To be clear, I'm not saying that Hunter's roller/stem is the best combo on the sea. But it certainly held up pretty well in a hurricane on a lee shore.

So, I'm always up for good debate. But if these goofballs are just going to spew BS and hope no one notices, well...that ain't gonna happen.

All that really is is a humble, yet veiled, admission on their part that I'm right and that they've got nothing real left. Like there was ever any question about that.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Smack, at times your ignorance about what real cruising is like makes you come across as quite silly. Big swells do not maintain their neat waveforms when you get into water shallow enough to anchor - of course they break. We have anchored in conditions as bad as that Hunter and lived to talk about it with no damage done to the boat.

About the Pitcairn video, that boat is anchored in quite deep water, I would guess 60 to 70 feet but could be more. When we there we did not anchor because the conditions were almost as bad as the video but not great. I stayed onboard while June went ashore on one of the Pitcairn seaboats (that was driven by Brenda Christian who is the x-times grandaughter of Fletcher btw). Brenda did a terrific job keeping the boat close to but not touching Ainia. At first June wanted to step down into their boat, but they just said jump and caught her. Same thing when she came out she grabbed the life lines, I grabbed her and the crew in the boat gave her a push. I did not go ashore since I was suffering from a large, infected boil on my leg and my mobility was impaired. One of the problems with Pitcairn is that the wave trains hit the cliffs that surround the island and bounce back. When we were there there was a northeasterly wave train and a northwesterly train. Add the reflected waves to this and area shallow enough for anchoring was quite chaotic. The video talks about going around to the other side of the island. This is good in theory but there is almost always a large set of swells coming from the south that make that anchorage (there is no real anchorage - you just anchor next to the island) nasty too. The Pitcairn folks said that one boat was able to anchor for almost two weeks with almost no swell while a Polish singlehander hove-to for a week waiting for conditions so he could anchor for a day. Easter and Pitcairn are fascinating places to visit, but anchoring in places like that is just not the same as dropping the hook behind a Caribbean island.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, at times your ignorance about what real cruising is like makes you come across as quite silly. Big swells do not maintain their neat waveforms when you get into water shallow enough to anchor - of course they break. We have anchored in conditions as bad as that Hunter and lived to talk about it with no damage done to the boat.


Kill - I know full well about your cruising experience. It's pretty freakin' epic. No doubt. You definitely have my respect.

But terminology in these threads is important. What you see in that video and photos are not "swells". They are breaking waves in a _surf zone_. It does not really get much more destructive than that (and you don't need 50K miles to know that). That's what I was saying.

For example, here's a guy at anchor in 70-80 knots in the Strait of Magellan:






See the difference in the sea state?

Where were you guys when you were hit by a Cat 3 hurricane (96-113 knots) while at anchor? I bet that's an epic story.


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> Do I know it would fail just like the Hunters did? Absolutely not. Is it possible for me to see that in extreme lateral snatch loads while anchored in large pounding surf how the chain might rip through that thin outside plate, jump the track, and start sawing through the fiberglass leading to eventual failure? Yeah, I could see that as a possibility.


I don't doubt that in the right (wrong?) conditions that chain can knaw through fiberglass, even if it is thick.

What I find more interesting is that the whole bow assembly fell off of the Hunter - that should not happen.


----------



## Scotty C-M

A short editorial:

I enjoy reading your ideas about boats and what works and what dosen't. What I don't enjoy is the name calling and "gottcha" put downs. Some people like to argue on-line, but that really seems like bullies taking over a public place. This thread takes it too far. Please take a look at your posts before you submit, and if you are calling names, or being caustically sarcastic, take a moment to edit it out. Your posts will still contain plenty of ideas and opinions. 

Back to the thread:


----------



## Shockwave

Maybe the thread should be?

"production boats have no limits and I'll argue with anyone who says they do"!


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> Here's the link to NOAA's historical data from 2011, from the nearby reporting station at the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel... The wind speed throughout that morning rarely exceeded 17 meters/sec - 38 MPH/33 Knots - and barely topped 50 MPH not until late that night, 12 hours after that boat was in the surf/on the beach...
> 
> NDBC - Historical Data Download


We all know how much you cherish "facts" over the hyperbole you claim for those who disagree with you, Smack, but in light of your meltdown over an incident involving one of your bulletproof, bluewater Hunter's, one of Jon's recently posted "facts" -- with a link to NOAA historical data no less -- apparently requires repeating for you. Last time I checked, the 33 kts. of wind reported at the time of this incident does not amount to Cat 3 hurricane conditions. Dispute the NOAA historical data if you'd like, but I'm not sure why you find it credible or persuasive to attack a poster who's done a successful circumnavigation, and another who's probably sailed an equivalent number of nm (at least) on a myriad of different boats.

As for your your attempt to distinguish b'twn. different types of "wave action" (been to Pitcairn lately, Smack?), Jon addressed that pretty persuasively too, along with a couple of other experienced guys, but I'm sorry the video nevertheless caused you such "fright." I, for one, don't feel I have either the experience or expertise to make a judgment, although like Bob, guys like Jon tend to be my "default."

But in this case who exactly knows? Given the other decisions the Hunter owner/cap made to get himself in those circumstances, maybe he had way too little chain rode out, no snubber(s), trying to back down at full throttle with the engine, dunno . . . . The bow roller structure does look rather iffy, especially with the roller itself sticking out so far over the bow. Maybe you can help us out by telling us how many times you've anchored in difficult conditions in your own Hunter, and thus reassure all of those "bashers" & "haters" why Jon's concerns are really for naught.


----------



## outbound

mitiempo said:


> What I find more interesting is that the whole bow assembly fell off of the Hunter - that should not happen.


Agreed.
Politely and well said.

Would note none of us know what was going on with that captain or crew. I carefully avoided comment on their decisions. In the spirit of Scotty's editorial would request unless you have detailed knowledge of the events to do the same. I thought we were talking about boats not people.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Agreed.
> Politely and well said.
> 
> Would note none of us know what was going on with that captain or crew. I carefully avoided comment on their decisions. In the spirit of Scotty's editorial would request unless you have detailed knowledge of the events to do the same. I thought we were talking about boats not people.


I have relatively detailed knowledge. I had several email exchanges with Michael just after this incident. It was a very sad ordeal. But my saying it was a series of poor decisions - that's something he admitted as well. So I'm not condemning anyone. This is just what happened - and is why I don't get why Jon feels the need to continue to bring it up when it doesn't prove anything being discussed in this thread.


----------



## outbound

K-? How much chain do you carry?

Reason I ask is another area of potential concern is the whether there is adequate space in the chain locker and how that weight effects the boats dynamics.

I was surprised that 200' of chain is often inadequate to get even 5:1. ( your post is an example). Read recently with the next gen anchors and chain less may serve. But I have trouble sleeping with anything less than 5:1 and still think all chain is to be preferred.

Would be very interested in learning from your and Jons experience as I'm thinking of increasing rode on the primary and don't know how much to get.

Tx.


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, you didn't read what Killarny wrote to you, he said:

"we have anchored in conditions as bad as that hunter in the photos and video". 

You basically told him " no you didn't " then went on and talked about swells and surf zones....

Did you circumnavigate with Killarney? Were you aboard?


----------



## Eder

Brent Swain said:


> The British ( from rainy Britain) had a good trick for reducing deck leaks on plastic boats. They simply raised the fibreglass under hand rail bases, stanchion bases, winches, tracks etc, a bit above the deck, so any water running on deck would have to go uphill, to reach the bolt holes.
> Then, even if the bedding goes completely, the amount of water leaking thru is minimalised to a tiny drip.
> This could be easily arranged on existing molds with a router.
> On existing boats these points could be built up with fiberglass, before bedding down fittings. An extra quarter inch of height would make a huge difference.
> While once common in Britain, I haven't seen this done on this side of the pond.


My IP460 has slightly raised bases...http://newimages.yachtworld.com/res...2547_1_XLARGE.jpg&w=924&h=693&t=1380047622000


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And now we're back on the wind. I honestly could give a damn what NOAA's data says.


Well, that has become quite apparent...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Another way to look at that video could be that the Hunter handled those particular conditions just fine. It was only later when the seas built to monster 10'-12' breakers that things started to let go. She is holding strong you know...the video is proof of that.


At 10:40 that morning, the VIRGINIAN-PILOT was reporting that the boat was ashore, and the couple had been rescued and transported to a nearby hospital for evaluation...

Damn, who knew winds gusting to near 40 MPH could have whipped up those seas to such heights that qjickly, eh?



smackdaddy said:


> And NC, you're absolutely right. Why Jon continues to try to serve up this deceptive BS is beyond me. I really thought we had closed this particular chapter and that he was smarter and more honest than this. Here are other images from this boat that he and I have discussed at length before...
> 
> The moment of rescue after the boat has finally dragged onto the beach in what are obviously storm force conditions:


Obviously, you have yet to ever experience "storm force conditions"...

I can hear the ocean surf breaking at my home on Barnegat Bay, I've been heading over to the beach since childhood to marvel at the power of nature whenever big weather arrives...

Onlookers don't mill about sandy beaches as casually as is seen a few minutes into this video, during onshore storm force winds...

Not along the Jersey Shore, at any rate...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I have relatively detailed knowledge. I had several email exchanges with Michael just after this incident. It was a very sad ordeal. But my saying it was a series of poor decisions - that's something he admitted as well. So I'm not condemning anyone. This is just what happened - *and is why I don't get why Jon feels the need to continue to bring it up when it doesn't prove anything being discussed in this thread.*


Ahhh, time to cue the Faux Outrage, eh?

C'mon, admit it... You got just the sort of response you were trolling for, you knew one of us "Excitable Hens" would rise to the bait...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Because right now, it seems Oyster needs to seek advice from Hunter on how to build a REAL CE Cat A boat that won't fall apart and sink in slightly blue water in F4/5 conditions.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, time to cue the Faux Outrage, eh?
> 
> C'mon, admit it... You got just the sort of response you were trolling for, you knew one of us "Excitable Hens" would rise to the bait...
> 
> ;-)


Dude - I never mind a good clean fight. You know that. But as I said that particular Hunter has nothing to do with anything...especially if you're only going to put up part of the story with a single pic.

As for your 30-40 mile per hour winds and, more importantly, the resultant *seastate in that photo* - whatever you say.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - I never mind a good clean fight. You know that. But as I said that particular Hunter has nothing to do with anything.
> 
> As for your 40 mile per hour winds in that photo - whatever you say.


No, what NOAA _said_, actually. Not a prediction, mind you, but historical fact. But hey, maybe it was recorded a bit inland at the airport perhaps. But still just a "tad" removed from the "Cat 3 hurricane" you wanted all of us to believe. But I know, who gives a damn -- it's all about those "10-14'" breaking waves after all.

A "good clean fight?" Sorry, not with such obvious attempts to manipulate facts to fit your narrative. The resumption of your name calling is always the give away.

This particular Hunter having nothing to with anything? How about a potential "limit" of a production boat? Or am I posting on the wrong thread?


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> No, what NOAA _said_, actually. Not a prediction, mind you, but historical fact. But hey, maybe it was recorded a bit inland at the airport perhaps.


Just to clarify, the NOAA data I linked to was from the recording station on the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel at Thimble Shoals Channel... Located roughly 7 NM to seaward of Ocean View, where the grounding occurred, so probably a pretty accurate representation of the conditions at the time...










As for Irene being a Cat 3 storm, it only achieved that status for awhile near the Bahamas... She made landfall as a Cat 1 near Cape Lookout, roughly 175 miles south of Norfolk, at about the same time as that first video was being recorded. After traveling over Pamlico Sound and land for about 10 hours, she passed over the Chesapeake Entrance as a marginal hurricane, diminishing to tropical storm force several hours later...

But of course that boat had been beached long before the storm's full strength was ever felt around Norfolk...


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> Agreed.
> Politely and well said.
> 
> Would note none of us know what was going on with that captain or crew. I carefully avoided comment on their decisions. In the spirit of Scotty's editorial would request unless you have detailed knowledge of the events to do the same. I thought we were talking about boats not people.


+1

I am not going to be polite though.

Michael the skipper mentioned passed away.

The treatment of Michael by this sailing forum prior and after his passing was absolutely atrocious.

It was not a proud day for Sailnet. Let's leave him alone and make the point some other way.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Hey Jon are you berthed next to Practique? If so say hi for me. They are great people.


Yes, I am... But I haven't seen anybody aboard lately, perhaps they've gone off somewhere for the holiday?

The sole Outbound in this year's Caribbean 1500 was BIG FRISKY... they had some seriously bad luck prior to departure. On the Friday before the scheduled departure on sunday, they were out running a 1,000 hour turbo "washing" @ 80% load, when they blew a couple of exhaust valves on their Yanmar. Even with the start of the 1500 delayed until the following Wednesday, they didn't finally leave Portsmouth until a few days after everyone else...

Still made it in about 8 days, however, just in time for the Awards party... Yesterday, they provided the turkey for the pot luck Thanksgiving gathering here, it was awesome...

We Made It! | Big Frisky












outbound said:


> K-? How much chain do you carry?
> 
> Reason I ask is another area of potential concern is the whether there is adequate space in the chain locker and how that weight effects the boats dynamics.
> 
> I was surprised that 200' of chain is often inadequate to get even 5:1. ( your post is an example). Read recently with the next gen anchors and chain less may serve. But I have trouble sleeping with anything less than 5:1 and still think all chain is to be preferred.
> 
> Would be very interested in learning from your and Jons experience as I'm thinking of increasing rode on the primary and don't know how much to get.
> 
> Tx.


Can't help you out much there, I'm only able to carry 200' on my little tub... Wish it could be 300, but there's no way. I have an additional 300' of 5/8" rope rode, which I would shackle to the end of my 1/4" HT chain if I ever need to... Thankfully, that has not yet happened, I've always managed OK with my existing 200'...

If I had a boat like yours, I'd probably be happy with 300', perhaps 350' depending where I was going, particularly if plans included the Pacific or Alaska, perhaps...


----------



## killarney_sailor

We only had 200' of chain. That was a half barrel of 3/8" BBB that I got at a good price. We have 300' of 3/4" nylon sliced to the chain but only used the first 50 or so feet a couple of times in five years. The amount of chain you need depends on where you are going. Outside a few places in the Pacific 200' was more than adequate. When we set up the ground tackle we did not have plans for a circumnavigation so did not remotely think about the problems of anchoring next to Indonesian islands where the water drops off from 0 to 100 feet in a couple of boat lengths. Our chain locker is about eight feet aft of the bow. We certainly have the room for 300' of chain and can handle the weight. One problem with newer cruising boats is that their displacements are much less and it makes it harder to carry a lot of weight. In retrospect I should have bought a full barrel of chain and used perhaps 50' for a secondary anchor rode and used the rest for the primary.


----------



## outbound

Jon
You should see them shortly. They needed to deal with family stuff but going back down ~Sunday. Greatly appreciate the opinions about length of change.
One of the things I really liked about Boreals was the design element where the chain was brought amidships eliminating the weight sitting in the bows.
One of the things I dislike about the current versions of many production boats is the way chain is run and stored as well as the difficulty of cleaning it.


----------



## outbound

Thread hi jack

Wonder about people's preference when sorting things out before passage.

Do you store the anchors and plumber putty the holes in the deck? Or do you lash the anchors and leave them on deck?

I've done both. Feel better with anchors ready to be deployed as don't know what landfall will be like. But think having anchors off the bows improves performance and eliminates risk of something breaking loose. Also if you leave them up need to carefully use Saran Wrap plumbers putty and tape or water comes in.


----------



## Shockwave

Killarney, I have 400 foot of Acco G4, 3/8", new, still in the barrel. I could make you a good deal, if you're interested. Are you in Michigan?


----------



## killarney_sailor

A thread hi-jack is welcome. This one is basically pretty lame and has long outlasted any usefulness it might have had.

Thanks for the chain offer but we will not be in really deep anchoring spots in the foreseeable future I think. I must say I was not impressed with the longevity of ACCO chain. I have had other people suggest that it is not as good as it once was. No idea why this would be so.

We only have one anchor (Manson Supreme) permanently mounted and leave it there. We try to tape up the holes, but not altogether successful. Our boat originally stored the chain in the very bow compartment. It did not store at all well there and someone needed to be below with a boat hook to stop the castling. We moved it back another compartment further aft. Lots of room there for 300+' if we need it.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Thread hi jack
> 
> Wonder about people's preference when sorting things out before passage.
> 
> Do you store the anchors and plumber putty the holes in the deck? Or do you lash the anchors and leave them on deck?
> 
> I've done both. Feel better with anchors ready to be deployed as don't know what landfall will be like. But think having anchors off the bows improves performance and eliminates risk of something breaking loose. Also if you leave them up need to carefully use Saran Wrap plumbers putty and tape or water comes in.


The first year that the World Cruising Club took over the Caribbean 1500 from Steve Black, they made a request that all participants remove their anchors from their bow rollers for the start, in order to make the boats look "prettier" for the start line photos...

LMAO! One of the stupidest things I've ever heard... Yeah, like removing those 'unsightly' anchors are really gonna improve the overall look of some of the boats in the fleet, right, given the massive amount of crap many of them are stowing on deck?

;-)

I thought about removing mine once for a passage to Bermuda... Glad I didn't, turned out it would have been a mistake, as the conditions upon arrival would have made it quite risky to attempt to refit it again before entering Town Cut... With boats and anchors larger than mine, no way would I consider it...

One thing often overlooked as well, is that you might actually find a good use for an anchor in the open ocean... On some modern designs that can be difficult to make heave-to, lowering an anchor to a depth of 100 feet or more might be just the needed 'assist' to help hold the bow up into the breeze, or diminish the tendency to forereach... Be careful if yours is a Sexy Modern Plumb Bow, however... ;-)

One reason I much prefer a horizontal windlass, I find them a bit easier to seal the hawse pipe... Still, most generally need some modification to seal them tight... Here's mine, a Lofrans Kobra:










What I did, was to cut off that stupid square chain pipe hole, and glass in 2" diameter bit of electrical conduit material, instead... I remove the chain from the anchor, and it attaches to a cap that fits over the chain pipe, sealing it tight... Then, I reconnect a short length of chain to the anchor, just enough to take a partial turn around the gypsy, and snug it up tight... Of course, I'll add some additional lashing to the anchor, and insert the pin in the end of the roller...

Finally, everything gets covered up by a closely fitted Stamoid cover over the windlass, secured by a boltrope channel to the deck... I'm always amazed at how many windlasses are left continuously exposed to the elements, considering how little effort it really takes to protect such a vital and expensive piece of gear...










The deck fitting for my secondary rope rode gets wrapped and duct taped, and covered as well... And the little opening where the rope leads out from under the cover faces AFT, I always scratch my head whenever I see those openings mounted facing forward... ;-)


----------



## skygazer

JonEisberg said:


>


Cool, is that one of those folding airboat anchors? Looks like you set it there for fun while shooting the photo.

Have you ever tried it? I have one (just for fun I guess) but I've never even tried it. Thought it was nifty that it could be folded and stored below for an extra. Not handy just now so I can't compare mine to your photo.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> The first year that the World Cruising Club took over the Caribbean 1500 from Steve Black, they made a request that all participants remove their anchors from their bow rollers for the start, in order to make the boats look "prettier" for the start line photos...
> 
> LMAO! One of the stupidest things I've ever heard... Yeah, like removing those 'unsightly' anchors are really gonna improve the overall look of some of the boats in the fleet, right, given the massive amount of crap many of them are stowing on deck?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> I thought about removing mine once for a passage to Bermuda... Glad I didn't, turned out it would have been a mistake, as the conditions upon arrival would have made it quite risky to attempt to refit it again before entering Town Cut... With boats and anchors larger than mine, no way would I consider it...
> 
> One thing often overlooked as well, is that you might actually find a good use for an anchor in the open ocean... On some modern designs that can be difficult to make heave-to, lowering an anchor to a depth of 100 feet or more might be just the needed 'assist' to help hold the bow up into the breeze, or diminish the tendency to forereach... Be careful if yours is a Sexy Modern Plumb Bow, however... ;-)
> 
> One reason I much prefer a horizontal windlass, I find them a bit easier to seal the hawse pipe... Still, most generally need some modification to seal them tight... Here's mine, a Lofrans Kobra:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I did, was to cut off that stupid square chain pipe hole, and glass in 2" diameter bit of electrical conduit material, instead... I remove the chain from the anchor, and it attaches to a cap that fits over the chain pipe, sealing it tight... Then, I reconnect a short length of chain to the anchor, just enough to take a partial turn around the gypsy, and snug it up tight... Of course, I'll add some additional lashing to the anchor, and insert the pin in the end of the roller...
> 
> Finally, everything gets covered up by a closely fitted Stamoid cover over the windlass, secured by a boltrope channel to the deck... I'm always amazed at how many windlasses are left continuously exposed to the elements, considering how little effort it really takes to protect such a vital and expensive piece of gear...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deck fitting for my secondary rope rode gets wrapped and duct taped, and covered as well... And the little opening where the rope leads out from under the cover faces AFT, I always scratch my head whenever I see those openings mounted facing forward... ;-)


As usual Jon, lots of useful info in this post, and the photos are always instructive. Couldn't help notice what looks like several inches of chafe protection on the upper lifelines where they attach to the pulpit. Nice touch (if that's what I'm really looking at). Also saw that, along with your windlass, you have covers over what I assume are whisker/spinnaker poles? I've started to notice the usual white powdery build up on mine (alum. oxide?), but don't know if a cover would help.

Nicely fitted cover for the windlass too. Mine is an old vertical Ideal --solid chromed bronze with much of the chrome already flaked off when the boat came to me. I figured it just made it look all that more "nautical" so quit worrying about it. I did have a bunch of covers made for hatches, winches, teak bits, etc., but they either blew away or became more trouble than they were worth. I think your method of a stitched in bolt rope is probably the best (and maybe the only) way to go. Do you have similar covers for your winches? I've gotten conflicting advice on whether or not this helps to preserve the chroming.

Finally, the orange line running through the base of your bow cleats and then aft. Are these your jacklines?

Hope you don't mind all the questions. As Killarney pointed out, this thread had gotten pretty lame and so it's nice to get back to the helpful educational stuff.


----------



## chall03

Fantastic post Jon. 

Thankyou. 

As Exile said some really useful takeaway information. I didn't spot the chafe protection either...


----------



## bobperry

I have new photos from my cutter project.

Come and take a look here:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/sailboat-design-construction/223386-bob-perrys-carbon-cutters-26.html


----------



## NCC320

Let's look at some numbers...Maybe those production B, J, H, C boats are not as flimsy as some on these threads would have us believe. And maybe those heavy rugged boats with certain high level names and famous designers that some on these threads like are not quite as rugged as people think. 

There is a site called Sailboatdata.com which lists key data on a vast number of boats. To do this exercise, you'll need to visit that site. Take a given size of boat based on length overall, enter that length +/- .5 foot and then examine the list. For fun, pick the length of your boat. A sailboat is typically made up of ballast (dead weight) and other material/components. 

Together, these are the displacement of the boat. Ballast is important in the scheme of sailing, but typically, it does little to add strength to the boat. It just sits there, more or less helping keep the boat upright and on course through keel design. The rugged strength of the boat comes from the rest of the boat. That includes fiberglass or other material for hull, grids, liners, hardware, rigging, sails etc. Sometimes, displacement/length is used to characterize boats, but that can be misleading when thinking about how rugged the boat is. If we take displacement less ballast weight, for both new and old boats, for low end and high end boats, there is a somewhat common result for a given length. Now there will be exceptions, but for a 32 ft. LOA boat, a more or less common number for the weight of the components less ballast weight will run about 7,000 lbs. In that size, H and B seem a little on the lighter side of that number while J and C seem pretty much on target. 

For a 40 ft. LOA boat, a common number for displacement less ballast is about 12,000 lbs. The B, H, J, C boats seem pretty much on target. Lots of those older boats that people fondly speak of by famous designers and manufacturers will actually be on the light side of those numbers. And lots of those heavy displacement boats are just carrying ballast with about the same amount of fiberglass as many of the lighter boats. 

Now, I know this is a great simplification since shape, fastening techniques, and many other factors will have a great influence on the strength and suitability for sailing of the resulting boat. But, it's an interesting exercise and I think you'll be surprised at the boats that fit this pattern.


----------



## outbound

NCC 
You're right as far as it goes. But there's a difference in a stick built boat and a boat with a liner. With the stick built boat the infill actually adds very significant strength to the vessel with the liner boat not much if any. Weight maybe unchanged or actually favor the stick built boat.
Beyond fully glassing in all aspects of bulkheads simple things like tankage is an example. Integral tanks are structural stiffening the hull. Plastic or even metal tanks may not add structure or even add to hull/stringer stress.
With weight being the enemy of speed there are very light hulls made at large expense which are much stronger then the heavy hulls of the past. So at present there is little correlation between weight and strength. 
Look at Bob's thread. That CF boat has numbers comparable to my own. But there is no doubt in my mind it's a much stronger vessel. Or take a visit to NEB or Jim Betts. For Weight/loa what they are putting out are light weights. But much stronger then what's been made in the past.
So strength at present means technology, labor, exotics but not weight. Ultimately strength means expense. Here BS does have a point. If you have less concern about performance steel does jump the curve.


----------



## JonEisberg

skygazer said:


> Cool, is that one of those folding airboat anchors? Looks like you set it there for fun while shooting the photo.
> 
> Have you ever tried it? I have one (just for fun I guess) but I've never even tried it. Thought it was nifty that it could be folded and stored below for an extra. Not handy just now so I can't compare mine to your photo.


Yup, that's a Northill... One of the best anchors ever made, but you don't want to leave the boat unattended while lying to it ;-)

I don't carry it all the time, but it qualifies as my 'Big Bertha'/storm anchor if I'm headed somewhere remote... It's ideal for penetrating difficult bottoms, or in places where heavy grass or kelp might be found. It's a ***** to deploy and retrieve, however, so it only gets hauled out when absolutely necessary...

I have another version, made years ago by a guy named Robert Pekny. At the time, no other than Don Street called it "the World's Finest Anchor". It's a copy of the Northill in stainless, but it disassembles in a way similar to the Fortress, and thus can be stowed much more easily. Like the Northill, it's a work of art in terms of the quality of manufacture. Even when folded up, I struggle to find a good storage spot for the Northill, so I think the next time I head north, I may pack the Pekny instead, we'll see... One of my projects this winter may be to try to find or create a good storage solution...



Exile1 said:


> As usual Jon, lots of useful info in this post, and the photos are always instructive. Couldn't help notice what looks like several inches of chafe protection on the upper lifelines where they attach to the pulpit. Nice touch (if that's what I'm really looking at)


They're elkhide... Both my genoa and Code 0 can make contact with that turnbuckle, so some protection is warranted. Since my boat doesn't have a wheel, I have to find other uses for it ;-) Bought a couple of 2 x 3 foot patches of it years ago from Fawcett's in Annapolis, there's no end of the uses it can be put to... the aluminum mast compression post on my little ol' Plain Jane Allied is wrapped in elkhide, for instance, in an effort to dress her up a bit, and lend a bit of class to a 70's Production Boat ;-)

In the pic below, you can see a large flap of elkhide draped from the boom. I have a Dutchman boom brake, a nice piece of gear, but without some sort of protection, the top edges of the device can do a job on your mainsail when it is flaked, or reefed...












Exile1 said:


> . Also saw that, along with your windlass, you have covers over what I assume are whisker/spinnaker poles? I've started to notice the usual white powdery build up on mine (alum. oxide?), but don't know if a cover would help.


My poles are carbon fiber, so you can be damn sure they're covered whenever not in use... My whisker pole lives on the mast, and although it's been painted (another touch-up project for this winter), I slip a cover over it as well, whenever the boat is sitting for awhile...



Exile1 said:


> Nicely fitted cover for the windlass too. Mine is an old vertical Ideal --solid chromed bronze with much of the chrome already flaked off when the boat came to me. I figured it just made it look all that more "nautical" so quit worrying about it. I did have a bunch of covers made for hatches, winches, teak bits, etc., but they either blew away or became more trouble than they were worth. I think your method of a stitched in bolt rope is probably the best (and maybe the only) way to go. Do you have similar covers for your winches? I've gotten conflicting advice on whether or not this helps to preserve the chroming.


IMHO, one of the most valuable skills any sailor or boatowner can have, is knowing how to sew, and having the equipment to do canvaswork... There is literally no end to the ways in which a boat can be enhanced with such, and a lot of money can be saved by your ability to do this stuff yourself, rather than paying pros to do it for you...

As a result, I've got covers for pretty much _everything_... Dorade boxes, handrails, Charley Noble in this shot alone. The hatch dodger pictured is one of my favorites, allows me to leave it open even when taking a moderate amount of spray, at least when you have a fore hatch that opens facing the 'right' way...

;-)

Don't get me started on the lack of attention paid to adequate/proper ventilation on many of today's production offerings... It's pathetic, things like dorades have become completely passe', seems the prevailing wisdom nowadays is towards the sort of "climate control" afforded by running AC off a genset, or heading for a marina to plug into shorepower...










As for hatch covers, all my deck hatches are surrounded by raised water guards made from Starboard... So, simple snap fasteners are mounted vertically to the sides of those, so they'll never (hopefully) become 'lifted' by wind or water, and carried away... Look closely, you can see them around the hatches here:










As for covering cockpit winches, mine are stainless Andersens, so I don't need to worry about protecting a chrome finish... The main reason I'll slip covers over them when the boat is sitting for awhile, is mainly to try to keep water out of the winch handle holder in the top...



Exile1 said:


> Finally, the orange line running through the base of your bow cleats and then aft. Are these your jacklines?


Yup, they're 1/4" Amsteel...But I virtually never use them, I'm really not a fan of jacklines at all, except as a secondary measure... I rig them whenever heading offshore, but I honestly can't recall the last time I clipped onto one, I know when I went up to Labrador and back, i never did so once... ;-)

On a smaller boat like mine, I've come to much prefer the system of fixed tethers pictured above, it's a FAR better solution, at least for me...


----------



## skygazer

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, that's a Northill... One of the best anchors ever made, but you don't want to leave the boat unattended while lying to it ;-)


Thank you for your reply. I'm unclear why you would not leave the boat when using that anchor, could you expand?



JonEisberg said:


> ...Even when folded up, I struggle to find a good storage spot for the Northill, so I think the next time I head north, I may pack the Pekny instead, we'll see... One of my projects this winter may be to try to find or create a good storage solution...


I also found that even folded it is cumbersome. I have purchased and may try using a Mantus anchor as a backup, it unbolts and makes a flat package. Large one below for a storm anchor, Rocna or normal size Mantus for everyday use.

I used to like a navy type anchor for it's pointed flukes that dug into stony or hard ground where Danforth types were totally useless. The navy type was totally cumbersome, but the newer Rocna type are a bit like one fluke on the navy, and seem to dig in OK.

These are "production" anchors so mentioning their limits is OK here.



JonEisberg said:


> ... the aluminum mast compression post on my little ol' Plain Jane Allied is wrapped in elkhide, for instance, in an effort to dress her up a bit, and lend a bit of class to a 70's Production Boat...


Many here will be glad to learn that you have a "production" boat!


----------



## bobperry

Sky: 
I'd be careful generalizing about modern shapes that way. Generalizing i easy but seldom accurate.


----------



## NCC320

outbound said:


> NCC
> You're right as far as it goes. But there's a difference in a stick built boat and a boat with a liner. With the stick built boat the infill actually adds very significant strength to the vessel with the liner boat not much if any. Weight maybe unchanged or actually favor the stick built boat.
> Beyond fully glassing in all aspects of bulkheads simple things like tankage is an example. Integral tanks are structural stiffening the hull. Plastic or even metal tanks may not add structure or even add to hull/stringer stress.
> With weight being the enemy of speed there are very light hulls made at large expense which are much stronger then the heavy hulls of the past. So at present there is little correlation between weight and strength.
> Look at Bob's thread. That CF boat has numbers comparable to my own. But there is no doubt in my mind it's a much stronger vessel. Or take a visit to NEB or Jim Betts. For Weight/loa what they are putting out are light weights. But much stronger then what's been made in the past.
> So strength at present means technology, labor, exotics but not weight. Ultimately strength means expense. Here BS does have a point. If you have less concern about performance steel does jump the curve.


Of course, each person is free to draw their own conclusions and what you say is certainly true as far as it goes. Further, in all these posts, I doubt that anyone has changed their opinion on this issue of production boats and their limits. With exception of one off's, few boats are stick built. The older boats didn't have structural grids nor liners for interior like current boats. Rather, wood and other stiffening was used, and it could be debated as to which is stronger. Structural grids add to the strength. So if you have one, there are other labor intensive things that you did previously that you don't have to do now in building. Generally, boats currently and for past 30-40 years have been largely fiberglass so there is lots of commonality. Perhaps the divide between boats is not quite as great as lots of us want to believe. Most people like their boat and most would never want to acknowledge that an alternate path and decision might be as good, or even better in some respects, than our own choice. Still, wherever you come out, the comparison of displacement less ballast for a given LOA between various boats, old and new, is revealing and interesting.


----------



## outbound

Agreed. But also think the old is better diatribe is very misleading. Recall lying on the forward berth of a production boat in the 1980s and watching the hull oilcan in and out as we went to weather in a coastal setting.
Simply said there are good boats and not so good boats at every displacement, age and expense. These should not be a criteria for judging strength or seaworthiness. Believe it's more helpful to read posts like Jons or Jeffs or Ks where they point out specific details to help us judge boats or have us review our boats so we can make improvements.


----------



## Shockwave

That's why it's best to look at the construction of the boat. There are many older boats that aren't well built, there are many new boats with terrible construction. Look under the hood and make your own decision. If you aren't sure about what you're looking at hire a competent surveyor and follow them through the boat. Ask them about the pluses and minuses of what they see. 

The problem with grid/pan boats are you may not know if it's still fully attached. We've owned grid boats and have felt that the grid was coming loose by the sounds and feel of the boat but couldn't find it.

Nothing wrong with a pan boat for the right application but you should understand the shortcomings of this type of boat.


----------



## Brent Swain

noelex77 said:


> It is hard to tell from a photo like this, but it is worth examining boats that have been damaged. I sometimes shake my head at the laminate thickness used in critical areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One nice thing about aluminium construction is that you can see exactly what you are getting. This is a similar sized production aluminium boat (upside down):


Steel has the same advantage , even more so.
I have been attacked for pointing this out in Bob Perry's designs. It shows the importance of actual; hands on cruising experience ( and knowing how much such experience your chosen designer has) as a qualification, for designing a good cruising boat.
As I have pointed out , it only takes a modest swell with an anchor jammed under a rock, to get this kind of result. All anchoring gear , mooring bits, chocks and cleats should be stronger than the biggest line which will ever be used on them.


----------



## XSrcing

Brent Swain said:


> Steel has the same advantage , even more so.
> I have been attacked for pointing this out in Bob Perry's designs. It shows the importance of actual; hands on cruising experience ( and knowing how much such experience your chosen designer has) as a qualification, for designing a good cruising boat.
> As I have pointed out , it only takes a modest swell with an anchor jammed under a rock, to get this kind of result. All anchoring gear , mooring bits, chocks and cleats should be stronger than the biggest line which will ever be used on them.


We all know the virtues of aluminum and steel. Stop beating that dead horse.

Bob's boats are happily splashing all over the world with hundreds of couple cruising all over the planet and documenting it. How many problems with hull thickness have been encountered with them?


----------



## bobperry

XS: 
Save your breath. BS is learning impaired.

I have done several aluminum boats. I like to work in aluminum. But it does take a good designer and you can't produce a nice aluminum boat from the drawings BS calls his "plans". You need the real thing. You need a designer with experience designing. BS lacks design experience . Have you ever seen him post one of his drawings? It ain't gonna hoppen! He shows up and throws out one of his tired personal insults and then weasels away.

I design.

Here is the aluminum YONI.


----------



## outbound

Hope he's still your dentist. Nothing like a bad tooth to ruin a cruise. Beautiful boat.


----------



## Brent Swain

JonEisberg said:


> Can't help you out much there, I'm only able to carry 200' on my little tub... Wish it could be 300, but there's no way. I have an additional 300' of 5/8" rope rode, which I would shackle to the end of my 1/4" HT chain if I ever need to... Thankfully, that has not yet happened, I've always managed OK with my existing 200'...
> 
> If I had a boat like yours, I'd probably be happy with 300', perhaps 350' depending where I was going, particularly if plans included the Pacific or Alaska, perhaps...


Once I get north of the coral latitudes, I find I need very little chain. Braided nylon works just fine up here . I cast a litre of lead with a stainless rod loop on top, to use as a kellet. A litre works out to 30 lbs. Another advantage of a kellet is you lift that, then the anchor's weight ,separately, instead of anchor and chain together , out of deep water. Much easier. It also lets you feel the anchor bite in ,by hand, initially.
In the tropics, my clients have been very happy using wire rope for anchor rode, with a nylon snubber or kellet to absorb the shock . While my 7X19 stainless got meat hooks from broken strands in a year, those using well greased galvanized rope get 2 1/2 years out of it, no meat hooks , and it is super cheap to replace. Of course if you use wire rope, you have to use a drum winch, such as is universal on commercial fish boats around here.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> Thread hi jack
> 
> Wonder about people's preference when sorting things out before passage.
> 
> Do you store the anchors and plumber putty the holes in the deck? Or do you lash the anchors and leave them on deck?
> 
> I've done both. Feel better with anchors ready to be deployed as don't know what landfall will be like. But think having anchors off the bows improves performance and eliminates risk of something breaking loose. Also if you leave them up need to carefully use Saran Wrap plumbers putty and tape or water comes in.


With my drum winch, there is no need for any holes in the deck. I've had several clients start out with chain lockers , gypsy winches etc, only to convert to drum winches, when they got sick of holes in the deck and dead crabs rotting in chain lockers. None ever went back to yachty winches, even after circumnavigations.
They have zero hidden parts ,nor any mixing of metals. They are 100% stainless type 316, everything out in the open where you can see it.


----------



## Brent Swain

killarney_sailor said:


> A thread hi-jack is welcome. This one is basically pretty lame and has long outlasted any usefulness it might have had.
> 
> Our boat originally stored the chain in the very bow compartment. It did not store at all well there and someone needed to be below with a boat hook to stop the castling. We moved it back another compartment further aft. Lots of room there for 300+' if we need it.


Any cone shape under the hawse pipe stops it from piling up in a cone shape. Traffic cones work, altho beefing them up from the inside with fibreglass wont hurt. 
On another site a guy, who keep telling me that everything I said was wrong( a guy with minimal, if any cruising experience ) was having a lot of trouble with this problem. I thought of telling him this simple tip, then thought "No way , he has all the answers and, according to him, I don't . Let him figure it out." 
He got a lot of complex suggestions, but none of them as simple and practical as what I would have suggested.
So I dealt the same way with a lot of his problems ,and watched him struggle
Shadenfreude!
( At least, that's how I think it is spelt)


----------



## outbound

Chain is heavy. Think putting it on deck unwise. One of reasons I like the Boreal. That significant weight ends up low and near the center of the boat.
Agree chain can stink. That's why having a good way to clean it before it's stored makes sense.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> Yes NCC there's no free lunch but the X yacht I mentioned is a well built boat in the same category of expense. The new Hinckley is a hell of a lot more. I think well more than double the price. So with the price point boats your argument may hold merit but I've owned Cape Dory with great anchoring systems, mid priced pacific seacraft as well and have seen very expensive boats where I wonder what were they thinking.
> There is no way around the fact that plumb bows add a complexity to anchoring systems. Desire for clean decks another layer. This has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with geometry.
> I'm sure the new Hinckley has figured this out and has a stout design but would note with a reasonable degree of overhang and engineering so did the average production boat in the past at quite modest cost.


Another advantage of a bit of overhang in the bow is it lets you snub up mooring buoy enough to stop it from banging your hull all night and keeping you awake.
A problem with excessive overhang in the stern is it eliminates the chance of using an outboard rudder , which makes self steering far more complex and fragile than it need be. An outboard rudder enables you to drastically simplify and toughen up the whole steering system, as well as make it far more accessible .


----------



## Brent Swain

chall03 said:


> Smack rudder's very rarely just _fall off_.
> 
> So let's be good armchair sailors and use the google and solve this one.
> 
> The boat was a custom one off, Backyard built actually(Brent are you around??)
> There is a thread about the build on CF HERE..
> 
> Where you will find this...
> 
> So while a good boat based on a Brewer design, and by all accounts they did a sterling job on the build, it was a backyard built, highly custom glorified Brentboat  not a Oyster, Outbound, Hallberg Rassy etc.
> 
> So what's your point? What does this have to do the price of fish in Mongolia?


Had a look.
I see only two , 1/4 inch bolts holding the bottom pintle on. Did Brewer actually design them that way ? No comparison to my 1 1/4 inch pintles on fully welded sockets, with 1 1/4 inch diameter stainless gudgeon pins.
I see a high aspect aluminium skeg with a short, narrow attachment to the hull. The only way to get adequate strength with that small a hull attachment,is to run the skeg right thru to the cockpit sole. Did Brewer design her that way?


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> Smack- Chall has it just right. Given that believe it would be helpful to exam the CURRENT crop of boats with that in mind. Believe it could inform folks reading this thread when they go off to the boat shows or through the yards before purchase.
> 
> Already issues of thru hulls and cleats and chainplates have been mentioned. Like to add appendages- rudders and keels. Once again it's a compromise. Full keels add wetted surface and make boat handling more difficult. Friend did the world ARC. There was a big IP in the rally. They were happy campers but always the very last in. Being out longer means need for more stores and longer time exposed to weather. Means higher likihood of bumps docking.
> Friend has quality production racer/cruiser. Off Maine coast "touched" without stopping. Following week bilge pumps ran more than usual. Eventually hauled. Found forward keel bolts broken and spider cracks aft of keel stub. Big bill. ? Trust this boat in future.
> Internal ballast means chord of keel will be thicker. This can degrade performance. No keel bolts means obligate need for Pb not Fe for ballast. More expense if bulb added , bolted and glassed over. No exposed soft Pb to absorb impacts with ability to easily fair afterward.
> 
> All are compromises. I choose internal ballast with bulb. Is this the "right choice". NO. But it's my choice based on my past mishaps and difficulties. Can a bolt on be just as strong and care free. YES. But the buyer needs to carefully review the design, engineering, and execution.
> 
> I look at the current trend to iron keels with no stub on the canoe body and t keels and wonder is this a good choice for a cruiser?
> 
> Same with rudders. All to often the rudder is holding on the skeg. With wear and tear this design adds nothing and means more steering effort for the AP to deal with. More wear and tear. G-d forbid you get some between leading edge of rudder and aft of skeg. Especially in cold waters or when you absolutely need steerage. But that design, if done right, can be ver strong. You also have a bearing you can't service without a haul and more wetted, unproductive surface.
> The balanced spade can be every bit as strong but it takes engineering. Rudder tube needs to extend above waterline with massive supports. Bearings need to be well thought out. Post needs to be overbuilt. Even then a significant lateral grounding may bend the post with loss of steering. With twin rudders impact from a forward direction would seem more likely but performance can be enhanced.
> Now add in the steering linkage of two wheels. Cruiser beware. Yes, if done right (Italia) very strong but seems a increasing area of difficulty in some current boats.
> Aft hung rudders seem great with no hull piercing. However, the top of the rudder is exposed so at speed may have cavitation. Med moors are scary. Bearings are constantly exposed.
> All are compromises. I have balanced spade. I believe it was engineered and executed correctly. If I hit the lottery and did a one off I would have something similar to the CF cutters but also have a sugarscoop over it projecting past trailing edge of rudder with rudder stopping at the bottom base of scoop. Still end up with a rudder post but no hull piercing and ability to have benefits of a balanced spade.
> 
> In short, cruisers need to compromise. Issues are performance, ease of service, durability, strength, expense, simplicity, comfort etc. Smack please recognize this. Please recognize we are not talking about your Hunter but rather current boats. And they have limits. Sure like hearing from more experienced cruisers and professional sailors what those limits are. That way knowing those weaknesses can inform my decisions.


Great post!
With aft hung rudders ,sloping the bottom forward sucks water up them, while sloping it aft sucks air down. I have had zero problem with cavitation on the former ,but have heard of many such problems with the latter.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Brent Swain said:


> Any cone shape under the hawse pipe stops it from piling up in a cone shape. Traffic cones work, altho beefing them up from the inside with fibreglass wont hurt.
> On another site a guy, who keep telling me that everything I said was wrong( a guy with minimal, if any cruising experience ) was having a lot of trouble with this problem. I thought of telling him this simple tip, then thought "No way , he has all the answers and, according to him, I don't . Let him figure it out."
> He got a lot of complex suggestions, but none of them as simple and practical as what I would have suggested.
> So I dealt the same way with a lot of his problems ,and watched him struggle
> Shadenfreude!
> ( At least, that's how I think it is spelt)


With an Ideal windlass the hawse pipe was so far forward there wasn't room for any cone taller than about 6". I tried a pipe to direct the chain aft but that did not work. The current arrangement is good plus the weight is carried further aft.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> Chain is heavy. Think putting it on deck unwise. One of reasons I like the Boreal. That significant weight ends up low and near the center of the boat.
> Agree chain can stink. That's why having a good way to clean it before it's stored makes sense.


w

Wire rope ,while stronger than chain, is 1/7th the weight. Kellets give me all the weight I need, in far more manageable form.
Any rode in an on deck drum, cleans itself.


----------



## JonEisberg

skygazer said:


> Thank you for your reply. I'm unclear why you would not leave the boat when using that anchor, could you expand?


One of the biggest downsides to a traditional Fisherman/Herreshoff type of anchor, is that one of the flukes will always be pointed skyward, and the anchor has to be dug in really deeply into the bottom to bury the tip of that fluke. That's still possible with an anchor like a Luke Storm anchor, where the stock or crossbar is at the top of the shank...










...but not so with the Northill, where the stock is at the bottom of the shank, adjacent to the flukes... Except in the softest of seabeds, seems unlikely this one will bury itself completely...










With the upright fluke sticking up above the bottom, the risk of leaving the boat unattended is that should it swing around due to a wind shift, or change in a tidal current, the rode could snag or wrap the fluke, and thus trip the anchor... Generally not a good thing, at least depending upon where you happen to be...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

Brent Swain said:


> In the tropics, my clients have been very happy using wire rope for anchor rode, with a nylon snubber or kellet to absorb the shock . While my 7X19 stainless got meat hooks from broken strands in a year, those using well greased galvanized rope get 2 1/2 years out of it, no meat hooks , and it is super cheap to replace. Of course if you use wire rope, you have to use a drum winch, such as is universal on commercial fish boats around here.


Just curious, how exactly does one affix a nylon snubber to a length of "well-greased" galvanized wire?

However, I'm guessing many of us here lack the requisite space on our foredecks for a large commercial wire drum winch...

Which is a shame, as I can think of few things that might more greatly enhance the appearance of the sort of boats most of prefer to sail...

Damn, I wish you hadn't brought this up... Now I'm gonna be yearning to figure out how to put a massive, _well-greased_ commercial fishing wire drum winch on the foredeck of my little tub...

;-)


----------



## Brent Swain

I make my wire rope up in 50 ft lengths, with eyes at either end, shackled together, which make good attachment points for snubbers, and kellets.
Drum winches make a boat look less like a dainty plastic toy from a blister pack in London drugs, and more like a real ship.
Some prefer the former, some, usually the more experienced, prefer the latter.
Put a lot of full time wear and tear on the former, and they just look like a wrecked plastic toy from London Drugs. 
Wear and tear on the latter , just makes them look like they have been somewhere, beyond placid anchorages and sheltered marinas..


----------



## JonEisberg

Brent Swain said:


> Wire rope ,while stronger than chain, is 1/7th the weight. Kellets give me all the weight I need, in far more manageable form.


The effect of a kellet can often be pretty marginal with a chain rode, even less so with a much lighter wire or rope...

There's a guy named Peter Smith, who knows a bit about anchoring... He makes a pretty good case for the value and practical utility of kellets being typically overstated, and often lying largely in the user's imagination...

;-)

Kellets or Anchor Angels / Sentinels: Uses and Applications


----------



## Capt Len

You could raise the fore deck and mount the drum underside. Then the taffrail gets raised over the great cabin ports and gaffs added. Pretty soon you got a good looking boat,maybe not for everyone though.


----------



## Brent Swain

JonEisberg said:


> The effect of a kellet can often be pretty marginal with a chain rode, even less so with a much lighter wire or rope...
> 
> There's a guy named Peter Smith, who knows a bit about anchoring... He makes a pretty good case for the value and practical utility of kellets being typically overstated, and often lying largely in the user's imagination...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Kellets or Anchor Angels / Sentinels: Uses and Applications


30 lbs of kellet has exactly the same effect on catenary as 30 lbs of chain, and you can put as many on as you please. You get to lift them one at a time, unlike the chain , much of which you have to lift simultaneously with the anchor.
His diagrams show that when you reach the point where the kellet has no effect, neither does the chain.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Agree chain can stink. That's why having a good way to clean it before it's stored makes sense.


Far and away the best means of bringing my chain up clean is the use of a little gadget Davis used to sell, known as a "Gunk Buster"... Seems they discontinued it a few years ago, why is a mystery, I suppose no one was buying it, but it's one of those silly little gadgets that really _works_...

I've attached a sounding lead to mine, and about 15' of light line, slip it over the chain, and simply let it ride up and down the chain below the water as it comes up...










If you ever see one of these in a consignment shop like Newport Nautical, grab it... In the meantime, our very own Erika on RAINDOG shows one way to fashion something similar...

https://raindogps34.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-chain-scrubber/


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

JonEisberg said:


> Far and away the best means of bringing my chain up clean is the use of a little gadget Davis used to sell, known as a "Gunk Buster"... Seems they discontinued it a few years ago, why is a mystery, I suppose no one was buying it, but it's one of those silly little gadgets that really _works_...
> 
> I've attached a sounding lead to mine, and about 15' of light line, slip it over the chain, and simply let it ride up and down the chain below the water as it comes up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ever see one of these in a consignment shop like Newport Nautical, grab it... In the meantime, our very own Erika on RAINDOG shows one way to fashion something similar...
> 
> https://raindogps34.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-chain-scrubber/


Dang it, I have thought I invented EXACTLY what you show on the picture. I never built one but have an image very much like that in my head (sans the handhold). And now you tell me there is not one but at least two that had the same idea?

Unfortunately, the RAINDOG link does not work. Oh well, would have liked to compare notes.

Would have liked even more to just buy the thing from Davis. Oh well again.


----------



## mitiempo

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Unfortunately, the RAINDOG link does not work. Oh well, would have liked to compare notes.


Works for me.


----------



## JonEisberg

Brent Swain said:


> w
> 
> *Wire rope ,while stronger than chain, is 1/7th the weight*. Kellets give me all the weight I need, in far more manageable form.


Well, I would say "it depends", upon the respective sizes of the wire and chain... But having to carry a bunch of kellets around would seems to negate much of the weight savings, anyway... And of course, we all know saving weight is absolutely critical to the performance of your boats...

;-)



Brent Swain said:


> I make my wire rope up in 50 ft lengths, with eyes at either end, shackled together, which make good attachment points for snubbers, and kellets.
> 
> Drum winches make a boat look less like a dainty plastic toy from a blister pack in London drugs, and more like a real ship.
> Some prefer the former, some, usually the more experienced, prefer the latter.


So, if "wire is stronger" than chain - and presumably shackles as well - how massive do your shackles have to be to match the strength of the wire? Damn, that whole kludge must roll onto that big drum winch really smoothly as well, no chance of an override or snag of any kind there, I'll bet...

Sounds like an incredibly ungainly setup, to me. One of the keys to an effective ground tackle system, to me, is simplicity, and one that can be brought back aboard smoothly, and _quickly_, in the event you have to bug out of an anchorage in a hurry...

Having to lean out over the bow to unshackle a 30 lb kellet for every 50 feet of wire brought back aboard sounds like a VERY unsavory proposition, to me... Not to mention, if that rode is being subjected to snatching loads, seems like a good way to lose a finger, or two, or worse...

I'll stick with the simplicity of all chain that can be retrieved with little fuss, thanks... Even if it makes my boat look like a plastic toy, or brands me as being "less experienced"...

;-)



Brent Swain said:


> 30 lbs of kellet has exactly the same effect on catenary as 30 lbs of chain, and you can put as many on as you please. You get to lift them one at a time, unlike the chain , much of which you have to lift simultaneously with the anchor.


Huh? The logic of that one is lost on me...

Perhaps you haven't heard, but you could put as many kellets as you wanted on a chain rode, as well... Additionally, they can be ridden down on rollers, and pulled back aboard before the process of anchor retrieval begins, something not possible with your system...



Brent Swain said:


> His diagrams show that when you reach the point where the kellet has no effect, neither does the chain.


My point exactly... When the the breeze really starts blowing, kellets begin to lose their effectiveness pretty quickly... Even more quickly, when they're on a lighter wire or rope rode like yours...


----------



## Bleemus

Thanks for the great ideas guys. I just picked up one of these per your suggestions.

Need a little help though. When I put it on the bow of my 35 footer what size fender washer do I use below decks.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Faster

Two for the price of one, Bleemus?.... SCORE


----------



## bobperry

That's going to look great on your boat Bleemer. A few hundred pounds of lead aft to correct trim and you'll be good to go.


----------



## Bleemus

Thanks guys. I had the crane hoist her onto the foredeck and your right about the trim. Bow waterline is now 12 inches lower. 

One little problem I noticed is that after a short rainfall the whole foredeck and hull beneath the scuppers is now all rust stained. Should I have the wire rope powder coated? If I grease it as suggested won't that run in the Caribbean heat making a real mess or does the grease runoff help the teak decks? 

Off to build a roll bar cage so the jib sheets don't get caught on it when tacking! 

Cheers! 




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

mitiempo said:


> Works for me.


Yup, the link works now here, too. Must have been down last night for some reason.

Clever idea of hers. Better than what I had in mind (which had to do with carpet rather than brushes). Nice project for a winter evening.


----------



## Exile1

Thanks for the replies & add'l pics, as always Jon. I bet your elk hide wrapped mast makes all the difference below decks. When left alone they often seem to pose such a contrast to an otherwise nicely appointed interior that it can amount to a real eyesore.



JonEisberg said:


> IMHO, one of the most valuable skills any sailor or boatowner can have, is knowing how to sew, and having the equipment to do canvaswork... There is literally no end to the ways in which a boat can be enhanced with such, and a lot of money can be saved by your ability to do this stuff yourself, rather than paying pros to do it for you...
> 
> As a result, I've got covers for pretty much _everything_... Dorade boxes, handrails, Charley Noble in this shot alone. The hatch dodger pictured is one of my favorites, allows me to leave it open even when taking a moderate amount of spray, at least when you have a fore hatch that opens facing the 'right' way...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Funny you recommend learning sewing skills. That's exactly what a buddy who keeps his Cal 34 a couple of slips down keeps trying to drill into me. His old Cal is immaculate, _everything_ is covered, and one of the first things he invested in for his new-to-him boat was a Sailrite machine. As for me, the first mistake was getting talked (by a "pro") into going with dark blue for all the covers -- you know, so it "matched the flag blue hull." Needless to say, it tends to bake the underlying varnish in the summer, and collect moisture the rest of the time. When they haven't blown away that is. I'm not even going to ask how you got those strips of starboard to bend so uniformly around your hatch bases, or how you got them to fasten securely, but they do look quite professional.
> 
> Don't get me started on the lack of attention paid to adequate/proper ventilation on many of today's production offerings... It's pathetic, things like dorades have become completely passe', seems the prevailing wisdom nowadays is towards the sort of "climate control" afforded by running AC off a genset, or heading for a marina to plug into shorepower...
> 
> Interesting that you mention this one too. In prepping for the most recent e. coast hurricane threat (all for naught, thankfully), I removed my dorades and capped off the boxes. Didn't make it back to the boat until two weeks later and the add'l "mustiness" smell was pronounced. Well-placed dorades are indispensible for ventilation and definitely not just for aesthetics (although they look pretty darn good too).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for hatch covers, all my deck hatches are surrounded by raised water guards made from Starboard... So, simple snap fasteners are mounted vertically to the sides of those, so they'll never (hopefully) become 'lifted' by wind or water, and carried away... Look closely, you can see them around the hatches here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for covering cockpit winches, mine are stainless Andersens, so I don't need to worry about protecting a chrome finish... The main reason I'll slip covers over them when the boat is sitting for awhile, is mainly to try to keep water out of the winch handle holder in the top...
> 
> The chroming on all four of my dorades and a couple of my Lewmar winches is starting to look pretty worn, but I don't think covers would have helped with that one. But just thought I'd ask . . . .
> 
> Yup, they're 1/4" Amsteel...But I virtually never use them, I'm really not a fan of jacklines at all, except as a secondary measure... I rig them whenever heading offshore, but I honestly can't recall the last time I clipped onto one, I know when I went up to Labrador and back, i never did so once... ;-)
> 
> On a smaller boat like mine, I've come to much prefer the system of fixed tethers pictured above, it's a FAR better solution, at least for me...


John Harries over at AAC has an interesting series of articles going on this topic right now. According to him & others, the problem with low stretch jacklines or tethers is the prospect of bodily injury from the sudden arrest of the harness with any sort of significant fall. But the problem with higher stretch line or webbing, of course, is the high likelihood of quickly drowning as you are dragged alongside the boat. Like you, I prefer fixed tethers at the mast & binnacle, and then a jackline running on the centerline secured at the mast and the windlass (or bow cleats). But then the best advice I read was from a hard core singlehander who said he always stays clipped in -- NOT because he thinks it will save him, however, but because it's a constant reminder not to fall!


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ....But if these goofballs......


Here I thought the mods had dispensed with your name calling. Maybe they've finished you off for good this time.


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> John Harries over at AAC has an interesting series of articles going on this topic right now. According to him & others, the problem with low stretch jacklines or tethers is the prospect of bodily injury from the sudden arrest of the harness with any sort of significant fall. But the problem with higher stretch line or webbing, of course, is the high likelihood of quickly drowning as you are dragged alongside the boat. Like you, I prefer fixed tethers at the mast & binnacle, and then a jackline running on the centerline secured at the mast and the windlass (or bow cleats). But then the best advice I read was from a hard core singlehander who said he always stays clipped in -- NOT because he thinks it will save him, however, but because it's a constant reminder not to fall!


Yes, as always, excellent stuff from John H... Some sobering info there, he would no doubt be appalled by my tight Amsteel jacklines, and use of fixed tethers to hard points...

;-)

Few subjects have been more over-analyized on sailing forums over the years than jacklines and tethers... I think the takeaway from John's posts is pretty simple: Jacklines are highly unlikely to keep you from going over the side on a small boat, anyway... And, chances are if very good if you do, you'll likely wind up dead as a result, at least on a boat being sailed shorthanded... Sailing solo, I figure if I go over the side, I'm dead - no question about it...

Hence, my 'obsession' with safe cockpit and deck ergonomics... That's the single most important factor you can have in your favor, yet the one where I find so many of today's modern boats lacking...

Funny, during my recent trip in the 1500 on the Valiant, I can only recall clipping in twice, maybe 3 times... The second night out during a long stint in the cockpit, hand steering in a big breeze and big, confused seas on a VERY dark night... And, one other time or two, when going on the foredeck to set the whisker pole, with the boat rolling deeply downwind... Otherwise, the security of that deck - and all our reefing was being done at the mast - was so superb, that it simply didn't feel necessary to clip on in moderate conditions on that boat... That certainly would not have been the case, on many other boats I see out there today...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I would say "it depends", upon the respective sizes of the wire and chain... But having to carry a bunch of kellets around would seems to negate much of the weight savings, anyway... And of course, we all know saving weight is absolutely critical to the performance of your boats...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> So, if "wire is stronger" than chain - and presumably shackles as well - how massive do your shackles have to be to match the strength of the wire? Damn, that whole kludge must roll onto that big drum winch really smoothly as well, no chance of an override or snag of any kind there, I'll bet...
> 
> Sounds like an incredibly ungainly setup, to me. One of the keys to an effective ground tackle system, to me, is simplicity, and one that can be brought back aboard smoothly, and _quickly_, in the event you have to bug out of an anchorage in a hurry...
> 
> Having to lean out over the bow to unshackle a 30 lb kellet for every 50 feet of wire brought back aboard sounds like a VERY unsavory proposition, to me... Not to mention, if that rode is being subjected to snatching loads, seems like a good way to lose a finger, or two, or worse...
> 
> I'll stick with the simplicity of all chain that can be retrieved with little fuss, thanks... Even if it makes my boat look like a plastic toy, or brands me as being "less experienced"...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Huh? The logic of that one is lost on me...
> 
> Perhaps you haven't heard, but you could put as many kellets as you wanted on a chain rode, as well... Additionally, they can be ridden down on rollers, and pulled back aboard before the process of anchor retrieval begins, something not possible with your system...
> 
> My point exactly... When the the breeze really starts blowing, kellets begin to lose their effectiveness pretty quickly... Even more quickly, when they're on a lighter wire or rope rode like yours...


Wait - I thought the whole point of owning a BS Yacht was that it is so tough it can get run down by 700' tankers, hit rocks and reefs, pound on a beach for a month, etc. without a single problem - not even a chip in the plastic coating. So why would you even need to anchor at all? Just drift around until you hit stuff or stuff hits you, then wake up from your elk-meat stupor and see what the commotion was then keep going.


----------



## Brent Swain

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I would say "it depends", upon the respective sizes of the wire and chain... But having to carry a bunch of kellets around would seems to negate much of the weight savings, anyway... And of course, we all know saving weight is absolutely critical to the performance of your boats...
> 
> ;-)-------------------------------------------------------------
> Again, you get to handle the weight of each,one at a time, instead of having to lift the chain weight along with the anchor weight, simultaneouasly. Go back and read my post.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So, if "wire is stronger" than chain - and presumably shackles as well - how massive do your shackles have to be to match the strength of the wire? Damn, that whole kludge must roll onto that big drum winch really smoothly as well, no chance of an override or snag of any kind there, I'll bet...
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> The same size as the shackles you use on your chain rode.
> Never had an overide in nearly 40 years of mostly full time use.
> Seen a lot of problems with people using chain on a gypsy, some who later converted to a drum winch, and never went back.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Sounds like an incredibly ungainly setup, to me. One of the keys to an effective ground tackle system, to me, is simplicity, and one that can be brought back aboard smoothly, and _quickly_, in the event you have to bug out of an anchorage in a hurry...
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Far less ungainly than chain and rope on a gypsy, especially with chain which is mismatched with your gypsy , a problem I have seen many have, when they have no option but take the only chain available in remote places..
> Had all the parts to make mine hydraulic, but worried about how much easier it is to injure yourself with hydraulics than a hand winch. Then, this past summer, a friend lost the tip of his finger in a hydraulic, standard winch.
> Glad I put it off.
> Friends, who spent a season cruising the South Pacific, back in the early 80s, said they met no one with a standard yachty anchor winch which was still working. None of my clients with drum winches had any problems with theirs. My drum winch is far simpler and far more reliable .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Having to lean out over the bow to unshackle a 30 lb kellet for every 50 feet of wire brought back aboard sounds like a VERY unsavory proposition, to me... Not to mention, if that rode is being subjected to snatching loads, seems like a good way to lose a finger, or two, or worse...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Far easier to lose a finger or two with a powered yachtie winch. Broke my chain in surge in the Marquesas, on my first voyage.Chain is not immune to surge load breaking .
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> I'll stick with the simplicity of all chain that can be retrieved with little fuss, thanks... Even if it makes my boat look like a plastic toy, or brands me as being "less experienced"...
> Far less fuss recovering my anchor with my drum winch,which , unlike most hand operated yachty windlasses, pulls in more than a few inches with each pull. Commercial boats use them for good reason. Haven't seen any yachty winches on any commercial fishboats around here, for good reason.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Huh? The logic of that one is lost on me...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Yes, I have noticed that. Logic is definitely lost on you!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Perhaps you haven't heard, but you could put as many kellets as you wanted on a chain rode, as well... Additionally, they can be ridden down on rollers, and pulled back aboard before the process of anchor retrieval begins, something not possible with your system...
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Then you still have the weight of chain and anchor combined to lift instead of the weight of wire and anchor , separately from the kellets, much lighter.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> My point exactly... When the the breeze really starts blowing, kellets begin to lose their effectiveness pretty quickly... Even more quickly, when they're on a lighter wire or rope rode like yours...


So throw another kellet on.Its easy.


----------



## Bleemus

Ok I have cruised for many years in the South Pacific, US Northeast, Caribbean and a wee bit of time around England before racing back to the States. In about 100k miles and more anchorages than I can ever remember I have never, not once, never, zero times seen a kellet in use. I imagine if they were a cure for something I would have seen it once. You guys need to stop reading books about schooners and go sailing. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Brent Swain

Bleemus said:


> Ok I have cruised for many years in the South Pacific, US Northeast, Caribbean and a wee bit of time around England before racing back to the States. In about 100k miles and more anchorages than I can ever remember I have never, not once, never, zero times seen a kellet in use. I imagine if they were a cure for something I would have seen it once. You guys need to stop reading books about schooners and go sailing.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


They are handy in small anchorages too deep and narrow for a lot of scope, or too crowded. I rarely need one ,but have found them handy for some situations. In a storm they take up the slack before the rode comes tight in gusts, taking much of the shock load off an anchor. The gust often ends before the rode comes tight.
I have cruised all the South Pacific islands which interested me , along with Mexico and BC , over 42 years , mostly full time,and have occasionally found kellets extremely handy.
In your many years of "Cruising" one can easily waste many hours ,working like a slave ,to cater to the demands of yachtieness, when one could be diving, fishing, hiking, playing golf, and other far more important persuits.


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> They are handy in small anchorages too deep and narrow for a lot of scope, or too crowded. I rarely need one ,but have found them handy for some situations. In a storm they take up the slack before the rode comes tight in gusts, taking much of the shock load off an anchor. The gust often ends before the rode comes tight.
> I have cruised all the South Pacific islands which interested me , along with Mexico and BC , over 42 years , mostly full time,and have occasionally found kellets extremely handy.


Bleem - I think BS is saying he's more experienced than you - so you're a scrub.


----------



## Faster

Bleemus said:


> Ok I have cruised for many years in the South Pacific, US Northeast, Caribbean and a wee bit of time around England before racing back to the States. In about 100k miles and more anchorages than I can ever remember I have never, not once, never, zero times seen a kellet in use. I imagine if they were a cure for something I would have seen it once. You guys need to stop reading books about schooners and go sailing.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Hmm... While we've never bothered with a kellet, and gotten by just fine, we DO see a lot of people set a kellet here in BC. I think the benefit (perceived, at least) is that in our generally windless overnight anchorages in summer, deeper bays and tight confines it helps to limit the boat's swinging circle. Some of our popular spots fill up pretty good, with a long line of shore tied boats and others trying to fit in where possible.


----------



## Bleemus

Faster said:


> Hmm... While we've never bothered with a kellet, and gotten by just fine, we DO see a lot of people set a kellet here in BC. I think the benefit (perceived, at least) is that in our generally windless overnight anchorages in summer, deeper bays and tight confines it helps to limit the boat's swinging circle. Some of our popular spots fill up pretty good, with a long line of shore tied boats and others trying to fit in where possible.


Well the PNW is on my list to cruise in the future so perhaps I will get a chance to see them in action! Us scrubs love seeing new things.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Cruise on by my shack Bleems. I'll make you dinner. I'm a good cook.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay, so the last several pages have been very interesting. What have we learned about the wisdom of anchoring a boat against a lee shore in hurricane (Cat 3 or 1)?



JonEisberg said:


> Those conditions are not as extreme, or as rare, as you're trying to make them out to be... What makes them appear worse...is the extremely shoal depth of the water that is dramatically heaping up those seas...





JonEisberg said:


> JAs for Irene being a Cat 3 storm, it only achieved that status for awhile near the Bahamas... She made landfall as a Cat 1 near Cape Lookout, roughly 175 miles south of Norfolk, at about the same time as that first video was being recorded. After traveling over Pamlico Sound and land for about 10 hours, she passed over the Chesapeake Entrance as a marginal hurricane...





killarney_sailor said:


> As was pointed out, you can always see the gunwale of the boat so the waves are less than five feet. When we anchored at Easter Island we had swells in the five to six foot range.





killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, at times your ignorance about what real cruising is like makes you come across as quite silly. We have anchored in conditions as bad as that Hunter and lived to talk about it with no damage done to the boat.





outbound said:


> I don't care how the thing got ripped out. It got ripped out in conditions that should not produce that level of damage.


Or in other words...



> We, the Charter Founders of the BWC Club, including but not limited to:
> 
> JonEisberg
> killarney_sailor
> outbound
> 
> Do hereby attest and proclaim that *it is perfectly safe to anchor your boat 200 meters off a lee shore in a Category 1 Hurricane* as long as the following conditions are met:
> 
> -It is a BWC Club-Approved Boat (CE Cat A Rating Does Not Count)
> 
> and/or, it is one of the following already-BWC Club-Approved Boats:
> 
> -Allied, Bristol, or Outbound
> 
> Such boats are clearly built to easily handle such a Category 1 Hurricane lee shore anchoring. We are proof of that. So, rest easy. We know what we're talking about. We're experienced.


Yeah - I'm not so sure. I don't think this is a proclamation for new sailors that I can get behind.



























































































You get the point.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - I never mind a good clean fight.....


Folks, the above is ultimately the point with Smack. When he's losing the argument, he resorts to putting words in others mouths, with the petulance of a school boy looking for attention.

Not once have I read anyone proclaim that it is safe to anchor 200 meters from a lee shore.

With Smack's nearly zero cruising experience, he would have no way to know how anchorages are chosen in stressed conditions. Poor choices are made from time to time, sometimes intentionally. Just this summer, I tried to sneak into a hidey hole after 12 hours of daytime sailing, only to find it full. My choices were to sail on for another 2 - 3 hours, with the sun setting in 20 minutes, or take a spot outside, when I knew it was kicking up to 25-30 overnight from the unprotected sound. We were already exhausted and there was no way to know the next anchorage wasn't full as well. We had to take what we could get.

The moral to the story is, if you are going out cruising and not just day sailing from your slip/mooring, you better have ground tackle and a bow fitting that can take a beating. With the approaching hurricane, that boat probably would have ended up on the beach eventually and the skipper must have made mistakes, I haven't read anyone debate that. However, it should not have ended up there as soon as it did.

p.s. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of a CE A rating that suggests the strength of the anchoring system. As well quoted and referenced above (by me), there is nothing in the CE A rating that specifies any particular level of safety at all.


----------



## outbound

I'm deeply honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as Jon and K. but don't think I belong there.


I've said multiple times I'm a newbie to long time cruising. I've said multiple times there is a huge jump from occasional coastal sailing with 1 or2 passages/yr. ( done for 35+ yrs.) and actual cruising. I remain hopeful, even now, that Smack at some point will appreciate the difference.

Can we now return to the movie?


Minnie raises a excellent point. Can remember multiple occasions when when either due to fatigue, having a bug, or lack of viable alternatives have anchored in less then ideal settings. 
Here again there is a compromise. Whereas if you are only anchoring in the generally shallow mud of the Cheasepeake a good mud anchor with short length of chain and then rope rode will serve . If you are cruising you don't know what you will encounter. In that usage chain not rope or wire seems to make the best sense. Popular cruising grounds are crowded. In many places you want to be on the hook by mid afternoon but often this doesn't occur. 
Surprisingly, the next gen anchors did not do as well as expected in loose mud in the PS write up. But in all other settings do surprisingly well
We carry a Rocna on 200' of chain. In the other locker is an unassembled Fortress with rope and chain good for ~250'. For Xmas hope to get a third anchor. Would move the Fortress to the stern. Any thoughts on what to get? Limitation is the Rocna is always set up and ready to go. Current cruising boats generally do not offset the rollers. They are the same distance from the bow. This limits space for two being all set up all the time.


----------



## chall03

Ok FFS Smack. No more pictures of boats on beaches. 
It just makes me all sad inside. 

Every time you google a picture of a boat on a beach I'm gonna go kick a kitten.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Minnewaska said:


> Poor choices are made from time to time, sometimes intentionally.


We may be faced with the need to choose from among options, none of which are good, at any time.

There is an important corollary to this reality. Recognize that almost all instances of tragedy do not come from a single failure or event. They come from a cascade of failures and errors. That means "we can soldier on" is usually a bad idea.

Two examples, both from deliveries, but both could happen to you.

1. We discovered a hose had come off the fresh water pressure pump (left on by a crew member *grump*) and pumped all the fresh water into the bilge. We were several days from our destination but less than a day from Beaufort NC. We had some emergency water in jugs. My call? Pull into Beaufort for water and breakfast and get back off the docks. Consider all the many things (boat, people, weather) that could go wrong that limited water would make harder.

2. We loose both hydraulic cylinders on backstay adjusters. Save the rig using running backs and fully stabilize the mast by removing the cylinders completely and rigging multiple turns of Amsteel. The aft deck is a skating rink from the hydraulic fluid. One day to FLL and five or six to destination. My call? Head for FLL. Guess what? Coming into FLL the turbo waste gate seizes full open so when throttling up the air intake hose collapses and the engine dies. Think of all the really bad things that could lead to offshore.

Failure/error cascades are the biggest risk we have. Sometimes we have to deal with them. Sometimes, such as mid-ocean, we have to keep going with the best McGyver solution we can. Generally we can divert and deal with the first problem so we have a clean slate when the next surprise comes over the transom. That surprise may well include making a less desirable anchoring choice. "Least bad" is often the best choice we can make.


----------



## JonEisberg

Bleemus said:


> Ok I have cruised for many years in the South Pacific, US Northeast, Caribbean and a wee bit of time around England before racing back to the States. In about 100k miles and more anchorages than I can ever remember I have never, not once, never, zero times seen a kellet in use. I imagine if they were a cure for something I would have seen it once. You guys need to stop reading books about schooners and go sailing.


I still carry one, and think it can come in handy in certain special circumstances... Especially, for anyone cruising with just a rope anchor rode...

When I first bought my boat, I sailed her for 2 seasons before installing a windlass, and fitting a chain rode... If you're lying to all rope in a harbor like Nantucket, with the swirling current that runs constantly through the anchorage, it would be _VERY_ easy to get a keel wrap of your rode with a fin-keeled boat, if you're not using a kellet...

Of course, no need to ask me how I know this, in addition to having seen it happen to other boats in that harbor, as well... ;-)

Also, I seem to recall reading recently on some forum, an account from someone - also anchored in Nantucket, I believe - who had his outstreched rope rode sliced by a passing powerboat at night that passed too close to his bow, perhaps assuming the boat was on a mooring... Seems a good chance the use of a kellet might have averted that situation, as well...

I last used my Rode Rider (a beautiful piece of gear, no longer made unfortunately, but similar to the brand named "Kiwi") when riding out the passage of Hurricane Arthur up in Martha's Vineyard the summer before last. One thing I like about it, it's easy to deploy, adjust, and remove quickly if need be... In addition to the 22 lb Bruce I use as a stern anchor to 'dangle' about 30' up my chain from the anchor, I think it might have afforded at least a marginal bit of additional benefit in keeping the rode from becoming bar-taut, for the most part...

But probably of greatest interest to most here, is now useful it can be when lying to a Bahamian moor... I generally try to avoid doing that, too much of a PITA for my taste, but at times it's unavoidable... That's when you'll have to bring your secondary rope rode into play, and again with the boat swinging to a reversing current, I think the use of a kellet is highly recommended to minimize the risk of the sort of keel wrap mentioned above...


----------



## Bleemus

bobperry said:


> Cruise on by my shack Bleems. I'll make you dinner. I'm a good cook.


Sounds good Bob! As soon as I get this 20KW generator mounted on the stern to balance the wire winch and run its hydraulic pump!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, so the last several pages have been very interesting. What have we learned about the wisdom of anchoring a boat against a lee shore in hurricane (Cat 3 or 1)?
> 
> Or in other words...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, the Charter Founders of the BWC Club, including but not limited to:
> 
> JonEisberg
> killarney_sailor
> outbound
> 
> Do hereby attest and proclaim that *it is perfectly safe to anchor your boat 200 meters off a lee shore in a Category 1 Hurricane as long as the following conditions are met:*
> 
> -It is a BWC Club-Approved Boat (CE Cat A Rating Does Not Count)
> 
> and/or, it is one of the following already-BWC Club-Approved Boats:
> 
> -Allied, Bristol, or Outbound
> 
> Such boats are clearly built to easily handle such a Category 1 Hurricane lee shore anchoring. We are proof of that. So, rest easy. We know what we're talking about. We're experienced.
Click to expand...

UFB... Well, at least now I know where you got the idea of the "Non-Sequitur Hamster Wheel", you must have one 2 stories high in your back yard...

;-)

Of course, no one is even _SUGGESTING_ such nonsense, much less _PROCLAIMING_ it...

If you bothered to look back at the original thread, you would see I was among the first to acknowledge the unfathomable nature of what that poor soul did to put himself in that situation, or how easily it could have been avoided by simply going back past Sewell's Point and tucking in behind Willoughby Spit, or how it was a classic example of Dave's "cascade of failures/poor decisions" that began with their decision to depart Portsmouth to begin with...

But see, here's where your lack of experience continually fails you in these discussions... You apparently have no idea of one of the fundamental elements of good seamanship being the constant vigilance towards _The Anticipation or Expectation of The Unexpected..._

Let's take my example pictured numerous times, of that Bavaria's picture windows being pounded against the Megadock in Charleston. You've said repeatedly that such a boat "should not be _designed_ for such a purpose..."

Fair enough, perhaps... But, if we're discussing "the limits" of such production boats, well... there's one right there, it will not stand up well to the sort of punishment _that any boat might easily become subject to when out cruising in The Real World..._

In your lack of experience, you cannot fathom how easily such departures from the ideal can occur... For certain, how that crew delivering that boat allowed themselves to stay overnight in that spot, with the forecast of a gale developing by the next day having been given days in advance, seems inexplicable... What the hell were they thinking? And yet, it seems impossible for you to imagine that even the most experienced sailors - exercising prudent seamanship, through no real fault of their own, or with a simple dose of bad luck tossed in - might easily find themselves in that same situation, struggling to avert damage to the boat lying against that dock...

_THAT_ is why I want a boat without such a design and construction flaw, so it will still stand a better chance of standing up to The Unexpected... Get out there and do some real sailing and cruising, and perhaps someday you will begin to appreciate the point I've been trying to make all along...

Or, perhaps not...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Great name for a boat Jon UNEXPECTED!


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> UFB... Well, at least now I know where you got the idea of the "Non-Sequitur Hamster Wheel", you must have one 2 stories high in your back yard...
> 
> Of course, no one is even _SUGGESTING_ such nonsense, much less _PROCLAIMING_ it...


Yeah, when you see it laid out that starkly you can see how foolish it all sounds. But these are the comments you guys have been making about that Hunter - coming up with all kinds of excuses on the conditions to try to maintain your blather that the "REAL problem is the Hunter's poor, unseaworthy construction" and that a "REAL boat wouldn't have had a problem in that scenario in conditions which aren't that bad".

And you're right - it is nonsense, and, one might even say...UFB. That's why I highlighted it. You guys can't have it both ways.



JonEisberg said:


> But see, here's where your lack of experience continually fails you in these discussions... You apparently have no idea of one of the fundamental elements of good seamanship being the constant vigilance towards _The Anticipation or Expectation of The Unexpected..._


Actually, I probably know better than most precisely what this means. Such lessons aren't confined to the sea.



JonEisberg said:


> Let's take my example pictured numerous times, of that Bavaria's picture windows being pounded against the Megadock in Charleston. You've said repeatedly that such a boat "should not be _designed_ for such a purpose..."
> 
> Fair enough, perhaps... But, if we're discussing "the limits" of such production boats, well... there's one right there, it will not stand up well to the sort of punishment _that any boat might easily become subject to when out cruising in The Real World..._


What exactly do you mean by "stand up to"? I think this is very important. Did that boat sink? Was it a total loss? How many hull lights were broken out? Conversely, do you mean that if the Outbound 46 was in that exact same situation it would have absolutely zero damage? (Back to the Hunter In A Hurricane Thesis.)

I fully understand, through first-hand experience, that when you put a boat in a precarious position with a lot of force being applied stuff will break. And that is the case for any boat (or any kind of vehicle) out there regardless of brand.

So, again, what "purpose" do you want boats to be designed for? If it's being bashed into docks, rocks, icebergs, etc. - then BS has the boat for you. I unequivocally don't think cruising boats need to be designed thusly. And your conclusion about hull lights compromising seaworthiness is not only discounted by me, it's discounted by much of the blue water yacht industry. And they have FAR more of this experience you're talking about than even you do. So, by your own standard, you should listen to them.



JonEisberg said:


> In your lack of experience, you cannot fathom how easily such departures from the ideal can occur...


Of course I can. First, as I've already said, these departures from the ideal occur everywhere in life. And I've certainly seen my share. So you're wrong. Your idea that such education and knowledge happens ONLY at sea is precisely your problem. It doesn't.



JonEisberg said:


> For certain, how that crew delivering that boat allowed themselves to stay overnight in that spot, with the forecast of a gale developing by the next day having been given days in advance, seems inexplicable... What the hell were they thinking? And yet, it seems impossible for you to imagine that even the most experienced sailors - exercising prudent seamanship, through no real fault of their own, or with a simple dose of bad luck tossed in - might easily find themselves in that same situation, struggling to avert damage to the boat lying against that dock...


Why does it seem impossible? Of course I can imagine exactly this. It happens all the time.

From my experiences with this phenomenon in back-country hiking, skiing, rock climbing, hang-gliding, kayaking, cycling, sailing, offshore racing, etc. - I'm ALWAYS thinking through how things can go south. Because in most of these activities, just like with sailing, the result can easily be death.

So, don't think you're so special in this regard. You're not. Granted, you have worlds of experience in this particular activity of sailing - and I respect it and want to learn from it. But the knowledge and experience you're talking about is not nearly as binary as you and some of these other dudes seem to think.



JonEisberg said:


> _THAT_ is why I want a boat without such a design and construction flaw, so it will still stand a better chance of standing up to The Unexpected...


A couple of things here...first, if you want a boat that you can park up against a lee dock in a gale without experiencing any damage then you should definitely find that boat. It should be one that can also handle being parked against a lee shore in a Cat 1-3 Hurricane. Second, using such a scenario to call something a "design and construction flaw" is precisely your problem. For example, you've said that "Swiss cheesing" hulls is dangerous. Yet most blue water brand boats are doing it. They don't see this as a "design and construction flaw" - even though you do. They, along with most of the production boat industry, disagree with you. I think you've also said that the main problem with the boat in the pic is that the hull light was on the beam of the boat. Sure, maybe not a great idea for this particular dock bash situation - but, again, that's a pretty rare problem to affect the entire design spec of a cruising boat. So, I still don't think even that is the issue you're trying to make it out to be.



JonEisberg said:


> Get out there and do some real sailing and cruising, and perhaps someday you will begin to appreciate the point I've been trying to make all along...
> 
> Or, perhaps not...


Well, that's exactly what I've been doing over the past 7 years. As for appreciating your points, it completely depends on the point you're trying to make. Some of these don't require decades of experience to know that they don't make much sense in the larger context. Those are the ones I argue against.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> .......Some of these don't require decades of experience to know that they don't make much sense in the larger context. Those are the ones I argue against.


Ah, but how would you know the difference, without blind self-confidence? You simply yourself of which is which, until you're proven wrong in real life. I just hope you don't have passengers aboard, should that occur.

Hubris will eat a sailor alive.


----------



## Brent Swain

outbound said:


> I'm deeply honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as Jon and K. but don't think I belong there.
> 
> I've said multiple times I'm a newbie to long time cruising. I've said multiple times there is a huge jump from occasional coastal sailing with 1 or2 passages/yr. ( done for 35+ yrs.) and actual cruising. I remain hopeful, even now, that Smack at some point will appreciate the difference.
> 
> Can we now return to the movie?
> 
> Minnie raises a excellent point. Can remember multiple occasions when when either due to fatigue, having a bug, or lack of viable alternatives have anchored in less then ideal settings.
> Here again there is a compromise. Whereas if you are only anchoring in the generally shallow mud of the Cheasepeake a good mud anchor with short length of chain and then rope rode will serve . If you are cruising you don't know what you will encounter. In that usage chain not rope or wire seems to make the best sense. Popular cruising grounds are crowded. In many places you want to be on the hook by mid afternoon but often this doesn't occur.
> Surprisingly, the next gen anchors did not do as well as expected in loose mud in the PS write up. But in all other settings do surprisingly well
> We carry a Rocna on 200' of chain. In the other locker is an unassembled Fortress with rope and chain good for ~250'. For Xmas hope to get a third anchor. Would move the Fortress to the stern. Any thoughts on what to get? Limitation is the Rocna is always set up and ready to go. Current cruising boats generally do not offset the rollers. They are the same distance from the bow. This limits space for two being all set up all the time.


Widening my bow rollers to 3 inches let me set two 55lb Deltas side by side. I'm happy with them. They are easy to build.
I'm able to avoid the crowded anchorages ,here in paradise.
I once read about a guy who built a steel 35 footer and built a 135 lb anchor ,which he disassembled in the bilge. When a hurricane came along, he put it together ,set it, and watched everyone else drag by him.Then he went to bed.
It only took that one use to justify its presence aboard.
I once went to Tahiti with 7 anchors, and sailed home with 5 . They are easy to lose. Take lots.


----------



## bobperry

I use 4" rollers and stagger them so that the two anchors can snug up nicely under the sprit. This was all mocked up at the yard using several anchors. Fairleads to the windlasses were worked out through the bulwark. Here is a shot of the early stage of that mock up. Initially we wanted a Bruce but when we got the Chinese Bluce we decided it was not to a quality we wanted.


----------



## Bleemus

You can buy Bruce and CQR anchors for dirt cheap all over the Carbbean these days. Everyone seems to be trading them in for Rocnas. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## skygazer

"One off" boat has urinals on the ceiling, expects to sink. But it doesn't sail so it's no good.


----------



## bobperry

Bleems:
we are going with the "no roll bar" Rocna on one side and on the other side an anchor that looks like the starship ENTERPRISE. I forget the name.


----------



## JonEisberg

bobperry said:


> Bleems:
> we are going with the "no roll bar" Rocna on one side and on the other side an anchor that looks like the starship ENTERPRISE. I forget the name.


Bob, for a Bruce-type anchor, did he ever have a look at the "Ray", from Manson? Made in New Zealand, I believe it was the anchor of choice for Beth & Evans on HAWK...

These 2 went on the bow of MIRABELLA V...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Jon: 
I just called the yard. We have one of those Mansons on it's way to the yard now.


----------



## Faster

Is this the 'other anchor'?

Ultra Anchors


----------



## mr_f

I have a 35lb CQR that has been sitting on my dock since about a month after I got the boat. It has lost most of its galvanizing, but otherwise seems fine. I dropped it in the mail to you Bob. You're welcome. It is going to look great on the bow of the carbon cutters.


----------



## Noelex

JonEisberg said:


>


Unfortunatly after the advertisement was released the 600 kg Manson Ray anchor used by Mirabella V dragged and the yacht sustained considerable damage.

This is the report. Interesting reading:

https://www.gov.im/lib/docs/ded/shipregistry/formsdocs/reports/casualty/mirabellav.pdf

The "Starship Enterprise" Ultra will look great on the bow of the Carbon cutter. This one I photographed 12 months ago is in a terrible substrate, where no anchor can work well, but it does show off thebeatiful shape.


----------



## bobperry

Noelex:
That is NOT the anchor I was talking about. Go back and watch old Star Trek vids.
Naysayer!

Faster:
No, the one I am talking about has an almost round, single fluke to it. I'll find out tomorrow what it is. Anchor selection for the second anchor is still up in the air.


----------



## skygazer

I have been troubled by a number of posts on this thread.

Here smackdaddy makes it clear that he does *not* accept opinions of others, smack emphasizes the words where Jon purposely states that they are his own (Jon's) opinions, as though that was a problem.



smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the snatching loads at the bow in that situation might be less than those seen when riding to a parachute sea anchor in a big blow, or like aboard the Alden 54 ZULU being towed back thru the Gulf Stream by a CG cutter after losing their rudder in the SDR a few years back...
> 
> Looking at the bows of the Outbound and the Oyster berthed right next to me here in Nanny Cay, seems to me either could have withstood those sort of forces, no problem...
> 
> I suppose one of those things that distinguishes us Bluewater Chuckleheads, is our
> theoretical preference for having our ground tackle being the weaker link, as opposed to the boat itself...
> 
> 
> 
> ....Surely even you can understand....
> 
> ....So close your eyes and cover year ears and hum loudly....
Click to expand...

I wish to go on record that I come to this site specifically to *listen to the opinions *of people who have done things and have opinions *based on practical experience*. I cherish their opinions and learn from them. I respect those people who helpfully share.

Sometimes I take notes and save them in files in an attempt to not forget other's insights.

I am delighted and honored to read Jon's opinions. Thank you Jon for sharing the knowledge you have gained through your actual practical experience. You (and others) are taking the time to educate others (me) so that we can benefit from your experience. Life is short, we can't all do everything. Forums are a wonderful way of sharing knowledge.

Smackdaddy, you are making it difficult for people to share their knowledge, instead of facilitating it.


----------



## Bleemus

bobperry said:


> Bleems:
> 
> we are going with the "no roll bar" Rocna on one side and on the other side an anchor that looks like the starship ENTERPRISE. I forget the name.


Heard good things about Rocna but have yet to deploy one. The bolt together one that copies it would scare me a bit. Good choice. Anchors have come a long way since I used to drop the 175lb CQR.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chall03

skygazer said:


> I am delighted and honored to read Jon's opinions. Thank you Jon for sharing the knowledge you have gained through your actual practical experience. You (and others) are taking the time to educate others (me) so that we can benefit from your experience. Life is short, we can't all do everything. Forums are a wonderful way of sharing knowledge.


Well said and I agree.

I do also believe however there is some room for lively, robust debate if it can help us all learn and look at things from different perspectives.

How much room? Well luckily that's not for me to figure out 

These threads do work well when we have experienced but diverse views. As with most things in life there is no 'right' or 'one' way to do things in sailing.

At the risk of this turning into a fan club, I would also like to thank Jon for sharing his experience. He does so frequently and thoughtfully.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> I have been troubled by a number of posts on this thread.
> 
> Here smackdaddy makes it clear that he does *not* accept opinions of others, smack emphasizes the words where Jon purposely states that they are his own (Jon's) opinions, as though that was a problem.
> 
> I wish to go on record that I come to this site specifically to *listen to the opinions *of people who have done things and have opinions *based on practical experience*. I cherish their opinions and learn from them. I respect those people who helpfully share.
> 
> Sometimes I take notes and save them in files in an attempt to not forget other's insights.
> 
> I am delighted and honored to read Jon's opinions. Thank you Jon for sharing the knowledge you have gained through your actual practical experience. You (and others) are taking the time to educate others (me) so that we can benefit from your experience. Life is short, we can't all do everything. Forums are a wonderful way of sharing knowledge.
> 
> Smackdaddy, you are making it difficult for people to share their knowledge, instead of facilitating it.


Sky - I understand your viewpoint. I've been at this a long time.

But you need to understand my viewpoint. Opinions can be offered in all kinds of ways. And if you look at my posting history, you'll notice that my tone typically mirrors that with whom I'm talking. If that person is purely offering an opinion in a serious, non-confrontational tone, I usually discuss it with them in exactly the same way. That's been the case since I first came on this forum 7 years ago.

If, on the other hand, the opinion is offered in a mocking, condescending fashion, I usually match that tone as well in the ensuing discussion.

But I want to be very clear, I don't mind "impolite tone" at all. It can be a fun way to write - for me, for Jon, for Minne, or anyone else. I don't get miffed and call in mods. I just keep the discussion going. And yes, sometimes a small gaggle of dudes get bent out of shape and start stalking me all over the place trying to stir (some of which you're seeing now). I'm used to that as well - it doesn't bother me a bit. IT'S JUST FORUM TALK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

We are sailors - we hassle each other, we joke with each other, we make fun of each other - and we have each others' backs when it counts.

Additionally, if I disagree with something someone says, and can back up that disagreement with facts, I'll say so. I don't care who it is or what their accomplishments might be. Sometimes I'll be wrong, sometimes I'll be right. But I don't kiss rings. If you're going to say something - make sure it's right. Otherwise, I might give it a go.

Back to Jon's post above. The reason I highlighted all those things in red is that Jon has made it very clear over the years in our conversations (which have ALWAYS been heated but good-natured) that he doesn't think much of production boats - and Hunters in particular. He spent a good deal of time detailing exactly why the Hunter we were discussing had this failure, all of which was pure speculation - but to him was "fact" (back to our long running discussion in other threads that you were not a part of). But then he immediately turned around and speculated that Oysters and Outbounds would not have had these same issues, though there is no way he could know that. It's just that because his bias is obviously toward these "blue water boats" - they MUST be better. THAT'S what I was pointing out. That's exactly the mindset that started this thread.

Again, this view is his opinion. And I COMPLETELY accept it...AS OPINION. But I certainly DON'T accept it as FACT.

That is the point of this thread and this discussion. And that is why it has over 300K views...with people reading and discussing now for many years.

So if you can keep that perspective, you might have a better understanding of the educational value of disagreement instead of polite groupthink. The latter is what CF is for...well, except for the hypocrisy.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ......If that person is purely offering an opinion in a serious, non-confrontational tone, I usually discuss it with them in exactly the same way. That's been the case since I first came on this forum 7 years ago.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the opinion is offered in a mocking, condescending fashion, I usually match that tone as well in the ensuing discussion.


All of us that have been around for a while, just did a collective eye roll.

Your modus operandi is to get snippy, call names and get in other members' faces, while stating you are right and they are wrong, whenever you are losing the debate. You do not simply mirror your opponents. You provoke them and, when they poke back, you point at them and say they started it.



> That is the point of this thread and this discussion. And that is why it has over 300K views...with people reading and discussing now for many years.


I'm curious. Do you find a sense of accomplishment or pride from participation or creating threads like this? You've referenced the number of views in your threads before. They are mostly people debating points you've incorrectly declared and you keep them alive by being provocative. The whole "last man standing" persona.

It truly seems like a personality disorder. Histrionic, perhaps? The toughest part to getting someone with histrionic disorder to seek psychotherapy, is they like their disorder.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> All of us that have been around for a while, just did a collective eye roll.
> 
> Your modus operandi is to get snippy, call names and get in other members' faces, while stating you are right and they are wrong, whenever you are losing the debate. You do not simply mirror your opponents. You provoke them and, when they poke back, you point at them and say they started it.
> 
> I'm curious. Do you find a sense of accomplishment or pride from participation or creating threads like this? You've referenced the number of views in your threads before. They are mostly people debating points you've incorrectly declared and you keep them alive by being provocative. The whole "last man standing" persona.
> 
> It truly seems like a personality disorder. Histrionic, perhaps? The toughest part to getting someone with histrionic disorder to seek psychotherapy, is they like their disorder.


_*Histrionic personality disorder*

Constantly seeking attention
Excessively emotional, dramatic or sexually provocative to gain attention
Speaks dramatically with strong opinions, but few facts or details to back them up
Easily influenced by others
Shallow, rapidly changing emotions
Excessive concern with physical appearance
Thinks relationships with others are closer than they really are_

Don't know about the physical appearance thing (hard to judge from keyboard work) but everything else seems right.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> It truly seems like a personality disorder. Histrionic, perhaps? The toughest part to getting someone with histrionic disorder to seek psychotherapy, is they like their disorder.





MastUndSchotbruch said:


> _*Histrionic personality disorder*
> 
> Constantly seeking attention
> Excessively emotional, dramatic or sexually provocative to gain attention
> Speaks dramatically with strong opinions, but few facts or details to back them up
> Easily influenced by others
> Shallow, rapidly changing emotions
> Excessive concern with physical appearance
> Thinks relationships with others are closer than they really are_
> 
> Don't know about the physical appearance thing (hard to judge from keyboard work) but everything else seems right.


And right on cue.

See what I mean sky? If I were to say something personal like this to someone, I'd be in hot water.

Instead I typically say someone's _ideas _are silly - or that a _certain type of thinking_ is "chuckleheaded". And that still drives some people crazy.

So - you can't win. You can just spar. And try not to get bent or personal.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> And right on cue.
> 
> See what I mean sky? If I were to say something personal like this to someone, I'd be in hot water.
> 
> Instead I typically say someone's _ideas _are silly - or that a _certain type of thinking_ is "chuckleheaded". And that still drives some people crazy.
> 
> So - you can't win. You can just spar. And try not to get bent or personal.


I am defining (or rather, repeating the definition of) a disorder. This is just a fact. How is that personal?

Touche?


----------



## BentSailor

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I am defining (or rather, repeating the definition of) a disorder. This is just a fact. How is that personal?


When you added the judgement call to the definition, you made it personal.


MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Don't know about the physical appearance thing (hard to judge from keyboard work) but everything else seems right.


Personally, doesn't bother me either way how you choose to interact with smack. He's shown himself quite resilient to such talk and have no personal connection to the guy. I just don't like hypocrisy. If you're going to get personal about someone, at least own up to it.


----------



## outbound

Back to the interrupted show.

I appreciate the above discussion about anchors and learned somethings from the links. Jon I hope from my prior posts you know how appreciative I'm of your posts. This goes for K,Bob,Jeff, Maine, and many others. I have yet to gain any useful information from some others repetitive posts but it is what it is. Fortunately, these individuals are rare. I've even learned from the back and forth BS generates. Like stated above I follow this site closely for the learning and try to sign on even when inconvenient. 

But back to original question. Given anchors rollers that are in line and the desire to have two anchors ready to go is anyone able to offer any suggestions. One will remain a Rocna. I'm a great fan of it. So far it's batting 100 with exception of new harbor at block on short scope which was on me . Fortunately, no harm no foul.


----------



## bobperry

You guys are stupid.
Get a life.


----------



## smackdaddy

I don't think it's CE Cat A rated, but this little 19' Hunter can definitely kick some butt:






A buddy sent this link to me. You know who you are. Thanks.


----------



## JonEisberg

Just in, an interesting "Real World Example" from a Beneteau 423 in the mid-Atlantic named SHAPESHIFTER...

Bolded emphasis is mine:

;-)



> Shapeshifter
> 
> Shapeshifter continues toward Martinique despite a broken window, now fixed.
> 
> *On the 2nd night we had a fixed window knock out of the side of our hull and we took on a lot of water before we could slow it down. At daylight we could see that window had totally gone, it took all the next day to make a new one, fit it and seal it. We have lost our SSB, some computers, phones, ipad but sat phone is still working.* We are safe and now look forward to the rest of the trip. We are not pushing too hard, we have good winds and making fair time I think.
> 
> Cheers, Colin.
> 
> PS Comfortably Numb stayed with us all that night and also gave us some things to help do repair.
> 
> Beneteau 46 - for circumnavigation? - Page 4 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


Oooops...

But of course, such an _isolated incident_ is for all practical purposes, essentially meaningless...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Just in, an interesting "Real World Example" from a Beneteau 423 in the mid-Atlantic named SHAPESHIFTER...
> 
> Bolded emphasis is mine:
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Oooops...
> 
> But of course, such an _isolated incident_ is for all practical purposes, essentially meaningless...
> 
> ;-)


Actually - this is great info. It's the first I've heard of such an occurance. How old is the boat? And what were the conditions?

The detailing on these hull lights looks different than what we've seen on other boats:










Stuff like this is never meaningless.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Actually - this is great info. It's the first I've heard of such an occurance. *How old is the boat?* And what were the conditions?


I have no idea, but it has exceeded its _Modern Production Boat Half Life_, presumably...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I have no idea, but it has exceeded its _Modern Production Boat Half Life_, presumably...
> 
> ;-)


That's exactly why I'm asking. I found this on CF from the owner:



> Our Beneteau 423 is currently in Turkey.


So maybe it was a charter? In any case, I actually do agree with you that these fixed lights (in any hull) will be a weak link over time. The question is how much time?


----------



## Exile1

So suddenly now Smack agrees with Jon that fixed in-hull portlights could be a weak link over time.

Go figure . . .



smackdaddy said:


> And your conclusion about hull lights compromising seaworthiness is not only discounted by me, it's discounted by much of the blue water yacht industry.
> 
> I bet it wasn't discounted by the crew of SHAPESHIFTER when their in-hull portlight went missing, they started taking on water, and lost much of their electronics. And to think, their boat wasn't even pressed up against a dock by wind & seas. No, they were merely undertaking a passage that their Cat A boat had been properly "rated" for.
> 
> And they have FAR more of this experience you're talking about than even you do.
> 
> The bluewater yacht industry is experienced at selling yachts. Apparently buyers like fixed in-hull portlights. Maybe it's appealing to "dudes" who think they look "cool."
> 
> So, by your own standard, you should listen to them.
> 
> I'd rather listen to a guy who's not in the business of selling yachts, and also has decades of experience sailing a wide variety of different types. And while I'm sure you believe that your life experiences qualify you to impress us with your many bold "opinions," I'm more inclined to listen to those with extensive sailing & technical credentials than those who claim to have done a bit of "back-country hiking, skiing, rock climbing, hang-gliding, kayaking, or cycling," and who's 15,000+ posts show "7 years" of "sailing experience" gained largely through internet forums.
> 
> Just saying . . . .


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> So suddenly now Smack agrees with Jon that fixed in-hull portlights could be a weak link over time.
> 
> Go figure . . .
> 
> I bet it wasn't discounted by the crew of SHAPESHIFTER when their in-hull portlight went missing, they started taking on water, and lost much of their electronics. And to think, their boat wasn't even pressed up against a dock by wind & seas. No, they were merely undertaking a passage that their Cat A boat had been properly "rated" for.


First - you have no idea what happened. No one - _including Jon_ - does at this point. So speculate all you want if it makes you feel better...which it usually seems to.

Second, being a weak link over time (my point) doesn't mean that they _inherently_ compromise seaworthiness (Jon's point). It simply becomes an item to watch and maintain over time. I have them on my 25 y.o. boat (they are flush) and keep an eye on them because adhesives degrade over the years. It's not news. But it appears the nuance of such things escapes you Exile.

You really aren't very good at this.



Exile1 said:


> The bluewater yacht industry is experienced at selling yachts. Apparently buyers like fixed in-hull portlights. Maybe it's appealing to "dudes" who think they look "cool."


Okay. What does that have to do with anything?



Exile1 said:


> I'd rather listen to a guy who's not in the business of selling yachts, and also has decades of experience sailing a wide variety of different types. And while I'm sure you believe that your life experiences qualify you to impress us with your many bold "opinions," I'm more inclined to listen to those with extensive sailing & technical credentials than those who claim to have done a bit of "back-country hiking, skiing, rock climbing, hang-gliding, kayaking, or cycling," and who's 15,000+ posts show "7 years" of "sailing experience" gained largely through internet forums.
> 
> Just saying . . . .


Exile, you really should listen to whomever you want. I could care less. Really.


----------



## Exile1

I left out much of your "tutorial" on how posters should conduct themselves on forums as my eyes were starting to hurt from rolling them around in my head so much. I could not resist commenting, however, on your oft-stated piety when it comes to policing the forum clean of misstated "facts."



smackdaddy said:


> Additionally, if I disagree with something someone says, and can back up that disagreement with facts, I'll say so. I don't care who it is or what their accomplishments might be. Sometimes I'll be wrong, sometimes I'll be right. But I don't kiss rings. If you're going to say something - make sure it's right. Otherwise, I might give it a go.
> 
> How about I "give it a go?" Why are you repeatedly & insistently claiming that the 30+ knots (not "knots/hr.," just "knots") that the unfortunate Hunter anchored off Va. Beach was subjected to was a Cat I or III (depending on which post) hurricane?? It was documented Smack, it's now a part of the historical record. I get the fact that this "could" have happened to another brand or type of boat, that the anchor chain "could" have also sawed through another boat's bow with a thicker laminate, that there "could" have been reasons other than poor build quality to explain why the bow roller fell off. All of those points were made. But I fail to understand why you seem to wet your pants anytime anyone mentions anything negative about the particular brand of sailboat YOU happen to own. If I saw that happen to my brand of boat, I wouldn't be "offended." I'd be running down to my boat and checking how supportive the bow roller was!
> 
> So if you can keep that perspective, you might have a better understanding of the educational value of disagreement instead of polite groupthink. The latter is what CF is for...well, except for the hypocrisy.


Yup, always a bogeyman. Of course, all your derogatory comments towards another forum have nothing to do with the fact that, after repeated warnings & temporary bans, they finally moved you to a new neighborhood. I know, the CF mods were horribly unfair but the SN ones are terrific (unless they ban you again here too, that is). All production boats are perfectly fit for blue water, particularly since you happen to own one. The Waterway Guide "beats" Active Captain, which of course has nothing to do with your spat with AC's owner. And lest we forget, all those mythical curmudgeons of yours back on the dock who tell all the newbies that it's safer to go out in "blue water" on a 30 year-old BW boat than a brand new production boat -- but only one with the requisite rating, of course.

Always provocative, always "us" or "them," always personal to your own agenda, and of course rarely relevant or helpful to the merits of the discussion others are trying to utilize the forum for. But maybe your all-time greatest was calling a brain surgeon a "dufus," and a circumnavigator's judgment of wave height a "goofball."

Are you starting to see why some around here may find your credibility lacking, and still others who would prefer if you got introduced to yet a new neighborhood?


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> You really aren't very good at this.


If you mean being a full-time forum poster, you're right!

I have a life.


----------



## Bleemus

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy_KHYC

artbyjody said:


> ...but the crew onboard are 10X more experienced than the casual off-shore sailor. The combo is killer and they purposely go the margin.


Is that really true? I'm fairly certain in the last VOR there was at least one boat where most of the crew had never circumnavigated and many had not been offshore. I also believe that many of the boats had portions of crew who had never crossed the equator.

I realize the crews for those races have tons of racing experience, but racing experience is not the same thing as sailing in the southern ocean, much less racing in it. Normal shore racing is generally called off if the weather is beyond certain limits, and true offshore racers are a small small portion of the racing community.

I'd wager 90% of surviving/winning in those 65s falls on the skipper, his weather predicting capabilities, and his belief in what the crew and boat can take. I would also guess that most skippers who have circumnavigated have experiences that prepare them better for ocean racing than some of the race crew they populated those boats with.


----------



## Maine Sail

Exile1 said:


> Always provocative, always "us" or "them," always personal to your own agenda, and of course rarely relevant or helpful to the merits of the discussion others are trying to utilize the forum for. But maybe your all-time greatest was calling a brain surgeon a "dufus," and a circumnavigator's judgment of wave height a "goofball."
> 
> Are you starting to see why some around here may find your credibility lacking, and still others who would prefer if you got introduced to yet a new neighborhood?


^


----------



## NCC320

I once had an engineering group supervisor who really, really enjoyed debating/arguing with people, especially knowledgeable people. Now, it didn't matter which side of a question that he argued. One side of an issue was as good as the other...he'd readily take either side. On some days, when things were slow or running smoothly, he would engage the group in a technical debate. Most group members didn't really want to debate him on lots of technical issues, but he enjoyed it. So, to get things going, he would make some controversial statement. If no one engaged him, he'd make a little more extreme statement. And eventually, the statement would be sufficiently far out, that someone would take the bait and then the game was on. Now, the supervisor was a good guy, but he just loved to debate. Nothing was ever held against a person for taking a certain position, and to him it was all great fun. 

I believe Smackdaddy is like that supervisor. He enjoys the game, and he knows how to get you "experienced sailors" with many miles and years of cruising/sailing to take the bait. Anytime things slow down, he'll just tweak you a bit and the argument will continue on....now for 4283 posts on this thread alone. Now, Smack genuinely believes that the production boats B, J, H, C are better than most of you will give them credit; and when you own one, you hate to hear people badmouth them. So he's taken getting better recognition and acceptance for those boats (especially in regards to CE A and open water cruising) as his objective. And, he loves his Hunter and has great faith in it's capabilities. For what it's worth, I also think that this group of boats are better, and have gotten even better over time, than lots of people give them credit.

Trouble is, some of the "experienced sailors" get really upset with the debate. Then, they begin to throw out insults and personal attacks just as they accuse Smack. And, to some of us less experienced sailors, the experienced guys begin to come across as bullies....i.e. I'm experienced, I know more than you, don't challenge me, just take what I say as gospel. Smack will post a picture or video of an individual boat to illustrate his position. People will get angry at him and say that is not representative of the class, or it's not meaningful. Then, the same people will do exactly the same in reverse. I'm guessing the "newbies" might be a bit intimidated by the angry/aggressive posts, and might not feel free to ask questions...if you don't know, you will never know unless you ask or propose some idea.

Experienced guys, if you don't like what Smack posts, just be smug, and say I don't agree. 

But truthfully, none of us can let this thread go, so don't ban Smackdaddy....it won't be the same.


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Exile1 View Post
> The bluewater yacht industry is experienced at selling yachts. Apparently buyers like fixed in-hull portlights. Maybe it's appealing to "dudes" who think they look "cool."
> 
> Okay. What does that have to do with anything?


Well that very much may be the point, they are selling them because they "look cool" not because they add anything to the seaworthiness of the boat. It is all part of the marketing thing, much like what Oyster has become, they don't make the boats, but just market them as blue-water boats, but apparently the marketing is getting ahead of the quality of the boats.

God this is an old thread, heck post number two is from Sailingdog!


----------



## skygazer

chall03 said:


> Well said and I agree.
> 
> I do also believe however there is some room for lively, robust debate if it can help us all learn and look at things from different perspectives.





smackdaddy said:


> Sky - I understand your viewpoint. I've been at this a long time...
> 
> So if you can keep that perspective, you might have a better understanding of the educational value of disagreement instead of polite groupthink...


Smack,

Thank you for your detailed response. I do understand and prefer the educational value of disagreement, it's a way to expand and intensely examine the subject, not many things I like better.

The purpose of my post was to point out that the sort of engagement you are referring to is being stifled by the side show of barbed comments, personal attacks and sarcasm that run through this thread. I understand that you and some others enjoy that, but many do not. "Robust debate" does not require personal vindictiveness, it can be about ideas. Yes, I could "move on with my own life" but I happen to like this site, and similar to others here would like to see it kept functional, rather than me moving on. I do visit other sites where this is not a problem.

Obviously my post was a failure, it merely started a flurry of posts about anything except sailing.

I think you will enjoy hearing about this recent conversation with my wife. Currently I have a sailboat parked right outside the kitchen window while I winterize it. This is the boat - the only boat - that after an adventure my wife surprised me by saying "I don't want you to ever sell that boat."

Here is the dialogue when I come in from working on it:

"I absolutely love that boat" I enthused.

"I like the *Hunter* better" she answered.


----------



## SVAuspicious

NCC320 said:


> I believe Smackdaddy is like that supervisor. He enjoys the game, and he knows how to get you "experienced sailors" with many miles and years of cruising/sailing to take the bait.


Which is part of the problem. In my opinion the mission of fora like SailNet is to exchange information, not to have arguments for their own sake.



NCC320 said:


> Trouble is, some of the "experienced sailors" get really upset with the debate. Then, they begin to throw out insults and personal attacks just as they accuse Smack.


Agreed. Smackdaddy is on my ignore list and that has made my own SailNet experience much better. My own problem is that people keep quoting him and sometimes that drives me to respond when the posts are so factually flawed that I am moved to contribute in the hopes that others who might otherwise be misled have some reality to consider. I can provide footnotes.

Which leads to one of the real issues. There is a confusion between facts and opinions. "The sky is blue" is a fact. "Moodys are better than Hunters" is an opinion. One can defend an opinion but that doesn't make it a fact. Smackdaddy and some others appear (<- my opinion) to confuse the relative value of their opinions with the value of demonstrable facts. In point of fact (ha!) a lot of people do that (<- my observation, sort of an opinion until credibly supported as fact; I'm sure there are peer reviewed assessments of social media but I haven't looked for them).

In the end we should not feed the trolls (<-opinion). Smackdaddy is a troll (<-opinion). SailNet would be better off without Smackdaddy (<-opinion). Smackdaddy could change his behavior (maybe) and become a valuable contributor to SailNet (<-opinion). Smackdaddy will probably make some marginally abusive response to my post (<-opinion) and I won't see it (<-fact, since he is on my ignore list) until someone quotes it (*sigh* probably a fact).



NCC320 said:


> But truthfully, none of us can let this thread go, so don't ban Smackdaddy....it won't be the same.


You're right. It won't be the same. It will be better.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so first to the blatant hypocrisy thing...



Exile1 said:


> If you mean being a full-time forum poster,
> you're right!
> 
> I have a life.


I invite you to take a look at your own posting history here on SN:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/members/exile1.html
_(Click on "Statistics" and "Find all posts...")_

The post above put you at *a total of 112 posts*. Of that, a total of *ONLY SEVEN* are in threads that _*were not started by Smackdaddy*_. The other 105 are you stalking me.

Now why would that be, Exile? Could it be because you followed me over here from CF to try the same passive-aggressive crap you and robertsailor (who also followed me over, though he's been big enough to move on) - and others - stirred up with the mods at CF? I can certainly see a correlation. Can you?

Just look through those posts of yours, Ex. How many of them are "making meaningful contributions to the discussions" versus expressing "outrage" at my "behavior" and calling for my head?

In light of this ratio of posts - which one of us is actually trolling Ex?

Right. So get real.



Exile1 said:


> I could not resist commenting, however, on your oft-stated piety when it comes to policing the forum clean of misstated "facts."
> 
> How about I "give it a go?" Why are you repeatedly & insistently claiming that the 30+ knots (not "knots/hr.," just "knots") that the unfortunate Hunter anchored off Va. Beach was subjected to was a Cat I or III (depending on which post) hurricane?? It was documented Smack, it's now a part of the historical record.


Cool - so you're taking a shot at facts. I respect that. Now let's look at yours.

First, have _*you yourself *_looked at the NOAA data that Jon linked to, or are you just taking his word for it as a chance to shake your pitchfork in his shadow? Show me that data, Ex. Not Jon - *you*. I want to see you pull it up and analyze it. You know, "facts".

I have looked at it. And I know what the numbers are. And Jon is wrong&#8230;even on those wind numbers he threw out.



JonEisberg said:


> The wind speed throughout that morning rarely exceeded 17 meters/sec - 38 MPH/33 Knots - and barely topped 50 MPH not until late that night, 12 hours after that boat was in the surf/on the beach...


He's only focusing on one column.

More importantly, since you like documentation so much, here is what *NOAA itself* says about this particular storm:

NOAA: Extreme Weather 2011 - Hurricane Irene



> Extreme Weather 2011
> Hurricane Irene
> August 20-29, 2011
> 
> Irene first struck the U.S. as a Category 1 hurricane in eastern North Carolina, then moved northward along the Mid-Atlantic Coast. Wind damage in coastal North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland was moderate, with considerable damage resulting from falling trees and power lines.


And do me a favor - measure the distance between the point of this initial "strike" with it's 115 mph winds - and Norfolk:












> Irene made landfall between 7:30 and 8 AM EDT Saturday August 27 near Cape Lookout, North Carolina. As the eye wall moved ashore, wind gusts to 115 mph were observed at the Cedar Island Ferry Terminal. The lowest pressure observed with the landfall of Irene was at Beaufort (Figure 7) with 28.11 inches of mercury or around 951 millibars at 8:56 AM. Strong winds and driving rains pounded most of Eastern North Carolina into the mid-afternoon hours on Saturday. As the eye moved inland, strong westerly winds on the backside of the storm gusted to near 100 mph at Atlantic Beach around 10:30 AM. Torrential rainfall amounts in excess of 10 inches were widespread. *Storm surge levels of over 10 feet were observed at Ocracoke and several breaches of Highway 12 were noted all along the Outer Banks.*


And you and Jon are trying to tell us that this went from a Cat 1 hurricane to nothing more than a single red flag day in a couple of hours?

Remember, NOAA also had the very data that you and Jon are so fond of. And they STILL made this Cat 1 determination.

See, here's the video of the path of that storm. Watch the eye in relation to Norfolk:






See that?

I also previously posted *a video of a reporter on the scene* showing the wind conditions there _prior_ to the Hunter hitting that beach. You can clearly hear her account of the deteriorating conditions and see that the gusts are beyond 38 mph, and visibility is reduced to a couple hundred yards.

But the bigger issue that is mystifyingly going over both your heads - based on your vast experience - is that you guys are focusing purely on windspeed. That's not what destroyed this boat. THE WAVES are what destroyed this Hunter. That is clearly evident in the first video I posted showing the huge side-snatch-load at 0:20 when it gets hit broadside by the surf and jerks back forward against what is obviously a short-scope of (apparently) chain. Can you guys really not see how that action can destroy and anchor roller of *any* boat? And this was a single wave strike caught on video before things started really getting bad. I'm sure there were many, many more.

Then the sea state is even more evident in that photo I posted of the actual rescue. Those are not typical seas on a typical F7, 35 knot day.

Remember, _*this is a Cat 1 hurricane*_. Look at that NOAA video above. See the spin? Where was this Hunter anchored again? Do you really not understand that an approaching hurricane whips up seas that are FAR more violent than the localized wind force? Did you see the description of the storm surge? Here is a great example of this - look at the sea, then look at the palm trees in the localized breeze as a typhoon approaches:






Do they "match"? Are the seas really calm and it's just an issue of telephoto lenses because there is obviously so little wind?

Here is what the poster says about it:



> There was a typhoon approaching and the ocean was getting turbulent enough that I could see the surf from my window. I normally can't see any surf at all, so it was quite interesting to me.


With all his offshore experience, I'm honestly surprised that Jon doesn't seem to understand this phenomenon. You - I'm not surprised. As you say below, you fail to understand a lot of things.

So, now it's on you, Exile. I've provided PLENTY of DOCUMENTED evidence in this post and in the many posts before it for what this boat went through. If you need to ignore all these facts to protect your ego - that's fine. But you and Jon are very clearly wrong. It's that simple.



Exile1 said:


> I get the fact that this "could" have happened to another brand or type of boat, that the anchor chain "could" have also sawed through another boat's bow with a thicker laminate, that there "could" have been reasons other than poor build quality to explain why the bow roller fell off. All of those points were made. But I fail to understand why you seem to wet your pants anytime anyone mentions anything negative about the particular brand of sailboat YOU happen to own. If I saw that happen to my brand of boat, I wouldn't be "offended." I'd be running down to my boat and checking how supportive the bow roller was!


That's right. You obviously fail to understand many, many things. I can't help that. That's on you.



Exile1 said:


> Yup, always a bogeyman. Of course, all your derogatory comments towards another forum have nothing to do with the fact that, after repeated warnings & temporary bans, they finally moved you to a new neighborhood.


I've always been in this neighborhood. As for what happened at CF I was playing the same game the regulars and mods play over there all the time. I did nothing they themselves weren't doing - and you know it. If this weren't true, several of the mods involved would still have their "jobs". I was just an easy target.



Exile1 said:


> Always provocative, always "us" or "them," always personal to your own agenda, and of course rarely relevant or helpful to the merits of the discussion others are trying to utilize the forum for.


Provocative? Absolutely. Good threads always are. My own agenda? Again, absolutely. I post what I think. Always. *Especially in my own threads.* "Us or them"? Well you've obviously not noticed that I don't exactly have a huge throng of members behind me shaking pitchforks back at you, and Maine, Ausp, robertsailor, Minne, etc. And that's fine. Though a few will jump in every once in a while (which I appreciate), I'm usually on my own in these discussions. And that's fine too. So it's really more "me against big egos", and/or "me against hypocrisy", and/or "me against lies", and/or "me against subjective opinions I don't agree with", or me against "passive-aggressive 'attacks'" - and most people on the other side of that rarely like that. Tough nuts.

As for such discussions being "relevant or helpful to the merits of the discussion others are trying to utilize the forum for." Who the hell are you to decide that? Are you, yet again, trying to manipulate the mods to take some kind of action?

READERS AND MEMBERS decide what threads are interesting enough to follow and/or comment on. My threads - even on CF - have repeatedly proven to be ones that are followed and commented on more than just about any in the forums. You guys don't like my style - fine. Go away. No one forces any of you to read these threads of mine...or ESPECIALLY to post in them. You do that because of your own ego and for the visibility.

There are obviously a few people who like my style. So - go get your own or start paying me royalties.



Exile1 said:


> But maybe your all-time greatest was calling a brain surgeon a "dufus," and a circumnavigator's judgment of wave height a "goofball."


You're right. That's pretty funny. So, can you link me to these posts? I'd love to see them.



Exile1 said:


> Are you starting to see why some around here may find your credibility lacking, and still others who would prefer if you got introduced to yet a new neighborhood? [/COLOR]


I could care less what you and those who liked and quoted your post think about my "credibility". The whole "credibility" thing is you guys' game - not mine. And that's exactly why I'll call any of you out if you say something that stretches credibility. And you often do.

Finally, and most importantly, despite the fiery rhetoric, Jon and I have had pretty cordial PM exchanges in the recent past. If I truly say something that upsets him, I have no doubt he'll let me know. And I will apologize. No doubt.

But I know one thing, Jon's a big boy. He doesn't need a bunch of yappy puppies following him around for protection.

So Jon, just let me know if I've crossed the line with you.

Now, I'm pretty much done talking with you, Exile - unless you can discuss things factually and without whining so much. You require way too much work to continually illustrate how wrong you are (see above).

And I'm done talking about this stupid Hunter. *It was simply a boat that was severely damaged in a hurricane* (like hundreds of other boats of all brands including BWCs) after being unwisely anchored against a lee shore with little scope, bouncing across rocks for a good while, then landing on the beach - *while still protecting it's skipper and crew*...just like any great boat will do. Good for Hunter. All boats should be built that tough.

Now go troll somewhere else.


----------



## Bleemus

Thank you for letting me know this forum has an Ignore function. Took awhile to find it.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> The purpose of my post was to point out that the sort of engagement you are referring to is being stifled by the side show of barbed comments, personal attacks and sarcasm that run through this thread. I understand that you and some others enjoy that, but many do not. "Robust debate" does not require personal vindictiveness, it can be about ideas. Yes, I could "move on with my own life" but I happen to like this site, and similar to others here would like to see it kept functional, rather than me moving on. I do visit other sites where this is not a problem.


No worries sky. And I obviously love the Hunter story. Smart woman. Though I'm not a fan of the new Hunters. Maybe a Jeanneau?

Anyway, as for tone - I am what I am. If someone keeps it clean, I do too. If they want to take shots, I'll take shots too. And if it's good-natured - it's all good.

So I don't know what to tell you - except that Bob has a hat some of these guys could use.


----------



## skygazer

That is one tough wife! I enjoyed this video.

19 ft. is only one foot longer than a boat we sailed around and camped with in Casco Bay this summer. We could go to areas I never dared to explore. When we grounded once on an ebbing tide, I merely jumped out, pushed the boat around to face where it came from, and climbed back in to sail off.

One nice thing I'd forgotten till this summer is the way you can reach the water so easily, you are practically sitting right on it. Being so close means you can scoop up water when you want it, and it makes small adventures seem big. I'm pretty sold on going small, I'm considering a tow hitch on a car instead of using a dump truck.

We carried a lot less stuff than in the video, making an effort to bring the least and the smallest stuff we could, traveling extremely "light". I did bring a guitar though............


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Which is part of the problem. In my opinion the mission of fora like SailNet is to exchange information, not to have arguments for their own sake.
> 
> Agreed. Smackdaddy is on my ignore list and that has made my own SailNet experience much better. My own problem is that people keep quoting him and sometimes that drives me to respond when the posts are so factually flawed that I am moved to contribute in the hopes that others who might otherwise be misled have some reality to consider. I can provide footnotes.
> 
> Which leads to one of the real issues. There is a confusion between facts and opinions. "The sky is blue" is a fact. "Moodys are better than Hunters" is an opinion. One can defend an opinion but that doesn't make it a fact. Smackdaddy and some others appear (<- my opinion) to confuse the relative value of their opinions with the value of demonstrable facts. In point of fact (ha!) a lot of people do that (<- my observation, sort of an opinion until credibly supported as fact; I'm sure there are peer reviewed assessments of social media but I haven't looked for them).
> 
> In the end we should not feed the trolls (<-opinion). Smackdaddy is a troll (<-opinion). SailNet would be better off without Smackdaddy (<-opinion). Smackdaddy could change his behavior (maybe) and become a valuable contributor to SailNet (<-opinion). Smackdaddy will probably make some marginally abusive response to my post (<-opinion) and I won't see it (<-fact, since he is on my ignore list) until someone quotes it (*sigh* probably a fact).
> 
> You're right. It won't be the same. It will be better.


Dave I won't make a marginally abusive response to your post. I don't need to. Because, even though you "have me on ignore" (something you proudly proclaim whenever you can for some weird reason) you feel the need to make a marginally abusive response to me?



SVAuspicious said:


> knots/hr? OMFG!


Footnote? This is exactly what I mean by hypocrisy. _Yours._

And Hunters ARE better than Moodys. You're STILL pissed about that? Good grief.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> That is one tough wife! I enjoyed this video.
> 
> 19 ft. is only one foot longer than a boat we sailed around and camped with in Casco Bay this summer. We could go to areas I never dared to explore. When we grounded once on an ebbing tide, I merely jumped out, pushed the boat around to face where it came from, and climbed back in to sail off.
> 
> One nice thing I'd forgotten till this summer is the way you can reach the water so easily, you are practically sitting right on it. Being so close means you can scoop up water when you want it, and it makes small adventures seem big. I'm pretty sold on going small, I'm considering a tow hitch on a car instead of using a dump truck.
> 
> We carried a lot less stuff than in the video, making an effort to bring the least and the smallest stuff we could, traveling extremely "light". I did bring a guitar though............


Yeah - when you leave the kids in the cellar, it make a lot of room on the boat for other stuff apparently. Heh-heh.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ...Now, I'm pretty much done talking with you, Exile - ....


In the unlikely event this breaks your heart Ex, I've heard it before and have been re-engaged the next day. All you have to do is disagree with him. Quite a rant from someone who keeps saying he doesn't care what we think.


----------



## smackdaddy

NCC320 said:


> I once had an engineering group supervisor who really, really enjoyed debating/arguing with people, especially knowledgeable people. Now, it didn't matter which side of a question that he argued. One side of an issue was as good as the other...he'd readily take either side. On some days, when things were slow or running smoothly, he would engage the group in a technical debate. Most group members didn't really want to debate him on lots of technical issues, but he enjoyed it. So, to get things going, he would make some controversial statement. If no one engaged him, he'd make a little more extreme statement. And eventually, the statement would be sufficiently far out, that someone would take the bait and then the game was on. Now, the supervisor was a good guy, but he just loved to debate. Nothing was ever held against a person for taking a certain position, and to him it was all great fun.
> 
> I believe Smackdaddy is like that supervisor. He enjoys the game, and he knows how to get you "experienced sailors" with many miles and years of cruising/sailing to take the bait. Anytime things slow down, he'll just tweak you a bit and the argument will continue on....now for 4283 posts on this thread alone. Now, Smack genuinely believes that the production boats B, J, H, C are better than most of you will give them credit; and when you own one, you hate to hear people badmouth them. So he's taken getting better recognition and acceptance for those boats (especially in regards to CE A and open water cruising) as his objective. And, he loves his Hunter and has great faith in it's capabilities. For what it's worth, I also think that this group of boats are better, and have gotten even better over time, than lots of people give them credit.
> 
> Trouble is, some of the "experienced sailors" get really upset with the debate. Then, they begin to throw out insults and personal attacks just as they accuse Smack. And, to some of us less experienced sailors, the experienced guys begin to come across as bullies....i.e. I'm experienced, I know more than you, don't challenge me, just take what I say as gospel. Smack will post a picture or video of an individual boat to illustrate his position. People will get angry at him and say that is not representative of the class, or it's not meaningful. Then, the same people will do exactly the same in reverse. I'm guessing the "newbies" might be a bit intimidated by the angry/aggressive posts, and might not feel free to ask questions...if you don't know, you will never know unless you ask or propose some idea.
> 
> Experienced guys, if you don't like what Smack posts, just be smug, and say I don't agree.
> 
> But truthfully, none of us can let this thread go, so don't ban Smackdaddy....it won't be the same.


Thanks for the back-up NC. I looked back and realized you've been in this thread since the beginning. So you definitely count.

I hope newbies DO ask questions. That's the purpose of all this really.


----------



## outbound

Find he doesn't provide any useful information so just glance over his posts ignoring the same old diatribe. I have yet to learn anything from him. Do respond when there are things that I believe would put others at risk or he fails to behave like a gentleman such as ad hominem attacks on a deceased soul. Otherwise he's harmless and this is action at a distance i.e. the Internet. However, this consumes bandwidth. Even this post does. When can we get back to talking about sailboats.
At least on sailing anarchy with a fight there is content. Agree to post and then be subjected to his harassing behavior probably does decrease number of posting members at all levels and all different skill sets. That is the likely negative effect of his involvement with his current behavior.


----------



## Exile1

Wow Smack, it must have taken you _all day_ to compose that love-filled post to me. No, actually, it _did_ take you all day. Not that I'm _stalking_ you or anything . . . .

And no, I didn't have to just take Jon's word for the reported conditions on Va. Beach at the time the Hunter got into trouble that day. You see, I was _there_, _on my boat_, with about 14 lines tied off to what I hoped was a strong floating dock, prepared for those same dire weather forecasts you so diligently provided us. Well, almost there I should say. A bit north of Norfolk, off the East River off Mobjack Bay to be more exact. It was ironic, actually, because my insurance co. had finally made me leave Charleston -- a city which largely escaped the storm -- for the "safer" Chesapeake Bay. I had arrived only a week before to be greeted by what initially sounded like a very serious threat from Hurricane Irene.

But that threat never materialized, Smack, at least not to the extent predicted. You see, this storm, like many others in that area, slammed into the NC Outer Banks and weakened over land, before strengthening once again in the Atlantic after passing over the southern Chesapeake Bay. Storms do that sorta thing when there's a big old land mass interrupting their paths. Jon will confirm this for you, but maybe best to continue with your pm's as watching your credibility get destroyed again is getting a bit embarrassing. But I understand, how would you know? You're on the gulf coast, haven't really sailed anywhere, and only have your computer's charts, graphs & pointers to help convince other anonymous internet users that you're a knowledgeable guy?

What was also helpful actually _being in the area_ Smack, is that the story of the wayward Hunter was all over the local news, along with accompanying reports of storm conditions. Back over on my boat in Mobjack, I personally never saw winds over 35 kts., but there were reports of higher gusts further south in & around the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area. But again, not during the morning hours when the Hunter was foundering off Va. Beach. Got it? As for the waves, I recall watching the same pics & vids on the news that have been copied here. Short & steep as one would expect, but not very large at that point, _just as Jon & Killarney said_. You do understand the concept of "fetch," right? It was still early in the path of the storm. Anyway, here's a link to one of many news reports of the storm that "fell short of predictions." http://www.pilotonline.com/news/loc...cle_eb808c91-e6b0-505a-8de1-53b303f95576.html. I know how important it is to you that newcomers like me are sufficiently prepared when posting on one of "your" threads.

Nope, it wasn't me who called in the mods on CF or anywhere else. Like, not my style "dude." Your poor, divisive, & abusive behavior had been going on for months, you had already been repeatedly warned, then temporarily banned, and finally banished for good. Other than Polux/PCP, the cheers were deafening. I know, what do you care, you've stated how proud you are about it, and that's what you publicly stated you wanted to do anyway from the outset. But it's all too predictable you would blame mods, posters like me & others, or _anyone_ or _thing_ to avoid personal responsibility. As the criminal defense attorney famously said in opening statements, "your Honor, and ladies & gentlemen of the jury. _SOMEBODY_ in this courtroom is guilty, and it's _NOT MY CLIENT!_


----------



## Exile1

Minnewaska said:


> In the unlikely event this breaks your heart Ex, I've heard it before and have been re-engaged the next day. All you have to do is disagree with him. Quite a rant from someone who keeps saying he doesn't care what we think.


A real heartbreak that would be, right? Let's both keep our fingers crossed he follows through with his own manufactured drama for once.


----------



## Exile1

outbound said:


> Find he doesn't provide any useful information so just glance over his posts ignoring the same old diatribe. I have yet to learn anything from him. Do respond when there are things that I believe would put others at risk or he fails to behave like a gentleman such as ad hominem attacks on a deceased soul. Otherwise he's harmless and this is action at a distance i.e. the Internet. However, this consumes bandwidth. Even this post does. When can we get back to talking about sailboats.
> At least on sailing anarchy with a fight there is content. Agree to post and then be subjected to his harassing behavior probably does decrease number of posting members at all levels and all different skill sets. That is the likely negative effect of his involvement with his current behavior.


Sorry Out -- looks like we posted at the same time. You are correct, of course, and I'm only contributing at this point to the negativity Smack so often seems to inspire.


----------



## smackdaddy

That's what I thought. Talk is cheap.

From your own article:



> Irene was rated a Category 1 hurricane, but in some areas its winds topped out at tropical storm-level speeds. A top gust of 67 mph was recorded at Langley Air Force Base and a 63 mph gust at Norfolk Naval Station, the National Weather Service said.
> 
> In Richmond, a 71-mph gust was recorded at the airport, more than 100 miles away from the storm center.
> 
> In Norfolk, Irene's storm surge at high tide on Saturday night almost pushed water levels to a record level. The weather service reported a combined tide and surge of 7.54 feet around 8 p.m. at Sewells Point, while the city reported a reading of 7.63 feet there. Water reached 7.89 feet during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 and 7.75 feet during the November nor'easter in 2009, Hurley said.
> 
> Irene brought 3.5-foot to 4.5-foot storm surges across the region, which was in the range of what had been anticipated, he said.


And you were there?

Fail.

Jeez this is ridiculous. What does this have to do with production boats again?


----------



## XSrcing

You people have lots of buttons and Smack knows them all. 

Between most of the people who direct their posts at him there have been a few people who drop knowledge bombs to newbs like me. 

There haven't been many in the last few pages.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> You people have lots of buttons and Smack knows them all.
> 
> Between most of the people who direct their posts at him there have been a few people who drop knowledge bombs to newbs like me.
> 
> There haven't been many in the last few pages.


I'm with you, X. Hopefully we can get those knowledge bombs started again. This chest slapping stuff is getting old.

Later.


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> when can we get back to talking about sailboats.


:| :| :| :| :| :|


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> That's what I thought. Talk is cheap.
> 
> From your own article:
> 
> And you were there?
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Jeez this is ridiculous. What does this have to do with production boats again?


Was there, read the article, and kept a close watch on the weather for obvious reasons. The wind speeds & surge reported in this and most of the other articles were for the height of the storm, long after the Hunter got into trouble off the beach. But that's obvious and you know it.

What this has to do with production boats is your inability to be objective when it comes to any sort of negative report about a Hunter, whether it's fairly attributable to the boat's construction or not. I'm just amazed how much of your credibility you'll sacrifice to pursue your very transparent, personal agenda.


----------



## Bleemus

You guys really need to try the Ignore function. It is brilliant.


----------



## NCC320

All the fussing about the Hunter that went ashore and had the anchor chain cut away the hull proves nothing. It was one boat, which experienced conditions not typical of most boats, Hunter and otherwise. Where a manufacturer makes thousands of boats of various sizes, and has been doing so for years, unless a high percentage of their boats can be documented as having some failing, it means nothing to point at one or two incidents out of that vast quantity and say that it is typical of the brand.

Boats dragging anchor is not an unusual event, but a boat on the shore in the surf in named storm conditions is not a normal event for any boat. Maybe it should become a criteria/test requirement for all brands, models, and sizes. Then, such a grounding might have some significance. 

I'm in NC on Pamlico River/Pamlico Sound. Because of where I am, the water will typically go up 8-9 ft. and then be blown completely out of the creeks where boats typically are moored in these storms. And, wave action gets really bad...very shallow water, steep waves, close together. It's a rough ride whether boat tries to take it at a pier or anchored out. But, let's talk Hunter in storm conditions some more...single boat incidents to be consistent with previous postings. I don't recall exactly which storm, but in an earlier hurricane, on our creek, there were two incidents with late model Hunters in 34 ft. range. 1) Afterwards, I observed one Hunter at the boat yard where storm forces had separated the anchor/cleat area of the fore deck from the hull, not as bad, but somewhat similar to the large Hunter that was previously illustrated. 2) On the other side of the creek was one that was anchored out, which drug anchor up against a bulkhead in the storm, where it tolerated the wave action. Other than cosmetic scrapes on the hull, there was no damage. This second boat is from our marina, and I know it has been anchored out in previous storms and in Irene without any damage. So, if based on a one boat sampling, you were at the boat yard, you would consider the construction inadequate. If you were on the other side of the creek and examined that other boat in a one boat sampling, you'd come away saying that the boat construction is fine as the boat did well that storm and had done so in multiple hurricanes. 

No one, on either side, has provided meaningful data as regards to production boats and their limits. It's just opinions, with everyone having a different one, and most of those opinions are guided by individual bias and need to defend their boat purchase decision. I suspect that such data does not exist....even the manufacturers probably don't know for sure since they lose contact with boats after the warranty period.


----------



## smackdaddy

NCC320 said:


> So, if based on a one boat sampling, *you were at the boat yard,* you would consider the construction inadequate. If you were on the other side of the creek and examined that other boat in a one boat sampling, you'd come away saying that the boat construction is fine as the boat did well that storm and had done so in multiple hurricanes.


I started another interesting, wildly popular thread on this at CF called "The Yard Guys". The intent was to get examples from those who actually work on boats to provide pics of what they were seeing in their yards. The idea was that if there were common problems, such a thread would begin to show them.

Of course, it turned into a production boat bash within a few pages - with the usual suspects hating on Plexus and even decrying a production boat that had had a powerful collision with a steel trawler, crushing the stem. They were dubious about the strength and integrity of the very widely used Plexus and were "astounded" at how thin the layup was at the cored above-water section of that wrecked production boat - like boats should be designed to t-bone steel trawlers? And on it went from there.

I still think the thread is a good idea. But I don't think people can help themselves.


----------



## NCC320

Question for Bob Perry. I don't recall you addressing CE A classification as to what it really contains as requirements and the significance of those. I suspect that you and most other designers probably were designing boats, and builders were building boats, that met most of the requirements for the rating before the standards were established. This would be because the sea conditions that must be endured were same before and after the establishment of the ratings. Also, there are likely other manufacturing/design standards that apply to a boat. My guess, is that designers probably made some changes to meet the CE A rating, but the number of those changes probably were minor. Also, how specific are the standards and how many different groups must be met in a design...I saw some regarding a grounding incident of a mega boat in regards to anchor, chain, sizing and use, and they were rather specific. Would you mind addressing briefly standards in general and CE A rating in particular?


----------



## bobperry

320:
Pretty much all you said is correct. I really don't need the standards to tell me how to design a boat. A lot of the requirements are common sense. I have done a few boats to CE requirements but for instance my four carbon cutter project is not. But there are things like hatch sizes lifeline specs that I pay attention to. I would not want an owner to enter a race with CE A a requirement and find out his boat was not in compliance because his stern pulpit was too short. Ground tackle is all called out by the owner working with me and the builder. We will be in excess of CE there.

CE A tells me very little. I think you could meet all requirements and still produce a poorly built boat. Check the Oyster "My keel fell off" thread.


----------



## outbound

I mentioned this before but will again as I see a disconnect I don't understand.

Windlasses and bow rollers are for picking up the rode and anchor. They are not for pulling the boat forward nor to endur the snatch loads of the anchor and rode when fully anchored. When anchoring I was taught to secure the chain with snubbers. In mild weather just one may serve but in other conditions at least two. I have even used a snubber to bow cleat and another to midships cleat to line up the boat to wave train or to minimize " sailing at anchor".

I know this is best practice with chain but also believe not having the windlass bear any load once at anchor is best practice for short chain /rope rode as well.

I understand the loads on the roller assembly and windlass may be very high when raising anchor. This is especially true if done in steep waves or when attempting to snap an anchor free if fouled. But I don't understand the focus of the posts concerning this particular occurrence.

Please educate.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so first to the blatant hypocrisy thing...
> 
> I invite you to take a look at your own posting history here on SN:
> 
> SailNet Community - View Profile: Exile1
> _(Click on "Statistics" and "Find all posts...")_
> 
> The post above put you at *a total of 112 posts*. Of that, a total of *ONLY SEVEN* are in threads that _*were not started by Smackdaddy*_. The other 105 are you stalking me.
> 
> Now why would that be, Exile? Could it be because you followed me over here from CF to try the same passive-aggressive crap you and robertsailor (who also followed me over, though he's been big enough to move on) - and others - stirred up with the mods at CF? I can certainly see a correlation. Can you?
> 
> Just look through those posts of yours, Ex. How many of them are "making meaningful contributions to the discussions" versus expressing "outrage" at my "behavior" and calling for my head?
> 
> In light of this ratio of posts - which one of us is actually trolling Ex?
> 
> Right. So get real.


Well, in the interests of "getting real", it should be noted that prior to the recent flurry of activity over the past 6 weeks, this thread had been totally dormant for a two month period until you resurrected it back in Post #2157, _by cutting and pasting a post from another forum on which you no longer participate_, and casting a lure in Exile's direction...



smackdaddy said:


> Now Robert - this is just silly...
> 
> You're starting to sound a bit like Exile or Keno.


btw, hope you weren't too disappointed when your request to have a bomb planted over on CF by a 3rd party re the superiority of Hunters over Oysters produced nothing more than a collective yawn, eliciting not a single comment...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Cool - so you're taking a shot at facts. I respect that. Now let's look at yours.
> 
> First, have _*you yourself *_looked at the NOAA data that Jon linked to, or are you just taking his word for it as a chance to shake your pitchfork in his shadow? Show me that data, Ex. Not Jon - *you*. I want to see you pull it up and analyze it. You know, "facts".
> 
> I have looked at it. And I know what the numbers are. And Jon is wrong&#8230;even on those wind numbers he threw out.
> 
> He's only focusing on one column.


I specifically cited the _wind speed_ figures from NOAA's data at the Bridge tunnel, and they are accurate... You appear to be focusing on the "highest gust" measured, which of course is akin to describing sea conditions and mean wave heights by reporting the height of a larger, single wave observed over a period of time... There's a reason why 'Maximum Sustained Wind" is the measure used to determine the strength of storms, instead of the highest gusts reported, as it is a more meaningful description of the conditions at the time...



smackdaddy said:


> More importantly, since you like documentation so much, here is what *NOAA itself* says about this particular storm:
> 
> NOAA: Extreme Weather 2011 - Hurricane Irene
> 
> And do me a favor - measure the distance between the point of this initial "strike" with it's 115 mph winds - and Norfolk:


A compelling argument, to be sure... Using NOAA's own observations re the landfall of a storm approximately 150 NM to the south, _prior_ to the time those videos were recorded, in an effort to disprove the validity of NOAA's own data recorded that morning 7 miles away from the scene of the grounding, at the precise time those videos were being shot...

LMAO!



smackdaddy said:


> I also previously posted *a video of a reporter on the scene* showing the wind conditions there _prior_ to the Hunter hitting that beach. You can clearly hear her account of the deteriorating conditions and see that the gusts are beyond 38 mph, and visibility is reduced to a couple hundred yards.


Remember, folks... this is coming from one whose analysis of Youtube videos is unmatched, and will never stop arguing that this video does, indeed, depict a Jeanneau 57 sailing in 28 knots of breeze...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> I mentioned this before but will again as I see a disconnect I don't understand.
> 
> Windlasses and bow rollers are for picking up the rode and anchor. They are not for pulling the boat forward nor to endur the snatch loads of the anchor and rode when fully anchored. When anchoring I was taught to secure the chain with snubbers. In mild weather just one may serve but in other conditions at least two. I have even used a snubber to bow cleat and another to midships cleat to line up the boat to wave train or to minimize " sailing at anchor".
> 
> I know this is best practice with chain but also believe not having the windlass bear any load once at anchor is best practice for short chain /rope rode as well.
> 
> I understand the loads on the roller assembly and windlass may be very high when raising anchor. This is especially true if done in steep waves or when attempting to snap an anchor free if fouled. But I don't understand the focus of the posts concerning this particular occurrence.
> 
> Please educate.


I'm with you. It's obvious that such snatching loads that we see in the video are catastrophic. And who knows if snubbers were being used? I kind of doubt it - but no way to know for sure. Also, with those loads I doubt snubbers would have held anyway.

But another more interesting aspect of this that you hit on that has NOT been discussed is that of how much this Hunter was "sailing at anchor". Obviously the winds were strong and the waves were bashing her, but she was definitely getting broadside. Do newer Hunters have this problem more than other boats?


----------



## NCC320

Re: The Hunter dragging on shore in Irene.... It doesn't matter what the wind was doing nor whether the waves were as high as stated. For a given wind condition, breaking surf waves are always higher and more violent than waves away from the shore. Also, with a hurricane coming, the waves radiate out from and ahead of the storm, so that sea and surf gets rougher in advance of storm, not as violent as near the center, but more more than local wind conditions alone would create. And when the boat slams the bottom in the surf, the forces experienced on the boat and its components reach a totally new extreme. The videos clearly show the boat being slammed around very hard, regardless of sustained winds or wave heights away from the shore. But we all know that don't we? so why the fuss on the wind speed?


----------



## Exile1

NCC320 said:


> All the fussing about the Hunter that went ashore and had the anchor chain cut away the hull proves nothing. It was one boat, which experienced conditions not typical of most boats, Hunter and otherwise. Where a manufacturer makes thousands of boats of various sizes, and has been doing so for years, unless a high percentage of their boats can be documented as having some failing, it means nothing to point at one or two incidents out of that vast quantity and say that it is typical of the brand.
> 
> Boats dragging anchor is not an unusual event, but a boat on the shore in the surf in named storm conditions is not a normal event for any boat. Maybe it should become a criteria/test requirement for all brands, models, and sizes. Then, such a grounding might have some significance.
> 
> I'm in NC on Pamlico River/Pamlico Sound. Because of where I am, the water will typically go up 8-9 ft. and then be blown completely out of the creeks where boats typically are moored in these storms. And, wave action gets really bad...very shallow water, steep waves, close together. It's a rough ride whether boat tries to take it at a pier or anchored out. But, let's talk Hunter in storm conditions some more...single boat incidents to be consistent with previous postings. I don't recall exactly which storm, but in an earlier hurricane, on our creek, there were two incidents with late model Hunters in 34 ft. range. 1) Afterwards, I observed one Hunter at the boat yard where storm forces had separated the anchor/cleat area of the fore deck from the hull, not as bad, but somewhat similar to the large Hunter that was previously illustrated. 2) On the other side of the creek was one that was anchored out, which drug anchor up against a bulkhead in the storm, where it tolerated the wave action. Other than cosmetic scrapes on the hull, there was no damage. This second boat is from our marina, and I know it has been anchored out in previous storms and in Irene without any damage. So, if based on a one boat sampling, you were at the boat yard, you would consider the construction inadequate. If you were on the other side of the creek and examined that other boat in a one boat sampling, you'd come away saying that the boat construction is fine as the boat did well that storm and had done so in multiple hurricanes.
> 
> No one, on either side, has provided meaningful data as regards to production boats and their limits. It's just opinions, with everyone having a different one, and most of those opinions are guided by individual bias and need to defend their boat purchase decision. I suspect that such data does not exist....even the manufacturers probably don't know for sure since they lose contact with boats after the warranty period.


I appreciated this post NC, and thought you stated it well. I agree that there are too many variables to necessarily blame poor build quality for the damage to this particular Hunter's bow section & roller assembly, and I stated that up front. But I also didn't see any need to fabricate wind speed, wave height, or storm conditions to try and "justify" such damage. As many have already stated, the resulting damage _could_ have been caused or exacerbated by an inadequately thin laminate in the bow section or poorly supported roller assembly, or conditions were such that similar damage _could_ have also been inflicted on a different type or brand of boat. All of this was well argued at the time (several times, actually), and the only fact that mattered storm-wise was that the conditions were "enough" to lead to a series of events which landed the Hunter on the beach.

This incident reminds me of one out in Calif. awhile back where unusually severe conditions led to a Hunter losing its mooring, and another chain of events ensued which caused it to sink. The thread title on CF mentioned that it was a "Hunter," and some speculated that a bow cleat pulling out was the likely culprit. Smack had the same type of temper tantrum, accompanying personal attacks on the OP & others, along with another round of the type of factual manipulations that we've recently witnessed here. It turns out the bow cleat held, but the surrounding laminate tore out. But like here, the conditions were so severe, and other relevant facts so limited, that it was pretty hard to conclude that the boat's build quality was at fault.

But also like here, people have their opinions, and a few have much more experience and/or expertise than others. It's hard to learn from guys like that if you're always busy trying to overstate your own experience/expertise in pursuit of some purely personal agenda. Along with the suggested "Ignore" feature, I suppose I perhaps need to turn the setting on my Bulls**t Meter up (again).


----------



## albrazzi

NCC320 said:


> I once had an engineering group supervisor who really, really enjoyed debating/arguing with people, especially knowledgeable people. Now, it didn't matter which side of a question that he argued. One side of an issue was as good as the other...he'd readily take either side. On some days, when things were slow or running smoothly, he would engage the group in a technical debate. Most group members didn't really want to debate him on lots of technical issues, but he enjoyed it. So, to get things going, he would make some controversial statement. If no one engaged him, he'd make a little more extreme statement. And eventually, the statement would be sufficiently far out, that someone would take the bait and then the game was on. Now, the supervisor was a good guy, but he just loved to debate. Nothing was ever held against a person for taking a certain position, and to him it was all great fun.
> 
> I believe Smackdaddy is like that supervisor. He enjoys the game, and he knows how to get you "experienced sailors" with many miles and years of cruising/sailing to take the bait. Anytime things slow down, he'll just tweak you a bit and the argument will continue on....now for 4283 posts on this thread alone. Now, Smack genuinely believes that the production boats B, J, H, C are better than most of you will give them credit; and when you own one, you hate to hear people badmouth them. So he's taken getting better recognition and acceptance for those boats (especially in regards to CE A and open water cruising) as his objective. And, he loves his Hunter and has great faith in it's capabilities. For what it's worth, I also think that this group of boats are better, and have gotten even better over time, than lots of people give them credit.
> 
> Trouble is, some of the "experienced sailors" get really upset with the debate. Then, they begin to throw out insults and personal attacks just as they accuse Smack. And, to some of us less experienced sailors, the experienced guys begin to come across as bullies....i.e. I'm experienced, I know more than you, don't challenge me, just take what I say as gospel. Smack will post a picture or video of an individual boat to illustrate his position. People will get angry at him and say that is not representative of the class, or it's not meaningful. Then, the same people will do exactly the same in reverse. I'm guessing the "newbies" might be a bit intimidated by the angry/aggressive posts, and might not feel free to ask questions...if you don't know, you will never know unless you ask or propose some idea.
> 
> Experienced guys, if you don't like what Smack posts, just be smug, and say I don't agree.
> 
> But truthfully, none of us can let this thread go, so don't ban Smackdaddy....it won't be the same.


I used to drink with a guy like that, now I drink with more interesting people. Good point BTW.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, in the interests of "getting real", it should be noted that prior to the recent flurry of activity over the past 6 weeks, this thread had been totally dormant for a two month period until you resurrected it back in Post #2157, _by cutting and pasting a post from another forum on which you no longer participate_, and casting a lure in Exile's direction...


Heh-heh. I was actually casting a lure in Keno and RS' direction. Exile was already yapping about in the WG thread by that time. He never required a lure. And before you start playing the moral card - if you want to see his kind of trolling follow this link he posted in my Yard Guys thread over on CF then watch him hysterically spin BS just like he's doing here:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f55/the-yard-guys-136314-48.html#post1695966

And notice the "mod's" comment on the next page stoking the fire. This is how they troll...yet I'm the "troll". Whatever.



JonEisberg said:


> btw, hope you weren't too disappointed when your request to have a bomb planted over on CF by a 3rd party re the superiority of Hunters over Oysters produced nothing more than a collective yawn, eliciting not a single comment...


Aw, it's no problem. Yeah, I was hoping for some spice. Remember it was primarily these guys and a couple of the mods that did the dirty over there (again see the link above). So I have no problem sniping at them occasionally. I earned the right (though the mods here likely disagree with that sentiment - holding breath now). At least Ex and RS had the cajones to follow me over here. I've got some respect for that. And the fact that RS has moved on to other things is more impressive. He even made a very reasonable post in this very thread a few weeks ago (weeks after the post you've highlighted). So I've got even more respect for him now. We'll see about the others. But I'm certainly not holding out hope for Ex.



JonEisberg said:


> I specifically cited the _wind speed_ figures from NOAA's data at the Bridge tunnel, and they are accurate... You appear to be focusing on the "highest gust" measured, which of course is akin to describing sea conditions and mean wave heights by reporting the height of a larger, single wave observed over a period of time... There's a reason why 'Maximum Sustained Wind" is the measure used to determine the strength of storms, instead of the highest gusts reported, as it is a more meaningful description of the conditions at the time...


For typical conditions I would agree with the way you're looking at that chart.



> WSPD - Wind speed (m/s) averaged over an eight-minute period for buoys and a two-minute period for land stations. Reported Hourly. See Wind Averaging Methods.
> 
> GST - Peak 5 or 8 second gust speed (m/s) measured during the eight-minute or two-minute period. The 5 or 8 second period can be determined by payload, See the Sensor Reporting, Sampling, and Accuracy section.


For hurricane/tropical storm conditions the top windspeeds are just as important an indicator, as you can tell by the way NOAA *always* lists them when discussing these storms.

And despite these numbers of yours (and theirs), *NOAA* categorized this storm in the way they did...*as a Cat 1 storm*. You can't get around that, Jon.

Even so, the windspeed argument is a straw-man, which is why I don't know why you are so focused on it. Wind didn't cause the damage to that Hunter. The seas did.



JonEisberg said:


> A compelling argument, to be sure... Using NOAA's own observations re the landfall of a storm approximately 150 NM to the south, _prior_ to the time those videos were recorded, in an effort to disprove the validity of NOAA's own data recorded that morning 7 miles away from the scene of the grounding, at the precise time those videos were being shot...
> 
> LMAO!


This is from NOAA:

Hurricane Irene August 26-27, 2011



> Irene made landfall near Cape Lookout, North Carolina at around 7:30 AM EDT on August 27, 2011 as a strong category 1 storm. The peak wind gust recorded was 115 mph at the Cedar Island Ferry Terminal in Carteret County as the eye was moving ashore.


I seem to recall that you said in one of your posts that they were rescued around 1030. But I can't find that now. But there is this:

Coast Guard and local agencies rescue 2 near Norfolk during Hurricane Irene | Coast Guard News



> Watchstanders at the Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads command center received the initial report from a good Samaritan at approximately 8 a.m. that a sailboat was dragging its anchor 400 feet from the beach. Personnel from Norfolk Fire-Rescue, Virginia Marine Resources Commission Police and the Norfolk Police Department responded to the scene.
> 
> The sailboat was homeported in Portsmouth, Va., but left Friday for Annapolis, Md., to escape the oncoming storm. When severe weather overtook them, they attempted to deploy their anchor.
> 
> Heavy seas and winds prevented rescue personnel from reaching the sailboat. It was ultimately pushed closer to shore and over a jetty, whereupon its keel embedded in the sand.
> 
> Norfolk Fire-Rescue then deployed two rescue swimmers to the vessel, who after securing two lines to it, assisted the people and the cat through waist- to chest-deep water onto shore.


The timing of around 1000-1030 sounds about right.

So, a 3 hour span between when Irene hit Cape Lookout with 115 mph winds and when the rescue happened. And have you seen the track?

And are you ignoring this tidbit from NOAA?



> Tropical-storm force winds began to affect the Outer Banks and Crystal Coast during the early evening hours of August 26. Additionally, Irene spawned several tornadoes during the late evening hours of August 26, producing significant damage in Tyrrell, Washington and Beaufort Counties. Figure 6 shows the strong rotational couplet associated with an EF-1 tornado near Creswell, North Carolina around 1055 pm August 26.


And you're trying to make the case that all is calm before a hurricane actually hits?

And how exactly are you getting 150 nm? Another exaggeration?










I agree with you that the storm was weakening as they always do over land. NOAA says that. But your focus on that single column of localized windspeed is discounting TONS of other data from NOAA and many other sources that fully supports the fact that this was not simply a red flag gale at the time of this rescue.

In fact, the sustained gust of *60 mph* at 0936 right before the rescue, along with all the other video and data from multiple sources, indicates that the general conditions near that beach were far beyond what you're trying to get people to believe.



JonEisberg said:


> Remember, folks... this is coming from one whose analysis of Youtube videos is unmatched, and will never stop arguing that this video does, indeed, depict a Jeanneau 57 sailing in 28 knots of breeze...


Says the very experienced mariner who adds 50nm to distances on a whim, focuses on the lowest common denominator for conditions (which is NEVER a good idea) to try to make his point when there is lots of other evidence contradicting him, etc.

More importantly, yet again, you have focused ONLY on windspeed. You've neglected to address the most critical aspect of this whole situation - the sea state.

So, NC is right. Your arguments on all this are really meaningless. This Hunter suffered the same fate that ANY boat in that situation would have suffered. Trying to desperately use this as some example of the deficiency of Hunter or production boats is utterly ridiculous.

Even Ian Van Tuyl would be disgusted.


----------



## smackdaddy

albrazzi said:


> I used to drink with a guy like that, now I drink with more interesting people. Good point BTW.


Heh-heh. Yeah it was kind of a backhanded compliment. But I'll take what I get.

Oh, and I now drink with more interesting people too.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I started another interesting, wildly popular thread on this at CF called "The Yard Guys". The intent was to get examples from those who actually work on boats to provide pics of what they were seeing in their yards. The idea was that if there were common problems, such a thread would begin to show them.
> 
> Of course, it turned into a production boat bash within a few pages - with the usual suspects hating on Plexus and even decrying a production boat that had had a powerful collision with a steel trawler, crushing the stem. They were dubious about the strength and integrity of the very widely used Plexus and were "astounded" at how thin the layup was at the cored above-water section of that wrecked production boat - like boats should be designed to t-bone steel trawlers? And on it went from there.
> 
> I still think the thread is a good idea. But I don't think people can help themselves.


Well, I suppose that's _one_ way of summarizing it. The only trouble with your "Yard Guys" thread is that you explicitly and directly asked the _YARD GUYS_ to tell everyone what problems they were seeing with boats in their yards. Needless to say, this didn't go all that well for fans of production boats, with the principal cadre of "usual suspects" being those very same _YARD GUYS_ you specifically asked opinions from! In fairness, there were plenty of examples of failures on higher end boats as well, but I don't recall your being all that pleased with the practically unanimous consensus on build quality from the _YARD GUYS_.

But people can read it for themselves if they want, unless they're sensitive to criticism about production boats from several experienced guys who work on them for a living, that is. As usual, the thread was ultimately closed down for "unpleasantness."


----------



## smackdaddy

I just started a Yard Guys thread here. We'll see how it plays out. Maybe different? Maybe the same?

In any case, it would be great for a thread like this if we can pull together examples from various yards that might give us some actual insight into what kinds of things are failing on what boats - and why.


----------



## Noelex

The strength of the anchor bow roller and cleats is not hard to work out. It should be stronger than the chain.

This is especially important when the failure leads to a risk of loss of the forestay and the mast.

If we take 10mm G40 chain for example, the SWL is about 1.3 tons and the UTS is about 5 tons. These are not enormous loads for sailboat hardware.

We do not need to debate the strength of the wind or wave action. The anchor roller and the cleats should be stronger than the chain.

Even expensive sailboats seem to sometimes forget these basic principals.

I have no idea of the strength of this hydraulic carbon fibre anchor roller. Is it is as strong as the the chain given the leverage? At least it will not compromise the forestay.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And despite these numbers of yours (and theirs), *NOAA* categorized this storm in the way they did...*as a Cat 1 storm*. You can't get around that, Jon.


Despite the fact that Cat 1 force winds were no where near that boat by the time Mr Calabrese and his partner were being taken in for medical evaluation...



smackdaddy said:


> Even so, the windspeed argument is a straw-man, which is why I don't know why you are so focused on it. Wind didn't cause the damage to that Hunter. The seas did.


And what, exactly, caused the seas?

But, carry on... ;-)



smackdaddy said:


> I seem to recall that you said in one of your posts that they were rescued around 1030. But I can't find that now. But there is this:
> 
> Coast Guard and local agencies rescue 2 near Norfolk during Hurricane Irene | Coast Guard News
> 
> The timing of around 1000-1030 sounds about right.


Guess you didn't notice in the first line of that report that the rescue took place _*during the onset*_ of Hurricane Irene...

That definitive report and Fount of The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth also identifies the boat as being "a 30 foot sailboat", but I digress... ;-)



smackdaddy said:


> So, a 3 hour span between when Irene hit Cape Lookout with 115 mph winds and when the rescue happened. And have you seen the track?
> 
> And are you ignoring this tidbit from NOAA?
> 
> And you're trying to make the case that all is calm before a hurricane actually hits?
> 
> And how exactly are you getting 150 nm? Another exaggeration?


Damn, hope you didn't use the Waterway Guide app to come up with that chart... Seems apparent you don't even know where Cape Lookout actually is... ;-)

My bad, for making such a gross exaggeration, I just had that rough estimate in my head, and should have dragged out a chart and stepped it off with some dividers, before posting that one...

Tip of Cape Lookout is at 34 35' N...

Willoughby Spit/Ocean View is at 36 58' N...

By my reckoning, that indicates a difference of latitude amounting to 143 NM, but others may wish to check my math, it's never been my strong suit, and I'm still a bit groggy from a 20 hour return trip back home from Tortola... ;-)

In any even, my apologies to the forum for resorting to such a gross exaggeration...

But, hey, at least it's not quite as egregious as continually making the claim that SEQUITUR rode out a Force 11-12 storm _*off Cape Horn*_, when in fact they were actually some 500 SM distant, in the lee of West Falkland...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Damn, hope you didn't use the Waterway Guide app to come up with that chart... Seems apparent you don't even know where Cape Lookout actually is...
> 
> My bad, for making such a gross exaggeration, I just had that rough estimate in my head, and should have dragged out a chart and stepped it off with some dividers, before posting that one...
> 
> Tip of Cape Lookout is at 34 35' N...
> 
> Willoughby Spit/Ocean View is at 36 58' N...
> 
> By my reckoning, that indicates a difference of latitude amounting to 143 NM, but others may wish to check my math, it's never been my strong suit, and I'm still a bit groggy from a 20 hour return trip back home from Tortola... ;-)
> 
> In any even, my apologies to the forum for resorting to such a gross exaggeration...


I know where Cape Lookout is. But if you look back at the NOAA graphic I posted indicating where Irene had the peak 115 mph wind measurement in Pamlico, then track it up to Norfolk - you don't get 150 nm. Here's a refresher, you seem confused:



smackdaddy said:


> And do me a favor - measure the distance between the point of this initial "strike" with it's 115 mph winds - and Norfolk:


So your GPS coordinates are great - they're just the wrong places. And though I know it helps your story a little to push the storm further out, it's an important thing in navigation and storm tracking to pay attention to details.



JonEisberg said:


> But, hey, at least it's not quite as egregious as continually making the claim that SEQUITUR rode out a Force 11-12 storm _*off Cape Horn*_, when in fact they were actually some 500 SM distant, in the lee of West Falkland...


Aaaaaand back around we go. Heh-heh. That Hunter and its skipper were damn impressive - no matter how bad you are with dividers.

Go to sleep. You're obviously not at your best.


----------



## Bleemus

Please stop quoting him. Please. Just let go. My god people. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Smackers is my buddy.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bleemus said:


> Please stop quoting him. Please. Just let go. My god people.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


G'day SN...this is Bleemus...










...all together now...

Dude, why the hell are you reading this thread if you can't stand to read this thread? Worse - why are you commenting on not wanting to read this thread?

- PS, thanks Bob. The feeling is definitely mutual.


----------



## skygazer

I have to smile at all the back and forth about wind, wind, wind.

I personally don't need to decide who has the right opinion on the wind, or care about any opinion. I saw the video. 

The newswoman did a great job of filming and making it look bad. I'm fine with that, she's trying to sell her bit and make a living. For all I know she has her news helicopter nearby making "just a bit extra" wind on her hair, yeah, lookin' good! Everyone scores.

But the unscripted guy casually walking upright closer to the water, wearing a baseball cap that doesn't blow off... that tells me all I need to know.

When I'm in 100 mile an hour winds I need to lash my hat down. I need to lean into the wind and push to make headway. If the wind let up suddenly I'd probably fall on my face. I bet most of you know what I mean.


----------



## outbound

bobperry said:


> Smackers is my buddy.


Don't make you a bad person:laugh


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I know where Cape Lookout is. But if you look back at the NOAA graphic I posted indicating where Irene had the peak 115 mph wind measurement in Pamlico, then track it up to Norfolk - you don't get 150 nm. Here's a refresher, you seem confused:
> 
> 
> 
> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And do me a favor - measure the distance between the point of this initial "strike" with it's 115 mph winds - and Norfolk:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rene made landfall between 7:30 and 8 AM EDT Saturday August 27 near Cape Lookout, North Carolina. As the eye wall moved ashore, wind gusts to 115 mph were observed at the Cedar Island Ferry Terminal. The lowest pressure observed with the landfall of Irene was at Beaufort (Figure 7) with 28.11 inches of mercury or around 951 millibars at 8:56 AM. Strong winds and driving rains pounded most of Eastern North Carolina into the mid-afternoon hours on Saturday. As the eye moved inland, strong westerly winds on the backside of the storm gusted to near 100 mph at Atlantic Beach around 10:30 AM. Torrential rainfall amounts in excess of 10 inches were widespread. Storm surge levels of over 10 feet were observed at Ocracoke and several breaches of Highway 12 were noted all along the Outer Banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your GPS coordinates are great - they're just the wrong places. And though I know it helps your story a little to push the storm further out, it's an important thing in navigation and storm tracking to pay attention to details.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I was referring to the point the storm made landfall, I might have been confused by your reference to "the point of this initial "strike"..."

Still, a couple of reasons why that map may not necessarily be all that illustrative of the conditions that prevailed up on the Bay... First, there are no _TIMES_ given for any of those 'observations'...

And then, there's the Fine Print in the lower left corner:

_"This map was generated using an interpolation method derived from actual values, but should be considered to be estimation only."_

But my point remains, it's amusing to see you attempt to use _SOME_ wind data from NOAA 100 miles or so distant, in an effort to discredit _OTHER_ data from a NOAA recording station 7 miles away from the event, obtained in real time...

After all:



smackdaddy said:


> And now we're back on the wind. *I honestly could give a damn what NOAA's data says.* Have you looked at the video?


BTW, it appears that there is considerable doubt about Irene being the sort of 'Storm of the Century' you've been attempting to make it out to be... Some very interesting observations made here:



> Cliff Mass Weather Blog: When Did Irene Stop Being a Hurricane?
> 
> "On Sunday morning Anderson Cooper of CNN was asking about the strong winds that were being forecast and this brings up something that has really bothered me about the storm: there is really no reliable evidence of hurricane-force winds at any time the storm was over North Carolina or moving up the East Coast.
> 
> First, what is a hurricane? The official definition is that a hurricane is a tropical cyclone with SUSTAINED winds of 64 kt or more (74 mph or more). A gust of 65 kt or more does not indicate a hurricane unless the sustained winds reach 64 kt.
> 
> I took a look at all the observations over Virgina, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. Not one National Weather Service or FAA observation location, not one buoy observations, none reach the requisite wind speed. Most were not even close.
> 
> Yes, there were a handful of hurricane-force wind reports but none of them were from official stations and there is considerable doubt about their reliability. Furthermore, satellite imagery clearly showed a poorly formed storm off of North Carolina--with little evidence of an eye.


...and here:

Tropical Storm Irene | Watts Up With That?

We were fortunate in that we have very good records of the wind speed when Irene made landfall. It went almost directly over the wind recording station at Cape Lookout, at the bottom of Figure 2.

As you can see, although Irene definitely qualifies as a solid tropical storm (winds greater than 35 knots), it does not reach or even really approach the 64-knot threshold for hurricanes. Other than at the eye itself, the winds did not exceed 50 knots, much less reach 64 knots.












smackdaddy said:


> Aaaaaand back around we go. Heh-heh. That Hunter and its skipper were damn impressive - no matter how bad you are with dividers.
> 
> Go to sleep. You're obviously not at your best.


Agreed, Michael and SEQUITUR handled that weather in exemplary fashion, no doubt about it...

However, as you said above:



smackdaddy said:


> And though I know it helps your story a little to push the storm further out, it's an important thing in navigation and storm tracking to pay attention to details.


So, we can suppose that attention paid to such a "detail" as to whether SEQUITUR actually encountered their big weather "off Cape Horn", or 500 miles off to the ENE in the lee of West Falkland, is the sort of clarity that only needs to be applied _SOMETIMES_, correct?

;-)


----------



## Minnewaska

bobperry said:


> Smackers is my buddy.


Which I'm sure emboldens him. I'm glad he receives strength from you and perhaps its reciprocal. Using that strength to behave like he does is terribly unfortunate.


----------



## smackdaddy

Man, you really make me tired. I can't continue to educate you forever. At some point, I'll have to go sailing. But for now...because I'm very fond of you...



JonEisberg said:


> My mistake,


Exactly. This is a positive step. Now let's get to the other ones.



JonEisberg said:


> I was referring to the point the storm made landfall, I might have been confused by your reference to "the point of this initial "strike"..."
> 
> Still, a couple of reasons why that map may not necessarily be all that illustrative of the conditions that prevailed up on the Bay... First, there are no _TIMES_ given for any of those 'observations'...


Now, first, I really can't help you if you're not going to read the information I'm providing links to. I read it. You don't. But I can tell you, if you say stuff that is immediately refuted by this information it makes me look really smart and experienced and you look otherwise. And we don't want that - because it would make Minne sad.



> Irene made landfall near Cape Lookout, North Carolina at around 7:30 AM EDT on August 27, 2011 as a strong category 1 storm.


Did you notice anything there in that NOAA summary I linked to earlier? The problem you're having _now_, is that 0730 is when this storm is _at Cape Lookout_, ~45+ miles to the south of where the NOAA image I posted shows the 115 wind peaks. This means, that this storm was on our fair Hunter _even more quickly than you thought_. Oohh.



JonEisberg said:


> And then, there's the Fine Print in the lower left corner:
> 
> _"This map was generated using an interpolation method derived from actual values, but should be considered to be estimation only."_


Of course there is Jon. Fine print. This is really what you're now basing you entire maritime reputation on? The end is near.



JonEisberg said:


> But my point remains, it's amusing to see you attempt to use _SOME_ wind data from NOAA 100 miles or so distant, in an effort to discredit _OTHER_ data from a NOAA recording station 7 miles away from the event, obtained in real time...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I'm the one using "SOME" wind data? I've posted more links to more sources of data _for this one storm_ than you have posted for ANYTHING in all your years of posting about crappy production boats and overburdened snowbirds.

Sorry, sir, but FAIL.



JonEisberg said:


> After all:...


Yes - and my comment stands. Precisely because all the OTHER NOAA data contradicts your single windspeed column that has you so mesmerized. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THE WIND ANYWAY!!!!!!



JonEisberg said:


> BTW, it appears that there is considerable doubt about Irene being the sort of 'Storm of the Century' you've been attempting to make it out to be..


Quote that 'Storm of the Century' line of mine here and we'll talk. Otherwise, it's you blowing smoke yet again to try to cover the fact that you're wrong...yet again.



JonEisberg said:


> Some very interesting observations made here:
> 
> ...and here:
> 
> Tropical Storm Irene | Watts Up With That?
> 
> We were fortunate in that we have very good records of the wind speed when Irene made landfall. It went almost directly over the wind recording station at Cape Lookout, at the bottom of Figure 2.
> 
> As you can see, although Irene definitely qualifies as a solid tropical storm (winds greater than 35 knots), it does not reach or even really approach the 64-knot threshold for hurricanes. Other than at the eye itself, the winds did not exceed 50 knots, much less reach 64 knots.


More wind. Great.

Look, if you have a problem with the categorization of this storm you really need to take it up with NOAA - not me. You have your Hatteras graph above, and NOAA has it's clear charts, tables, graphics, categorizations, and summations in the numerous images and links I've provided above.

So, do I go with the word of a guy who's obviously sleepy from sailing and tends to exaggerate like hell about the most absurd stuff to try to make ridiculous points? Or do I go with NOAA?

I'll go with NOAA. Little Exile would like that.



JonEisberg said:


> Agreed, Michael and SEQUITUR handled that weather in exemplary fashion, no doubt about it...


True. No argument there.



JonEisberg said:


> However, as you said above:
> 
> So, we can suppose that attention paid to such a "detail" as to whether SEQUITUR actually encountered their big weather "off Cape Horn", or 500 miles off to the ENE in the lee of West Falkland, is the sort of clarity that only needs to be applied _SOMETIMES_, correct?


Let me put it this way...in the case of your "Hurricane That Couldn't" - *150 miles and 2 hours* makes ALL the difference in your mind.

In the case of the Southern Ocean and its conditions...500 miles doesn't even start to count (see yellow 500 mile marker below)...










Being from Texas - distance is something we understand. It's a much harder concept for you Easties, I know. Heh-heh.

If nothing else, Michael exercised prudent seamanship in using the Falklands - and his Hunter and flimsy anchor roller handled those very clearly documented SOUTHERN OCEAN F11+ conditions just fine.

So what's your point again?


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ...because it would make Minne sad.


See that Exile? This is what "pretty much done" looks like.

I have him right where I want him.


----------



## NCC320

Here in NC, when the storms come, it's hard to separate the bull and hype from what's real. Over the years, I've found that if I really want to know what's happening or going to happen, I go to Plymouth State Weather. They have proven reliable and I go with their data projection to determine what to do in advance of a storm. NOAA seems to often lose the picture in this area when you most want the data. For what it is worth, Plymouth State archive track shows hurricane force winds across NC into Norfolk area for Hurricane Irene. Not sure why people are trying so hard to disprove this storm...of course there's always a reason that is self serving. 

But the more I think about it, maybe there was no Hurricane Irene. I put all those lines on my boat for nothing and that local flooding was just a heavy rain storm.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exactly NC. I honestly just wish instead of this weird conspiracy theory stuff, JUST ONE of these guys would truly man up and anchor his vaunted BWC boat in this same location for the next Cat 1 storm. 

In fact, I'll give that man a crisp $20 bill for his effort to show the world, once and for all, what a REAL BWC boat is made of as he sips his Pabst and smokes his cigarillo in the mild breeze.

Who is in?


----------



## JonEisberg

NCC320 said:


> All the fussing about the Hunter that went ashore and had the anchor chain cut away the hull proves nothing. It was one boat, which experienced conditions not typical of most boats, Hunter and otherwise. Where a manufacturer makes thousands of boats of various sizes, and has been doing so for years, unless a high percentage of their boats can be documented as having some failing, it means nothing to point at one or two incidents out of that vast quantity and say that it is typical of the brand.


While I don't entirely disagree, I still think it is _illustrative_ of some particular shortcomings of design and engineering, when discussing "the limits" of any boat - production, or otherwise...

Some here appear determined to avert their eyes from what that photo - and others that were published back at the time - reveals. To my eye, they reveal much the same sort of thing we've seen in the pics that have surfaced of the failure of the keel on POLINA STAR III, what appears to be a surprisingly light laminate structure, for such an area of the hull where strength and integrity is so critical...

I've never claimed that any other boat undoubtedly would have survived that ordeal, or that it's "perfectly fine" to anchor in such a situation, and so on... However, I do believe some are over-stating the severity of those conditions, and the forces being imparted on the bow of that boat may not have been all that much different from those generated by lying to a parachute anchor in a big blow offshore, for example... the sort of forces which, IMHO, any boat being sailed across an ocean should be capable of enduring ...

My problem with that setup has always been the extreme unsupported projection of the anchor rollers that has been typical of Hunter, and many other brands... Ironically, that arrangement would be far better if the anchor platform had been far weaker, instead of the very robust structure shown in the photos of it lying in the sand afterwards, hardly without a scratch... Ideally, seems the roller should fail before prying the stem from the hull, but perhaps that's just me...

;-)

I'm guessing what happened there, is that the chain jumped off the roller, and got wedged in the narrow 'slot' between the side of the anchor platform, and that bulbous fiberglass toerail... Once that happened, the skipper was screwed, would have been unable either to attempt to raise, or release, the chain rode, in an attempt to try to extricate himself from the situation... Not without taking a cordless grinder to the chain, at any rate... From then, it would have been just a matter of time before the chain began sawing its way downward, thru the topsides...

On a boat like the Outbound, on the other hand, that would not likely have been possible... If a similar jumping of the chain from the roller assembly had occurred, it still would have been captured between the forward leg of the bowrail, and the roller itself, while resting on top of a large stainless plate extending all the way outboard to the edge of the deck... A FAR superior arrangement, the chain would be highly unlikely to become jammed, and no way would it begin to cut its way thru that plating into the deck or hull... simply a far better execution in design and engineering, and not necessarily all _THAT _much costlier to build...


----------



## Exile1

NCC320 said:


> Here in NC, when the storms come, it's hard to separate the bull and hype from what's real. Over the years, I've found that if I really want to know what's happening or going to happen, I go to Plymouth State Weather. They have proven reliable and I go with their data projection to determine what to do in advance of a storm. NOAA seems to often lose the picture in this area when you most want the data. For what it is worth, Plymouth State archive track shows hurricane force winds across NC into Norfolk area for Hurricane Irene. Not sure why people are trying so hard to disprove this storm...of course there's always a reason that is self serving.
> 
> But the more I think about it, maybe there was no Hurricane Irene. I put all those lines on my boat for nothing and that local flooding was just a heavy rain storm.


Turns out I put all those lines on my boat for nothing too, except I was in the immediate area, not NC. Nobody is trying to disprove that the storm impacted the Norfolk area. On the contrary, and as reported, there was storm surge, lots of rain & wind, plenty of flooding, some trees fell down, and there were even some _bands_ from the storm that produced some hurricane force _gusts_ in some areas. But in the mid-morning hours when the Hunter foundered, the brunt of what was a much milder than predicted storm had not yet arrived, the power was still on, and the story of the boat and rescue of its occupants was all over the local news.

No conspiracies, nothing self-serving going on, the build quality of the boat may or may not have contributed to the damage shown. There's nothing about Jon's experienced _opinions_ about the quality of the bow roller installation on this particular Hunter, the failure of the keel on the Oyster, the cockpit layouts & interior configurations of countless "BW" & "production" boats he's delivered, or the potential unseaworthiness of in-hull portlights (to name just a few examples), that needs to be controversial or divisive. It's just a way for one meglomaniac to garner desperately needed attention & increase his thread counts. Don't fall for what even _Smack_ knows is just a manipulative game. He's here for different reasons, and it only results in driving guys like Maine Sail or Killarney with huge expertise &/or experience away. I'm just grateful that Jon E. has the patience to stick around.

Besides, honest discussions about sailboats are much more fun and educational.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Did you notice anything there in that NOAA summary I linked to earlier? The problem you're having _now_, is that 0730 is when this storm is _at Cape Lookout_, ~45+ miles to the south of where the NOAA image I posted shows the 115 wind peaks. This means, that this storm was on our fair Hunter _even more quickly than you thought_. Oohh.


Hmmm, what was the _TIME_ of that 'reported' wind gust of 115 mph, again? And, the ID and location of that 'recording station' somewhere off Maw Point in Pamlico Sound?



smackdaddy said:


> So, do I go with the word of a guy who's obviously sleepy from sailing and tends to exaggerate like hell about the most absurd stuff to try to make ridiculous points? Or do I go with NOAA?
> 
> *I'll go with NOAA.* Little Exile would like that.


Well, with the exception of their reports from the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel, of course...

And, every one of these official NOAA/NDBC reporting stations in the region of Irene's landfall:

_"Surely, one of the observations upwind of landfall, over Cape Hatteras or one of the other barrier island locations, indicated hurricane-force sustained winds? Amazingly, the answer is still no.

Here is a map for reference. The strongest winds I could find was at Cape Hatteras (CLKN7) where the winds got to 59 kt."
_










Cliff Mass Weather Blog: When Did Irene Stop Being a Hurricane?



smackdaddy said:


> Quote that 'Storm of the Century' line of mine here and we'll talk. Otherwise, it's you blowing smoke yet again to try to cover the fact that you're wrong...yet again.


My intent was not to quote you directly, hence my use of single quotation marks, instead of double... But you've certainly attempted to magnify the intensity of Irene during it's approach to the Chesapeake, as evidenced by your taking the trouble to highlight in red her "Category 3" status back in Post #4263:



smackdaddy said:


> Out - this is me rolling my eyes in your direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look again. See it?
> 
> Why am I taking the time to make certain you see such an elaborate eyeroll? Because these "conditions that should not produce that level of damage" are AGAINST A LEE SHORE and as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HURRICANE IRENE was a large and destructive tropical cyclone, which affected much of the Caribbean and East Coast of the United States during late August 2011. Throughout its path, Irene caused widespread destruction and at least 56 deaths. Damage estimates throughout the United States are estimated near $15.6 billion, which made it the seventh costliest hurricane in United States history, only behind Hurricane Andrew of 1992, Hurricane Ivan of 2004, Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina of 2005, Hurricane Ike of 2008, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
> 
> Total fatalities: 56
> Highest wind speed: 121 mph
> Lowest pressure: 942 mb
> Category: Category 3 Hurricane (SSHS)
> 
> 
> 
> So out, please, stop posting stuff that just makes you look incredibly foolish. I really don't need that to be proven right. Especially from a brain surgeon. Any dufus like me can find these facts.
Click to expand...




smackdaddy said:


> Let me put it this way...in the case of your "Hurricane That Couldn't" - *150 miles and 2 hours* makes ALL the difference in your mind.
> 
> *In the case of the Southern Ocean and its conditions...500 miles doesn't even start to count (see yellow 500 mile marker below)*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Being from Texas - distance is something we understand.* It's a much harder concept for you Easties, I know. Heh-heh.
> 
> If nothing else, Michael exercised prudent seamanship in using the Falklands - and his Hunter and flimsy anchor roller handled those very clearly documented SOUTHERN OCEAN F11+ conditions just fine.
> 
> So what's your point again?


Well, I've been to Cape Horn... And, I've been to the Falklands... No question, it can blow like hell in the Falklands. But if you believe the difference between riding out a storm in a small yacht off one, or in the lee of the other, _"doesn't even begin to count"_, well... perhaps you'd best simply confine your future sailing to Texas...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, what was the _TIME_ of that 'reported' wind gust of 115 mph, again? And, the ID and location of that 'recording station' somewhere off Maw Point in Pamlico Sound?


After 0730 EDT. Closer to 0936 - when your data shows the 60 mph sustained gust near the Hunter.

As for the ID/location info - ask NOAA. It's their data. Not mine.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, with the exception of their reports from the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel, of course...
> 
> And, every one of these official NOAA/NDBC reporting stations in the region of Irene's landfall:
> 
> _"Surely, one of the observations upwind of landfall, over Cape Hatteras or one of the other barrier island locations, indicated hurricane-force sustained winds? Amazingly, the answer is still no.
> 
> Here is a map for reference. The strongest winds I could find was at Cape Hatteras (CLKN7) where the winds got to 59 kt."
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cliff Mass Weather Blog: When Did Irene Stop Being a Hurricane?


Again, you really need to take this up with NOAA. They are the ones disputing your theories.

So, really, are you saying that NOAA is lying about Irene? It's really starting to look that way. Why would they do that? To make the Hunter look better? Not even I have that kind of pull.



JonEisberg said:


> My intent was not to quote you directly, hence my use of single quotation marks, instead of double... But you've certainly attempted to magnify the intensity of Irene during it's approach to the Chesapeake, as evidenced by your taking the trouble to highlight in red her "Category 3" status back in Post #4263:


Oh I don't mind. I was quoting what this overall storm was categorized. I changed it to Cat 1 when I researched it some more and found that this is what NOAA measured it to be at Pamlico. I mean, I was still right - it was both. And if someone wants to say - "It was _only_ a Category 1 in which they were anchored against the lee shore, _not_ a Category 3."- I'll just laugh at them. So, I have no problem with your quoting me.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, I've been to Cape Horn... And, I've been to the Falklands... No question, it can blow like hell in the Falklands. But if you believe the difference between riding out a storm in a small yacht off one, or in the lee of the other, _"doesn't even begin to count"_, well... perhaps you'd best simply confine your future sailing to Texas...


Where did you sail off Cape Horn? What boat were you in? What were the conditions? It looks like a tour charter? That's cool.

I have no desire to sail Cape Horn...unless it's on a VO65.


----------



## mitiempo

outbound said:


> I mentioned this before but will again as I see a disconnect I don't understand.
> 
> Windlasses and bow rollers are for picking up the rode and anchor. They are not for pulling the boat forward nor to endur the snatch loads of the anchor and rode when fully anchored. When anchoring I was taught to secure the chain with snubbers. In mild weather just one may serve but in other conditions at least two. I have even used a snubber to bow cleat and another to midships cleat to line up the boat to wave train or to minimize " sailing at anchor".
> 
> I know this is best practice with chain but also believe not having the windlass bear any load once at anchor is best practice for short chain /rope rode as well.
> 
> I understand the loads on the roller assembly and windlass may be very high when raising anchor. This is especially true if done in steep waves or when attempting to snap an anchor free if fouled. But I don't understand the focus of the posts concerning this particular occurrence.
> 
> Please educate.


Agree that with all chain a snubber (or 2) is needed. That takes the load from the bow roller to cleats and they can have issues as well. If a boat has a poorly constructed or installed bow roller I wouldn't expect the cleats to be perfect either.

On a boat using rope/chain there will not be snubbers so the strain will be on the bow roller for any downward or side loads as well as the foredeck cleat the rode is made fast to.

The windlass should never have to take the load.

I have always thought that the bow roller assembly on an offshore boat should be one of its strongest above deck items. When I was recently trying to design one for my boat I walked a lot of docks looking for ideas. In the end I concluded that most boats have very inadequate roller assemblies. One of the worst types are the thin extended rollers on Beneteau built boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

Nevermind, I just followed your link, Jon. Dude, you and your blogbuddy really need tin foil hats, I think:



> I assume that upon further study the NWS will eventually downgrade this storm as it moved up the East Coast. Considering the tendency for media to hype storms it it crucial for meteorologists to stick to the exact story and not overwarn in the hope of encouraging people to take effective action. *If the storm was known NOT to be a hurricane earlier might the Mayor of NY have held off closing the City down, thus saving billions of dollars?*


This blog was written in 2011. Has NOAA/NWS downgraded Irene? And did the Mayor of NY get his billions back?

And it gets better:

Frickin' "Lazors"








> When looking at Hurricane Irene in Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery it appears she is hit by 5 lazors, she then splits into 2 Hurricanes. The beams are coming from the HAARP at Arecibo PR.


And InfoWars:

HAARP, Hurricane Irene and the DC Earthquake &#8230;Connected?

And The Media:

Hurricane Irene Conspiracy Theories



> The ugly accusation echoed for days over the Internet: The media was purposely hyping the storm for ratings and profit. From that mistrust grew a conspiracy theory that teamed TV stations and networks with corporate America and the government in an attempt to jump-start the economy.


Holy crap. I honestly had no idea.

And this all started with a Hunter?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> After 0730 EDT. Closer to 0936 - when your data shows the 60 mph sustained gust near the Hunter.
> 
> As for the ID/location info - ask NOAA. It's their data. Not mine.


As was already pointed out, it's not "data", it is an "estimation"... There is no NOAA or NDBC official recording station in that location...



smackdaddy said:


> Again, you really need to take this up with NOAA. They are the ones disputing your theories.
> 
> So, really, are you saying that NOAA is lying about Irene? It's really starting to look that way. Why would they do that? To make the Hunter look better? Not even I have that kind of pull.


Well, I've always suspected NOAA had some backroom deal with Home Depot, hyping these storms can help sell a lot of plywood... ;-)

It's not my theory, but I'd suggest you read the links I provided again... They certainly pose a very interesting question regarding the NOAA's data recorded during the passage of Irene over coastal North Carolina...

You've already stated you'll "go with" NOAA's data, right? (You're sure putting a lot of stock in a _SINGLE_ 58 mph "sustained" wind gust at 0936, one that was not matched again until 6 hours later, after all) And, you're a guy who likes doing internet research, right? So, let's see if you can find a SINGLE instance of hurricane strength windspeed - 33 meters per second - reported in the historical data on that date from ANY of the NDBC stations between Cape Lookout and the Chesapeake Entrance... Given the track of that storm, I'd suggest you begin with the stations at Hatteras, Duck, and the offshore Chesapeake Light Station which would have seen the most powerful semicircle of Irene, and thus provide the most fertile ground for your search... Happy Hunting...

;-)

National Data Buoy Center


----------



## Arlo

Ignore


----------



## chall03

Arlo said:


> Ignore


Ignored.


----------



## tanzertom

Shockwave said:


> Contrary to the wishes of the mods I'll generalize. The construction methodology and quality of price point boats today is crap. Sorry, no other way to say it. You guys are talking about "use by dates", that's bull! Keels and rudders falling off, grids delaminating, cleats and bow rollers pulling out? But their OK for 10 years. Really? That's crap and has to be called crap. Some stuff is not acceptable, structural failures are NOT acceptable. Any one that says that is ok is an apologist for the builder hawking this crap.
> Shock out...


Gee, what castigation of the vast majority of sailors who spend their own money on these so called pieces of crap and, somehow, find them to be excellent in meeting the needs of these thousands of sailors! Perhaps their mostly very positive reviews of their crafts (which are based on actual use rather than elitist opinion) are just delusional rantings of fools who know no better. Is this what you are insinuatingly?? Just want to be clear what you are generalizing about...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> You've already stated you'll "go with" NOAA's data, right? (You're sure putting a lot of stock in a _SINGLE_ 58 mph "sustained" wind gust at 0936, one that was not matched again until 6 hours later, after all) And, you're a guy who likes doing internet research, right? So, let's see if you can find a SINGLE instance of hurricane strength windspeed - 33 meters per second - reported in the historical data on that date from ANY of the NDBC stations between Cape Lookout and the Chesapeake Entrance... Given the track of that storm, I'd suggest you begin with the stations at Hatteras, Duck, and the offshore Chesapeake Light Station which would have seen the most powerful semicircle of Irene, and thus provide the most fertile ground for your search... Happy Hunting...


Not even remotely interested. When we start getting into "lazors" and Alex Jones, I'm done. That's your world - definitely not mine. And as I and others have said a million times now, _it's not about the wind_.

I think we can finally put Irene to bed.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Not even remotely interested.


Of course you're not... The fact that not a single NDBC station in region recorded a single sustained wind speed of hurricane proportions after IRENE made landfall doesn't quite fit your narrative that MAYBE TOMORROW was driven ashore _during_ a Cat 1 hurricane...



smackdaddy said:


> When we start getting into "lazors" and Alex Jones, I'm done. That's your world - definitely not mine.


_MY_ world??? Uhhh, who dredged up the links to that nonsense, again?



smackdaddy said:


> And as I and others have said a million times now, _it's not about the wind_.


So, I'll ask once again... what force of nature, in that case, created those waves?

Seismic activity near Washington DC? Sharks with frickin' laser beams?

;-)


----------



## RobGallagher

JonEisberg said:


> So, I'll ask once again... what force of nature, in that case, created those waves?
> 
> ;-)


Stop making sense. Just stop it. Now.

And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast:


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Not even remotely interested. When we start getting into "lazors" and Alex Jones, I'm done. That's your world - definitely not mine. And as I and others have said a million times now, _it's not about the wind_.
> 
> I think we can finally put Irene to bed.


Every time you so often & ever so dramatically threaten to be "done," my hopes are raised but inevitably then dashed again. It should be clear at this point that no matter how many times you "say" something, it never becomes any less bogus.

It only needs to be said once, of course, that repeated statements that "it's not about the wind" are unbelievably bogus, and everyone but you will understand. Or are you really saying that waves at an early point in a storm -- when it's still only blowing 30+ kts. -- will remain at the same height, duration, & frequency after many hours have passed and that same storm may now have winds closer to storm force? No wonder 7 years later it doesn't seem like you've managed to make it out of Texas waters.

You don't need NOAA, local newspaper headlines of the storm that "fell short of forecasted predictions," or even a guy who was in the immediate area staying on his boat. Skygazer called it right several posts ago with his description of the newscasters standing in the video, with footage of the foundering Hunter shown right behind them!

Nothing more to this story than Jon's well-reasoned critique of what may have caused the damage to the boat. Unless, of course, you actually _DO_ understand more about the impact of building wind on waves over a period of time than you're letting on, and you're just generating controversy for the sake of keeping "your" thread going. _NAAHHH_, only someone who would get a buddy to start a deliberately provocative thread on another forum would stoop to a stunt like _THAT_ . . . .


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> Every time you so often & ever so dramatically threaten to be "done," my hopes are raised but inevitably then dashed again. It should be clear at this point that no matter how many times you "say" something, it never becomes any less bogus.
> 
> It only needs to be said once, of course, that repeated statements that "it's not about the wind" are unbelievably bogus, and everyone but you will understand. Or are you really saying that waves at an early point in a storm -- when it's still only blowing 30+ kts. -- will remain at the same height, duration, & frequency after many hours have passed and that same storm may now have winds closer to storm force? No wonder 7 years later it doesn't seem like you've managed to make it out of Texas waters.
> 
> You don't need NOAA, local newspaper headlines of the storm that "fell short of forecasted predictions," or even a guy who was in the immediate area staying on his boat. Skygazer called it right several posts ago with his description of the newscasters standing in the video, with footage of the foundering Hunter shown right behind them!
> 
> Nothing more to this story than Jon's well-reasoned critique of what may have caused the damage to the boat. Unless, of course, you actually _DO_ understand more about the impact of building wind on waves over a period of time than you're letting on, and you're just generating controversy for the sake of keeping "your" thread going. _NAAHHH_, only someone who would get a buddy to start a deliberately provocative thread on another forum would stoop to a stunt like _THAT_ . . . .


On the other hand, every once in a Blue Moon, one of these endlessly circular and tedious arguments _DOES_ produce some nugget of interest, or value, no matter how peripheral it may be to the subject at hand...

For me, it turned out to be the discovery of that blog post from Cliff Mass, revealing that _*NONE*_ of NOAA's _*OWN*_ data recorded at any of their NDBC ground or buoy stations supports the notion that IRENE maintained Cat 1 hurricane status after making landfall at Cape Lookout...

Now, perhaps I was the only one around here who was not previously aware of that... However, as a consequence of all the bickering about the actual winds produced by that storm, I learned something I didn't know before, and certainly something that I happen to find more than just a bit _'interesting'_, to say the least...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> On the other hand, every once in a Blue Moon, one of these endlessly circular and tedious arguments _DOES_ produce some nugget of interest, or value, no matter how peripheral it may be to the subject at hand...
> 
> For me, it turned out to be the discovery of that blog post from Cliff Mass, revealing that _*NONE*_ of NOAA's _*OWN*_ data recorded at any of their NDBC ground or buoy stations supports the notion that IRENE maintained Cat 1 hurricane status after making landfall at Cape Lookout...
> 
> Now, perhaps I was the only one around here who was not previously aware of that... However, as a consequence of all the bickering about the actual winds produced by that storm, I learned something I didn't know before, and certainly something that I happen to find more than just a bit _'interesting'_, to say the least...


Exactly.

The issue is, you're typically willing to keep a somewhat open mind in these debates. _Somewhat._ These other guys are only about the "Great Smackdaddy Struggle". They can't see past their bent noses. And though I do find it amusing - it sure gets boring after a while. At some point they'll go back to the kids' table and we can all continue the discussion in earnest.

That said...



JonEisberg said:


> So, I'll ask once again... what force of nature, in that case, created those waves?
> 
> Seismic activity near Washington DC? Sharks with frickin' laser beams?


No Jon. As has been pointed out for 4 years now, those waves were caused by a hurricane called Irene. I thought we had established this already.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> For me, it turned out to be the discovery of that blog post from Cliff Mass, revealing that _*NONE*_ of NOAA's _*OWN*_ data recorded at any of their NDBC ground or buoy stations supports the notion that IRENE maintained Cat 1 hurricane status after making landfall at Cape Lookout...


Originally posted by *Smackdaddy*:

Exactly.

* * *
No Jon. As has been pointed out for 4 years now, those waves were caused by a hurricane called Irene. I thought we had established this already.

Uhhhhh . . . Smack? You may wanna read Jon's post again. I'm pretty sure he said that "_*NONE*_ of NOAA's *OWN* data" [emphasis in original] supports Irene's hurricane status after making landfall at Cape Lookout as it tracked north through Norfolk. I know geography is challenging for you, but Cape Lookout is in NC, which is actually south of VA, which is where Norfolk is located. And to help you out further, if it ain't a Cat I hurricane then it ain't a hurricane at all. Funny, but Irene not reaching hurricane status in the Norfolk area happens to be consistent with all the previously mentioned newspaper stories, first-hand accounts, and of course the news video. Whodathunk??

But it's nice seeing you finally man up and acknowledge what all the evidence unqualifiedly points to.


----------



## Shockwave

tanzertom said:


> Gee, what castigation of the vast majority of sailors who spend their own money on these so called pieces of crap and, somehow, find them to be excellent in meeting the needs of these thousands of sailors! Perhaps their mostly very positive reviews of their crafts (which are based on actual use rather than elitist opinion) are just delusional rantings of fools who know no better. Is this what you are insinuatingly?? Just want to be clear what you are generalizing about...


Do I stand by my comments?

The construction methodology used to build most of the boats today makes fine marina queens or coastal cruisers but they don't have the structural chops to stand the test of time.

Nothing wrong with a refit as boats get older but having to worry about the grid coming loose and the keel falling off, or the structure holding the rudder in place breaking free, or the chainplates pulling out, or brass skin fittings... puts the boat soundly in the CRAP column.

So yea, I stand by my comments.


----------



## tanzertom

Shockwave said:


> Do I stand by my comments?
> 
> The construction methodology used to build most of the boats today makes fine marina queens or coastal cruisers but they don't have the structural chops to stand the test of time.
> 
> Nothing wrong with a refit as boats get older but having to worry about the grid coming loose and the keel falling off, or the structure holding the rudder in place breaking free, or the chainplates pulling out, or brass skin fittings... puts the boat soundly in the CRAP column.
> 
> So yea, I stand by my comments.


Hummm... What/who to believe?? I joined this and Cruisers Forum to enlighten myself on what boats to seek out after many years absence from sailing. My sailing will be coastal waters and sounds in SE USA. After wading through the mountain of opinions on blue water boats vs coastal cruisers, it was clear to me that the blue water boats just didn't meet my needs or wants. With that, I began to research the much maligned, so called Benehuntalinas, Freedoms, Nonsuch, Tartan, Saber, Pearsons, and others. Odd that in all the comments on all the various forums, I've not found a a rash of keels falling off, rudders breaking, chainplates pulling out, grids coming loose, or much of anything else that would place these boats, new or old, in the crap category. Not a rash of comments... in fact, few negative comments at all! Rather, I see many arguments that compliment their capability to handle off-shore work if properly fitted and crewed. Makes me wonder what agenda the "crap criers" may have.


----------



## Shockwave

If you don't know what you don't know then my opinion shouldn't matter to you should it? If you don't know the difference between a bronze seacock and a brass valve spun on a mismatched skin fitting then it really doesn't matter what I say or think does it?

You'll learn, or maybe not. I wish you all the best.


----------



## Minnewaska

Fascinating view from the kids table. (I bet the Smack does not have the guts to say stuff like that to anyone's face. He's probably sitting in the corner of the bar on his computer, alone). So I sum up my read the last few days of arguments like this.

Jon beats Smackdaddy.


----------



## XSrcing

Smack isn't trying to win anything.


----------



## tanzertom

Shockwave said:


> If you don't know what you don't know then my opinion shouldn't matter to you should it? If you don't know the difference between a bronze seacock and a brass valve spun on a mismatched skin fitting then it really doesn't matter what I say or think does it?
> 
> You'll learn, or maybe not. I wish you all the best.


Neither have I seen any comments from actual users/owners having dire problems with seacocks, regardless of material. So, you are correct: what you say has no relevance to me... or apparently to the thousands of sailors you denigrate by calling their boats crap. Unfounded opinions are far far closer to that label than products that have proven over and over to deliver what their buyers expect. That is a learning point. And there is no "if" in one not knowing what they don't know. Believe as you please, but trashing, especially based solely on your own bias, what others are proud to have is, well... I'll leave it at that.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Do I stand by my comments?
> 
> The construction methodology used to build most of the boats today makes fine marina queens or coastal cruisers but they don't have the structural chops to stand the test of time.
> 
> Nothing wrong with a refit as boats get older but having to worry about the grid coming loose and the keel falling off, or the structure holding the rudder in place breaking free, or the chainplates pulling out, or brass skin fittings... puts the boat soundly in the CRAP column.
> 
> So yea, I stand by my comments.


Shocker, bought a boat yet? Care to tell us what brand/model the imaginary one is?


----------



## Scotty C-M

I actually have had very good results with a series of production yachts. I've owned a series of 1980's Catalinas (27, 30, 34), a Columbia (26 MKI), and an Islander (32). Most of these boats were smaller and used as coastal cruisers. They were at least 20+ years old when I sailed on them, and while they may not fit everyone's needs, they are far from "crap" sailboats. They were actually tough as bulliets. Blue water? There is a bunch of blue water off the coast of California. While these boats were a little small for extended cruising, they have cruised offshore by others. New boats? the newest I can afford is a 2004 - which seems brand new to me. It's a beauty, which I'd take off on if that were my plan. ANY boat would need to be tuned up , refitted, and gone over with a fine toothed comb. Dissmissing so many new boats as "crap" dosen't have the ring of truth. They may not fit your needs, but they do so for others. A whole lot of them are sailing around the world right now. Would I like a more expensive boat? Sure. I lust after an Island Packet, or hell, just send me one of Bob's Carbon boats (I'd name it Carbonera) - but to put it simply, the money ain't there. So thank you very much, I'd much rather have my Catalina 400 than an older "traditional" boat. It fits my needs better.

All our boats are little tiny things. That boat on anchor on the lee shore? Any boat anchored there would be in deep trouble. Even the best anchor system would be dicey in those conditions (hurricane or not). None of our boats can handle anything the sea throws at us, so new or old, custom or production the key is proper preparation and seamanship.


----------



## Shockwave

Tom, maybe check the Jeaneau owners group or maybe the Beneteau owners group. You'll see all the frozen seacocks you want. Or I could tell you about friends whose new hull cracked transversly, or maybe or dock mate whose new cat had longitudinal cracks and was sinking at the dock or the new deck saloon whose windows were falling out before it was even commissioned.

Sorry, this stuff is just crap. And no you won't hear about most of this stuff because the owners of said crap want to sell it some day.


----------



## Bleemus

Friends don't let friends sail Island Packets. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Shockwave

Yep Jorge, have the boat, have owned boats since I was a wee lad. You?


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Yep Jorge, have the boat, have owned boats since I was a wee lad. You?


Again shocker, brand model and year? You scared to tell?


----------



## smackdaddy

scotty c-m said:


> i actually have had very good results with a series of production yachts. I've owned a series of 1980's catalinas (27, 30, 34), a columbia (26 mki), and an islander (32). Most of these boats were smaller and used as coastal cruisers. They were at least 20+ years old when i sailed on them, and while they may not fit everyone's needs, they are far from "crap" sailboats. They were actually tough as bulliets. Blue water? There is a bunch of blue water off the coast of california. While these boats were a little small for extended cruising, they have cruised offshore by others. New boats? The newest i can afford is a 2004 - which seems brand new to me. It's a beauty, which i'd take off on if that were my plan. Any boat would need to be tuned up , refitted, and gone over with a fine toothed comb. Dissmissing so many new boats as "crap" dosen't have the ring of truth. They may not fit your needs, but they do so for others. A whole lot of them are sailing around the world right now. Would i like a more expensive boat? Sure. I lust after an island packet, or hell, just send me one of bob's carbon boats (i'd name it carbonera) - but to put it simply, the money ain't there. So thank you very much, i'd much rather have my catalina 400 than an older "traditional" boat. It fits my needs better.
> 
> All our boats are little tiny things. That boat on anchor on the lee shore? Any boat anchored there would be in deep trouble. Even the best anchor system would be dicey in those conditions (hurricane or not). None of our boats can handle anything the sea throws at us, so new or old, custom or production the key is proper preparation and seamanship.


+1.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Where did you sail off Cape Horn? What boat were you in? What were the conditions? It looks like a tour charter? That's cool.
> 
> I have no desire to sail Cape Horn...unless it's on a VO65.


No sailing, just a Drive-by on the expedition ship PROFESSOR MULTANOVSKY, after crossing the Drake Passage on return from Antarctica...










Typical day, probably about 30 knots of breeze, piece of cake from the deck of a 190-footer... ;-)

Amazing part of the world, but I sure wouldn't want to experience a Force 11 storm on a small yacht - production, or otherwise - in those waters...


----------



## Faster

Scotty C-M said:


> ....... So thank you very much, I'd much rather have my Catalina 400 than an older "traditional" boat. It fits my needs better......


I don't think your Cat400 quite qualifies for the 'new crap' definition.

"Crap", is of course, hyperbole and overstatement anyhow. (the Oyster debacle notwithstanding) However I think that the fairly widespread dissatisfaction of some with the last 5 years or so of new boats is the drift to living room windows in the hull, cockpits so wide a single person can't possibly reach both winches without running around the boat, acres of cabin sole with little or no handholds, an unforgivable (IMO) lack of cupboards and stowage for the everyday galley gadgets, food, stores and beverages, stylistic 'chines' that may or may not truly contribute to stability or speed, plumb bows that make retrieving an anchor problematic... and so on.

Some of these may well sail circles around our old girl - I'd hope they've made advancements in performance design in 30+ years.. but as has been observed before, many of the boats seem designed from the inside out.

From what I've seen, at least up til this year, the Catalinas have avoided much of these trends and their boats still feel 'boaty' to me.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> No sailing, just a Drive-by on the expedition ship PROFESSOR MULTANOVSKY, after crossing the Drake Passage on return from Antarctica...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical day, probably about 30 knots of breeze, piece of cake from the deck of a 190-footer... ;-)
> 
> Amazing part of the world, but I sure wouldn't want to experience a Force 11 storm on a small yacht - production, or otherwise - in those waters...


I do envy the places you've seen JonEisberg.


----------



## Minnewaska

XSrcing said:


> Smack isn't trying to win anything.


I guess you've missed the "I'm right and you're wrong" quotes from Smack, in the three months you've been around. Usually preceded by "you're not very good at this". This is not hyperbole, that's precisely what he claims. Of course, it only happens when his incorrect position has him backed in a corner.

Jon for the win.


----------



## Shockwave

Here you go Tom, tell me what shortcuts were taken but aren't seen?

SO 42DS - Renewal Of Sea-cocks | Jeanneau Owners Network Forum


----------



## tanzertom

Shockwave said:


> Tom, maybe check the Jeaneau owners group or maybe the Beneteau owners group. You'll see all the frozen seacocks you want. Or I could tell you about friends whose new hull cracked transversly, or maybe or dock mate whose new cat had longitudinal cracks and was sinking at the dock or the new deck saloon whose windows were falling out before it was even commissioned.
> 
> Sorry, this stuff is just crap. And no you won't hear about most of this stuff because the owners of said crap want to sell it some day.


So, Shockwave, what do you sail? It would be interesting to see what owners/users of your boat have to say and what failures it has experienced?

Since you seem to focus on denigrating what others prefer, perhaps a little tit for tat is appropriate. Do you have a full keel slug that won't go to windward well enough to get off a lee shore or is so unmaneuvable as to need a tug to get into a slip or so slow as to be completely useless in any non handicap race or so expensive that the vast majority can't even begin to afford them or that become completely useless when they reach a certain age because they no longer can meet the demands for the type of sailing they were designed for and no one would have them for anything else because of the limitations listed above?

Ya know, when reading the Cruisers Forum which has a fair component of blue water boat owners commenting, seems most of the dialogue involves how to fix crap that has failed.

Waiting for you to identify your boat...


----------



## tanzertom

jorgenl said:


> Again shocker, brand model and year? You scared to tell?


Ahhh... equivocation does breed suspicion. Come clean, Shockwave. Spill it.


----------



## Shockwave

Tom and Jorge, rest assured, there is little of this new crap I would buy. New Sense or old HR or Swan? No decision there.

Tom, what did you think of the seacock discussion? Crap? LOL


----------



## outbound

Tom think your list is wrong and you mention boats no longer in production. What is under discussion is the current crop of boats.
Among the Mation Bermuda races I've done there was one we lost to a Nonsuch 36'. Yes conditions were benign that year but our T37' was soundly beaten by a boat that excelled when either reaching or far reaching. There was no significant damage to any boat in the fleet.
I personally know long term owners of Freedoms. With proper attention to reefing and not over stressing the vessel these boats have endured in long term coastal settings. As mentioned before not infrequently stresses in a coastal setting can be quite significant. Try getting caught in a storm of Hattaras and then say otherwise.
I've also been on a Pearson 424 which suffered significant structural damage after a knockdown.

In short, Smacks argument is viewed as specious in the extreme by many. The basic framing of the question is just plain wrong. There are good boats and not so much boats at every price point old and new. Even within a production run of the same design there are boats put together well and others that are deficient. 

There is no question either that construction details that add strength to the vessel cost money. So there is a rough, very rough correlation between expense and seaworthiness.

There is also a concern by several experienced sailors on this forum that current market trends reflecting nature of actual usage by current buyers has decreased the durability and seaworthiness of many current offerings when used as long term cruisers making passages. This is not to say there is not very seaworthy boats in current construction runs but rather to try to inform you the market has fragmented and educate you to the deficiencies of some current offerings. In my view this trend has the result that ocean, long term cruisers who are not among the ultra rich (1% of the 1%ers) are underserved. They don't construct many boats whose only focus is passage making because it is such a small market. The few where this is the focus are usually very expensive.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Tom and Jorge, rest assured, there is little of this new crap I would buy. New Sense or old HR or Swan? No decision there.
> 
> Tom, what did you think of the seacock discussion? Crap? LOL


Sorry shock - but this thread is for boat owners who at least have the stones to say what they own before they criticize everything else as inferior. Until you can supply an answer and pic of your own boat, you need to go back to the kids' table.


----------



## outbound

Tom
I been accused of using my Outbound as a reference in a ego centric manner. Perhaps, this has merit but it is now the boat I know the best so easiest to reference. However, there are other boats in current production I'd gladly step on to do a passage. HR, some of the X yachts, Passport, Hylas, Boreal, waterlines come immediately to mind. 

The argument old boats are better is also specious. There are multiple academic papers outlining the weaknesses of the traditional heavy displacement full keeled boats in extreme conditions. I think there is little, if any resemblance between Bob's CF cutters and a Colin Archer cutter. The NAs have clearly moved the goalposts. I didn't reference IP above. This was not due to build quality which is excellent but rather due to sailing polar. 

Let's move this trend back to discussion of the specific advantages and deficiencies seen in current production boats. That way current owners will know what to watch out for. Prospective buyers will be able to more accurately judge risk/benefit and know where to best spend their dollars. And instead of looking at weather charts we all may learn something.


----------



## NCC320

Shockwave said:


> Tom and Jorge, rest assured, there is little of this new crap I would buy. New Sense or old HR or Swan? No decision there.
> LOL


Actually, I believe Shockwave when he says he wouldn't buy the new boats. What he is telling us is that he doesn't have the financial clout to buy a new boat. So, he'll just call them crap.

Most people are proud of their boats, old or new, and are willing to reveal freely what they have.

But, I am suspecting Shockwave knows crap first hand....he's describing his boat which really, really is crap.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> In short, Smacks argument is viewed as specious in the extreme by many. The basic framing of the question is just plain wrong.


No, the question is right. We started with "what are the limits of production boats in the context of blue water sailing". We've come to the conclusion that for CE Cat A production boats, there are very few indeed.

That's not specious at all. That's fact. How the "many" choose to deal with that is their issue. Not mine.


----------



## Bleemus

Ok, I will post my boat for critique. Just needs a wash . . .










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## outbound

[QUOTE=smackdaddy;3193857 We've come to the conclusion that for CE Cat A production boats, there are very few indeed

+1


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Sorry shock - but this thread is for boat owners who at least have the stones to say what they own before they criticize everything else as inferior. Until you can supply an answer and pic of your own boat, you need to go back to the kids' table.


I think Shockwave may be having a bit of fun with you guys...

Not sure who built his boat, but I've seen a deck shot of it posted here in the past...

It looks impressive, indeed... And, it's BIG, too big for me... ;-)

Certainly appears to be a very high quality build... the pic I saw showed what appeared to be a massive cast Bomar or Atkins & Hoyle style reversible/dual opening hatch, one of the finest hatches ever made, yet one more highly practical feature - like dorade vents - that have sadly disappeared from the current crop of boats being built today...Bomar reversible hatches used to be standard equipment on boats like some of the Bristols I used to run, back in the day. But today, buyers or production yachts today are stuck with forward-opening hatches, which often must be kept closed when underway...

I would kill to find a 24 x 24 cast Bomar reversible hatch for my little tub, at a price that I could afford...

;-)


----------



## bobperry

Baba 40 does a solo no stop circumnavigation attempt.

Top speed so far=10.8kts.
The rest of the story.
Day-31
The 964mb. Low is still nearly on top of us. The worst of it came at about 1am in the morning until 3am when the winds were screeching at 50kts, the only good thing to come out of that, was the winds seemed to flatten the seas somewhat so there were smaller holes to come "crashing" down into.
The waves are still breaking into the cockpit at times, so repairs will not be attempted on steering cables until things moderate somewhat. It kind of makes me miss the nice winters in Mexico.
We are starting to sail over the top of the low as it is moving SW and can now at last steer the course to the "Horn".
Day-32
The winds were down and it was time to see if the steering cables can be fixed. I estimated if things went well , it would take about three hours, Hmmmmmm!
The chain had spun off the sprocket and dropped down inside the steering pedestal. I removed the compass and disconnected the fuel and shift cable so I could pry that part of the pedestal up and get under it with my fish tape hopping to be able to hook the chain or a cable and drag it out. After about 20 minutes of being unsuccessful at dragging the chain out, even after it was hooked, because you have to get it around the sprocket and the steering shaft, then the break mechanism for the wheel. "IMPOSSIBLE"
So I stepped back and decided that possibly I could unbolt everything on top of the wheel tube and lift that off then I would have a four inch opening to drag the chain and cables out of.
Now you must picture we are sailing in some waves and two off my biggest compartments had to be emptied into the cockpit. I mean there is 1000ft. of lines, different lengths of chain, a 60lb. CQR anchor, 5-gallons of oil and transmission oil, and hoses, electrical cords, Hooka Hose and many other miscellaneous I don't know "Why the hell I have all these **** Items". Ok so you got the picture, all work is done with those hatches open and piles of "****" everywhere, that you must walk on, and lay on, and most importantly trying to keep it from falling down into the open hatches where the bilge is and things can disappear forever.
Once I get all the bolts out of the steering shaft housing, there seemed to be no way to get it off the 4" stainless steel tube. It is bronze and you can only pound on that stuff so much. Hmmmm! Three hours????
Well if you can't get it from the top why not the bottom. So I crawl down in the compartment and take of the four Nuts that hold the Bronze cable wheels and the backing plate for the steering pedestal. Suddenly I have the chain and cables in my hand, as a matter of fact the cable that broke, broke at the chain and there was enough extra wire at the steering quadrant end to remake it on to the chain using two Crosby U-bolt clamps.
In the end it took 7-hours no breaks, of steady work, but I can tell you I feel much better today knowing it is fixed. I believe why it failed was because the lines to the wind vane steering became to slack and allowed the rudder to swing back and forth and the wind vane would stop the wheel from spinning suddenly allowing the chain to cut into the cable, or possibly it was the result of the shaft sliding out of the coupling and back against the rudder causing a lot of extra pressure to turn the rudder.
Day 33
A nice sailing day and I finally got up enough nerve to take the transmission out of Reverse and let the prop spin while I ran the boat in neutral, circulating the oil and basically drying the engine it out for twenty minutes.
Next started water-maker up and ran it for an hour making water. The water maker produces about 7-gallons an hour. I consume on average about 2.5 gallons a day. Our first 75-gallon tank ran dry after thirty days, so now I will gradually top off both tanks once again.
It certainly feels good sailing once again with a boat you can steer.
Always missing Debbie the Jefe'


----------



## Shockwave

Bob, I would buy one of your Baba's. Good sailing boats that are well built. Actually I would prefer FRC. ?

Jon, the hatches are Manship, reversible. I pitched a cast Bomar 24" reversible during the last refit. I would have sent it to you if I'd known you were looking for one.

Smack or Jorge don't seem to have the knowledge to defend their positions? They must like brass valves or keels falling off or rigs falling down or rudders failing. 

Do you think they sail much?


----------



## bobperry

Shocker:
"FRC"?

Free Range Cutter?

Or FREE RANGE CHICKEN:
The latest CHICKEN has been full time cruising and racing for almost 20 years now and is still going very strong.


----------



## Shockwave

Big fan of the chicken Bob. If we were to do a boat together it would be along that premise.


----------



## bobperry

Shocker:
I did two CHICKEN's for Bruce. He was always fun to work with. He's put a lot of miles on that boat. We've talked about a new boat, slightly smaller but still with performance as the priority.

FRC is only slightly heavier than my 43' CF Cutters with 8.8' more DWL. I've sailed FRC and it sails quite nicely.


----------



## Shockwave

I couldn't own a boat that can't get uphill. 

It's understandable they may be shopping for something a bit smaller, that's a big main to set and reef.

Was the first boat Stealth Chicken?


----------



## XSrcing

bobperry said:


> Shocker:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]


*swoon*


----------



## bobperry

Shocker: 
I'm with you. Upwind speed comes first for me.
STEALTH CHICKEN came after another smaller Alan Andrews CHICKEN, CHICKEN LIPS as I recall. STEALTH is a really nice racer.cruiser. I think it's for sale now.


Here is FRC's layout. It's a bit unusual but it was designed to fit Bruce's almost live aboard life style.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Smack or Jorge don't seem to have the knowledge to defend their positions?


Shocker, I do not have a particular position, except maybe that one should define what the boat should be used for and then buy a boat that is as suitable as possible for that intended use.

i.e, do not buy a totally refit Alajueala 38 if your intended usage is daysailing or weekending in the Chessie. if you are going to round the Horn, there are probably better boats than a Catalina.

As far as knowledge goes, I know enough to know that a lot of anecdotes are just anecdotes.

When I bought my last boat (since sold), I was (and still am) in the fortunate position that I could buy more or less what I wanted in the 40-50' range. after having looked at a ****eload of boats including a large number of "BW" (Passport 40, 47 etc, nearly pulled the trigger on some) we selected a vanilla Catalina 400 because, being honest about our intended use (US east coast, Bahamas, Caribbean) that suited us the best. And I do not like to varnish. Or repair old ****e.

Cruised and lived on the C400 for two years, no keels or rudders fell of that I noticed. Not many brass problems either. Moved on in life and started another company, sold the C400.

If we did the same thing again, same intended usage, I would buy a performance catamaran (Fusion would be high on my list)

Above said, if I sail extensively again, it will involve crossing oceans, and selection of boat will be different, Amel, HR comes to mind.

That's me.

Now, what boat do you have again?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> No, the question is right. We started with "what are the limits of production boats in the context of blue water sailing"


Except that we have failed to define what a 'production boat' exactly is. Technically it is just about any modern boat not built by Brent. Philosophically for the purposes of this thread it seems to be a Hunter/Beneteau of an elusive length somewhere between 34-60ft with a CE Cat A sticker.

Then we have also failed to define what 'bluewater' is. The armchair committee seem to believe the world's oceans at all latitudes and longitudes to essentially be equals and part of this all encompassing mighty 'bluewater'.

Ask a NZ sailor whether 'bluewater' sailing amongst the tradewinds of the Pacific is more dangerous than coastal sailing in NZ and they will laugh at you 



smackdaddy said:


> We've come to the conclusion that for CE Cat A production boats, there are very few indeed.


We did? Of course such a boat could sail across the Atlantic and does regularly. To say otherwise I agree is silly. But very few limits?

To then make the jump and say boats aimed at a leisure market who largely don't cruise long term/circumnavigate are as suitable for long term cruising/circumnavigation as boats like Outbounds who are purpose built for such sailing is also silly.



smackdaddy said:


> That's fact.


Well it's opinion. We discussed the difference a few pages back


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Bob, I would buy one of your Baba's. Good sailing boats that are well built. Actually I would prefer FRC. ?
> 
> Jon, the hatches are Manship, reversible. I pitched a cast Bomar 24" reversible during the last refit. I would have sent it to you if I'd known you were looking for one.
> 
> Smack or Jorge don't seem to have the knowledge to defend their positions? They must like brass valves or keels falling off or rigs falling down or rudders failing.
> 
> Do you think they sail much?


I sail a bit. But anyone that continually calls other boats crap gets no respect from me no matter what or how long he sails. You sound like BS. That's my position.


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, your position is all Cat A boats are as good as all other boats and can do everything they can. Seems extreme, kind of like all production price point boats are crap.

Jorge! Guess what! Mom says I can use some of my paper route money to buy a boat. Should I buy an el toro or opti! Can't wait to hear your recommendation!


----------



## bobperry

For sure go with the El Toro Shocker. I had one. Taught my boys to sail in it. Great boat. You might hang over the edges a bit. I did.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Smack, your position is all Cat A boats are as good as all other boats and can do everything they can. Seems extreme, kind of like all production price point boats are crap.
> 
> Jorge! Guess what! Mom says I can use some of my paper route money to buy a boat. Should I buy an el toro or opti! Can't wait to hear your recommendation!


Shocker,

You have a kind Mom, be nice to her and do as she says.

Now take the stairs up from Mom's basement and ask her what kind of boat you should buy since it seems you have neither the means nor the decision making ability to do so without Mom's help.

If you ask me, I think an Oppti is appropriate.


----------



## Shockwave

You would ..lol


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack, your position is all Cat A boats are as good as all other boats and can do everything they can. Seems extreme, kind of like all production price point boats are crap.


I've not said that. I've been very clear: Those boats are perfectly capable of and suited to cruising "blue water".

Saying whet you're saying I'm saying would indeed be extreme. Silly even. Like saying all production boats are crap.

Only one of us is saying silly things.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> You would ..lol


Good starter boat for you, no?

And affordable older design.


----------



## Bob142

"I sail a bit. But anyone that continually calls other boats crap gets no respect from me no matter what or how long he sails. You sound like BS. That's my position. "

Smack... I couldn't help but notice that in your last go around with Jon that you displayed a lot of the things that you call on Brent...


----------



## Shockwave

Smack! Maybe less internet sailing and more actual sailing? Surely your engine is running by now? Time to pack up the boys and go have an adventure. What kind of boat do you have?


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Smack! Maybe less internet sailing and more actual sailing? Surely your engine is running by now? Time to pack up the boys and go have an adventure. What kind of boat do you have?


Shocker,

Smacker does have what is called a _job_. Not same as paper route.


----------



## Shockwave

Jorge, that's my style. None of that new crap for me!

You sound like a bright guy, tell me, what is your NDT methodology to assess the structural integrity of the plexus bond between the hull and the pan? Maybe after a grounding or after so many miles of sailing? Have you established a baseline and the half life of the boat is X below your baseline? Maybe you are fancy and you installed accelerometers in the hull and pan and you measure cycles and amplitude and you've developed your own algorithm to keep track of the total area? 

Or do you just wait till the keel falls off to know the plexus is no longer plexusing?


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, really? I've seen more then enough evidence to contradict your opinion. Keels falling off, rigs falling down, rudders breaking and falling out, brass seacocks, windows falling out...

I guess you and I have different opinions of what the meaning of "the limits of production boats" means. Obviously you and I see limits quite differently. I say crap, you say world globetrotter.


----------



## chall03

Shockwave said:


> What kind of boat do you have?


Really? Do a bit of research. You won't have to look too far to find the answer.

So what kind of boat do you have again? A must of missed it.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Jorge, that's my style. None of that new crap for me!
> 
> You sound like a bright guy, tell me, what is your NDT methodology to assess the structural integrity of the plexus bond between the hull and the pan? Maybe after a grounding or after so many miles of sailing? Have you established a baseline and the half life of the boat is X below your baseline? Maybe you are fancy and you installed accelerometers in the hull and pan and you measure cycles and amplitude and you've developed your own algorithm to keep track of the total area?
> 
> Or do you just wait till the keel falls off to know the plexus is no longer plexusing?


Nope, I am not that bright.

I do however have some fairly bright guys working for me (not paper route), let me go ask them if they can understand any of your googled drivel.

I never worried about the keel falling off (nor the front for that matter), I prefer to live in a fool's paradise, surely you can relate?


----------



## Shockwave

jorgenl said:


> Nope, I am not that bright.
> 
> I do however have some fairly bright guys working for me (not paper route), let me go ask them if they can understand any of your googled drivel.
> 
> I never worried about the keel falling off (nor the front for that matter), I prefer to live in a fool's paradise, surely you can relate?


Have we established you actually sail? Better go ask your guys.


----------



## Minnewaska

It would be interesting to get one of the folks that do the offshore race inspections to weigh in on what they see. They clearly see every boats of every shape and size.

I know my boat would fail out of the factory for sure (and I've made it clear that I am comfortable that she is suitable for certain passages, but not anything you throw at her). The offshore race standards have some debatable requirements, such as uncoated lifelines. However, secure lockers and floorboards are an absolute requirement, IMO, for a "bluewater" passage. Do any production boats come with everything secured anymore? Of course, you can retro fit, but that's just correcting its "limits".


----------



## Shockwave

I think the 54 is a very nice boat and pretty quick too. But I would rip the lips off the production manager and beat him with those lips for sending that boat out with brass through hulls. That's crap!


----------



## Shockwave

chall03 said:


> Really? Do a bit of research. You won't have to look too far to find the answer.
> 
> So what kind of boat do you have again? A must of missed it.


Jon seems to have figured it out. :boat :


----------



## chall03

Shockwave said:


> I think the 54 is a very nice boat and pretty quick too. But I would rip the lips off the production manager and beat him with those lips for sending that boat out with brass through hulls. That's crap!


Can you beat someone with their own lips?


----------



## Shockwave

chall03 said:


> Can you beat someone with their own lips?


Sometimes it's worth trying. :wink


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Have we established you actually sail? Better go ask your guys.


How's your reading comprehension?

Go ask Mom help you understand my previous post about cruising. It can and often does involve moments of sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bob142 said:


> "I sail a bit. But anyone that continually calls other boats crap gets no respect from me no matter what or how long he sails. You sound like BS. That's my position. "
> 
> Smack... I couldn't help but notice that in your last go around with Jon that you displayed a lot of the things that you call on Brent...


Like?


----------



## Minnewaska

Shockwave said:


> I think the 54 is a very nice boat and pretty quick too. But I would rip the lips off the production manager and beat him with those lips for sending that boat out with brass through hulls. That's crap!


All but certain my seacocks are bronze, as they have that grainy look. Do you mean the mushroom heads? The don't look brass, but not as easy to tell.


----------



## Shockwave

Minne, might want to check those. The Jeaneau owners group has a discussion going about the seacocks on Jeaneau's. One 54 owner was miffed about having to change or 24 seacocks.


----------



## Shockwave

Jorge, why would I research anything you've written? You're boring.


----------



## Shockwave

Smack

Like? 

Like more sailing less posting. Your in Texas, I hope you get to go sailing this weekend. 

Me, the pond behind the house is froze over so I can't drag the el toro out.


----------



## bobperry

"Me, the pond behind the house is froze over so I can't drag the el toro out."

Sure you can Shocker. Just nail some runners to that sucker and go ice boating.


----------



## chall03

bobperry said:


> Sure you can Shocker. Just nail some runners to that sucker and go ice boating.


Better make sure they' re bronze nails...


----------



## Minnewaska

Shockwave said:


> Minne, might want to check those. The Jeaneau owners group has a discussion going about the seacocks on Jeaneau's. One 54 owner was miffed about having to change or 24 seacocks.


I did see that. Mine don't look anywhere near as corroded as some of those pics. Some were completely green and others looked to have a quarter inch of corrosion on them. I also exercise most of mine, every time I leave the boat.

Still, as they are 10 years old, I think I will be getting to them before too long. I may start with those well under the waterline, then to those at the water line later. There are certainly a ridiculous number of thru-hulls on the 54.

Want to hear one that's even worse? Our original owner installed underwater lights and had to bore four more holes. I really want to remove them and glass over the holes. We never use them.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack, really? I've seen more then enough evidence to contradict your opinion. Keels falling off, rigs falling down, rudders breaking and falling out, brass seacocks, windows falling out...


I'll need to see some of this evidence. I assume it's the evidence we've already seen - but do you have something more to add?



Shockwave said:


> I guess you and I have different opinions of what the meaning of "the limits of production boats" means. Obviously you and I see limits quite differently. I say crap, you say world globetrotter.


Well, your boat is really long, I'll give you that. A C&C 61. Not my cup of scotch, and definitely pre-CE Cat A, but certainly very nice...










And some choice sails to boot (though you might want to secure that shackle on that checkstay)...










But, like you yourself have said...



Shockwave said:


> The construction of the Catalina is much different then the construction of the Oyster. The Cat is a pan boat with a shoebox hull to deck flange. This construction technique is very efficient for the builder but any structural repairs are difficult.
> 
> The Oyster is stick built with an inward turned flange, this produces a much stronger structure but as you may have guessed it is an expensive way to build a boat. A stick built boat is easier to repair and also allows the builder the freedom to change the interior to customer requests.
> 
> Is one construction technique better then another for the customer? No
> Is one construction technique stronger then the other? Yes, the Oyster is a much stronger boat then the Catalina.
> Is the Catalina strong enough for its intended use? Yes and Catalina sells lots of them.
> 
> *There is no right or wrong boat, there is only customer preference.*


Totally agree.

Well, except for the fact that the keel just fell off the Oyster. Heh-heh.

Look, shock, you've definitely got the chops to demand some respect. But your "crap" thesis is just that...even according to yourself.

BTW - My boat is in my sig. And we'll be back on the water come late May. So it's all good.

(PS - I remember when I used to sail in a lake. Heh-heh.)


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Better make sure they' re bronze nails...


Bronze nails are CRAP!


----------



## bobperry

I know that long boat very well, a classic grp boat by any standard.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> I know that long boat very well, a classic grp boat by any standard.


And she's damn fast. GRAMPUS is a sister ship I believe...










...and is currently for sale:

http://www.nautayachts.com/en/brokerage/product/61-grampus.html

Asbsolute kudos to shock for being able to handle this thing with just him and his lady. That's impressive.


----------



## jorgenl

Shockwave said:


> Jorge, why would I research anything you've written? You're boring.


I dont expect you to do it, ask Mom.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> I've not said that. I've been very clear: Those boats are perfectly capable of and suited to cruising "blue water".


Smack, one of the problems with this enormous discussion is that no one has clearly defined what they mean by 'blue water' For some it means a coconut milk run from Panama to FP; for others it means crossing from Patagonia to the Antarctic Peninsula. This problem is mirrored in the Category A regulations that say the boat must be capable of dealing with waves greater than X metres - but no indication of how much greater this might be. We have friends in Grenada with a mid-90s Catalina. When they want to do an inter-island hop in the decidedly benign conditions of the Eastern Caribbean they put a layer of grease along the gasket of the fore hatch because the boat twists so much the gasket does not keep the water out. Wonder how it would do crossing the Agulhas let alone the Drake? By your definition it should do just fine because it is Category A certified.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, one of the problems with this enormous discussion is that no one has clearly defined what they mean by 'blue water' For some it means a coconut milk run from Panama to FP; for others it means crossing from Patagonia to the Antarctic Peninsula. This problem is mirrored in the Category A regulations that say the boat must be capable of dealing with waves greater than X metres - but no indication of how much greater this might be. We have friends in Grenada with a mid-90s Catalina. When they want to do an inter-island hop in the decidedly benign conditions of the Eastern Caribbean they put a layer of grease along the gasket of the fore hatch because the boat twists so much the gasket does not keep the water out. Wonder how it would do crossing the Agulhas let alone the Drake? By your definition it should do just fine because it is Category A certified.


As for the Catalina - it's 20 years old. We've discussed the likelihood that production boats will have a shorter "half life" than higher-end boats. So I could see where, if that boat has been sailed long and hard, it's probably getting tired.

Alternatively there are LOTS of other production boats doing these passages without the need for a layer of grease. So, yet again, one example does not a trend make.

To that end, Michael and his Hunter 49, SEQUITUR handled an F11+ in the Drake Passage just fine with no damage whatsoever (and no grease). Does that mean that all production boats are up to that task? Maybe not. But that one certainly was.

These boats do fine offshore. We've seen so much evidence of this it's ridiculous. Yes there are failures here and there - but few are catastrophic, and such failures happen in all boats regardless of nameplate.

So, if you need the European Union to tell you EXACTLY when to sail and when to stay home you might be expecting a bit too much. The rating is very clear. And as we've seen plenty of evidence for, the boats will take care of their crews beyond those stated limits. They just won't do it forever. And why would you expect them to?


----------



## Bleemus

This boat appears to be handling the blue water nicely . . .










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

They should be ashamed of that sail shape. Idiots.


----------



## Shockwave

Well Smack. I'll tell you one more story. 

Friends bought a fairly high dollar 41 footer. The hull developed transverse cracks at the mast butt and began taking on water. The owner is an engineer and lawyer, pretty well moneyed up kind of guy. The factory showed up, took the boat back in and repaired better then new. Then bought it back for full price on trade. Stand up company? No, not really, it was all done quietly and the other 200 or so 41' owners are left out in the cold. Hope they don't find transverse cracks on a passage.

You won't read this in any publications but you know what, it's crap.

Gotta go, mom says it's bed time. Maybe she'll read to me, Dr Zeus, my favorite!


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Well Smack. I'll tell you one more story.
> 
> Friends bought a fairly high dollar 41 footer. The hull developed transverse cracks at the mast butt and began taking on water. The owner is an engineer and lawyer, pretty well moneyed up kind of guy. The factory showed up, took the boat back in and repaired better then new. Then bought it back for full price on trade. Stand up company? No, not really, it was all done quietly and the other 200 or so 41' owners are left out in the cold. Hope they don't find transverse cracks on a passage.
> 
> You won't read this in any publications but you know what, it's crap.
> 
> Gotta go, mom says it's bed time. Maybe she'll read to me, Dr Zeus, my favorite!


Dr Zeus?

What boat was it? Friend of a friend stories don't count.


----------



## dvharman

I am not a sailor though intend on being one soon. I am a commercial fisherman though and know my way around boats pretty well. Kind of strange but only been interested in Sailboats the last few months. I plan on sailing within a few years and at first from what I read here everyone said to look at older classic boats like Tayanas and Tartans but my choice has shifted to a Hunter or Catalina. I dont plan on "cruising" in 12 ft seas.(I do that all summer) I think I have settled on a 42ft Hunter Passage or similar Catalina thats been sitting in a Marina and never used. A 35-40 year old glass boat that has circumnavigated and been thrashed and flexed in my opinion is not any better than a mid 2000's Hunter 40-46 footer. Some things like fuel capacity, holding tank, water tanks, etc.. I will give you but hull integrity I simply dont believe.


----------



## skygazer

dvharman said:


> I am not a sailor though intend on being one soon. I am a commercial fisherman though and know my way around boats pretty well. Kind of strange but only been interested in Sailboats the last few months. I plan on sailing within a few years and at first from what I read here everyone said to look at older classic boats like Tayanas and Tartans but my choice has shifted to a Hunter or Catalina. I dont plan on "cruising" in 12 ft seas.(I do that all summer) I think I have settled on a 42ft Hunter Passage or similar Catalina thats been sitting in a Marina and never used. A 35-40 year old glass boat that has circumnavigated and been thrashed and flexed in my opinion is not any better than a mid 2000's Hunter 40-46 footer. Some things like fuel capacity, holding tank, water tanks, etc.. I will give you but hull integrity I simply dont believe.


Sounds good to me. Using engines to make money is good, but when I'm simply enjoying myself I prefer not have to listen to an engine. And there is something "magic" about using the wind for fuel. With a motor, it's about the destination. With sail, it's about the journey.

Remember that most sailboat have done little or nothing, easy day trips, sit in a marina or on the hard. A "35-40 year old glass boat that has circumnavigated and been thrashed and flexed" would be the rarity, the "take it easy do little" sailboat is the most common. Plenty of wrecks too, from escapees and hard groundings, or just total lack of care. You can find peaches and lemons.

Modern shapes are faster and more maneuverable, older styles are slower and have a smoother motion, and best on a mooring to avoid entering slips. I like them all! Modern boats can be rode hard and put up wet, and worn down.

Even a hundred years ago they built them fast and light and burned them up in a couple years of all out racing. In fact, I'm sure I've seen drawings of bulb keels and spade rudders and plumb bows from way way back. My best friend has a 37ft. wooden cutter with a plumb bow from the 30's.

I'm not too happy with the bashing on this thread, they all have their good points.

Where are you located? You might consider listing that info, helpful to others.


----------



## albrazzi

Hey DV welcome to the discussion, Looks like we're the early birds here, Saturday morning children activity delivery driver at hand. There are so many H&C Boats out there look at some Cal's nice older Boats, I like my CS I think its a couple of notches above build and interior wise. That's the fun there are so many different Boats and styles to choose from, just be careful read up on self survey recommendations know what good hull mechanicals and rigging look like and get a survey no matter what even if its a cash Boat to protect yourself and to Insure it.


----------



## ebourg

Nice on Bleemus! I'm guessing that this pirate boat and her all girl crew have done multiple crossings of that particular ocean!


----------



## bobperry

Here is something real to liven up your Saturday morning. The first of my carbon fiber cutters gets a flip job.


----------



## outbound

DV-
Would note the following old saws which I think still apply.

Every time you buy or sell a boat you take a shower in cold water ripping up thousand dollar bills. Broker fees, taxes etc.
( although you are experienced you are not experienced about sailing nor judging sailboats).

The right tool for the job.
(What happens to most people who get the bug is they outgrow their boat fairly quickly wanting to do more ambitious transits or cruises.
Often wiser and in the end cheaper to buy a vessel you can grow into.This would seem especially true for you given your knowledge of seamanship).

Date the girl awhile before you marry her. Look before you leap.
( easiest, cheapest, fastest and best course of action for you is get experience living with various types of boats. In short do some crewing on other peoples boats. Race on other peoples boats. Talk to other people deeply infected with the sailing bug. Then you will be in a better position to buy your boat.)

Many of the posts here reflect personal bias. Find out for yourself what is right for you. Even in this thread personal bias is quite apparent.


----------



## outbound

Bob
Good on you. She looks happy. Think boats look weird and unhappy upside down.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
I have to agree with you. t was very nice to finally see it right side up.


----------



## RobGallagher

What's missing from this planet is a show called Bob Perry's Garage. He'd need a much bigger chin, but we can fix that.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Here is something real to liven up your Saturday morning. The first of my carbon fiber cutters gets a flip job.


Oh hell yeah!!










Bob - next time _you_ pick the music. I'd love to be hearing something like Puccini's _"Nulla! Silenzio!"_ for that majestic roll. Much better than banjo music.


----------



## Shockwave

The onus to make the situation right falls with the manufacturer. Destruction of value should not be borne by innocent owners.



smackdaddy said:


> Dr Zeus?
> 
> What boat was it? Friend of a friend stories don't count.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> The onus to make the situation right falls with the manufacturer. Destruction of value should not be borne by innocent owners.


I was talking about the _brand_ of boat. Not the name of said boat.


----------



## Exile1

jorgenl said:


> I dont expect you to do it, ask Mom.


Given the boat Shock owns I'd hazard a guess that he's long been out of Mom's house!


----------



## jorgenl

Exile1 said:


> Given the boat Shock owns I'd hazard a guess that he's long been out of Mom's house!


I think Mom owns the imaginary boat


----------



## albrazzi

jorgenl said:


> I think Mom owns the imaginary boat


Sting!!


----------



## tanzertom

Shockwave said:


> Tom, maybe check the Jeaneau owners group or maybe the Beneteau owners group. You'll see all the frozen seacocks you want. Or I could tell you about friends whose new hull cracked transversly, or maybe or dock mate whose new cat had longitudinal cracks and was sinking at the dock or the new deck saloon whose windows were falling out before it was even commissioned.
> 
> Sorry, this stuff is just crap. And no you won't hear about most of this stuff because the owners of said crap want to sell it some day.


As I said earlier, you are correct: your comments have proven to have no relevance to me. If your intent is to drive down value of production boat, then keep it up... I'm in the market


----------



## Shockwave

My intention is to make folks aware of what is being covered up with glossy advertising and boat show boats with throw pillows and flowers. You can choose whatever you like, it is after all your money.


----------



## Capt Len

This may have the result of bringing the value closer to what it's worth and bringing some awareness to the guileless among us. Talking to the yard guys may be more educational than to the owners/salesmen for anticdotal tales of woe ,bad build, bad fix ,less than best parts to save a buck just to own a piece of glitchy unsafe.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> My intention is to make folks aware of what is being covered up with glossy advertising and boat show boats with throw pillows and flowers. You can choose whatever you like, it is after all your money.


Did you not notice what's being covered up by tarps and raincoats on this fine blue water Moody?










Crap!


----------



## tanzertom

outbound said:


> Tom think your list is wrong and you mention boats no longer in production. What is under discussion is the current crop of boats.
> Among the Mation Bermuda races I've done there was one we lost to a Nonsuch 36'. Yes conditions were benign that year but our T37' was soundly beaten by a boat that excelled when either reaching or far reaching. There was no significant damage to any boat in the fleet.
> I personally know long term owners of Freedoms. With proper attention to reefing and not over stressing the vessel these boats have endured in long term coastal settings. As mentioned before not infrequently stresses in a coastal setting can be quite significant. Try getting caught in a storm of Hattaras and then say otherwise.
> I've also been on a Pearson 424 which suffered significant structural damage after a knockdown.
> 
> In short, Smacks argument is viewed as specious in the extreme by many. The basic framing of the question is just plain wrong. There are good boats and not so much boats at every price point old and new. Even within a production run of the same design there are boats put together well and others that are deficient.
> 
> There is no question either that construction details that add strength to the vessel cost money. So there is a rough, very rough correlation between expense and seaworthiness.
> 
> There is also a concern by several experienced sailors on this forum that current market trends reflecting nature of actual usage by current buyers has decreased the durability and seaworthiness of many current offerings when used as long term cruisers making passages. This is not to say there is not very seaworthy boats in current construction runs but rather to try to inform you the market has fragmented and educate you to the deficiencies of some current offerings. In my view this trend has the result that ocean, long term cruisers who are not among the ultra rich (1% of the 1%ers) are underserved. They don't construct many boats whose only focus is passage making because it is such a small market. The few where this is the focus are usually very expensive.


Well put, Outbound. Folks who put down a class of boats for not being as capable as others for certain purposes but offering a substantial cost/value for use as they were intended seem to have agendas. Curious.

For the passage making sailors, it's a shame. But the market must follow demand. And the market says the demand is for what Shockwave finds objectionable.

In my search for what will likely be my last boat, I have found the discussions on strengths and weaknesses of various designs and manufactures invaluable. Besides, I tend to enjoy a good argument.  My argument is that the market decides what is actually crap, not someone's opinion.


----------



## XSrcing

What I've taken away from this is that you want to buy a "Wednesday" boat and make sure you have done your homework. Like reading threads like these.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Did you not notice what's being covered up by tarps and raincoats on this fine blue water Moody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crap!


Smack we have been there, FFS it's a 40 year old boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Smack we have been there, FFS it's a 40 year old boat.


Yeah - but the bottom fell off.

And anyway, shockwave needs to be made "aware of what is being covered up with glossy tarps and rain jackets and ropes."

I mean, even C&Cs can have some real trouble...and those boats aren't "crap"...





































Heh-heh.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - but the bottom fell off.
> 
> And anyway, shockwave needs to be made "aware of what is being covered up with glossy tarps and rain jackets and ropes."
> 
> I mean, even C&Cs can have some real trouble...and those boats aren't "crap"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh-heh.


Crap. Absolute crap.


----------



## Don L

Is there really any point of going around and finding pictures of boats with a problem, but not giving the details of age and damage details? The only thing this shows is boats break.


----------



## JonEisberg

tanzertom said:


> Well put, Outbound. Folks who put down a class of boats for not being as capable as others for certain purposes but offering a substantial cost/value for use as they were intended seem to have agendas. Curious.
> 
> For the passage making sailors, it's a shame. *But the market must follow demand. And the market says the demand is for what Shockwave finds objectionable.*
> 
> In my search for what will likely be my last boat, I have found the discussions on strengths and weaknesses of various designs and manufactures invaluable. Besides, I tend to enjoy a good argument.  * My argument is that the market decides what is actually crap, not someone's opinion.*


Might want to be careful in getting what you wish for, and remaining content in letting _"The Market"_ determine best practices in boatbuilding...

It is _The Market_, after all, that drives builders like Oyster to build "lighter and more economically" in order to "compete" with brands like Bavaria and Hanse, by building keel stubs on 90-footers to a laminate thickness of 5-15mm...



smackdaddy said:


> Precisely. You're welcome. It's not really that I'm _omnipotent_ per se, just profoundly observant. A canary in a coal mine of sorts.
> 
> *Really what you're seeing is a scramble. These traditional brands HAVE to compete. The can't stay where they are because the number of old, scared dudes who insist on old tanks is rapidly decreasing.* In other words, it's yet again CLEAR proof that the BWC is wrong...like I've said all along.
> 
> However, another very interesting angle of this is that as this scramble happens, these traditional companies that don't have the _experience_ building lighter and more economically (dude to the outmoded demands of yesteryear's BWC) might be making some very big mistakes as they try their hand at it. As this Oyster shows, they are clearly out of their element. Production boats have been doing this a long, long time.
> 
> The conclusion? Maybe production boats are actually becoming the _safest_ boats on the sea. It definitely ain't the Oyster.


----------



## tanzertom

JonEisberg said:


> Might want to be careful in getting what you wish for, and remaining content in letting _"The Market"_ determine best practices in boatbuilding...
> 
> It is _The Market_, after all, that drives builders like Oyster to build "lighter and more economically" in order to "compete" with brands like Bavaria and Hanse, by building keel stubs on 90-footers to a laminate thickness of 5-15mm...


The Market drives nothing. It reacts, and it is what it is. Wise and rational folk make wise and rational decisions based on their own individual wants and needs. Others don't. The Market merely reflects this. The Smart4Two and Porsche 911 cars are a good example of the market at work.

Thanks to the discussions on these forums, personal experience, and other research, I pretty well know the type boat I will be buying. It will meet my wants and needs. What Shockwave and others of his ilk think of my choice is irrevelant. Same for any person making rational decisions. Calling what another sailer prefers "crap" is simply infantile egoism.

My first sailboat was a Cheshire Cat. Too small. My next was an Isotope. Great for what it was designed to be. Sailing off the beach in ocean with strong winds... not so much. So I built my own Isotope strengthening where needed FOR ME. Not a good a racer but much better for my more rugged use. Is the light, highly responsive racing Isotope "crap"? Nope. Neither were my San Juan 24 or Tanzer 26.

Probably 95+% of sailors sail what Shockwave calls crap. Says more about Shockwave than the boats, don't ya think? :devil


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Is there really any point of going around and finding pictures of boats with a problem, but not giving the details of age and damage details? The only thing this shows is boats break.


That's the point. ALL boats break. Even the kind that No-Crap-schock sails.

All those pics I posted are from various C&Cs (34s, 39s, etc).


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> t is _The Market_, after all, that drives builders like Oyster to build "lighter and more economically" in order to "compete" with brands like Bavaria and Hanse, by building keel stubs on 90-footers to a laminate thickness of 5-15mm...


Sounds like the old scared dudes need to start buying production boats to be safe.


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Sounds like the old scared dudes need to start buying production boats to be safe.


I was a young scared dude when I bought one of Bob Perry's production boats.


----------



## Todd Boley

Todd Boley said:


> So after 416 pages of discussion, how many sailboats actually capsize or have structural failure? What are their characteristics? Where on this planet and under what weather conditions doe these events occur?
> 
> There seems to be a lot of angst, argument, opinion, etc......but at the end of of the day.....what really happens? What really is the quantified risk?
> 
> Or, can I really take just about any reasonably maintained boat through a reasonable weather window and go just about anywhere?


SmackDaddy's original post: "So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?"

I know I am new to this forum and sailing.....but this honest question was ignored? Why? Are there no statistics available? Surely an insurance company has quantified this risk to determine pricing for their policies.

The anecdotes are interesting to read and I have learned much from them. However, they suggest no one really knows (on this forum at least) the degree to which these risks are over or understated. It appears that many of the fails are due to poor judgement where decisions are made to stay in bad conditions or not planning in advance...poor maintenance regimen where hardware is allowed to sustain mechanical fatigue before it ultimately fails....and very little to "production" sailboats in how they are designed and constructed.

What am i missing? Is our (my) attention misdirected? Should we (should I) spend more time improving sailing judgement and learning a proper maintenance regimen?


----------



## Don L

Todd Boley said:


> Why? Are there no statistics available? Surely an insurance company has quantified this risk to determine pricing for their policies.


I bet there are statistics available and the insurance people deal with the issue by requiring surveys for boat condition, specific equipment and crew (number and experience) on passages. I have never read of a story where an insurance company wouldn't insure a boat just because it was a brand X.


----------



## WharfRat

Well... the main lesson of this thread seems to be that people believe whatever it is they want to believe.

I would not say so much that the "original question" was ignored. In many respects it was beaten to death.

Buried in all the insults and misdirection are nuggets of knowledge about characteristics that a passage-making, cross-ocean voyaging boat ought to have. Among these are provisions for safety, not just for the boat itself (since it will have to be able to withstand a prolonged pounding) but the also crew (even toe rails or the absence of toe rails have safety implications). Sufficient tankage and handholds, sufficient and organized storage, secure and comfortable berths -- these things all matter.

Other facets of this thread, I will not comment upon at this time.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> I bet there are statistics available and the insurance people deal with the issue by requiring surveys for boat condition, specific equipment and crew (number and experience) on passages. *I have never read of a story where an insurance company wouldn't insure a boat just it was a brand X.*


This is probably correct, but maybe more to do with the vast majority of boats -- of all types & brands -- that rarely go anywhere. A major passage can require an additional premium, along with add'l crew & safety requirements. To the extent an insurance co. may decline to insure a boat or require an extra premium, it seems like it's based more on age & condition vs. brand. But I'm certainly no expert on marine insurance. Like the boat building industry, it's almost entirely unregulated.


----------



## Minnewaska

Don0190 said:


> .....I have never read of a story where an insurance company wouldn't insure a boat just it was a brand X.


The insurance company requires the boat to be surveyed for present condition, but they are underwriting you, not the boat.

There are a few here, with blind or deserved confidence, that would be un-insurable, if the insurance company could identify them.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Sounds like the old scared dudes need to start buying production boats to be safe.


Sounds like the author of this book would disagree...



> The major take-away here, however, is something we discussed during the awful Cheeki Rafiki tragedy last year: there are too many frigging keels falling off production sailboats! *In their endless quest to reduce weight and cost, builders in this respect have found the boundary and have stepped over it. They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line.*
> 
> ANOTHER MAJOR KEEL FAILURE: What Really Happened to Polina Star III?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sounds like the author of this book would disagree...


Charlie's on the bandwagon too? So what does he think of the Oyster?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Charlie's on the bandwagon too? So what does he think of the Oyster?


Nothing truly remarkable. He plagiarised and summarised what we already know from the Russian article, the skipper and CF.

_"The major take-away here, however, is something we discussed during the awful Cheeki Rafiki tragedy last year: there are too many frigging keels falling off production sailboats! In their endless quest to reduce weight and cost, builders in this respect have found the boundary and have stepped over it. They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line"_

I find his style a little annoying. A lot of gesturing. I guess some folks dig that.


----------



## tanzertom

Todd Boley said:


> SmackDaddy's original post: "So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?"
> 
> I know I am new to this forum and sailing.....but this honest question was ignored? Why? Are there no statistics available? Surely an insurance company has quantified this risk to determine pricing for their policies.
> 
> The anecdotes are interesting to read and I have learned much from them. However, they suggest no one really knows (on this forum at least) the degree to which these risks are over or understated. It appears that many of the fails are due to poor judgement where decisions are made to stay in bad conditions or not planning in advance...poor maintenance regimen where hardware is allowed to sustain mechanical fatigue before it ultimately fails....and very little to "production" sailboats in how they are designed and constructed.
> 
> What am i missing? Is our (my) attention misdirected? Should we (should I) spend more time improving sailing judgement and learning a proper maintenance regimen?


Good point! Take a look on Cruisers Forum and get a load of the blue water vs production brouhaha. Bottom line, there's lots of good information on these sites... and even more bull crap opinions. Read them all, then use good sense in buying the boat that appeals most to you and your pocketbook! The only thing that really matters is how well any given boat meets your particular wants and needs.


----------



## Shockwave

Smack. let's go through these pictures you are so fond of posting.



smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - but the bottom fell off.
> 
> And anyway, shockwave needs to be made "aware of what is being covered up with glossy tarps and rain jackets and ropes."
> 
> I mean, even C&Cs can have some real trouble...and those boats aren't "crap"...
> 
> You haven't sailed enough to know what real troubles are : )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a perfect example of "coefficients of expansion"
> did you see the snow on the ground, fiberglass and lead expand
> and contract at different rates?
> It's no big deal to grind out this area and re-glass.
> I've repaired a few Hunters where the hull/keel interface had cracked. : )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All rudders with a metal stock will absorb water, remember that old law of COE?
> It is not uncommon to drill holes in north to allow the water to drain. See the snow?
> Ice does considerably more damage. I'll bet you a chicken dinner your rudder is full of water.
> 
> I'll be in Corpus February to collect my dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the boat grounded at speed and is being repaired.
> The keel stayed attached, more then the Oyster or Beneteau can say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a 40 year old mast step cracked? Take it out and replace it, what's the bid deal, the rig is still standing.
> 
> Heh-heh.


Let me explain crap to you again:
Keels falling off and sinking the boat.
Rudders falling off and sinking the boat.
Rudders breaking loose from internal structures and sinking the boat.
Pans breaking free from the hull and loosing structural integrity and sinking.
Hull deck joints opening up, see MaineSails post.
Hull and deck windows failing causing flooding/sinking.
Brass FREAKING through hulls failing and the boat sinking!


----------



## Shockwave

Todd Boley said:


> SmackDaddy's original post: "So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?"
> 
> I know I am new to this forum and sailing.....but this honest question was ignored? Why? Are there no statistics available? Surely an insurance company has quantified this risk to determine pricing for their policies.
> 
> The anecdotes are interesting to read and I have learned much from them. However, they suggest no one really knows (on this forum at least) the degree to which these risks are over or understated. It appears that many of the fails are due to poor judgement where decisions are made to stay in bad conditions or not planning in advance...poor maintenance regimen where hardware is allowed to sustain mechanical fatigue before it ultimately fails....and very little to "production" sailboats in how they are designed and constructed.
> 
> What am i missing? Is our (my) attention misdirected? Should we (should I) spend more time improving sailing judgement and learning a proper maintenance regimen?


Todd the problem is it's difficult to know if a boat is structurally sound by looking at it. 
Bulkheads are no longer tabbed, they are slid into slot -A-. 
Pans may or may not still be bonded so it is impossible to know if the structure supporting the keel is working.
What is the laminate schedule, is it biax or is it mostly coremat?
What does the hull/deck structure look like? Remember MaineSail talking about repairing an outward turned flange and the yard found it was cracked from bow to stern?
We know the European boats are using brass below the waterline, that can be corrected by installing proper seacocks (bronze or Marlon) but what about what you can't see? As an example; Jeanneau offers teak decks. They glue the decks down, no penetrations into the balsa deck, or so everyone thought. It turns out they use nails or screws to hold the deck down till the glue cures and they abandon said nails and screws in the rabbit, simply covering them with rubber. Now 10 year old boats have wet decks. Another unseen, unknown, problem that will be very expensive to fix.

Be carefull when buying your boat, get the best surveyor you can to go through it thoroughly and do all the online research possible.


----------



## JonEisberg

Shockwave said:


> ...but what about what you can't see? As an example; Jeanneau offers teak decks. They glue the decks down, no penetrations into the balsa deck, or so everyone thought. It turns out they use nails or screws to hold the deck down till the glue cures and they abandon said nails and screws in the rabbit, simply covering them with rubber. Now 10 year old boats have wet decks. Another unseen, unknown, problem that will be very expensive to fix.
> 
> Be carefull when buying your boat, get the best surveyor you can to go through it thoroughly and do all the online research possible.


Speaking of which, there is a guy over on CF dealing with a nightmare situation, deck leaks at the hull to deck joint all around his boat, as a consequence of the builder having used a bunch of _RIVETS_ every foot or so to hold the deck in place, presumably to keep it aligned the bolt holes were being drilled... Now, every single rivet is dripping water, and that's gonna be a VERY painstaking or expensive problem to address...

The boat is a Nonsuch 26, I would have hoped for better from a builder like Hinterholler...

Deck Hull Joint, What Is This? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack. let's go through these pictures you are so fond of posting.
> 
> You haven't sailed enough to know what real troubles are : )


Trust me, I have, and I know.



Shockwave said:


> This is a perfect example of "coefficients of expansion"
> did you see the snow on the ground, fiberglass and lead expand
> and contract at different rates?
> It's no big deal to grind out this area and re-glass.


Ah, the old COE. I thought we were looking at the Coefficient of Reduced Acceptability Paradigm - or CRAP. Heh-heh.

And you're really trying to blame this on snow???? Good lord man. Do you want me to post more pictures of the infamous C&C smile in warmer climes? There are plenty out there.



Shockwave said:


> I've repaired a few Hunters where the hull/keel interface had cracked.


"Hull/keel interface"? You mean the keel stub? Pics or it doesn't count.



Shockwave said:


> All rudders with a metal stock will absorb water, remember that old law of COE?
> It is not uncommon to drill holes in north to allow the water to drain. See the snow?


Snow again? Right. So rudders in Hylas, Hallberg Rassy, Amel, etc. will have similar problems as production boats in this regard? Yeah - that's what I've been saying this entire thread. And, to be clear, this issue doesn't make them (or the production boats) crap. If ANY of these boats go long enough without proper maintenance, rudders can fail. Not news.



Shockwave said:


> I'll bet you a chicken dinner your rudder is full of water.
> 
> I'll be in Corpus February to collect my dinner.


Full of water? I'd win that chicken dinner. Our survey in mid 2013 showed no such problems with the rudder. But come on down to Corpus. You can buy me an expensive steak and some Glenmorangie. I'll take it To Go.



Shockwave said:


> It looks to me like the boat grounded at speed and is being repaired.
> The keel stayed attached, more then the Oyster or Beneteau can say.


_Cheeki Rafiki's _keel (the Beneteau) stayed attached after a grounding as well. It was the poor repairs and subsequent additional groundings and repairs that seem to be the primary cause of that particular failure.

As for the Oyster - yeah, the keel just fell off. Poor form.



Shockwave said:


> So a 40 year old mast step cracked? Take it out and replace it, what's the bid deal, the rig is still standing.


Heh-heh. I love it. Remember, the long-standing mentality is that these 40 year old "blue water" boats are "superior" for hardcore offshore sailing than the new production boats you think are crap. Now, granted, C&C usually doesn't make that list anyway. But you get the point.

What's the big deal?



Shockwave said:


> Let me explain crap to you again:
> Keels falling off and sinking the boat.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> Rudders falling off and sinking the boat.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> Rudders breaking loose from internal structures and sinking the boat.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> Pans breaking free from the hull and loosing structural integrity and sinking.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> Hull deck joints opening up, see MaineSails post.
> 
> *Agreed. But what boat was that and how old was it? As you say, just replace it, the rig is still standing, what's the big deal? *
> 
> Hull and deck windows failing causing flooding/sinking.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> Brass FREAKING through hulls failing and the boat sinking!
> 
> *Agreed.*


All of those are definitely crap. And you sometimes see problems like the above on all boats.

I would be interested in your examples of all the yachts _*sinking*_ that exhibit these problems. Or are they under the snow?


----------



## Bleemus

Having been away from boats for awhile but the wife says she is ready to do some of the things I did in my younger days. Went to Conneticut to look at a boat today. The yard guys were all real nice. I fondly remember that I met very few assholes when I did this full time. Pleasant conversation with like minded individuals gives one a good feeling. The boat I went to look at failed the "wife test" so I roamed the yard looking at all the old and new boats and was kinda shocked at some of the crap I saw being passed off on the newer stuff. They let me go in and inspect any brokerage boat they could. Granted it has been almost 20 years since I did this full time but it seems that it went downhill real fast. I saw brass and bronze combined fittings with gate valves on a 2012 production boat. They already looked to be in rough shape. Not flanged. Oy vey! 

I saw a boat with a shoebox hull to deck joint and guess what? The rub rail that is supposed to protect the hull and hull to deck joint WAS ON THE HULL TO DECK JOINT. Holy ****. 

Aluminium stanchions! Cripes!

I could go on and on but you get my point. Thinning the herd is going to be easy. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## albrazzi

Bleemus said:


> Having been away from boats for awhile but the wife says she is ready to do some of the things I did in my younger days. Went to Conneticut to look at a boat today. The yard guys were all real nice. I fondly remember that I met very few assholes when I did this full time. Pleasant conversation with like minded individuals gives one a good feeling. The boat I went to look at failed the "wife test" so I roamed the yard looking at all the old and new boats and was kinda shocked at some of the crap I saw being passed off on the newer stuff. They let me go in and inspect any brokerage boat they could. Granted it has been almost 20 years since I did this full time but it seems that it went downhill real fast. I saw brass and bronze combined fittings with gate valves on a 2012 production boat. They already looked to be in rough shape. Not flanged. Oy vey!
> 
> I saw a boat with a shoebox hull to deck joint and guess what? The rub rail that is supposed to protect the hull and hull to deck joint WAS ON THE HULL TO DECK JOINT. Holy ****.
> 
> Aluminium stanchions! Cripes!
> 
> I could go on and on but you get my point. Thinning the herd is going to be easy.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yea I know what you mean, I just went through the same thing and wound up with a Boat that wasn't even on my Radar. Looked at everything I could find in my price range, bought and moved 120 NM on the next weekend.


----------



## Bleemus

chall03 said:


> Nothing truly remarkable. He plagiarised and summarised what we already know from the Russian article, the skipper and CF.
> 
> _"The major take-away here, however, is something we discussed during the awful Cheeki Rafiki tragedy last year: there are too many frigging keels falling off production sailboats! In their endless quest to reduce weight and cost, builders in this respect have found the boundary and have stepped over it. They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line"_
> 
> I find his style a little annoying. A lot of gesturing. I guess some folks dig that.


Let me fix that for you.

There are too many people hitting reefs at 7 knots and not checking for major damage and trying to sail across the North Atlantic.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chall03

Bleemus said:


> Let me fix that for you.
> There are too many people hitting reefs at 7 knots and not checking for major damage and trying to sail across the North Atlantic.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Just to be clear - In the blue italics, I was quoting from Charlie Doane.

It was not my opinion.


----------



## Shockwave

smackdaddy said:


> Trust me, I have, and I know.
> 
> Well, you know hardship no doubt but the engine quitting ain't one.
> 
> Ah, the old COE. I thought we were looking at the Coefficient of Reduced Acceptability Paradigm - or CRAP. Heh-heh.
> 
> And you're really trying to blame this on snow???? Good lord man. Do you want me to post more pictures of the infamous C&C smile in warmer climes? There are plenty out there.
> 
> And plenty of hunters, catalinas.. any and all hull/keel joints can open up
> 
> "Hull/keel interface"? You mean the keel stub? Pics or it doesn't count.
> 
> Snow again? Right. So rudders in Hylas, Hallberg Rassy, Amel, etc. will have similar problems as production boats in this regard? Yeah - that's what I've been saying this entire thread. And, to be clear, this issue doesn't make them (or the production boats) crap. If ANY of these boats go long enough without proper maintenance, rudders can fail. Not news.
> 
> Actually the Amel is hollow with drainage holes, they are always full of water. It's an Amel selling point, may as well let it be wet cause it's going to get wet anyway.
> 
> Full of water? I'd win that chicken dinner. Our survey in mid 2013 showed no such problems with the rudder. But come on down to Corpus. You can buy me an expensive steak and some Glenmorangie. I'll take it To Go.
> 
> Let's haul it and drill a hole! We'll know for sure.
> 
> _Cheeki Rafiki's _keel (the Beneteau) stayed attached after a grounding as well. It was the poor repairs and subsequent additional groundings and repairs that seem to be the primary cause of that particular failure.
> 
> As for the Oyster - yeah, the keel just fell off. Poor form.
> 
> Remember my crap comment, no way I would be sailing a .7 offshore unless someone shows me a method of determining whether or not the grid was still attached. I've seen .7's with keels that flop around like basset hound with his head out the window. No thanks..
> 
> Heh-heh. I love it. Remember, the long-standing mentality is that these 40 year old "blue water" boats are "superior" for hardcore offshore sailing than the new production boats you think are crap. Now, granted, C&C usually doesn't make that list anyway. But you get the point.
> 
> What's the big deal?
> 
> All of those are definitely crap. And you sometimes see problems like the above on all boats.
> 
> I would be interested in your examples of all the yachts _*sinking*_ that exhibit these problems. Or are they under the snow?


Hunter 34










This repair is similar to the one I helped a friend do on his H46 but the hull/keel line was lower. Easy repair and still fine.


----------



## Capt Len

Glassing over a keel /hull joint may be a cosmetic gesture. If you look at the torn bulkheads in the neither regions of the sunk oyster you see that the failure is widespread. Looks to me that no part of that design structure was adequate at any angle of heal and just failed like tearing open an old phone book. At least the keel bolts didn't fail.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Nothing truly remarkable. He plagiarised and summarised what we already know from the Russian article, the skipper and CF.
> 
> _"The major take-away here, however, is something we discussed during the awful Cheeki Rafiki tragedy last year: there are too many frigging keels falling off production sailboats! In their endless quest to reduce weight and cost, builders in this respect have found the boundary and have stepped over it. They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line"_
> 
> I find his style a little annoying. A lot of gesturing. I guess some folks dig that.


The thing that bugs me about this is this sentence..."They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line".

It's like he's trying to get the sailing world to "rise up and demand" something he thinks needs to happen. I saw the same thing in some of Maine's articles about problems he was pointing out with seacocks on production boats, etc.

I think this mentality is a little weird and a bit conceited. Do you really think that the boat buying public is going to suddenly say "Hell yeah!" and storm the gates of a "let them eat cake" Groupe Bénéteau? As if GB don't care that stuff like this happens?

Businesses can't afford screw-ups like this. They WILL fix this kind of stuff or they will go out of business. Period. You can't have repeated catastrophic failures like this. Ever.

BUT, having a couple of guys who have opinions about "how things should really be" is not going to do much, even with the hew and cry for the masses to rise up. Well, unless those masses are all willing to pay a premium. Good luck with that.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Actually the Amel is hollow with drainage holes, they are always full of water. It's an Amel selling point, may as well let it be wet cause it's going to get wet anyway.


From an Amel rep:



> It is entirely normal for the volume of seawater you noticed to come out of your rudder. For several very good reasons, Amel designed it this way. *Be sure the drain (and fill!) hole is fully open with no fouling.* You should have a special 'tool' to check/clear this when diving on the boat while it is afloat. I call mine a worn out Phillips head screwdriver.
> 
> *If the hole closes, big trouble with the stainless steel structure inside
> the rudder will ensue.*


Great selling point.



Shockwave said:


> Remember my crap comment, no way I would be sailing a .7 offshore unless someone shows me a method of determining whether or not the grid was still attached. I've seen .7's with keels that flop around like basset hound with his head out the window. No thanks..


I wouldn't own a .7 either. The report was enough for me. Well that, and knowing that it's just a matter of time before I run aground...again.



Shockwave said:


> Hunter 34
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This repair is similar to the one I helped a friend do on his H46 but the hull/keel line was lower. Easy repair and still fine.


What caused the damage?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> The thing that bugs me about this is this sentence..."They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line".
> 
> It's like he's trying to get the sailing world to "rise up and demand" something he thinks needs to happen. I saw the same thing in some of Maine's articles about problems he was pointing out with seacocks on production boats, etc.
> 
> I think this mentality is a little weird and a bit conceited. Do you really think that the boat buying public is going to suddenly say "Hell yeah!" and storm the gates of a "let them eat cake" Groupe Bénéteau? As if GB don't care that stuff like this happens?
> 
> Businesses can't afford screw-ups like this. They WILL fix this kind of stuff or they will go out of business. Period. You can't have repeated catastrophic failures like this. Ever.
> 
> BUT, having a couple of guys who have opinions about "how things should really be" is not going to do much, even with the hew and cry for the masses to rise up. Well, unless those masses are all willing to pay a premium. Good luck with that.


And it was a catastrophic failure. Whatever was wrong, was very wrong. I don't think it was a slight crossing of the design line in the "endless quest to reduce weight and cost"


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> The thing that bugs me about this is this sentence..."They need somehow to be prodded back over to the other side of the line".
> 
> It's like he's trying to get the sailing world to "rise up and demand" something he thinks needs to happen. I saw the same thing in some of Maine's articles about problems he was pointing out with seacocks on production boats, etc.
> 
> I think this mentality is a little weird and a bit conceited. Do you really think that the boat buying public is going to suddenly say "Hell yeah!" and storm the gates of a "let them eat cake" Groupe Bénéteau? As if GB don't care that stuff like this happens?
> 
> Businesses can't afford screw-ups like this. They WILL fix this kind of stuff or they will go out of business. Period. You can't have repeated catastrophic failures like this. Ever.
> 
> BUT, having a couple of guys who have opinions about "how things should really be" is not going to do much, even with the hew and cry for the masses to rise up. Well, unless those masses are all willing to pay a premium. Good luck with that.


I doubt the builders will change much as long as the boats are selling. And I doubt the public will cause much change, but the boating press certainly could. Tell me, how many boat reviews have you read that point out faults in construction? They don't dare, for the most part, as it would cost them advertising revenue.


----------



## Don L

Do some of you ever consider just how meaningless these threads must be? If they really had any impact or made any difference in the world of boating, manufacturers would pay attention and comment on them.


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> Do some of you ever consider just how meaningless these threads must be? If they really had any impact or made any difference in the world of boating, manufacturers would pay attention and comment on them.


I can only speak for myself BUT I really enjoy and am 100% ok with these threads and Sailnet *for what it is. 
*
Which is people on the internet talking about boats.

No more, no less.

On a good day I learn something. Maybe I understand something I already know a little better. Other days I am simply bored at work and this place is a bit of fun. Some days it is all semantics and egos bouncing around and I just go and look at cat videos on youtube.

I agree we aren't influencing the world Don. I didn't know we were trying to.

But any day when I get to ask Bob Perry a question, or have a circumnavigator/experienced delivery skipper correct my perspective is far from meaningless.


----------



## Don L

chall03 said:


> I can only speak for myself BUT I really enjoy and am 100% ok with these threads and Sailnet *for what it is.
> *
> Which is people on the internet talking about boats.


If that is what you think these threads really are about.


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> If that is what you think these threads really are about.


At the end of the day it is all it can be. It's a sailing forum - By definition it is just people talking boats on the internet.

If others think they are on some sort of crusade then jolly good for them.

I see no need to let other people's semantics interfere with my involvement here. I would suggest you try and do the same. You have a great boat, sailing is fantastic fun, what is there to be bitter about?


----------



## Bleemus

chall03 said:


> Just to be clear - In the blue italics, I was quoting from Charlie Doane.
> 
> It was not my opinion.


I know you were. Just having a bit of fun. Charlie is a little over the top with the hyperbole IMHO.


----------



## bobperry

There are industry people who read these threads and never post. I know this. I hear from them.


----------



## outbound

Maybe they would hire me. I'd love to draw a consulting fee as the representative sailing boat bum mom and pop cruiser.


----------



## Shockwave

bobperry said:


> There are industry people who read these threads and never post. I know this. I hear from them.


That's a shame, fertilizer in the bag doesn't help anything grow.


----------



## Shockwave

smackdaddy said:


> From an Amel rep:
> 
> Great selling point.
> 
> I wouldn't own a .7 either. The report was enough for me. Well that, and knowing that it's just a matter of time before I run aground...again.
> 
> What caused the damage?


They probably tried to rotate the keel at 6 knots with a rock? Who knows, keel bolts stretch and need attention, no biggie all keels and hulls move at different rates, the seems open up.

Here's your sistership being repaired....

Keel repair? - Boat Design Forums


----------



## outbound

Shock 
very interesting link. Do you have SS in a oxygen starved environment? Is there a bilge or just that small stump? Is the keel itself cast iron or Pb?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Maybe they would hire me. I'd love to draw a consulting fee as the representative sailing boat bum mom and pop cruiser.


Oh, please, dear industry, no! I shudder at the thought of the "nurse shoes" boats we'd end up with.


----------



## Exile1

bobperry said:


> There are industry people who read these threads and never post. I know this. I hear from them.


Bob has been proven right, as usual, except that over on CF Oyster Marine actually posted a link to their latest press release from their website. Jon E. already has it posted on the Oyster thread here on SN.

Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015 | News | Oyster Yachts


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, please, dear industry, no! I shudder at the thought of the "nurse shoes" boats we'd end up with.


Probably would be a big improvement over many of the 'Rhinestone Texas Cowboy Boot" boats currently on offer...

;-)


----------



## outbound

Wife's a RN. She wears Dubarry's when going forward to help hank on the storm jib and shiny candy colored clogs at work. But mostly barefoot whenever she can. Soon, the clogs will disappear. 

I wear Keens. Only wear tied shoes when boats on the hard.

Guesting you wear boat Mocs with no socks. No?:laugh


----------



## outbound

Good to hear they rebuilt the offending structure on the other ones. Hope the owner of the sunken one is made whole. Still would be curious what the actual defect was.


----------



## Shockwave

outbound said:


> Shock
> very interesting link. Do you have SS in a oxygen starved environment? Is there a bilge or just that small stump? Is the keel itself cast iron or Pb?


Out, that's not our boat in the link, that's a sistership to Smacks. It looks like the keel is iron, the bolts are probably threaded into the keel and would be easy to replace, the keel is probably drilled and tapped. For SS to corrode they need stagnant water in an oxygen free environment.

Our keel bolts are probably aquamet but I don't know for sure, hell I'm not even sure if they are cast in or through bolted, I've not been able to acquire the prints. El Toro's are tricky boats.


----------



## Maine Sail

Don0190 said:


> Do some of you ever consider just how meaningless these threads must be?* If they really had any impact or made any difference in the world of boating, manufacturers would pay attention* and comment on them.


Manufacturers will rarely comment on forums, it is not usually in their best interest, and the Craig Smith debacle is a prime example of how not to contribute in boating forums.

I can assure you, with 150% certainty, that they read these forums. We know Oyster has been reading them. I can't imagine there is a single manufacture who does not at least have a google alert for their brand name set up. Heck I was at an electronics supplier recently who had two google alerts pop up while I was in a meeting with him & both were from internet forum posts.

At SBO we are contacted through the _back door_ by manufacturers and we listen to their concerns and make changes if necessary.

Just look at the Tartan thread from years ago. Tartan threatened a lawsuit against SN and the thread was yanked. Tartan was reading but not posting. The Waterway Guide vs. Active Captain is another prime example of where both companies are monitoring that thread..

I know many builders personally and they DO monitor the forums even if they never post. It got to the point on SBO that we specifically prohibited overt "vendor, builder or manufacturer bashing" in the terms of use/rules. We did this because we caught numerous posters trying to use the brute force of the forums for personal gain/leverage against a manufacturer. There have been lies told by owners wishing to bash a manufacturer into submission which have been 100% de-bunked through back channel communications with the manufacturer. I even know of one instance where the poster was taken to court over bogus claims made against a manufacturer.

So yes, manufacturers do read these forums and are very often alerted to them via pre-defined google alerts.


----------



## outbound

Hi Phil . Love you buddy!!!!


----------



## Don L

Maine Sail said:


> So yes, manufacturers do read these forums and are very often alerted to them via pre-defined google alerts.


Then their PR departments do a poor job as overall all kinds of crap gets posted on forums as to construction details etc. and they just let it go.

But I can say that SBO is by far the most civil boat forum I'm aware of!


----------



## Maine Sail

Don0190 said:


> Then their PR departments do a poor job as overall all kinds of crap gets posted on forums as to construction details etc. and they just let it go.


Sometimes there is truth to it sometimes they go so far as to have images and posts removed. As I said sometimes it is a no win situation for them to get involved, publicly, so the manufacturer will use back channels, and they do.

As an example a boat had sunk due to a cleat being ripped out. I had a guy I knew at that boatyard. When the boat had been recovered, I was curious, so I asked him to snap some pictures so I could see the construction details. I had already cleared this with the OWNER OF THE BOAT!!

Behind the scenes the builder had ALREADY contacted the yard and asked them not to ALLOW ANYONE to photograph that boat. My friend was literally asked to not photograph the boat, even with the owners permission. This is not the first time I have run into this. We have been asked by manufacturers to remove images before that are not in their best interest to have on the net. I now save any "fail" images to my hard drive the minute I see them. While I may not be able to use them publicly they can still be valuable.



Don0190 said:


> But I can say that SBO is by far the most civil boat forum I'm aware of!


Thanks, we take _be nice_ very seriously. We also prohibit trolling...wink


----------



## XSrcing

Maine Sail said:


> Manufacturers will rarely comment on forums, it is not usually in their best interest, and the Craig Smith debacle is a prime example of how not to contribute in boating forums.
> 
> I can assure you, with 150% certainty, that they read these forums. We know Oyster has been reading them. I can't imagine there is a single manufacture who does not at least have a google alert for their brand name set up. Heck I was at an electronics supplier recently who had two google alerts pop up while I was in a meeting with him & both were from internet forum posts.
> 
> At SBO we are contacted through the _back door_ by manufacturers and we listen to their concerns and make changes if necessary.
> 
> Just look at the Tartan thread from years ago. Tartan threatened a lawsuit against SN and the thread was yanked. Tartan was reading but not posting. The Waterway Guide vs. Active Captain is another prime example of where both companies are monitoring that thread..
> 
> I know many builders personally and they DO monitor the forums even if they never post. It got to the point on SBO that we specifically prohibited overt "vendor, builder or manufacturer bashing" in the terms of use/rules. We did this because we caught numerous posters trying to use the brute force of the forums for personal gain/leverage against a manufacturer. There have been lies told by owners wishing to bash a manufacturer into submission which have been 100% de-bunked through back channel communications with the manufacturer. I even know of one instance where the poster was taken to court over bogus claims made against a manufacturer.
> 
> So yes, manufacturers do read these forums and are very often alerted to them via pre-defined google alerts.


Absolutely. For anyone here to think that these giant threads are not monitored is absurd. Good bet that there are some full time people at some of the bigger companies devoted to checking and maintaining their online presence through Facebook, Reddit and especially these forums.


----------



## bobperry

"But I can say that SBO is by far the most civil boat forum I'm aware of!"

Damn! I'm sorry. I'll try harder to be less civil.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> "But I can say that SBO is by far the most civil boat forum I'm aware of!"
> 
> Damn! I'm sorry. I'll try harder to be less civil.


Did you not notice Maine's wink? And here I thought that was directed at me! He-heh.


----------



## Don L

I'm pretty sure there are lots of members around here that don't have any problems with trying to be less civil.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Hunter 34
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This repair is similar to the one I helped a friend do on his H46 but the hull/keel line was lower. Easy repair and still fine.


This pre-paint bottom fairing is cool and everything (I've seen the same on Moodys) - but I want to see all the production boats that are sinking everywhere like you said.


----------



## Minnewaska

The majority of losses occur at the marina or in the harbor, which is only because that's where nearly everyone's boat is most of the time. Absent a non-stop circumnavigation, even the most prolific cruiser is in a harbor more than out to sea. If hoses or thru hulls are going to let go, or say someone doesn't tie their boat up well enough or the cleats aren't strong enough (anyone here familiar?), the odds are it will happen in the harbor. 

I see at least one sinking in our area per year. I saw two in our marina a few years back! They're not as dramatic, nor as newsworthy, since no one gets hurt, no media, no helicopters or rafts, etc. They just pump them, float them and haul them. 

Sure, they're usually "production" boats. But that's as likely because there are more of them and the odds are greater.

That said, sinking is not the definition of a boats limits. Not by a long stretch. The 13 ft Boston Whaler my family had when I was a kid would be circumnavigator, if that were the case.


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, do your own research.

As MaineSail said earlier, the makers of these boats do a very good job of hushing things up or shifting blame. The owners of these boats go along because they don't want the resale value destroyed.

I know of several instances in our marina alone where boats were sinking, rudders lost and rigs came down from a multitude of structural failures. The most recent was a 3 year old $700k boat with cracked hulls, launched in the spring and started sinking. The owner paid for repairs, the maker blamed the yard...yada yada.. but if you search the internet you find sisterships that have sunk. It's all kept on the QT but sometimes word gets out.

Do you think Oyster is cringing seeing their 825 pictures splattered all over the internet? They were probably praying it sank in deep water so it could not be recovered. You realize it was the owner who salvaged it not Oyster don't you? Oyster didn't lift a finger.

Anyway, do your own research, talk with owners of sisterships that actually sail them and look at these things with a critical eye. Or live in Da Nile... :laugh



smackdaddy said:


> This pre-paint bottom fairing is cool and everything (I've seen the same on Moodys) - but I want to see all the production boats that are sinking everywhere like you said.


----------



## skygazer

Shockwave said:


> .... You realize it was the *owner who salvaged it* not Oyster don't you? Oyster didn't lift a finger.


I never heard that mentioned, thank you. I did read the PR nonsense about the salvage op destroyed the boat so badly that causes could not be determined.

Made me laugh. Were we supposed to believe that the keel was mired in the bottom so soundly that when they raised her the keel tore off the bottom of the hull?

The keel was not attached guys, we still remember that even if you don't.


----------



## slap

Shockwave said:


> You realize it was the owner who salvaged it not Oyster don't you? Oyster didn't lift a finger.


I would have guessed it was the insurance company. Then the insurance company could determine who was at fault, potentially reducing their possible 6M euro payout.


----------



## albrazzi

Personally I thought the PR was well written. If I were a Lawyer that's how I would have done it. And that's all it is, a PR, the details of the rest of the story belong to the Owner and the Insurance company and there's most probably some non disclosure language in the settlement. Bet he's getting a new Boat anyway and that's worked out between Oyster and the carrier, we wont be hearing from the owner either. There was a refit yard in the mix too, working on engineering advise approval or whatever from Oyster. How much of that will be released??


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack, do your own research.
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway, do your own research, talk with owners of sisterships that actually sail them and look at these things with a critical eye.


I already do. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.


----------



## Shockwave

Obviously... LOL



smackdaddy said:


> I already do. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.


----------



## tanzertom

From the mouths of babes... You are absolutely correct and are wise beyond your inexperience. The answer to your question on which boat going where in what conditions is a resounding YES! Buy what fits your needs and be aware of it's limitations. Let the crap slingers do what they do for whatever reason they do it. Those pretending to be looking out for the best interest of others are usually those who are to be most mistrusted.

Now, is there a global warming thread anywhere... :hushed:


----------



## Shockwave

Tom, do what you want, most people do.


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey Bob, if you're still reading along, I've got a question about something a dude is claiming on CF. Is this true?



> *Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga*
> Even if a vessel is likely to be dismasted in a roll, *many small designs are intended to survive being rolled and rolled and rolled without any real problems*. See for example many of the Vancouvers *and Valiants*, but equally Island Packets and, well, so many others it is pointless to list, but most CF members will know perfectly well without my having to do so.


This is sounding very chuckleheady to me...which is not surprising considering the source. But maybe I'm wrong. So I thought I'd ask someone who really knows.


----------



## Exile1

tanzertom said:


> From the mouths of babes... You are absolutely correct and are wise beyond your inexperience. The answer to your question on which boat going where in what conditions is a resounding YES! Buy what fits your needs and be aware of it's limitations. Let the crap slingers do what they do for whatever reason they do it. Those pretending to be looking out for the best interest of others are usually those who are to be most mistrusted.
> 
> Now, is there a global warming thread anywhere... :hushed:


There is no Planet B - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

But be warned, I for one could only hang in for the first couple of pages. :hothead


----------



## tanzertom

Good position, Exile, on the Planet B thread on CF. I cannot participate in CF because the head Speech Nazi, apv4 or something like that I believe, banned me for commenting on the wisdom of rushing to cruise Cuba just now. I was banned "forever". Moderators here seem much more open to free discussion and even heated debate. Substance often comes from conflicting perspectives, seldom from those who want to force kumbaya and limit discussion.


----------



## bobperry

Smackers:
That is nonsense. It's almost an automatic that if you get rolled once you will most probably lose the rig. I don't even know how I would design the rig so it would stay on. I do know that if I tried that calculation there would be some hefty safety factors. Lots of variables involved.

I'll go so far as to say that comment is stupid.
I'd go to CF and tell him myself but I'm banned for life. Maybe someone who can get on there can quote me.


----------



## NCC320

Can anyone identify the boat in this link: Coast Guard hoists man from sailboat 60 miles off Cape Lookout

At first, I wondered if it was a Hunter or one of those other production boats, you know, those currently mass produced boats that are not up to going to sea....but on looking further, it looks like one of those heavily built, older, bluewater boats. Which is it?

Oops....here's another one. Can anyone identify it?


----------



## tanzertom

Bobperry, you are banned from CF, too? Forever? Me, too! Perhaps we should start a thread on folk banned by the Speech Nazi... and why. Was apv4 your "ban-er"?


----------



## Maine Sail

tanzertom said:


> Bobperry, you are banned from CF, too? Forever? Me, too! Perhaps we should start a thread on folk banned by the Speech Nazi... and why. *Was apv4 your "ban-er"?*


No forum I know of has a standard practice for one mod to make a banning decision unless it is a blatant spammer.

I can pretty much assure you your post or posts were discussed in the private moderator/admin sub forum, among all moderators and admins, and it just happened to be avb3 who hit the button.

I would strongly suggest reading forum rules and guidelines before posting on any forum because they all have different hot buttons. CF adheres strongly to their rules, SN lets a lot slip......


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Smackers:
> That is nonsense. It's almost an automatic that if you get rolled once you will most probably lose the rig. I don't even know how I would design the rig so it would stay on. I do know that if I tried that calculation there would be some hefty safety factors. Lots of variables involved.
> 
> I'll go so far as to say that comment is stupid.
> I'd go to CF and tell him myself but I'm banned for life. Maybe someone who can get on there can quote me.


That's kind of what I thought. Thanks Bob.

Like I've always said, a lifetime ban from CF is actually becoming a badge of honor.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> No forum I know of has a standard practice for one mod to make a banning decision unless it is a blatant spammer.
> 
> I can pretty much assure you your post or posts were discussed in the private moderator/admin sub forum, among all moderators and admins, and it just happened to be avb3 who hit the button.
> 
> I would strongly suggest reading forum rules and guidelines before posting on any forum because they all have different hot buttons. CF adheres strongly to their rules, SN lets a lot slip......


Are you a mod at CF Maine? I didn't know that.


----------



## smackdaddy

NCC320 said:


> Can anyone identify the boat in this link: Coast Guard hoists man from sailboat 60 miles off Cape Lookout
> 
> At first, I wondered if it was a Hunter or one of those other production boats, you know, those currently mass produced boats that are not up to going to sea....but on looking further, it looks like one of those heavily built, older, bluewater boats. Which is it?
> 
> Oops....here's another one. Can anyone identify it?












Interesting. I don't think that's a Hunter. The bowsprit is far longer than the spindly anchor rollers on Hunters. Maybe a Bene or Bava? Oh, and it has an extra mast. Nice wide decks though for strolling around in a storm to check your sea anchor. Heh-heh.

Of course, if you watch the video and see how the boat is performing in those nasty waves, you can see that "strolling" is not an option - and "motion comfort" is a pipe dream.


----------



## Bleemus

NCC320 said:


> Can anyone identify the boat in this link: Coast Guard hoists man from sailboat 60 miles off Cape Lookout
> 
> At first, I wondered if it was a Hunter or one of those other production boats, you know, those currently mass produced boats that are not up to going to sea....but on looking further, it looks like one of those heavily built, older, bluewater boats. Which is it?
> 
> Oops....here's another one. Can anyone identify it?


Tough to tell as the video is pretty low quality but my guess it is still floating out there somewhere.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## skygazer

Exile1 said:


> There is no Planet B - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
> But be warned, I for one could only hang in for the first couple of pages. :hothead


I could only read a bit of the endless pointless debate. Personally, I know that *global warming is real*, I've even noticed (this part following is actually true) that *the ice caps were dwindling on MARS*. I used to view it in the 70's when we were close, big ice caps, I could see both north and south caps at the same time. In the 2000's (I think it was 2005) when we were close I could barely see one ice cap, using the exact same telescope.

The Martian ice caps do however seem to be coming back. (End of actually true.)

So perhaps we are making progress.

I blame it on George Bush (and too much hot air generally), destroying the climate on Mars where I'd hoped to visit some day (if I can ever get my sailboat ready for the trip).... 

Let's see. Pressure tight bulkheads. Oxygen recirculater. Two Saturn booster Rockets. Have to remove heavy keel (that should be very easy, I'll get advice from Oyster  )

Yes, production boats can be beefed up a bit and be capable of going anywhere.


----------



## smackdaddy

Take the global warming crap to PRWG.


----------



## Exile1

Personally, I believe global warming should be blamed on hull liners . . . and George Bush, obviously. 

What's PRWG?


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> Take the global warming crap to PRWG.


Thanks, I try to follow your advice but it's difficult. I thought joking was lightening up a bit. I thought you said don't tell someone else how to use the forum. 



smackdaddy said:


> You obviously missed the joke. You might need to lighten up a bit.





smackdaddy said:


> The issue is, I'm joking. You guys aren't. So harden up a bit.





smackdaddy said:


> . ...Yet YOU felt the need to jump in... You really should stop doing that.


----------



## Exile1

bobperry said:


> Smackers:
> That is nonsense. It's almost an automatic that if you get rolled once you will most probably lose the rig. I don't even know how I would design the rig so it would stay on. I do know that if I tried that calculation there would be some hefty safety factors. Lots of variables involved.
> 
> I'll go so far as to say that comment is stupid.
> I'd go to CF and tell him myself but I'm banned for life. Maybe someone who can get on there can quote me.


Maine Sail just did so for you Bob. Fwiw, I thought the CF guy conceded the (obvious) likelihood of losing the rig in a rollover (see Smack's quote above), but may have had some outlier examples where the rig held. I thought his point was more about some boat designs perhaps doing better in a rollover due to smaller, stronger portlights, smaller cockpits, etc., etc. But a recreational sailboat actually _designed_ from the get-go to survive a rollover intact seems like a stretch.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bleemus said:


> Tough to tell as the video is pretty low quality but my guess it is still floating out there somewhere.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That second video shows a boat that appears to have a canoe stern and transom-hung rudder:










Definitely not a Hunter.


----------



## guitarguy56

Honest Smack.... I don't know how you deal with all the:










NOTE: This was NOT directed at Smack... bit to all the whiners on this thread and others!


----------



## Faster

smackdaddy said:


> That second video shows a boat that appears to have a canoe stern and transom-hung rudder:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely not a Hunter.


Ingrid 38? if so definitely what many would call a BWC. She may well still be floating out there. We don't have the full story but it wouldn't be the first time bad management shredded sails and the boater freaked out, hit the EPIRB and left a viable boat adrift simply because they'd 'had enough'..


----------



## Exile1

guitarguy56 said:


> Honest Smack.... I don't know how you deal with all the:


Yeah, you're right. Sometimes I do wish Smack would stop all his crying.

NOTE: Pic looks more like an (internet) temper tantrum than mere whining to me.


----------



## Bleemus

Faster said:


> Ingrid 38? if so definitely what many would call a BWC. She may well still be floating out there. We don't have the full story but it wouldn't be the first time bad management shredded sails and the boater freaked out, hit the EPIRB and left a viable boat adrift simply because they'd 'had enough'..


Good guess on the Ingrid. Another guy got pulled off a perfectly floating boat this yesterday. Saw it pass by in the Newsreader. Red ketch.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Faster

Bleemus said:


> Good guess on the Ingrid. Another guy got pulled off a perfectly floating boat this yesterday. Saw it pass by in the Newsreader. Red ketch.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yeah.. that one looked like a Bermuda 40 or Hinckley.. another 'crap' boat tossed away


----------



## Brent Swain

Exile1 said:


> Maine Sail just did so for you Bob. Fwiw, I thought the CF guy conceded the (obvious) likelihood of losing the rig in a rollover (see Smack's quote above), but may have had some outlier examples where the rig held. I thought his point was more about some boat designs perhaps doing better in a rollover due to smaller, stronger portlights, smaller cockpits, etc., etc. But a recreational sailboat actually _designed_ from the get-go to survive a rollover intact seems like a stretch.


I have read of boats rolled over which did not lose their rig.
One Sparkman and Stephens design, when back upright, had a huge gush of water come in, lifting the floor boards in a great geyser.
The owner ,in a huge panic, pumped like hell, thinking she was holed.
Eventually, he got the bilge empty . No more water was coming in. The he realized what had happened. The hollow ,keel stepped mast had filled with water ,which dumped into the bilge when she righted. That was the only source of sea water coming in.


----------



## smackdaddy

guitarguy56 said:


> Honest Smack.... I don't know how you deal with all the:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: This was NOT directed at Smack... bit to all the whiners on this thread and others!


It is amazing isn't it? I guess I just find it entertaining when grown men cry. Does that make me a bad person?


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> Yeah.. that one looked like a Bermuda 40 or Hinckley.. another 'crap' boat tossed away


All that safety, stability, security, and motion comfort - just tossed aside. Sad really.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> All that safety, stability, security, and motion comfort - just tossed aside. Sad really.


And just imagine if it was a Hunter/Bene/Lina/etc. that one of these guys had bailed out of. We'd be debating the severity of the conditions as made up on the internet, as opposed to what actually occurred.


----------



## tanzertom

Maine Sail said:


> No forum I know of has a standard practice for one mod to make a banning decision unless it is a blatant spammer.
> 
> I can pretty much assure you your post or posts were discussed in the private moderator/admin sub forum, among all moderators and admins, and it just happened to be avb3 who hit the button.
> 
> I would strongly suggest reading forum rules and guidelines before posting on any forum because they all have different hot buttons. CF adheres strongly to their rules, SN lets a lot slip......


You can likely find the discussion on CF concerning Cuba. Seemed I was on the wrong side of the political issue by expressing concern on the safety aspects. The moderator's position was that it was political discussion. He/they had no problem with those on the other side expressing their political view. But we drift from production boat bashing/supporting topic of this thread... Just wondered what bobperry's transgression was as he seems pretty level headed.


----------



## capttb

The first time I got caught in a gale I wasn't sure what the outcome would be but I had no other option but to ride it out. You don't normally sail in really bad weather so until you get caught a couple times you don't know it's uncomfortable but completely survivable. People low on confidence spook easily regardless of the nameplate on the boat.
BTW everytime I've been in bad weather I consider it my fault, usually if I'd stuck to the original plan or used my head at all I wouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> It is amazing isn't it? I guess I just find it entertaining when grown men cry. Does that make me a bad person?


Well ........................ yeah it kind of does


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> Thanks, I try to follow your advice but it's difficult. I thought joking was lightening up a bit. I thought you said don't tell someone else how to use the forum.


Joking's great - when it's about boats and sailing. When it's about US politics - it's stupid. Very stupid. That's what PRWG is for.


----------



## smackdaddy

Since the dude on CF will probably show up shortly complaining how I "deliberately misquoted" him (even though those are his EXACT words which I again highlight in red below), let me put up his entire aria.

I'll also bold some other beauties from the same post...:



> *Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga*
> You have no patience for this type of argument because you cannot handle it. Your assertion was that no vessel under 80 feet has ever been expressly designed for unrestricted ocean service, and your last and only remaining argument in favour of this absurd conclusion is that smaller vessels are more easily capsized. So what? *Capsized is not fatal to any vessel strongly enough built! There are many small vessels precisely designed to be capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling. Some even so designed to keep their rigs. It involves a little concept you seem completely determined to oppose at every level and whatever the cost: thoroughgoing strength of design and build as the primary focus of a particular model.*
> 
> A good friend of mine, Mark Slats, a nonstop solo circumnavigator on a "small" boat (by your definition) described in a very funny way to me his experience being rolled six times in a row in the Southern Ocean, in his steel, wood masted Gypsy Moth style ketch, with its 1948 Gardner engine. He said: "I was standing on the saloon floor, and then I was standing on the side, then I walked around to the roof, the other side, and the floor again"&#8230; SIX times. And then? He just continued sailing on as normal. No problems.
> 
> *Even if a vessel is likely to be dismasted in a roll, many small designs are intended to survive being rolled and rolled and rolled without any real problems. See for example many of the Vancouvers and Valiants, but equally Island Packets and, well, so many others it is pointless to list, but most CF members will know perfectly well without my having to do so.*
> 
> Your assertion is just complete nonsense, and your lack of patience is because despite a ferocious series of largely rhetorical fightbacks you have given up so much ground that your heel is over the abyss. Why don't you simply, finally, put all of your various admissions together and admit that *certain yacht builds are far stronger and better suited to unrestricted ocean service* than others, and stop encouraging the entirely false and frankly dangerous belief that all yachts are equal to the the task in an equal fashion! I really do feel that you argue all this with an agenda in mind, and I suspect you are an employee of one of the companies whose marques you typically defend. Publicist?


Now, as you know Bob, arguing with Paulo can certainly be taxing in certain ways. But at least you have the chops to argue on a high level. This guy? Meh.

What is "unrestricted ocean service" anyway when it comes to cruising yachts under 80 feet? And how does it relate to CE Categorization? The only thing I could find as a definition on this is as follows:



> Ships designed for unrestricted ocean service were built with a strength factor of 100.


And this:

Yacht Classifications Explained

Are Oysters or Valiants built with a SF of 100? And can they "be capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling"? Again - maybe it's just me, but these arguments from this dude sound a bit far-fetched.


----------



## Muckle Flugga

bobperry said:


> Smackers:
> That is nonsense. It's almost an automatic that if you get rolled once you will most probably lose the rig. I don't even know how I would design the rig so it would stay on. I do know that if I tried that calculation there would be some hefty safety factors. Lots of variables involved.
> 
> I'll go so far as to say that comment is stupid.
> I'd go to CF and tell him myself but I'm banned for life. Maybe someone who can get on there can quote me.


Well yes, this was a silly strawman by smackdaddy, which is not surprising. I notice he has tried to preempt this, but it is simply true that I repeatedly stated on the same thread that it is LIKELY that a vessel will be dismasted in any roll. For example in the original post, which he began the quote directly after the sentence: "Even if a vessel is likely to be dismasted in a roll&#8230;" and the subsequent post no 482 on the same thread ("Oyster problems"), where I state: "... Sure a 360 will likely bring down a rig. Will it sink a boat? Depends on the boat. &#8230;"

Smackdaddy, as per his reputation is seeking to make mileage out of this obviously ridiculous strawman, and now, it seems, is seeking to backtrack a little. But your reply, to which he acceded, makes it clear that you had no idea that I wasn't talking about the rig's survival AT ALL, but the survival of an obviously damaged (because of the likely dismasting, as stated), but serviceable hull for the purposes of the survival of the crew. The entire thread is about the strength and resilience of hulls, and is not in any way about rigs, so who is looking stupid now?


----------



## smackdaddy

Well hey Muckle - welcome to SN dude. You'll like the place.

Heh-heh.

PS - Those were your words, not mine, nor a strawman's. And I don't backtrack.


----------



## Muckle Flugga

smackdaddy said:


> Since the dude on CF will probably show up shortly complaining how I "deliberately misquoted" him (even though those are his EXACT words which I again highlight in red below), let me put up his entire aria.
> 
> I'll also bold some other beauties from the same post...:
> 
> Now, as you know Bob, arguing with Paulo can certainly be taxing in certain ways. But at least you have the chops to argue on a high level. This guy? Meh.
> 
> What is "unrestricted ocean service" anyway when it comes to cruising yachts under 80 feet? And how does it relate to CE Categorization? The only thing I could find as a definition on this is as follows:
> 
> And this:
> 
> Are Oysters or Valiants built with a SF of 100? And can they "be capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling"? Again - maybe it's just me, but these arguments from this dude sound a bit far-fetched.


A "dude" is a horses reproductive organ. Please don't use stupid strawmen in quoting me again. You know that you edited out the very preceding line to your quote of me to Bob Perry, and you acceded to his obviously misled response. This means your intention to mislead was deliberate, because the sense he got was entirely different to what I had in fact stated. I repeatedly state that a roll will most likely dismast a vessel. You chose to misepresent that, which is absolutely clear in your response to Bob Perry's response. The entire thread is about compromise to HULLS and has nothing whatever to do with rigs, which I repeatedly and specifically excluded, including in the immediately preceding sentence to your deliberate misquote.

It really cannot be any clearer than that.

Your reputation precedes you and I have no interest in discussing anything with you, at all, so do not expect a reply to any more of your nonsense.


----------



## smackdaddy

Muckle Flugga said:


> A "dude" is a horses reproductive organ. Please don't use stupid strawmen in quoting me again. You know that you edited out the very preceding line to your quote of me to Bob Perry, and you acceded to his obviously misled response. This means your intention to mislead was deliberate, because the sense he got was entirely different to what I had in fact stated. I repeatedly state that a roll will most likely dismast a vessel. You chose to misepresent that, which is absolutely clear in your response to Bob Perry's response. The entire thread is about compromise to HULLS and has nothing whatever to do with rigs, which I repeatedly and specifically excluded, including in the immediately preceding sentence to your deliberate misquote.
> 
> It really cannot be any clearer than that.
> 
> Your reputation precedes you and I have no interest in discussing anything with you, at all, so do not expect a reply to any more of your nonsense.


Yeah, on the rigs thing - you keep saying that...after you said something different to begin with. That's cool I guess. Even so, the stuff you're NOW saying ("unrestricted ocean service", "capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling", etc.) is still a good bit far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. But I'm no Bob Perry. So we'll just have to wait and see.

In any case, you'll have to hone your chops on the debating thing for the Sailnet crowd. This is the deep end.

PS - I'm no publicist.


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> Joking's great - when it's about boats and sailing. When it's about US politics - it's stupid. Very stupid. That's what PRWG is for.


Thank you for explaining to me that I'm "very stupid". I've always had that suspicion, but now it's verified. Are you telling me again how to use the forum? As I mentioned, following you is difficult.



smackdaddy said:


> ...In any case, you'll have to *hone your chops* on the debating thing for the Sailnet crowd. This is the deep end...


I will however ask you to *hone your reading comprehension skills*. I guess I will have to explain the joke for you (which I wish you would do for your jokes, we operate on different wavelengths).

See, the part about global warming is an introduction to the joke about preparing my production boat to go anywhere. Even the introduction is intended to be partly humorous. While the information about actual observations by a precision instrument, not opinions, of Mar's ice caps is true, it is humorous to imagine that US politics has the same effect on the Martian climate as on the earth's climate....or maybe it does?

The intro is followed by the absurd preparation of my boat, including the slightly humorous need to remove the heavy keel to save weight.

Try it again. Nothing changed in quote.



skygazer said:


> I could only read a bit of the endless pointless debate. Personally, I know that *global warming is real*, I've even noticed (this part following is actually true) that *the ice caps were dwindling on MARS*. I used to view it in the 70's when we were close, big ice caps, I could see both north and south caps at the same time. In the 2000's (I think it was 2005) when we were close I could barely see one ice cap, using the exact same telescope.
> 
> The Martian ice caps do however seem to be coming back. (End of actually true.)
> 
> So perhaps we are making progress.
> 
> I blame it on George Bush (and too much hot air generally), destroying the climate on Mars where I'd hoped to visit some day (if I can ever get my sailboat ready for the trip)....
> 
> Let's see. Pressure tight bulkheads. Oxygen recirculater. Two Saturn booster Rockets. Have to remove heavy keel (that should be very easy, I'll get advice from Oyster  )
> 
> Yes, production boats can be beefed up a bit and be capable of going anywhere.


While explaining a joke ruins it, I still ask you to explain yours.

Here is my post, and your humorous reply. I admit, it is too subtle for a very stupid person like myself to comprehend. Perhaps you could use simpler language and be more direct?



skygazer said:


> When I was a young lad* I made up my own proverb...[/B
> "Wise men listen to fools, but fools don't listen to wise men"... *


*



smackdaddy said:



I have a proverb:
Dudes that make up proverbs and spout truisms are usually egotistical blowhards.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> Thank you for explaining to me that I'm "very stupid". I've always had that suspicion, but now it's verified. Are you telling me again how to use the forum? As I mentioned, following you is difficult.


Good lord man. Where exactly did I say _you_ were stupid? Are you really this tender in real life?



skygazer said:


> I will however ask you to *hone your reading comprehension skills*. I guess I will have to explain the joke for you (which I wish you would do for your jokes, we operate on different wavelengths)....blah


I don't care. That's the point. Like I said, talk about boats or go to PRWG and talk about politics. Your call.


----------



## Faster

Cut this out, you guys.

Fingers trembling over the 'close thread' button...


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm cool with that. I'd really like the get the thread back on track and talk about boats.


----------



## albrazzi

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, on the rigs thing - you keep saying that...after you said something different to begin with. That's cool I guess. Even so, the stuff you're NOW saying ("unrestricted ocean service", "capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling", etc.) is still a good bit far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. But I'm no Bob Perry. So we'll just have to wait and see.
> 
> In any case, you'll have to hone your chops on the debating thing for the Sailnet crowd. This is the deep end.
> 
> PS - I'm no publicist.


Multiple personalities surfacing here?? Looks like an imaginary Chucklehead.

Quote didn't work like I wanted, referring to the Muckle Fuggle thing!!!


----------



## Nauta

Smack!! your IQ about production boats is the same as a hollow pan liner.... Lol


----------



## albrazzi

Nauta said:


> Smack!! your IQ about production boats is the same as a hollow pan liner.... Lol


ANOTHER alter ego??


----------



## outbound

It's very unfortunate anyone has to "hone their chops" to try to discuss sailboats and sailing on SN. One would hope this forum does not become a locale for anyone to massage their ego by proving their debating skills. Please do that on SA.


----------



## XSrcing

Last night I learned of the MacGregor 65. That's a boat built by one of the most hated MFG's but, in a quick cursory search, couldn't find any problems with them. At 24 built in just a few years I would call that a big production boat.

What are your guys thoughts about it? I think it sure is pretty.

Look at this one. Hand holds are just littered about the thing.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> Last night I learned of the MacGregor 65. That's a boat built by one of the most hated MFG's but, in a quick cursory search, couldn't find any problems with them. At 24 built in just a few years I would call that a big production boat.
> 
> What are your guys thoughts about it? I think it sure is pretty.


There was a McG65 in an offshore race we did a few years back called the "Harvest Moon Regatta". Had some pretty serious dudes sailing it and ran pretty well. It's a funky boat to my eye. Very narrow and very long. I'm not sure how it competed back in its day, nor how it competes with today's boats - but I do know that on a class-staggered start for the 150-mile return leg we beat it in our Pearson 365. We had good wind the whole way and that 65 was right on our tail as we crossed the line - but we beat them across the line. That was a good feeling.

I'll see if I can dig out a pic or two.


----------



## bobperry

XS:
There was a Mac 65 that raced up here for a while. We called it the K-Mart 65. It was fast off the wind but a total dog upwind. It would just lay on it's side and suffer. I have a friend who bought one. He liked it but eventually traded for a much smaller boat.


----------



## outbound

Bob
Find that unusual. From cursory look would seem a very narrow boat for its length. Would expect it to be good upwind and a dog downwind. Can't process this. Is it just a function of inadequate ability to stand up to the wind so it would lean over with wind pouring off the top of the sails providing little motive force?


----------



## Bleemus

Haven't seen a Mac 65 in ages! Thanks for the laugh! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## XSrcing

Looks have nothing to do with performance. For all I know, the M65 is a solid fiberglass polished turd.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
Nothing unusual about it at all. 
Yes, long light and narrow is a very fast combination, providing you can find the stability in a deep. bulbed keel.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> Looks have nothing to do with performance. For all I know, the M65 is a solid fiberglass polished turd.


It could definitely profit from a deeper, bulbed keel I would think...



















It looks almost cartoonish today.

Maybe something more like this?


----------



## XSrcing

You just compared MAcGregor to Perry. If I were Roger that would make me feel pretty good.


----------



## XSrcing

Weird, Sailboatdata list the M65 as fin keel with bulb.

MACGREGOR 65-1 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


----------



## Bleemus

That is the earlier racing version which was pretty rare. The more popular pilothouse version is the one you will see more often. We used to chuckle when the launch wake would hit em and they rolled so much.

I believe that boat was the epitome of "I want the longest boat I can possibly get for short money". 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> You just compared MAcGregor to Perry. If I were Roger that would make me feel pretty good.


Well - I have nothing at all against MaCGs - but I'd have to say in this case, there is no comparison.


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> It looks almost cartoonish today.


On the subject of the Mac65 and 'cartoonish', I've never quite understood the Mac-signature "two rows of eyes" concept in the cabin-top design. Can someone explain it to me?










We've a boat at our club (fairly sure it isn't a Mac) that takes it to a whole new level and adds oval, rather than rectangular, ports to the mix. To my aesthetic, it makes the boat look like an alien.. I've not taken a photo of it to date 'cause it's soooo ugly I'm worried my camera lens will crack at the mere sight of it.


----------



## smackdaddy

So - would you feel safer in blue water with a production boat or a newish Hallberg Rassy...that is falling apart?

https://www.hisse-et-oh.com/system/..._Rassy_37_constructieproblemen.pdf?1345991315

I'll take the production boat.


----------



## bobperry

Bleems: Do not make the mistake of equating all fins and bulbs. You are forgetting to add draft and the amount of lead in the bulb into the equation. Frankie draws 10'. The Mac 65 appears to be no more than 7' draft and that fin may also be lead resulting in a fairly high VCG compared to Frankies. Frankie is as stiff as a church and goes to weather like a rocket. No comparison.


----------



## Bleemus

bobperry said:


> Bleems: Do not make the mistake of equating all fins and bulbs. You are forgetting to add draft and the amount of lead in the bulb into the equation. Frankie draws 10'. The Mac 65 appears to be no more than 7' draft and that fin may also be lead resulting in a fairly high VCG compared to Frankies. Frankie is as stiff as a church and goes to weather like a rocket. No comparison.


Wasn't equating them all. The Mac65 we used to snicker at had some sort of shoal draft wing/Scheel keel but don't want to tag Henry with this one. I think it drew less than 5 feet. It was so tender we thought if a tugboat went by it might throw a spreader in the water.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Bleems:
That's sort of how I remember the one that raced in Seattle. The minute the wind went on the nose i was battling boat for boat with 35 footers. And losing.


----------



## Bleemus

bobperry said:


> Bleems:
> 
> That's sort of how I remember the one that raced in Seattle. The minute the wind went on the nose i was battling boat for boat with 35 footers. And losing.


Ha! That gets a good chuckle from me. When I saw that one in Australia the first thing I could think of was the poor people that sailed it there. The thought of trying to get it back to the States without crossing the Indian Ocean or trying to claw here way back up the western Pacific would have me calling a yacht broker and a travel agent for plane tickets.

When we watched the one rolling around in the harbor we were comfortably sitting on a Santa Cruz 70 that had the highest righting moment of any SC70 ever built (hull #12). She drew 11 feet. We barely moved. Sadly that boat sank in minutes after getting t-boned while on starboard tack at Antigua Race Week a few years later. I wasn't on board but shed a tear when I heard the news.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska

Faster said:


> Cut this out, you guys.
> 
> Fingers trembling over the 'close thread' button...


Prove it.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> Prove it.


Minne, I'm really curious...why do you and Exile and sky and others want to get this thread locked? As you can see, we're having a pretty good conversation about boats. I don't get all this bitterness.

Just talk about boats. Have fun. It's really not that hard. What do you think about the MacG65?

I'm still looking for those pics.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Minne, I'm really curious...why do you and Exile and sky and others want to get this thread locked? As you can see, we're having a pretty good conversation about boats. I don't get all this bitterness.
> 
> Just talk about boats. Have fun. It's really not that hard. What do you think about the MacG65?
> 
> I'm still looking for those pics.


Don't worry Smack, if this thread gets locked it will be like all the others that got locked, along with all your bannings. Of all "those guys" responsible, I'm sure you will have had _NOTHING_ to do with it. I know, just a victim of circumstance, or maybe those bad old mods out to get you again.

Besides, the more interesting boaty stuff has been developing on threads you didn't start (coincidence?), and over on CF where you are no longer welcome. But apparently you still feel the need to attack people over there too. Personally, I've never registered complaints with mods on any forum. They're all unpaid volunteers and I just assume not hassle them when I can more easily just opt out. And you wonder why there's not much traffic lately?

But over here, I might just stick around to see if I might be able to figure out how a lighthearted joke about global warming on the planet _MARS_ has anything to do with US politics. As you said at the time . . . "stupid, very stupid."


----------



## XSrcing

im never playing video games against Smack. He is that button masher that seemingly always wins.


----------



## smackdaddy

XSrcing said:


> im never playing video games against Smack. He is that button masher that seemingly always wins.


Yeah - I give up with these guys. Boats are much more fun than dudes with hurt feelings.

Did you see that link to the 1-year-old HR that fell apart? That was a bit freaky. Seems to be a lot of this going around these days.


----------



## smackdaddy

I know there are a couple of multi guys around here, and I'd really like to get their take on some of this stuff. Thus far it's most all been about monos, old and new. I never really hear much about old vs. new for multis. In fact, I mostly see where newer is preferred just because of the better materials and processes.

Now, before JonE gets carried away ragging on CharlieD about the whole Alpha42 thing...and the Gunboat debacle...what about the Leopards and Fountaine-Pajots of the world? A cat will likely be my next boat - so I'm interested. Are there "blue water cats" versus "production cats"?


----------



## XSrcing

You just activated Blood Mode.


----------



## aeventyr60

bobperry said:


> Bleems:
> That's sort of how I remember the one that raced in Seattle. The minute the wind went on the nose i was battling boat for boat with 35 footers. And losing.


Did a few Duck Dodges in a Mac 65, always ahead of the pack. Best thing I remember was the full size bath tub that was stocked with beer and other libations for the 15 or so Duck Dodger crew on board.


----------



## albrazzi

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - I give up with these guys. Boats are much more fun than dudes with hurt feelings.
> 
> Did you see that link to the 1-year-old HR that fell apart? That was a bit freaky. Seems to be a lot of this going around these days.


That whole thing should have been over with the Hull, all the other stuff doesn't matter if the hull is bad. I read the whole thing and he was using his lawyer to go after the small things it should have been over right away. I understand taking sub-systems to the maker for individual warranty, its just good customer service to facilitate those things.


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> Minne, I'm really curious...why do you and Exile *and sky* and others want to get this thread locked? As you can see, we're having a pretty good conversation about boats. I don't get all this bitterness.


It is astonishing how feminine intuition can discover, that unknown to me, I want the thread locked! Particularly since I hadn't been aware of locking as an option. But *why are you even thinking about me?? *I don't think about you.

I imagine that if you were about boating instead of yourself and interpersonal wrangling your posts might become interesting. All I personally know is that while I have learned some useful things from Brent Swain I've never learned a single thing from your plethora of posts. That's why I've begun skipping them.

That's right, I couldn't care less. I wish the feeling were mutual. Please ignore me.

So why are you following me around and quoting me and disparaging my posts?

"talk about boats or go to PRWG and talk about politics. Your call."


----------



## skygazer

Throughout this thread I've read the same flawed logic over and over.

The specific: Some production boats have cruised.

The general: There are thousands and thousands of production boats.

The false conclusion: Because there are thousands and thousands of production boats there should be a rash of failures if they are not strong enough for cruising.

Yes, if they were all cruising. No, you should expect a percentage of the tiny percentage that cruise to fail, not a percentage of the large general population of production boats. Anyone who has actually been along the shore knows that there are thousands and thousands of production boats doing little or nothing. A "rash" of a tiny percentage would be very few.

As a good friend likes to say "Things break when you use them".


----------



## Don L

I wonder why the thought of a "production" boat cruising angers so many people to point that they need to write up internet bah bah bah stories


----------



## bobperry

I've never really figured this thread out. I have a lot of production boats to my designs that have done circumnavigations including Jeff now on his Baba 40. I can't see what the big deal about it is. Some can and some can't. Some do and some don't.


----------



## outbound

Sky
You have it pegged. Smack refuses to understand current production boats are used coastally and intermittently in settings with access to services. This is not the reality for BW boats. This is not to say things don't break on BW boats. They do with depressing regularity. 

He also fails to understand a 3-4d passage when weather forecasting is fairly accurate is a whole different thing than longer passages. Although it is uncommon to spend more than ~5% of your time on passage in truly bad weather that small percentage occurs so all features of the vessel must be so constructed to deal with it.

Just got off the phone with a friend running a Little Harbor 75. Took the boat from Newport to Antigua late November. Uneventful passage sitting in the pilothouse slipping coffee. Although this boat is outside the spectrum of what any of us sail it does point to how unpleasant many current boats are on passage. Those twin helm stations at the extreme stern of many production boats are cold, wet and too exposed. We are not Volvo racers. As mom and pops we want a dry, protected spot out of the wind to watch the AIS, radar, do visual scans and run the boat.


----------



## XSrcing

What Smack keeps stating over and over is there are current production boats (the ones that you say are only used coastally and intermittently) that are sailing around the world successfully.

La Vagabond is a 2007 Beneteau Cyclades.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> I've never really figured this thread out. I have a lot of production boats to my designs that have done circumnavigations including Jeff now on his Baba 40. I can't see what the big deal about it is. Some can and some can't. Some do and some don't.


I started this thread because lots of dudes back then, and many still now as you can see, hold that _only_ a certain subset of boat brands _really_ belong out in the ocean away from land. And as you can see by the still-running conversation, boats that typically make the list of those that DON'T really belong out there are mass-market "production boats" - which typically include the following brands:

Beneteau
Catalina
Hunter
Bavaria
Jeanneau
(and a few others)

Many repeatedly point out the perceived "flaws" of these boats - from "weak cleats", to "thin laminate", to "too wide cockpits", to "lost rudders", to "lack of 'proper' this or that" - as the reason these boats should never leave sight of land. Then they typically point to older boats in the "blue water boat" subset of brands to illustrate what a _real _blue water boat is - and why it's superior. Of course, it typically happens to come from guys that own these types of boats - so go figure. They bought it - they need to justify it. I get it.

I thought then, and still think now, that this viewpoint/argument is ignorant. That it's more just subjective preference for features and methods of yesteryear (or of their own boat) - not a critical analysis of reality. The fact that many of these "production boat" brands are crossing oceans each year - and the fact that even these guys' favorite "bluewater" brands (at least the ones that haven't gone out of business due to lack of demand) are beginning to adopt these same features and methods as the production boat brands these guys don't like - certainly bear that out. But that doesn't matter to these guys. They think they know best. That's why it's so fun.

So, it IS a ridiculous argument - and very flawed logic. But there are many, many dudes out there who will continue to argue it into the ground. And I think that's funny. These are the guys who think you should STILL be designing and building that Baba EXACTLY the way you did many years ago. As you saw above, some of those guys even think you designed those boats to be rolled again and again and again and just carry on. Yeah - it's that crazy. Yet in the mean time, you're designing and building boats like Flying Tigers, Francis Lee, and CF full-keelers and everything else you and your clients can dream up.

So, from what I've seen of your work and comments on the forums - you certainly don't think about boats so monolithically and narrowly as these guys. To be certain, no one would say that a Beneteau is "as good as" a Valiant. But these guys want _that_ to categorically mean that the Beneteau (or any other production boat brand above) doesn't belong out there. I think it does.

As you say, "Some can and some can't. Some do and some don't."

So, I just have fun sparring with them. It's too easy.


----------



## bobperry

Got it Smackers. It is fun to poke the dog with a stick from time to time.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Got it Smackers. It is fun to poke the dog with a stick from time to time.


Especially when you know exactly how long the chain is.


----------



## [email protected]

Hi everyone 
I am looking for a boat that can go all over the world , so far I have been looking at older hull because they were made strong ,ok I admit , heavy , and bulky , but look a how many of those old boats that are still there and are healthy boats , they are not the most shinny but you can rely on them . 
of course the crew will make the difference , also , how much do you keep your boat in shape , maintenance and updating equipment make all the difference in making it or not . 
I am staying away from the flashy type boat , first because I can not afford it , and also, how solid those boats are.
so many factor, have to be considered in choosing the right one ,
thank you all for you logic inputs , it's great to read you
happy holidays


----------



## Jeff_H

[email protected] said:


> Hi everyone
> I am looking for a boat that can go all over the world , so far I have been looking at older hull because they were made strong ,ok I admit , heavy , and bulky , but look a how many of those old boats that are still there and are healthy boats , they are not the most shinny but you can rely on them .
> of course the crew will make the difference , also , how much do you keep your boat in shape , maintenance and updating equipment make all the difference in making it or not .
> I am staying away from the flashy type boat , first because I can not afford it , and also, how solid those boats are.
> so many factor, have to be considered in choosing the right one ,
> thank you all for you logic inputs , it's great to read you
> happy holidays


Just for the record, if you actually understood the boat construction of older vs newer boats, you would understand that the "made strong" portion of your statement is absolutely not true. ( " I have been looking at older hulls because they were made strong....")

Depending on the era, some older hulls were only slightly heavier than modern hulls, but by and large, they were not stronger for a variety of reasons discussed in depth elsewhere on this forum. And over time, fatigue has weakened those hulls further. So, while there may be other reasons that you might choose to buy an older boat (such as budget, simpler, or preferred aesthetics such as less flashy) strength generally would not be a valid reason to select an older boat.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> Just for the record, if you actually understood the boat construction of older vs newer boats, you would understand that the "made strong" portion of your statement is absolutely not true. ( " I have been looking at older hulls because they were made strong....")
> 
> Depending on the era, some older hulls were only slightly heavier than modern hulls, but by and large, they were not stronger for a variety of reasons discussed in depth elsewhere on this forum. And over time, fatigue has weakened those hulls further. So, while there may be other reasons that you might choose to buy an older boat (such as budget, simpler, or preferred aesthetics such as less flashy) strength generally would not be a valid reason to select an older boat.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Depending on the construction method and quality of an older boat vs whatever newer one you are looking at- ie a quality older boat may, in fact, be better still than a lower quality newer one. But if equivalently constructed and similar QI at the factories (opinion- good luck figuring THAT out), new laminate should be superior.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Depending on the construction method and quality of an older boat vs whatever newer one you are looking at- ie a quality older boat may, in fact, be better still than a lower quality newer one. But if equivalently constructed and similar QI at the factories (opinion- good luck figuring THAT out), new laminate should be superior.


This is so qualified it really makes little sense. I think Jeff stated it best (and very clearly) as a general rule. And he definitely knows boats.

To me the fundamental problem with the older boat mindset is always this: "thicker is stronger and better". And, for the most part, that's not really the case.


----------



## skygazer

Don0190 said:


> I wonder why the thought of a "production" boat cruising angers so many people to point that they need to write up internet bah bah bah stories


Hey Don if this refers to my post please be aware that I'm very fine with production boats cruising.

I simply don't think that a fallacious argument is convincing to someone who thinks about it. I also see it as silly that any mention of strengths/weaknesses is assumed to mean that production boats can't cruise. "Can too, can not, can too, can not!"

It may be unfortunate that the title contains "Limits". Thus inviting discussions of weaknesses. This does not mean at all that they can't cruise, but can be helpful for beefing up a boat.

The truth is a boat cannot be built stronger than the ocean.

If you had unlimited funds and time you could* build the best possible strong boat*. Taking a tip from Brent Swain we'd use steel, but use real framing and welding and rivets. Longer is better so go all out, 8 or 9 hundred feet to be safe. Redundancy is good, at least two engines, two propellers minimum. Lot's of watertight compartments, maybe 5, no 10, or what the heck, 16. Enormous tankage would be good. Surely this boat will be a totally safe cruiser.

Congratulations, you have just built the Titanic.


----------



## Exile1

Jeff_H said:


> Just for the record, if you actually understood the boat construction of older vs newer boats, you would understand that the "made strong" portion of your statement is absolutely not true. ( " I have been looking at older hulls because they were made strong....")
> 
> Depending on the era, some older hulls were only slightly heavier than modern hulls, but by and large, they were not stronger for a variety of reasons discussed in depth elsewhere on this forum. And over time, fatigue has weakened those hulls further. So, while there may be other reasons that you might choose to buy an older boat (such as budget, simpler, or preferred aesthetics such as less flashy) strength generally would not be a valid reason to select an older boat.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Many older cruising boats on the market have been lightly used it seems. I know mine was. Might even be fair to say "most" given light usage of all cruising sailboats generally. I'm assuming that by saying older hulls have weakened by fatigue, you mean by their number of cycles, i.e. usage, and not just the amount of time they've been around?

As for the thickness or weight of some of the older hulls, there's a wide divergence based on era & brand. Would you agree? (Probably easier to confine it to cruising boats).


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Especially when you know exactly how long the chain is.


Given your own forum history, it appears that you don't know how long that chain actually is.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> This is so qualified it really makes little sense. I think Jeff stated it best (and very clearly) as a general rule. And he definitely knows boats.
> 
> To me the fundamental problem with the older boat mindset is always this: "thicker is stronger and better". And, for the most part, that's not really the case.


The qualifications ARE the point. The overarching theme is too misleading. Jeff and I have had off forum discussions about this and are in general agreement. Thin laminate is and can be strong. Good QI can and does make this happen. The laminate quality is loosely correlated in overall boat quality and construction, but is only one element. Just ignore me, Smack, because if you think it doesn't make sense, I've given up on tying to explain it to you. Please reference my prior last post here for why. I only came back to see why Jeff popped up.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Of course, it typically happens to come from guys that own these types of boats - so go figure. They bought it - they need to justify it. I get it.


That's funny. I know you're talking about people who own more traditional "BW" boats, whatever, but this is exactly what I concluded about you & your Hunter.

I think there's a natural assumption people make for all sorts of buying choices that "you get what you pay for, etc." Obviously this is far more complicated and oftentimes erroneous when it comes to boats. If there's one thing I've taken note of in the forums and at the dock, is a lot of people expressing a lot of satisfaction & loyalty towards their Hunter's, along with many of the other what may be fairly called mass-produced production boats.

But what I still fail to understand is, if the level of satisfaction is so high, then why do so many of the critiques bother some of these owners? My boat gets critiqued all the time for too much teak, difficult docking, a problematic centerboard mechanism, and like all boats, its share of mechanical issues. The critiques are absolutely correct, but I'm grateful rather than affronted when someone points something out. And I agree with the comments that my boat is probably not the wisest choice to be used solely as a coastal cruiser (which is what I've been doing thus far), and I agree with that too!


----------



## outbound

No question as I've stated on multiple occasions older boats are NOT stronger than newer boats in general. There have been definite improvements in chemistry and fabrication. Neither is there question that boats not following the older paradigm of heavy displacement full keel design cannot be as safe or safer in the open ocean.
But there is also no question that design features that improve comfort, safety and ease of passagemaking are not the focus of common, current large run production boats. 
These features are seen in boats such as H's Boreal, Bob's CF cutters, Nigel Irons wood modern fusion schooners or my boat. These four are very different in hull, appendages, and sail plan. None share method or materials used in construction. Paulo posted many other boats also equally suited for open water. Other than Bob's boat all are production boats. Bob gets a new client. Bet you a early question is " how are you going to use the boat?
Can I take my 990 KTM on the super slab from NYC to SF. No doubt but I'd be miserable. Can I take my Goldwing down groomed double track for the length of Washington County. No doubt but I'd be miserable and it wouldn't be good for the bike. Is one bike better than the other? NO.is one bike a better dual sport and the other better mile monster. YES. 

Sorry Smack the discussion is just becoming old. 
Can production boats cruise. Hell yes as other than one offs all boats are production boats.
Are some production boats better suited for passagemaking . 'Fraid so. 

H's Boreal costs about the same as a 50 Bene. The Boreal would be a lousy party boat or charter boat but a great boat for two to do the clock. 
My boat is a good long term cruising boat for two. Would I trade it for one of the CF cutters. You bet in a heart beat. Would I trade it for. 55' Bene. Not a chance. It doesn't fit the way I'm currently using a boat. That is no statement about quality nor value of the Bene. It's a fine boat. It is a statement about the quality of the CF cutters for how I want to use a boat.
It's not about better it's about better for what. Bob says "different boats for different folks". And he is right. Move on Smack.


----------



## Exile1

XSrcing said:


> What Smack keeps stating over and over is there are current production boats (the ones that you say are only used coastally and intermittently) that are sailing around the world successfully.
> 
> La Vagabond is a 2007 Beneteau Cyclades.


Agreed! It's undeniable in fact. But it was undeniable long before Smack started his threads! My problem is that Smack framed them wrong in what I believe was an intentional effort to invite nasty critiques from both sides, thereby promoting bad feelings by people who quite naturally take pride in their particular type of boat.

The issue has never really been whether certain types of boats "can" do this or that. I mean, didn't Bob or someone show us a photo of a mad Englishman crossing the Atlantic in a craft the size of a bathtub awhile back? And didn't we all see the pics & stories from PCP/Polux of all the production boats circumnavigating? It's more about the _suitability_ of different types of boats for different purposes, i.e. whether certain features make better or worse sense for coastal vs. long-distance cruising. I'm sure there are outlying opinions that Smack likes to characterize as guys saying certain boats "have no business going offshore, etc." But even the guys who say certain boats are "crap" because they come with brass seacocks wouldn't say such boats "can't" go long distances. Only that, in their _opinion_, some boats may be less suitable based on the vagaries of weather, motion, comfort, stiffness, build quality, and a host of other factors. And if Vagabond's Bene happens to have those seacocks, I'm sure they'd appreciate knowing so they may have a look!

I think these Smack threads are more about either re-stating over & over the painfully obvious, or just his own entertainment for provoking controversy. He has admitted, after all, that more balanced, level-headed discussions are "boring" for him. But once in awhile there's an expert or two who actually educates, and so it's still worth checking in I suppose.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Move on Smack.


Why would I do that? I'll be here as long as it takes.


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> The qualifications ARE the point. The overarching theme is too misleading. Jeff and I have had off forum discussions about this and are in general agreement. Thin laminate is and can be strong. Good QI can and does make this happen. The laminate quality is loosely correlated in overall boat quality and construction, but is only one element. Just ignore me, Smack, because if you think it doesn't make sense, I've given up on tying to explain it to you. Please reference my prior last post here for why. I only came back to see why Jeff popped up.


I don't ignore people just because I disagree with them. If you post, I'll reply if I have something to say. So it's really your call.

I was just saying your qualifications were far to broad to be meaningful. If I were to take your quote and boil it down - this is what you said...



seaner97 said:


> Depending on the construction method and quality...a *quality* older boat may, in fact, be better still than a *lower quality* newer one.


Ya think?


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> And if Vagabond's Bene happens to have those seacocks, I'm sure they'd appreciate knowing so they may have a look!


In fact, VAGABOND has the same rudder construction/configuration that BLUE PEARL had. Go look that one up.

VAGABOND just applied the fix prior to heading across the Atlantic. And they are still going strong. In fact, they even had the boat up on the hard for several months - on stands. It didn't even need to stay in a sling because of hull deflection. Go figure.


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> I don't ignore people just because I disagree with them. If you post, I'll reply if I have something to say. So it's really your call.
> 
> I was just saying your qualifications were far to broad to be meaningful. If I were to take your quote and boil it down - this is what you said...
> 
> Ya think?


Smack,
I don't think that your summation of Sean (seaner97) comments fairly represent what he is saying. Sean and I have had a series of in-depth and thought provoking conversations on the subject of hull strength and construction details over time. While there are still areas in which we have not found perfect agreement, as a broad generality, I completely understand and agree with his point based on the context of his perspective, at least as I have come to understand it.

So for example, I think where we found agreement is that in every era there are very broad ranges of build quality and detailing which impacts the overall structural strength initially and its reliability over time.

I think that we have agreed that depending on use and abuse, no matter how well a boat was built to begin with, a well built boat may be in worse shape structurally than a poorer constructed but more lightly used boat from the same, or even an earlier era.

I think that we also agree that within any period, there have been better or worse designs in terms of seaworthiness, motion comfort, aesthetics, and performance.

Where I don't think we achieved agreement is that I am of the opinion that boats which exhibit a mix of being better initial build quality and better design quality typically sell for more money and so attract owners who also typically have the wherewithal to maintain and update them, so they generally will be in better condition than is merely explained by their initially better build quality.

I think that we agreed that it is very hard to parse out which particular boat started life as being better constructed since there are build quality variations with model and era for any given manufacturer or even model. I think that we also agreed that a boat which had a well laminated hull, may have other details which diminish their structural reliability (i.e. lack of internal framing, improper tabbing, glued in bulkheads, or a poorly designed hull to deck joint), but that some of these details may be correctable if an owner chose to spend the time and money.

I also think that we have agreed that over time, comparing the better constructed boats of one era to a later era, as a very broad generality the strength of the laminate has increased over time due to better materials and material handling, but that generality is difficult to substantiate since its very hard for any given boat buyer to determine the quality controls in place when the individual boat in question was being constructed.

While our discussion was comparing boats that were constructed perhaps 40 years apart rather than of the relative build quality of value oriented production boats, to quality oriented production boats, many of the issues being raised in that discourse, are also valid to a discussion of the relative build quality of value-oriented production boats to more quality oriented production boats.

Beyond the above, as I think of this entire thread, in the end, I still believe that any modern reasonably well designed and constructed value-oriented production cruiser is capable of making offshore passages with a reasonable weather window. But I also believe that used extensively offshore, they will experience a higher level of wear and tear than they were intended to endure as a regular diet, and that will in turn result in an accelerated decrease in their structural capabilities and reliabilities.

And that discussion really does not address other issues of a particular design's suitability for offshore use based on such items as interior and deck layouts, and elements of equipage that makes offshore sailing safer or more comfortable, vs. details and equipage that are optimized for coastal cruising while balancing the economics of appealing a mass market.

Jeff


----------



## skygazer

Exile1 said:


> ...My boat gets critiqued all the time for too much teak...


Ought Oh! You've lost me! I hate working on teak. I only like looking at "other's boats" with the teak done right. 



Exile1 said:


> ...The critiques are absolutely correct, but I'm grateful rather than affronted when someone points something out...


My feelings exactly. I really like hearing insights into what can and does go wrong, so I can either beef it up or at least pay attention.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> Smack,
> I don't think that your summation of Sean (seaner97) comments fairly represent what he is saying. Sean and I have had a series of in-depth and thought provoking conversations on the subject of hull strength and construction details over time. While there are still areas in which we have not found perfect agreement, as a broad generality, I completely understand and agree with his point based on the context of his perspective, at least as I have come to understand it.


This thread has obviously come down to semantics to a large degree - which is actually good in my opinion. It means we've made progress. So, that's why I critiqued Sean's post. I think one has to be very clear on what they mean for discussions like this to be of any value to a newb looking to buy a boat. I don't think his post helped with that. It was just a broad generality. So that's all I was saying.



Jeff_H said:


> So for example, I think where we found agreement is that in every era there are very broad ranges of build quality and detailing which impacts the overall structural strength initially and its reliability over time.


Agreed.



Jeff_H said:


> I think that we have agreed that depending on use and abuse, no matter how well a boat was built to begin with, a well built boat may be in worse shape structurally than a poorer constructed but more lightly used boat from the same, or even an earlier era.


Agreed.



Jeff_H said:


> I think that we also agree that within any period, there have been better or worse designs in terms of seaworthiness, motion comfort, aesthetics, and performance.


Agreed.



Jeff_H said:


> Where I don't think we achieved agreement is that I am of the opinion that boats which exhibit a mix of being better initial build quality and better design quality typically sell for more money and so attract owners who also typically have the wherewithal to maintain and update them, so they generally will be in better condition than is merely explained by their initially better build quality.


Agreed. Just look at the value retention of Valiants.



Jeff_H said:


> I think that we agreed that it is very hard to parse out which particular boat started life as being better constructed since there are build quality variations with model and era for any given manufacturer or even model. I think that we also agreed that a boat which had a well laminated hull, may have other details which diminish their structural reliability (i.e. lack of internal framing, improper tabbing, glued in bulkheads, or a poorly designed hull to deck joint), but that some of these details may be correctable if an owner chose to spend the time and money.


Agreed.



Jeff_H said:


> I also think that we have agreed that over time, comparing the better constructed boats of one era to a later era, as a very broad generality the strength of the laminate has increased over time due to better materials and material handling, but that generality is difficult to substantiate since its very hard for any given boat buyer to determine the quality controls in place when the individual boat in question was being constructed.


Agreed.



Jeff_H said:


> While our discussion was comparing boats that were constructed perhaps 40 years apart rather than of the relative build quality of value oriented production boats, to quality oriented production boats, many of the issues being raised in that discourse, are also valid to a discussion of the relative build quality of value-oriented production boats to more quality oriented production boats.


Again, agreed. And I would further say you'll see the same issues comparing just value-oriented production boats themselves over time.



Jeff_H said:


> Beyond the above, as I think of this entire thread, in the end, I still believe that any modern reasonably well designed and constructed value-oriented production cruiser is capable of making offshore passages with a reasonable weather window. But I also believe that used extensively offshore, they will experience a higher level of wear and tear than they were intended to endure as a regular diet, and that will in turn result in an accelerated decrease in their structural capabilities and reliabilities.


I fully agree. That's what I too have been saying for quite a while now.



Jeff_H said:


> And that discussion really does not address other issues of a particular design's suitability for offshore use based on such items as interior and deck layouts, and elements of equipage that makes offshore sailing safer or more comfortable, vs. details and equipage that are optimized for coastal cruising while balancing the economics of appealing a mass market.
> 
> Jeff


Agreed. Your discussion points with Sean above relate primarily to structural methods, build quality, materials, etc. These "suitability" points are much more subjective - which is what I've also been saying.

So - that's what I appreciate about you Jeff...you're willing to bring an objective, logical approach to the discussion. That's not too common these days in forums. Thanks.


----------



## seaner97

Basically. I think we even agreed on the expensive boat thing in general with my only caveat being that there are diamonds out there that fall outside this paradigm.


----------



## Exile1

skygazer said:


> Ought Oh! You've lost me! I hate working on teak. I only like looking at "other's boats" with the teak done right.
> 
> You are a wise, wise man. You are welcome to come look at my boat anytime Sky, but not sure it's one with the teak "done right" as opposed to just "done."
> 
> My feelings exactly. I really like hearing insights into what can and does go wrong, so I can either beef it up or at least pay attention.


Yeah, I think all too often a critique of a cockpit ergonomic or portlight or [pick one] is interpreted as "this entire boat or even brand sucks." Even if the poster believes that it doesn't mean you have to. I marvel when a pic is shown of a new, thinner laminate Bene with its bow section sheared off. One side yells "cheap," and the other yells back that hulls are designed for sailing, not hitting the dock or other boats. To me it's just another feature of a boat which may better inform someone about the trade-offs. Paulo says the new Bavaria's are now being built with slightly thicker hulls, but with the expected slight wgt./performance hit. So if you're in the market for these types of boats, you may now be better informed. Ditto for every other feature that has been discussed on every brand, type, or age of boat. Talk about whining!


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> In fact, VAGABOND has the same rudder construction/configuration that BLUE PEARL had. Go look that one up.
> 
> VAGABOND just applied the fix prior to heading across the Atlantic. And they are still going strong. In fact, they even had the boat up on the hard for several months - on stands. It didn't even need to stay in a sling because of hull deflection. Go figure.


Yes, I remember _Vagabond's_ rudder problem & their fix before they crossed the Atlantic. Lots of debate whether it was the result of a soft grounding only, or if there was other history. They bought the boat used as I recall. Also recall a lot of controversy and confused history re: the prior fix that was done to _Blue Pearl_ before it sunk, with the owner claiming that a Bene rep approved the repair but others saying the boat was never taken out of the water. As usual, a bit more complicated than you're trying to suggest.

I also read the hull deflection comment from one of the yard guys on CF, and have never personally seen such boats on the hard in anything other than stands -- just like every other boat. Then again, I'm not sure I'm qualified to make the distinction b'twn hull deflection vs. an overly waxed gelcoat hull. For whatever reason, there are a number of yard guys who don't like mass-produced production boats, or maybe just don't like working on them. Imo, the worst thing -- certainly the most confusing -- you ever did for the overall rep of these types of boats was start & then persist with the "Yard Guys" thread over on CF. But then you did so much for Active Captain . . . .


----------



## albrazzi

outbound said:


> No question as I've stated on multiple occasions older boats are NOT stronger than newer boats in general. There have been definite improvements in chemistry and fabrication. Neither is there question that boats not following the older paradigm of heavy displacement full keel design cannot be as safe or safer in the open ocean.
> But there is also no question that design features that improve comfort, safety and ease of passagemaking are not the focus of common, current large run production boats.
> These features are seen in boats such as H's Boreal, Bob's CF cutters, Nigel Irons wood modern fusion schooners or my boat. These four are very different in hull, appendages, and sail plan. None share method or materials used in construction. Paulo posted many other boats also equally suited for open water. Other than Bob's boat all are production boats. Bob gets a new client. Bet you a early question is " how are you going to use the boat?
> Can I take my 990 KTM on the super slab from NYC to SF. No doubt but I'd be miserable. Can I take my Goldwing down groomed double track for the length of Washington County. No doubt but I'd be miserable and it wouldn't be good for the bike. Is one bike better than the other? NO.is one bike a better dual sport and the other better mile monster. YES.
> 
> Sorry Smack the discussion is just becoming old.
> Can production boats cruise. Hell yes as other than one offs all boats are production boats.
> Are some production boats better suited for passagemaking . 'Fraid so.
> 
> H's Boreal costs about the same as a 50 Bene. The Boreal would be a lousy party boat or charter boat but a great boat for two to do the clock.
> My boat is a good long term cruising boat for two. Would I trade it for one of the CF cutters. You bet in a heart beat. Would I trade it for. 55' Bene. Not a chance. It doesn't fit the way I'm currently using a boat. That is no statement about quality nor value of the Bene. It's a fine boat. It is a statement about the quality of the CF cutters for how I want to use a boat.
> It's not about better it's about better for what. Bob says "different boats for different folks". And he is right. Move on Smack.


Well said, anyone who can or wants to argue the point made here surely understands the 500 pages it took to get here. I don't. What happened to Mucca Fluka anyway I'm sure he'd have some smart assed comments. Oh never mind.


----------



## smackdaddy

albrazzi said:


> Well said, anyone who can or wants to argue the point made here surely understands the 500 pages it took to get here. I don't. What happened to Mucca Fluka anyway I'm sure he'd have some smart assed comments. Oh never mind.


Some people can't handle the "blue water" of sailing forums. Heh-heh.

And don't worry, it won't be long until someone says something goofy to start it all up again.


----------



## Don L

Lots of the good points that get made in this thread get wiped out when the poster can't resist adding an insult or zinger, at which point their reply becomes more of an attack than a topic response.


----------



## Shockwave

Reasonable weather window.....

There you go Jeff, how do you guarantee that? 

And if you can't make that guarantee would you care to reassess your comment?


----------



## mitiempo

Jeff_H said:


> Smack,
> I don't think that your summation of Sean (seaner97) comments fairly represent what he is saying. Sean and I have had a series of in-depth and thought provoking conversations on the subject of hull strength and construction details over time. While there are still areas in which we have not found perfect agreement, as a broad generality, I completely understand and agree with his point based on the context of his perspective, at least as I have come to understand it.
> 
> So for example, I think where we found agreement is that in every era there are very broad ranges of build quality and detailing which impacts the overall structural strength initially and its reliability over time.
> 
> I think that we have agreed that depending on use and abuse, no matter how well a boat was built to begin with, a well built boat may be in worse shape structurally than a poorer constructed but more lightly used boat from the same, or even an earlier era.
> 
> I think that we also agree that within any period, there have been better or worse designs in terms of seaworthiness, motion comfort, aesthetics, and performance.
> 
> Where I don't think we achieved agreement is that I am of the opinion that boats which exhibit a mix of being better initial build quality and better design quality typically sell for more money and so attract owners who also typically have the wherewithal to maintain and update them, so they generally will be in better condition than is merely explained by their initially better build quality.
> 
> I think that we agreed that it is very hard to parse out which particular boat started life as being better constructed since there are build quality variations with model and era for any given manufacturer or even model. I think that we also agreed that a boat which had a well laminated hull, may have other details which diminish their structural reliability (i.e. lack of internal framing, improper tabbing, glued in bulkheads, or a poorly designed hull to deck joint), but that some of these details may be correctable if an owner chose to spend the time and money.
> 
> I also think that we have agreed that over time, comparing the better constructed boats of one era to a later era, as a very broad generality the strength of the laminate has increased over time due to better materials and material handling, but that generality is difficult to substantiate since its very hard for any given boat buyer to determine the quality controls in place when the individual boat in question was being constructed.
> 
> While our discussion was comparing boats that were constructed perhaps 40 years apart rather than of the relative build quality of value oriented production boats, to quality oriented production boats, many of the issues being raised in that discourse, are also valid to a discussion of the relative build quality of value-oriented production boats to more quality oriented production boats.
> 
> Beyond the above, as I think of this entire thread, in the end, I still believe that any modern reasonably well designed and constructed value-oriented production cruiser is capable of making offshore passages with a reasonable weather window. But I also believe that used extensively offshore, they will experience a higher level of wear and tear than they were intended to endure as a regular diet, and that will in turn result in an accelerated decrease in their structural capabilities and reliabilities.
> 
> And that discussion really does not address other issues of a particular design's suitability for offshore use based on such items as interior and deck layouts, and elements of equipage that makes offshore sailing safer or more comfortable, vs. details and equipage that are optimized for coastal cruising while balancing the economics of appealing a mass market.
> 
> Jeff


In other words it depends mostly on the individual boat.


----------



## Exile1

Shockwave said:


> Reasonable weather window.....
> 
> There you go Jeff, how do you guarantee that?
> 
> And if you can't make that guarantee would you care to reassess your comment?


I was a little surprised if not confused by that comment too. But also the next one, again comparing what Jeff calls the "value-oriented" vs. the "quality-oriented" modern boats:

"But I also believe that used extensively offshore, they will experience a higher level of wear and tear than they were intended to endure as a regular diet, and that will in turn result in an accelerated decrease in their structural capabilities and reliabilities."

I had thought, maybe incorrectly, that the proponents of the modern so-called "value" boats were arguing that the only difference b'twn them and the "quality" brands were more luxurious interiors, the "prestige/status" factor (for some), and the less efficient mfg. processes which account for some of the price disparity. It's been pointed out, after all, that you can spec out a "value" boat with the same higher-end sailing hardware & other components, and many use the same engines.

So what's the real diff? Jeff's comments suggest, and Smack explicitly agrees with all of it, that the basic hull & scantlings of the "value" boats aren't as durable. With other products like automobiles, that usually means they weren't constructed as well by the factory from the get-go, with performance & reliability fine for the first few years of ownership perhaps, but then a downward spiral.

My 10 year-old, 200K+ Dodge truck isn't actually filled with luxuries, nor does it have much "prestige or status," but there are still no creaks or rattles and it's as reliable as it ever was. In the boating world, I don't see why you should have to pay a premium for a "quality" boat if all you want is equally well constructed hull & scantlings, and to not have to worry about the forecasted weather window being incorrect.

Smack -- some of Jeff's comments seem to reaffirm what the Yard Guys have been saying about initial construction quality & longer term durability on "value" vs. "quality" oriented modern boats. Why are you so quick to agree??


----------



## Bleemus

4700 posts and it still comes down to . . .

You get what you pay for. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H

Shockwave said:


> Reasonable weather window.....
> 
> There you go Jeff, how do you guarantee that?
> 
> And if you can't make that guarantee would you care to reassess your comment?





Exile1 said:


> I was a little surprised if not confused by that comment too. But also the next one, again comparing what Jeff calls the "value-oriented" vs. the "quality-oriented" modern boats:
> 
> "But I also believe that used extensively offshore, they will experience a higher level of wear and tear than they were intended to endure as a regular diet, and that will in turn result in an accelerated decrease in their structural capabilities and reliabilities."
> 
> I had thought, maybe incorrectly, that the proponents of the modern so-called "value" boats were arguing that the only difference b'twn them and the "quality" brands were more luxurious interiors, the "prestige/status" factor (for some), and the less efficient mfg. processes which account for some of the price disparity. It's been pointed out, after all, that you can spec out a "value" boat with the same higher-end sailing hardware & other components, and many use the same engines.
> 
> So what's the real diff? Jeff's comments suggest, and Smack explicitly agrees with all of it, that the basic hull & scantlings of the "value" boats aren't as durable. With other products like automobiles, that usually means they weren't constructed as well by the factory from the get-go, with performance & reliability fine for the first few years of ownership perhaps, but then a downward spiral.
> 
> My 10 year-old, 200K+ Dodge truck isn't actually filled with luxuries, nor does it have much "prestige or status," but there are still no creaks or rattles and it's as reliable as it ever was. In the boating world, I don't see why you should have to pay a premium for a "quality" boat if all you want is equally well constructed hull & scantlings, and to not have to worry about the forecasted weather window being incorrect.


These are good questions. As I typed the words 'reasonable weather window' I thought to myself that phrase might need further explanation so that my purpose in saying it was put in context. In the spectrum of opinions expressed in this thread, my own opinion does not fully align with any of the more strongly held orthodoxies. To begin with, I cannot think of a single stock production boat that leaves the factory ready to face a major storm at sea without some specialized options, or post production modifications. In a highly quality design that was conceived for offshore use, this may only be minor tweaks such as a specialized sails or triple reefs. On boats which are biased toward budget and coastal cruising these modifications would implicitly be more extensive.

In that context and without such modifications, a value oriented boat should be able to make longer passages safely, assuming they don't collide with a bad weather system. That is a high risk assumption which I assume is what the quoted items are pointing out.

But even with modifications, I still personally have doubts about the overall suitability of many value oriented designs to weather serious and prolonged storms without sustaining serious damage, which might not otherwise occur to a better constructed production boat. To Exile's 
point, the differences between higher quality boats go far beyond luxury fit out, and in fact do very much impact the scantlings of the boat.

For even as across the board, the industry is moving closer together on many of the construction technologies that improve the quality of the laminates going into boats (better fabrics and fabric placement, more careful resin metering, vacuum and resin infusion for example), they are deviating significantly from the practices that produce boats which can reliably stand up to long term abuse.

Items like glued in bulkheads and glued out-turned flange hull to deck joints simply have a shorter life when cyclically exposed to high loadings. Slurry adhered structural grids and pans simply are not as reliable long term as laminated in place elements.

Even the discussion of differences or similarity of equipment is only being considered at a superficial level. I once helped a fellow add a pair of winches to his value oriented boat. The boat had Lewmar winches, so he bought a pair of new Lewmars from West Marine. While we were at it we lubed his existing winches. The difference between the internals of the new winches and the OEM winches was stunning, with far more plastic parts in the OEM winches than the new winches. In reality Lewmar makes a number of 'lines' of winches, some less expensive- some more expensive, and with perhaps better quality, more robust internal components distinguishing these lines. And for better or worse the price point of value oriented boats means that the lesser spec lines of equipment are more likely to show up as standard equipment on value oriented boats.

Given long exposures to hard use these value motivated elements will become less reliable more rapidly, and it's in the above context that I made those statements.

Jeff


----------



## Exile1

Bleemus said:


> 4700 posts and it still comes down to . . .
> 
> You get what you pay for.


Funny, let's where I _started_ many years ago, but have been hoping somebody would talk me out of it. I'd prefer to think you're only paying a premium for the fluff.


----------



## Exile1

Thanks for the added clarification & explanation, Jeff. It might also be worth noting that nothing you said is inconsistent with the value-oriented boats doing long passagemaking, or otherwise serving as excellent vessels for the money for a lot of sailors. Your comments merely help illuminate what a buyer is getting or giving up for the money he or she is spending. Not really different from Jon E., Out & others discussing certain desirable offshore features, or on the other hand Paulo talking about sailing performance, or spacious cockpits & saloons. Not sure what the rest of the hubbub was about.


----------



## Shockwave

Jeff your comments were well explained but we again find ourselves back at the title of the thread "Limits". It sounds like your limit is no foul weather for extended periods on a price point production boat?

Where is the guarantee there won't be extended periods of foul weather?


----------



## Bleemus

I didn't see Jeff use the term "extended periods". I think it was a reasonable window. You can get a lot of places in three days. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

Again, I agree with most of what you say, Jeff. But some of it is where this debate always hinges because the extremes are taken as "orthodoxy" as you say. And that's the problem.

For example...



Jeff_H said:


> Given long exposures to hard use these value motivated elements will become less reliable more rapidly, and it's in the above context that I made those statements.
> 
> Jeff


That's what I've been saying as well for quite a while now. It's the "half-life" point I've been making. The problem is that it's nuanced on both sides of the equation. In other words - on the one hand for some amount of time and cycles that I don't think anyone really knows right now - these production boats are able to handle what's thrown at them just as well as virtually any other blue-water cruising boat out there.

On the other hand, despite any clear evidence of what that half-life may be exactly, it still has to be obvious to any rational person that these "more lightly" built boats will likely degrade more quickly than "more heavily" built boats. That certainly seems to be a given.

BUT, again - evidence clearly bears out that these boats are perfectly capable of sailing the same blue water as the high end brands _while in that window_ - whatever it is. So - unless one can hold both of these to be true - which many around here and at CF can't seem to do - you have orthodoxy. And that's always my playground.

Another area that is very problematic in this regard is this...



Jeff_H said:


> To begin with, I cannot think of a single stock production boat that leaves the factory ready to face a major storm at sea without some specialized options, or post production modifications. In a highly quality design that was conceived for offshore use, this may only be minor tweaks such as a specialized sails or triple reefs. On boats which are biased toward budget and coastal cruising these modifications would implicitly be more extensive.
> 
> In that context and without such modifications, a value oriented boat should be able to make longer passages safely, assuming they don't collide with a bad weather system. That is *a high risk assumption* which I assume is what the quoted items are pointing out.
> 
> But even with modifications, I still personally have doubts about the overall suitability of many value oriented designs to weather serious and prolonged storms without sustaining serious damage, which might not otherwise occur to a better constructed production boat.


This is really the crux of the debate. It's precisely where the perceived suitability of the boats is separated. But it's a false crux for several reasons. You HAVE to be very, very clear on what this point means to have any chance at reaching an objective takeaway.

First, what do you mean by "prolonged storm"? Does the F11/12 Michael endured in the southern ocean in SEQUITUR count?

The reason this is so important is because many seem to choose their cruising boat precisely because of this "high risk assumption". Yet Hal Roth goes to great lengths in his book "Handling Storms at Sea" to put that risk in context. And that is that such a storm is a less than 1% risk for even a world voyager such as himself.

His major takeaway is this:


> "My point in this wind recital (six strong storms in 40 years) is that violent weather is infrequent, and that with care in planning, bad days can be avoided or certainly minimized."


So, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF BEING A TYPICAL CRUISER (not a Hal Roth level voyager) - what is that "high risk" factor that you're presenting? Unless that's really understood, the debate will never end. It can't.

So, the split in these debates take two paths:

1. There are those that actually plan to follow in Hal Roth's wake and *continually sail EVERYWHERE around the world for hundreds of thousands miles over decades*. For these people, the risk is definitely much higher and choosing a very tough boat to fit this plan makes perfect sense.

2. There are those that will cruise the Carib and/or the ARC, or maybe the Coconut Milk Run, etc. They will typically be smart enough to sail in-season and watch the weather. For these people, who make up the majority of the cruising market, the risk, as Hal says, is VERY LOW...yet depending on your mentality, choosing the right boat to fit this plan becomes far more subjective and convoluted.

And this is where the debate lies.

If you are truly going to be a Hal Roth voyager - then a modern day production boat would likely not be the best choice (even though the risk, as he says, is low even in this scenario). This is especially true if you plan to be doing this in your boat _for decades_ (back to our half-life point). But this is a VERY, VERY tiny segment of the cruising market.

If you're ACTUALLY going to be somewhere between group 1 and 2, it still might make sense to buy a higher-end blue water boat just to maximize longevity. And this is where many on the forums put themselves, at least "mentally" (they dream of doing what Hal does), _though very few actually do it_.

But the rationale definitely starts to weaken when you move out of group 1 and solidly into group 2.

If you're going to solidly be in group 2 (which I am), then the rationale to buy a higher-end "blue water boat" gets very strained indeed. Perhaps one still fears what one perceives (irrationally I think) to be that "high risk" you mention (despite Hal Roth himself GREATLY minimizing it)...and you don't want to take ANY chances. Nothing wrong with that, of course - but it's definitely starting to become an over-reaction in the face of reality. Moreover it quickly starts to sound ridiculous when people then try to apply that same risk perception and resultant logic to ALL of group 2 (which is what the BWC typically do with their "orthodoxy" and why the debate continues), and deem production boats "not really fit for the job".

So I, along with Hal, disagree that the type of cruising laid out in the group 2 scenario presents a "high risk assumption" in choosing a production boat. It just doesn't. Further, it might even be a possibility that those who do choose a group 1 boat for group 2 cruising might actually take more chances because they _assume_ their boat can handle it. That's not good either.

Second, everyone has to remember the context of this discussion regarding "storms". Today's Cat A rated production boats are rated to handle:



> ...extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions...


So, as I said above, when you say "serious and prolonged storms" - what exactly do you mean? Is it F9? F10? F11? Where do the "abnormal conditions" start?

If Roth in his 40+ years and 200K+ miles of sailing has only seen one F11, one would certainly think we're talking a _maximum_ F9-10 (if that) for a cruiser.

So, if the CE Cat A rating says the boat is fit for +F8 conditions the risk assessment really comes down to ones comfort level of where that ceiling is for his/her cruising scenario. Even so, if that cruiser in his high end blue water boat feels comfortable chancing an F10+ because he thinks that's what his boat was built for, then that is FAR more a "high risk" than being in a production boat would ever be.

And as we've seen in these debates for years, there are those in group 2 that focus all their attention and preparation on that very small risk factor and end up with a certain type of boat. And it's hard to argue with that if that's what they want to do. And then there are those that look at the reality of the group 2 cruising scenario and don't think it's necessary and end up with another kind of boat. And both of them are out there successfully sailing exactly the same waters as we speak.

The problem is, the former typically think the latter are wrong and are willing to tell them about it forever - even though their rationale is weak. And we end up with these threads - and their orthodoxy (I love that word). After all, how can you ever argue that preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse is "wrong", even though the chances of it actually happening are rather small? Sure, those BWC preppers will get to gloat when us production boaters are having our brains eaten...but until then, it's a bit much.

BUT on top of that, the BWC rationale is just getting weaker as time goes by. To your point...



Jeff_H said:


> For even as across the board, the industry is moving closer together on many of the construction technologies that improve the quality of the laminates going into boats (better fabrics and fabric placement, more careful resin metering, vacuum and resin infusion for example), they are deviating significantly from the practices that produce boats which can reliably stand up to long term abuse.
> 
> Items like glued in bulkheads and glued out-turned flange hull to deck joints simply have a shorter life when cyclically exposed to high loadings. Slurry adhered structural grids and pans simply are not as reliable long term as laminated in place elements.


Agreed. I think the forum world is really FINALLY starting to see this (thanks to me of course). But, as you say, it's happening not only in the production boat brands, but in the higher-end "blue water" brands as well. So the parameters of this age old debate are definitely shifting. Where is the "high end" these days? And where will it be in 20 years? THAT'S the real discussion.

So, you and I agree on a lot. But, again, these definitions of terms are critical purely because it has become such an exercise in semantics.

The bottom line is that I think there is virtually no evidence that modern production boats are not perfectly fit for the kind of blue water cruising the vast majority of the market out there undertakes. Furthermore, these boats can clearly endure more violent storms that make most crews hit the button. We've seen plenty of evidence of this.

Alternatively, on the other side of the coin, I think it's an extremely dangerous premise to assume that the high-end "blue water" brand boats, across the board, WILL endure the storms you mention. That too, as evidenced by many rescues and losses, is a very "high risk assumption" as well.

So, we can argue semantics until Miley Cyrus stops twerking, but the "blue water" argument is really dead for all intents and purposes.


----------



## Shockwave

Bleemus, I said extended, Jeff said prolonged, my mistake not quoting accurately. But the gyst off his statement was price point production boats, even with modifications, would likely suffer damage if sailed in "prolonged" rough weather. I would agree with that. 

I've owned pan boats, they're tight when new but if sailed hard you begin you feel them moving internally. Things loosen or break free, the hull flexes more, the rig doesn't keep tension. The boat is slowly breaking down but you can't tell what is coming apart, the pan hides allot.


----------



## smackdaddy

Great video on installing a watermaker, thereby reducing the limits of a production boat...


----------



## Exile1

I figured it would take Smack awhile to spin something up following the discussion with Jeff, but I didn't think his response would be _that_ long. Seems too long to quote it, so I won't.

First, it's not about "lightly" built boats, it's about "well-built" boats and at what cost. We've already established that newer hull laminates are better & stronger, and can therefore be thinner & _lighter_. So we're not necessarily talking about "light" vs. "heavy," but rather more or less costly mfg. processes (incl. liners) & materials that result in a stronger or weaker build in relation to the price paid. J-Boats are light, strong, very expensive, and high-quality. Whenever you want light and strong, you're going to have to pay more for it. Less so for heavy and strong, or light and weak.

Second, there is no need to be "precise," overly "specific," "objective," or otherwise pedantic about whether this or that boat can withstand an F?? or meets or exceeds the Cat A ratings. It's all about margins -- comfort, safety, quality, workmanship, overall confidence in your boat. That is highly subjective, and very much boat & sailor dependent. You don't need to sail to Cape Horn. Probably one nasty run from the e. coast to the Caribbean in Nov. and you'll figure out what margins you're OK with based on what you can afford.

Finally, and as I've said, there is no "BWC rationale" or "orthodoxy." You made that stuff up and framed it wrong from the get-go. I don't know who the curmudgeon is on _your_ dock who keeps trying to talk you out of taking your boat offshore, but I also don't know why you're still listening to him. Just read these forums, check out youTube, talk to sailors at _my_ dock, and you'll see that there never was any question that these lower priced boats, when properly prepared, could not sail in the conditions you, Jeff, and many others describe. It's all and only a debate over their quality, durability & value for their lower price, and what sorts of benefits you're getting and trade-offs you're giving up by owning one.


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> ................................................................................
> 
> Finally, .........


Wouldn't it be great if that were true?


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> Wouldn't it be great if that were true?


Yeah, good time to bag out, and the last several pages of discussion surrounding Jeff's comments were probably some of the more educational. Your newly revised BWC thread with talk of the Boreal, Outbound, long-distance Bene with a new watermaker, and circumnavigating Baba is more interesting in any event.


----------



## Shockwave

Jeff_H said:


> These are good questions. As I typed the words 'reasonable weather window' I thought to myself that phrase might need further explanation so that my purpose in saying it was put in context.
> 
> In the spectrum of opinions expressed in this thread, my own opinion does not fully align with any of the more strongly held orthodoxies.
> 
> To begin with, I cannot think of a single stock production boat that leaves the factory ready to face a major storm at sea without some specialized options, or post production modifications. In a highly quality design that was conceived for offshore use, this may only be minor tweaks such as a specialized sails or triple reefs. Amel, HR, Swan, Outbound...
> 
> On boats which are biased toward budget and coastal cruising these modifications would implicitly be more extensive. I assume you are talking about structural modifications?
> 
> In that context and without such modifications, a value oriented boat should be able to make longer passages safely, assuming they don't collide with a bad weather system. That is a high risk assumption which I assume is what the quoted items are pointing out.
> Yup
> 
> But even with modifications, I still personally have doubts about the overall suitability of many value oriented designs to weather serious and prolonged storms without sustaining serious damage, which might not otherwise occur to a better constructed production boat.
> I used fewer words to say the same.
> 
> To Exile's
> point, the differences between higher quality boats go far beyond luxury fit out, and in fact do very much impact the scantlings of the boat.
> 
> For even as across the board, the industry is moving closer together on many of the construction technologies that improve the quality of the laminates going into boats (better fabrics and fabric placement, more careful resin metering, vacuum and resin infusion for example), they are deviating significantly from the practices that produce boats which can reliably stand up to long term abuse. Like the light laminates used on the Oyster?
> 
> Items like glued in bulkheads and glued out-turned flange hull to deck joints simply have a shorter life when cyclically exposed to high loadings. Like the 1.5" outward turned flange on a 49 footer, not much "I" in that "I" beam is there?
> 
> Slurry adhered structural grids and pans simply are not as reliable long term as laminated in place elements. Great when they're stuck together, not so great when they aren't. How do you tell they are actually "stuck together".
> 
> Even the discussion of differences or similarity of equipment is only being considered at a superficial level. I once helped a fellow add a pair of winches to his value oriented boat. The boat had Lewmar winches, so he bought a pair of new Lewmars from West Marine. While we were at it we lubed his existing winches. The difference between the internals of the new winches and the OEM winches was stunning, with far more plastic parts in the OEM winches than the new winches. In reality Lewmar makes a number of 'lines' of winches, some less expensive- some more expensive, and with perhaps better quality, more robust internal components distinguishing these lines. And for better or worse the price point of value oriented boats means that the lesser spec lines of equipment are more likely to show up as standard equipment on value oriented boats. This is a surprise?
> 
> Given long exposures to hard use these value motivated elements will become less reliable more rapidly, and it's in the above context that I made those statements.
> 
> Jeff


Look, I get it, the makers have to make money but the market is demanding cost reductions. We all want Walmart prices and Saks quality and service. The reality is we can't have both and the price point production boat being produced today have reached the point where I have real concerns about their construction methodology, quality and whether or not they can actually hold together in the rough stuff. The way I read Jeff, his thoughts seem to be in alignment with mine?


----------



## smackdaddy

Now why on earth would Nigel Calder have such a snow-bird-coastal-sailor contraption like a full cockpit enclosure on his boat?










And just look at those narrow decks. Not blue water at all.


----------



## GeorgeB

From the “for what it’s worth department: I just did a cruise from San Francisco to La Paz, Mex, covering 1,500NM in a Catalina 470 this fall (What a way to start off retirement!) Boat was wonderful and an extremely comfortable cruiser. Our typical “harbor hopping”, legs were three to four days at sea owing to the lack of suitable harbors and lee shores here on the West Coast. So, that is what I’ve done since the last time I posted. What have you “blue water” sailors done lately? (besides posting) This “holier than thou” attitude is getting boring. Our boat failures consisted of breaking a NER “production” traveler line and a bad O-ring on the high pressure side of a production Spectra water maker. Can you “blue-water”, custom build guys give me some names of some custom vendors so I can get some hand woven custom line and a hand crafted water maker? We did wait out a “Nortada” for three days in Ensenada de los Muertos. While we waited, we were anchored next to a circumnavigator in a Valiant 40 who was doing the same thing.


----------



## copacabana

Smack, are you sure that's Nigel's boat? I thought he had a Pacific Seacraft 40.


----------



## SVAuspicious

copacabana said:


> Smack, are you sure that's Nigel's boat? I thought he had a Pacific Seacraft 40.


I believe Nigel is working on his second Malö.


----------



## Brent Swain

Brent Swain said:


> I have read of boats rolled over which did not lose their rig.
> One Sparkman and Stephens design, when back upright, had a huge gush of water come in, lifting the floor boards in a great geyser.
> The owner ,in a huge panic, pumped like hell, thinking she was holed.
> Eventually, he got the bilge empty . No more water was coming in. The he realized what had happened. The hollow ,keel stepped mast had filled with water ,which dumped into the bilge when she righted. That was the only source of sea water coming in.


However rigs surviving a rollover are extremely rare. There is zero chance of a rig as flimsy as that on Smacks Hunter, surviving a rollover.


----------



## Brent Swain

GeorgeB said:


> From the "for what it's worth department: I just did a cruise from San Francisco to La Paz, Mex, covering 1,500NM in a Catalina 470 this fall (What a way to start off retirement!) Boat was wonderful and an extremely comfortable cruiser. Our typical "harbor hopping", legs were three to four days at sea owing to the lack of suitable harbors and lee shores here on the West Coast. So, that is what I've done since the last time I posted. What have you "blue water" sailors done lately? (besides posting) This "holier than thou" attitude is getting boring. Our boat failures consisted of breaking a NER "production" traveler line and a bad O-ring on the high pressure side of a production Spectra water maker. Can you "blue-water", custom build guys give me some names of some custom vendors so I can get some hand woven custom line and a hand crafted water maker? We did wait out a "Nortada" for three days in Ensenada de los Muertos. While we waited, we were anchored next to a circumnavigator in a Valiant 40 who was doing the same thing.


Definitely a beginner, compared to those who have decades of full time cruising experience behind them . 1500 miles downwind is a tiny distance, compared to many Pacific crossings, over decades.
Tells us of your "expertise" after you have put 40,000 miles under your keel, in all conditions, upwind and down.
No, those of us who haven't covered a lot of miles in the last few months, haven't forgotten everything. 
"One trip experts" have a lot to learn. After sailing to New Zealand from BC, I was such a one trip expert. Embarrassing, when I think of how much I have learned since.


----------



## Brent Swain

Bleemus said:


> 4700 posts and it still comes down to . . .
> 
> You get what you pay for.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Ooohhh, don't the car salesmen love you guys, who buy that line?
There's one born every minute! 
My steel boats simply don't have structural failures at sea, regardless of price tag. Some of mine, which have recently sold for a fraction the price of a Bendy toy, could sail right thru Bendy toy, Hunter or Catalina, with zero structural damage to themselves.
At sea , nothing on them bends, flexes, works loose, or leaks .


----------



## Brent Swain

Jeff_H said:


> Just for the record, if you actually understood the boat construction of older vs newer boats, you would understand that the "made strong" portion of your statement is absolutely not true. ( " I have been looking at older hulls because they were made strong....")
> 
> Depending on the era, some older hulls were only slightly heavier than modern hulls, but by and large, they were not stronger for a variety of reasons discussed in depth elsewhere on this forum. And over time, fatigue has weakened those hulls further. So, while there may be other reasons that you might choose to buy an older boat (such as budget, simpler, or preferred aesthetics such as less flashy) strength generally would not be a valid reason to select an older boat.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Many older hulls were stronger because of the shape they were built in at the time. The long, wide keel to hull attachments of Albergs ,Frasers, Spencers ,etc is inherently far stronger than the short, narrow keel to hull attachments of so called "modern" designs. Back then, keels simply didn't fall off.
More compound curves in their hulls also made them stiffer and less prone to flexing than some of the flat surfaces of newer design shapes.
Rudders back then also tended to be stronger, and far less prone to fouling lines , logs, fishnets, etc, than the fragile, fig leaf rudders of today's designs.


----------



## Brent Swain

Muckle Flugga said:


> A "dude" is a horses reproductive organ. Please don't use stupid strawmen in quoting me again. You know that you edited out the very preceding line to your quote of me to Bob Perry, and you acceded to his obviously misled response. This means your intention to mislead was deliberate, because the sense he got was entirely different to what I had in fact stated. I repeatedly state that a roll will most likely dismast a vessel. You chose to misepresent that, which is absolutely clear in your response to Bob Perry's response. The entire thread is about compromise to HULLS and has nothing whatever to do with rigs, which I repeatedly and specifically excluded, including in the immediately preceding sentence to your deliberate misquote.
> 
> It really cannot be any clearer than that.
> 
> Your reputation precedes you and I have no interest in discussing anything with you, at all, so do not expect a reply to any more of your nonsense.


Personal Attack removed per Forum Rules- Jeff_H, SailNet moderator.


----------



## Brent Swain

guitarguy56 said:


> Honest Smack.... I don't know how you deal with all the:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: This was NOT directed at Smack... bit to all the whiners on this thread and others!


Personal Attack removed per Forum Rules- Jeff_H, SailNet moderator.


----------



## SloopJonB

Awww Jeff - you're no fun. :wink


----------



## SloopJonB

Brent Swain said:


> Many older hulls were stronger because of the shape they were built in at the time. The long, wide keel to hull attachments of Albergs ,Frasers, Spencers ,etc is inherently far stronger than the short, narrow keel to hull attachments of so called "modern" designs. Back then, keels simply didn't fall off.


Brent, while I agree with your basic comment, you should do a bit of research before quoting specific examples like that - nearly all your examples had internal ballast.

Offhand, the only bolt on keel I can think of in that list was the Spencer 34.


----------



## ebourg

A quick question with regard to the ability to venture into "blue water". I've notice that Smack has a Hunter 40. Would Smack consider this to be capable a of a moderate passage, say to the BVI? In searching the various boats that are available, for instance on Yachtworld.com, the variety is mind boggling. Some of the Hunters look very appealing and I'm sure would meet all my currently envisioned requirements. But then who knows what may come up in the future. I keep seeing statements here that productions boats should be careful leaving site of land! I could pick up something for 20-30K and plan on using it for a while to gain more experience, then sell and look for something with enough room to all extended stays, but I'm not sure how cost effective that would be (the "crew" may mutiny on me!). Spending a bit more (well maybe more than a bit) will provide more space, but at that point it looks a lot more critical IMHO, to choose between a Hunter type or Cape Dory type boat. The CD "looks" to be more sea worthy but the Hunter is more "crew" worthy, at least from the adverts and comments listed here. These may be impossible questions to answer, but it can't hurt to ask. The other thing I've noticed is that many of the contributers here seem to have older boats from the 1980's, coincidence?

Thanks
Ed


----------



## Faster

SloopJonB said:


> Brent, .....
> 
> Offhand, the only bolt on keel I can think of in that list was the Spencer 34.


.. and that one would've been on his 'naughty' list


----------



## Faster

ebourg said:


> A quick question with regard to the ability to venture into "blue water". ......


This rather extensive thread has plenty of nuggets throughout, but it takes some serious wheat/chaff parsing to find it.

Your comment/question seems to dwell mostly or 'space' wrt new vs old. But you need to define the type of space.

The most recent new boats have relative 'acres' of cabin space and cabin sole compared to older designs. They are incredibly 'spacious' relatively speaking when you step below. The cockpits are huge when you step aboard. Is that all necessarily better? Many think not. Much of this 'space' comes at the expense of decent cabinetry storage for galley gear and foodstuffs, effective handholds for moving about at sea.

Some experienced offshore sailors quite seriously feel these new trends are not even particularly safe and in many ways I agree with them.(and btw I do not consider Smack's Hunter to be one of these 'new' trend boats)

But I do think that any well found, properly equipped and prepared 'production boat', combined with the right crew, could make the trip to the BVIs and are certainly capable of the island hopping circuit once they've found their way to the Caribbean Chain. Still, the initial jump is no small thing.

Once you set off on a major Ocean crossing and/or circumnav then things get more critical, storage more essential, safety even more paramount and I believe those criteria should result in a boat quite different from the current crop available from most builders. I'll venture to say that beyond the purpose-built boats like Amel, Boreal, Outbound, and the like, most boats currently circumnavigating will be more similar to the typical 80s/90s boats that most of us own still.

It is odd that given the apparently fairly strong sales in new, big boats of the past 10 years or so there only a few owners of these types of boats here on SN.


----------



## bobperry

Some things never change around here.

Merry Christmas to my SN friends.


----------



## ebourg

Thanks Ron, I think you are on target with regard to the "space" issue. I hadn't really thought of it that way but when you point it out I do believe that it may be the bottom line. In reviewing many of the adverts my better half seems to gravitate toward the boats with the "more comfy look". It's also true that the older design boats appear to have more storage capacity built in, as well as handholds for those of us without velcro shoes. I've visited a couple of boats so far but need to do a lot more looking I think. While I realize that someone of sufficient skill could probably sail a bathtub across the gulf stream, I'm not in that group and don't ever expect to be. I'm looking for something that will allow lake and coastal use without being overly demanding or placing extraordinary demands on the PFD's (give me a break I wrote software for a living!). In the groups opinion would the Hunter/Pearson/S2 type boats fit that bill, or should I be looking at Island Packet/Cape Dory/Bayfield types? Clearly sufferring from too many choices! (Or maybe just get a MacGregor on a trailor and go splash about at the lake.)


----------



## Exile1

ebourg -- I wouldn't listen to anyone who tries to tell you that an entire category or type of cruising boat should never leave site of land, or isn't "qualified" for the type of trip you're contemplating. Hopefully that's not what you're concluding by reading through this lengthy thread.


----------



## Bleemus

ebourg said:


> A quick question with regard to the ability to venture into "blue water". I've notice that Smack has a Hunter 40. Would Smack consider this to be capable a of a moderate passage, say to the BVI? In searching the various boats that are available, for instance on Yachtworld.com, the variety is mind boggling. Some of the Hunters look very appealing and I'm sure would meet all my currently envisioned requirements. But then who knows what may come up in the future. I keep seeing statements here that productions boats should be careful leaving site of land! I could pick up something for 20-30K and plan on using it for a while to gain more experience, then sell and look for something with enough room to all extended stays, but I'm not sure how cost effective that would be (the "crew" may mutiny on me!). Spending a bit more (well maybe more than a bit) will provide more space, but at that point it looks a lot more critical IMHO, to choose between a Hunter type or Cape Dory type boat. The CD "looks" to be more sea worthy but the Hunter is more "crew" worthy, at least from the adverts and comments listed here. These may be impossible questions to answer, but it can't hurt to ask. The other thing I've noticed is that many of the contributers here seem to have older boats from the 1980's, coincidence?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ed


I think a Hunter 40 can go a lot of places. A trip to the BVI is an easy trip picking your weather window. I have seen Hunter 40s in the Marquesas having come from the west coast of the States. Picking the right season it is quite a benign trip if you can handle a few squalls.

Would I take one from Falmouth, UK to the Newport, RI via the Great Circle Route at any time of year? Not on your life. Been there, done that.

Say I had a summer cruise where I left Massachusetts, crossed the Gulf of Maine after finding a good weather window and did some coastal cruising up the coast of Nova Scotia and then did a crossing to Newfoundland where I bopped along their coast exploring all the wonderful little fishing harbors on the south coast. All very doable in a Hunter 40. Would I then decide to go explore the west coast of Greenland which is one of the most notorious lee shores in the world? Not in a million years. There are very few boats I would personally go there with and if I were responsible for the safety of family and friends on board that list gets shorter and shorter.

So to answer your question, yes, a trip to the BVI on a Hunter 40 is very doable. I have seen boats of even lesser pedigree sprinkled all over the Caribbean that came from the States. Some of them really had me scratching my head to be honest but to each his own.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ebourg

Thanks Bleemus, as in so many things there are no black and white answers.. everything is relative.

Ed


----------



## Bleemus

ebourg said:


> Thanks Bleemus, as in so many things there are no black and white answers.. everything is relative.
> 
> Ed


Your welcome Ed. I have seen blue water cruisers sailed by inexperienced people sitting on reefs and boats you would never think would cross an ocean sitting in the harbor in Vanuatu. A boat is a great thing when sailed by the skilled or lucky. Just depends on what part of their journey you see them. The skilled you see often and the lucky not so much.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

ebourg said:


> A quick question with regard to the ability to venture into "blue water". I've notice that Smack has a Hunter 40. Would Smack consider this to be capable a of a moderate passage, say to the BVI?


That's precisely what we're doing with our Hunter 40. So the answer is obviously yes.

We'll see how it works out. But I'm not worried at all about the capability of the boat.



ebourg said:


> In the groups opinion would the Hunter/Pearson/S2 type boats fit that bill, or should I be looking at Island Packet/Cape Dory/Bayfield types?


For what you're talking about a Hunter/Catalina/Beneteau (production boat) would be a perfect boat. It will do everything you need it to do and make the crew happy.

Here is a link to the process I went through that it seems you're going through now...

How We Got To Hunter | SmackTalk!

Statements like this just make me laugh:



Bleemus said:


> So to answer your question, yes, *a trip to the BVI on a Hunter 40 is very doable. I have seen boats of even lesser pedigree* sprinkled all over the Caribbean that came from the States.


Huge eyeroll. Oh, and we have no plans to go to Greenland - or hang out with dudes who worry about pedigrees.


----------



## Don L

Faster said:


> T
> It is odd that given the apparently fairly strong sales in new, big boats of the past 10 years or so there only a few owners of these types of boats here on SN.


Maybe you should check out the How Old is Your Boat thread

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/196129-how-old-your-boat.html

It explains lots of boat opinions here (mostly only people with old boats are on forums). Over the years on forums I'm come to realize that everyone knows more about my boat than I do. Afterall I've spend years sailing it compared to the 0 time have spent on it.


----------



## SVAuspicious

ebourg said:


> I've notice that Smack has a Hunter 40. Would Smack consider this to be capable a of a moderate passage, say to the BVI?


I infer that smackdaddy thinks his boat is capable of a passage to the Moon. That doesn't make it so.



ebourg said:


> Some of the Hunters look very appealing and I'm sure would meet all my currently envisioned requirements.


You raise a number of issues Ed. First, as someone noted this thread in particular and the Internet in general requires some sorting of wheat from chaff. There is a lot of opinion presented as fact, and poorly informed opinion.

One of the great opportunities is to watch or participate in discussion between people who do know what they are talking about who come to different conclusions on the basis of the same data. Everyone learns.

As Faster noted, space for people and space for "stuff" is a balance. What works best (whatever "best" means) for daysailing and weekending is going to be different from what works best for making passages. As he also noted (and doesn't get enough attention) places to hold on continuously from one end of the boat to the other are important. This is of course more important on passage than on a daysail. Elements of arrangements that may not leap out at you are important: there should be a head at the base of the companionway. Which way the toilet faces matters. Is there somewhere to brace yourself on the non-favored tack? Is there a way to brace yourself in the galley without the hazard of having to strap in? What is fuel and water tankage?

What happens to boat speed in a long sea? In a chop?



ebourg said:


> I keep seeing statements here that productions boats should be careful leaving site of land!


In my opinion (there is that word again) that is an overstatement. There are a lot of factors. Build quality is one: will the boat hold up in the conditions that can be anticipated. Design quality is another: will boat motion be reasonable and allow the crew to eat and sleep and manage the boat.



ebourg said:


> I could pick up something for 20-30K and plan on using it for a while to gain more experience, then sell and look for something with enough room to all extended stays, but I'm not sure how cost effective that would be (the "crew" may mutiny on me!).


If you have crew that are decision makers (like a spouse) you might try to accommodate any needs he or she finds important. Many women focus on bathrooms.

I suggest even before a starter boat you take some classes, find a racing program where you can crew on other people's boats, and do some charters. If you can swing a couple of weeks do a one week class in the BVI from someone like Colgate followed by a one week charter. Take your spouse.

The best starter boat is one that you can sail that also gives you some experience in boat maintenance and repair. Be gentle with yourself. Unless you already have significant applicable expertise don't bite off huge projects that will keep you from sailing.



ebourg said:


> The CD "looks" to be more sea worthy but the Hunter is more "crew" worthy, at least from the adverts and comments listed here.


Most Cape Dorys will be more seaworthy than a Hunter. Seaworthy IS crew-worthy. Boats that perform well (from a motion point of view) lead to happier more rested crew. Open floor plans are nice for entertaining at anchor or a dock but they are often unpleasant underway.



ebourg said:


> The other thing I've noticed is that many of the contributers here seem to have older boats from the 1980's, coincidence?


I suspect that is mostly an artifact of the SailNet market and price points. In addition not everyone lists the age of their boat. Mine is a 2006. Outbound's is newer than that. Hannah2's is I believe newer yet.

With respect to your original question about taking a boat to the BVI presumably from where you are in New England nearly anything could make it by working your way along the coast, from Florida to the Bahamas, and then island hopping into the Caribbean. You would probably be beaten up a few times and burn a lot of fuel and take a long time. For some people that's okay. A different boat could leave port in New England, head for 65°W longitude, then turn south and head straight for Tortola.

Boat performance matters also. A boat ('B') that is perfectly safe may be uncomfortable in seas. Boat 'B' could leave port at the same time as more seakindly boat 'A' and arrive at the same time with an exhausted crew while the crew of 'A' is ready to clean up the boat and go out for dinner. Boat 'C' could leave at the same time and show up a week later with a crew as rested as 'A', just not able to maintain boat speed in a sea. Again some people are okay getting beaten up a bit on passage. Some people don't have any time pressure at all. Heck some people have few if any financial constraints.



ebourg said:


> I'm looking for something that will allow lake and coastal use without being overly demanding or placing extraordinary demands on the PFD's (give me a break I wrote software for a living!). In the groups opinion would the Hunter/Pearson/S2 type boats fit that bill, or should I be looking at Island Packet/Cape Dory/Bayfield types? Clearly sufferring from too many choices! (Or maybe just get a MacGregor on a trailor and go splash about at the lake.)


For lake and inshore use any of the boats you listed will be fine. Any of them. Winds can be shifty on lakes so a lighter boat that points well might be more pleasant. If your plans are for Massachusetts Bay, Ipswich Bay, and environs something a little heavier that lets you get off the dock even when the breeze is up might be more useful.

In any event getting some experience of your own to figure out what is fun for you and what your requirements and expectations will help you make better decisions. Classes, racing other people's boats, and chartering are an investment in experience and judgment.


----------



## skygazer

Auspicious, great summary of 4 1/2 thousand posts without the fluff.

While everyone hopes to buy the ultimate boat first time, it generally will not happen.

Get a reasonable boat in sailing condition. Sail it. Gain experience sailing and maintaining.

You will then form your own ideas based on the actuality of what you and yours in particular like.

Everyone dreams of the ultimate blue water boat, but really few need it and even of those that buy one few go that far.

Lake sailing is good, it's fun and develops muscle memory. Remember that there are no tides, rips, currents, big ships and shipping lanes, not to mention the lobster buoys and the fogs that are heavier and more prevalent than lake fogs. I do think big lakes have sharper waves with no salt in the water. But try to get some ocean experience as well.

All sailing is good, I even used to "sail" across dry hay fields with slippery moccasins and a silk cargo chute, dead down wind only but I could dig in and run sideways to avoid obstacles. So almost any sailable boat is good to start learning. Other people's boats are good, but nothing like making all the decisions for learning.


----------



## bobperry

Cartoon design by me.
Rendering by Jody Culbert III (Rasputin on SA)


----------



## outbound

E- made this offer to Smackie but he has yet to respond so make it to you and all reading. Intend to do SDR in fall of 2016. For us it's two voyages. One from R.I. to Norfolk Va. in late October. Straight shot. Another from Va. to North Sound, Virgin Gorda starting beginning of November. You would be responsible for your personal expenses ( flights etc.). You can do either or both.
Boat has done transit twice with three without difficulty so easy to take fourth either as live lumber or hopefully to gain crew experience. Want myself, two skilled sailors and possibly a fourth. Anyone interested can PM me to discuss further. At this point both skilled and unskilled spots are open. Final decisions in the summer. 

Bleemus is correct many of what Smackie calls production boats ( silly as nearly all boats are including the Baba now circumnavigating are production boats) do this passage. Periodically even with professional weather routing both the SDR and the ARC 1500 have lost boats or have had boats divert. Most of these are Smackies production boats. But then again most boats are production boats. It's a easy transit until it isn't. We go just south of Bermuda then I- 65 if weather permits. 

Both from historical reports and computer modeling the old full keel designs are no safer or seaworthy than newer designs. Rethink your gestalt. There are good sea boats in all sizes and ages. There are lousy sea boats of all ages and sizes. There are good sea boats which are centerboarders, fins, and full keels. Talking about brand X is potentially misleading. One should consider only the specific boat under your feet when setting off.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> I infer that smackdaddy thinks his boat is capable of a passage to the Moon. That doesn't make it so.


Where exactly have I claimed that, Ausp? Speaking of poorly-informed opinion presented as fact.



SVAuspicious said:


> You raise a number of issues Ed. First, as someone noted this thread in particular and the Internet in general requires some sorting of wheat from chaff. There is a lot of opinion presented as fact, and poorly informed opinion.


And a very good example of it is Ausp's post - obviously. Hopefully it improves from here on.



SVAuspicious said:


> One of the great opportunities is to watch or participate in discussion between people who do know what they are talking about who come to different conclusions on the basis of the same data. Everyone learns.


Agreed. Now let's look at that data, comparing a 1986 Cape Dory 40 and a 1989 Hunter 40 in these areas you mention...



SVAuspicious said:


> As Faster noted, space for people and space for "stuff" is a balance. What works best (whatever "best" means) for daysailing and weekending is going to be different from what works best for making passages...something a little heavier that lets you get off the dock even when the breeze is up might be more useful.


Comparing the CD and Hunter - this is very true. The Hunter has more interior space at the expense of less deep storage space in the CD. But it's space in the right places. So I think it's worth it - and we still have lots of stuff loaded on our boat for our cruise.

Now, on the getting off the dock when the breeze is up, think about backing these two boats into a slip and maneuvering in tight spaces:



















I can back and fill my Hunter 40 360 degrees (even with its longer shoal keel) very easily and quickly - and back it into a tight slip with no problems. Very responsive. That can be very important weekending AND at both ends of any long passage...in sporty conditions.

The CD will have much more trouble doing things like this, both weekending and at both ends of passages.

Also, our Hunter has handled 25+ knots very easily. In fact she's very comfortable in those conditions. Takes the waves in stride and tracks nicely with a reef in. I've yet to have her out in anything bigger. We'll see. But I'm not concerned.



SVAuspicious said:


> As he also noted (and doesn't get enough attention) places to hold on continuously from one end of the boat to the other are important. This is of course more important on passage than on a daysail.


Here is the CD:









Here is the Hunter:









You'll notice the same number of grab rails along the cabin top...then the lifelines forward of that. But on either boat offshore, you should run jacklines and be securely clipped in. Of course, you have the sprit to deal with on the CD - which is always sketchy in big seas. Much better base for working the bow on the Hunter.



SVAuspicious said:


> Elements of arrangements that may not leap out at you are important: there should be a head at the base of the companionway. Which way the toilet faces matters.


Hunter - check...head just to port of the companionway to hang wet foulies, convenient breaks without disturbing sleeping crew, etc. (and a second head forward):

















CD - oops, fail...no head at the base of the companionway. Only one head forward:
















So you have to bother sleeping crew for a break, walk through the boat in wet foulies, etc. Bummer.

Oh, the toilets face the same direction on both boats.



SVAuspicious said:


> Is there somewhere to brace yourself on the non-favored tack? Is there a way to brace yourself in the galley without the hazard of having to strap in?


Hunter - yep, plenty of places to brace throughout the boat, even when cooking in the galley:









CD - not really, but you do have the clip-in/grab bar at the stove...you need it:

















That's a long fall to starboard in that galley. Maybe the "motion comfort" thing mitigates these shortcomings?



SVAuspicious said:


> What is fuel and water tankage?


Hunter:
40 gallons fuel
100 gallons water

CD:
50 gallons 
100 gallons water



SVAuspicious said:


> What happens to boat speed in a long sea? In a chop?


Hunter:
NEPHRF 96

CD:
NEPHRF 168

(See displacement numbers below. 1600 lbs difference.)



SVAuspicious said:


> In my opinion (there is that word again) that is an overstatement. There are a lot of factors.


Obviously, I agree with this part. Definitely an overstatement regarding production boats. But, of course, that doesn't stop Ausp from diving into one of his own head first below. Eyeroll.



SVAuspicious said:


> Build quality is one: will the boat hold up in the conditions that can be anticipated.


Actually, age, use, and care are far more important factors in a boat holding up in conditions than initial build-quality - and this is true for virtually any brand out there.



SVAuspicious said:


> Design quality is another: will boat motion be reasonable and allow the crew to eat and sleep and manage the boat.


This comes up a lot, but the argument is - if not specious - at least far less evident when actually sailing than typically portrayed on forums. The general notion is that heavier, deeper boats are more "comfortable" in a rough seaway. And this may be true to some small degree. But, when you're actually in a rough seaway, you're getting seriously moved around regardless of how deep the keel is or how heavy the boat is - for boats of the same size.

So let's start with the numbers:

Hunter:
Shoal draft: 5.0'
Displacement: 17900 lbs.
Ballast: 8400 lbs.

CD:
Draft (max.): 5.70' 
Displacement: 19500 lbs.
Ballast:

A difference of 1600 lbs. in displacement - but the CD has a deeper draft by about 15% (at least compared to my shoal keel). Very different hull/keel shape obviously. So what does that all mean? Lots of stuff...among other things...

The CD is WAY slower, has FAR more keel area, etc. So it will definitely be more "sluggish". This might be a good thing EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE in a blow.

The Hunter is WAY faster, draws less which is generally good for the Carib, and will be more responsive and eat up more miles on a passage. This WILL be a good thing MOST OF THE TIME while cruising and watching weather windows.

Additionally, on the motion thing, where you might experience more "hobby-horsing" on the CD due to its overhangs (which the Hunter doesn't have):









You might experience more roll on the Hunter due to its wider beam - about 9" wider than the CD on each side:









But that CD sure looks tender in what appear to be pretty light winds...










In any case, I've puked on both blue water and production boats while offshore in rough seas. It's the same puke - neither hurl was more comfortable. But I've always recovered quickly and gone on with the tasks at hand on either boat. There is NO _night-and-day feeling_ between the the boats I've been on in real life in terms of "motion comfort" in rough seas. And buying a boat with these kinds of expectations will only let you down when you get out there.

If you want night and day, get a cat. Even so, you'll still likely puke at some point.



SVAuspicious said:


> If you have crew that are decision makers (like a spouse) you might try to accommodate any needs he or she finds important. Many women focus on bathrooms.


The Hunter is going to win that one. And have you seen the pimpin' aft cabin with centerline queen in the Hunter? The one on the CD looks a bit cramped to me. Kind of an enlarged pilot berth. I'm with the ladies.



SVAuspicious said:


> I suggest even before a starter boat you take some classes, find a racing program where you can crew on other people's boats, and do some charters. If you can swing a couple of weeks do a one week class in the BVI from someone like Colgate followed by a one week charter. Take your spouse.


Totally agree. That's what we did.



SVAuspicious said:


> The best starter boat is one that you can sail that also gives you some experience in boat maintenance and repair. Be gentle with yourself. Unless you already have significant applicable expertise don't bite off huge projects that will keep you from sailing.


Focus on the "ready to sail" aspect. Even with a boat that is in great shape, you'll still have a crap-ton of projects. _Don't buy a project boat unless you have tons of money to drop and/or don't like sailing but working on boats._

Also - look at the prices from the get-go:

Hunter:
$54K (asking price)

CD (3 years older):
$140K (asking price)

Where do you want to put your money and why?



SVAuspicious said:


> Most Cape Dorys will be more seaworthy than a Hunter.


Looking at the above data *by your own criteria*, how exactly do you reach that conclusion Ausp? What were you saying about overstatements again? Heh-heh.

You doubters seeing the trend that started this thread in the first place?



SVAuspicious said:


> Seaworthy IS crew-worthy. Boats that perform well (from a motion point of view) lead to happier more rested crew. Open floor plans are nice for entertaining at anchor or a dock but they are often unpleasant underway.


Again, more generalities that don't mean much if you take the time to actually separate the wheat from the chaff.

As Ausp says:



SVAuspicious said:


> One of the great opportunities is to watch or participate in discussion between people who do know what they are talking about who come to different conclusions on the basis of the same data. Everyone learns.


So, look at the data and get first-hand accounts from people who actually sail the boats. Then make up your own mind. I did.


----------



## Don L

I'm glad that I haven't found that sailing for real has as many boat snobs as internet forums.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> E- made this offer to Smackie but he has yet to respond so make it to you and all reading. Intend to do SDR in fall of 2016.


Thanks but no thanks Out. We have our own fine yacht. We'll just meet you down there. DarkNStormies on me.



outbound said:


> Bleemus is correct many of what Smackie calls production boats do this passage. Periodically even with professional weather routing both the SDR and the ARC 1500 have lost boats or have had boats divert. Most of these are Smackies production boats. But then again most boats are production boats.


Well this is some tortured logic. Look at the SDR debacle of a couple of years ago. How many of those were "Smackies production boats" again?

The bottom line is - as I've said repeatedly in this thread - and as you've acknowledged, a growing number of the boats out there in these runs are Smackies production boats. And that ratio is only going to increase as time goes on.



outbound said:


> Both from historical reports and computer modeling the old full keel designs are no safer or seaworthy than newer designs. Rethink your gestalt.


Couldn't agree more. I think we might be nearing zeitgeist.


----------



## Brent Swain

ebourg said:


> Thanks Ron, I think you are on target with regard to the "space" issue. I hadn't really thought of it that way but when you point it out I do believe that it may be the bottom line. In reviewing many of the adverts my better half seems to gravitate toward the boats with the "more comfy look". It's also true that the older design boats appear to have more storage capacity built in, as well as handholds for those of us without velcro shoes. I've visited a couple of boats so far but need to do a lot more looking I think. While I realize that someone of sufficient skill could probably sail a bathtub across the gulf stream, I'm not in that group and don't ever expect to be. I'm looking for something that will allow lake and coastal use without being overly demanding or placing extraordinary demands on the PFD's (give me a break I wrote software for a living!). In the groups opinion would the Hunter/Pearson/S2 type boats fit that bill, or should I be looking at Island Packet/Cape Dory/Bayfield types? Clearly sufferring from too many choices! (Or maybe just get a MacGregor on a trailor and go splash about at the lake.)


Winston made a good point about handrails.
He said that those with overhead handrails had a lot of wrenched shoulders ,which was not a problem for those with shoulder height handrails. 
In considering displacement , one should bear in mind that the long distance ( Pacific ) ocean cruiser, will have several tons of extra gear on board ,including ground tackle. An extra thousand pounds of gear is a much greater percentage change in the total displacement of a 10,000 lb boat than it is in a 20,000 lb boat. So neccessary gear will have a much greater effect on the lighter boat.


----------



## Brent Swain

Shockwave said:


> Bleemus, I said extended, Jeff said prolonged, my mistake not quoting accurately. But the gyst off his statement was price point production boats, even with modifications, would likely suffer damage if sailed in "prolonged" rough weather. I would agree with that.
> 
> I've owned pan boats, they're tight when new but if sailed hard you begin you feel them moving internally. Things loosen or break free, the hull flexes more, the rig doesn't keep tension. The boat is slowly breaking down but you can't tell what is coming apart, the pan hides allot.


In the 31 years she has been cruising ,my metal hull hasn't flexed enough to crack the cheap, brittle filler in her interior. I have heard of plastic racing boat skippers cranking up the hydraulic back stay adjuster, to shorten the waterline considerably, when getting measured, for a lower rating , something which wouldn't change a metal boat 1/16 th of an inch.


----------



## Brent Swain

Exile1 said:


> Yeah, I think all too often a critique of a cockpit ergonomic or portlight or [pick one] is interpreted as "this entire boat or even brand sucks." Even if the poster believes that it doesn't mean you have to. I marvel when a pic is shown of a new, thinner laminate Bene with its bow section sheared off. One side yells "cheap," and the other yells back that hulls are designed for sailing, not hitting the dock or other boats. To me it's just another feature of a boat which may better inform someone about the trade-offs. Paulo says the new Bavaria's are now being built with slightly thicker hulls, but with the expected slight wgt./performance hit. So if you're in the market for these types of boats, you may now be better informed. Ditto for every other feature that has been discussed on every brand, type, or age of boat. Talk about whining!


What gives the foam cored hull its stiffness? The space between the outer and inner shell. Resin does the same thing, at a much higher weight to strength ratio. So , with a given amount of fibre, the thicker the shell ,the stiffer and stronger. So thicker hulls are definitely stronger , albeit with a weight penalty.
Thicker hulls give the fibre in them a mechanical advantage.
The excuse that thinner hulls are stronger, is just excuse making from manufacturers who want to use less material and increase profits.
Amazing how many are gullible enough to actually believe them.


----------



## SloopJonB

Brent Swain said:


> I have heard of plastic racing boat skippers cranking up the hydraulic back stay adjuster, to shorten the waterline considerably, when getting measured, for a lower rating , something which wouldn't change a metal boat 1/16 th of an inch.


Old wives tale from the IOR days.


----------



## SloopJonB

Looking at many of the viewpoints here about "Production" boats, I think a better and more accurate term would be "Assembly line" boats.

All boats other than one-offs are "Production" to one degree or another. IMO the term as it is intended in these discussions refers to assembly line boats, not such things as semi-custom builds with hulls from a shared set of moulds.


----------



## robert sailor

Hal Roth last sailed on a Pretorian 35 which is a very well built stick boat capable of sailing in most conditions. I thought Jeff's post was very well presented and given careful thought. The fact is that almost any boat can be sailed offshore..25 foot Cal's and 27 foot Catalina's have circumnavigated so no debate needed on this subject as they will all do it most of the time. Jeff's comments about weather is well presented and your final decision on your boat choice really comes down to how you feel about it. Smack quotes Hal Roth suggestion that you only risk about a 1% chance of hitting a really bad storm. Many of the structural failures on these boats are happening in gale force conditions, certainly not storm force. I can tell you that if the airlines operated with loosing 1% of their aircraft each year no one I know would get on a plane.


----------



## SloopJonB

Big difference between a 1% chance of really bad weather and a 1% loss of boats.

I would doubt that the loss rate is even 1% of that 1%.


----------



## robert sailor

SloopJonB said:


> Big difference between a 1% chance of really bad weather and a 1% loss of boats.
> 
> I would doubt that the loss rate is even 1% of that 1%.


I was referring to Jeff's comments that most entry level production boats may not be up to dealing with continued storm force conditions. Smacks view is taken from a Hal Roth quote that you have about a 1% chance of being in those conditions. So read whatever you want into it. Personally my views are that if you are voyaging for several years you might want to own a better built boat. If you are cruising the Med or Mexico or the Caribbean then almost any boat will do the job. Having said that we are in Curacao getting ready to sail down to Columbia and some areas are 40 plus knots gusting and 20 foot seas.


----------



## bobperry

More BS from BS:
" I have heard of plastic racing boat skippers cranking up the hydraulic back stay adjuster, to shorten the waterline considerably, when getting measured, for a lower rating "

Now tell me exactly what rating rule requires the DWL to be measured? In the water? Out of the water? Has to be in the water. I can think of no such rule, ever! Once again BS just makes things up. It really does not help the conversation to spread false information.


----------



## Exile1

robert sailor said:


> I was referring to Jeff's comments that most entry level production boats may not be up to dealing with continued storm force conditions. Smacks view is taken from a Hal Roth quote that you have about a 1% chance of being in those conditions. So read whatever you want into it. Personally my views are that if you are voyaging for several years you might want to own a better built boat. If you are cruising the Med or Mexico or the Caribbean then almost any boat will do the job. Having said that we are in Curacao getting ready to sail down to Columbia and some areas are 40 plus knots gusting and 20 foot seas.


In other words, it's not about whether most such entry level/value-oriented/assembly line/etc. boats "can" do the type of cruising both ebourg & Smack are planning, but rather whether you want to. And that, in turn, requires figuring out the inevitable trade-offs and what your comfort & safety margins are. Certainly some of that can be done ahead of time, but it's a tough one to nail down without some time on the water.

Smack is probably going to think I drank too much egg nog over the holiday, but I actually thought his comparo b'twn the Hunter 40 & Cape Dory was most helpful to what ebourg was asking. Except maybe his "puke test." It seems like some people, including many seasoned sailors, will get sick at the beginning of every passage and then be fine, regardless of type of boat or motion. I think Auspicious was talking more about longer term crew fatigue, and that is often (but certainly not always) one of the trade-offs b'twn boats that are faster vs. more seakindly (and often but not always slower).

Smack's Hunter/CD comparo also suggests that even two very different boats of the same era have more in common with each other than either of them do with the more modern crop of production boats where much of the criticism seems to be focused. Another reason not to be overly concerned with brand, or any other "orthodoxy." And given the apparent price disparity b'twn similarly aged Hunter 40's & CD's, it's probably fair to say that if two such boats are found at close to the same price, the Hunter is likely to be closer than the CD to "sail-away" condition.


----------



## robert sailor

You make some good points. It really gets down to where you are sailing and the type of conditions you can expect. Many cheap pocket cruisers have crossed oceans so that's no big deal. Often circumnavigators never see winds over 30 knots and seas over 10 feet so yes most of the cheaper built boats will make it in those conditions. Showing examples of boats that have crossed oceans and then suggesting that this is proof positive that they are safe to do so is a fools game. I'm sure the fellow in the B 50 didn't think his boat would come apart in gale force conditions. Making a buying decision is all about common sense. Here in the Caribbean when forecasts are calling for winds above 20 knots everyone hunkers down so no matter what you are sailing your risk factor is near zero. Offshore that all changes because crossing oceans means on your typical 3 week passage you only get to choose the weather on the day you leave. While crossing the Atlantic is usually a cake walk and can be done in almost anything most people would like a safety margin and I guess the question is..how much!!
There is another point that doesn't get discussed very much...outfitting your boat for continued offshore sailing is really expensive..on an entry level boat worth say $50,000 you could easily spend dam near that much in outfitting a bare boat. When you come to sell it you will be lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar back. You might even loose it all as many buyers don't want to buy a cheaper boat that has in their mind been ridden hard and put away wet. The same gear on a better built boat will make the boat much easier to sell and you probably will recover some of it as the buyer sees the boat as something that was designed for the purpose.
For most people's needs the typical entry level boat will do the job just fine but if you see voyaging (crossing oceans on a regular basisfor years) as your goal then get something that was really designed and built for the task.


----------



## bobperry

No BS here, just one guy in a Perry production boat sailing solo nonstop around the world.



> Around Alone Days-52-53-54.
> Day52
> 24hr. Run=144NM. Pos. lat.54*30'S. Long.53*01'W. Weather= Bar=990mb.Wind=3-30ktsNW. Seas=7-10ft.NW. Cabin temp 47-50*.
> Day-53
> 24hr.Run=56NM. Pos. Lat.54*23'S. Long.51*43'W. Weather= bar=990mb. Wind light and variable from all directions. Waves=2ft. Cabin Temp. 47-49*.
> Day-54
> 24hr.Run=99NM.Pos. Lat.54*15'S. Long.49*06'W. Weather=Bar.986mb.Wind=8-12ktsNE Seas=2-4ft. Cabin temp=44*-49*.
> 
> Total mile sailed so far=7027NM.
> Miles sailed last 3-days=299NM.
> Miles left to go to cape of Good Hope=2450NM..
> Top speed on trip=12.2kts.
> The Rest of the story.
> Day52.
> Today was an amazing day as I had no projects to do, so in the morning I cleaned up the boat, and decided to take a shower. The showers are only being done every fourth day now to conserve water, and I'm still trying to figure out how to take one with my long-underwear on, but still no luck on that.
> I felt great after the shower, and had gotten the dishes all washed up and put away, and it seemed like a good time to set down with my kindle and read a mystery story. After what must have been twenty-minutes I noticed the boats motion had changed and it seemed that the wind vane might not be steering.
> Once out in the cockpit I was shocked to see what looked like a large silver salmon swimming just behind the boat. Upon closer examination this was no salmon at all, it was the shinny servo rudder off the wind vane, trailing behind on the safety line.
> Now this was all as it should be as the thinner coupler tube connecting the rudder to the wind vane had broken off as it should when something rolls up from under the boat, like a log etc. I just hopped it wasn't my rudder leaving that had done it, as I had not heard us hit a log.
> I dug through my compartments and on the third one I came up with a couple of replacement pieces of ss steel tubing to make the repair. Once again with the Makita cutting wheel leading the charge and the Milwaukee drill, punching out the holes, soon a replacement appeared right before my eyes.
> Bolting it back on was the interesting part as we were sailing fast and the stern wake was up around the bolt that had to be removed then replaced after new tube was inserted in the hinge socket. Once again I find myself tethered off hanging by my knees off the back of the boat working in frigid waters to make the installation happen. "Fixed".
> It appeared the breaking of the wind vane was metal fatigue, more than any one big hit.
> Day 53.
> Today the Sailors run is challenged by light and variable winds from many different directions, and this always makes for lots of work trying to keep the boat moving in the right direction. It appears that we are in the middle of a low and must wait for it to move over us, hopefully taking off on the back side of it.
> I installed a new LED light over the nave station, after finding the fixture yesterday, while digging through the compartments.
> Oh I must also mention I'm a grandfather once again as our daughter Heather just had a New Baby Boy that came a little early, weighing in at 6lbs.1oz. The name is Breyden Lucas Thornton, sounds like more crew for the future.
> Day-54.
> The winds seem to be on Christmas break, so first let me wish all of you out there a "Merry Christmas and Happy holidays". Now for me I have a card to open from Debbie and I hope Santa swings by Antarctica, dropping off some fresh breezes that will allow me to get crashing along to where I'm going.
> I'm still undecided what will be on the menu for Christmas, but Roast "Albatross" sounds intriguing!! HA HA!!
> I have seen three ships since the Horn. Two of them were at the Horn, and were small 90-meter passenger ships, the "Plancius and the Polar Princess that both appeared to come up from Antarctica and went to the Horn for photos. The third ship a much larger freighter by the name of "Britannia" was paralleling my course just to the south of me, other than that alls been quiet in the South Atlantic.
> Looking for wind your Amigo the Jefe'


----------



## SVAuspicious

Exile1 said:


> I think Auspicious was talking more about longer term crew fatigue, and that is often (but certainly not always) one of the trade-offs b'twn boats that are faster vs. more seakindly (and often but not always slower).


Correct with respect to fatigue recognizing that "longer term" starts pretty soon - a couple of days. Speed versus motion is more complicated. My point in the 'A' versus 'B' versus 'C' scenario above is that there are fast boats that are uncomfortable, slow boats that are uncomfortable (aka "lemons"), fast boats that are comfortable ("seakindly"), and slow boats that are comfortable. It is easy to design a slow, uncomfortable boat. *grin* Specific examples will only lead to more angst and high blood pressure so I'll refrain. Fast seakindly boats are feasible - they exist. They are rarely inexpensive. They often come with other compromises, like (but not necessarily) storage. Boat design is completely about compromises. Some designers are better at making choices than others. Some are better at making compromises that match their clients or markets. Better yet are those that match what a client would choose if the client knew enough about the engineering to make good choices them selves. Best are those who can lead the client through the decision-making process so he or she understands the decisions and the compromises and the implications. I think Bob Perry works hard to be that sort of designer; he should try building that kind of relationship with Naval Sea Systems Command. *grin*

Then you move on to builders and the potentially horrible things they can do to a design.

Then you have staffing issues. Did a builder change naval architects? Has the production manager changed? Turnover in staff? You'll be amazed at what makes a difference. Someone in the parts department can completely change the warranty load.



Exile1 said:


> Another reason not to be overly concerned with brand, or any other "orthodoxy."


There are characteristics associated with various brands that you can count on, and make "buy or not buy" decisions on the basis of IF YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN REAL NEEDS. Some people overstate brand characteristics. Others have rabid reactions like "my Ford is better than your Chevy" or "Fiat doesn't make reliable cars" that are pretty generally stupid.

No one should lose sight of the reality that the sailor and not the boat is the most important thing. I sail with people who ask me what they can buy to make their boat faster. My answer is always the same: "lessons." One owner that is an active racer asked my advice about whether he should buy a new main or a new genoa. He ended up sending his regular crew to J/World. Guess what? They are doing better with the same sails and the same boat.

Which goes back to 'A' v. 'B' v. 'C'. Two boats can leave the same place at the same time and arrive nearly together at the same destination. One crew may be chipper and the other completely worn out. Some of that can be crew discipline by the skipper but more often than not it is the boat.

This leads to educated opinions like those offered in the lists by Mahina and the opinions offered by people who sail a lot of boats like (I believe) Jon Eisberg and myself.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Hal Roth last sailed on a Pretorian 35 which is a very well built stick boat capable of sailing in most conditions.


Speaking of BS...

One of the funny things is that Hal Roth and his wife STARTED in a steel boat - *then moved to fiberglass* (exactly the opposite of what Brent says always happens):



> ...they bought a 35-foot steel sloop with a centerboard in Holland and shipped it to the States, prepared to begin serious sailing. But they found, she says, that the boat was too crowded below for cruising...


Heh-heh.

Then he had a Spencer 35:










Then the Pretorian 35 (which you'll notice has a lot in common with the Hunter 40):



















Then he also sailed over 60K miles on a Santa Cruz 50:










So - he's been around, and around, and around. Over 200K miles. He knows what he's talking about. Far more than any non-Bob-Perry forum poster I've ever seen on ANY forum. I pay very close attention to to people who know what they are taking about. Then there are people who don't make a lot of sense - but do so with full confidence - which is admirable...



robert sailor said:


> Smack quotes Hal Roth suggestion that you only risk about a 1% chance of hitting a really bad storm. Many of the structural failures on these boats are happening in gale force conditions, certainly not storm force. I can tell you that if the airlines operated with loosing 1% of their aircraft each year no one I know would get on a plane.


How you get from 1% storm chance to 1% structural failures on "these boats" (are we talking the Cal 25 or Catalina 27?) is certainly interesting math.

What's the failure rate of Moodys? I can count a few.

And now we get to the heart of the matter...



robert sailor said:


> The fact is that almost any boat can be sailed offshore..25 foot Cal's and 27 foot Catalina's have circumnavigated so no debate needed on this subject as they will all do it most of the time.


So RS recommends these boats for blue water sailing and circumnavigation. Strange - he seems to be the only one. I wouldn't. But let's continue...



robert sailor said:


> It really gets down to where you are sailing and the type of conditions you can expect.


Haven't I already said that like a hundred times?



robert sailor said:


> Many cheap pocket cruisers have crossed oceans so that's no big deal.


Wow - so we're still on this recommendation. In fact it's now "no big deal".

Again, I really can't sanction this kind of recommendation. I think it's dangerous. And RS seems to be the only one making it. But make up your own mind.



robert sailor said:


> Often circumnavigators never see winds over 30 knots and seas over 10 feet so yes most of the cheaper built boats will make it in those conditions.


This is F7 conditions. I don't really know what "cheaper built boats" mean. But the Cat A rated production boats we've been talking about in these threads are rated to more than F8 conditions (in excess of 34-40 knots and 18-25 ft waves).

So, I think the conclusion here is, don't buy one of the boats RS has on his "cheaper built boats" list. I guess we're still talking the Cal 25 or the Catalina 27. If that's so, I totally agree.



robert sailor said:


> Showing examples of boats that have crossed oceans and then suggesting that this is proof positive that they are safe to do so is a fools game.


I'm not really sure what the takeaway here is. Multiple examples of boats crossing oceans over many years and through various conditions tends to suggest that such boats are safe to do so.

If by "proof positive" you mean that there is *never any question* - then I'm pretty sure there is NO boat on the ocean that can give you what you're wanting.



robert sailor said:


> I'm sure the fellow in the B 50 didn't think his boat would come apart in gale force conditions. Making a buying decision is all about common sense.


You mean BLUE PEARL, the B50 that was damaged by hitting a rock, then repaired very poorly and not thoroughly/professionally inspected, then taken to sea? If he didn't think there would be a problem - he should have.

Using this boat to draw any conclusions about B50s is, as you say, a "fool's game".

Taking proper care of your boat is also all about common sense.



robert sailor said:


> Here in the Caribbean when forecasts are calling for winds above 20 knots everyone hunkers down so no matter what you are sailing your risk factor is near zero. Offshore that all changes because crossing oceans means on your typical 3 week passage you only get to choose the weather on the day you leave.


Only on the day you leave? That might have been true 100 years ago, but weather prediction has gotten pretty damn good out to 5-7 days. And with SSB and/or satellite coms, you can have continual weather information - and even professional routing if you want to pay for it.

So it's not quite as dire as you're presenting here...especially if you're paying attention to the season...which most cruisers do.



robert sailor said:


> While crossing the Atlantic is usually a cake walk and can be done in almost anything most people would like a safety margin and I guess the question is..how much!!


If the Cat A production boats are rated for conditions in excess of F8, what exactly are you saying a Moody, or an Oyster, or a Hinckley are rated for? Are you saying they are solid for taking on F10? F11? F12?

What exactly is this safety margin you mention?



robert sailor said:


> For most people's needs the typical entry level boat will do the job just fine but if you see voyaging (crossing oceans on a regular basisfor years) as your goal then get something that was really designed and built for the task.


Yeah - exactly what I said earlier.

So, I can't get behind your recommending non-Cat A rated boats for crossings and circumnavigations, and I can't see where I'd feel safer taking on an F11/12 in an old Moody than in the Hunter 49 that actually did it - I do agree with the stuff I've already said.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Correct with respect to fatigue recognizing that "longer term" starts pretty soon - a couple of days. Speed versus motion is more complicated. My point in the 'A' versus 'B' versus 'C' scenario above is that there are fast boats that are uncomfortable, slow boats that are uncomfortable (aka "lemons"), fast boats that are comfortable ("seakindly"), and slow boats that are comfortable. It is easy to design a slow, uncomfortable boat. *grin* Specific examples will only lead to more angst and high blood pressure so I'll refrain. Fast seakindly boats are feasible - they exist. They are rarely inexpensive. They often come with other compromises, like (but not necessarily) storage. Boat design is completely about compromises. Some designers are better at making choices than others. Some are better at making compromises that match their clients or markets. Better yet are those that match what a client would choose if the client knew enough about the engineering to make good choices them selves. Best are those who can lead the client through the decision-making process so he or she understands the decisions and the compromises and the implications. I think Bob Perry works hard to be that sort of designer; he should try building that kind of relationship with Naval Sea Systems Command. *grin*
> 
> Then you move on to builders and the potentially horrible things they can do to a design.
> 
> Then you have staffing issues. Did a builder change naval architects? Has the production manager changed? Turnover in staff? You'll be amazed at what makes a difference. Someone in the parts department can completely change the warranty load.
> 
> There are characteristics associated with various brands that you can count on, and make "buy or not buy" decisions on the basis of IF YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN REAL NEEDS. Some people overstate brand characteristics. Others have rabid reactions like "my Ford is better than your Chevy" or "Fiat doesn't make reliable cars" that are pretty generally stupid.
> 
> No one should lose sight of the reality that the sailor and not the boat is the most important thing. I sail with people who ask me what they can buy to make their boat faster. My answer is always the same: "lessons." One owner that is an active racer asked my advice about whether he should buy a new main or a new genoa. He ended up sending his regular crew to J/World. Guess what? They are doing better with the same sails and the same boat.
> 
> Which goes back to 'A' v. 'B' v. 'C'. Two boats can leave the same place at the same time and arrive nearly together at the same destination. One crew may be chipper and the other completely worn out. Some of that can be crew discipline by the skipper but more often than not it is the boat.
> 
> This leads to educated opinions like those offered in the lists by Mahina and the opinions offered by people who sail a lot of boats like (I believe) Jon Eisberg and myself.


...and, especially, Hal Roth. Heh-heh.

This was quite a bit better than your last offering.

Approved.


----------



## SVAuspicious

bobperry said:


> No BS here, just one guy in a Perry production boat sailing solo nonstop around the world.
> 
> Around Alone Days-52-53-54.
> Day52
> 24hr. Run=144NM. Pos. lat.54*30'S. Long.53*01'W. Weather= Bar=990mb.Wind=3-30ktsNW. Seas=7-10ft.NW. Cabin temp 47-50*.
> Day-53
> 24hr.Run=56NM. Pos. Lat.54*23'S. Long.51*43'W. Weather= bar=990mb. Wind light and variable from all directions. Waves=2ft. Cabin Temp. 47-49*.
> Day-54
> 24hr.Run=99NM.Pos. Lat.54*15'S. Long.49*06'W. Weather=Bar.986mb.Wind=8-12ktsNE Seas=2-4ft. Cabin temp=44*-49*.
> 
> Total mile sailed so far=7027NM.
> Miles sailed last 3-days=299NM.
> Miles left to go to cape of Good Hope=2450NM..
> Top speed on trip=12.2kts.
> The Rest of the story.
> Day52.
> Today was an amazing day as I had no projects to do, so in the morning I cleaned up the boat, and decided to take a shower. The showers are only being done every fourth day now to conserve water, and I'm still trying to figure out how to take one with my long-underwear on, but still no luck on that.
> I felt great after the shower, and had gotten the dishes all washed up and put away, and it seemed like a good time to set down with my kindle and read a mystery story. After what must have been twenty-minutes I noticed the boats motion had changed and it seemed that the wind vane might not be steering.
> Once out in the cockpit I was shocked to see what looked like a large silver salmon swimming just behind the boat. Upon closer examination this was no salmon at all, it was the shinny servo rudder off the wind vane, trailing behind on the safety line.
> Now this was all as it should be as the thinner coupler tube connecting the rudder to the wind vane had broken off as it should when something rolls up from under the boat, like a log etc. I just hopped it wasn't my rudder leaving that had done it, as I had not heard us hit a log.
> I dug through my compartments and on the third one I came up with a couple of replacement pieces of ss steel tubing to make the repair. Once again with the Makita cutting wheel leading the charge and the Milwaukee drill, punching out the holes, soon a replacement appeared right before my eyes.
> Bolting it back on was the interesting part as we were sailing fast and the stern wake was up around the bolt that had to be removed then replaced after new tube was inserted in the hinge socket. Once again I find myself tethered off hanging by my knees off the back of the boat working in frigid waters to make the installation happen. "Fixed".
> It appeared the breaking of the wind vane was metal fatigue, more than any one big hit.
> Day 53.
> Today the Sailors run is challenged by light and variable winds from many different directions, and this always makes for lots of work trying to keep the boat moving in the right direction. It appears that we are in the middle of a low and must wait for it to move over us, hopefully taking off on the back side of it.
> I installed a new LED light over the nave station, after finding the fixture yesterday, while digging through the compartments.
> Oh I must also mention I'm a grandfather once again as our daughter Heather just had a New Baby Boy that came a little early, weighing in at 6lbs.1oz. The name is Breyden Lucas Thornton, sounds like more crew for the future.
> Day-54.
> The winds seem to be on Christmas break, so first let me wish all of you out there a "Merry Christmas and Happy holidays". Now for me I have a card to open from Debbie and I hope Santa swings by Antarctica, dropping off some fresh breezes that will allow me to get crashing along to where I'm going.
> I'm still undecided what will be on the menu for Christmas, but Roast "Albatross" sounds intriguing!! HA HA!!
> I have seen three ships since the Horn. Two of them were at the Horn, and were small 90-meter passenger ships, the "Plancius and the Polar Princess that both appeared to come up from Antarctica and went to the Horn for photos. The third ship a much larger freighter by the name of "Britannia" was paralleling my course just to the south of me, other than that alls been quiet in the South Atlantic.
> Looking for wind your Amigo the Jefe'


It's always interesting to reflect on reports from those out sailing.

Here is my interpretation.

In the first place look at the latitude and longitude. Granted my perspective may be different than most but the first thing that comes to mind for me is an Exocet missile between the Argentines and the Brits. That is some serious ocean.

Those sort of miles per day are respectable for a small crew with a lot to do. For a solo sailor they are just fine for the conditions. I like to do better but you can't always. We do better on delivery because our focus is different and we have more people power. Single-handed over long distances I one had a 10 mile day.

I'm not sure why taking a shower with long underwear on is a problem. How else can you reasonably clean socks and underwear offshore on most (not all) boats than showering in them? You do need at least two pairs of underwear....

One of the things that may not be apparent is that minor projects like the noted nav station light installation aren't a regular activity offshore, much less in high latitudes. We all have to do things we have to do (like the vane repair), but convenience work like the lighting project does mean the boat's motion allows that kind of work. Drill on marked spot? Check.


----------



## SloopJonB

* Originally Posted by robert sailor 
Many cheap pocket cruisers have crossed oceans but that's unusual and a big deal, not to be recommended.*

Fixed


----------



## robert sailor

When I said that you get one day of certain weather, the day you leave I meant it. Yes the forecasts are better than they used to be but I have had enough experience offshore sailing to know that forecasts get very iffy after 3 days. The fact that you can keep getting updates does very little other than to tell you what you are going to be dealing with because you are out there and can't come running back to the harbour. The only thing a Pretorian 35 has in common with your Hunter is that it looks somewhat similar and it's a sailboat. The Pretorian 35 is one of the best choices a person could make for voyaging offshore, it's a stick built boat built to a very high level of fit and finish although it's getting a little long in the tooth like the rest of us.
As you very well know I'm not recommending that someone chooses to buy a Catalina 27 to circumnavigate as you don't have much of a margin if the ##### hits the fan but people have done it so if you want to use history rather than common sense to make your choices, well that's up to you.
You really don't need much of a boat to safely sail in many cruising areas as its mostly day sailing so just pick the good days. As to the B 50 and it's condition prior to loosing the rear bulkhead you seem to know a lot more than the owner, I'll leave it there. 
In the end an experienced skipper can make up for some of the vessels short comings, a good example is Web Chiles and there are many others but most of us just want a boat that we know can take more than we can and can be relied on. Happy New Year.


----------



## Exile1

The Hunter/Cape Dory comparo was well-researched, and it was interesting seeing a pictorial chronology of all the various quality-built boats Hal Roth sailed, but I don't understand Smack's latest fixation on the 1% chance of encountering storm conditions. That's technically F10 or 48 kts. minimum, so Hal Roth's estimate seems entirely reasonable to me. As Robert (who has done multiple ocean crossings I believe) pointed out, you are much more likely to encounter gale force conditions. I know, the lower-priced production boats we're talking about are "officially rated" for F8, so therefore . . . .

But I don't recall anywhere in Jeff's analysis, in reaching his conclusion that, _generally_ speaking, such boats will deteriorate faster when encountering more severe conditions, where he mentioned specific distinctions btwn. F8, F10, "gale," or "storm." But I do recall him stating his own preference for avoiding orthodoxy when trying to make such evaluations.

I'm also not reading anywhere in Robert's recent posts where he "recommended" pocket cruisers and other very small boats for crossing oceans. Instead, he seemed to be saying the same thing Jeff, Faster, Bleemus, Auspicious, Outbound, Jon E., and many others have been saying, namely that value-oriented boats can certainly do it, but better built boats may be more _suitable_ for more extensive cruising and, in some cases, may provide greater comfort & safety margins. In fact, I'm not seeing much daylight btwn. any of these positions, except the differences in non-real world semantics Smack seems to be trying to create.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> When I said that you get one day of certain weather, the day you leave I meant it.


Well, except that's not what you said. But anyway - I've never had 100% certainty on even _one_ 24-hour day of weather.



robert sailor said:


> Yes the forecasts are better than they used to be but I have had enough experience offshore sailing to know that forecasts get very iffy after 3 days. The fact that you can keep getting updates does very little other than to tell you what you are going to be dealing with because you are out there and can't come running back to the harbour.


Really? You mean with 24-48 hours notice of an approaching low, one's only choice is to run back to harbor? There's never an option to sail a route to stay clear of its projected path - or at least the worst of it? There aren't even several professional weather routers out there who help sailors (and rallies) do just this?



robert sailor said:


> The only thing a Pretorian 35 has in common with your Hunter is that it looks somewhat similar and it's a sailboat. The Pretorian 35 is one of the best choices a person could make for voyaging offshore, it's a stick built boat built to a very high level of fit and finish although it's getting a little long in the tooth like the rest of us.


Well, it's a good deal slower as well (NEPHRF):

Hunter 40: 96
Pretorien 35: 132
BRISTOL 35.5 CB: 156
Cape Dory 40: 168



robert sailor said:


> As you very well know I'm not recommending that someone chooses to buy a Catalina 27 to circumnavigate...


Actually, you've pushed that angle several times now...both here and on CF. So - I certainly don't "very well know". You're the one saying it. I'll guess I'll take your word for it now.



robert sailor said:


> You really don't need much of a boat to safely sail in many cruising areas as its mostly day sailing so just pick the good days.


Lakes, close-by island chains on a charter, and the ICW I'll give you. What other cruising areas are you talking about? And how do you get to those close-by island chains if not on a charter?

Again, "don't need much of a boat" is just bad advice. Period.

I'm sticking by my recommendation that if you're going into blue water you need to have a good boat. A Cat A rated production boat - if it's been taken good care of - is a great boat for that, just like a blue water boat if you'd prefer one.



robert sailor said:


> As to the B 50 and it's condition prior to loosing the rear bulkhead you seem to know a lot more than the owner, I'll leave it there.


We've already been through this on CF. That is information from the owner.


----------



## robert sailor

Weather offshore is not as easy to predict as weather on land in many cases. When we crossed the Atlantic last year we were receiving weather every day but a low simply went further south than predicted and we enjoyed the weather for a couple of days. It's easy this day and age to think a good forecast will allow you to avoid weather. When the boat that lost the rear bulkhead and the one that lost its keel both sunk in gale force conditions do you really think those skippers didn't know the forecast? When you are tooting along at 6 knots and the low pressure system is doing 20 knots you normally have few options but to deal with it and quite frankly that's usually not a big deal if the skipper is experienced and he has a well found boat.
Yes your Hunter rates faster than the Pretorian 35 which should be expected as its much smaller but I can name many 35 footers that would leave you in the dust..spray..whatever but when it gets grumpy out there boat speed will be the last thing on your mind. Happy Holidays! Did you ever get that new engine?


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Did you ever get that new engine?


As a matter of fact, I just ordered a new (rebuilt) Yanmar 4JHE about a week ago. So we should be up and running again in 60 days or so. Write up coming soon.

Didn't you lose an engine too?


----------



## SloopJonB

robert sailor said:


> The only thing a Pretorian 35 has in common with your Hunter is that it looks somewhat similar and it's a sailboat.


That's a bit disingenuous - they have very similar hull, appendages & deck configurations, their D/L ratios are both in the low 200's, their SA/D ratios are both about 18 - they are very similar from a design standpoint, not just in both being boats.

Granted the Pretorian has a better rep re: construction but otherwise?


----------



## robert sailor

I certainly did and our pocket book got a lot lighter. We installed a Beta 50 and it's been terrific but what else would you expect me to say after dropping 20 large. That included a new Flex a fold prop and a few other smaller items. There is this crazy thing called waterline and the Pretorian 35 has a lot less than your Hunter. I have put quite a few miles on the Pretorian 35 and consider it one of the best 35 foot offshore boats ever built. Most have had light use and probably would still have lots of service left but all the older boats have to be very carefully inspected. They don't point especially high against other 35 foot racer/cruisers but are good boats on a reach. I have crawled thru these boats from stem to stern and they are top notch in quality construction as far as I could see.


----------



## Faster

robert sailor said:


> .......I have crawled thru these (Pretorian 35) boats from stem to stern and they are top notch in quality construction as far as I could see.


... and they certainly hold their value esp against other similar offerings from that era.


----------



## Shockwave

I've sailed a Pretorian and a Hunter 40. Thank you, I'll take the Pretorian.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> I certainly did and our pocket book got a lot lighter. We installed a Beta 50 and it's been terrific but what else would you expect me to say after dropping 20 large. That included a new Flex a fold prop and a few other smaller items. There is this crazy thing called waterline and the Pretorian 35 has a lot less than your Hunter. I have put quite a few miles on the Pretorian 35 and consider it one of the best 35 foot offshore boats ever built. Most have had light use and probably would still have lots of service left but all the older boats have to be very carefully inspected. They don't point especially high against other 35 foot racer/cruisers but are good boats on a reach. I have crawled thru these boats from stem to stern and they are top notch in quality construction as far as I could see.


Just curious - what exactly do you think makes her top notch quality construction-wise? She seems relatively light displacement-wise. She's about the same as the Bene First 36 - but still MUCH slower. And she's just a bit more than a Pacific Seacraft 34. So it doesn't seem to be a "heavy" build so many dudes seem to tout for blue water...but still not particularly a strong performer.

BTW - I've always liked the Wauquiez yachts - I'm just not seeing this one as the shizzle.

PS - On the engine thing, you have my sympathies and solidarity dude. Money we'll never get back - but whaddayagonnado?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> I've sailed a Pretorian and a Hunter 40. Thank you, I'll take the Pretorian.


Noooooooo. I'm shocked.

Heh-heh.

Shock out?


----------



## outbound

> "I loved the Outbound 46 I sailed to Tortola. Specific to offshore, the standard production boats are awful. I've delivered plenty of them, and while fast off the wind, they'll pound your brains out going to weather and make for a miserable trip."
> Andy Schell


'Nuff said


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, once again, you've proven you don't know what you don't know.


----------



## SVAuspicious

A moment of silence please on the passing of my friend Jon Eisberg.



robert sailor said:


> When I said that you get one day of certain weather, the day you leave I meant it. Yes the forecasts are better than they used to be but I have had enough experience offshore sailing to know that forecasts get very iffy after 3 days. The fact that you can keep getting updates does very little other than to tell you what you are going to be dealing with because you are out there and can't come running back to the harbour.


I agree. I go so far as to say that those who suggest otherwise have simply not sailed offshore. Even Steve Dashew can't really sail ahead of or around major weather events. Speed is good but not a magic bullet. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't get good weather information on board. Gribs are insufficient. Synoptic charts, whether downloaded over email ($) or received through weather fax are the best the self-sufficient cruiser can have. If you choose to use a weather router like Chris Parker he will also tell you that having your own synoptics is in your interest.



robert sailor said:


> In the end an experienced skipper can make up for some of the vessels short comings


True enough. More often the boat (depending on the boat) makes up for skipper and crew.



Exile1 said:


> Instead, he seemed to be saying the same thing Jeff, Faster, Bleemus, Auspicious, Outbound, Jon E., and many others have been saying, namely that value-oriented boats can certainly do it, but better built boats may be more _suitable_ for more extensive cruising and, in some cases, may provide greater comfort & safety margins. In fact, I'm not seeing much daylight btwn. any of these positions, except the differences in non-real world semantics Smack seems to be trying to create.


The choices we make are not black and white. "This boat will sink" or "this boat will be all hearts and flowers" is not rationale. Some boats are better than others. See my 'A' v. 'B' v. 'C' scenarios above. It is all shades of gray.



robert sailor said:


> Weather offshore is not as easy to predict as weather on land in many cases. When we crossed the Atlantic last year we were receiving weather every day but a low simply went further south than predicted and we enjoyed the weather for a couple of days.


The important element is that you knew what to expect. If conditions were deteriorating you would have had plenty of time to get the boat ready, cook ahead, chase the off watch below for extra rest, and been fully prepared for conditions to be sporty.



Shockwave said:


> Smack, once again, you've proven you don't know what you don't know.


Which is why people should not listen to him.


----------



## Don L

SVAuspicious said:


> Which is why people should not listen to him.


Actually your best odds of making the correct decision is that it is smart to not listen to anything on the internet.


----------



## robert sailor

Smack heavy construction does not mean strong necessarily. Take the SC 52 that Hal Roth sailed for example..your thoughts were that it wasn't really designed for offshore use. Actually nothing could be further from the truth..those boats were very well built. Some folks might recall reading a report of the storm that surprised a lot of folks in Cabo written by Larry Pardey. This was when the famous French sailor Moitessier lost his steel boat on that beach which was littered with wrecked boats of all different makes. One boat had little to no damage and was returned to the sea and able to sail away. A Santa Cruz 40. Larry who is a fan off heavy displacement boats wrote some glowing comments on how well built those boats were. So you can get light strong and expensive boats but not light, cheap and strong!
Back to the Pretorian 35, the hull has longitudinal stringers glassed in to make it very stiff. The main bulkheads are heavy and glassed to the hull. The structures that tie in the rigging loads are very heavily built. The floor area has heavy glassed in stiffeners and a deep keel stub that allows a proper bilge that is missing on many newer boats. Fit and finish is first rate throughout. Back in the day they were known as the French Swan. I could go on but all in all a very well built boat and as others have said, a boat that holds its value and has a following so they don't hang around long on the market if they are in decent shape. Hal Roth was a good sailor and as time went on he made better and better choices. It's no surprise that he chose a Pretorian 35.


----------



## bobperry

Just a guy sailing around the horn in a Baba 40:


> Around Alone Days-55-56-57.
> Day 55.
> 24hr.Run=144NM. Pos Lat.. 53*06'S. Long.46*15'W. Weather=Bar=984mb. Wind 12-40kts. Seas 6-10ft.Cabin Temp=44*-51*.
> Day-56.
> 24hr.Run=157NM. Pos.51*36'S Long.42*50'W. Weather=Bar=992mb. Wind=W at 25-40kts. Seas=12-18ft. Cabin Temp=44*51* Day-57.
> 24hr.Run=132NM. Pos,Lat.50*22'S. Long.40*16'W. Weather=Bar=992mb.Wind=WNW-SSW-10-20kts.Seaa=6-8ft. Cabin Temp=44*-51*.
> Total miles sailed so far=7450NM.
> Miles sailed last 3-days=433NM.
> Distance to go to Good Hope=2237NM
> Top speed so far 12.2kts.
> The Rest of the Story.
> Day55 Christmas Eve.
> I was looking forward to a great Christmas Eve as the winds were filling in and starting to build up the seas, meaning we could once again cover some miles towards home.
> It was about noon and I was inspecting the Genoa, and was disappointed to see three tears starting to open up. I pulled the Genoa down off the furler, not an easy job while running before about 17 kts of wind, and one of the tears went from about 3-inches to 18-inches.
> Once again I find myself sliding around tethered off on the for deck sewing on patches. Fortunately two of the small tears I was able to cover with one patch. My contact cement was no longer a liquid so I had to resort to silicon to hold the patches in place on both sides while I stitched them together.
> After about 1hr 30 minutes I struggled to get the sail back up on the furler and trimmed in. It was when I was admiring my not so beautiful patches that I discovered three more tears. Once again I pull the sail off the furler and do the patching drill, fortunately the wind had died down a little this time and it was much easier to get the sail back up and flying.
> Now I have to tell you the thumb on my right hand is killing me, as I have been doing so much hand sewing that it bleeds each time I do it as the finger nail is cutting into my thumb, and it doesn't get a chance to heal up, it seems I cannot do anything without using it or jamming it in to something. By the time I got everything cleaned up and put away I was pretty" knocked out", an celebrating would have to come on Christmas morning.
> Day-56 Christmas morning.
> Christmas morning started out like a fire drill, when the winds built to 40kts and I was anxious to get out there and roll in the little bit of Genoa that I had out and drop the Mizzen sail down altogether trying to get the boat back under control, as it was ripping across the ocean, careened way over on her port side. At last we were back sailing in a civilized manner, even in the powerful winds that had now backed down to abou30-kts.
> Once bellow I started the coffee percolating, and getting things ready for a nice breakfast, it was then that we were slammed by a rogue wave on the side and I watched as the coffee pot flew across the galley spilling water and grounds everywhere, "Merry Christmas". Ohhh !here we go again, on the second pot it was watched it much more closely, and like the last one it was again bungee corded down.
> It was time to go outside and get the spot locator device, that was out in the bracket on the stainless steel rail, out in the cockpit. I pushed open the double companion way doors and felt I had entered the world of "Ozz" as right before my eyes was a huge Iceberg over a mile long and some 800ft.high. My knees shook as I gazed in disbelief as we were already past it and could have just as easily T-boned the thing. It appeared to be about a mile away. But once I got the radar up and going after a bunch of filming and pictures it was actually four miles away, but its enormous size made it seem much closer. The iceberg was very visible on the radar even at 16 miles I was still able to see it. It was with the radar that I could determine its size. Our track showed that we had come within two miles of it when we passed. "We had truly lucked out". I thought I was north of the Icebergs as the ones I have the locations on, are all 200 miles to the south of me, from now on the radar stays on 24/7.
> I can imagine had we of slammed into that Ice berg at 7-knots we probably would have not only peeled some paint off the bow sprit, but it is possible we could have caused the iceberg to emit some "CO2" into the atmosphere, as I'm also sure there would have been a huge release of "Methane Gas" from the Sailors Run.
> Day-57.
> The winds have dropped way down and we are sailing along very comfortably towards our destination, under sometimes even sunny skies.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> Actually your best odds of making the correct decision is that it is smart to not listen to anything on the internet.


I don't agree. It requires putting aside some normal biases, making more of an effort towards objectivity, and being discerning, but then it's usually not that hard to figure out whether the information source is credible or not, and then whether the information itself is applicable to your own situation.


----------



## SloopJonB

Exactly right - it's not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff after you've read a few posts by the same people on different topics. I'd say the majority - certainly better than 50% of the people posting have valuable info to offer.

What amuses me is the posters who think they know more than obviously qualified posters - sailing bloggers instructing Perry on yacht design, daysailors advising world cruisers on anchoring techniques and so forth.

To paraphrase; Presumption, thy name is Internet Poster.


----------



## Exile1

SloopJonB said:


> Exactly right - it's not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff after you've read a few posts by the same people on different topics. I'd say the majority - certainly better than 50% of the people posting have valuable info to offer.
> 
> What amuses me is the posters who think they know more than obviously qualified posters - sailing bloggers instructing Perry on yacht design, daysailors advising world cruisers on anchoring techniques and so forth.
> 
> To paraphrase; Presumption, thy name is Internet Poster.


I've been guilty of that. I acquired my first & only cruising boat long before I started frequenting internet forums. It was only on the internet that I discovered all of these "categories" posters were using to try and distinguish particular "types" or "brands" of boats, or different types of sailing. This, of course, led to a lot of the heated controversy that I had never witnessed amongst boaters I met in the real world. At the time, I didn't yet know enough about boats other than my own to make more informed judgments, so I defaulted to the "you get what you pay for" conclusion. I've since learned that, while that's certainly a relevant factor, it's often not dispositive. For me, the more interesting discussion now is "what exactly are you paying more or less for?"


----------



## Don L

SloopJonB said:


> Exactly right - it's not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff after you've read a few posts by the same people on different topics.


What you mean is that

"Exactly right - it's not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff after you've read a few posts by the same people *who agree with you* on different topics.

For this thread for the most it is just a way for the same people to post the same thing over and over and to throw in a couple of insults at the same time..


----------



## bobperry

I find that three insults strikes a good balance. I sprinkle with some random name calling too for flavor.


----------



## SloopJonB

Don0190 said:


> What you mean is that
> 
> "Exactly right - it's not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff after you've read a few posts by the same people *who agree with you* on different topics.


No that is not what I mean. I mean exactly what I said - using some judgement to discern whether a particular person knows what they are talking about. Only a fool only listens to people who agree with them - it's called preaching to the choir.

An example from this forum - I have considerable experience recoring decks - I've done both a 26' and a flush deck 43' using both foam and balsa. On a thread about this subject a poster said the best way to repair a wet core was to "pop off" the deck and use it as a plug to make a mould and laminate up a new deck.

Either that or take the boat from the Great Lakes to S.E. Asia where it could be done cheap. 

I called him on the absurdity of it and he insisted it was a viable method - he "knew" it was because he had experience with lost wax casting of art pieces.

His advice was so obviously worth so much less than we were paying for it that all his future posts on any topic will get the consideration they are due - none.


----------



## Brent Swain

SloopJonB said:


> Old wives tale from the IOR days.


Try it. Then try it with a metal boat. You will deform the plastic one , but have zero change on the metal one. You would break the rigging on the metal one first, long before making any measurable change.


----------



## Brent Swain

robert sailor said:


> As you very well know I'm not recommending that someone chooses to buy a Catalina 27 to circumnavigate as you don't have much of a margin if the ##### hits the fan but people have done it so if you want to use history rather than common sense to make your choices, well that's up to you.
> You really don't need much of a boat to safely sail in many cruising areas as its mostly day sailing so just pick the good days. As to the B 50 and it's condition prior to loosing the rear bulkhead you seem to know a lot more than the owner, I'll leave it there.
> In the end an experienced skipper can make up for some of the vessels short comings, a good example is Web Chiles and there are many others but most of us just want a boat that we know can take more than we can and can be relied on. Happy New Year.


Catalinas are built for what their name implies ;sailing to Catalina Island , some of the most benign sailing in the world. On the rare occasions when it does blow there ,they tend to not leave the dock.


----------



## Brent Swain

robert sailor said:


> Weather offshore is not as easy to predict as weather on land in many cases. When we crossed the Atlantic last year we were receiving weather every day but a low simply went further south than predicted and we enjoyed the weather for a couple of days. It's easy this day and age to think a good forecast will allow you to avoid weather. When the boat that lost the rear bulkhead and the one that lost its keel both sunk in gale force conditions do you really think those skippers didn't know the forecast? When you are tooting along at 6 knots and the low pressure system is doing 20 knots you normally have few options but to deal with it and quite frankly that's usually not a big deal if the skipper is experienced and he has a well found boat.
> Yes your Hunter rates faster than the Pretorian 35 which should be expected as its much smaller but I can name many 35 footers that would leave you in the dust..spray..whatever but when it gets grumpy out there boat speed will be the last thing on your mind. Happy Holidays! Did you ever get that new engine?


A friend, who has chartered Hunters for many years , just got one of my 36 footers sailing. He said the 36 sails to windward far better than any Hunter he has ever chartered, without the flimsiness of the Hunter.


----------



## Brent Swain

SVAuspicious said:


> It's always interesting to reflect on reports from those out sailing.
> 
> Here is my interpretation.
> 
> In the first place look at the latitude and longitude. Granted my perspective may be different than most but the first thing that comes to mind for me is an Exocet missile between the Argentines and the Brits. That is some serious ocean.
> 
> Those sort of miles per day are respectable for a small crew with a lot to do. For a solo sailor they are just fine for the conditions. I like to do better but you can't always. We do better on delivery because our focus is different and we have more people power. Single-handed over long distances I one had a 10 mile day.
> 
> I'm not sure why taking a shower with long underwear on is a problem. How else can you reasonably clean socks and underwear offshore on most (not all) boats than showering in them? You do need at least two pairs of underwear....
> 
> One of the things that may not be apparent is that minor projects like the noted nav station light installation aren't a regular activity offshore, much less in high latitudes. We all have to do things we have to do (like the vane repair), but convenience work like the lighting project does mean the boat's motion allows that kind of work. Drill on marked spot? Check.


The new self contained LED lights should let one put off light repairs, until its convenient. I like the idea of self contained, independent from the main system, lights, etc.
My windvanes are so simple and robust ,they don't need repairing.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm through with this thread for a while - and maybe a few others. JonE was what made it fun.

He was the real deal. And he knew how to scruff - yet keep a sense of humor. He didn't take himself too seriously. That's very rare.

Listen to Jon. Sail like Jon.

I wish so much I could have met him.

Voile friend.


----------



## SloopJonB

Brent Swain said:


> Try it. Then try it with a metal boat. You will deform the plastic one , but have zero change on the metal one. You would break the rigging on the metal one first, long before making any measurable change.


I had hydraulics on the headstay and backstay of my lightly built Quarter Tonner and cranked them up lots of times with no shortening of the W/L or any other visible distortion.

It would take a very poorly built glass boat and a ridiculous amount of hydraulics to bend a boat visibly, let alone enough to alter its rated length.


----------



## Sleddriver

smackdaddy said:


> I'm through with this thread for a while - and maybe a few others. JonE was what made it fun.


Whoa! Don't leave for too long. I need the spice and vinegar to stay honest and alert! :crying

No disrespect meant for JonE tho, ...ever.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> Listen to Jon. Sail like Jon.
> 
> I wish so much I could have met him.
> 
> Voile friend.


Always did (and frequently got lambasted by you for it). He will be missed, greatly.


----------



## smackdaddy

I have been following these guys on YouTube for a while and really like their stuff...but I just found where they had to do an incredibly extensive refit to their 1989 Oyster 435 (same year as my Hunter) - which was a freakin' basket case:






Wide-spread osmosis/blisters, rotted bulkheads, delaminating interiors, rotted/leaking decks, leaking hatches, questionable chainplates, etc.

And the full refit series:





Blue water boat? I'm liking production boats more and more each day.

In the end, they did a wonderful job with the refit...but wow.


----------



## Faster

Skimmed a few of those vids, (the time lapse segment at the end of the last/launch episode is great) Nice job.. musta cost a bundle but I'm sure a fraction of what it might have here or in the UK.


----------



## robert sailor

I'm not getting your point Smack. Oysters to begin with are production boats just at the top of the pecking order. If you don't look after any boat no matter the quality it will become a basket case in short order especially if allowed to get wet and stay wet with fresh water. Maybe the guy bought it for a song and has the time and money to do a total refit. It rarely makes financial sense but in the end he has a nice boat that he can take anywhere. It's not a job for the budget folks or the weak hearted that's for sure. Kinda like throwing in a new engine on an older boat, makes no financial sense whatsoever but hopefully one owns it long enough to get some personal enjoyment out of the money spent. Boats are a bit like watches, a Timex tells the time just as well as a Rolex but the personal satisfaction and residual value in owning a Rolex seems to have a certain group always wanting to buy the Rolex. The Oyster has in the past been strongly associated with Rolex and attracts a similar buyer.


----------



## XSrcing

Keels don't fall off Rolexes.


----------



## robert sailor

That's an excellent observation because a Rolex is a watch.


----------



## outbound

Rolex is not the best parallel.
When the market folded in the 1980s I was offered the opportunity to buy a Submariner at less than 1/2 the face value. Before doing so called my dad who was a past president of NAACC ( national association of antique clock collectors ). He looked down at Rolex from a collectors point of view. Apparently, the value dramatically decreases if the device is not serviced by authorized Rolex shops and only Rolex parts used. Collectors like a more intimate relationship with their collections and not uncommonly do their own servicing. Given they can charge want they want for service they do. This means beyond purchase they are expensive to own if actually worn and used. Furthermore, to collectors the artifulness of the "complications" ( things not directly related to telling time like date/ moon phase etc.) are not "interesting". Lastly compared to other Swiss houses they are considered mass produced and without the more elegant uniqueness of design.
However, when told the price he told me to buy it. Their reputation is sound. It's been used for Marion to Bermuda going celestial several times and we got there.
Oyster has no such limitations in servicing. Unlike Rolex there are not many production boats who are better made or dramatically more valuable. Both are durable and do their respective functions well. However, Rolex is in the same hands and is not viewed as actively trying to destroy its prior well earned reputation.


----------



## robert sailor

Interesting comments. You may note I used "in the past" as I too believe the new owners have done huge damage to the brand. That aside I understand Smacks motivation to try and rebuild some contraversy but I can't understand his logic. ..you???


----------



## outbound

He seems to not accept the basics. Such as all boats are production boats except the rare one off. And you get what you paid for otherwise the company succumbs to market forces.


----------



## outbound

As an aside. Hinckley just bought Morris. Two production builders. Both with strong reputations and brand loyalty. Expect Hinckley to continue to go with offerings like the B50 and Morris continue to be aimed at the high end tradition days sailors (think Friendship) and small high end voyagers ( think Rustler, Outbound, Passport, small Oysters etc.). Still they are all production boats. Even a Lamborghini or Lotus suffers if ridden hard and put away wet.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?


I believe pretty much all boats are the same as far as being to sail the outer limits of coastal cruising out to say 200 miles out shore. It is kind of ridiculous to suggest that current builders and manufacturing methods are not resulting in good boats. You do have consider similar sizes and displacements between various models when comparing as it isn't fair to compare a 30' light boat to a 45' mid displacement boat.

The real argument really is about fit and finish and for the most part the boats that have higher fit and finish tend to be lower production boats. The combination of the fit and finish and lower production numbers really drives up the price of these boats. But, some people with these boats really need to feel they are paying a lot more money for something other than fit and finish.

And to me that is what these "blue water" type of threads are really about ........... feeling good about the money.

I just thought I would see how this "discussion" started.


----------



## SloopJonB

There's a little more to it than simply fit & finish. Things like bulkheads tabbed to the hull and not just set in goo in a slot in a liner. Winches that are properly sized, not the smallest that can be gotten away with - lots of things like that make an actual difference in a boat, not just in the cosmetics.


----------



## Don L

Yes, like I said that's the story people like to spin. Better doesn't mean something else isn't good enough.


----------



## robert sailor

Well Jeff H from this site wrote a very informative article about some production boats being just good enough, worth a read. Having said that I think your point is a reasonable one as much of what we purchase in life is just good enough for the job intended. Maybe it's a tool from Harbor Frieght or buying a cheap portable genset from China or Chinese outboard rather than a Honda or Yamaha which cost twice as much. We could buy cheaper dink made of PVC rather than Hypolon but most of us don't because we are willing to pay a premiem for higher quality. It is up to each individual to decide what is good enough when outfitting or purchasing a cruising boat. Quite naturally what is good enough for one sailor is not necessarily good enough for another and we see this in virtually all products. Maybe the voyager will make different decisions than a shorter time cruiser or someone wishing to cruise higher latitudes might have different idea on what boat is just good enough. I guess my point is that good enough will mean many different things to different people depending on their circumstances.


----------



## Scotty C-M

Well said, Robert. All boats are specific to circumstances. Knowledge of the circumstances of your sailing grounds and of the boat itself, combine in choosing the vessel that is the best fit for your use. The more informed you are, the better the choice for both of the sailing that you do, and the boat you do it in. Two people can look at the exact same set of data, and come up with two different craft. That's one of the fun things about sailing, and life.

As an aside, my wife and I were looking forward to going to a local "open house" boat show in Alameda today. I'ts raining out and we decided that it's just not worth the drive. She was laughing and asked "What kind of boat do you want to buy next?" We talked, and I replied that I love the boat we have now, and it fits perfectly with the kind of use we have in mind. Anything larger would be too big for us to comfortably handle (not to mention that we couldn't fit a larger boat into our slip), and too much money. Anything smaller wouldn't have the comforts we want. We love the style of our boat and it's sailing characteristics, including its' seaworthiness. This is the eighth boat we've owned in the 37 years we've been married! Most of those boats fit our needs at that time in our lives. Hope that you all have the boat of your dreams now, or in your futures!!


----------



## hannah2

What do the folks here at sailnet think of some of the great sailboat builders changing design. Take HR, they went from a true bluewater boat to an expensive coastal cruiser even to the high end rental market boat. Yes she is built strong enough to go offshore but HR punched out the ends of the boat for more comfort creature features and now have far less storage lockers needed for sound extended cruising. Did they do this because that's what the market wanted or did they just make a foolish design change? I look at Ovni when they were building 120 bluewater boats a year and then they changed design to double rudders and the company just a few years ago had only a few boats being built in the shop. Why is it that so many companies change design that many of us just won't sail offshore.

Cheers

Steve
SV RC LOUISE
Boreal 44


----------



## robert sailor

The reality is that most boats hardly leave the dock these days much less cross oceans and the builders know this. HR's biggest competitor are the boats they have built in the past years that can be purchased and refitted for far less than a new one. That's one of the drawbacks of building a high quality offshore yacht. HR is trying to attract a new buyer and I suspect they have far more information on that buyers wants and needs than you and I do. It's a tough market out there, most buyers are attracted by size and lower prices and HR does not fit that profile. They have always concentrated on higher quality and the higher prices. In a recent British yachting mag a poll suggested that HR was still considered one of the top brands to sailors world wide.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> That aside I understand Smacks motivation to try and rebuild some contraversy but I can't understand his logic. ..you???





outbound said:


> He seems to not accept the basics. Such as all boats are production boats except the rare one off. And you get what you paid for otherwise the company succumbs to market forces.


Yes, it's true, neither of you can seem to grasp my motivations nor logic nor the basics of this thread. And that's okay.

The bottom line is - _there is no controversy_. Cat-A production boats as discussed on sailing forums which traditionally encompass BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas are perfectly sufficient for "blue water" cruising as 99% of the cruising world cruises.

Furthermore, as clearly shown above, ALL boats, regardless of brand (Oysters and Hunters alike) experience various problems with build, materials, quality, longevity, etc. across the brand and fleet over the years.

Knowing these two things, it then becomes a conversation about the various trade-offs you have to evaluate in your calculus of whether to buy a traditionally labeled "production boat" or a traditionally labeled "blue water boat"...understanding that both can do the fundamental job, with various distinctions in various areas. Nothing more than that.

It's really very easy and self-evident. I can think of few things less controversial.


----------



## outbound

Don. Many people have said this in many different ways but perhaps specifics may help demonstrate the Devils in the details. Will be self referenced but because I know my boat can't see an alternative so apologize.
I have integral tanks. They require no maintenance and will last the life of the boat. On prior vessels I did not. From personal experience can tell regardless of material and design others have a finite life expectancy. Expensive detail and not evident on the boat show walk through. 
I have solid teak on fiddles and draws and all edges. Those bent curved veneers look great at the boat show but when dented worn through or the glue fails not so much. Can't just sand and refinish. No difference at the boat show. Big difference ten years down the line.
I have corian counters and soles in the heads. Again visually not much different than laminate but refinishable and more durable to wear and tear.
The veneers I have are matched and seem to have come from one teak log. They are thick enough to be refinished with plenty left over. The wood is finished inside and out not just the visual parts. This means less expansion and contraction. No cracks nor rot down the line. Dovetailing is used where appropiate.The cushions are ultraseude and treated and removable. The foam is of different densities as required for comfort. 
In short all this is cosmetics. Meaningless as regards sea worthiness. Meaninful as to comfort. Meaningful as too what the boat will look like a decade or two down the road. Look at a old hinckley, cheribini, Hylas, Oyster, passport etc. then look at a recent benehaha. 
The money spent on 316 instead of 304, oversized tinned wiring in thoughtful runs installed in accordance to best practice, winches, best hatches etc. yes no different in initial function big difference down the line. Note I've not pointed out issues of structural integrity such as stick built verses liner, lay ups, bulkheads, rigging, rudder and keel execution where offshore security after years of cruising are even more evident. I just wanted to point out is even discussing infill you do get what you pay for in general. Perhaps even more so now than in the past. Smack referred to current mentality of "throw away" boats. His boat was built in 89 I think. Perhaps he's right times have changed. Still some choose to not go that route. Is there a difference in long term costs? I don't know. In past it seemed builders at all levels in the market did not view vessels as "throw away". Now I'm not too sure. Nor do I know what the residual value will be of current boats. Suspect well built vessels will continue to have more. And of course some want to avoid hitting the throw away point hundreds of miles from landfall.
You pay your money you make your choice. Just like in land life it's often expensive to be poor. Sure wish I hit powerball.


----------



## outbound

Smack going to get personal but I still love you . 
Bob P has been posting the log of an intrepid salty sailor doing the clock by way of the Capes on a Baba which I think is of the same vintage as your boat. Which would you rather be on?

If you were going to snowbird to the eastern carribean from New England and could choose my boat or Hannah's or a 2013 Hunter with Chris telling you it's going to be bumpy which would you prefer? 

If the choice was a new Hunter or your boat?

Come on be honest.

Old or new you get what you pay for and coastal designs even those with CatA have a different focus than purpose built voyagers. Even more so as time goes on.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> You pay your money you make your choice.


I started reading that long thread but stopped when it was apparent it was the same old same old. Far as I could tell the first half was just about fit and finish.

You talk like an Outbound is not expensive, which of course is not true for most people (except to people that could get a Passport instead). You have a nice boat, but in my opinion are definitely one who looks for justification to having spent the money.

BTW - lots of things some people use to trash "production" boats is ******** and just shows that they really know little about the boats they are working so hard to trash. I've always been amazed at how internet people who have never been on my boat seem to know more about its' construction than me.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack going to get personal but I still love you .
> Bob P has been posting the log of an intrepid salty sailor doing the clock by way of the Capes on a Baba which I think is of the same vintage as your boat. Which would you rather be on?
> 
> If you were going to snowbird to the eastern carribean from New England and could choose my boat or Hannah's or a 2013 Hunter with Chris telling you it's going to be bumpy which would you prefer?
> 
> If the choice was a new Hunter or your boat?
> 
> Come on be honest.
> 
> Old or new you get what you pay for and coastal designs even those with CatA have a different focus than purpose built voyagers. Even more so as time goes on.


This is exactly what I mean. You just can't get your head around it. Interesting.

I could have bought pretty much anything, Out. I bought my Hunter - on purpose. You really need to try to learn to be okay with that.

I don't envy your boat or Hannah's boat, Out.

I don't need your boat or Hannah's boat, Out.

I don't even want your boat or Hannah's boat, Out.

I'm happy you guys have what you have. And I'm happy with my Hunter. And we'll probably end up in many of the same places while we're out cruising. So it's all good.

I honestly think you guys need to stop feeling so insecure about your boats. Just enjoy them. Like I said - it's not that hard.


----------



## outbound

Don
Have owned cape dory, PSC ,and tayana. Have had a share or frequent crew on Pearson, Catalina, very old hinckley. Restored and repurposed a one off built for the OSTAR. Sold a lot of what I owned to do the Outbound. My opinion is informed by having to redo chainplates, replace tanks, re wire, treat blisters, rebed deck hardware, replace winches, re rig, refinish interiors, redo wet exhausts, pay for engine rebuild work, redo heads, fix water migration and rotten balsa in a deck. Much of my boat budget has been sweat equity. My current budget reflects 40 years of saving. We might not be that different my friend as you think. This is my first and last new boat. So far this boat has as many miles off the shelf as on it. Praise the lord I'm finally a cruiser. Have become more monomaniacal as time goes on according to the wife but for how the boat is used and from past experience know for a certainty the expense of this boat is justified. 
Don if I wasn't going to voyage, not be near travel lifts, live on the boat, mostly single when inshore your point of view may have some merit. Fortunately, for my life going forward it does not.


----------



## SloopJonB

robert sailor said:


> HR's biggest competitor are the boats they have built in the past years that can be purchased and refitted for far less than a new one.


That is one of the biggest reasons why the new boat market in general is such a hard slog for the builders - the products that have been made since glass construction started have been so durable they largely built themselves out of business.

That whole topic came up back in the 80's when new boat sales started to slide - "we're competing with our own used boats".


----------



## outbound

Oh well. Peas and carrots. Sure hope to do G&Ts with you. Guess I'm too goal directed and attempt to be objective. Can't get it my head it's comes off as judgmental. My bad. Of course I know you are happy with your Hunter. She's a fine boat. Still, you didn't answer what was posited. I have no trouble saying Bob's cf cutters would be a much better choice for me and how I use my boat than my current boat. Can my boat do what those boats do. I think so but also think the cf cutters are better for that purpose. 

I don't need a cf cutter.

I do want a cf cutter but I want a lot of things that don't make the sunsets prettier.

I don't envy the owner of the cf cutters. ( envy is one of the deadly sins and wastes energy- rather be delighted for him and Bob)

and of course I realize if you wanted a different boat you would have gotten it.

Still think coastal boats are better coastal boats, bw boats are better bw boats and race boats are generally faster. Seems obvious so we must agree to disagree.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> My opinion is informed by having to redo chainplates, replace tanks, re wire, treat blisters, rebed deck hardware, replace winches, re rig, refinish interiors, redo wet exhausts, pay for engine rebuild work, redo heads, fix water migration and rotten balsa in a deck.


Gee my 15 year old boat has not needed any of that. You must be right, your boats have all been "better" than mine. :crying


----------



## hannah2

Don0190 said:


> Gee my 15 year old boat has not needed any of that. You must be right, your boats have all been "better" than mine. :crying


Hey Don, Would you go offshore with 15 year old chainplates, Would you cross an ocean with 15 year old chainplates?

Cheers


----------



## Don L

See now you guys are back to playing your game of looking for reasons why "production" boats aren't worthy. Now you must be suggesting that their chain plates aren't good enough.

You spent a lot on money. I get it that you need to find reasons why.


----------



## hannah2

smackdaddy said:


> This is exactly what I mean. You just can't get your head around it. Interesting.
> 
> I could have bought pretty much anything, Out. I bought my Hunter - on purpose. You really need to try to learn to be okay with that.
> 
> I don't envy your boat or Hannah's boat, Out.
> 
> I don't need your boat or Hannah's boat, Out.
> 
> I don't even want your boat or Hannah's boat, Out.
> 
> I'm happy you guys have what you have. And I'm happy with my Hunter. And we'll probably end up in many of the same places while we're out cruising. So it's all good.
> 
> I honestly think you guys need to stop feeling so insecure about your boats. Just enjoy them. Like I said - it's not that hard.


Smack, I'm not all that insecure about my boat though I have my moments. But I am a bit insecure about your boat.:devil:2 boat:


----------



## outbound

Infer ( perhaps incorrectly) Don thinks it's solely about justifying expense. Feeling loquacious tonight and at the risk of being argumentative will say it's not. Rather past experience creates bias and being human is reflected in decisions.
I looked closely at X yachts. They are extremely well made and great boats. Once had keel bolt troubles so for last boat wanted to avoid them. Also wanted to limit draft.
Looked at Morris. Price scared me off new. Maintenance requirements with external wood troubling even with used. From past experience in boom main furling scary and self tacking head sails don't compute as an advantage for the way the boat is used.
Looked at J boats. Wife didn't like it. My focus on performance had no meaning for her. She said didn't fit.
Looked at HR. We both didn't like center cockpits abet for different reasons. Admit didn't get good looks at aft cockpit but broker in Connecticut was difficult. 
Did walk through on IP. Neither of us liked interior.
Also went back and forth thinking about Boreal. Surprisely the daggerboards created worry for the bride.
All these boats cost more than mine. All are great boats. None fit.
Before the serious search spent time talking with cruisers and yard workers as well as a friend who was in the boat business in the past. Was reluctant to make the jump but when told what was on the short list ( mostly given above) to paraphrase the universal opinion was " if you are really going to go offshore repetitively for prolonged periods of time you will be happier with an offshore boat. If you are going to be liveaboard think about the transition and what creature comforts you and especially your wife want. Is it an environment fostering domestic happiness and ease of daily living. Also be certain you will not flip the boat in a few years. If you are not definitive on these things its a waste of money. Go with a benehaha"


----------



## hannah2

Don0190 said:


> See now you guys are back to playing your game of looking for reasons why "production" boats aren't worthy. Now you must be suggesting that their chain plates aren't good enough.
> 
> You spent a lot on money. I get it that you need to find reasons why.


Heck Don, I own a production boat. My comment was all chain plates should be replaced no matter how expensive and well built the boat is. About every 8 years for a boat doing serious passages or racing is recommended.

Production boats are plenty worthy if one takes care of them. Come to think of it all boats are worthy if one takes care of them.


----------



## outbound

Don you are right I misspoke it was plywood not balsa core that had the water ingress. But I guess I wasn't clear. All that work was done on prior used PRODUCTION boats I purchased and rehabbed.

BTW many things break or you take a tumble when it's not stormy. It's nice to keep them to a minimium.


----------



## Don L

hannah2 said:


> Production boats are plenty worthy if one takes care of them. Come to think of it all boats are worthy if one takes care of them.


Agreed and stated many times during the thread. If everyone would agree this thread could finally die.


----------



## outbound

I gave it a "like" right off given its o so true.

All boats are pretty NONE do everything well.

If every one can accept that our mutual work is done.


----------



## hannah2

outbound said:


> I gave it a "like" right off given its o so true.
> 
> All boats are pretty NONE do everything well.
> 
> If every one can accept that our mutual work is done.


Work is never done! :boat :

Outbound, from another post. I bet your Outbound is way more expensive than my Boreal.

Cheers


----------



## outbound

Send you a PM. You got in early and had a really good deal. We also considered a few grand for back and forth and to deal with a company with no US agents.


----------



## hannah2

outbound said:


> Send you a PM. You got in early and had a really good deal. We also considered a few grand for back and forth and to deal with a company with no US agents.


GOD OUTBOUND! I can't believe your boat cost 1.7 million!

Only fooling, hey, your PM came through without any writing on it.

send again.


----------



## Don L

Don't know why it is so secret. it's pretty easy to look up boat prices.


----------



## robert sailor

Actually Smack there are no blue water production sail boats, that's just something you made up to create contraversy . There are just production built sailboats, some built better than others. There are cheaper production built boats and more expensive production built boats but no blue water built boats. You can sail anyone of them offshore, that's been happening for many years. There really is no contraversy. You don't need any sort of CE rating either, just hop in and go.


----------



## Capt Len

So, it may be all about what cost what and bang for the buck and self satisfaction /defence of whatcha got. If I may,(just got my net going again) go back to the comparision to watches and what they are used for. Bought a Rolex on the streets of Bankok (11 dollars) 'ell of a deal. Looked good, kept good time.(for navigation /distance/time) for runs to Starbucks and Home depot Actually survived ,unmarked, a collision with a side walk due to LNLOC (late night loss of control) Obviously a BW watch in spite of it's production heritage. Served me well until I no longer needed to know what time it is.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Actually Smack there are no blue water production sail boats, that's just something you made up to create contraversy.


Oh?

bluewaterboats.org: Full List of Sailboats

There's one of us trying as hard as he can to create (and misspell) "controversy". It ain't me.

Look the debate's been around longer than even you. It is what it is.

I just settled it. That's all.


----------



## robert sailor

Smack your spell check is better than mine, thanks. I hate these little tablets as they keep changing what you type at times but back to the subject. Yes lots of people use the term blue water but there are no blue water production boats just production boats. Your giving yourself a lot of credit for solving this big controversy which really doesn't exist. Look at it another way, one would think that any boat that crossed oceans is by default a blue water boat,right? Makes sense to me! So take your pick starting from a little Cat 27 on up as they have all done it. If your topic was are there better choices for voyaging boats than a Cat 27 then you might have a point.


----------



## hannah2

Jesus Smack, That list is 100 years old. I wonder how many of those boats still exist? But yes most are blue water boats. I didn't notice is your Hunter on the list? My Boreal is not on the list. 

And Don You may have a hard time finding price on a Boreal. Unless you visit the yard.


----------



## smackdaddy

hannah2 said:


> Jesus Smack, That list is 100 years old. I wonder how many of those boats still exist? But yes most are blue water boats. I didn't notice is your Hunter on the list? My Boreal is not on the list.
> 
> And Don You may have a hard time finding price on a Boreal. Unless you visit the yard.


Dude - you're preaching to the choir.

But go through the "what boat should I buy for blue water cruising" threads and see how many times it's referenced.

There's also John Neal's list:

http://www.mahina.com/cruise.html

Boreals and Outbounds are on it (and even the Oyster 82!) - but Babas aren't. And yet...

Lists are lists. So what?


----------



## outbound

Yes Don but not what people paid for them.


----------



## Don L

hannah2 said:


> And Don You may have a hard time finding price on a Boreal.





outbound said:


> Yes Don but not what people paid for them.


Guess it really must be a deep dark secret. Not about money at all is it when it has to be secret? :wink

When people ask me about boat work I tell them "There is nothing wrong with boats that the application of cash can't fix."


----------



## outbound

smackdaddy said:


> We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing. Furthermore, in my blissful ignorance, I'd say that quite a few sailors inhabit this aether plain.
> 
> Sure you can buy a Hinckley or a Brewer or a Tayana or Cheoy Lee and take them wherever the hell you wanna. But where exactly can you take a Catalina, a Hunter, an Irwin, a Beneteau, a Jenneau, even.....yes....even.....a MacGregor (dum-dum-duuuuum).
> 
> Do you make sure you never leave sight of land in these boats? Do you keep land 50 miles away? 100 miles? Do you run from a 40 knot squall? Do you live in morbid fear of encountering a freak 50 knot storm - where you're cool with it in an S&S design from 1927? Can you "outrun" such storms in these "new fangled keel" boats - where in a full-keel Formasa you just heave to and ride it out with a Dark-n-Stormy and a tiparillo in your hand?
> 
> Giu had a good write up comparing Beneteaus/Catalinas/Hunters from a "sailability" standpoint. And CD has had some great input regarding the capabilities of various production boats. And we've seen the exhaustive list of blue water boats with great input from Cam and Jeff_H.
> 
> Furthermore, Val and others have pointed out the critical elements in any heavy weather situation is actually the skipper and crew. And this makes a heap of sense too.
> 
> So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?


This was the original post. It remains a very good question. However, conversation has become too diffuse. I think in large part due to a lack of definition of terms.
What is a production boat? Is it Bob's CF cutters where 4 were made? The large ketch he designed for PSC? Is there a number of hulls required? A cost? Ability to customize?
What production boats are under discussion? Small enough to be run by a cruising couple? Boats requiring pro crew? Racer/cruisers?
Are we discussing boats still in production? Old boats? All boats?
What material are we talking about? Grp, Al, core, aramid, CF, wood epoxy?
Are we including cost and difficulty of ownership?
Are we including non sailing issues? Living aboard?, docking?, maintenance, steaming, hot climates? Cold?
Are we including draft ? Air? Water?
What size are we discussing? 
Where is the boat used? No access to yards/marinas/ sailmakers? Full access?

One would hope once terms are defined a more focused conversation may result.


----------



## SVAuspicious

hannah2 said:


> What do the folks here at sailnet think of some of the great sailboat builders changing design. Take HR, they went from a true bluewater boat to an expensive coastal cruiser even to the high end rental market boat.


You're going to have to help me here. There was a big change from the Enderlein boats to the Frers boats. Speed went up and seakeeping is similar or better. I sail these boats of all vintages on delivery regularly. All good. I bought one.



hannah2 said:


> Yes she is built strong enough to go offshore but HR punched out the ends of the boat for more comfort creature features and now have far less storage lockers needed for sound extended cruising.


Really? We have two empty lockers on Auspicious.



outbound said:


> I have solid teak on fiddles and draws and all edges. Those bent curved veneers look great at the boat show but when dented worn through or the glue fails not so much. Can't just sand and refinish. No difference at the boat show. Big difference ten years down the line.


Agree in principal. Curves aren't bad. That's what steam boxes are for. Curves at corners represent a minor improvement in safety.



outbound said:


> In short all this is cosmetics. Meaningless as regards sea worthiness. Meaninful as to comfort. Meaningful as too what the boat will look like a decade or two down the road. Look at a old hinckley, cheribini, Hylas, Oyster, passport etc. then look at a recent benehaha.


Agree.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> This was the original post. It remains a very good question. However, conversation has become too diffuse. I think in large part due to a lack of definition of terms.
> What is a production boat? Is it Bob's CF cutters where 4 were made? The large ketch he designed for PSC? Is there a number of hulls required? A cost? Ability to customize?
> What production boats are under discussion? Small enough to be run by a cruising couple? Boats requiring pro crew? Racer/cruisers?
> Are we discussing boats still in production? Old boats? All boats?
> What material are we talking about? Grp, Al, core, aramid, CF, wood epoxy?
> Are we including cost and difficulty of ownership?
> Are we including non sailing issues? Living aboard?, docking?, maintenance, steaming, hot climates? Cold?
> Are we including draft ? Air? Water?
> What size are we discussing?
> Where is the boat used? No access to yards/marinas/ sailmakers? Full access?
> 
> One would hope once terms are defined a more focused conversation may result.


Again, that OP of mine was many years ago...and was more formed by the _mass confusion_ surrounding the issue back then. Since that time the question has really been answered satisfactorily.

Here is the summation of that answer as shown in my wildly popular "Production Boats Fit For Blue Water" thread on CF:



> Up until now, it's been a never-ending debate. And I've enjoyed discussing it in some other threads like "The Yard Guys", "Production Boats and The Limits" and "Rudder Failures". But I thought it best to cut to the chase. So here it is:
> 
> Modern Category A "Production Boats" - also referred to in forums as "BeneHunterLinas" and "Bleach Bottles" and other interesting names - are built for and perfectly suited to bluewater cruising. Period.
> 
> Now - there is a lot of debatable minutiae in there, and a lot of subjective viewpoints surrounding it, which is why the debate has continued way past its "sell by" date - but that's fact. "Production Boats" are NOT just "coastal cruisers" as some would have us believe. There's far too much evidence out there to debunk these kinds of claims.
> 
> My point in starting this thread is simply to provide some factual accuracy to what can be very silly and misleading arguments. So, I'd like this thread to be dedicated to examples of the many production boats out there very happily and safely cruising blue water.
> 
> For instance, you have years of very reliable information from the ARC as to how various boats perform, you have members around here like MarkJ who has circumnavigated on his Bene and is still going, and you have many other sailors out there like Michael of Sequitur who have successfully taken their "Production Boats" to some very challenging places (e.g. - Cape Horn). Then you also have very knowledgeable guys like Polux who can walk you through the design and construction advantages of 150 different modern boats.
> 
> Now, if you are one who believes that ONLY the "traditional bluewater brands" are suited to this type of cruising, you should probably find another thread. This one ain't for you.
> 
> But, if you're considering a boat for off-shore cruising, and have an even remotely open mind, hopefully you'll find some good facts in this thread as it goes to help you make a rational decision. Because when weighing cost and safety - you can easily go down an expensive, or even dangerous path, if you only hear one side of the story.


The majority of the questions you raise above are really just the minutiae I mention in relation to the core issue of Cat-A rated production boats (BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas) - or rehashing of terminology that has already been nailed down. So it's really far more simple than you're trying to make it.

And on this...



outbound said:


> Go with a benehaha"


I suppose you're okay with someone using a term like "Outbland" to describe your boat? If not, this points to a fundamental bias that continues to fuel this debate.

As mentioned above, it's clear that you just don't get it. And that's okay. At least Hannah's making progress.


----------



## outbound

Smack once went to a boat show with a friend when I was boat shopping he declared v42s as dark, small and cramped. He said my future boat was small for size, had a unfriendly cockpit, and too much spaghetti on deck. He thought my future boat looked industrial and not like a yacht. He thought my considering the boat the height of folly as it was a design of greater than a decade of age with PHRF of 90. 

Sure feel free. Call it an outhouse46 or what ever you want. I thought to include Hanse, Jenneau, and other mass production builders. Give me an alternative and we'll use that. Humorous names doesn't change my reality or thinking about desirable features for offshore boats. Ego issues have no place in discussions of passagemaking sailboats. 

BTW Hannah has known my wife since high school. Off line our thinking is very congruent. He's more adept at posting and we tag team a bit.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Sure feel free. Call it an outhouse46 or what ever you want. I thought to include Hanse, Jenneau, and other mass production builders. Give me an alternative and we'll use that. Humorous names doesn't change my reality or thinking about desirable features for offshore boats. Ego issues have no place in discussions of passagemaking sailboats.


I typically don't disparage boats - regardless of brand (except maybe a particular BS Yacht every once in a while). I just don't think it's necessary.

As for what boats one wants to include or not, that's really up to them. I've just focused this discussion on the general zeitgeist that has surrounded it for years. As you see above, I personally do include Jeanneaus and Bavarias ("BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas") - where others have gone the more traditional, though more US-centric, route of "BeneHunterLinas".

It really doesn't matter much to the gist of the debate as these are all in relatively the same strata price-wise and market-segment-wise.

I don't know a lot about Hanse. I've seen a few and they look nice. I'd be interested to hear from people who've sailed them as to where they fit in all this.


----------



## outbound

Agreed.
Glad you are being more objective. Firmly believe no production boat is without considerable merit. Otherwise very few are made. To this extent market forces clearly apply. Where we disagree is that current market forces stress intermittent coastal use with fewer current offerings stressing passagemaking features. Unfortunately you can't have it all. There is a conflict. All boats are compromises. There is a spectrum on which any boat sits. If I was looking for a boat only to winter in the carribean then be hauled for hurricane season my boat would be a stupid choice. Or to do high latitude ( be better in Al). Or as a charter boat. Or to do the ICW. Nor is it an appropriate day sailor. It can't even be trucked. It's slow compared to current racers. I can list numerous things it is not optimized for. But on the spectrum of offshore boats it's a good mom and pop cruiser.
Please note throughout this discussion I'm limiting to boats in current production as much as possible.


----------



## jorgenl

whatabout TayaValiBabas? ;-)


----------



## Faster

jorgenl said:


> whatabout TayaValiBabas? ;-)


BS hates 'em


----------



## bobperry

Good job Jorgen!


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's a Hanse 445 that did some fairly impressive blue water voyaging...from Germany to Oz:

Charm Offensive is sailing the world | Sailing a Hanse 445 from Europe to Australia










You should go through the list of things with this boat brought up about production boats in general that many think disqualify them from blue water service (tankage, hand-holds, cockpit size, hardware spec, hull shape and material, sea-berths, etc.) and see if this Hanse should have been disqualified from making such a serious passage. That would be fun.

Here's another article that might help you get your hands around the "what exactly is a production boat" thing:

Twelve Top Bluewater Cruising Boats - Sail Magazine

If you're reading through this nodding your head when you see Amel and Hylas and HR - those are not the "production boats" that are typically talked about in these debates (semantics notwithstanding). Those are the "blue water boats". When you feel your gut begin to burn at the inclusion on this list of BeneJeneBavaLinas - then you know you're in the ballpark.


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> whatabout TayaValiBabas? ;-)


Those are not production boats. They are not even "blue water" boats as typically defined. Those are Bob Perry Boats (BPBs). Huge difference. There is no debate about the ability of BPBs to sail any body of water anywhere on the planet. They are a class of their own as proven over decades. So you'll notice it really never comes up in these discussions. It's just a given.

Therefore, let's stick to the more questionable brands of "blue water" boats like Hylas, Boreal, Outbound, Moody, Oyster, HR, Amel, etc.

Heh.


----------



## bobperry

You tell 'em Smackers.


----------



## jorgenl

*Hy*las, *B*oreal, *Out*bound, Moody, Oyster, HR, A*Me*l, ?


----------



## robert sailor

Everyone has opinions and that's all fine and good. Some folks base their opinions on personal experience and others on what they read or heard from a friend.

I have personally owned 7 sailboats and used 4 of them sailing offshore. I have expressed a bit of negativity towards full liner boats and it didn't come off the Internet. .I owned a brand new 29 ft. Racer/cruiser and I screwed up coming into a dock in high winds and gave the boat a good bump. No external damage but the next day I noticed my rigging was loose. Had it looked at and was told I had broken the bond between the liner and hull. The repairs were made but no warranty as the builder said you just can't look at things without tearing damn near everything apart and no one wants to pay for that. He expressed a bit of a dim view on liner built boats which I now carry.

When most of the other cruisers were wanting to own heavy full keel boats I was reading Dashew and deciding on buying a well built racer/cruiser for our first offshore experience. There was no Internet in those days and information was sketchy, like the Internet now, lol..anyways I chose a C&C 36 and headed to Mexico/Hawaii/Vancouver. The boat turned out to be "good enough" but I had to haul it in San Francisco and have the rudder bearings rebuilt as well as the rear bulkhead reinforced. The builder there told me the boat wasn't designed for the 45 knot winds and 20 ft seas it had been put thru. On the way back from Hawaii we endured 2 gales and cracked a bulkhead. I laid on the floor watching the head door moving up and down around 3/4". It was clear to me that the boat was just too flexible, time for more research. 

The next boat was a C S36T and there was no comparison with the C&C. The CS had fully tabbed in bulkheads and was just a much better built boat. What I didn't like was the shallow bilges. On the way back from Hawaii you have close to a week of beating into the trades and that year we had compressed trades with apparant winds of 25-30 knots. The bow pretty much stayed underwater and the top of the anchor locker allowed water to enter the bilges but because we were heeled over and the bilges so shallow all the water ended up coming up the side and soaking the wood and stored food. Every hour I would hove to and pump the bilges, what a pain in the ass. The rest of the boat was excellent. The next time out I chose a Tartan 44, good old S&S design and it was an excellent choice, built very well with a proper keel stub that allowed a real bilge. You could be beating into 30 knot winds and 15 ft seas and you never heard a creak or groan, just a great boat.

So my point is this, all the boats I have taken offshore over a period of over 10 years have all been production boats leaning towards the racer/cruiser side..They were not the cheapest boats but neither were they expensive. I have over the years become somewhat opinionated on the subject. I look at some of the new entry level boats and find some of them quite well designed for long term offshore use but by and large most of them are not. I also understand why they are not and quite simply the market for these boats is for local sailing and dockside entertaining, not offshore use. 

Guys like Outbound and others are making informed choices, most often based on experience. One of the most important components of a good offshore boat is good storage and i dont mean space. Good storage costs money and doesnt come standard on the entry level boats.None of us will debate or argue for a minute that damn near any boat can be sailed offshore as long as the sailor is skilled but given a choice why would you? After you have been out long enough you will see damn near everything from 20 footers to ragged out xo race boats that cross oceans all the time but are these sailors making wise choices?? Maybe that's all they can afford and that is cool, I get it and it helps a lot when your young and your frontal lobes are not fully developed, LOL


----------



## hannah2

Robert, 
Really a great post. I think a lot of us agree with what you posted. I'm of the opinion that most boats can make crossings even sail around the world. I'm the nervous guy who loves to sail across oceans and even knowing I could make it in any of the boats you mentioned I would be on edge even more than I am now knowing the things you mentioned could go wrong. I want to put myself, my wife and sometimes crew in the strongest position of survival possible. Queens Birthday storms do happen! That's why I want a boat like Bob designs, like outbound's boat or my boat. I'm lucky to own such a boat, one I can sail without the added fear that my chances go up of failure in the "what can go wrong will go wrong." Remember I said added fear all boats should keep you on edge while making passage just not as much for some boats. I also realize that not everyone can own such a boat as a Valiant or an Outbound. That should never discourage anyone from living their dream and sailing a Hunter or a Benny toy where they want to go. But I want sailors to know they have more possibility of playing with fire when they sail these boats across an ocean. 

My biggest gripe with a lot of questionable off shore boats are the owners. I see just to many, not all of them living on a budget where they can't put the proper money into their boats to keep them as seaworthy as possible. To start with their boats are questionable in a major storm and the added disaster of not taking care of your boat just adds up to a maybe disaster. I know that a lot of the boats that didn't make it in the Queens birthday storm were true blue water boats but I'd take my chances in a true blue water boat better than one that really is not up to the ultimate situation that we as sailors may face one day. 

I'm not here to put anyone's boat down but I think with 40 or so years of sailing hard I think my opinions and that's all they are can help others in making a good choice on a boat.

Cheers

Steve
SV RC LOUISE
Boreal 44


----------



## Don L

hannah2 said:


> That should never discourage anyone from living their dream and sailing a Hunter or a Benny toy where they want to go.


Was that a compliment disguised as an insult, or an insult disguised as a compliment?


----------



## robert sailor

I've befriended all sorts of couples in all sorts of sailboats over the years and all of them crossed oceans. One young couple had a 26 ft woody and lived on beans and rice and the odd fish they caught or speared. They were a delight to spend time with. The rigging on that boat was original and I damn near wrote a check so they could replace it but they were lucky and made it to New Zealand where they would make a few bucks to get it done there. I met 2 young couples sailing on a 25 foot boat built for lake sailing and they too were New Zealand bound. I helped them get their little Atomic 4 engine going that hadn't run for almost a year, what fun they were. Those days it was common to see young couples sailing on a shoe string but not so much these days.
Even then I would not have risked sailing open oceans in those boats but they all made it. Yes the Queens Birthday Storm, that was a bugger for sure. Looking at pictures of one boat that was rolled and pitchpoled, what a site with the mast wrapped around the hull. Weather is not always completely predictable even these days. We were about 30 miles back from Nui when the wind started to really pick up and the forecast had been for 20 knots so I felt it was not going to amount to much...boy was I wrong. Within a couple of hours the wind was a steady 45 gusting to 60. I got hold of Kerri Kerri radio in NZ and asked him what was going on, a little convergence zone he said. Asked him how it was looking ahead of us and he replied that there was another boat 25 miles ahead of us that had been knocked down 3 times. Anyways we were lucky, it was on our tail and we were making 7 to 8 knots bare poles plus the seas were not that high. It wasn't long and we were in the Lee of the island so biggest wind I have sailed in but the seas were not bad. Needed to wear my dive mask to see anything. Always nice to have a boat you trust. If you have the money your choices really expand but there are good boats out there for most budgets. Better to go smaller if your budget is tight, cheaper and safer in the end.


----------



## smackdaddy

You guys enjoy sailing your Queens Birthday Storm boats. I'll just sit here on my Hunter with a scotch in my hand and roll my eyes.


----------



## hannah2

Don, I said it exactly as I said it. You are welcome to think anyway you want. That's why your here if I'm not mistaken.

Smack, I think you said it perfectly, the last sentence was priceless.

Robert, was that the big squash of 2008 out of Nui?

cheers


----------



## robert sailor

Smack I understand your feelings but rolling your eyes is sorta part of being a dockside sailor. Now if you were out there you'd have a Clint Eastwood squint and we could take you more seriously. Enjoy your drink.


----------



## robert sailor

Nope not 2008, it was the little squish of 2002/2003


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> Smack I understand your feelings but rolling your eyes is sorta part of being a dockside sailor. Now if you were out there you'd have a Clint Eastwood squint and we could take you more seriously. Enjoy your drink.


Maybe - but thinking your "blue water" boat will safely carry you through a storm like that with Clint Eastwood ease is a level of hubris that is far more ridiculous (and dangerous) than anything I'll ever say.

So you and whoever else your "we" is feel free to not take me seriously. I could care less. I'll watch the weather and enjoy my Hunter and scotch as I watch you squint into oblivion.


----------



## robert sailor

Ha ha ha!! Sometimes you are so silly Smack.(wink) Aren't you the guy that loves to poke the dog with a stick. Don't be so quick to take the bait, wink, wink. And seriously enjoy your scotch.


----------



## bobperry

What is a "dockside sailor"?

I know sailors with lots of offshore miles on them who are great survivors but lousy sailors.


----------



## robert sailor

Yup, for sure Mr. Perry, pretty common actually, lots of offshore sailors have many more survival skills than sailing skills which I guess is not so bad actually. Dockside sailor I just sort of made up as I knew if Smack really was on his boat he would be at the dock.


----------



## Bleemus

Dockside sailor = more time in the bar than on the ocean. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bobperry

Robert: You need to read more carefully . Smacks spends a lot of time on his boat. But if you want to tun this into an internet dick measuring contest between guys with "hide behind" fake names then be my guest. I know who Smackers is. You could be a 14 year old with pimples in his mother's basement. I think you know who I am.


----------



## outbound

Smack I argue with you but I hope you know it's with true respect. Think you're among the white hats.
BS not so much.

BTW think miles traveled by itself doesn't immediately confer respect. Have done passage with a pro captain with many miles. Couldn't wait for him to get off the boat. Learned nothing and neither did he but I think he hasn't learned anything in some decades. Passage was helpful in gaining some confidence in myself. Nuff said.


----------



## robert sailor

RP I don't think Smack needs help, he's a big boy. As to him spending time on his boat, I'm sure he does.. My comments on him being at the dock at are directly related to him not having an engine. If you like poking the dog with a stick from time to time you have to man up and laugh when it comes your way every now and then. But how did you find out I was living in Grandma's basement?? Lol


----------



## bobperry

Robert:
I stalked you.

I hear you. I like to poke the dog to once and a while so I've always been far game for the same treatment.


----------



## robert sailor

Good come back RP I can see why you have so many friends here. Lots of people like to dish it out but have extreme difficulty in taking a joke. Life is too short.


----------



## smackdaddy

How long were you without your engine robert? Did it make you a "dockside sailor".

I don't "poke dogs with sticks". I smack those proverbial "dogs" across the snout with said rhetorical stick - then do it again when they stand and start growling. I repeat until they go back to grandma's basement and lie back down quietly. Very different tactic than what you describe.

So don't get me started.

If you've got comments or ideas that relate to the merits of production boats, speak up. If you want to take personal shots and/or try to compare blue water wienies to try to substantiate a ridiculous argument, expect the stick.


----------



## robert sailor

Wow what a response Smack, your obviously a very tough guy who gets his jollys beating dogs with sticks. Grow up and learn to not take yourself so seriously. My Daddy used to remind me that growing old was inevitable but growing up was optional. To answer your question prior to your tirade, we lost the engine enroute across the Atlantic and sat on the hook for the better part of 3 months before getting repowered. I guess you could say we were hookside sailors for that time period.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> To answer your question prior to your tirade, we lost the engine enroute across the Atlantic and sat on the hook for the better part of 3 months before getting repowered. I guess you could say we were hookside sailors for that time period.


And my point is - it doesn't matter. Either the argument one is making in a discussion is a good one or it is not - regardless of where one's boat is. So make good arguments - or don't. Either way, it's much more grown up.

What are the direct benefits you see on your Oyster (what year?) that make it well-suited to blue water - and/or what issues have you faced with it that make you question quality/build in certain areas? And have those things been maintained by Oyster in subsequent years? That's an educational discussion. Outbound has been particularly good at that - and though I don't agree with everything he says, it's always a good discussion.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack I argue with you but I hope you know it's with true respect.


It's mutual Out. Definitely. I learn a lot from our epic diatribes.


----------



## robert sailor

Smack a boats a boat and they all share strengths and weaknesses. Sure some are built better than others and some will retain value for a longer period of time but in the end they are all money sponges. The poorest choice I made was taking a C&C 36 offshore but having said that it didn't cost me a lot of money plus it was probably the best of times and I still have the best memories from that cruise. Everything was rudimentary, no GPS or chart plotters in those days, no solar panels or water makers, they were not available but one of the best times of my life.
Of course back then a 36 was a big boat as most people were cruising in 30 to 34 footers and if you had your Hunter 40 you'd quite probably be the big boat in the anchorage.
These days the boats are bigger,they are much more complicated and cost a ton more to maintain plus the sailors are much older, go figure.
You can pretty much pick any boat apart, mind you that's an Internet thing as no one I know out here would ever have a negative comment on someone else's boat, just not proper.
Best advise is to buy the best boat you can for your budget and know before hand if you are going to cross oceans with it your going to be writing some checks or if your fortunate and are real handy maybe you'll be limited to parts. Coastal sailing is very easy on your boat compared to offshore sailing. Offshore you have the boat cycling 24/7 for days on end. Every passage I have done I start out with everything tikideboo and end up with 30 plus items to repair replace when I arrive. The last time it was the engine and that was a killer. So I guess what I'm saying is that no matter the boat you'll be constantly fixing it. If you are only out for a year or two then probably not so much but if you are voyaging for multi years you could easily spend half your cruising budget on boat maintance and repairs..
Long answer to your questions but even boats of the same type and year have different problems..


----------



## smackdaddy

So is a Hinterhoeller Niagara 35 a blue water boat? Gregg Nestor thinks so in his book "Twenty Affordable Sailboats to Take You Anywhere".

Are the materials and construction "the way boats should be done"? I'm not so sure...


----------



## robert sailor

The Niagara 35 was an excellent boat in its day and may still be if it was well maintained. Used a spade rudder when most cruising boats back then didn't but it was well built. They also built a 42 which was a very pretty boat and very well put together. They used cored hulls so a careful inspection would be wise although it was rarely an issue. They were available in both shafts drive as well as sail drive if my memory serves me. They still have a good following and their prices hold up well for the clean ones.


----------



## outbound

They also made a true pilot house. Very elegant design and execution.


----------



## GeorgeB

Had fun (and perhaps wasted too much time) watching the Niagara 35 videos. I guess lawyers don’t need to get their boats surveyed? In thier hand rail debacle (I guess that using 5200 as a caulk is almost always a mistake), the yard guy used a roll pin in a drill to open up the hole surrounding a broken off screw and then pounded on a slightly smaller roll pin on the exposed screw and backed it off that way. Have any of you guys heard of this? Will the roll pin “cut” into a hardwood? In the video there was a lot of smoke and it looked like the pin was doing as much burning as it was doing cutting.


----------



## outbound

Think the limits are being discussed on the grid thread in a realistic fashion. Good thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

This is a couple from the Young Punks thread. Their boat is a Hudson Force 50.

Start watching at about 9:00 and watch them as they sail into 45 knots winds and choppy waves around the islands...






Then look at all the damage done to the boat thereafter. It's pretty sobering. And I'm pretty sure these were conditions over a single day. He talks about his surprise at the damage at about 17:00.

The HF50 certainly seems to be *rated as a "blue water boat" by most*.

Motion comfort? Able to handle serious storms for days on end? Strongly built?


----------



## S/VPeriwinkle

You can take many boats offshore, but the question is whether you'd want to. I'm the worrying type, so I got a Pacific Seacraft. They build boats that will take care of you. Whenever I step on board mine I just feel safer. When I step on many lesser boats (including one with "ocean" in the name), I get shivvers thinking that some folks actually go out of sight of land in them.

Periwinkle
--
Pacific Seacraft 37 looking for a new home.
Information can be found here: pacificseacraft37.com


----------



## ScottUK

Think the stuff could have been secured better prior to passage. Would be worried about the water.


----------



## smackdaddy

S/VPeriwinkle said:


> You can take many boats offshore, but the question is whether you'd want to. I'm the worrying type, so I got a Pacific Seacraft. They build boats that will take care of you. Whenever I step on board mine I just feel safer. When I step on many lesser boats (including one with "ocean" in the name), I get shivvers thinking that some folks actually go out of sight of land in them.
> 
> Periwinkle
> --
> Pacific Seacraft 37 looking for a new home.
> Information can be found here: pacificseacraft37.com


I've done several hundred offshore miles on a PS37C. Great boat.

But, to me, the point of the video is that people probably shouldn't have such a monolithic/simplistic view of what constitutes a "blue water boat". If you feel safer largely because of the brand name and/or forum/media reputation of your specific boat, you might very easily miss something that could bite you...or get yourself into trouble by pushing where maybe you shouldn't. That in itself can be dangerous.


----------



## robert sailor

These are all personal decisions that only you can make. I'm sure you guys are reading Robert Perry's log that he forwards from time to time on sailing offshore in a Baba 40. Ask yourself whether you and your boat can deal with that type of sailing because the Baba 40 was designed with that in mind. There are lots of 40 foot boats that are faster and point higher but do you want to be in them when it's really blowing. As far as the Force 50, yes in its day it was set up for offshore but unless the wind was really blowing I'll bet the Baba 40 would out sail it. Today these boats would need a small fortune put into them to be really seaworthy and if it's the young punks that own and sail it there is a good chance this may not be happening. Anyways the Force 50 was not a great boat when it was new in my opinion so is it a blue water boat, only you can decide.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> These are all personal decisions that only you can make. I'm sure you guys are reading Robert Perry's log that he forwards from time to time on sailing offshore in a Baba 40. Ask yourself whether you and your boat can deal with that type of sailing because *the Baba 40 was designed with that in mind*.


Bob - don't wade in here if you'd rather not...but I've got an honest question...when designing the Baba 40, did you really "design it for high latitude passages and Cape roundings"?

Jefe's Baba is undoubtedly up to the task, that's clear - but RS' statement above to me is a bit of stretch that could leave people with the wrong impression. I could be wrong...but I'd certainly rather hear it from you than someone speaking for you.


----------



## bobperry

Smack:
Nope. I just designed what I thought was a good all round boat. At the tmie I began that design I was in a bit of a rut with my double enders and my learning curve had flattened out a bit. I needed to do something new. So I pulled out the lines for the Valiant 40 and studied them asking myself why was this boat so good. I decided to go back to the higher deadrise midship shape of the Valiant 40. It worked. The Baba 40 is a very good sailing boat with impeccable balance. I gave it stout scantlings and a moderate approach top deck structures and ,layout. The rig is conservative but not unusual. In short I tried to design a good all round boat that could be a safe offshore boat or a comfy weekender. I do all my boas like that. I assume at some point all of my boats will find themselves in potentially terminal conditions. Not every damn day like El Jefe but on occasion.
I guess you could call me a conservative designer. I would not design a boat I would not take offshore myself. Maybe the Flying Tiger 10 meter sportboat is the exception. But it's a one design class.


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks Bob. That's kind of what I thought.

Hopefully, people will stop putting words in your mouth.

In the mean time, Jefe's gotta a serious set of stones (and a fine boat). That's for damn sure.


----------



## outbound

Smack I hope you realize not all NAs take Mr. Perry's approach to design. Perhaps why he remains in such demand even after such a long illustrious career.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. But, yes, I absolutely do realize that not all NAs are like Bob.


----------



## robert sailor

I think Smack wants to make a point although I'm not su re what it is. Robert Perry answers his question in a humble way and from that Smack takes the idea that Perry's boats were not designed for offshore, why, because RP said he just designed a good all rounder. Robert Perry's designs at that time were considered by most experienced offshore sailors as the gold standard in offshore boats that could be sailed anywhere, on any ocean around any cape. The Baba 40 while long in the tooth now is doing nothing more than it was designed for and god knows might still be doing the same thing after we are dead and gone.


----------



## Donna_F

smackdaddy said:


> Bob - don't wade in here if you'd rather not...but I've got an honest question...when designing the Baba 40, did you really "design it for high latitude passages and Cape roundings"?
> ...





robert sailor said:


> I think Smack wants to make a point although I'm not su re what it is. Robert Perry answers his question in a humble way and from that Smack takes the idea that Perry's boats were not designed for offshore, why, because RP said he just designed a good all rounder....


If this is Smack's quote that you are responding to (and I may be wrong), I believe you are misreading what Smack wrote. Smack didn't ask were the boats designed for offshore. He asked specifically about being designed for *high latitude sailing*, a subset (if that's the correct term) of offshore. Mr. Perry said no, which I interpreted as: No, he did not specifically design it for high lat sailing but as an all-purpose offshore boat.

I'm only weighing in here because our next boat will be such a boat, not designed for lower latitudes. That doesn't mean it can't go anywhere in the lower latitudes but it might mean that we'll swelter inside it in the tropics.

If I'm totally off base, my apologies.


----------



## SVAuspicious

bobperry said:


> I guess you could call me a conservative designer. I would not design a boat I would not take offshore myself.


I think almost all naval architects with any degree of success are pretty conservative. If school doesn't drill it into you experience does. Even innovation is done carefully and with great thought.


----------



## robert sailor

Ok I see your point. My point was that unlike some of today's so called offshore boats the Perry boats were designed to a higher standard and could be safely taken off the trade wind routes without suffering. There is a reason that these boats and many of his other designs developed such a loyal following, amoung very experienced sailors...they were simply designed and built to a higher standard. This begs the question would you want to sail offshore 40 years from now in many of the current budget offerings??


----------



## outbound

Donna. What boats are you looking at? What are your plans?


One would note I think there is some confusion in my mind at least with how the term "high latitude" is being used. What latitude? Light ice certified or not? I would feel the Baba or an HR or a Valiant or my boat among myriad others would do just fine rounding the capes but I'd rather be in a heavily plated Al boat like a K&M or other metal monster around the bergie bits.


----------



## Donna_F

Well, we're not planning on having tea atop any icebergs but my goals include Hudson Bay and Tristan da Cunha before heading to more civilized climes. We're buying a Malo. Not designed for icebergs but not for the Caribbean either.

Donna doesn't like cold but she'll put up with it temporarily.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> I think Smack wants to make a point although I'm not su re what it is. Robert Perry answers his question in a humble way and from that Smack takes the idea that Perry's boats were not designed for offshore, why, because RP said he just designed a good all rounder. Robert Perry's designs at that time were considered by most experienced offshore sailors as the gold standard in offshore boats that could be sailed anywhere, on any ocean around any cape. The Baba 40 while long in the tooth now is doing nothing more than it was designed for and god knows might still be doing the same thing after we are dead and gone.


The only "point" I made, robert, was to ask Bob if he specifically designed the boat for what you said he did. He said he did not.

Beyond that, you're yet again putting words in peoples' mouths - mine. You really should stop doing that. Speaking for yourself should be sufficient.


----------



## smackdaddy

DRFerron said:


> If this is Smack's quote that you are responding to (and I may be wrong), I believe you are misreading what Smack wrote. Smack didn't ask were the boats designed for offshore. He asked specifically about being designed for *high latitude sailing*, a subset (if that's the correct term) of offshore. Mr. Perry said no, which I interpreted as: No, he did not specifically design it for high lat sailing but as an all-purpose offshore boat.


This is exactly right Donna. And it's a very important distinction in these debates. RS, who is often at the center of them, seems to equate offshore/blue-water sailing with high-latitude Cape rounding (and he's certainly not the only one). This is utterly ridiculous.

Doing this in these boat type discussions is dangerous. Plain and simple. Not only to newbs who believe that as long as they have a HansOystMoodBristInckley they'll be just fine in the 50s and 60s...but also to him if he actually believes it. Though, I seriously doubt RS is going to round Capes.

The difference is that on forums like CF, posters can get away with such blather. Here on SN you have the actual Maestro to ask. So instead of speaking for him. Ask. It's not hard.

Bob was very clear about the design of the Baba. Hopefully RS can change his debate tactics to match that reality. It needs no embellishment.


----------



## robert sailor

I have no problem changing my mind when new information comes my way. Ok I accept that Robert Perry's designs were not designed for sailing in high latitudes, you've made your point Smack. I have for years given compliments and advise to the contrary.
I don't have the time to really improve my debating style as I only get small windows of opportunity to get involved in these sites as we are sailing full time this year. Lots of things to see and do.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> I have no problem changing my mind when new information comes my way. Ok I accept that Robert Perry's designs were not designed for sailing in high latitudes, you've made your point Smack. I have for years given compliments and advise to the contrary.
> I don't have the time to really improve my debating style as I only get small windows of opportunity to get involved in these sites as we are sailing full time this year. Lots of things to see and do.


I forgive you. Carry on.


----------



## Don L

Is anyone (other than me) willing to accept that current "production" boats don't need to be built as heavy because we have better materials, systems , and communications? My 2001 model hasn't had any hull/deck/rudder/rigging problems and I don't really expect any change to that. I believe the boat will handle everything I probably will ever reasonably experience in it because I can take advantage of information and known sailing seasons.

If I were a thrill seeker with plans to sail in expedition conditions I would want a different boat (a metal one). But since I'm not I don't want one of those boats because the boat needs to meet needs other than those conditions.


----------



## robert sailor

I think the materials are pretty much the same as years past, some systems have improved and cumunications have really improved. For the type of sailing you are doing I'm sure you have made a good choice and you'll have years of trouble free sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Is anyone (other than me) willing to accept that current "production" boats don't need to be built as heavy because we have better materials, systems , and communications?


That's one of the things I really liked about Bob's response. Everyone keeps trying to make these kinds of empirical comparisons of "blue water" or "production boat" designs and Bob says this:



bobperry said:


> I just designed what I thought was a good all round boat.
> 
> I gave it stout scantlings and a moderate approach top deck structures and ,layout. The rig is conservative but not unusual. In short I tried to design a good all round boat that could be a safe offshore boat or a comfy weekender. I do all my boas like that. I assume at some point all of my boats will find themselves in potentially terminal conditions.
> 
> I guess you could call me a conservative designer. I would not design a boat I would not take offshore myself.


He just knows. And that's obviously been enough. He's been right.

That said, if you really want to try to parse things mathematically, then I suppose the scantlings of various boats over the years would be the best comparison - taking the materials into consideration. What scantlings were used on the Valiant? What scantlings are being used on the new CF Cutters? And what scantlings are being used on the newer production boats that are CE Cat A rated? And why?

Maybe that will tell you something.


----------



## outbound

Wonderful idea Smackie. Bring it on.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Wonderful idea Smackie. Bring it on.


You misunderstand. _You_ need to go get that data and then we'll discuss. I've got things to do.

While you're at it, throw in an older and newer Oyster.


----------



## uncle stinky bob

smackdaddy said:


> You misunderstand. _You_ need to go get that data and then we'll discuss. I've got things to do.
> 
> While you're at it, throw in an older and newer Oyster.


HA HA HA...BAM!!! sorry, you really got me chuckling there.


----------



## Scotty C-M

Compaaring scantlings is like apples and oranges. I have a boat builder friend here in Santa Cruz who says it simply; modern boats use superior materials and engineering.


----------



## outbound

Sorry Smackie. In an airplane heading to warmer climes. Find your own dog.


----------



## cshrimpt

To answer the question posed seven years ago. Many production boats are perfectly suited for blue water cruising. In fact most of the boats originally listed are production boats. If it it has a brand name and there's more than one, it's at best semi-custom.

Take the Amel Super Maramu for example. It's about as production as you can get since all of them are virtually identical. I think you can choose the cushion fabric, but they even frown at that. The Amel is a superb blue water boat and it's totally production.

BTW: Is this incredibly annoying thread ever going to die?

Craig


----------



## smackdaddy

cshrimpt said:


> BTW: Is this incredibly annoying thread ever going to die?


Not as long as shrimps like you have an opinion. Heh-heh.


----------



## cshrimpt

smackdaddy said:


> Not as long as shrimps like you have an opinion. Heh-heh.


I felt it was my duty to respond once, wait, I mean twice to this historic discussion!


----------



## Shockwave

I think you are limited to your ability to burn your boat to the waterline. Trashing your engine isn't a life ending event.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Don0190 said:


> Is anyone (other than me) willing to accept that current "production" boats don't need to be built as heavy because we have better materials, systems , and communications?


Those things are true. More importantly we have better design tools so that there is not some weak single point of failure. Who cares if the mast will stay on if the hull oil cans and fails? Who cares if the rudder stays on but the keel falls off? We have the wherewithal to build boats to specific requirements so you aren't paying for beefy in places that don't do you any good because something else will fail and sink you first?



Scotty C-M said:


> Compaaring scantlings is like apples and oranges. I have a boat builder friend here in Santa Cruz who says it simply; modern boats use superior materials and engineering.


Exactly.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Who cares if the mast will stay on if the *hull oil cans and fails*?


Can you point me to a single instance of this happening on a modern production boat? Just one?


----------



## Shockwave

I can, how about the recent sinking of the new Bene on the way to the boat show. But really it's best to do your own research. : )


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> I can, how about the recent sinking of the new Bene on the way to the boat show. But really it's best to do your own research. : )


I assume you're talking about the Bene 55 that sunk off Moneterey? Can you point me to your facts that this was due to "hull oil cans and fails"?

I recall the skipper saying he thought it was likely a failure of the thruster tube (possibly due to a poorly secured water tank?). But I'm sure you've got better information than he...because you're awesome that way.

So, I'll wait.


----------



## bobperry

Many years ago Catalina asked me to be an expert witness for them when a Cat 30 (as I recall) was caught on the Potato Patch outside the Golden Gate bridge in some rough seas. It appeared that either the topsides oil canned and broke the hull to deck joint or perhaps the deck joint failed first and without support at the deck the hull oil canned. Either way a large hole opened up and the bat was lost. The focus was on the hull to deck joint. I told Catalina we needed to test some sections of the joint to destruction to get some hard data so we could compare it to other joint methods. They did not want to do that so I went home. Don't know what the outcome was. That is the only documented case of destructive "oil canning" problems that I have come across.


----------



## Shockwave

There is no thruster tube in the big Bene. But you asked for an example of a hull failure on a new production boat, show us it wasn't.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Many years ago Catalina asked me to be an expert witness for them when a Cat 30 (as I recall) was caught on the Potato Patch outside the Golden Gate bridge in some rough seas. It appeared that either the topsides oil canned and broke the hull to deck joint or perhaps the deck joint failed first and without support at the deck the hull oil canned. Either way a large hole opened up and the bat was lost. The focus was on the hull to deck joint. I told Catalina we needed to test some sections of the joint to destruction to get some hard data so we could compare it to other joint methods. They did not want to do that so I went home. Don't know what the outcome was. That is the only documented case of destructive "oil canning" problems that I have come across.


Now that's interesting. From a legal/liability perspective, I guess I could see why they wouldn't want hard numbers from destructive testing like that...but it certainly would have been nice to have some answers.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> There is no thruster tube in the big Bene.


Really? How does the "Dock & Go" system on the 55 work?



> Beneteau's popular "Dock & Go" system is an option which includes a bow thruster and autopilot.












What is that opening in the hull forward of the keel?


----------



## Don L

I've read this "oil canning" thing lots of times over the years, but never understood what it means. The only thing I've been able to figure out is that it appears to happen on boats that writer hasn't sail on. Seems to be something internet experst like to use to sound knowledgeable etc.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> I've read this "oil canning" thing lots of times over the years, but never understood what it means. The only thing I've been able to figure out is that it appears to happen on boats that writer hasn't sail on. Seems to be something internet experst like to use to sound knowledgeable etc.


Personally, I don't at all doubt it can happen. As Bob points out, it absolutely WILL happen as general structural integrity deteriorates (e.g. - the hull/deck joint goes, etc.). After all, it's ALL the elements holding together as one that creates the strength. If the glass hull/topsides lose support from the bulkheads/deck - what else do you think will happen?

But, when a guy like Ausp says stuff like this: "Who cares if the mast will stay on if the hull oil cans and fails?"

Then he really should be responsible enough to explain where he's seen evidence of this. Otherwise, it's just blustery BS. And he should know better.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Personally, I don't at all doubt it can happen.


But WHAT is it? I've read the term just thrown out there so many times over the years it might as well mean "the boogieman". Regardless as much as I've read the you would think boats are just blowing apart or something.


----------



## Shockwave

The hull has a molded "notch" no tube, (ie no tube faliure). And you think a plastic water tank coming adrift will hole a fiberglass hull? The hull must be very thin for that to happen? Oops, forgot the smily face : )

And, I actually think the "notch" is a pretty ******* brilliant idea...


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> The hull has a molded "notch" no tube, (ie no tube faliure). And you think a plastic water tank coming adrift will hole a fiberglass hull? The hull must be very thin for that to happen? Oops, forgot the smily face : )


Shock, baby, that's a tube. You are welcome to call it a "notch" if it makes you feel better...but it still creates a tube, up through which the propulsion mechanism pushes into the boat.

As for all your other "creative" guesswork, this is the closest thing to an actual first-hand account that I've seen:



> Update on sinking of the Beneteau 55: I just heard some inside scoop on this. According to a boat show broker, the delivery captain was Tim Murison, a local skipper. He said he didn't know where the source of the leak was but that it was coming in fast. He suspects the sail-drive or bow thruster tube let go. I would guess the thruster tube failed or was impacted.
> 
> Another tidbit: the life raft floated away. It wasn't properly secured to the boat prior to deployment. It inflated and drifted downwind. So that pretty much summed up the decision making about whether to abandon ship of not. The USCG, apparently, were already on their way.
> 
> I was told that the Beneteau 55 continued to remain afloat for another couple of days before finally sinking somewhere south of Monterey.


So you really should take it up with the skipper, not me. In any stretch of the very fertile imagination, it certainly doesn't point to "hull oil canning and failure". Just as I said. You're really not very good at this boat stuff are you?


----------



## Shockwave

Really? Take the bottom section out and it's a notch.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Really? Take the bottom section out and it's a notch.


Bless your heart. You do try. I'll give you that.


----------



## Faster

I've seen what they call "oil canning' (btw.. remember when we got engine oil in very thin-walled metal cans instead of plastic? it was easy to squeeze/compress the cans because once the oil was out they had no inherent stiffness - hence the term)

A Columbia 26 was moored side-to a dock with a lot of wash.. when the boat rode up against the dock the (tallish) topsides had very visible flex at the load point of the fender. Conceivably a strong beam sea would produce a similar effect?


----------



## Shockwave

smackdaddy said:


> Bless your heart. You do try. I'll give you that.


So tell us smack, how did that brand new Bene go down? Oh wait, we can't tell since the failure is hidden under the liner. But if you want to believe that nice new stiff hull didn't flex and break something loose you go right ahead. But as Ausp said, the rig was still up!


----------



## Don L

Faster said:


> I've seen what they call "oil canning' (btw.. remember when we got engine oil in very thin-walled metal cans instead of plastic? it was easy to squeeze/compress the cans because once the oil was out they had no inherent stiffness - hence the term)


So for a boat it would have to lose all its' stiffness. That would mean any internal support like all the bulkhead would have to separate from the hull along the other grids etc.

Sounds every unlikely without some type of help before hand should as collision damage or a lot of core rot.

I'm to consider this as another example of something the rarely happens but gets mentioned over and over then people start thinking otherwise.


----------



## Faster

Don0190 said:


> So for a boat it would have to lose all its' stiffness. That would mean any internal support like all the bulkhead would have to separate from the hull along the other grids etc.
> 
> Sounds every unlikely without some type of help before hand should as collision damage or a lot of core rot.
> 
> I'm to consider this as another example of something the rarely happens but gets mentioned over and over then people start thinking otherwise.


Generally agree, unless the boat was build with too large a 'panel' of unsupported topsides in the first place (ie high freeboard, thin laminate and long distance between bulkheads - something quite possible with low-end builders -(or a bad 'Friday afternoon' layup )

Some other brands (Pearson, eg) are somewhat 'known' for easily deflecting on jackstand pads if improperly blocked


----------



## SVAuspicious

Oh my. My point was not clear. I wasn't talking about oil canning per se but about the structure of a boat being designed for a single maximum load. The point I was attempting to make is that current design and engineering tools make sure we don't spend resources (including money) on one part of a boat that make it able to sustain a load substantially different from what another part of the boat can withstand.

"Oil canning" is just repeated deflection of a flat panel, generally due to forces orthogonal to the panel. Failure modes may be due to work hardening, exceeding the material modulus of elasticity, separation from support structure, and any one of a number of other sorts of nastiness. 

It was just an example. The point was designing a boat so that the weakest elements don't mean the strong bits were a waste of money.

I remember oil canning issues with light aluminum work boats, fishing boats, and fiberglass decks (in test) on minesweepers. I know of issues with steel ships in heavy seas that did not result in failure but did require replacement.

Bob Perry wouldn't purposely design a boat so that the keel would fall off in conditions the rudder or rig wouldn't even notice; why put all that weight, cost, and effort into the stronger bits when the weaker bits define the limits of the boat? In the end good design has led to things like grid structures in which pretty much everything is structural and the design becomes very efficient. Remember that a grid can be formed as a unit or stick built - the grid is still a grid.


----------



## albrazzi

Shockwave said:


> Really? Take the bottom section out and it's a notch.


OH no I'm in the crosshairs now but I can see the difference in a notch structural to the hull with a filler under it to establish the hull shape, and a hole cut in the hull and a tube bonded to it.


----------



## Shockwave

Seems like a pretty good idea to me Albra, mold half the tunnel and bond in the other half of the tunnel. Certainly smarting then drilling a hole in the hull and glassing in a tube. I can't see a way for the bow thruster to be the cause of the loss.


----------



## bob77903

Shockwave said:


> Seems like a pretty good idea to me Albra, mold half the tunnel and bond in the other half of the tunnel. Certainly smarting then drilling a hole in the hull and glassing in a tube. I can't see a way for the bow thruster to be the cause of the loss.


Oh I see, everything in the notch, no hole through the notch for the thruster to mount. Motor, wires, everything in the "Notch", amazing technology. Where do they mount the battery, can't see in your pic?


----------



## Shockwave

Not sure what you're asking Bob, the motor, is still inside the hull, it's a standard thruster. There just isn't a tube glassed into the hull. They molded the notch into the hull then bonded the lower filler piece in. If the lower filler piece "falls off" the hull isn't breached, there is no leak.


----------



## bob77903

Shockwave said:


> Not sure what you're asking Bob, the motor, is still inside the hull, it's a standard thruster. There just isn't a tube glassed into the hull. They molded the notch into the hull then bonded the lower filler piece in. If the lower filler piece "falls off" the hull isn't breached, there is no leak.


So there could be a failure of the hull-thruster seal, and water ingress?


----------



## albrazzi

bob77903 said:


> So there could be a failure of the hull-thruster seal, and water ingress?


Maybe a drip drip but not a 10" hole below the waterline.


----------



## Shockwave

There could be a failure of the boot around the sail drive, a hose could have fallen off, a skin fitting might have come loose, there could have been a fracture in the keel sump, the rudder gland may have failed.... Looking at how a sail drive is assembled I would think the crew moving the boat would have noticed the motor of the thruster not mounted on the tunnel, laying in the bilge and water squirting up to the headliner. But pots legal on the west coast isn't it?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> The hull has a molded "notch" no tube, (ie no tube faliure). And you think a plastic water tank coming adrift will hole a fiberglass hull? The hull must be very thin for that to happen? Oops, forgot the smily face : )
> 
> And, I actually think the "notch" is a pretty ******* brilliant idea...


So before you guys get too worked up over your notch-gazing, can you assure me that this photo of yours is from the Beneteau Oceanis 55, shock? Or is it some other boat show boat (likely a power boat) from here...

New way of fitting bow thruster - Boat Design Forums

The hull profile in this photo certainly doesn't match the Bene's from the above drawing - or actual photo below. But, again, you're really awesome at this boat stuff, shock, so I'll wait for your proof. In the mean time...










Yep, pretty ******* brilliant.


----------



## Bill-Rangatira

just a side note but this would be a fine application for a magnetic drive
... no holes at all



Shockwave said:


> The hull has a molded "notch" no tube, (ie no tube faliure). And you think a plastic water tank coming adrift will hole a fiberglass hull? The hull must be very thin for that to happen? Oops, forgot the smily face : )
> 
> And, I actually think the "notch" is a pretty ******* brilliant idea...


----------



## Shockwave

We'll never be as awsome as you smack, most of us haven't caught our boat on fire or trashed our engine. But keep doling out advice, what will be this year's, how to pitch the rig? Probably not, the only sailing you do is on the internet, the rig is safe from the perils of smack.


----------



## Jaramaz

Shockwave said:


> We'll never be as awsome as you smack, most of us haven't caught our boat on fire or trashed our engine. But keep doling out advice, what will be this year's, how to pitch the rig? Probably not, the only sailing you do is on the internet, the rig is safe from the perils of smack.


Wait - Shock is this realy your response?

If I understand it right you claim Bene 55 doesn't have a tube, instead there is what you call a "notch". Guess you mean something built in from beginning in contrast to someting added later on.

To really demonstrate that this is the case you supply some pics. We all of course must assume these pics shows a Bene 55, otherwise the value of these pics is very limited, don't you agree?

Then Smack says he has some other pics, which seemingly is of a Bene 55, looks a rather new Bene 55, so it could very well be the one that is being discussed. Smacks pics looks significant different from the pics you provided.

To this you respond something regarding fire? Stating Smack


> the only sailing you do is on the internet,


 ?

Honestly Shock, for me this seems you have lost all your arguments, and then respond with rudeness. Which is taking things one step further - your lost your credibility in this last step.

(You could have said your pics was just to prove the principle, but no, you went to badmouthing Smack instead. )

Of course your pics was not of a Bene 55. Probably a motorboat instead, so not relevant at all. And the Bene 55 solution looks very much like a tube ....

Worst of all: you ended up in this hole just because you wanted to dispute the statement of the Bene 55 skipper, it was he who claimed it could be the tube causing the leak, I think. So why in heavens name are you arguing with Smack?

/J

PS: I personally would be very careful before I started arguing with Smack. He is far too good and he finds an amazing amount of facts.


----------



## Shockwave

Jara, tell us how you glass a tube in a hull that low? How do you physically glass the bottom of that tube? Beneteau has used the tubeless thruster for some time now. About smack, whatever...


----------



## mitiempo

Take a good look at the profile of the Oceanus 55 - the only 55 Beneteau makes. I don't think there is enough hull in the water at the bow for a thruster tube. This is from Beneteau's website.


----------



## Shockwave

As you point out Miti, it's such a shallow canoe body it lends itself to this type of construction. Maybe someone has a picture of the mold, the tooling is probably inserted to mold a boat with or without a notch for a thruster.


----------



## colemj

The thruster is mounted further back by the keel.
http://www.murrayyachtsales.com/wp-...eteau-Oceanis-45-092-Murray-Yacht-Sales-1.jpg

Mark


----------



## Shockwave

Cole, the filler piece is easy to see in your picture. Installing a thruster this way is a great idea, there simply no room to glass in a tube.


----------



## Jaramaz

Shockwave said:


> Jara, tell us how you glass a tube in a hull that low? How do you physically glass the bottom of that tube? Beneteau has used the tubeless thruster for some time now. About smack, whatever...


I am not addressing the issue of tube or notch - I am questioning your response to Smack, where he revealed that the pics you supplied are not relevant. 
Your response was rude, totally avoiding the fact that you had supplied irrelevant pics.

Also in the response to me you try to shift focus. I am not arguing tube or notch - that is uninteresting in the light of the skippers statement.

Credibility, Shock. Credibility.

/J


----------



## outbound

Don was sleeping in v berth of a Pearson 424. Going to weather in moderate chop ( 20s-3-5'). Could feel the oil canning on my back. It woke me. Could see it when I rolled over.
Was on a one off sled. Sitting on saloon cushions back against main bulkhead. Could feel it flex and hear it creak. Could see hull move in and out a few feet aft.

Don some hulls flex. Some hulls bend with too much backstay. Some with wave strikes. Some working to weather. Some when skins detach from core. Some from inadequate internal support. Some from inadequate layup thickness or being too resin rich or dry or done with chopper gun and not enough woven. Expand your horizons. Oil canning is something many have seen, felt, and heard.


----------



## outbound

Smack it's clear you have done some real sailing. Such attacks are silly. But it's also clear that the events surrounding that Bene don't give confidence in the robustness of that model. Shock's points remains valid. That area should not be such a source of weakness as to sink a boat. Period. 

Lastly even striking debris given the angle of the strike I would have much less concern the tube/notch/whatever was the source but rather the juncture of that structure to the hull. Particularly given the captain could not see the leak. That would raise questions if it arose from the juncture in its most inferior portion. An area not visible from the inside. In this locale even in the absence of hitting anything just pounding to weather may have been sufficient to cause this section to fail.

This example appears to be a good demonstration of the "limits".


----------



## Shockwave

Jaramaz said:


> I am not addressing the issue of tube or notch - I am questioning your response to Smack, where he revealed that the pics you supplied are not relevant.
> Your response was rude, totally avoiding the fact that you had supplied irrelevant pics.
> 
> Also in the response to me you try to shift focus. I am not arguing tube or notch - that is uninteresting in the light of the skippers statement.
> 
> Credibility, Shock. Credibility.
> 
> /J


It's really pretty simple Jara, rudeness begets rudeness.

Regarding the skippers comments of the failed Bene, he said the tube may have failed, I only pointed out there is no tube, hence no tube failure.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> But it's also clear that the events surrounding that Bene don't give confidence in the robustness of that model. Shock's points remains valid. That area should not be such a source of weakness as to sink a boat. Period.
> 
> Lastly even striking debris given the angle of the strike I would have much less concern the tube/notch/whatever was the source but rather the juncture of that structure to the hull. Particularly given the captain could not see the leak. That would raise questions if it arose from the juncture in its most inferior portion. An area not visible from the inside. In this locale even in the absence of hitting anything just pounding to weather may have been sufficient to cause this section to fail.
> 
> This example appears to be a good demonstration of the "limits".


I think it's seriously jumping the gun to condemn the whole model line, out. Have we seen another instance of this in the B55s?

No question that this was a demonstration of *this particular boat's* "limits". But no one (not even the skipper) really knows what failed...though there was LOTS of speculation on SA when we discussed it. He said he thought it was the thruster tube - but they were unable to find out for sure. One of the reported reasons for that is that the floorboards were screwed down under the forward berth and they couldn't access the area. So who knows? I unequivocally guarantee you shock doesn't.

As for the raging tube/notch debate, my point was that shock couldn't even find the right photo to back up his argument. I personally don't know how the bowthruster was built on this particular B55. But here is how they were building them on a Jeanneau 57 a couple of years ago (our own Zanshin's actually)...










It's essentially the same type of "notch" construction being discussed, and as apparently shown in the photo Mark linked to...










But, you compare the position of these examples to the ones on these Beneteaus at the boat show a couple of years back and it certainly looks like a different placement and build...










Everything else is just guessing. And if I'm going to listen to anyone's guesses, it will be those of the skipper - not some dude who thinks a stinkpot is a Beneteau Oceanis 55.

Irrespective of all that, the "tube"* that the skipper referred to* is still present even in this new molded configuration (the top half where the drive mechanism enters the boat). As I said earlier, there was some speculation from the skipper's comments that a water tank came loose and started hammering on that drive in what were reportedly very rough conditions. The thinking was that the top of the tube failed after having the drive unit driven through it. Given all the pieces of info I've seen on this sinking, that seems to be a plausible explanation (though I don't know where the water tanks even are on the B55 - so, again, who knows?). And I certainly wouldn't put such a scenario out of the realm of possibility for a newly commissioned show boat being hurriedly moved.

BUT, there is absolutely ZERO evidence ANYWHERE to support shock's ridiculous claim that it was "oil canning leading to hull failure". That's where all this started, remember.

All that said, I am interested in how this molded bowthruster housing is connected. Shock said it was just glued. Is that true? Are there no mechanical fasteners?

If this was indeed the configuration on the sunk 55, could that, as you say, be a weakness in heavy pounding? It's an interesting question.


----------



## Scotty C-M

In regards to the Bene that sunk near Monterey. A newly commissioned boat sinks - it's probably due to a malfunction about assembly or commissioning… a loose hose, a parts failure like a seal in the thruster (the captain's guess) or the stern tube or whatever. The odds are that it is not a design issue. If it were, we would see a lot more losses. For that reason I would not think this a "good example of limitations" as Outbound suggests. We've all seen or heard of issues that need to be fixed on new boats.

Oil-canning… In the '70s I was on a 46' Rudy Choy (?) catermaran heading for Panama from California. In the Gulf of Tehuantepec we got caught in some really big wind. I don't know, but the anometer (a hand held) showed 60MPH. Whatever it was, it was really scary. The waves were tall and steep. At one point, we made sure the skipper was tied down, and we (two) crew went down below. It was quite a ride for several hours. At one point I noticed that the side of the boat was flexing (oil canning) in and out several inches. It was un-nerving, to say the least. We were close to land, and went towards land until we were in the lee of a steep cliff. We sat out the wind till the next morning. When we examined the sides (fiberglass over plywood) we could see no marks of any kind either inside nor outside. I can remember it like yesterday.


----------



## outbound

Agree the Devils in the details and we don't know those. Still regardless of cause doesn't speak well. These stories like one one posted here concerning a new seaward should raise an eyebrow.


----------



## Jaramaz

Nearly alll boat builders I know of have made mistakes now and then, then I am considering huge mistakes. 

HR have had serious problems with some of their boats, as total de-lamination between the two hulls. Najad, Malö, Vindö, Bianca, ... small and big boat builders. All have made serious mistakes, resulting in dropped keels (this is a favourite on internet), disastrous leaks, weakened hulls - the list is long. 

It is not a new phenomenon. In my bookshelf I have books describing such since more than 100 years. 

It is not limited to mass produced boats - more in the other way if any. But statistics is lousy. 

It is not limited to cheap (or low budget) boats, proven by the Oyster thing.


Bav has been the hate object for many, these have really been happy when dropped Bad keels can be brought up. Well, they do produce a lot of boats, it is not strange that they will appear in any such statistics. It is certainly unacceptable with such serious problems, consequences may be a matter of life and death. 
At the same time, they happen. Will continue to do so. There is no way we can guarantee 100% perfection. The best way to improve quality is to use quality ensure systems - but only the big boat builders can afford these. 

Now someone (I am not sure how this started here, don't really care) wants to claim that Bene is producing inferior boats. The same story, but another perpetrator. 

The first time I heard stories like these was during the 1970-ies when the Maxi boats were popular to buy (Maxi 77, Maxi 84, 87, 95, .. all designed by Pelle Pettersson). This was much before internet, so stories were told in the harbours. All those telling these horror stories had old wooden ****boxes. Many of those who bought the Maxi boats had little or none boat experience, which added nicely to the stories. 
Oh, yes, also Maxi boats dropped keels. And not only, they were also impossible to repair. 

/J


----------



## guitarguy56

With all the liners, cabinets, bulkheads in place while the person is at the wheel in conditions where the hull is oil canning... how would you see this happening? What tell-tale signs are you seeing first hand that indicates the hull oil canned? The hull would have to have a permanent set for indication of this?


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Don was sleeping in v berth of a Pearson 424.


I can believe some of that. I researched thew 422/424 and found a lot of them had a gap between the forward bulkhead and the deck.

But that is talking about a 30+ year old boat and certainly can not be used for the constant "talk" about oil canning that gets applied to production boats by internet seagulls.

I bet most of the time when "oil Canning" gets used the more correct term would be "flexing". Nothing really wrong with flexing, pretty much all materials flex and that is better than something that reaches it's limit and just breaks.


----------



## Shockwave

guitarguy56 said:


> With all the liners, cabinets, bulkheads in place while the person is at the wheel in conditions where the hull is oil canning... how would you see this happening? What tell-tale signs are you seeing first hand that indicates the hull oil canned? The hull would have to have a permanent set for indication of this?


Guitar, all boats move, they all oil can to some degree, boats must have flexibility or they break. There is no permanent set in the hull per se but you might see some mis-alignment of the joinerwork or possibly some dust around the base of bulkhead. If the bulkheads are held in place with plexus (or tabbed for that matter) look for cracked plexus or broken tabbing. If the pan/grid/liner breaks loose it's tougher to know. Surveyor have talked about heavy tapping and listening for a "clacking" sound where the hull hits the grid that has broken away. I don't know if this has been successful, maybe one of the surveyors who posts here could comment. On one of the pan boats we raced hard we could feel the pan moving/shifting when the boat was fully loaded. This year the current owner is replacing the bulkheads, they had broken free of the slots and the tabbing was failing.

Our boat moves even though it's a heavily built stick boat. Sister ships have added addition framing and bulkheads forward even though the hull is ~4 inches thick. All boats move.


----------



## Jeff_H

Talk about oil canning. Back in the 1970's I used to race on a Morgan 27. This was one of those early boats with the chainplates inboard almost against the side of the cabin trunk so the shroud loads were taken by a tension rod to a knee glassed to the interior of the hull in the middle of the topsides. Upwind in heavy air the topsides would get sucked in and go concave by the tension from the if the shrouds against the hull. When we tacked the hull would snap back out with an audible 'POP'. At first this was very disconcerting, but you got used to it.

Seen from outside, that area around the attachment points had bad spiderweb cracks radiating out into the hull. Eventually the owner glassed in structural reinforcing on the interior and had to partially re-tab the adjacent bulkhead. Later versions of that boats reportedly had a set of cubbies glassed in to stiffen the topsides in that area. 

Jeff


----------



## Faster

Would seem to me that the compound curvatures of most so-called 'traditional' hulls (as opposed to the new slab-slided chined hullforms) would more naturally resist the tendency to 'oilcan/flex' unless very lightly constructed.

It would be unnerving, esp in rough conditions.


----------



## robert sailor

Pretty common experience for folks who have been around boats for years, used to race on a Ron Holland Aloha 30 and when you tightened up the rigging to go racing it would suck in the sides of the hull where the knee was glassed in.


----------



## albrazzi

Jeff_H said:


> Talk about oil canning. Back in the 1970's I used to race on a Morgan 27. This was one of those early boats with the chainplates inboard almost against the side of the cabin trunk so the shroud loads were taken by a tension rod to a knee glassed to the interior of the hull in the middle of the topsides. Upwind in heavy air the topsides would get sucked in and go concave by the tension from the if the shrouds against the hull. When we tacked the hull would snap back out with an audible 'POP'. At first this was very disconcerting, but you got used to it.
> 
> Seen from outside, that area around the attachment points had bad spiderweb cracks radiating out into the hull. Eventually the owner glassed in structural reinforcing on the interior and had to partially re-tab the adjacent bulkhead. Later versions of that boats reportedly had a set of cubbies glassed in to stiffen the topsides in that area.
> 
> Jeff


We had an old Annapolis 26 that has a secondary bonded internal chainplate tab on the hull and it would pull in like that on the windward side, but it wouldn't "pop" like that. That seems excessive to me. I understand the bend so it doesn't break thing but there is a limit to how much anything should work while working. But then I guess that's why it was rebuilt.

But then the Annapolis was dismasted in a knockdown and broke that tab right off the hull. Take what you want from that.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Faster said:


> Would seem to me that the compound curvatures of most so-called 'traditional' hulls (as opposed to the new slab-slided chined hullforms) would more naturally resist the tendency to 'oilcan/flex' unless very lightly constructed.


Correct. Spherical surfaces are stronger than flat ones. That's why ping pong balls make such good flotation for recovering sunk boats. Complex curvature is stronger than developable surfaces.


----------



## smackdaddy

So it sounds like we're all in agreement that no one has really seen or heard of an issue with a modern CE Cat A production boat experience hull failure due to oil-canning. Sounds like it's an issue with mostly older boats. That makes sense in terms of the newer technologies and methods in use.


----------



## HankOnthewater

Finally I read all the pages and all the posts on this thread.

For me, the most important, maybe not important, but certainly the most significant point in this thread was that Jon Eisberg passed away. I liked the way he wrote about what things made a good boat and the way he questioned some other things.

I liked Jon's posts for 4 reasons:
- He explained his point of view, detailing with photos, anecdotal info and from his own experience (no re-hashing there)
- He maintained his point of view and didn’t back down
- Jon did not get snarky and insulting when others did
- And hehehe, I agreed with him, every single time

Most of us think immortality is not possible. Some of us think that immortality can be achieved by sharing our knowledge, and thus the knowledge becomes eternal, even though the person may be forgotten in a decade or so.

May Jon’s knowledge stay with us.
May Jon Rest In Peace.


----------



## albrazzi

smackdaddy said:


> So it sounds like we're all in agreement that no one has really seen or heard of an issue with a modern CE Cat A production boat experience hull failure due to oil-canning. Sounds like it's an issue with mostly older boats. That makes sense in terms of the newer technologies and methods in use.


OK we all agree does that mean this thread is over.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yep. We're done. I was right.


----------



## Capt Len

if 'time' (experience and flex cycles) is what can cause oilcan failure in older well built boats and new boats tech and methods /design are fine tuned to weight cost factors , seems the situation can get more interesting. Time will tell.


----------



## outbound

All I know from multiple pro captains I've been friendly with and from some crewing and talking with neighbors who own recent mass production boats is that there is concern about recent construction methods and hull forms when subjected to long term open ocean cruising.
Perhaps this concern is misplaced and Smackie is right but given I've heard of this concern from multiple sources by people both more knowledgeable and experienced than me so perhaps not. 
Furthermore a silent boat when you are down below where all the doors work and all the drawers open when it's working through a sea way allows me to sleep soundly and that's a good thing.
Lastly I cannot believe excessive flexing aka oil canning can be good for the structure of the boat. I want no elevation of bow and stern when backstay is applied and no visible movement of the hull in a seaway. I doubt there is any in Bob's cf cutters and that's the way it should be.


----------



## outbound

As a side note- find the placement of the bow thruster in the pics interesting. Seems so far aft it would work as a side thruster as well as a bow thruster. It's getting close to the center of lateral resistance. Perhaps that's intentional. Perhaps obligate due to the shape of the hull and small degree of rocker. 
I'm comforted when the thruster is forward of a watertight bulkhead as you see on so many other designs. ? Is this the case in this model?


----------



## Shockwave

Out, the 55 is uncored, flat bottomed and slab sided, it's going to flex or oil can if you prefer. Uncored fiberglass is flexible and the style of the boat features large flat panels that can easily flex. It's obvious that motoring into the steep short chop caused something to break loose or it would have sunk at the dock. Given the thruster design I don't see that as the culprit, a skin fitting shaken loose seems more logical especially when you consider they aren't actually seacocks. 

You mention the thruster location. Where else can it go? The canoe body has no depth. It's a light displacement flat bottom boat.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Shockwave said:


> You mention the thruster location. Where else can it go? The canoe body has no depth. It's a light displacement flat bottom boat.


Forward.


----------



## guitarguy56

Shockwave said:


> Out, the 55 is uncored, flat bottomed and slab sided, it's going to flex or oil can if you prefer. Uncored fiberglass is flexible and the style of the boat features large flat panels that can easily flex. It's obvious that motoring into the steep short chop caused something to break loose or it would have sunk at the dock. Given the thruster design I don't see that as the culprit, a skin fitting shaken loose seems more logical especially when you consider they aren't actually seacocks.
> 
> You mention the thruster location. Where else can it go? The canoe body has no depth. It's a light displacement flat bottom boat.


It's a good thing Navel Architects and sailboat designers such as Bob Perry are here to read these threads about 'oil canning' and how when they design hulls they didn't know about these effects during their calculations and consequent hull design... Well now they know better... having fully found this unknown knowledge about oil canning on these threads!


----------



## Shockwave

Bob Perry certainly knows how to design good all around boats. But if you look at his designs the don't tend to be as flat bottomed, beamy or slab sided as the Bene 55. His cruising designs have a bit more rocker, deadrise and less beam. I'm sure if a customer came to Bob and asked him too design a hull shape like the Bene he would but it's not the style he typically draws.


----------



## bobperry

Shock:
Go to the back of the room and put the tall pointy hat on. You are very wrong. Do not make the silly mistake of trying to put my designs in a box.
What I did when confronted with the challenge of putting in a thruster in a boat with a shallow profile forward was to "bend the tube". The center section of the tube was horizontal then I bend the outboard ends down 30 degrees to get the hole deeper and angled down. The thruster company was dubious. It worked fabulously well.

Here are a few examples. I have many more.





It might be a good thing to do a ,little research into the breadth of my design work before commenting on it.


----------



## Shockwave

Bob, I just don't see the similarity of your designs to that of a Bene 55, I must be wrong.


----------



## bobperry

Yes Shock. You are wrong. I just posted a series of photos of boats with very shallow forefoots/forefeet. While the general styling of the Bene may be different the geometry of the forefoot is similar to many of my boats, meaning shallow. I think that is what we are discussing, i.e. not having enough hull depth forward for a standard thruster installation. Or am I wrong? As I said, my bent tube installation took care of that very nicely.


----------



## Shockwave

Bob, I look at your big racing boats (Icon, Chicken...) and I see (west coast) a Bill Lee style SC 70 or RP 68 or an Alan Andrews 70 and although they are light they are slimmer boats that will get through a seaway more easily. I don't see your styling as that of a JuanK or Owen Clark, the big wide planing boats built for downwind races, (ie Imoca 60 style). Certainly you'll will draw whatever the customer wants but in general I see your boats as more all around type boats, not beamy, not slab sided, more rocker, more deadrise, just good sailing boats for up or downwind sailing. Not trying to put you in a box but that's how I see you boats.

The curved tube design is certainly unique for a thruster, where do you draw water from, further aft?


----------



## albrazzi

outbound said:


> As a side note- find the placement of the bow thruster in the pics interesting. Seems so far aft it would work as a side thruster as well as a bow thruster. It's getting close to the center of lateral resistance. Perhaps that's intentional. Perhaps obligate due to the shape of the hull and small degree of rocker.
> I'm comforted when the thruster is forward of a watertight bulkhead as you see on so many other designs. ? Is this the case in this model?


Even on my flat bottom 30' a side thruster would be nice for backing into a slip if there's a side wind it blows faster than I can back up. A full or modified of any size will grab the water better maybe not turn better but not blow around so much. I back out, see which direction the bow goes and just let it happen sometimes I'm backing out sometimes I turn. But I'm at the end on a open dock and I like to sail when there's lots of wind. I will add the Boats new to me so some skill will build don't thrash me too bad.


----------



## guitarguy56

bobperry said:


> Here are a few examples. I have many more.


Bob, may I ask what model boat this is and LOA/LWL. It is a beauty... Definitely something I would seriously consider if I were moving up.


----------



## SVAuspicious

guitarguy56 said:


> It's a good thing Navel Architects and sailboat designers such as Bob Perry are here to read these threads about 'oil canning' and how when they design hulls they didn't know about these effects during their calculations and consequent hull design... Well now they know better... having fully found this unknown knowledge about oil canning on these threads!


I am so very sorry I used oil canning as an example. Geez.


----------



## outbound

Shock totally agree. That was my point. I'm use to thruster pivoting the boat. Take some learning for me to dock her not necessarily a bad thing just different. Use to boats with something in the water and not blown around too bad. 

Nevertheless prior posts are discomforting. Don't much care why the oil canning or skin fitting failure occurs just care it does. At the end of the day a CatA boat sank That doesn't speak well of the model nor render a sense of tranquility from EU rating scheme. Wish for old time Norske Veritas, Llyods or even ABYC


----------



## bobperry

Guitar:
That is hull No. 1 of the Container Cruiser. It was designed to fit in a shipping container. That one lives and races in Maine. The owner races it single handed. He is 80 years old. When he got more serious about racing we out a deeper keel on it. He has shipped that boat all over the world. He loves the boat.



Shock:
Yes, I see your point but I'm not sure what those minor differences have to do with the subject. Oil canning can occur just as easily on a very traditional design as it can on an ultra modern design. It's all about panel stiffness and loads. Certainly the loads on a boat doing 14 knots will be greater than on a boat doing 6.5 knots. They just need to be addressed.


----------



## Shockwave

Bob, further back I said all boats move, they all flex or oil can if you prefer that term, even your cored carbon cutters will have some very small amount of flex. The original conversation was why did the west coast boat (Bene 55) sink. I said the Bene 55 is a beamy, slab sided, uncored hull that I think will have a substantial amount of flex/oil canning when motoring at speed into short chop, those were the conditions the lost Bene saw. Some said it was a failure of the bow thuster tube but I pointed out it's a molded notch in the hull, there is no tube to fail. I personally believe the hull was flexing/oil canning and shook a hose or fitting loose. End of story but like many internet discussions they get ugly.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Perhaps this concern is misplaced and Smackie is right but given I've heard of this concern from multiple sources by people both more knowledgeable and experienced than me so perhaps not.


As I've always said, it depends on exactly what that concern is and the factual basis for it. I've never said there is/should be *no* concern...I've just said any concern should be rational and fact-based. For the interwebs, and many of its posters, that's a very high bar in and of itself.


----------



## robert sailor

The boat sank, that's a given. The boat was brand new, that's a given, everything else is speculation. If it sank from a failure in the bow thruster, which some of you speculate then it was either poorly designed or built or both because the boat was manufactured this way. The only way all roads would not lead back to the design/build would be if a sub contractor perforated the hull when adding something, for example a watermaker.


----------



## smackdaddy

albrazzi said:


> I back out, see which direction the bow goes and just let it happen sometimes I'm backing out sometimes I turn. But I'm at the end on a open dock and I like to sail when there's lots of wind. I will add the Boats new to me so some skill will build don't thrash me too bad.


Sounds like a very good approach to me.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> I said the Bene 55 is a beamy, slab sided, uncored hull that I think will have a substantial amount of flex/oil canning *when motoring at speed into short chop*, those were the conditions the lost Bene saw. *Some said it was a failure of the bow thuster tube but I pointed out it's a molded notch* in the hull, there is no tube to fail. *I personally believe the hull was flexing/oil canning* and shook a hose or fitting loose. End of story but like many internet discussions they get ugly.


Shock, all of your "facts" are wrong. So you can keep trying to spin whatever you want to for your own mind - but none of it matters. Because all your "facts" are wrong.

You refuse to believe the information from those that were actually there on that Bene, you keep correcting Bob about his own work (JuanK and IMOCAs?), you really should put on that pointy hat.


----------



## Shockwave

Well smack, you have your opinion, I have mine.


----------



## bobperry

Shock:
Are you certain the Bene 55 has an uncored hull? I'd need proof of that.


----------



## Faster

Traditionally Benes have been solid layups, but with the transition these flatter panels I wonder if they didn't essentially have to go to cored construction for stiffness without excessive weight..


----------



## Shockwave

Bob, according to the 2013 Sailing magazine article it's a solid glass hull and balsa cored deck. They've earned the bendy toy moniker for a reason.


----------



## bobperry

Shock:
Could be. I'm dubious. But if you say so.


----------



## guitarguy56

"Construction

A product of the company's well-established yard in St. Gilles-Croix-de-Vie, France, the Beneteau Oceanis 55's hull is *solid *fiberglass and includes the company's trademark molded-in grid and liner for stiffness. The deck is cored with balsa to reduce the boat's vertical center of gravity and increase sail-carrying capacity. Three different keels are available-all fabricated in iron, as is common aboard European boats-to cater to different draft and performance needs, and there is a chine running the entire length of the hull to aid in tracking and provide additional form stability."

SAIL Magazine Best Boats 2013 Beneteau Sense 55 - Sail Magazine

Maybe a little web search might be helpful?


----------



## guitarguy56

bobperry said:


> Guitar:
> That is hull No. 1 of the Container Cruiser. It was designed to fit in a shipping container. That one lives and races in Maine. The owner races it single handed. He is 80 years old. When he got more serious about racing we out a deeper keel on it. He has shipped that boat all over the world. He loves the boat.


Bob... Thanks for that... So this is the Far Harbor 39... Nice concept and I love it even if it is not as beamy as I would like but understand the constraints to your design. Well done! :2 boat:


----------



## SVAuspicious

bobperry said:


> That is hull No. 1 of the Container Cruiser.


I saw that boat in Annapolis. Brilliant concept.


----------



## bobperry

Yep that is the Far harbor. I always call it the "container cruiser". Thanks for the kind words. It was an interesting challenge, a boat in a box. I do enjoy the odd commissions. They test your abilities.


----------



## mstern

I saw one at a boat show. The owner had installed two swiveling captain's chairs on the aft deck. Probably a very nice place to hang out, but strange looking. The boat was berthed next to the Hylas display. Dick Hylas was aboard his boat, and he and I got to talking about the Far Harbor. He said something like "I know, like and admire Bob Perry, but that boat looks like the box it came in." I said something like "I think that's the point". It was an interesting conversation....


----------



## bobperry

mstern:
Yes, exactly. You nailed it. Good on ya.


----------



## ordkhntr

Good grief, 502 pages

So here is my question: Where does the Bavaria Cruiser line stack up against the Hunter/Catalina crowd?


----------



## Shockwave

Ord, all three boats are fine for their intended use. Buy a boat, have fun.


----------



## smackdaddy

I think shock nailed it generally.

Apart from that, the newer Bavarias seem to generally be in the same range build-wise as Hunters/Catalinas, but the Bavarias are more "modern" and a bit more performance oriented.

Hunter seems to be going in a strange (outdated, I think) direction with their new boats (not necessarily this Hunter 50, but most of their other models)...

Hunter 50 ($400K):



















It seems like a lot of the Marlow motor yacht influence is really coming in - which I don't like. And the interiors are serious throw-backs.

Catalina is still Catalina even after all these years (not a lot of design evolution) but still a nice interior and a great boat...

Catalina 445 (around $400K):



















Bavaria, to me, is just designing and building a better all-round boat right now. Beautiful, good performance, great features, very nice finishes...

Bavaria 51 ($400K)



















So - the for the size, the Catalina is the most expensive. Beyond that, it just comes down to what you like.


----------



## ordkhntr

It's a ways out, probably about 5 years or so. Its been interesting trying to research cruising "bluewaterable" ( I think I may be the originator of that term  )boats in the 37-40' range. Trying to wade through them all is at least educational. The newer generation of sailboats are attractive due to their open and volumous layouts below decks. To my eye, a newer 37' has more room than most older 40 footers by a fairly long shot. 
But interiors a blue water boat do not make. Hence the creation of this thread some years ago. 

And who thought up the truck style tailgates on the stern.....am I the only one that thinks they are kinda dumb looking?


----------



## smackdaddy

For any of it to really make any sense at all, "bluewater" really means *crossing oceans*. Everything else in these discussions is noise as long as we're talking CE Category A boats.


----------



## Ninefingers

AS SMACK SAID: Hunter seems to be going in a strange (outdated, I think) direction with their new boats (not necessarily this Hunter 50, but most of their other models)...


Except for the Hunter 31, that is a fun boat for kicking around on a big lake. Other than that, geez....so much freeboard, and such small cockpits.


----------



## ordkhntr

Which kinda brings up a question for those that know much more than I.... 
does the "CE Category A" standard really equate a bluewater boat?
I am asking because I truly don't know. There are lots of "products" out there that have passed this test or that test and are deemed to be at a certain standard in the labs, but in the real world they just don't cut it. 

The Catalina 385 meets the Catagory A....and again, I am asking because I have been out of this for a while, but looking back 20-30 years Catalina's didn't really have that type of quality or strength.....at least that's what I remember.


----------



## mitiempo

ordkhntr said:


> Which kinda brings up a question for those that know much more than I....
> does the "CE Category A" standard really equate a bluewater boat?


No


----------



## Classic30

mitiempo said:


> No


Of course, there are 'bluewater boats' and there's 'bluewater sailors'.. You kinda need both.


----------



## smackdaddy

ordkhntr said:


> Which kinda brings up a question for those that know much more than I....
> does the "CE Category A" standard really equate a bluewater boat?
> I am asking because I truly don't know. There are lots of "products" out there that have passed this test or that test and are deemed to be at a certain standard in the labs, but in the real world they just don't cut it.
> 
> The Catalina 385 meets the Catagory A....and again, I am asking because I have been out of this for a while, but looking back 20-30 years Catalina's didn't really have that type of quality or strength.....at least that's what I remember.


To a large degree - yes. Here is the definition:



> Category A. OCEAN: Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient.


This is what rated boats are built for - which covers the majority of the sailing people do in typical cruising all over the world. Beyond this are features and preferences such as tankage, storage, sea berths, and many, many other things that various people have different ideas about being critical for longer passages. And it's here that the debate typically swirls to eternity.


----------



## ordkhntr

Classic30 said:


> Of course, there are 'bluewater boats' and there's 'bluewater sailors'.. You kinda need both.


yeah, right now I probably qualify as a "light green see the bottom" kind of sailor :boat :


----------



## Classic30

ordkhntr said:


> yeah, right now I probably qualify as a "light green see the bottom" kind of sailor :boat :


In that case, a Category A boat will do you just fine! Just try not to run aground...


----------



## ordkhntr

Classic30 said:


> In that case, a Category A boat will do you just fine! Just try not to run aground...


actually looking at at Catalina 25 for the local lake..... at least 5 years out from being able to move aboard anything......but ya can dream


----------



## outbound

Had hoped this thread was dead. Somethings should be repeated.
Unlike prior rating systems where to my understanding the major driver was insurance companies assessing risk the EU system was derived differently. One of the major stakeholders was the boat building companies of the various EU member states. The ratings reflect, in part, their economic interests. Hence, some sailors believe they are not as stringent as could be and should not be the major determinant in judging seaworthiness.
Although buff,young rockstar sailors can take beamy open cockpit flush deck screamers around the world the average cruiser is usually short handed, in average shape, in middle age and with a modicum of heavy weather sailing experience. Just staying upright on an open deck or cockpit in a pitching sea without adequate handholds can be problematic. If you peruse the posts of those sailing open waters on even just this site you will see a paucity of race boat derived hulls and deck plans. However sexy sells so current offerings reflect that driver rather than the reality of short handed blue water sailing.
Production boat builders to be successful need to appeal to their market. Needs to entertain or live at anchor are often in conflict with the needs when passagemaking. Given the significance other often also signs off on such a large purchase designs are increasingly reflecting the lifestyle appeal rather than the ergonomics of passagemaking. 
The gestalt of "pay me now or pay me later" embues the decisions of the passage maker. Stick built boats and their variants are known to be durable. This level of conservative thought persists in the long term cruising population and not without reason. Admittedly perhaps at times incorrectly. Liners and for some even cores are viewed with concern. Concern is rather placed on durability, ease of repair and maintenance. When selling the dirt dwelling and taking off for parts unknown the concept of a "disposal boat" or need for extensive refit or repair outside prior home waters is repugnant.
On another tread there is disagreement about risk and wear and tear in coastal v. blue water sailing. However, the snowbird loop of US to eastern carribean or Panama to Grenada is being viewed as coastal. From personal knowledge of the issues fellow cruisers have faced after arduous passages, be they coastal or blue, one would say these issues of durability, ease maintenance and repair should be one of if not the premier concern in judging suitability of a vessel for long term open water cruising.


----------



## jackdaw

smackdaddy said:


> To a large degree - yes. Here is the definition:
> 
> This is what rated boats are built for - which covers the majority of the sailing people do in typical cruising all over the world. Beyond this are features and preferences such as tankage, storage, sea berths, and many, many other things that various people have different ideas about being critical for longer passages. And it's here that the debate typically swirls to eternity.


CE ratings are 95% a function of stability, which is mostly a function of length. That's why 95% of boats over 30 feet are A rated, and 95% of those under are B or C.

Anyone who gets a hard-on over those words 'largely self sufficient' in a A rated boat is a fool.


----------



## guitarguy56

outbound said:


> Had hoped this thread was dead. Somethings should be repeated.
> Unlike prior rating systems where to my understanding the major driver was insurance companies assessing risk the EU system was derived differently. One of the major stakeholders was the boat building companies of the various EU member states. The ratings reflect, in part, their economic interests. Hence, some sailors believe they are not as stringent as could be and should not be the major determinant in judging seaworthiness.
> Although buff,young rockstar sailors can take beamy open cockpit flush deck screamers around the world the average cruiser is usually short handed, in average shape, in middle age and with a modicum of heavy weather sailing experience. Just staying upright on an open deck or cockpit in a pitching sea without adequate handholds can be problematic. If you peruse the posts of those sailing open waters on even just this site you will see a paucity of race boat derived hulls and deck plans. However sexy sells so current offerings reflect that driver rather than the reality of short handed blue water sailing.
> Production boat builders to be successful need to appeal to their market. Needs to entertain or live at anchor are often in conflict with the needs when passagemaking. Given the significance other often also signs off on such a large purchase designs are increasingly reflecting the lifestyle appeal rather than the ergonomics of passagemaking.
> The gestalt of "pay me now or pay me later" embues the decisions of the passage maker. Stick built boats and their variants are known to be durable. This level of conservative thought persists in the long term cruising population and not without reason. Admittedly perhaps at times incorrectly. Liners and for some even cores are viewed with concern. Concern is rather placed on durability, ease of repair and maintenance. When selling the dirt dwelling and taking off for parts unknown the concept of a "disposal boat" or need for extensive refit or repair outside prior home waters is repugnant.
> On another tread there is disagreement about risk and wear and tear in coastal v. blue water sailing. However, the snowbird loop of US to eastern carribean or Panama to Grenada is being viewed as coastal. From personal knowledge of the issues fellow cruisers have faced after arduous passages, be they coastal or blue, one would say these issues of durability, ease maintenance and repair should be one of if not the premier concern in judging suitability of a vessel for long term open water cruising.


A lot of hot air here... blah blah blah.... simply stated old salts get non CE rated boats or older designed boats and new up and coming sailors with income to spare get CE rated boats.

That's what I'm seeing in the industry.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Had hoped this thread was dead. .........................................................................................................................................................................................................


LOL, the ......................................................................................................................................... was just Bah Bah Bah


----------



## outbound

Would note my boat meets EU A, and the other certifying societies mandates.

You gentleman need to go sailing more. 

Agree this thread has turned into the same old crap. Of interest what I see is up and coming sailors with income to spare are bypassing production boats entirely and going semi production, one off or multi. Believe what you want. I'm done with your negativity and provincialism.


----------



## guitarguy56

outbound said:


> Would note my boat meets EU A, and the other certifying societies mandates.
> 
> You gentleman need to go sailing more.
> 
> Agree this thread has turned into the same old crap. Of interest what I see is up and coming sailors with income to spare are bypassing production boats entirely and going semi production, one off or multi. Believe what you want. I'm done with your negativity and provincialism.


LOL... Go sailing more? Aren't we sailing as much as YOU are on the forums? This is Smacks thread and you think it should be 'dead'... LOL


----------



## outbound

I have a life and had to take the winter off to close out my land life issues. It's called being an adult.

Running gear prepped and acetone washed. Cover comes off today. In two weeks boat splashes and we move on her. House goes up for sale in May. Once sold living full time on boat and will head toward Canada. September head toward Norfolk. Beginning of November sail to BVI and head slowly to Trinidad. Then ?????

What are you up to????


Interesting to note your attacks are pure venom with absolutely no substance. I like Smack. He's a good guy. He offers reasons for his positions. Think over time we have learned from each other. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Personal Attack removed per forum rules: Jeff_H SailNet Moderator

One would note you have offered NO information to support your attacks. If you have it please share. Otherwise chill.


----------



## guitarguy56

outbound said:


> Interesting to note your attacks are pure venom with absolutely no substance. I like Smack. He's a good guy. He offers reasons for his positions. Think over time we have learned from each other.
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Personal Attack removed per forum rules: Jeff_H SailNet Moderator
> One would note you have offered NO information to support your attacks. If you have it please share. Otherwise chill.


They aren't attacks Outbound... pure disagreements with what you state... If anything else you've done quite a bit of 'subtle attacks' yourself. 'Empty shell'? That's good Doc... anything you could give me for my ailments? LOL...

But just so you think up and coming sailors are into buying custom built vessels as you purportedly believe... here are some quite young sailors (newbies) and the vessel a CE Rated catamaran from of all places France! Enjoy the video...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Personal Attack removed per forum rules: Jeff_H SailNet Moderator


----------



## outbound

Peas and carrots. Off to the boat.

Would note just as I said above they are on a multi.


----------



## guitarguy56

outbound said:


> Peas and carrots. Off to the boat.
> 
> Would note just as I said above they are on a multi.


That's good Outbound... In reality I'm very happy for you... As I posted in the $3000 thread... We are not ready for hitting the waves yet... still have commitments for land based activities before we even hit the Caribbean but you've read that I'm sure.. but being the fact I'm an empty shell I'm sure you glossed over it.. not important to read... but it's there! If you think I'm all puff and no substance... I offer you my slip at my home in Savannah as a stop over on your way to the Keys... check out the town!


----------



## Don L

People don't seem to understand how important it is to some to trash the mass market productions boats. It is critical to some that this occurs and all the "reasons" accepted in order for them to justify the boat they have. The most interesting part of this is how it applies to both semi-production expensive boats and 30 year old "classic plastic" boats.

And of course then there are just the outright snobs, and the sad snobs who for some reason can not recognize that they are snobs.


----------



## Don L

guitarguy56 said:


> .. I offer you my slip at my home in Savannah as a stop over on your way to the Keys... check out the town!


Hey since he probably isn't going to accept this can I step up for it this Fall? :2 boat::2 boat:


----------



## outbound

Think many of production boats are excellent vessels. There is NO intention to trash them. I'm on a production boat. I would have no issue trading for PSC 44, HR 46, Xc, Boreal, Catana or many others. Still think in broadest terms you get what you pay for and there is a dynamic of conflict between needs on passage and at anchor


----------



## guitarguy56

Don0190 said:


> Hey since he probably isn't going to accept this can I step up for it this Fall? :2 boat::2 boat:


You're most surely welcomed Don. Send me a PM when you're on your way... I have plenty of room and Turner's Creek is deep (over 10' at the deepest at the slip but entrance to the creek is shallow during low tide (under 4 feet in some areas). Savannah is great that time of year and sure you'll like the history and the nightlife (if you like jazz)!


----------



## MarcStAug

Don0190 said:


> People don't seem to understand how important it is to some to trash the mass market productions boats. It is critical to some that this occurs and all the "reasons" accepted *in order for them to justify the boat they have*. The most interesting part of this is how it applies to both semi-production expensive boats and 30 year old "classic plastic" boats.
> 
> And of course then there are just the outright snobs, and the sad snobs who for some reason can not recognize that they are snobs.


IMHO (and ONLY IMHO) the underlying reason for trashing of "production" boats are the folks who have deep pockets and can afford uber expensive (to the majority of folks) self-described BW boats love to tell everyone else who cannot afford them how inadequate the boats we can afford are.

I learned from friends and mentors alike: it's not the boat, it's using the boat to do what you enjoy. Stop measuring yourself and your boat against others. If you are perfectly happy sitting at the dock? SIT THERE! If you like to do day sails? DO THEM! Want a BW passage? Go for it! For heaven's sake, just because you can spend a half million bucks on a boat won't make you a better sailor or person for having done that, nor will it make you an authority.

When I sold my boat in FL, that 46' mono just wasn't the boat for me. But it *was* one of those boats that get regularly hammered around here and in its many years under sail, mostly weekly and for some months at a time, it behaved and performed quite nicely.. never lost a keel; never flexed so badly it broke up. Water stayed outside and it was a great home away from home.

Sometimes I just shake my head reading these arguments one way or another and just wonder when someone is going to just whip it out and say "So how big is yours?" because that seems to be whats going on anyway.


----------



## guitarguy56

MarcStAug said:


> IMHO (and ONLY IMHO) the underlying reason for trashing of "production" boats are the folks who have deep pockets and can afford uber expensive (to the majority of folks) self-described BW boats love to tell everyone else who cannot afford them how inadequate the boats we can afford are.
> 
> Sometimes I just shake my head reading these arguments one way or another and just wonder when someone is going to just whip it out and say "So how big is yours?" because that seems to be whats going on anyway.


Marc... I couldn't have said it better! :laugh


----------



## Don L

MarcStAug said:


> IMHO (and ONLY IMHO) the underlying reason for trashing of "production" boats are the folks who have deep pockets and can afford uber expensive (to the majority of folks) self-described BW boats love to tell everyone else who cannot afford them how inadequate the boats we can afford are.


Is that a true snob, or a sad snob?


----------



## MarcStAug

Don0190 said:


> Is that a true snob, or a sad snob?


Dealers choice don't ya think?


----------



## nhsail

Production boats can be many things; 1970's chopper gun IOR designs, to double enders weighing > 500lb/ft length. 

At some point if you are buying from a volume manufacturer, you might hope to get some level of continuous improvement in the manufacturing and refinement of the design. A one off boat, no matter how well built is exactly that, you have to depend on the previous standards, designs & builds for the learnings.

Long distance sailing is almost by definition bifurcated into small crew and fast delivery/racing where there are enough bodies to staff watches. Your newer lighter boats, tend to have quicker motions, be less "sea kindly" and wear out the crew faster than traditional styles and builds. Your milage will vary.


----------



## outbound

NH your post reminds me of prior posts of JeffH. To my limited understanding he made a good case for seakindlyness being more complex then just displacement. In short a light boat could be seakindly. Now with the advent of reliable manufacture and building in CF core construction also as strong if not stronger than the prior "bulletproof" overbuilt boats of the past. BP has shown us how CF allows him to place additional ballast given there's less weight in the hull, house and deck creating a vessel with AVS of a remarkable 140*. Even with the full keel would expect excellent performance from that design.
Seems what comes out of Betts yard or on this coast NEB or the Bene custom yard would not cause concern about quality. Think with computer modeling and so many very talented N.A.s in active practice throughout the world much of the risk of a one off has decreased. Think this is true in exotics, wood or metal. The materials, design and execution continues to move forward. I'm thinking of one off cruising boats not racers pushing the envelope always trying something new hence unproven. 
Still you are very insightful in pointing out the bifurcation in long distance sailing. Don't think it's being a snob pointing this out. Still don't understand why stating the ergonomics of ocean sailing with small crew does not seem to be the leading concern in current large scale production runs is snobbish. What is snobbish about that statement is beyond me. Once again stones thrown instead substantive discussion. Oh well. 

Cover is off, frame off, through hull exits sanded, base plates and backing plates for Hydrovane done. All bedded in. Woo hoo getting there!!! Time for Motrin and bed for me as well. 

Btw be delighted to come to Savannah. Maybe next spring if we decide to come home and go that way. Never been there on a boat.


----------



## ordkhntr

Is there a general accepted manufacturing number ( # of units built) that differentiates production vs custom manufactures? Again, just wondering....


----------



## Shockwave

500# per linael foot, that's a bit light don't you think?


----------



## PNWHunter40

I was just rewatching the Volvo ocean race and the rebuild of team Vestus boat. It looked like there was a grid in the hull of that boat.


----------



## Shockwave

You're probably seeing the ring frames and longitudinals in the video. All boats have some sort of internal structure to carry the loads of the keel and spar.


----------



## robert sailor

Wouldn't get too tied up on this topic. You don't get the best product at the lowest price, surely all of us know this. At the lowest price you might get a product that is good enough and I think that's the bar the lower cost production builders aim for. They deliver a high value product that meets the needs of the majority of their buyers and that's their key to success. Like everything else in life boats are built to a variety of standards as well as fit and finish. Some folks have the money to own the best but most don't but that's no reason to put down anyone's else's choices. It's the way the world goes around.


----------



## smackdaddy

That's why I drive a Maserati and sail a Hunter.


----------



## Ninefingers

smackdaddy said:


> That's why I drive a Maserati and sail a Hunter.


Maserati's are really wacky and unreliable cars, no?


----------



## mr_f

I like my boat. I hope you all like your boat too.


----------



## Rob Patterson

OK. 
I found the limit.
I decided to move up to a big boat to live on and sail to interesting dive sites.
I looked at a lot of on-line ads.
I visited several marinas.
I went aboard some boats.
I saw a beautiful very well maintained hunter for a remarkably affordable price.
I saw some Beneteaus, Catalinas, a new Hanse and some others.
The one that fit the bill is an old Hans Christian 48T.
The difference is an aesthetic appeal.
The boat is beautiful in a way that makes me want to be there. Other people probably like the modern styling but I like the old boat.
It helps that it handles well in light air and really likes a blow. It tracks straight and doesn't round up with every little gust.
I have a little maintenance to do to make the outside just for me.
The limit for production boats is the charm. Nothing about sailing at all.


----------



## Yamsailor

Not everyone can afford a fancy high-end sailboat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Beneteau, Jeanneau, and Catalina. They provide good quality for the price point. It is rather petty to criticize someone for purchasing a boat that they can afford. The experience of sailing is more important than the type of (sailing) vessel.


----------



## Rob Patterson

Yamsailor said:


> Not everyone can afford a fancy high-end sailboat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Beneteau, Jeanneau, and Catalina. They provide good quality for the price point. It is rather petty to criticize someone for purchasing a boat that they can afford. The experience of sailing is more important than the type of (sailing) vessel.


I second that. My first boat was a 31-year old production boat and I loved it.


----------



## SimonV

robert sailor said:


> Wouldn't get too tied up on this topic. You don't get the best product at the lowest price, surely all of us know this. At the lowest price you might get a product that is good enough and I think that's the bar the lower cost production builders aim for. They deliver a high value product that meets the needs of the majority of their buyers and that's their key to success. Like everything else in life boats are built to a variety of standards as well as fit and finish. Some folks have the money to own the best but most don't but that's no reason to put down anyone's else's choices. It's the way the world goes around.


I agree even NASA outsources to the lowest bidder.


----------



## guitarguy56

Yamsailor said:


> Not everyone can afford a fancy high-end sailboat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Beneteau, Jeanneau, and Catalina. They provide good quality for the price point. It is rather petty to criticize someone for purchasing a boat that they can afford. The experience of sailing is more important than the type of (sailing) vessel.


There's a quote that should be enshrined at the halls of Oyster, Swan, Hinckley, or other snobbish boat builders for high rollers!


----------



## smackdaddy

In this thread, as well as my other related and wildly popular thread on CF, we've talked a lot about motion comfort in rough seaways and how well "blue water" boats do versus "production boats".

To put all that in perspective, you need to watch the video below. This boat is an Amel Super Maramu 53 - which is UNQUESTIONABLY regarded as one of the better "bluewater boats" in the world.

Does it "pound" in heavy seas? Is the motion uncomfortable? Does it keep the crew from fatigue and wanting off the boat?

You be the judge. It doesn't get any more first-hand than this...


----------



## outbound

Split rig
Heavy boat
Fully protected helm
Safe walkways
Good tracking boat
Very little pounding for conditions. Excellent motion in conditions.
Good sea berthes 
Sailplan and rig stood up
Dry boat

Yup Amels do just fine even with in mast furlers and weird French detailing.
Vid speaks well for the boat. Note in absence of high top sides blowing side to side seemed to track well. Note absence of jib stay sag or evidence of pumping on apparent broad reach. Note no one was sick. Corkscrewing in a quartering sea is very pukeogenic for many. Boat seemed to corkscrew a very little bit. This probably due to size, weight, diagonals, appendages. Lighter boats with little rocker and higher top sides might be more prone to that motion in conditions shown.
Yup an endorsement for Amel over other French production boats.
P.S. Amel is a production boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

As has been the boundary for _this_ discussion since very early on (and since the very first post on the CF thread) - to keep things very clear and simple, "production boats" (at least in these forums) are defined as the very widely recognized and referred to "BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas" (the mass production brands still in business). In effect, those boats not seen as "bluewater worthy" by many in these discussions.

The reason for this distinction is that if newbs are researching boats, the above categorization is what they will run into on virtually every forum. So it's important, at least for this thread, to keep things simple and clear.

Amel is absolutely not in that category.

Beyond this thread you are welcome to define whatever boat however you'd like. But dem's da rulz here.


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> Yup Amels do just fine even with in mast furlers and weird French detailing.


They have the same stupid Mobelo locker and drawer latches I have on my boat.

Every boat has SOMETHING to complain about. *grin*


----------



## amwbox

Am I missing something here? What is accomplished with comparing a very high dollar, very large boat like a Super Maramu to a (insert whatever)?

Also, so long as its not something very simple that is verified by a mathematical proof, ANYTHING is questionable.

I've got no idea how much pounding one would experience on one of these. What is the hull profile? Pretty sure this a fin/spade job, so it probably has a fairly flat bottom? Pretty much any boat will pound in conditions conducive to pounding. The shape of the hull, overhangs, etc, tends to make this worse or "less worse". My understanding is that the pounding is simply less of an issue with larger boats, and more a function of swell frequency than anything else.

Not sure what we're supposed to be seeing in this vid. The boat looks to be behaving as its design dictates to me. 

Maybe rather than production boats vs whatever, you should be looking at small boats vs large boats, if this is the logic. When I think "production boat" I think of the C27's in their thousands all over the marinas, for example, not large boats that should have fewer issues simply by virture of waterline length and the relative robustness that must follow a heavier boat...

At least to my thinking the real debate here is when you compare one of those C27's to a Nor'Sea 27 or an Albin Vega 27, or a PSC Orion 27, etc etc etc. 

Is there really a raging debate about 50+ foot boats that are rationally compared to that Amel?


----------



## smackdaddy

amwbox said:


> Is there really a raging debate about 50+ foot boats that are rationally compared to that Amel?


Typically around 35+. And yes.

The small boats might be another interesting take - but that's not what this thread is about. Maybe start another focused on those? I'd be interested in the read.


----------



## robert sailor

While the Amel is not my cup of tea it is a very well built boat, basically a one piece hull and deck, water tight bulkheads and great onboard systems that are designed to be worked on. While the modern flat bottom boats are the king of pounders even something like the Amel can be a rough ride trying to make miles upwind when it's really blowing. A modern production boat is very capable of sailing the same route but it would certainly not be as comfortable.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Typically around 35+. And yes.
> 
> The small boats might be another interesting take - but that's not what this thread is about. Maybe start another focused on those? I'd be interested in the read.


Wait. How is this thread not about these boats? They aren't an "interesting take"...there have been thousands of them constructed, and a great many of them are out there right now, passage making with no trouble at all as they were purpose designed to do. Is there a specific length we're confined to? 35 ft, you say? OK, so what does a 54 ft Amel ketch that displaces probably near on 20 tons have to do with this again?

Why are we throwing out anything under a certain LOA but espousing a 54 ft cruising ketch as some sort of indication of...what exactly?


----------



## smackdaddy

All I can say is read the threads. All this stuff has already been hashed out over the 5K posts and almost half-a-million views here, and 1K+ posts and almost 100K views on CF. We've been at this a while.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> While the Amel is not my cup of tea it is a very well built boat, basically a one piece hull and deck, water tight bulkheads and great onboard systems that are designed to be worked on. While the modern flat bottom boats are the king of pounders even something like the Amel can be a rough ride trying to make miles upwind when it's really blowing. A modern production boat is very capable of sailing the same route but it would certainly not be as comfortable.


I think I'd agree with you on this RS. I'm a bit hesitant to say that because I think in these conditions in the video, the boat itself is actually not going to matter nearly as much as the mindset. But I don't doubt there will be differences between this boat and an Oceanis 55 for example (though I'm not sure exactly what they'd be in this context). Like you, I think the O55 would do fine.

They do talk a good deal about the whole boat and rig shaking and flying off their berths, etc. And they talk about being sick as well. It was a rough ride for sure. And in those conditions (~F9) the concept of "motion comfort" difference between boats certainly seems to start diminishing a good deal...which is important to the substance of this long-running debate I think. In those conditions, the differences just aren't that huge.


----------



## ianjoub

Smackdaddy, get over it!

A Hunter will sink exactly at the 20 nm mark when trying to go offshore. A bluewater boat will bounce off of a reef in a gale and head in the right direction all on its own.


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks Ian.

Thread closed.


----------



## amwbox

ianjoub said:


> Smackdaddy, get over it!
> 
> A Hunter will sink exactly at the 20 nm mark when trying to go offshore. A bluewater boat will bounce off of a reef in a gale and head in the right direction all on its own.


What are you even talking about?


----------



## Don L

I need to quit reading threads like this. I can tell from some of the posts that the topic negatively effects some peoples intelligence. I can be dumb on my own I don't need extra help!


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> All I can say is read the threads. All this stuff has already been hashed out over the 5K posts and almost half-a-million views here, and 1K+ posts and almost 100K views on CF. We've been at this a while.


I know. I've been following this travesty for a very long time. I finally created an account and started posting on this site over something particularly ridiculous lol.

But, none that that answers the questions I've posed.

If your position depends on an extremely narrow subset of boats...then your position probably isn't applicable as any sort of general truism. And it all seems inconsistent. We don't want to compare a Nor'Sea 27 or a PSC 27 to a C27...because it goes without saying that the C27 doesn't stand up well there as far passage making goes.

But on the other hand we _do_ want to compare a 20 ton Amel ketch that was specifically built to be a world cruiser to a Catalina 350?

Why are we refusing to compare apples to oranges but tossing in a random watermelon?


----------



## smackdaddy

Sorry dude, you're on your own. Like I said, we've already covered all this - and I have no interest in re-hashing it. Someone else might explain it to you at some point, it's actually very simple, but I'd rather stay focused on the topic at hand.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Sorry dude, you're on your own. Like I said, we've already covered all this - and I have no interest in re-hashing it. Someone else might explain it to you at some point, it's actually very simple, but I'd rather stay focused on the topic at hand.


So...your just copping out.

Pretty simple, really.

This thread was inactive. You brought it back from the dead...in order to compare an gigantic Amel to...things that have not much in common with a 54 foot Amel.

Its not something that's already been covered. If it had been, I would have read it.

You just tossed in this non sequitur *yesterday.*


----------



## smackdaddy

Back to the topic at hand - I've really enjoyed following Delos, not just for the bodacious ta-ta's but also to watch this boat's performance. Brian is definitely a good skipper - and obviously has a crap-ton of miles and experience at this point. This seems to have been their gnarliest passage in the 7 or so years they've been at this.

Good on 'em.


----------



## amwbox

smackdaddy said:


> Back to the topic at hand - I've really enjoyed following Delos, not just for the bodacious ta-ta's but also to watch this boat's performance. Brian is definitely a good skipper - and obviously has a crap-ton of miles and experience at this point. This seems to have been their gnarliest passage in the 7 or so years they've been at this.
> 
> Good on 'em.


Haha, you've got nothing and you know it.

This *IS* the topic at hand. Its beyond obvious why you'd try to deflect.

Again: Explain why you are comparing a 54 ft Amel ketch within the narrow confines of this topic as _you yourself_ have defined it.

You asked for this. You tossed in a Super Maramu 54.

Explain yourself.


----------



## albrazzi

Right on, we might get to 6000 if we try hard enough.


----------



## seaner97

And I got all excited when he declared the thread closed....


----------



## outbound

A
Don't you understand your opinion is bogus as is mine.
His definitions not those of the industry counts.
When durability, safety and ergonomics of the cockpit or foredeck are discussed they are discounted as irrelevant.
Opinions from professionals and experienced cruisers are deemed as single examples and outliers to be ignored.
Regardless of subject be it limited value of CE rating, difficulties of designs optimized for dockside living, difficulty in shaping sails to current conditions, or difficulty of prepping for heavy weather only his opinion counts and obvious physics or laws of nature are to be discounted.
Yup a lot of us have tried to respond with respect and in accordance to the realities of cruising but received nothing but abuse. I'll try to be a gentleman but I'm nearing my end.
Simple example- Current Hunters are very easy to sail. Two strings to put sails out or in. Two strings to sail. Main sheet and single jib sheet. No significant ability to shape sails. No stock way to put up storm canvas. Now this is fine for pleasant day coastal cruising. It is deficient as regards making VMG on passage, sailing in weather or sailing DDW. This has nothing to do with cost but everything to do with design and projected use. Similarly Solent rigs are a poor choice for day sailing. To tack the genny you need to roll it in, tack and roll it out. On a light air day this is a PITA. There are a multiplicity of controls to tweak and a big tangle of spaghetti to flake and reflake. Another PITA. This has nothing to do with cost. Offshore the Solent comes into its own when course changes are rare and the gain in VMG, safety and ease at any point of sail in any weather appreciated. Simple physics, rig choice based on the wisdom and skills of experienced sailors and naval architects. But unbased irrational opinion is inferred according to the thread starter. 
Boat referenced above is a double headed ketch. Here again a great choice for the ocean cruiser as is the cutter. A poor choice for day sailing with the added weight and complexity. Even the fractional designed and built to Jeffs spec makes little sense on a production coastal boat. Here expense is relevant in JeffH's suggested rig and again there are a host of sail controls to master and requisite strings to tweak.
Seems an informed discussion is quite difficult here. Hope others continue to try.
Have said above in past with no thoughtful reply.


----------



## RobGallagher

I've harped on about price points several times on this thread and I still maintain it's THE top of the list when it comes to actually making the purchase of the best boat for 'you'.

We can all dream but lets just assume everyone here is on some type of budget. I'm going out on a limb to say that NO ONE with 5 million in the bank for retirement, 20 yrs life expectancy and plans to sail from NY to cruise the S. Pacific thinks "1990 Hunter" as a good choice. Nor would they likely consider a newish Hunter 40. It makes no sense at all to think that they would.

That same person with $500K to retire off of might think that starting with a $50K boat is not the worst of plans.

If one wants a modern design with the amenities that really started to come into fruition after 1990 then you get what you can. If getting what you can means writing a check to Morris Yachts then good for you. It might also mean purchasing one of the 9 boats for sale on yachtworld.com, located between Virginia and Maine, built in the last 20 years, and priced between 40K-60K

4 Hunters
4 Catalinas
1 Benneteau
1 pilot house motorsailer thingamabob
1 Jboat that I would to expect to be more suitable for racing then cruising.

Increase your dollars or go older and your choices increase. Immenities like a walk through transom or an aft cabin also start to get thinner, but the quality of build may go up. Things like cutter rigging or cockpits and cabins built for passage making become available.

Change your search criteria to 130K to 150K and everything changes.

And again, I'm not bashing Hunters or any other boat. It's just the way it is. I may take my 1990 Hunter or my Catalina or my C&C offshore but don't you once, even for a second, think it would be my first choice given other circumstances. It will be the choice I must make due to my financial limitations.


----------



## outbound

Rob you're right of course but it goes farther. Whereas prior Shannons were aimed at extended ocean sailing recent ones extoll shoal draft. All are quality expensive boats. The flagships of the big four are not cheap nor poorly made but again the focus is different than let's say an Amel or HR.


----------



## amwbox

To me its really not a cost thing. I'm not discounting any particular brand of boat on the basis of what it costs, I'm simply focusing on the fundamentals of its design. What is the righting moment? Are we talking only 140 degrees of righting? 120? _Less?!_ Is it heavy enough? Is the rudder well protected and supported? How well does it track downwind? What keel is it? Are the hull sections wine glass shaped or flat bottomed? How thick is the layup? Is the ballast bolted on or encapsulated? What sort of hull-deck joint is used? Can I get to the hull if I need to, or is it blocked over with liners and such? How many thru-hulls? Can I easily inspect the chainplates? Do I have lots of variations with the sailing rig? Controls for shaping the sails? Are there a dozen potential failure points for water to crash into the boat during a rollover? And so on and so fourth.

And really...some old chunky and slow cruising boat from the distant past will check most of those boxes. And it'll be out of style, and thus cheap. It'll be simple, and thus reliable. It will have been overbuilt because of the paranoia of old school boat designers and builders who didn't quite trust this fiberglass stuff yet. And thus robust.

It doesn't have to be expensive. It doesn't have to be a Morris. Doesn't even have to be an Amel. It just has to have a few key characteristics that I think make it more trustworthy on the open ocean...characteristics that also make it both slower and less maneuverable, to say nothing of out of style, and thus entirely worthless to people like Smack.

I'm just the sort that cares very little for form and very much for function.


----------



## RobGallagher

outbound said:


> Rob you're right of course but it goes farther. Whereas prior Shannons were aimed at extended ocean sailing recent ones extoll shoal draft. All are quality expensive boats. The flagships of the big four are not cheap nor poorly made but again the focus is different than let's say an Amel or HR.


The flagship boats of the big four ARE cheap when compared to the flagship boats of some other companies. 

An new Hunter 40 should run less than 250K. It ain't hard to blow 400K on a new 40 foot boat, and we know it can go much higher.

And again, I never said any boat was poorly made, but all are built to a price point.


----------



## robert sailor

I think you need to define cruising or bluewater sailing or whatever. The new high production boats are all you really need if you are sailing the Med, Mexico or the Caribbean. They are great value and are a good choice however if you plan on extended ocean crossing over a long period of time there are many better choices out there. The Amel is one good example of a boat designed for this purpose in mind. The poster that suggested in the end that his choice was primarily based on his budget is spot on.


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> Don't you understand your opinion is bogus as is mine.


Those days are now behind us.



RobGallagher said:


> We can all dream but lets just assume everyone here is on some type of budget.


I don't think that's a valid assumption. There are all kinds of people in the world and I imagine the budget capacity of SN members reflect the same kind of distribution.

It is up to us as "good" (my definition) participants to accept that others may want to discuss different boats or kinds of boats than we. For those with a fatter wallet there is still something to be learned talking about less expensive and older boats. For those with fewer resources there is something to be learned, and perhaps emulated, in a discussion that includes more expensive boats.



amwbox said:


> It will have been overbuilt because of the paranoia of old school boat designers and builders who didn't quite trust this fiberglass stuff yet. And thus robust.


Probably a different discussion, but often not the case. Every pound of boat takes away from the ability to carry other weight (fuel, water, people, stores). "Overbuilt" boats tend to have weak links that fail. Space can be constrained. In the real world you are limited to hull forms and appendage design that do not take advantage of decades of important advances. I'm a pretty conservative engineer (education in naval architecture and marine engineering drives that into you) but I want my safety margins to be on purpose due to known unknowns, not concern from a lack of understanding of build materials.



RobGallagher said:


> The flagship boats of the big four ARE cheap when compared to the flagship boats of some other companies.


It is important to recognize that costs (which are a factor in price) are also affected by economies of scale. When I bought my boat I knew some of what I was paying for was small scale production. The company must make enough money to have a purchasing person, and inventory person, a design liaison, and a number of other people whose costs must be spread over 10, 100, or 1,000 boats per year. Most personnel and facility costs scale with volume but there is ALWAYS some base fixed cost. The more boats built the less the "tax" of overhead costs.

On the other hand you get a degree of support from a smaller company that is rare indeed in a big company.

And then there is commissioning variability....


----------



## albrazzi

robert sailor said:


> I think you need to define cruising or bluewater sailing or whatever. The new high production boats are all you really need if you are sailing the Med, Mexico or the Caribbean. They are great value and are a good choice however if you plan on extended ocean crossing over a long period of time there are many better choices out there. The Amel is one good example of a boat designed for this purpose in mind. The poster that suggested in the end that his choice was primarily based on his budget is spot on.


I can't imagine how in 5900 posts this has not been adequately defined. You have a lot of reading to do.:laugh


----------



## bobperry

70 year old Jeff Heartjoy just completed a solo, non stop circumnavigation in a stock Baba 40 ketch. He spoke at the Perry Rendezvous this weekend. He was asked "what broke" and his answer was everything except his AIS system and the boat. Production grp boats that are well designed and well built can do anything. Look for Jeff's upcoming book or visit his web site at www.sailorsrun.com

Valiants have also done non stop, solo circumnavigations. Good boats.
I can't even count the number of my production boats that have circumnavigated. A Baba 30 did it solo.
Reality.


----------



## outbound

Bob is the maestro. Believe him. Basic premise of this thread is just wrong. Other than one offs all boats are production boats. As with anything there are good ones and not so much. He has designed quite a few good ones.


----------



## RTB

SVAuspicious said:


> Those days are now behind us.


So, is smack on vacation....or is the Ban permanent?

Ralph


----------



## outbound

Bob references some truly beautiful boats. At that time Asian labor was inexpensive, import costs were reasonable and mechanics although difficult not ridiculous. Teak forests still existed. There was a middle class with enough disposable income that a market for new boats sufficient to support the expenses of tooling new designs existed in the USA. 
So the economics of Bob designing these boats and being personally involved in the yards constructing them made sense. There were multiple small yards here in the US and around the world. Now those small yards are rare and except in aluminum or cold molded wood becoming rarer. The tooling expenses for things like infusion or cadcam or even vacuum bagging let alone molds, a legal and marketing staff make the price of admission to the production boat building world much higher.
The industry consolidates with larger firms surviving. Bob is driven by love of boats. I'm sure M & M or German Frers or any of the big design houses are as well. However unlike the shoestring small production manufacturing firms the CFO has just as much input as the CEO in decisions. Believe prior the corporatization of design decisions was not as applicable as the principal of production firms was one or two people who knew the fastest way to lose money was to go in the boat building business. Was involved in a very small building business trying to make peter Ibold cutters in wareham Massachusetts so have some limited experience.
There is an undercurrent in this thread. Boldly stated" is the extreme increase in cost for a one off or semi custom worth it?". This is question work h discussion as it underpins much of the above.


----------



## amwbox

SVAuspicious said:


> Probably a different discussion, but often not the case. Every pound of boat takes away from the ability to carry other weight (fuel, water, people, stores). "Overbuilt" boats tend to have weak links that fail. Space can be constrained. In the real world you are limited to* hull forms and appendage design that do not take advantage of decades of important advances.*


I think the bolded is the real crux of this whole abominable thread.

Really, its probably a matter of personal boat philosophy on whether or not we believe that those "decades of important advances" are _actually_ advances.

If your priority is pointing higher, going faster, and actually being able to back into a slip without undue frustration...then yes...the flat bottomed hull and fin/spade setup is undeniably a major advance.

If however, you are more concerned with protected steering and grounding damage resistance, and maybe downwind tracking and motion comfort, for example, you'd probably consider those "important advances" to be nothing of the sort.

And then we get this thread.

I own a fin/spade C&C right now, but I've had a fair amount of offshore experience as crew on the old school stuff...and there is no question in my mind which I'd prefer "out there".

Obviously other people have very different views. But I think its a mistake to claim that the move towards these new hull forms is an objectively good thing. Or even an objective advancement, since of course people like me don't consider the advantages to outweigh the drawbacks. This evolution in cruising boats isn't about seaworthiness, its about making the boat less cumbersome to sail, faster, more easily maneuvered, and more useful in light winds and close to the wind. All of this is great news, if not much of a priority to me personally...but I'm perfectly happy forgoing it all and getting where I'm going a few days later if it means I don't have to take the flip side of that coin.

To each their own.


----------



## outbound

A -this is key so will try to give the counter point. Have owned and been in light air,line squalls, and gales on a T37(full keel double ender), PSC34( low aspect fin and sleg hung rudder), multiple cape Dories (very traditional full keel) and Outbound 46 ( bulbed fin with balanced spade rudder). Understand this is a very small sample and boats are of different sizes. Also done passages on B40, Tripp sleds, j boats and others.
Think your statement reflects a basic inaccuracy. Believe Bob's cf cutters will point just as high as many high aspect fins. Know my outbound tracks just as well as my Tayana and the comfort in a seaway can be bad or good in any type of boat.
Rather think these issues reflect the genius or lack there of of the naval architect. Do agree is easier to get a responsive helm with a spade rudder. Do not agree you can't make the design just as strong as attached. Agree some hull forms are faster in certain conditions and so forth. Think it more interesting to discuss specific designs. Look at the cf cutter thread. Fascinating to see the design advances Bob made within the mandate of that client.


----------



## bobperry

I think Outbound has a good perspective on this. I try not to generalize about boat types and shapes. I treat therm all as individuals and I'm certainly not going to try to cram my personal preferences down anyone's throat. I lay out the consequences of the various design options then I work with the client to choose what will work best for them. This is not a"one type fits all" situation.

Thanks for the kind words Out.

I have no doubt that my big, outboard barn door rudder on the carbon cutters has enough balance to give a light helm feel. Over the years I have grown very picky about the feel of a boat's helm.

So the Smacker has left the building? For good? Damn.
I'll have to follow him on his blog.
http://bfsshop.com/b...gain/#more-1151


----------



## amwbox

outbound said:


> A -this is key so will try to give the counter point. Have owned and been in light air,line squalls, and gales on a T37(full keel double ender), PSC34( low aspect fin and sleg hung rudder), multiple cape Dories (very traditional full keel) and Outbound 46 ( bulbed fin with balanced spade rudder). Understand this is a very small sample and boats are of different sizes. Also done passages on B40, Tripp sleds, j boats and others.
> Think your statement reflects a basic inaccuracy. Believe Bob's cf cutters will point just as high as many high aspect fins. Know my outbound tracks just as well as my Tayana and the comfort in a seaway can be bad or good in any type of boat.
> Rather think these issues reflect the genius or lack there of of the naval architect. Do agree is easier to get a responsive helm with a spade rudder. Do not agree you can't make the design just as strong as attached. Agree some hull forms are faster in certain conditions and so forth. Think it more interesting to discuss specific designs. Look at the cf cutter thread. Fascinating to see the design advances Bob made within the mandate of that client.


Fair enough, and I'll bow to your obviously greater experience, and I agree that its easy to get into trouble generalizing.

That said, I don't disagree that a spade CAN be built perfectly strong...but real world _are_ they being built as strong? The guys at the nearby boat yard are pretty routinely employed at repairing bent rudder stocks..which leads me to believe that for whatever reason...a lot of these setups simply aren't standing up to the abuse they're dealt. We actually had a boat sink a few years back when the rudder got caught in a loop of old cable and the lever action actually broke the hull at the bearing. Freak accident, sure, but worth some thought.

In any case...all anecdotal, but since this thread was apparently started as Smack's response to Hunter Hate, and since hull and rudder forms have been repeatedly written off as lesser concerns, I figured most would agree (as a generality!) that the spade/fin boats tend to be quite a bit better in terms of speed and pointing etc etc. If you were to take an average, perhaps. I know my C&C will sail circles around the Lord Nelson 41 I did my Hilo to Homer aboard, for example. Though I'm not as confident the C&C would have stood up to that passage. 

Comparing boat to boat on an individual basis could surely net us another 6000 posts lol.


----------



## bobperry

Yes, a spade rudder can be built just as strong as a keel or skeg hung rudder. It's just a matter of engineering and sufficient safety factors.
For me the ultimate in rudder strength today is a carbon spade with a carbon stock. This is the only kind of rudder I will do now on my custom designs. They are monocoque and do not suffer the water intrusion issues of older grp blade with s.s. stock type rudders. I have done many and never had one fail.


----------



## mstern

RTB said:


> So, is smack on vacation....or is the Ban permanent?
> 
> Ralph


According to his blog, it's permanent.

I didn't always agree with the substance of his comments (although I often did), and I was sometimes uncomfortable with him being purposefully confrontational (although not always). But he did start and foster some very interesting and enlightening conversations here. I'm going to miss his contributions.


----------



## RTB

Yep. I already got a PM from the mods, and read/commented on his blog. Thanks for your post.

Ralph


----------



## Minnesail

mstern said:


> According to his blog, it's permanent.


Permanent? That seems excessive.

Maybe he can sign up again as Carlos_Danger_53


----------



## Donna_F

All:

Smack's ban was not done in haste and not done without a lot of thought. Back channel efforts over the past few months were unsuccessful. And, despite what he says on his blog, we DID send him a reason for the ban. I know because I spent three hours yesterday writing it.

Please let's keep the thread on topic. If you have issues with our decision, feel free to PM the mods.


----------



## RTB

Donna_F said:


> All:
> 
> Smack's ban was not done in haste and not done without a lot of thought. Back channel efforts over the past few months were unsuccessful.


...which you can see in his comment (on his blog), says never happened. So....someone is not being truthful here. Sorry for the interruption. I'll go away.

Ralph


----------



## jorgenl

Smack can sure be a PITA but a permanent ban seems excessive and CF like....


----------



## seaner97

Won't mourn the loss. Mods around here are pretty chill, so I'm betting he brought it on himself.


----------



## seaner97

Biggest problem around here with fin/spade is pot warp. There was a boat I looked at downstate a few years back that had gotten dropped on its rudder when being laid up for the winter. Rudder didn't survive that. I've seen same happen to full keel designs with significantly less damage, but that's not exactly what they're made for either way.


----------



## bobperry

I agree that the mods here are very fair and patient. For the most part. They most certainly have been patient with me. For the most part.

Smackers wears his banishment like a crown.
I am on a lifetime ban on CF so Smacks and I are in the same club now.


----------



## jackdaw

I think most people are OK with people who stir the pot if they are smart, knowledgeable on the subject matter, and self-aware. Like Bob. If you choose to stir are not these things, well you get the the idea.


----------



## bob77903

Donna_F said:


> All:
> 
> Smack's ban was not done in haste and not done without a lot of thought. Back channel efforts over the past few months were unsuccessful. And, despite what he says on his blog, we DID send him a reason for the ban. I know because I spent three hours yesterday writing it.
> 
> Please let's keep the thread on topic. If you have issues with our decision, feel free to PM the mods.


Donna, Smack says he didn't receive your reason, and a few more things, so who's being dishonest? Smack's reply, and I quote

"I also just saw Donna's reply. And though it doesn't really matter, please let her know that when one is banned, one can't see PMs that might have been sent prior to that banning - because they can't login&#8230;because they are banned! So her implication that I'm not being truthful here is a bit much. Furthermore, there were no "back channel" efforts. Period. I've not received a PM from any of the mods in I don't know how long - certainly none within the past several weeks during our trip or since I returned from it - and not even during the time those guys were blowing all this up in the iPad thread. Honesty is always the best policy"


----------



## Don L

people should learn to use the ignore feature


----------



## seaner97

Technical question- my PMs go to my email automatically. Is there some way to turn that off?


----------



## Donna_F

Before I sent the message I made a point of seeing if he was logged in. He was, whether or not he was physically at his computer I have no way of knowing. I sent the message. Not until after that did I pull the lever. I know from previous experience that as long as you are logged in you can do what you always could, including receiving messages. I watched one other person stay logged in for two days. As soon as you log out, you can't return.

I have no reason to be dishonest. I have no reason to lie about sending requests for him to tone things down. I knew the backlash this choice would cause. I knew there were going to be Smack supporters who potentially decamped from the forum. I'm not stupid.

What I will not do is engage in a "he said, she said" where messages are relayed to me by forum members.



bob77903 said:


> Donna, Smack says he didn't receive your reason, and a few more things, so who's being dishonest? Smack's reply, and I quote
> 
> "I also just saw Donna's reply. And though it doesn't really matter, please let her know that when one is banned, one can't see PMs that might have been sent prior to that banning - because they can't login&#8230;because they are banned! So her implication that I'm not being truthful here is a bit much. Furthermore, there were no "back channel" efforts. Period. I've not received a PM from any of the mods in I don't know how long - certainly none within the past several weeks during our trip or since I returned from it - and not even during the time those guys were blowing all this up in the iPad thread. Honesty is always the best policy"


----------



## RobGallagher

bobperry said:


> I agree that the mods here are very fair and patient. For the most part. They most certainly have been patient with me. For the most part.
> 
> Smackers wears his banishment like a crown.
> I am on a lifetime ban on CF so Smacks and I are in the same club now.


I've don't recall ever reading anything from you that was insulting or trollish. Just the opposite.

Yea, we all get snippy at times, that's life. Then there are those that get some kind of pathetic thrill living on the edge of an internet society. Baiting arguments and passing insults through thinly veiled generalizations.

Some forums, sailing or otherwise, are ****e. They are full of idiots, bullies and trolls. This is not one of them. The vast majority of people here are helpful, and polite. Getting booted from a forum like this is no great feat and certainly nothing to be proud of.


----------



## tdw

There are probably some emails and messages, both in and out, that I was not copied into but based on what I have seen there is no doubt whatsoever that Donna is telling the absolute truth.


----------



## outbound

Let's return to sailboats and a common difference between one offs and production boats - rudders. What follows is my uneducated view of things. Look forward to comments and further insights.

The single or double balanced spade rudders commonly seen on production boats have the potential for several weaknesses but so does other types. It takes ingenuity to curcumvent thes and expense. Talking in particulars.

Many spades result in canoe body piercings. If internal support is insufficient with impact or repeatedly stressed hull failure and a leak nearly impossible to control underway. This can be worse if internal rudder tube is not brought above the waterline. They require internal bearings of some sort even if this is just nylon or Delrin collars. Any play in these bearing surfaces produces the most annoying clunk as rudder loads shift. When the rudder tube is brought above the waterline the steering arm is in an awkward place. It's swing must be kept clear with loss of use of that interior space. Inspection and sometimes service requires a haul and disassembly. Wear or injury may not unlikely require replacement rather than repair. This is more likely with the typical aquamet rod with web and Grp/foam coating forming the rudder.

Upsides of spades is obvious to anyone who sails with them. Control in reverse. Light helm even at extreme speed. Maintenance of laminar flow even at high speed. Absence of "leak" of flow at the top as it abuts the canoebody. Decreased parasitic drag when steering.
Of rudder types it would seem easiest to design a rudder that slows the boat the least when steering with this type.
Bob's cf cutters seems to curcumvent many of the pitfalls of of common spade. The cant of the rudder would seem to create balance. The absence of a hull piercing makes any issue of hull integrity moot. But the top is open to the sea surface. In a monohull cruising boat probably not an issue. I sailed a racing tri that a friend loaned to me. The rudder was a balanced spade hung on gundgeons and pinion soft the stern. Once boat speed was in the teens the tiller vibrated so bad your hand went numb.wondered if this was from cavitation on the rudder. But hanging my head over the stern came to believe it was occurring at the interface between water and air. Be interested if others have more knowledge about that. 

Attached rudders be they attached to the back of a full keel or skeg would seem to have set difficulties. Inorderto impart actual strength the skeg needs to be highly engineered and substantial. Walking around winter yards you can see all to often the rudder is holding the skeg on not the other way around. Same is true for partials. 

Both designs work best at low speeds but even at speeds achieved by cruising boats steering slows the boat down significantly and helm maybe heavy. Picking up a wayward line between rudder post and shoe or post and canoebody or prop shaft can be a nightmare to clear. Service, repair or replacement often is more difficult then dropping a balanced spade with the boat in the slings.

Now look around at common production boats. In recent years most are balanced spades. Look inside and see the internal supporting structure. Examine how the rudder itself was made. Some are quite robust, some not so much. It's rare to see the all CF design Bob specs. But it sure seems bulletproof. The CF cutters seem bulletproof. Would not consider that rudder a balanced spade given she's open at top and attached at the bottom. But for strength, ease, decrease in difficulties seems pretty damn good. My wife would hate it. She insisted on a walk through stern with sugarscoop. Her favorite place is feet in water, drink in hand, butt on the edge of the scoop. Oh well.


----------



## Minnewaska

outbound said:


> ......My wife would hate it. She insisted on a walk through stern with sugarscoop. Her favorite place is feet in water, drink in hand, butt on the edge of the scoop. Oh well.


I think I married your wife's sister. While mine has done her fair share of watches (day and night), this would describe her well. I obliged.

Nice write up on rudders, for which I'm looking forward to reading some of our resident architect/engineer's take on. It's nice to see a measured, intelligent discussion emerge again.


----------



## Noelex

outbound said:


> Many spades result in canoe body piercings. If internal support is insufficient with impact or repeatedly stressed hull failure and a leak nearly impossible to control underway.


I have never understood why more ocean going yachts don't put the rudder tube in a watertight locker, or surround it with a coffer dam. The latter takes up little space and is not difficult to engineer. The top of rudder is reasonably close to the waterline so the coffer dam need not be very high. In our current boat it is about 4 feet above the bottom from memory and I think it could be less if needed without effecting the functionality.

As well as the obvious safety advantage it means the rudder can be dropped while the boat is in the water.


----------



## Minnesail

This is probably a horribly naive question, but why aren't more transom mounted rudders? They seem so much simpler and easier to maintain, as well as creating one fewer hole in the boat.

Is there a performance reason? Does the air/water interface on the rudder mess something up?

Small boats like the Catalina 250 have an external rudder but still have a walk through transom. I suppose on larger boats it would be harder to pull a dinghy up to the back. And I guess there are aesthetic issues with having more junk on the back.


----------



## mstern

Minnesail said:


> This is probably a horribly naive question, but why aren't more transom mounted rudders? They seem so much simpler and easier to maintain, as well as creating one fewer hole in the boat.


Two big reasons: a transom-hung rudder is more vulnerable than one mounted below the water line. Potential damage from dangerous waves and all that. Secondly, the larger the boat, the further the cockpit is from the transom and rudder; this can make for an awkward steering arrangement. You would need a long tiller that sweeps the aft deck. And while you can have a transom mounted rudder controlled by a wheel, those set ups look very complicated to me.

I think this is why you see primarily daysailers and coastal cruisers with outboard rudders. And of course because they are cheaper to make and easier to maintain.


----------



## amwbox

what mstern said.

I suspect its as much the wheel as anything else. For some reason, people hate tillers. They want wheels, even on small boats where its totally unnecessary. Even if they take up half the cockpit and are a giant PITA. Maybe a wheel seems more "yachty"?


----------



## amwbox

Noelex said:


> I have never understood why more ocean going yachts don't put the rudder tube in a watertight locker, or surround it with a coffer dam. The latter takes up little space and is not difficult to engineer. The top of rudder is reasonably close to the waterline so the coffer dam need not be very high. In our current boat it is about 4 feet above the bottom from memory and I think it could be less if needed without effecting the functionality.
> 
> As well as the obvious safety advantage it means the rudder can be dropped while the boat is in the water.


Might be complicated by the linkages for the steering gear?

Would have saved this boat, probably:






_*Srecko and Olga Pust were taking part in the rally and sailing their Sweden Yachts 45 Ciao two-handed and were nearing the end of a long passage from Indonesia to the remote Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The were only 40 miles from landfall. The rudder was all but knocked off in an 
impact with the submerged object (possibly a whale?). The first sign of the problem was that the boat was difficult to steer. When Srecko Pust investigated below he saw that the boat had been holed at the rudder stock.

He put out a Mayday on the boat's long range SSB radio and then the two did everything they could to save their yacht, leaving only as the boat sank beneath them.

They broadcast a Mayday. The only crew to hear this immediately was another a World ARC yacht nearby, J'Sea, a Jeanneau 52.2 owned by a highly experienced Canadian cruiser, John Cuzner. He alerted others. J'Sea and two other rally yachts, Royal Leopard and Spirit of Alcides, diverted and reached Ciao's position within hours.

The video linked below was taken from on board Spirit of Alcides, a Challenger 39 owned by Australians Gus and Linda Pallot.*_


----------



## Noelex

amwbox said:


> Might be complicated by the linkages for the steering gear?
> 
> Would have saved this boat, probably:


A waterproof locker can be complicated for this reason you indicate, but not a coffer dam. The steering linkages, autopilot drive etc are simply mounted above the level of the top of the coffer dam.

Unfortunately it is not a practical retrofit for most boats, but if incorporated in the design/build stage it is not enormously difficult or expensive.


----------



## Lazerbrains

mstern said:


> Two big reasons: a transom-hung rudder is more vulnerable than one mounted below the water line. Potential damage from dangerous waves and all that. Secondly, the larger the boat, the further the cockpit is from the transom and rudder; this can make for an awkward steering arrangement. You would need a long tiller that sweeps the aft deck. And while you can have a transom mounted rudder controlled by a wheel, those set ups look very complicated to me.
> 
> I think this is why you see primarily daysailers and coastal cruisers with outboard rudders. And of course because they are cheaper to make and easier to maintain.


Interesting, I typically think of offshore double enders when I think of stern hung rudders. Pacific Seacraft Maraiah, Westsail 32, etc. I don't see how it would be any more vulnerable to wave damage than any other type, and with it's multiple connection points to the hull would certainly be stronger to stand up to following waves than a spade rudder hung out in space. Can't actually say I've ever heard of one losing a rudder, but I know of several spades that have.


----------



## outbound

If I hit mega bucks- transom hung but piercing a sugar scoop and balanced. Section above sugar scoop just a rod.


----------



## amwbox

Even if there were an increased chance of losing a stern hung rudder...I'd be OK with the tradeoff of avoiding having a giant hole in my boat below the waterline where the post used to be.


----------



## mstern

Lazerbrains said:


> Interesting, I typically think of offshore double enders when I think of stern hung rudders. Pacific Seacraft Maraiah, Westsail 32, etc. I don't see how it would be any more vulnerable to wave damage than any other type, and with it's multiple connection points to the hull would certainly be stronger to stand up to following waves than a spade rudder hung out in space. Can't actually say I've ever heard of one losing a rudder, but I know of several spades that have.


There are obviously many who agree with you. Never having done offshore sailing, I have no basis to offer a personal opinion. But I have heard of waves sheering off stern railings and all sorts of fittings and equipment, so I don't see why a tiller and rudderstock would be any less vulnerable. And I always thought that those double enders and the like had stern-hung rudders because they were based on boat designs that were developed prior to the advent of the under-the-waterline rudder, not because the stern-hung rudder itself is an inherently superior design.

I don't know if a stern/transom hung rudder is "better" from a naval architecture standpoint; I suspect it depends on the boat and its intended use. But it seems to me they are cheaper to build and easier to maintain.


----------



## Lazerbrains

mstern said:


> But I have heard of waves sheering off stern railings and all sorts of fittings and equipment, so I don't see why a tiller and rudderstock would be any less vulnerable.


Big difference between a stern rudder (built for high load strength to steer a boat) and flimsy stern railings bolted to deck, with all sorts of equipment loaded atop of them



mstern said:


> I don't know if a stern/transom hung rudder is "better" from a naval architecture standpoint; I suspect it depends on the boat and its intended use. But it seems to me they are cheaper to build and easier to maintain.


I have no idea if it is cheaper to build. Better is subjective. Definitely easier to maintain, can be removed/inspected/replaced without a haulout. Stronger than a spade rudder, and without the hull penetration and possiblity of water intrusiuon. Hard to mount a self steering vane around one. Tiller generally more reliable than wheel steering, etc....


----------



## outbound

When running before a sea or surfing big issue is not to broach. Unbalanced stern hung rudders such as seen on many double enders in the past required a great deal of alertness and personal strength in such a sea. Loading can be sudden and severe. Knockdowns and broaches ruin your whole day. Even in my limited experience it is obvious its much easier to steer a balanced spade and that remains the primary function of the d-mn thing.
Inorderto gain mechanical advantage and to prevent the rudder swinging to one side due to effects of a sea it was common to use a worm gear set up on ocean boats with stern hung rudders. You lose all feel but above advantages justified its use.
Even now tillers are in use on rather large sailboats. Bobs Sliver and the K&M 53s come immediately to mind. There is no reason given current materials and design to dismiss tillers out of hand.

Before Monitors, Flemings, Hydrovanes it was common to see stern hung rudders with extensions off top and bottom supporting a steering rudder. Vane turned that small rudder which in turn turned the big rudder. Saw them commonly on Bristol channel Cutters with the vane running up the backstay.


----------



## Capt Len

Took a maple leaf 42 to san diago ,spade rudder. Every following wave was an adventure Yawing 50 degrees either side on crests common and falling full broadside into the trough from larger lumps.Steering to it didn't help much Just a lot of fun. My Spray with balanced keel steped barn door just needed a becket to hold from the stern wave.


----------



## Lazerbrains

outbound said:


> When running before a sea or surfing big issue is not to broach. Unbalanced stern hung rudders such as seen on many double enders in the past required a great deal of alertness and personal strength in such a sea. Loading can be sudden and severe. Knockdowns and broaches ruin your whole day. Even in my limited experience it is obvious its much easier to steer a balanced spade and that remains the primary function of the d-mn thing.


Double enders with stern rudders typically are long/full keeled and will not surf. My experience is the opposite - I have also been in plenty of boats with balanced spades that are horribly twitchy downwind and require far more "alertness" than a long keel would. Typically a long keeled boat is more directionally stable downwind, in my experience, than a fin keeled spade design.

Broaching can ruin your day, but losing your spade rudder and sinking your ship can ruin your life. The loading it receives from following seas is the same.
I like the old wormgear steering, BTW. Reliable as a tiller, not much to go wrong with those. They don't have the feedback of a cable wheel however.


----------



## albrazzi

outbound said:


> When running before a sea or surfing big issue is not to broach. Unbalanced stern hung rudders such as seen on many double enders in the past required a great deal of alertness and personal strength in such a sea. Loading can be sudden and severe. Knockdowns and broaches ruin your whole day. Even in my limited experience it is obvious its much easier to steer a balanced spade and that remains the primary function of the d-mn thing.
> Inorderto gain mechanical advantage and to prevent the rudder swinging to one side due to effects of a sea it was common to use a worm gear set up on ocean boats with stern hung rudders. You lose all feel but above advantages justified its use.
> Even now tillers are in use on rather large sailboats. Bobs Sliver and the K&M 53s come immediately to mind. There is no reason given current materials and design to dismiss tillers out of hand.
> 
> Before Monitors, Flemings, Hydrovanes it was common to see stern hung rudders with extensions off top and bottom supporting a steering rudder. Vane turned that small rudder which in turn turned the big rudder. Saw them commonly on Bristol channel Cutters with the vane running up the backstay.


Best Boat I ever owned and steered in following seas was an old Columbia metric with the hourglass transom. What does that have to do with rudders? somehow it nailed the stern down quite remarkably. Took the strain off the rudder for sure.


----------



## tdw

tdw said:


> There are probably some emails and messages, both in and out, that I was not copied into but based on what I have seen there is no doubt whatsoever that Donna is telling the absolute truth.


Just as an add on to my previous post, in saying that Donna was telling the absolute truth I am not suggesting that Smack was not and no that is not a contradiction.


----------



## outbound

Al agree it's all aspects of the boat that interact to produce a sweet vessel and hull shape is paramount. No question a boat that sails in the water rather than on the water is a different beast. However compare that boat to a centerboard catboat with a bar door rudder and tell me doesn't each feature contribute to their handling when running in a fresh breeze.
Think you and Lazer are not accounting fully for the multiple other features that are involved. Look at the plans Bob posted on the sliver. One would think she would track like a train on rails downwind at any speed. This is not a function of her rudder even though it's a balanced spade but rather hull shape. One would also think she'll steer wonderfully. That is a function of the rudder in conjunction with hull shape. Look at Dashews sail and motor boats for other examples.
Twitchiest boat I've been on was beamy with flat run aft of the keel. But on the other hand the open derived hulls do beautifully. Again there are good and not so good boats of every style. Can't get around for most sailors spades when done right are easier to steer. Can't get around every time you steer you slow the boat down. Easier to make a spade slow the boat down less.


----------



## Lazerbrains

albrazzi said:


> Best Boat I ever owned and steered in following seas was an old Columbia metric with the hourglass transom. What does that have to do with rudders? somehow it nailed the stern down quite remarkably. Took the strain off the rudder for sure.


Those are really interesting designs with a very unusual hull shape and keel shape. I've sailed on an 8.3 and was very impressed with it on all points of sail and agree - nice sailing boats especially when the wind kicks into gear. I'm amazed there isn't more of a cult following with them.


----------



## RTB

tdw said:


> Just as an add on to my previous post, in saying that Donna was telling the absolute truth I am not suggesting that Smack was not and no that is not a contradiction.


Are you on the fence....or just CYA (cover your ass)?

Since you re-opened the subject....

I was following the iPad "discussion" because I was interested in how it may be better than me running my laptop with Offshore Navigator. I had some questions regarding iPads but never got the chance to ask them, since smack was the one that seemed to know the answers. Why others with no experience using iNavX on an iPad chose to attack Steve, I can't figure out.

Once things got ugly, Donna posts

" OHFORCRYINGOUTLOUD.

Can't we disagree without the constant snide comments? It's getting OLD and quite frankly I'm fed up with the sniping and potshots and what is trying to pass as humor. "

Well, after re-reading the last 5 pages of the thread I discover that the real name calling, and true insults were from others than smack. Sure he had his comebacks in his own way as usual, only defending himself. If I wanted to navigate with an iPad, I'd listen to smack who just used it for 1000 miles getting to Florida. Not SVAuspisious or chef2sail.

Unless there was some back room discussions between the mods and Steve that didn't go well, a permanent ban was totally uncalled for. Maybe all the members slinging insults should have had a cooling off period to calm things down? It happens. All parties were getting rude. Not just the one you decided to permanently ban from Sailnet.

I'm only here because of a few friends (smack being one), and hate Cruiser's Forum because of moderation. I thought you guys were better than that?

For new members reading threads here, the real challenge is to figure out WHO knows what they are typing about. It's a much smaller number than you may realize. I sure miss the good old days with Knothead, Cam, i2f, and a few others. Honestly, there are few I'd listen to lately.

All the best,
Ralph


----------



## tdw

RTB said:


> Are you on the fence....or just CYA (cover your ass)?


My arse does not need covering, nor am I on the fence, which if paling then my arse may need some padding.

Simply put .... in maintaining that Donna was telling the truth it might have appeared that I was implying Steve (SmackDaddy) was not. I was not suggesting any such thing.


----------



## RTB

tdw said:


> My arse does not need covering, nor am I on the fence, which if paling then my arse may need some padding.
> 
> Simply put .... in maintaining that Donna was telling the truth it might have appeared that I was implying Steve (SmackDaddy) was not. I was not suggesting any such thing.


So, yeah. I got that. You know, I'm an old stuffiminto member. I've always felt like an outsider here (who would have thunk?) But... I thought you guys might have a more level head than Sully. This smack ban reeks. I'm sorry, but just don't understand where that came from. YOU read the iPad thread and tell me where Steve went wrong....enough to get banned permanently. Ok?

Ralph


----------



## tdw

RTB said:


> So, yeah. I got that. You know, I'm an old stuffiminto member. I've always felt like an outsider here (who would have thunk?) But... I thought you guys might have a more level head than Sully. This smack ban reeks. I'm sorry, but just don't understand where that came from. YOU read the iPad thread and tell me where Steve went wrong....enough to get banned. Ok?
> 
> Ralph


I'm also an old Stuffers member, one of those who were banned due to Sully's apparent brain explosion. That saw what, 20 or 30 people banned in a matter of days ? If I'm correct there have been two contributing members banned from SN this year. Those are hardly Stuffers numbers and nor does it suggest a CF level of moderating.


----------



## RTB

tdw said:


> I'm also an old Stuffers member, one of those who were banned due to Sully's apparent brain explosion. That saw what, 20 or 30 people banned in a matter of days ? If I'm correct there have been two contributing members banned from SN this year. Those are hardly Stuffers numbers and nor does it suggest a CF level of moderating.


One or two bannings (I don't know who the other was) is a start. So, point blank, I'll ask if you believe the smack ban was necessary? Yes or no? Is it good for sailnet? If so, what is your reasoning? I'll leave it at that.

Ralph


----------



## overbored

:clobberyou two might want to be careful. this thread is about BOATS and all I keep reading here is about the Smack Down. careful you two could get smacked down too. but then again the Smack Down thread drift in the BOAT thread was started by a MOD. when you want to talk about a new subject you are suppose to start a new thread thats what people and MODS do.
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/images/smilies/clobber.gif


----------



## SVAuspicious

RTB said:


> Well, after re-reading the last 5 pages of the thread I discover that the real name calling, and true insults were from others than smack. Sure he had his comebacks in his own way as usual, only defending himself. If I wanted to navigate with an iPad, I'd listen to smack who just used it for 1000 miles getting to Florida. Not SVAuspisious or chef2sail.


You seem to have followed smackdaddy's restatements of the posts of others rather than the original.

I have many many thousands of miles using mobile devices for navigation on multiple boats, some in concert with MFDs and some without. I have one trip in particular (somewhere off South Carolina when the electronics failed on a delivery to the Caribben) on which in JUST THAT ONE TRIP I used a mobile device for navigation over a longer distance than the total smackdaddy cited.

Perhaps like smackdaddy you did not want to hear what you do not want to hear.



RTB said:


> Unless there was some back room discussions between the mods and Steve that didn't go well, a permanent ban was totally uncalled for. Maybe all the members slinging insults should have had a cooling off period to calm things down? It happens. All parties were getting rude. Not just the one you decided to permanently ban from Sailnet.


The mods say there were multiple requests to smackdaddy. I believe them. I know that smackdaddy has been banned temporarily before specifically for a cooling off period. That certainly sounds exactly like what you suggest is appropriate process.

It will come as no surprise that I won't miss smackdaddy at all.

However, smackdaddy has had the ability to identify topics that spark a lot of good discussion. It is unfortunate that his overall behavior detracted from that value.

There are a number of us who regularly make contributions but generally in response to someone else's topic. I challenge those who think they have something to offer, including myself, to think of SailNet during our sailing lives and start topics for discussion. By doing so we will honor the value of smackdaddy's tenure here.



tdw said:


> Simply put .... in maintaining that Donna was telling the truth it might have appeared that I was implying Steve (SmackDaddy) was not. I was not suggesting any such thing.


I will. Aside from a pattern of misstating the posts of others (which is rude at least) smackdaddy claimed to come home to find himself permanently banned without any notice from the mods. If he did not get the message the mods say they sent (and again I believe them) how did he know he was permanently banned and not just on another vacation? His story does not hang together.

The moderation at SailNet is pretty light-handed. They rarely even edit posts - I believe they ask members who have spoken inappropriately to make corrections themselves. When they do occasionally make a change it is labeled as such. Temporary bans are infrequent and permanent bans more so. I understand that a great deal of time goes into discussion before any action is taken, which is as it should be.


----------



## bobperry

Smackers is enjoying himself immensely over on SAILING ANARCHY. SA far better suits his style.


----------



## mstern

Ahem. Not to distract from the Smack Down discussion, but transom-hung rudders can be balanced; the transom-hung rudder on my Oday 23 extends forward of the bottom lip of the transom below the waterline, providing a balancing surface.

And now, back to the entertainment portion of our program....


----------



## SVAuspicious

mstern said:


> transom-hung rudders can be balanced


Agreed. Rudders may be unbalanced, semi-balanced, or balanced. The configuration may be spade, skeg-hung, or "barn door."


----------



## seaner97

c'mon guys and ladies, don't make me delete my subscription from the thread again. Thanks, Mstern.


----------



## bobperry

Here is a balanced, transom hung rudder.

Here are two of them!


----------



## Arcb

Very cool. I like the supporting skeg. Very shippy.


----------



## bobperry

Arc:
We call that the "chastity strut" because without it you could be screwed. The rudder does not need it but it feels right and does provide some protection for the sail drive and snagging lines. It is removable.


----------



## Jeff_H

While not as artful as Bob's design, this image was a design from the Wolfenzee series that shows another version of a counterbalanced outboard rudder. (I drafted this with Bob riding shotgun)

This was supposed to be a design that represented what I would build for myself if I had the same displacement available as Wolf's 30 foot Atkin design. The idea behind the outboard rudder was to eliminate rudder post issues, be able to add a trim tab to make vane driven self steering easier, and to allow removal and repair at sea. This last one is questionable since the rudder would need to be turned somewhere around 45 degrees in order to clear the skeg and that would mean stopping the boat entirely. The other concern is that without the top plate effect of the hull above the rudder, aeration of the rudder is more likely so this rudder would have some mix of greater than usual area, greater chord depth, or a greater tendency to stall.

Jeff








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Arcb

bobperry said:


> Arc:
> We call that the "chastity strut" because without it you could be screwed. The rudder does not need it but it feels right and does provide some protection for the sail drive and snagging lines. It is removable.


So no load bearing eh? I like it even better now. It's nice to see yacht designers putting rudder protection as an end to itself.


----------



## seaner97

Certainly wish my prop aperture was a bit bigger, but it also keeps buoys from getting sucked through. Major PITA for getting the prop off, however.


----------



## bobperry

Arc:
We have a beautiful, self aligning bearing at the bottom of the rudder. So we are set up for some load bearing. But given the construction of the rudder with a big CF beam running full length I don'lt think it will; see much load at all. That is Plan A. The rudder system was designed to make removal easy, relatively, at sea. A titanium rod goes through the top of the rudder. There is enough "play" in te lower bearing to allow the rudder to pivot aft and be easily removed. This was all worked out before hand with 3D modelling.


----------



## outbound

Hence the small bit of backward cant on the top of the chastity strut. Genius.

Will say although I loved my T37 we once picked up fishing gear around the prop and shaft. That small aperture plus the sharp blades of the line cutter plus cold Maine waters plus the gear having wire,nylon and some kind of tenacious rope made it a horror show to clear. Didn't know about it until needing the engine to go into the harbor after coming up from Massachusetts. That made it more interesting as well. Moved the mess up to get to cut some it. Wire caught between rudder and hull. So no steering for awhile and we just drifted with crew taking turns working to clear the mess from the dinghy and briefly in the water. 
Any design has pluses and minuses but really like the cf cutter. Only downside is what Jeff mentions upper air/water interface aeration.


----------



## bobperry

Out:
The air water thing is always a potential issue with an outboard rudder. But I had one on the PERRYWINKLE for fifteen years and I experienced zero problems. It's just not an issue at all with a nice big, well designed rudder. Nobody has ever called me and said, "My rudder is too big."


----------



## Capt Len

Thane's 'barn door' was balanced some 8 % forward of the pivot line. Read that some where and bought a 1/2 steel plate for $5 the appropriate size. This would have been transom hung onto a full keel but since the 'Spray lines were pulled back a couple of feet it ended up inboard and mounted to a Very Strong Bulkhead. Quadrant and cables all above the waterline Turning the rudder allowed the shaft to come thru hole cut in the plate after removing the prop. Was very pleased with the overall functioning .When I trimed a bit off the leading edge to allow for the Max prop was surprised how it changed the feel and control under power (-) Sailing over drifting gillnets or kelp was no problem .Try that with a spade


----------



## Lazerbrains

bobperry said:


> Here is a balanced, transom hung rudder.
> 
> Here are two of them!


I've been following your thread on these for awhile. I have to say this design really appeals to me in every aspect except the saildrive I see in this photo. But that's just because I am not a fan of them. Love the rudder design here and what it accomplishes.


----------



## bobperry

Lazer:
I lived with a sail drive, vintage 1978, for 15 years and loved it. I never had an issue. I will use sail drives whenever I have that option.


----------



## outbound

Often wondered about this picking up lines thing.
Think you are more likely to pick up lines when the engine is running. Think depending on handedness of prop more likely on one side or the other. Think if you do pick up a line it's usually easier to clear off a shaft/ cutlass bearing/ spade set up. Think the worse set up to clear is full keel/attached rudder/ small aperture. 
Have cruised Maine in various boats. Think while sailing it's no biggie to sail over pickups with fin keel/shaft/spade/ folding or feathering prop. Think this issue is raised by full keel owners without much justification that format is so much better in this regard as too justify its difficulties. Would note "full keel" encompasses a huge variety of very different boats. So please don't infer I don't like full keel boats but rather just that other types should not take this unfair hit.

Okay go at it boys.


----------



## Lazerbrains

Outbound, I think the difference is that with the prop in an aperture on a full keel (or with Bob's "chastity" design) you won't catch the line in the first place, as the keel will ride over the line.

I was on my buddies boat this summer when he caught a line with his fin keel/spade/feathering prop. It took us over an hour of diving to get it off - lucky for us it was summer and warmer. 

Once you catch a line it wraps tight and is difficult to remove, regardless of prop/keel/shaft, etc.


----------



## Lazerbrains

bobperry said:


> Lazer:
> I lived with a sail drive, vintage 1978, for 15 years and loved it. I never had an issue. I will use sail drives whenever I have that option.


It's not that I don't like them, I'm not sure I like the additional maintainance which requires regular haulout. That and they seem to corrode quite fast at my marina.


----------



## Jeff_H

Lazerbrains said:


> Outbound, I think the difference is that with the prop in an aperture on a full keel (or with Bob's "chastity" design) you won't catch the line in the first place, as the keel will ride over the line.
> 
> I was on my buddies boat this summer when he caught a line with his fin keel/spade/feathering prop. It took us over an hour of diving to get it off - lucky for us it was summer and warmer.
> 
> Once you catch a line it wraps tight and is difficult to remove, regardless of prop/keel/shaft, etc.


All my life I have heard that full keels are better for avoiding catching lines. From a common sense standpoint that would seem like it should be true. But at the risk of jinxing myself, the only boat that I ever caught a trap warp on was my old Stadel Cutter 'Indian', with about as small an aperture and full a keel as I can imagine. 







[/URL][/IMG]

The only boat that I ever caught a line and jammed a rudder had a long CCA style keel with attached rudder. (slid along the bottom of the keel and right into the joint at the heel of the rudder)

Jeff


----------



## outbound

Ditto except full keels were CD28, and T37. Both times under power.


----------



## Capt Len

SS finger bridging the keel/rudder gap is a bonus if transiting the trap grounds. Grew up with propeller guard cages on gillnetters and seiners.


----------



## Lazerbrains

T37 as in Tartan? That's not a full keel with a prop in an aperture - fin keel with skeg and exposed prop.

At any rate, to Jeff's experience, I would think it would be easier to get the line out of the rudder/keel gap then removing one entwined around a prop . A float can't jam the line up in there with anywhere near the force of the winding action of a prop, and can't be wound around multiple times. Furthermore, a line winding around a shaft will bind up the shaft and can potentially cause more damage than just temporarily disabling the boat. And if it misses the prop, it can still catch on your rudder.

Obviously the best thing is to avoid the crab pots when possible. I'm amazed I've never hit one - when lobster season rolls around here, the commercial guys literally set them up immediately outside the harbor gate - it is a minefield if you get stuck in it. Worse, it seems half of the floats these days are painted black instead of an easy to spot color such as white or red.


----------



## mitiempo

Lazerbrains said:


> T37 as in Tartan? That's not a full keel with a prop in an aperture - fin keel with skeg and exposed prop.


You must be younger than Outbound or myself.

The first T37 was full keel - designed by Hood and first built in 1965. Available with fiberglass cabin as T37 or Black Watch with mahogany cabin.

Black Watch below.



Link to details: BLACK WATCH 37 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


----------



## Capt Len

Up this coast it can be prawn trap floats pulled under by 5 or 6 knts of current If you don't realize your sidways over ground you stand a good chance of meeting a rope. Hanging by your stern in the dark till slack or until the tug and log boom comes thru can be testing


----------



## aeventyr60

Unfortunately, catching lines around my prop is a regular experience in Asia. Nobody is immune from it here. I carry a couple of serrated swiss army steak knives just for this. Sometimes I can catch the change in pitch and normal shaft sound before it get's too tight and shut the motor down. Some time a quick blast of reverse will cast the line free. Other times the engine will shut down. Very small gap between the shaft anode and shaft housing, small line gets wound up in that space, has to be cut out. 

As well as line, I've had plastic bags, rice sacks and a whole host of other debris caught in the prop.. Indonesia was the worst.


----------



## Lazerbrains

I am familiar with the Blackwatch, and the T37. And you are right, I am younger than the Blackwatch, and they are quite rare on the west coast. I did once see a gorgeous one that sails out of San Diego - beautiful boat that looked like a full-time job to keep up with the brightwork. Is that what you had Outbound?



mitiempo said:


> You must be younger than Outbound or myself.
> 
> The first T37 was full keel - designed by Hood and first built in 1965. Available with fiberglass cabin as T37 or Black Watch with mahogany cabin.
> 
> Black Watch below.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to details: BLACK WATCH 37 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


----------



## eko_eko

I thought T37 meant Tayana 37 in this context. It's one of Bob's.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Lazerbrains said:


> Worse, it seems half of the floats these days are painted black instead of an easy to spot color such as white or red.


The black ones make me nuts. Why do they think that is a good idea?


----------



## outbound

My bad Tayana 37-one of Bob's. Up here we have lobster pots up the wazoo. In Maine not uncommonly in fairly deep waters. In Rhode Island commonly with nothing more then a milk bottle or two as a float. Also when crossing the bays you may run into the occasional fish traps or lobster traps buoyed at the ends but hard to see. Add in all the polypropylene rope just floating around there's a bunch to hit.

But the most expensive mistake involved a winter stick in Marion MA harbor. At the time had a psc34. Came into the harbor in the evening with heavy cloud cover and no moon. Although it was summer there was a winter stick floating on its side with thin cable/rope down to a mooring. Color of wood and that of water nearly the same in that light and didn't expect a winter stick in the middle of the summer. Ran over it and sucked it in. Goodbye to a expensive Maxprop. Hello to a tow, haul and yard bill. 

When a line jams between hull and rudder it's a bear to get out. Doesn't matter full keel, spade whatever. Of interest regardless of type of appendages all mishaps have been under power not sail. Wonder if that's other folks experience?


----------



## Minnewaska

I've only once picked up a line (other than on an outboard as a kid). Under power, about 30 miles offshore somewhere off NH or northern MA. Don't recall exactly. Dead calm seas, no wind, few hundred feet deep. Had been motoring for hours. Saw it at the last minute and made the mistake of trying to turn. One's first response in that situation should be pulling back to neutral. 

I have a shaft line cutter (Spurs), but it did not automatically severe the line. I did pull to neutral, after wrapping, then tried to reengage in forward to see if it would cut, but I just heard it bang (presumably the float). I then tried reverse and heard an instant loud clunk and the float came out from under the boat. Off I went. One theory is it was a previously cut float and line that was adrift. Although, I have sailed through a lobster pot field, with radar reflectors, that were 20 miles offshore of Maine in hundreds of feet of water (at 4am). I thought I was far enough offshore, in the dark, to intentionally miss them. I had even slowed our approach to make landfall at dawn to be able to see them. There's just no outsmarting the lobstermen in Maine.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> Arc:
> We have a beautiful, self aligning bearing at the bottom of the rudder. So we are set up for some load bearing. But given the construction of the rudder with a big CF beam running full length I don'lt think it will; see much load at all. That is Plan A. The rudder system was designed to make removal easy, relatively, at sea. A titanium rod goes through the top of the rudder. There is enough "play" in te lower bearing to allow the rudder to pivot aft and be easily removed. This was all worked out before hand with 3D modelling.


Bob - I was wondering about this. What is the expectation driving the easy removal of the rudder at sea?


----------



## bobperry

Smack:
The entire rudder system is designed so the rudder can be removed at sea. It's very unlikely this would happen but you could do it. How hard would it be to do? Probably harder than you would like. We have not had the chance to try it yet.


----------



## midwesterner

bobperry said:


> Smack:
> The entire rudder system is designed so the rudder can be removed at sea. It's very unlikely this would happen but you could do it. How hard would it be to do? Probably harder than you would like. We have not had the chance to try it yet.


But back to Smack's question: Why would anybody ever want to remove it at sea? It would seem to me that any problem that might require removal would be better done after limping into port.


----------



## Lazerbrains

midwesterner said:


> But back to Smack's question: Why would anybody ever want to remove it at sea? It would seem to me that any problem that might require removal would be better done after limping into port.


Because when rudders get damaged offshore, there is usually no close port to limp in to. When damaged, they often get stuck in one position, so unless you remove it you will be going in circles and never be able to limp anywhere.

Incidentally, I absolutely love this rudder design of Bobs - combines the best features of a keel hung and a balanced stern rudder. Looks like it will balance well, yet be strong and not catch lines or debris.


----------



## smackdaddy

midwesterner said:


> But back to Smack's question: Why would anybody ever want to remove it at sea? It would seem to me that any problem that might require removal would be better done after limping into port.


I would assume the answer is that custom boats designed for for specific owners follow their wants and needs - not generalized wants and needs.

For me, I'm always interested in the debated pros/cons between transom-hung and spade/skeg-hung rudders. Though I'm not generally a fan of transom-hung rudders and prefer a sleek, clean transom - my program is not this owner's program. I do think, however, that the cut and angling of this particular rudder (along with the "chastity strut"), make this transom-hung version just about as elegant as it gets.

I was just curious if there were specifics driving the decision.


----------



## overbored

I like the transom hung rudders. They would be the easiest to remove at sea but then they are also the most likely not to be damaged at sea to the point of needing to be removed. easiest to repair at sea or at least to see the problem.


----------



## Jeff_H

Outboard rudders are a not a cut and dry issue. As broad generalities the downside is that they are not as efficient as an inboard rudder since they operate in the turbulent interface between air and water. They are more prone to sucking air and stalling out. They are more vulnerable in docking maneuvers and some people do not like their aesthetics.

But if I were designing a custom distance cruiser for myself there is no doubt that I would want an outboard rudder. My thinking is that outboard rudders are easier to make robust since they have a lot more material in their rudderheads than can be incorporated in a rudder post. They are easier to build and potentially are easier to repair underway or in remote places. They can have a simple and robust trim tab hung off the trailing edge that can be tied into a tiller, windvane or autopilot and act as a servo reducing the energy required for course changes. Those were the reasons that "My Version" of Wolf's boat had an outboard rudder;








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## outbound

It also is a fractional and has a shaft. One may recall Bobs preference for saildrives. The issue of masthead v. fractional I think more depends on specifics of design and execution. Think Jeff has his pegged. 
Personally still prefer shafts. As regards rig - in a one off would consider the wing mast/jib design for an offshore boat that Chris White has been fooling with on his Atlantic cats or a modification of Nigel Irons cat schooners. The big main on a fractional of 40-50' still has me scared. Basic issue is most cruising boats stand single watches. Everything breaks but in boom and in mast may not be fixable off shore. So like what Bob and Jeff have done. 
Bobs boat looks bulletproof. Wonder how it will back down? May benefit from a strong bow thruster allowing you to steer with it instead of the rudder when going backwards. 
Now a days Bobs design is at the lower end of loa that a mom and pop will cruise. Folks want at least 2-4 for real seaberths. Usually four. And they want two separate cabins with privacy and ideally their own heads. 
Seems a shame there are so few truly new production boats aimed at the full time offshore cruising crowd. The new amel 55, recent HR, Oyster, Hylas, Morris offerings and even my beloved Outbound are derivatives of designs basically over a decade old. 
Sure you can get a rapido 60 and go 39kts. but few cruisers want to go that fast. Friends on Outremers and Catanas tell me their issue offshore is to go slower not faster to make the passage pleasant. Can't image many G4s were sold to cruisers either. 
Paulo spoke of multiple derivatives of recent raceboats. Again maybe the trust fund babies will cruise them but I think many mom and pops would like to get out of their canoe stern voyager that's a horror to service when the Watermaker or gen set breaks and move onto a sugarscoop something that's not a bendy toy.
It will be fun to see if the field evolves to boats designed for coastal work from large production builders and a variety of boutique builders and oneoffs for long term cruisers. I think that's happening already.


----------



## smackdaddy

I think what you'll see over the next decade or so is monos starting to die off in the new market. Multis are where it's at for the next generation of cruisers. If builders are smart they'll focus on ways to offer a "lower-end" range of multis that get into the price range of current monos.


----------



## bobperry

In the case of the carbon cutters the outboard rudder was a given from the start, client requirement. On my own I probably would have tucked the rudder under the stern. But having the outboard rudder gives me one more design element I can play with in terms of aesthetics and given this client's proclivities for old Bill Atkin designs the outboard rudder did fit the look nicely.

I am doing another variation on the carbon cutter right now for a surprise client. I looked hard at the rudder. Left it on transom to avoid having to modify the tooling. $$$$

But, the new variation, due to the "throw back" interior, will have to have a shaft exiting the trailing edge of the keel. I'm fine with this.
There are few features I am rigid on. I do my best with the client's requirements and I seem to be always able to make it work. If the client wants something that I think is a bad idea I say, "It's your boat. You can have what you want but I won't draw it." That usually gets their attention.

Nice drafting Jeff. Kind of looks like mine.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff just posted a story that should, once and for all, put an end to the use of CHEEKI RAFIKI in these ongoing debates as an example of anything other than what happens to a poorly maintained and "broken" boat in rough conditions:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/vesse.../287073-cheeki-rafiki-another-shoe-falls.html

I seriously feel sorry for that crew and their families.


----------



## smackdaddy

bobperry said:


> There are few features I am rigid on. I do my best with the client's requirements and I seem to be always able to make it work. If the client wants something that I think is a bad idea I say, "It's your boat. You can have what you want but I won't draw it." That usually gets their attention.


I like that approach.


----------



## outbound

Agree Multis will increase market share. But most cruisers think about annual operating costs as well as initial purchase price. Once you get into significant ocean ready boats many current travelifts are not capable of serving them. Then the slip and maintenance costs are higher as well. Finally most current multi offerings are aimed at the larger purchasers that being the charter market. Personally I wanted a multi. Wife wanted a mono. She won


----------



## Faster

outbound said:


> .... Wife wanted a mono. She won


They usually do, don't they? 

Not sure I see multis taking over outside the Charter biz for many of the reasons OB cited.

I always hark back to our good friends who started with Hobies, moved to a hi-test Farrier 25C and even 'cruised' it for at time. But when it came time to chose a boat for wintering in the Caribbean they went for their first monohull.

14 years later they are still at it. I'm sure it's different with the loaded cruising cats, but with their Farrier they also spent as much time trying to slow the thing down and stay upright as the rest of us spend trying to optimize boat speed, esp doublehanded.


----------



## colemj

outbound said:


> Then the slip and maintenance costs are higher as well.


Someone needs to explain this oft stated fact about higher maintenance costs. All the things needing maintenance on our catamaran seem to be the same things on monos, and in the same quantities. In fact, I can't really think of any catamaran specific things on our boat. If you are thinking engines, we mostly only run one at a time, so that is the same over all.



Faster said:


> Not sure I see multis taking over outside the Charter biz for many of the reasons OB cited.


Hmm. It does seem to be happening in the cruising world. Even here in Bermuda the multi:mono ratio is over 50% (not counting racing boats and super yachts). Everywhere else we have been, the cruising multi:mono ratio has increased rapidly over the past 9 years. Very rapidly. It is not unusual to be in an anchorage in the Bahamas or Panama with multis out numbering monos 2:1 or more.

The above is not meant to debate merits, only to point out observations. I'm very happy to have more monos out here, but that isn't how it is.

No doubt, the absolute cost of entry is higher for multis- not even old ones can be had for $10,000. However, the numbers of cruisers broadly cruising on shoestring budgets and small boats is becoming very small. It is just how it is. There are "end of the road" places like FL Keys, Rio Dulce, Luperon, etc, where you will find hordes of these, but they aren't cruising in the sense of moving about and making passages.

I agree that local markets like the Chesapeake, Long Island Sound, etc will probably always be predominately mono - but not the cruising market.

The only thing that is going to save the mono market are boat designs many here complain about. These actually are growing quickly.

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser

outbound said:


> ......But most cruisers think about annual operating costs as well as initial purchase price. Once you get into significant ocean ready boats.......


Later in life many people start to look at more realistic time - 20 yrs, 30 yrs, etc. They are more aware and plan for that.
They have a handle on it.
The younger folks don't see or project an end...


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> I like that approach.


By the way, I forgot to ask:

You sailed a Hunter from Destin to Tampa. You were more than 50 miles offshore. Did that old 'production boat' go straight to the bottom once you lost sight of land?


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> By the way, I forgot to ask:
> 
> You sailed a Hunter from Destin to Tampa. You were more than 50 miles offshore. Did that old 'production boat' go straight to the bottom once you lost sight of land?


Actually, we took her 1,000 miles from Houston to Ft. Myers...with that 2-1/2 day offshore run between Panama City and St. Pete.

As for your question - of course not. She did great in "blue water". No "oil-canning" and no "pounding" (even in the steep 6'-8' waves you get in the Gulf). Super solid even in up to 40 knot squalls - even with water coming over the bow. Never any problem at all.

Stay tuned for my upcoming videos. You'll see more of what I'm talking about.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, we took her 1,000 miles from Houston to Ft. Myers...with that 2-1/2 day offshore run between Panama City and St. Pete.
> 
> As for your question - of course not. She did great in "blue water". No "oil-canning" and no "pounding" (even in the steep 6'-8' waves you get in the Gulf). Super solid even in up to 40 knot squalls - even with water coming over the bow. Never any problem at all.
> 
> Stay tuned for my upcoming videos. You'll see more of what I'm talking about.


I had the same experience with a Jenneau rental: solid in big (for me, in the gulf) seas. I never felt that the hull would be compromised.


----------



## Lazerbrains

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, we took her 1,000 miles from Houston to Ft. Myers...with that 2-1/2 day offshore run between Panama City and St. Pete.


Any cruiser would consider Panama City to St. Petersburg as coastal sailing, not offshore. The distance is 168nm, and never more than 50nm from land. If that passage took you 2 1/2 days you weren't making the best time - that works out to 3.3 knots average speed.


----------



## outbound

About costs of multis. It seems this relates to your program
Many marinas charge by sq. footage- beam x loa. Even some islands do for mooring ( not slip ) fees. St. Barth comes to mind in that regard.
Friends own a 52' cf cat. Boat was built in newzealand. They summer in barrington r.i. They need to use two slip places with the finger removed ($$$$) or the T head ($$$$). They needed to move the boat to Massachusetts to find a specialized hydraulic trailer capable of putting the boat on the hard so even a short haul is $$$. 
Some smaller cats can get by on travelifts. Many marinas have one for the really big monos. Although the cats weigh just a fraction of what these lifts are made for due to beam they go on the big travel lifts. The rigging of the lift may need to be changed to accommodate them. You get a big upcharge both for the use of the big lift and the extra labor involved.
No say what you want but from hearing hard numbers haul and storage costs are very significantly increased once you go over ~40' in a multi. 
Other friends are on a Catana. Like many ocean going cats steering is hydraulics. Their hydraulics failed. Loading is bidirectional so torture on system during passages. Owner is an engineer. After dealing with this he re engineered the system and replaced hydraulic cylinders. Many cats go to weather poorly. We see them under power when we are under sail. Was most evident going from the virgins to the saints. Asked about engine hours, fuel use and service intervals. Over a season of nearly identical island cruising it seems we used our engine ~1/2 the time as compared to cruisers on multis. Use this real world reports as an example of how multis have many more service points and complexities compared with monos. With the trades no one was using just one engine to get around. 
I've had the alternator belt get loose, water or particulate get pass racor and fuel filters while on passage. No problem- replace rancor or filters, bleed system and up you go. Done from inside the boat safely with easy access to my work room. 
Many multis have their engines aft of a bulkhead. Access is from above. Most passages include a few days of motoring. Try doing this easy service leaning over an engine in a seaway.
Even on the big cats if you want performance you need to be weight conscious. If you have a wife this may be an issue. If you spend time off the grid so live by " if you didn't bring it you ain't got it" this maybe an issue.
Many production multis hobby horse and slam going to weather. Some burp and are surprisingly wet. Yes it's a delight that there's no need for fiddles in most conditions and not living on the slant but time comes it's just not true. See my friends making various accommodations due to this.
I can single my 46' boat. Have friends who can single boats in the mid fifties. Need one person to catch lines when docking in winds but otherwise generally fine cruising by myself. Yes, multis can spin on a dime putting one engine in forward and the other in reverse but this doesn't help much when a cross wind is blowing you off the pier. It's a whole new skill set docking big multis. Even the best boat handler wants on or two other folks on board coming in for fuel or docking. Friends wife went stateside for family. Lead to believe he ended up hiring a deckhand for period she was gone.
In short multis cost more to cruise. Haven't heard different from anyone who is actually doing it. You're the first to suggest otherwise. Wonder if that relates to how you use your boat. Can you share your specifics please.


----------



## outbound

Smack can we agree to use "beyond helicopter range" (~200nm as most SAR craft can go 400-450 mm) as the definition of "offshore " and Beaufort scale definitions to describe weather? I get easily confused . Suggest this as these are commonly used in practice.


----------



## colemj

I don't want this to become a multi vs mono debate because those bore me and I don't really care.

However, I always find it interesting to hear people who don't sail multis, but have lots of friends who do, give "factual evidence" to someone who has owned a multi for 14yrs and has actively cruised it full time for the past 9yrs - for distances and in places many of these experts haven't done.

For example: "most ocean going cats have hydraulic steering". This alone exposes you. Then there is your single handing and docking argument…

Obviously, there are no monos with hydraulic steering, nor ones that can't be single handed, or have issues with cross winds in docking.

If we have water, particulates, belt or other problems, we just turn on the other engine and worry about fixing the problem later. Our engines, as with many other cats, are inside the main hulls. Some cats have engine rooms separated with outside entrance, but I don't see how that is really an issue. Very few of them are located so that one would be in danger of accessing them. I have yet to see a catamaran with the tortured engine access and workability present on most monohulls. Engine access and serviceability is usually one of the first things mono people remark with envy on in our boat, if not all catamarans.

It is very easy to cherry pick examples, make generalities, then come to conclusions. One could even do this with monohulls - which could lead one to believe that they are unsafe, can't go to weather at all, hobby horse like crazy, slam, have to constantly motor to get anywhere, etc. One only has to look at any anchorage to find these examples.

Some marinas charge more, some don't. It has been rare for us to be charged more for dockage, it has been a bit more difficult to find dockage, land storage generally costs us 20-30% more, which I find acceptable given that we take up more room. And this is without bringing into debate that a 40' cat that is charged extra is paying the same price as a 50' mono - which is comparable in deck and living accommodations.

Mono's have more choices for haulout, but we have not been anywhere that does not have a catamaran haulout choice in the same immediate area. Plus, we can beach or be pulled out with a simple trailer - something mono's cannot do easily.

I won't address the upwind and motoring stuff because it seems useless with you.

Your post is best summarized as "I chose my particular boat, identify with the monohull community to the point of conflating all monos as being represented by my excellent choice in boat, I'm a bit insecure about my choice when confronted with people who have catamarans, so I picked particular negative aspects of individual catamarans and their owners to conflate into an expert opinion on the superiority of monos for cruising.

But here are the real facts: multi's, particularly catamarans, are increasing in numbers in far larger rates than monos. This isn't just the charter industry - the cruising grounds outside the charter markets are full of them (perhaps you haven't been to these places yet). Many more people are choosing multis for cruising, and the multi manufacturers can't keep up with demand. Production runs are 2-4yrs out right now on almost all multi brands and models. You want a new Outbound 46? There is probably one sitting in inventory. If not, they will put your order in production right away. You want a new Fountain Pajot? Production is out 2 years. That isn't because of charter demand - Seawind and others not put in charter are the same. This speaks directly to the market and the numbers.

Even if all the negatives you say are true, the fact remains that the multi market is growing strong, while the only growth in the mono market is in boat designs that are multi-like, and regularly put down by most mono people. So apparently, either all of those supposed negatives are not true, or they just don't matter.

Mark


----------



## Lazerbrains

In all fairness I think the preponderance of multihulls is more a caribbean phenomenon. In the South Pacific monos seem to far outnumber multis for cruisers.


----------



## outbound

Ok I've back off. As said I wanted a multi. They have so much going for them. Still have to get on the other side of what so many cruisers have told me to reach your position. Most difficulties cruising have nothing to do with multi v. mono. But still feel cost of entry is not the major issue and annual budget is a concern.


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Jeff just posted a story that should, once and for all, put an end to the use of CHEEKI RAFIKI in these ongoing debates as an example of anything other than what happens to a poorly maintained and "broken" boat in rough conditions:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/vesse.../287073-cheeki-rafiki-another-shoe-falls.html
> 
> I seriously feel sorry for that crew and their families.


I completely agree that there is nothing normal about the Cheeky Rafiki story. This was not your average production boat, your average delivery or average delivery crew.

The Beneteau 40.7's were serious racer-cruisers with a real emphasis on racer rather than cruisers. They were more tightly engineered than most production boats, and went through way higher quality controls than most production or even semi-custom boats.

Cheeky Rafiki had a hard life. She was raced very hard including in some very tough conditions. She had made multiple trans Atlantic passages. She had an exceptional number of groundings including several that were termed hard groundings. If I remember correctly, she had some damage noted and thought to have been repaired in a manner inconsistent with the surveyor recommendations. And given the location of the damage, in the unlikely case that the delivery crew might have seen those repairs, they would not have any way to know whether they were done properly.

And lastly what ever else you think about production boats, 40.7s were designed to be able to do offshore races and passages, but my belief is that they were never intended to routinely make the type and number of Transatlantic passages that Cheeky Rafiki had done.

Given the nature of the 40.7 and it's hard use and abuse and advancing age, in my opinion the owner should have insisted on a detailed structural survey before a passage across the Atlantic. Had that been done, there is a good chance that the delivery crew would be here today.

Jeff


----------



## colemj

Cost of entry is an issue for anyone wanting to get into a cruising boat for <$200,000. I suspect this is many. However, for new builds, cost ceases to be an issue. There will always be more mono's than multi's just because of the shear number of inexpensive old mono's available, as well as smaller mono's. But as for cruising population, multi's are definitely on their way to being equal, if not predominant.

Yes, this is definitely more true in the Caribbean Sea cruising grounds, but I bet the trend for multi's in the South Pacific is on a sharp upward slope. The Med is full of multis, as is Australia and cruising grounds North. And the trend is up, not constant or decreasing. The Med has a lot of the new mono's that I mention, so perhaps there things are slanting mono.

If you cruise the North Sea, PNW, South of NZ, and other similar climes, mono's will probably always predominate.

Annual boat budget is not a concern. It's a strange metric for a cruising boat anyhow. We need to haul every 2-3yrs for a bottom job and spent no time in marinas for the first 5-6 years of cruising. Our boat takes the same amount of bottom paint as our previous 40' mono. Other boat costs are for the same equipment as on monos. For the past few years, we have been mixing in 2 month land trips during the summers and have used marinas to store the boat. This has had minimal impact on our budget, and is completely discretionary. At most, we spend 20-30% more in marina costs for two months than an equal length mono, and the same or less as an equivalent sized mono.

You need to consider equivalent boat equipment and systems, though. We, and other catamarans, are typically better appointed and have more electronics, electrics, AC, etc than many monos. But generally not more than newer or larger monos. If it breaks or needs maintaining on a catamaran, it also breaks and needs maintaining on a monohull. No difference there due to boat type or shape.

If one defines cruising as hopping from marina to marina, then putting the boat on the hard for extended periods of time while they fly home, then the boat budget may be more of a concern. But these types generally have factored budget in regardless of their choice.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

Regarding our sail and the real numbers...

We departed Panama City Marina at around 0745 on the 18th as shown here on our logs:










The route (L11) consisted of 6 waypoints for a total distance of 225 miles:










And is shown here on our chart:










This was as straight a shot as I wanted to take in order to skirt the edge of the USAF Firing Range in the Middle Grounds. As you can see here, I turned on tracking that afternoon of the 18th several hours into our run but only about 15 miles or so out of Panama City...










The reason for this is that we got hit by a very large thunderstorm from the east (you'll see it soon in our videos) that carried gusts of 40+ knots. I slowly jogged into it and circled the area for a few hours until it all blew through. Then I turned on the tracking as we continued on. My hands were obviously full to that point.

We reached our marina in St. Pete just before noon on the 20th as shown here on our track...










So, a total of right at 52 hours. Not quite 2-1/2 days, I suppose, but close enough. As for speed, I don't really care. I was cruising not racing - and was just trying to keep us as safe as possible in the repeated, sometimes violent squalls that hit us during that time. We had water over the bow that first night with enough force to dislodge our anchor and launch it into our bow nav light knocking it from it's mount. It was an interesting trip to a very bucky bow in the dark to sort that all out.

In any case regarding overall speed, if you look at the prevailing winds in this area at this time of year you'll notice 2 things - they are predominantly very light and from the southeast. So were we nose into it the entire way.

Finally, as for distance from shore - you can see our track above and can measure if you so desire. We were offshore - and in sometimes challenging conditions as I said. However you want to frame things beyond that is certainly up to you.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> I completely agree that there is nothing normal about the Cheeky Rafiki story. This was not your average production boat, your average delivery or average delivery crew.
> 
> The Beneteau 40.7's were serious racer-cruisers with a real emphasis on racer rather than cruisers. They were more tightly engineered than most production boats, and went through way higher quality controls than most production or even semi-custom boats.
> 
> Cheeky Rafiki had a hard life. She was raced very hard including in some very tough conditions. She had made multiple trans Atlantic passages. She had an exceptional number of groundings including several that were termed hard groundings. If I remember correctly, she had some damage noted and thought to have been repaired in a manner inconsistent with the surveyor recommendations. And given the location of the damage, in the unlikely case that the delivery crew might have seen those repairs, they would not have any way to know whether they were done properly.
> 
> And lastly what ever else you think about production boats, 40.7s were designed to be able to do offshore races and passages, but my belief is that they were never intended to routinely make the type and number of Transatlantic passages that Cheeky Rafiki had done.
> 
> Given the nature of the 40.7 and it's hard use and abuse and advancing age, in my opinion the owner should have insisted on a detailed structural survey before a passage across the Atlantic. Had that been done, there is a good chance that the delivery crew would be here today.
> 
> Jeff


Totally agree. Thanks Jeff.


----------



## outbound

Thought we were going to drop this but would restate. Multis are definitely increasing market share and agree that trend will continue. Anchoring or picking up moorings in national parks cost is the same. From October 2016 until June 2017 we spent zero days in a slip and suspect most cruisers have similar very few days per year paying slip costs. In fact once you leave the US mooring costs altogether are minimal as you predominantly anchor. But disagree about yard costs and yard haul out availability. Before building our current boat had a sit down with the lady who does billing for our home base marina. Boat is based out of there for hurricane season. It's our season for family and land based activities.
Hard to do a legitimate comparison other to say we ran costs for a Chris White 47 c/w our 46'. In many ways the cat is bigger although displacement is less and loa within inches of each other. We knew ~every third year we would travel by airplane, do land based activities and put boat on the hard for the winter. Wanted it nearby not in Grenada or Trinidad. Do use it for 1-2 short cruises to Maine and the like or even day sail. Also do most of the fix its, upgrades and maintenance chores while in a slip with easy access to expertise and parts.
Cost if writing checks for everything was more than 1 1/2 times that of the mono. With us doing all routine maintenance, winterizing and the bottom ~1 1/3 times the cost. Summer costs were also significantly increased. Availability of slips in sister marinas limited ( get free days in sister marinas). Also looked at moorings in local area. As limited as long term moorings are for monos over 40'with long waiting lists things were worse when we talked to harbormasters or clubs about multis. Some areas open up when being shoal but some opportunities close. As with everything concerning boating it's a compromise. 
C still think unless you are in constant motion and you are totally self sufficient and you're not dealing with the logistical problems you currently face on the US east coast multis are more expensive to run and logistics of coastal life a bit more complicated. You're right I don't own a multi but listening to those who do getting space on the water, slips and haul outs a bit more complex and expensive. Directly questioning the yard seems to confirm this as well. 
Perhaps this will change as multis continue to increase market share. Think not as we all struggle with the disappearance of yachting services along increasingly valuable coastal land. The large scale economics are against us. 
Now 4 years into full time cruising wife is rethinking her position. She envies the increased livable space multis enjoy at anchor. But as long as we are going to snow bird summering in New England I see the economic and logistical advantages of a mono as a plus.


----------



## outbound

By the way. Are you using tin on your bottom and what do you do about running gear?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack can we agree to use "beyond helicopter range" (~200nm as most SAR craft can go 400-450 mm) as the definition of "offshore " and Beaufort scale definitions to describe weather? I get easily confused . Suggest this as these are commonly used in practice.


No worries Out. You're right - there is no true definition of "blue water" and that's why I put it in quotes. As you know, I also don't think it matters that much. I think the only actual distinction regarding these discussion is that of a "passage"...especially one across an ocean. That's an entirely different animal than anything we've been discussing in these threads.

So, I won't argue the point anymore. For me, this was my second longest offshore run, and my longest as a skipper. I had done a 300 mile offshore race and 300 mile return in 2011 - but had never done anything that long on my own until this trip.

I'm proud of the fact that I've now sailed almost the entire US Gulf Coast from Mexico to Florida. When the boys and I get down to the Keys soon we will have that in our bucket. Then on to the Bahamas.

It's been a freakin' blast.


----------



## colemj

While I was out watching the AC races today, I did a quick survey of the spectator fleet. There were 15 monohulls and 26 catamarans here in Bermuda watching the races. Not counted in the totals were superyachts (mostly mono, but I included three 70-80' catamarans in this category), 8 catamarans that seemed to be spectator charters because they were full of people, and some obvious local boats (2 catamarans that I know are local and 4-5 small monos like J24's and folkboats).

The catamarans were all typical production boats from the major manufacturers with the exception of Bob Perry's "Little Wing" and a Wauquiez Kronos 45, which was never a large production model. The monos consisted of 3 Morgan Out Islands, 2 Benetaus, a Jeannau (I think, but it was something similar), a Hunter, a 1960's Pearson, a 60-70' Oyster, a 70-80' Oyster, and several other boats of late 60's to early 80's vintage. Ironically, no Wauquiez monos (that I could identify - those aren't my strong suit).

The "Blue Water Boat" contingency was sorely missing, while the production boats seemed to have the roost. 

Make of this what you will, as well as if getting to/from Bermuda is blue water enough, and if coming here to watch racing and then going elsewhere constitutes real cruising.

Mark


----------



## colemj

outbound said:


> By the way. Are you using tin on your bottom and what do you do about running gear?


Is this question to me? If so, I'm afraid it took enough of a sharp turn that I don't understand it.

Mark


----------



## Lazerbrains

smackdaddy said:


> Finally, as for distance from shore - you can see our track above and can measure if you so desire. We were offshore - and in sometimes challenging conditions as I said.


Like I said earlier, any cruiser would consider that a coastal passage - if it makes you feel bigger to call it "offshore", then do it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a relatively short coastal passage which looks to never be more than 60nm from land.


----------



## outbound

Guess I'm not going to make any friends today. Yes was asking you Mark. Was curious we get a short haul every ~1 1/2y and a dive ~2 months. Want to do better. Wasn't a poke but rather want the information.
You're observation is interesting. Given recent weather many of the SDR fleet diverted to Bermuda and several planned that stop in advance. Friends left yesterday on a sister ship to catch the finals. In the folks I know in Bermuda than two all monos. All very traditional bwb ( amel, Perry, HR, hylas etc.). Guess my observations are wrong as it seems both in new boats (a lot of oysters for the brits, Hylas for the NAs) and old ( usual crowd) monos continue to predominant once you go south east of virgin Gorda. Rare multis. Those way out of my pay scale. One offs, Gun boats etc.


----------



## outbound

Going fishing. Out classed here in argumentativeness. Trout for dinner. No rain, water warmer, hatch up.


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> While I was out watching the AC races today, I did a quick survey of the spectator fleet. There were 15 monohulls and 26 catamarans here in Bermuda watching the races. Not counted in the totals were superyachts (mostly mono, but I included three 70-80' catamarans in this category), 8 catamarans that seemed to be spectator charters because they were full of people, and some obvious local boats (2 catamarans that I know are local and 4-5 small monos like J24's and folkboats).
> 
> The catamarans were all typical production boats from the major manufacturers with the exception of Bob Perry's "Little Wing" and a Wauquiez Kronos 45, which was never a large production model. The monos consisted of 3 Morgan Out Islands, 2 Benetaus, a Jeannau (I think, but it was something similar), a Hunter, a 1960's Pearson, a 60-70' Oyster, a 70-80' Oyster, and several other boats of late 60's to early 80's vintage. Ironically, no Wauquiez monos (that I could identify - those aren't my strong suit).
> 
> The "Blue Water Boat" contingency was sorely missing, while the production boats seemed to have the roost.
> 
> Make of this what you will, as well as if getting to/from Bermuda is blue water enough, and if coming here to watch racing and then going elsewhere constitutes real cruising.
> 
> Mark


That's really cool that Bob's cat was stalking the grounds.


----------



## colemj

I didn't take the question as a poke, and I still don't fully understand it. Are you asking how often we haul and what paint? Our running gear are saildrives with folding props. Right now we have Ameron ABC bottom paint that we threw on as a getby until we return somewhere where we can use better paint (we are back in the US for the summer). In the tropics, we have used SeaHawk Islands 44 and Blue Water Paints Caribbean Gold. The saildrives get paint with no cuprous oxide content. The props this time have something called "Glidecoat" on them (observations on effectiveness pending). In the past, the props were etched, primed and got bottom paint (which never worked well past 6 months). On the boat, we get 1 year of no growth at all, another year that starts out with soft wipes every 6-8 weeks, going to harder wipes every 3-4 weeks by the end of the year, the third year we are pushing it and diving every 2 weeks with a good scrub.

If boats diverted to Bermuda, most likely they are in St. George. We are in Hamilton, and the boats I mention are also, because that is where the racing is. It could be that St. George is chock full of blue water monohulls with no catamarans at all.

Strange, when we were in the Eastern Caribe, the Windwards and Leewards were chock full of catamarans - particularly the French Islands. Maybe we both see what we want to see…

Mark


----------



## colemj

smackdaddy said:


> That's really cool that Bob's cat was stalking the grounds.


All catamarans are the same&#8230;

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

Following the RWYC Transat (OSTAR) race and the F11 storm that hit the fleet. I put together an interesting look at the broken boats.


----------



## TQA

I am bored and for once have a good wifi signal as I wait for the full moon party to kick off [ island time ] so I read the last few pages. Here are a couple of comments.

I am a full time liveaboard cruising between Trinidad and St Marten. I have noticed that the Moorings have just put a bunch of new 45 = 55 ft monos into their fleet, mind you they still have a shedload of charter cats all of whom have been hit hard with the ugly stick.

Re rudder position If I was going to make a serious offshore passage [ think Jeanne Socrates ] I would have BOTH a skeg hung rudder AND a transom hung rudder in the form of a Hydrovane.


----------



## outbound

Have the hydrovane with a balanced spade TQA. In practice hydrovane is used only on long passages. Under power the pin that fixes it in place breaks even when using a line with snubber to tension it. On our boat if set up the davits must be folded in. Means pulling ding on deck all the time which is a PIA. So the hydrovane rudder and top piece are removed ( big so hard to store) and only come out twice a year. Need to be doing >1000nm for it to make sense to use it. 
Still it works. Seems to work better downwind in light air than prior servopendulums I've had on prior boats. Seems to be less sensitive to trim/balance as well. Easier for crew to understand so unlike the servopendulums after 3 minute chat they got it and are up and running. No lines in cockpit and off center mount are big pluses.


----------



## smackdaddy

Production boat doubters - and specifically Hunter doubters - really should watch our latest Carib Trip video. Real-life experience that shows how ridiculous forum-bluster can be on the subject...

http://bfsshop.com/blog/carib-run-leg-1-episode-16/

Just sayin'.


----------



## seaner97

Oh God, it lives...


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> Production boat doubters - and specifically Hunter doubters - really should watch our latest Carib Trip video. Real-life experience that shows how ridiculous forum-bluster can be on the subject...
> 
> Carib Run ? Leg 1 Episode 16 | SMACKTALK!
> 
> Just sayin'.


I heard that Dawn Treader went straight to the bottom when it hit the 6 nautical mile line!


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow.










Just wow.


----------



## mstern

what boat is that Smack? A Beneteau, but which?


----------



## RegisteredUser

smackdaddy said:


> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wow.


They should've added sliding doors on the topsides, both port and starboard, with recessed swim platforms...and a bar shelf.


----------



## smackdaddy

That's the new Oceanis 51. What a boat.


----------



## RegisteredUser

This looks new.
I've never seen a boat with flat screens built into the sides.
Innovative...


----------



## colemj

Those types of large, flush ports have been very common for years on new models from all builders. Even builders you don't disparage. Many years on catamarans.

Mark


----------



## ianjoub




----------



## colemj

That type of dual helm setup is only for a certain style of relationship. It works for the couple in the picture, with one steering and the other relaxing.

However, if that was our helm setup...

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> Those types of large, flush ports have been very common for years on new models from all builders. Even builders you don't disparage. Many years on catamarans.
> 
> Mark


I honestly think that's the underlying bias in the "production boats" debates. None of the typical Blue Water Combatants (I can't use other words) have new boats. And if it's not on their "blue water boat" it can't be good.

At the end of the day, this debate really is dead. Absolutely. No "production boats" are not the ideal platform for high latitude sailing or an F12 "survival storm". And neither is a typical "blue water boat". But for pretty much everything else, I'd definitely hit that 51 with the large screen TVs.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


>


Gasp! How DARE Oyster copy the disastrous dangers of BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas!?!?!? Why, next there will be an arch!


----------



## ianjoub

colemj said:


> That type of dual helm setup is only for a certain style of relationship.


I am hesitant to ask since that is the style my wife and I prefer...


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> Gasp! How DARE Oyster copy the disastrous dangers of BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas!?!?!? Why, next there will be an arch!


Yes, that one pictured is their G6 line. I really like the flush decks as well as the seascape windows.


----------



## contrarian

That Oyster is absolutely disgusting! How dare they put a piece of artwork like that on the water. It'll probably be a derelict in like 200 years.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> Yes, that one pictured is their G6 line. I really like the flush decks as well as the seascape windows.


Is that what those vertical ports are called? I honestly don't like those...at least from an aesthetic/functionality standpoint. I much prefer the horizontal aspect.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> Is that what those vertical ports are called? I honestly don't like those...at least from an aesthetic/functionality standpoint. I much prefer the horizontal aspect.


Yes, that is the name Oyster gives them. Looks wise, I could take or leave them. They do seem to add substantially to interior light and ability to enjoy the scenery while inside the boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> Yes, that is the name Oyster gives them. Looks wise, I could take or leave them. They do seem to add substantially to interior light and ability to enjoy the scenery while inside the boat.


I guess that's what I don't like about them. A longer horizontal would allow the same amount of light in, yet present less surface area to the water flow while underway.

Yeah, I'd take the Bene over the Oyster. No contest.


----------



## mstern

I hope that they bring that model to the Newport Boat Show; I'm going tomorrow, and I usually wind up taking a look at the big Beneteaus. Not my cup of tea style-wise, but man, they are really engineered to appeal to how most people seem to use their boats today. And, as much as anything that costs close to $1M can be, they are value-packed. A few years ago the Admiral accompanied me to the Newport show, and I made the mistake of taking her on one of the big Beneteau Sense boats first. Everything else paled in comparison for her, including the Catalina 310 (or was it the 315?) that I was hoping she'd love. After that, the best I could do was get her to agree that it would be nice to charter a big cat or the Oyster 62. Maybe I'll smarten up this year and start with the Catalina....


----------



## overbored

contrarian said:


> That Oyster is absolutely disgusting! How dare they put a piece of artwork like that on the water. It'll probably be a derelict in like 200 years.


In 200 years all that will be left will be an old tired hull with the windows still stuck on with 5200 to the old shards of fiberglass having gone around the world 10 times but still not considered a "blue water boat". when I was a kid there where many a old sailor that would have never considered talking any fiberglass boat on a ocean crossing much less one with windows in the hull.

I don't much care for the vertical windows on the outside but they do look good from the inside. This type of boat is bought for a nice interior that can go sailing


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> I guess that's what I don't like about them. A longer horizontal would allow the same amount of light in, yet present less surface area to the water flow while underway.
> 
> Yeah, I'd take the Bene over the Oyster. No contest.


My wife is insisting on a 'blue water boat' when we retire, though I do not think she could actually define what one is, much like this thread (or was it your 'what is a blue water boat' thread...). I will defer to her wishes as I am insisting on a trip around Cape Horn and she is game. <<<< Yes, a lot of it is just so we can say we did it, but the front runner for retirement is southern Chile at this point, so we will be in the neighborhood checking things out anyway. Puerto Montt area looks good in preliminary investigations.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-42.9528843,-72.4206233,7.33z


----------



## colemj

ianjoub said:


> I am hesitant to ask since that is the style my wife and I prefer...


That's OK if neither of you are backseat (in this case, free wheel) drivers.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

mstern said:


> I hope that they bring that model to the Newport Boat Show; I'm going tomorrow, and I usually wind up taking a look at the big Beneteaus. Not my cup of tea style-wise, but man, they are really engineered to appeal to how most people seem to use their boats today. And, as much as anything that costs close to $1M can be, they are value-packed.


The base price of this 51.1 is just over $400K. So, yeah, definitely value-packed.


----------



## RegisteredUser

The risks with these flat screens, IF they have problems later, _or fall out of style_, will fall on the 2nd 3rd etc owner.

Maybe a hull can be entirely formed from polycarb....

Personally, I think the vertical flat screens look hideous. The designer needs to go back to Odessa, TX or wherever he/she came from. Looks like a houseboat on Kentucky Lake....with a super cool, racy deck.

When med-moored, maybe you can ride your atv or Club Car into the ass end of the boat... Dunno the overhead clearance...

Reaching for 007...?


----------



## ianjoub

RegisteredUser said:


> When med-moored, maybe you can ride your atv or Club Car into the ass end of the boat...


We plan to take a couple of small motorcycles with us on our sailboat when we retire.


----------



## RegisteredUser

ianjoub said:


> We plan to take a couple of small motorcycles with us on our sailboat when we retire.


I would like that, too.
Safe storage and keeping the motos 'clean' is the prob.
Ideally, I would like dual sport - off road capable.
Lightweight - not for the boat, but more for you.
Heck, having just a cheap scooter would be heaven....


----------



## ianjoub

RegisteredUser said:


> I would like that, too.
> Safe storage and keeping the motos 'clean' is the prob.
> Ideally, I would like dual sport - off road capable.
> Lightweight - not for the boat, but more for you.
> Heck, having just a cheap scooter would be heaven....


The problem, as I see it, is having a tender large enough to transport them to shore safely.


----------



## colemj

RegisteredUser said:


> The risks with these flat screens, IF they have problems later, _or fall out of style_, will fall on the 2nd 3rd etc owner.


As did canoe sterns, cramped cockpits, pipe berths, folding salon tables, full keels, small engines and props, short rigs, etc.

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser

ianjoub said:


> The problem, as I see it, is having a tender large enough to transport them to shore safely.


They are loaded and unloaded with boom or pole at docks.
Unless you rig a ramp system.
I'd forget tender unless it was a 1-time thing.

The Honda Cargo 125 is the 'pizza bike ' of latin america. Maybe take a look at it and then weigh benefits from others.

A 49cc 2-stroke...now that is another thing.....


----------



## ianjoub

Yamaha Zuma 50cc 2 stroke is about 150#... They do ok on dirt/ mild offroad with appropriate tires.


----------



## RegisteredUser

ianjoub said:


> Yamaha Zuma 50cc 2 stroke is about 150#... They do ok on dirt/ mild offroad with appropriate tires.


You can pole that/those into a decent tender.
Make friends with the restaurant so you can keep it safe inside his rear chainlink...

I'm a fan of 2-stroke.
I'm a huge fan of being able to easily pick it up after it/I fall down.


----------



## smackdaddy

RegisteredUser said:


> The risks with these flat screens, IF they have problems later, _or fall out of style_, will fall on the 2nd 3rd etc owner.


Actually, no - they won't. I have flush in-hull ports in my 26 y.o. Hunter. I'm at least the 3rd - maybe 4th - owner. They're just fine.

Now 50 years? 70 years? Maybe. But none of us will be around then anyway.


----------



## RegisteredUser

colemj said:


> As did canoe sterns, cramped cockpits, pipe berths, folding salon tables, full keels, small engines and props, short rigs, etc.
> 
> Mark


I foresee a bottle neck, or a slow down, in this evolution. At least short term.
Modern sailboat design is not their only thing right now.
The designers in Odessa raise Blue Heelers, run 200 head, and have 4 sections of fence to keep up.

Maybe flat screens are really the future...


----------



## RegisteredUser

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, no - they won't. I have flush in-hull ports in my 26 y.o. Hunter. I'm at least the 3rd - maybe 4th - owner. They're just fine.
> 
> Now 50 years? 70 years? Maybe. But none of us will be around then anyway.


Are the newer ones getting taller/wider now?

I saw the first ones when they appeared.
I thought the skinny ones just below the deck looked sexy.


----------



## Arcb

ianjoub said:


> We plan to take a couple of small motorcycles with us on our sailboat when we retire.


Loading and unloading would be the issue, a boat with a small electric crane would be the way to go for motorcycles I think. Just sling them on and off. Ramps or so sketchy on boats.

Check out CB 300 F, might be a bit more comfortable than an enduro, and you can take them pretty well any where that isn't full on single track. They burn no gas, EFI and have ABS for those sketchy sand and gravel corners. I have one I ride in the winter- in Ottawa...


----------



## RegisteredUser

Arcb said:


> .... have ABS for those sketchy sand and gravel corners. ....


Off topic: you absolutely do not want abs in sand, gravel and torn up bumpy roads. Disengage it.
It's fantastic for regular surfaces.
Stop intersection ahead....the brakes do not engage.


----------



## smackdaddy

RegisteredUser said:


> Are the newer ones getting taller/wider now?
> 
> I saw the first ones when they appeared.
> I thought the skinny ones just below the deck looked sexy.


Yeah- they are growing for sure. But that's because they've had 26 years to improve the technologies. Even my small flush ports were decried by some traditionalists as deathtraps. And I ain't dead.


----------



## Arcb

RegisteredUser said:


> Off topic: you absolutely do not want abs in sand, gravel and torn up bumpy roads. Disengage it.


Why is that. This is the first bike I have had with ABS, it seems to work fine on ice, snow etc. Front brake only is ABS.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Arcb said:


> Why is that. This is the first bike I have had with ABS, it seems to work fine on ice, snow etc. Front brake only is ABS.


There some loose surfaces that will not allow the brakes to engage....how the system senses.
There are some loose surfaces that require braking by 'dragging/friction'.
Off road is different than on-pavement.


----------



## ianjoub

Arcb said:


> Loading and unloading would be the issue, a boat with a small electric crane would be the way to go for motorcycles I think. Just sling them on and off. Ramps or so sketchy on boats.
> 
> Check out CB 300 F, might be a bit more comfortable than an enduro, and you can take them pretty well any where that isn't full on single track. They burn no gas, EFI and have ABS for those sketchy sand and gravel corners. I have one I ride in the winter- in Ottawa...


Maybe the dingy davits would work for the load/unload. I will want electric/hydraulic for them anyway.

I haven't ridden a CBR300 yet, though I have owned several 250 ninjas, including a gen3. I am thinking smaller though for sailboat duty. We can rent a car when we have a long way to go.


----------



## colemj

smackdaddy said:


> And I ain't dead.


But you do seem to disappear from forums quite regularly...

Mark


----------



## ianjoub

colemj said:


> But you do seem to disappear from forums quite regularly...
> 
> Mark


BAN HIM AGAIN!!!!!!


----------



## Don L

Are we talking blah blah blah here? I fail to understand what these threads are about sometimes. Near as I can tell is some can't let go of the past and some can't appreciate stuff from the past.


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> But you do seem to disappear from forums quite regularly...
> 
> Mark


Heh-heh. Indeed. That does happen on occasion.

Although I've been back here 3 months now and not a single scruff while I've been posting in all my usual threads. That should tell you something.


----------



## Indevolatile

RegisteredUser said:


> They are loaded and unloaded with boom or pole at docks.
> Unless you rig a ramp system.
> I'd forget tender unless it was a 1-time thing.
> 
> The Honda Cargo 125 is the 'pizza bike ' of latin america. Maybe take a look at it and then weigh benefits from others.
> 
> A 49cc 2-stroke...now that is another thing.....


I've entertained this idea on occasion. It seems like it would be really nice to be able to travel 20-30mi inland on occasion. I imagined something like a Honda Grom (about 225lbs) that could be lifted in and out of a cockpit seat locker using the boom.


----------



## smackdaddy

A new #BFSGeekZone vid up on my channels. It's a fun look at "Production Boat Eyerolls".

GeekZone05: Production Boat Eyerolls | SMACKTALK!

I show you what it's REALLY like out there, comparing two "blue water" boats to my Hunter.

(PS - If you're sensitive you might want to skip it.)


----------



## Bleemus

smackdaddy said:


> A new #BFSGeekZone vid up on my channels. It's a fun look at "Production Boat Eyerolls".
> 
> GeekZone05: Production Boat Eyerolls | SMACKTALK!
> 
> I show you what it's REALLY like out there, comparing two "blue water" boats to my Hunter.
> 
> (PS - If you're sensitive you might want to skip it.)


Sorry dude but you havent really been "out there". I watched your videos.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Although I've been back here 3 months now and not a single scruff while I've been posting in all my usual threads. That should tell you something.


It tells you that your ban taught you something.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> It tells you that your ban taught you something.


Heh. Sure. That's it.


----------



## Minnesail

smackdaddy said:


> The base price of this 51.1 is just over $400K. So, yeah, definitely value-packed.


Really? Wow. That seems reasonable.

I'm chartering a nine-year-old Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 49 next week. The charter company has it up for sale at $300,000. It seems to me that if I was thinking of spending that kind of money on a decade old charter boat, I'd scrounge around a bit and come up with the $100,000 extra to get the brand new Beneteau that's a couple feet bigger.


----------



## ianjoub

Don0190 said:


> It tells you that your ban taught you something.





smackdaddy said:


> Heh. Sure. That's it.


Yes, it taught him that the pillow biters have won: everyone gets a safe space where they are *entitled* to be not offended.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnesail said:


> Really? Wow. That seems reasonable.
> 
> I'm chartering a nine-year-old Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 49 next week. The charter company has it up for sale at $300,000. It seems to me that if I was thinking of spending that kind of money on a decade old charter boat, I'd scrounge around a bit and come up with the $100,000 extra to get the brand new Beneteau that's a couple feet bigger.


Yeah - I'm still in reverse sticker shock for that boat.


----------



## mstern

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - I'm still in reverse sticker shock for that boat.


As promised, I went to the Beneteau display at the Newport Boat Show on Sunday, hoping to see this boat. She wasn't there. They had a number of the Oceanus line there, but not the 51.1. They did however have the Sense 51. The Sense 51 has a base sticker price of about 439K, about the same as the Oceanus 51. However, the salesman on the Sense 51 was pretty up front on how that wasn't really a very good number to use as a sense of the price. He told us that they model we were seeing at the show was pretty tricked out, and it was more realistically about 800K. That's a lot of options; a lot of expensive options.

My point is that the base price of the Oceanus 51.1 is probably not a good indication of the sail-away price. I'm guessing that with a reasonable but not extravagant list of options, you would be looking at a number much closer to 600K. Which is still pretty darn good. Relatively speaking.

On a quality note, the Beneteau's (both the Oceanus and Sense lines) hit their mark: the deck hardware looks robust and properly sized (if not elegant or fussy), the decks and cockpits are designed for an active owner who likes to spend time outside and entertaining, and the interiors look like they were designed by IKEA. The quality of the cabinet work and the material is consistent: good. Not great; good.

There are advantages and disadvantages to be sure with their choices of design concepts and materials, but they have chosen their path, and the market has responded. Beneteau is the number one manufacturer of sailboats in the world. They are obviously doing something (most things?) right. As I've said, not my cup of tea in the styling sense, but they make boats that fit most people's cruising/boating wants and needs: the coastal cruiser that is fun to sail, easy to maintain, allows the kids to jump off the boat and get back on easily, and is "affordable" with good value. Where do I sign?


----------



## Wayne Coleman

Hi Smackdaddy,

There is no way that I could ever read the volume of posts on this thread but I loved it because I ask this question all the time of my boat and others.

BTW, I appreciated your response to my Pensacola - KW question, and thoroughly enjoyed your videos!

I have a Pearson 303 as I mentioned. She is solid, as I've redone many things including repaired the corroded mast step, engine work, sail repair, upgrades for comfort etc. I sail her once-twice a month. My question is simple - after the years of reading and replying to all of the posts in your thread, do you think the 303 is a good boat to take on a direct route from Pensacola to Key West? (500+ miles, averaging 5 knots) looking at 4-5 days. I'd consider that a Blue Water sail.

I would appreciate your perspective on this, I'm considering this instead of hugging the coast in January or February 2018.


----------



## smackdaddy

Wayne Coleman said:


> Hi Smackdaddy,
> 
> There is no way that I could ever read the volume of posts on this thread but I loved it because I ask this question all the time of my boat and others.
> 
> BTW, I appreciated your response to my Pensacola - KW question, and thoroughly enjoyed your videos!
> 
> I have a Pearson 303 as I mentioned. She is solid, as I've redone many things including repaired the corroded mast step, engine work, sail repair, upgrades for comfort etc. I sail her once-twice a month. My question is simple - after the years of reading and replying to all of the posts in your thread, do you think the 303 is a good boat to take on a direct route from Pensacola to Key West? (500+ miles, averaging 5 knots) looking at 4-5 days. I'd consider that a Blue Water sail.
> 
> I would appreciate your perspective on this, I'm considering this instead of hugging the coast in January or February 2018.


I hate to talk about a specific boat I've never seen, but I can give some feedback based on the offshore experience I do have with a Pearson. As I've mentioned in my videos I've done several hundred off-shore miles in a Pearson 365 racing and delivering that boat in all kinds of conditions. You can see video of it in pretty rough seas in my "Production Boat Eyerolls" blog post linked above.

Pearsons (at least the bigger boats like the 365) are "on the line" when most are talking about "production" vs. "blue water" boats, but they are typically viewed as leaning toward the latter not the former. So those bigger Pearsons are good general offshore boats in my experience. The 30, being on the smaller end of that range, might be pushing it a bit. I don't know. But from what I understand the construction in Pearsons overall was heavier and higher quality than boats like the Catalina...e.g. - I had a C27 and wouldn't have taken it offshore because it was built pretty lightly.

So I don't know enough about the 303 specifically to make that call. You'd be the best judge of that. But I would expect that it would be a good bit more solid than my C27.

Even so, the simple answer is that if the boat is in good shape, well-maintained, and well-equipped - and you choose a good weather window - absolutely it could do that trip. Why not?

As for the weather window, today's forecasting is really good up to 5 days out or so. So that shouldn't be too hard. You just have to be patient and not push a schedule too hard. It can get pretty nasty out there. You'll remember from our episode 16 that a father and his 3 kids were lost on the exact stretch of water we sailed just 3 weeks later. Of course, their boat was in pretty rough shape...but still... you need to have your ducks in row.

Also, though there are some who strangely refuse to call an offshore route "blue water" unless it meets X or Y - I would absolutely call your intended route a "blue water sail". If you're more than 24 hours from a port, you're in "blue water" as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter what anyone else says. So don't worry about it.

The bigger question to me for this trip would be tankage. How much water and/or fuel can you carry? How much will you need? And do you have a means of pumping your waste overboard while you're offshore? And can you recharge your batteries, etc. as needed?

I'm sure there is a P303 owner around here somewhere that could give you better advice.

Finally, I would definitely recommend a liferaft. It's a big expense but a HUGE peace of mind out there.

The bottom line is that it is absolutely wonderful and beautiful out there. There is nothing like it. If you avoid serious weather you will have the time of your life.

*----------EDIT-----------

I just saw the tankage numbers on the 303 on sailboat data. 22 fuel, 38 water? That's pretty light on the fuel side...and may be light on the water side depending on how you use it. The 365 was 50 fuel, 150 water. You'd definitely want good sailing weather with that limited tankage.*


----------



## smackdaddy

Just for kicks I looked at the Salty Dawg Rally roster of boats. I know our own Outbound is in that rally and many consider that run fairly "blue water" (especially since the SDR itself bills it thusly). So, is anyone crazy enough to take a production boat on that treacherous journey? Let's see...

Beneteau 46
Beneteau 41
Beneteau First 405
Beneteau 47
Jeanneau 51
Hunter 42
Hunter Passage 450
Beneteau 57
Beneteau 57

And this doesn't even cover the multis! Of course, no one *really* knows if those silly things are fit for "blue water" anyway.

So, we'll see if any of these production boats survive the journey as they sail the exact same "blue water" as the "proven brands": Oyster, Moody, Hylas, Amel, Discovery, Hallberg-Rassy, Tayana, etc.

Obviously, I'm concerned about these folks, as are the skippers of those traditional "blue water boats" I'm sure. But surely the SDR wouldn't allow unfit boats to venture into blue water would they?


----------



## smackdaddy

Holy crap - there's a Whitby 42 on the list! That's a bit sketchy.


----------



## Minnesail

Is there still time to get Rimas entered?


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnesail said:


> Is there still time to get Rimas entered?


Now THAT dude is a Salty Dawg.


----------



## colemj

Aren't you currently somewhere on the West coast of Florida? Doesn't the SDR leave from the Chesapeake? Are you going all the way up to the Chessy to then head down to the Caribe?

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> Aren't you currently somewhere on the West coast of Florida? Doesn't the SDR leave from the Chesapeake? Are you going all the way up to the Chessy to then head down to the Caribe?
> 
> Mark


I would never do the SDR. Sure, I helped save it from oblivion (you're welcome SDR), but it's definitely not my cup of moonshine.


----------



## colemj

Sorry, my mistake reading your post. You said "our own Outbound", and I stopped comprehension at "our own", and thought you meant your boat.

Mark


----------



## Bleemus

All of those boats could make it given a reasonable weather window on the SDR. Would I beat upwind into 25-35 knot winds 4000 miles from Australia to Tahiti on a Hunter? Not on your life. I have done it twice.


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> Sorry, my mistake reading your post. You said "our own Outbound", and I stopped comprehension at "our own", and thought you meant your boat.
> 
> Mark


Ah - got it. I mean our esteemed member Outbound.

Anyway, dude - you know me - I would never own an Outbound.


----------



## hellsop

Minnesail said:


> Is there still time to get Rimas entered?


Well, he made it to Fiji (instead of Alaska), so odds are he's looking for another boat.


----------



## hellsop

Bleemus said:


> Would I beat upwind into 25-35 knot winds 4000 miles from Australia to Tahiti on a Hunter? Not on your life. I have done it twice.


So it's totally impossible then. 

I think the problem is "beating into 30 knots for 4000 miles" sound pretty miserable no matter where you're doing it. And obviously, that's a lot more fun in a 60-foot boat than a 30.


----------



## smackdaddy

hellsop said:


> So it's totally impossible then.
> 
> I think the problem is "beating into 30 knots for 4000 miles" sound pretty miserable no matter where you're doing it. And obviously, that's a lot more fun in a 60-foot boat than a 30.


Bingo.

That's, what, a *month straight* of those conditions *IF* you're doing *6 knots 24/7*? Right. There isn't a boat out there that's not going to get busted up if you bash through the seas of unicorn land like that.


----------



## colemj

The elusive BWB:


----------



## Lazerbrains

Or you can go from from Gulfport to Tampa in a Hunter (motoring all the way) and call it an "open crossing sail" and then act like an expert re. all things open water. LOL


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> The elusive BWB:


Heh-heh. Those handrails are critical for going forward to the pointy end in 30 knots.


----------



## Bleemus

smackdaddy said:


> Bingo.
> 
> That's, what, a *month straight* of those conditions *IF* you're doing *6 knots 24/7*? Right. There isn't a boat out there that's not going to get busted up if you bash through the seas of unicorn land like that.


8-10 knots tacking upwind. VMG was usually about 7. There was damage. On the second trip a toilet seat hinge broke. Couldnt find a gold plated replacement in Tahiti so we had one flown in from Sweden.


----------



## smackdaddy

30 knots sustained 24/7 for 24+ days in a row - twice. That's pretty unique weather. I'll grant you that.


----------



## Don L

colemj said:


> The elusive BWB:


That's a nice looking boat!


----------



## Bleemus

smackdaddy said:


> 30 knots sustained 24/7 for 24+ days in a row - twice. That's pretty unique weather. I'll grant you that.


It wasnt always 25-35 kts. We had some days of 10-15 but they were rare. Prime trade wind season is what it is . . .

We did stop along the way. Vanuatu has some great surfing. Fiji is wonderful scuba diving and Tonga is Tonga.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now we're finally starting to get a bit more realistic. Any Cat A production boat can handle conditions like that - and more. Easily. You just need to be a good skipper and not needlessly bash the boat around when there's no reason to.

As for Hunters and those waters, look up Mike Harker...among many others.

Now that we have that squared away, back to the SDR. Just a few more days to the start. We'll see how things go. My hunch is that the Oyster's and Discovery's and Hylas's (etc.) will sail just as well the BeneJeneHunterLinas. And the multis will smoke them all.

PS - The surfing in Fiji is phenomenal. Most of my scuba diving, however, was in the Solomon Islands. Best wreck diving in the world...if you can deal with the sharks.


----------



## smackdaddy

As mentioned in my latest #BFSSmackTalk vid, here's a look at the PB entries in the various ARC rallies...

The C1500:

https://www.worldcruising.com/carib1500/carib1500_2017_evententries.aspx

3 Beneteaus
2 Hanses
1 Jeanneau
1 Catalina

And the ARC itself:

https://worldcruising.com/arc/arc_2017_evententries.aspx

22 Benes
16 Jeanneaus
14 Hanses
8 Bavarias

And the BIG daddy World ARC:

https://www.worldcruising.com/world_arc/world_arc_2017_evententries.aspx

1 Beneteau
1 Jeanneau

With the Bene producing some pretty impressive results...



> After the drinks and before the supper the World ARC team announced the winners for Leg 2 from St Lucia to Santa Marta: first in Class A of the Cruising Division was the Dufour 525 ARABELA *with the Beneteau 47.7 Sandvita* and the Amel 55 Shamal in 2nd & 3rd place respectively.


Impossible. They aren't even dead yet! Maybe they haven't yet seen 30 knot winds.

At least they were kind enough to keep the beer cold for the BWBs...



> In Class B the Waquiez 40 TAISTEALAI were awarded 1st place.
> 
> In second place was the Hallberg Rassy North and 3 rd place Skye 51 Skyelark.


Oof.


----------



## aeventyr60

Bleemus said:


> It wasnt always 25-35 kts. We had some days of 10-15 but they were rare. Prime trade wind season is what it is . . .
> 
> We did stop along the way. Vanuatu has some great surfing. Fiji is wonderful scuba diving and Tonga is Tonga.


Yep, and Mid July the enhanced trade winds start licking up their heels. So, the 25-35 knots is quite normal. Not for gentlemen either.

Great wreck diving in Vanuatu. Thought the diving and surfing was better in Fiji. Great steaks in Vanauatu as they have an established beef industry, sending wagyu beef to Japan. One of my Birthdays spent there.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> Great wreck diving in Vanuatu. Thought the diving and surfing was better in Fiji. Great steaks in Vanauatu as they have an established beef industry, sending wagyu beef to Japan. One of my Birthdays spent there.


I didn't know that about the beef industry in Vanuatu. Interesting.

I lived on Guadalcanal for 2 years, which looks out over Iron Bottom Sound. You can understand the name. Ships, planes, you name it. Absolutely covered in WWII wrecks.

But the beef sucked.


----------



## Bleemus

smackdaddy said:


> Now we're finally starting to get a bit more realistic. Any Cat A production boat can handle conditions like that - and more. Easily. You just need to be a good skipper and not needlessly bash the boat around when there's no reason to.
> 
> As for Hunters and those waters, look up Mike Harker...among many others.
> 
> Now that we have that squared away, back to the SDR. Just a few more days to the start. We'll see how things go. My hunch is that the Oyster's and Discovery's and Hylas's (etc.) will sail just as well the BeneJeneHunterLinas. And the multis will smoke them all.
> 
> PS - The surfing in Fiji is phenomenal. Most of my scuba diving, however, was in the Solomon Islands. Best wreck diving in the world...if you can deal with the sharks.


What does the fact that we stopped along the way make it any different? Still 19-23 days beating upwind in Force 6-8. Tell me you would confidently leave Australia on a Hunter knowing that is what you faced. I certainly wouldn't. I value my life and the life of my crew too much.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now it's F8? I thought it was 30-35 knots. I can't keep up with this tale.

Look, I would definitely not be worried in a Hunter or any other Cat A production boat about typical F6-F8 conditions (remember _Sequitur_?) - though, personally, I'd certainly do what I could to avoid the F8. That's not that much fun - and yes, I've been in those conditions in my own Hunter. Thankfully it wasn't for a month solid, 24/7. But that pretty much never happens anyway as we all know.

That said, I also have no desire to beat 4K miles in ANY boat...ever. I'd rather ride the trades from Oz to my old stomping grounds in the Solomons, then up into the Phillipines, Thailand, etc. Much more fun and relaxing. Aev could buy me a beer and some yak meat.

Did you forget something in Tahiti - twice? I think you've lost me on the point of your story.

In any case, right now we're focused on the SDR, ARC, etc. fleets for this discussion - boats cruising like most cruise. We're not talking about sailing around the world the wrong way. So let's move on.


----------



## ScottUK

smackdaddy said:


> Now it's F8? I thought it was 30-35 knots. I can't keep up with this tale.


34 - 40 knots is a F8 on the Beaufort scale.


----------



## Bleemus

ScottUK said:


> 34 - 40 knots is a F8 on the Beaufort scale.


Yep. We saw that at times.


----------



## Don L

Going out to beat into that for 30 days says a lot more about the crew that the boat. And to me it says they are crazy.


----------



## Bleemus

Don0190 said:


> Going out to beat into that for 30 days says a lot more about the crew that the boat. And to me it says they are crazy.


It was the owners desire to do the South Pacific again. As paid crew we knew the boat and crew were capable of the trip easily. Had it been a less capable boat we would have told the owner it was not an option. He was a seasoned sailor and wouldnt have asked us to do it if he thought there was any danger. Crew of three, Captain and his wife and myself. We read a lot of books and caught quite a few fish. Call us crazy but we had fun.


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> 34 - 40 knots is a F8 on the Beaufort scale.


Yes it is. But when I read 30-35 knots, I don't read 34-40 knots. And if I get a few gusts to 35 from lower windspeeds, I don't call it F8 conditions as described by the Beaufort Scale. Maybe that's just me.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bleemus said:


> It was the owners desire to do the South Pacific again. As paid crew we knew the boat and crew were capable of the trip easily. Had it been a less capable boat we would have told the owner it was not an option. He was a seasoned sailor and wouldnt have asked us to do it if he thought there was any danger. Crew of three, Captain and his wife and myself. We read a lot of books and caught quite a few fish. Call us crazy but we had fun.


What was the boat?


----------



## ScottUK

smackdaddy said:


> Yes it is. But when I read 30-35 knots, I don't read 34-40 knots. And if I get a few gusts to 35 from lower windspeeds, I don't call it F8 conditions as described by the Beaufort Scale. Maybe that's just me.


I don't know how long the wind speed needs to be sustained to be applicable 
for the Beaufort scale but the way I read the post was they were sustained speeds of wind with no mention of gusts.


----------



## smackdaddy

I don't know the duration requirements either Scott - but I'd say it has to be long enough to get the F8 sea state along with the winds. So, yes, if it's blowing 35 knots for a couple of days you absolutely get F8 conditions. And you DEFINITELY get them if it's blowing 35 knots continuously for thousands miles. No question. But when does that happen?

Again, I just think that in these conversations about production boats and the "challenges of blue water" being straight about conditions is critical. Overblown scenarios prove nothing and help no one.

Cat A production boats are rated for conditions *above* F8 (the *high* end of that)...



> ...designed for extended voyages with winds of *over* Beaufort Force 8 (over 40 knots), and significant wave heights *above* 13 feet...


So the above-stated conditions are not a problem for these boats...which is the point of this thread. Whether someone feels comfortable tackling such conditions in one boat or the other doesn't necessarily say much about the boat.


----------



## ScottUK

I would not consider sailing into a wind of 30-35 knots for weeks to be an overblown scenario. I would say it would be a brutal beating that a lot of boats are unlikely to withstand without a good amount of damage/wear and tear. I would think the rating your are referring to would take into account other actions to mitigate the need for extended beating in the conditions you have outlined above.


----------



## Arcb

Rating systems and classification standards represent the bare minimum standards that a boat should have to operate in a given location or condition. 

The minimum standard. 

It doesn't mean that all vessels that meet the minimum standard are of equal strength or quality.

You're allowed to drive both smart cars and F-150's on the highway, but generally not mopeds or ebikes. That doesn't mean the Smartfor2 is going to handle adverse conditions as well as an F150, even though they both meet or exceed the minimum standards for highway travel.


----------



## Bleemus

Talk about wind speeds all you want. The idea was would you take a Hunter on a 4,000 mile trip that is mostly upwind in wind over 20 knots most of the time? It doesnt matter how many times you stop along the way. If I remember correctly it took us 19-20 days at sea. Dont remember many days below 200 miles noon to noon. 

Say a Hunter can pull off 150 miles a day in those conditions which is doubtful but you would suffer about 26 days of structural pounding. We are talking real pounding, blue water over the top of the whole boat at times, cockpits filled with water. In a Hunter. 

Would you do the trip? I dont know any professional crews that would but you might.


----------



## smackdaddy

Bleemus, you obviously have a scenario in your head that you think completely disqualifies a Hunter. And that's fine. You shouldn't take a Hunter anywhere. That's clear.

But the conditions you describe (at least at the moment) are just not an issue for these boats. Even so, your story is all over the place - which is why I can't follow your logic. On the one hand you're talking about "structural pounding blue water over the top of the whole boat at times, cockpits filled with water" then on the other you are talking about you guys reading and fishing on this trip, so it's certainly not the kind of trip where people are continually working the boat hard or holding on for dear life.

You still haven't said what the boat was. So there's no way to discern why it automatically becomes the best boat for your scenario, and the Hunter becomes the worst. But I don't think that's really the point anyway.

You seem to want to take shots at Hunters here - because you've offered nothing else regarding the topic of the thread. You're certainly not the first. But based on the actual conditions you've finally come around to, there is absolutely no reason a well-found Hunter couldn't *easily* handle the F6+ conditions you're now talking about. That's simply a "strong breeze". If you're not comfortable with those conditions in a Hunter, or Beneteau, or whatever - I don't know what to tell you.

Now, I no longer have the luxury of extended, detailed debate like I used to do. So I'll have to leave it here with you because I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than express your distaste for Hunters. But you really should familiarize yourself with modern production boats. It sounds like you might be pleasantly surprised with how capable they actually are.


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> I would not consider sailing into a wind of 30-35 knots for weeks to be an overblown scenario. I would say it would be a brutal beating that a lot of boats are unlikely to withstand without a good amount of damage/wear and tear. *I would think the rating your are referring to would take into account other actions to mitigate the need for extended beating in the conditions you have outlined above.*


This is EXACTLY right, Scott. And that's why scenarios like these are often presented in forums but typically WAY overblown. ANY boat is going to sustain damage if you continually beat it into heavy seas for extended periods of time. Period.

Thinking that if you have some "accepted blue water boat" you can do this without worry is dangerous - and irresponsible. Every sailor has to protect the boat. A prudent skipper will fall off, heave-to, run with a drogue, whatever it takes to ensure that the boat is protected from damage if conditions are this heavy. There is no good reason to beat into violent waves unless you have absolutely nowhere else to go...even if you have to go away from your destination.

I remember the story of the Swan 48 _Bella Luna_, which was really battered in the storm during the 2011 NARC (reported F8-F9, but over several days) - including taking on about 2000 gallons of water after coming off a big wave which drove the knotmeter transducer out of the thru-hull. DrakeParagon did a great video interview of that captain...






As you can see, he was worried about the rig coming down - and in the end had to be towed in. So it's not like Swans are impervious to structural (and other) damage in rough seas. AND THIS WAS NOT A "SURVIVAL STORM" BY ANY MEANS.

They were 80 miles from Bermuda, but instead of trying to "heroically" beat into it, they turned around for a 680 mile run back to Charleston.

So, this is real life - not some tale. And even Swans have trouble with rough conditions. Yet this skipper made some good calls and protected the boat - just as you should - instead of assuming he had some mythical "blue water boat" that could handle anything.

It's definitely worth a watch (both parts) if you want to know how things REALLY happen.


----------



## Bleemus

Dont take everything so literally. Was it blowing 25-35 the whole time? No. Was there blue water over the pilot house the whole time? No. Though I comfortably read books while waves passed over the pilothouse. Was there water in the cockpit the whole time? No. We didnt have fishing lures out when that was happening.

The question was would you do this trip in a Hunter? Would you? Would you do half the trip without a dodger? 
Would you do just one of the worst nights we had in a Hunter without a dodger?

Perhaps I should start a Youtube channel with my limited knowledge and profess to be an expert on such things? Nah, there is already plenty of people with limited knowledge doing it.

Does the boat I did it on matter that much? The question was would you do it on a Hunter. You can find stories of Swans that suffered damage all you want but I wouldnt hesitate to get on one to do the trip described. You couldnt get me to do it on a Hunter if you threw me five times the cash I made.

Since you are curious here is the boat plus a picture of one I sailed 3000 miles across the North Atlantic upwind in very challenging conditions winning the Twostar race. Two great ocean boats.


----------



## Bleemus

smackdaddy said:


> But you really should familiarize yourself with modern production boats. It sounds like you might be pleasantly surprised with how capable they actually are.


I have thousands of miles on Hunters and other production coastal cruisers. Great boats for the most part. Saw plenty of people sailing them around the world.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm still not quite sure what "this trip" of yours really means, Bleemus - but as for the *conditions* you've described thus far (F5/6 with an intermittent F7/8) - yes, I'd do it on a Hunter - no question. And I'd likely choose the 50 as it still has some style compared to the newer Marlow offerings of which I'm definitely not a fan.

But as I've said, being a skipper and not crew - I would have no desire to beat into anything for 4000 miles. That's just not a route I'd want to take despite conditions. And I can usually make those choices as any cruising skipper can. And if things were rough I'd ease up and take care of the boat - just like I've done many times on our own Hunter in similar conditions when we were taking water over the bow. It's not that hard.

I hope that answers your question.

PS - Congrats on the Twostar. You've definitely got some stones to cross the Atlantic with an outboard I'll give you that.


----------



## Bleemus

That outboard was off the boat for the Twostar. We got towed to the start like all of the pro boats. I cut my toothbrush in half to save weight and you think I am going to drag an outboard across the Atlantic? LOL. 

How about another production boat story? Sitting on 90 foot custom in the Bras d'Or of Nova Scotia a Beneteau 38-40 (I forget the exact model since they all look the same) crew said they absolutely needed to be back in Newport in four days for a wedding or something. The forecast was for 20-25 out of the southwest. They weren't confident and offered me $2k plus return airfare. My captain, knowing we had nothing planned for two weeks said have a good time and take the money. We set a course for the Cape Cod Canal but had to pull into Marblehead because a bulkhead had come adrift from the hull. Ended up motoring into a stiff southwesterly for 20 hours because we couldn't confidently hoist a sail. The whole front end of the boat was like rubber and the bulkhead was dancing around. I think that was the last time I took a coastal cruiser into an upwind strong forecast.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yep - like I said, any boat can be broken. I'm sure the owners were bummed. 

But as the ARC shows, there are lots and lots of Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Bavarias, etc. out there safely crossing the Atlantic and Pacific - and/or rounding the globe every year. Cat A production boats aren't coastal cruisers.

That's cool you've crewed on big yachts. Not my cup of tea, though. I like having my own boat and a full toothbrush.

PS - I notice you guys were the only Class IV boat to finish that year. The other 3 dropped out. You could have luxuriated in that full toothbrush AND outboard, dude! Seriously though - well done. I'm seriously impressed by that 26' catamaran though. Wow.


----------



## Bleemus

smackdaddy said:


> Yep - like I said, any boat can be broken. .


No, you are wrong. Some boats dont break beating upwind into 20 knots. Period.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well that's true. My Hunter hasn't - nor has any other boat I've ever delivered or raced on.

Later Bleemus.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well there is a disturbance currently in the middle of the Atlantic that has a 40% chance of development over the next five days. It will be interesting to see what the SDR fleet decides regarding the start.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Yep - like I said, any boat can be broken. I'm sure the owners were bummed.
> 
> But as the ARC shows, there are lots and lots of Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, Bavarias, etc. out there safely crossing the Atlantic and Pacific - and/or rounding the globe every year. Cat A production boats aren't coastal cruisers.


Well, this Beneteau (no doubt "Cat A certified") definitely was *not* not a coastal cruiser; the rigors of regular coastal cruising were obviously way too much for it.

I am amazed how anyone can put any credence in some minimal-standards regulation thought up by some Eurocrats in Brussels. But I guess these guys are good at marketing ("Category A") and there are some that fall for that stuff.


----------



## Don L

This gets so old. Don't some of you have better things to ***** about?


----------



## Bleemus

Cat A is for insurance companies. Not sailors.


----------



## mstern

To paraphrase Larry David: I'm pretty, pretty, pretty sure that we've been through this issue already.


----------



## smackdaddy

mstern said:


> To paraphrase Larry David: I'm pretty, pretty, pretty sure that we've been through this issue already.


Hey! Curb your enthusiasm young man.

Yes, we've been over it ad nauseum - and some just won't accept facts from experts...and proof from reality. There's nothing much I can do with that.


----------



## smackdaddy

I have an idea. Let me re-frame this debate in a slightly different light. If you are one who discounts all BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas as only coastal cruiser capable and dismiss the CE Category A ratings as having no relevance in terms of real capability...

Do me a favor and answer a few simple questions:

1. What make/model of boat do you own? Do you consider it "blue water" capable? And why (i.e. - what standard do you use for that measure)?

2. Do you typically sail your boat on "blue water" passages? Where? Or do you mostly coastal cruise in this boat?

3. How often do you encounter conditions in this boat that you consider the threshold for NEEDING this "blue water" boat? And what are those conditions - and where do you typically encounter them?

4. Do you see "production boats" that you consider coastal cruisers at your post-"blue water" destinations? How did they get there? And do you think they encountered similar conditions to yours?

5. How old is your boat?

6. Is the maker of your boat still in business and still producing boats that are built to your "blue water" standard?

The reason I'm asking this is because there is a HUGE disconnect between what many forum posters think SHOULD be going on in the boat manufacturing world - and what is ACTUALLY going on in the boat manufacturing world. All you need to do is look through the popular Mahina's "Boats to Consider for Offshore Cruising" list to see that most of these boats are no longer being made (Island Packet being a more recent casualty). Some haven't been made for decades. And of those manufacturers that ARE still making boats, such as Hinckley, they are more and more adopting the building techniques that most "blue water" proponents decry as inferior (the same techniques you find with production boats like liners, modular interiors, "IKEA furniture", etc.).

For those who insist on THEIR OWN standard of what a "blue water" boat should be, based on boats that are no longer made, this leaves you in a very true lurch. You can ONLY stick with aging, obsolete boats - forever. Which intrinsically become less capable/reliable with time.

So is the entire boating industry wrong?


----------



## Don L

And some can't accept that this whole thing about writing the same stuff over and over and over is a waste of time. If you like your boat and feel it is a good boat why do you care what others think. And if you don't feel a boat is good and don't own one why do you feel need to trash those that do? This is nothing but a small penis battle on both sides!

I can pretty much guarantee that no one researching "production" boats will come close to reading this thread anywhere past page 3-4 let alone page 178!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

Don - as is patently clear by now, I enjoy looking at and researching this issue and discussing it with others. You certainly don't have to read any of this. But the thread has almost half-a-million views and 58 viewers as we speak. And I've received lots of thanks from people researching boats, both here and on my blog, for presenting a case, backed up by facts, for production boats - which are notoriously maligned in forums as you see.

So, again, I don't mean to upset you or anyone else. But, I will continue to present facts on the issue. It's just something I enjoy doing.

Consider me the alternative to the Mahina List.


----------



## gonecrusin

Question; Production boats and their limits?

Answer; Upwind in 20+ for extended times or distances is beyond the limit of most production boats per Bleemus's history with said boats.


----------



## Don L

Oh be real to yourself for a change Smack! You are only doing this to argue and to make yourself feel good because you own a Hunter. And this comes from another Hunter owner!!! I had a nice Hunter thread going on CF till you showed up and pissed all over it and got it closed. This thread passed it's "use by" date a loooong time ago and now it's really only about you. You really only add new posts to it when you are looking to get poster to start disagreeing so you can go at it again.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay Don. Sorry you feel that way. Like I said, you don't have to read the thread.

Would it help if I just don't respond to those with a different viewpoint and just present the facts like I've done above with the rally fleets list - and the outcomes of those boats over the next few weeks, etc.? I don't want to needlessly upset people.


----------



## overbored

gonecrusin said:


> Question; Production boats and their limits?
> 
> Answer; Upwind in 20+ for extended times or distances is beyond the limit of most production boats per Bleemus's history with said boats.


Wow, If I would had known that I might not have done it all those times. most of the time it is not the boat but the operator that is the limiting factor. Some people can drive a production boat around the world and some can't make out of the harbor without a problem.


----------



## smackdaddy

Does anyone know the story on Hinckley? I just looked at their website and they appear to now only be building 2 sailing yachts - the Daysailer 42 (what the name implies) and the Bermuda 50 (more of a luxury racer platform) - with the rest of their line being motorboats. Is this right? Are they no longer making cruising boats? Wow!


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> 3. How often do you encounter conditions in this boat that you consider the threshold for NEEDING this "blue water" boat? And what are those conditions - and where do you typically encounter them?
> 
> For those who insist on THEIR OWN standard of what a "blue water" boat should be, based on boats that are no longer made, this leaves you in a very true lurch. You can ONLY stick with aging, obsolete boats - forever. Which intrinsically become less capable/reliable with time.


#3 is like the seat belt issue though, it is too late to try to put on your seat belt once you are in an accident. It is too late to desire the blue water capabilities when you encounter the truly adverse conditions.

As for the second part I quoted, there is still the option of custom designed and built.


----------



## smackdaddy

That's true Ian. That's why I love Bob's new custom carbon full-keelers. What cool boats!


----------



## copacabana

Not that I want to add fuel to the fire, but....

Smack, it's not always a question of the boat being able to beat to windward for 4,000 miles (and survive), but how the boat will stand up to many years of abuse (not just one trip). I think that's where the question of build quality comes into play. Cruising can be hard on a boat (as Jeff H pointed out, a year of cruising is like 20 years or so of "normal" use) and the ongoing "hard" use of the boat tends to show the flaws in lesser quality boats. I'm not saying a Hunter is lesser quality (I've never seen how they are put togther), but things like glassed in bulheads and stringers are going to stand up better than bulkheads set into a pan with glue (or worse, "floating"). I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a "blue water" boat should be built to take long-term punishment. Many of the details that characterize quality builds are expensive (labour, time and material).


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Would it help if I just don't respond to those with a different viewpoint and just present the facts like I've done above with the rally fleets list -


It would help if you present only "facts" that are maybe something new and stop arguing with people that are never going to accept your view.


----------



## smackdaddy

Copa - thanks for the response. This has been another "elephant in the room" issue I've discussed in the past here. And I don't disagree with you.

Though I don't think anyone really yet *knows* the "shelf life" of modern production boats - I think most intuitively _assume_ it's not going to be decades and decades of use like the old tanks (which in itself is a misguided assumption). But again, to make that a central issue, you need to have some kind of realistic use-case *and standard*. And we just doesn't really have those yet...at least not nearly enough to draw any conclusions.

For example, *if* modern production boats can meet that Category A standard for, say, only 10 years of continual cruising - is that a good thing or bad thing? For the boating industry it's a very good thing to have some level of obsolescence in your product. Otherwise you end up out of business like the very long list of companies on the Mahina list. But you have to balance that obsolescence with acceptable safety factors in order to sell the product in the first place. Stylistic obsolescence is the safest possible shelf-life factor to count on for future sales. And the European brands have been masters at this where the American brands have done very, very poorly. And most of them are now gone - regardless of build quality.

Structural obsolescence is another thing entirely...but HAS to be part of the equation - always. We just don't really know what that shelf-life is right now. Yes, we see incidents here and there that raise questions (such as the _Cheeki Rafiki_ disaster Jeff has reported on) - but as Jeff has said, this particular boat was used about as hard as any boat could possibly be used - with poor repair and maintenance thrown in to boot. So, who knows, it might STILL be decades of cruising shelf-life for these modern production boats.

The reality is, *unless you're seeing fleet-wide problems*, you've just not yet got a case for "poor" structural shelf life. So until there is evidence to back up what we might intuitively assume, it's just assumption. And those who try to use this assumption to prove the efficacy of the old tanks don't really have case.

As an example, many newer people buying these older "blue water" boats are drawn by the marketing that "This boat has just completed a circumnavigation!". Again, if you look at this through Jeff's logic, this should be a NEGATIVE - but it's used as a marketing positive! It's like thinking that it's better to buy an old car with 200K miles because it was able to do 200K miles. We don't think like that with anything but boats it seems. Feeding the notion that a decades-old Island Packet/Moody/Bristol (or whatever) will ALWAYS be strong enough to beat hard into F9/10 for miles and miles with no problems is dangerous. We've seen many cases of this biting newer sailors. There is a structural shelf-life on ALL boats. Period.

Finally, with the newer methods and materials (such as Plexus, etc.) - I'm not sure it's at all a given that glass tabbing is superior. But that's another topic that I'll save for later.


----------



## Don L

copacabana said:


> Not that I want to add fuel to the fire, but....
> 
> Smack, it's not always a question of the boat being able to beat to windward for 4,000 miles (and survive), but how the boat will stand up to many years of abuse (not just one trip). I think that's where the question of build quality comes into play. Cruising can be hard on a boat (as Jeff H pointed out, a year of cruising is like 20 years or so of "normal" use) and the ongoing "hard" use of the boat tends to show the flaws in lesser quality boats. I'm not saying a Hunter is lesser quality (I've never seen how they are put togther), but things like glassed in bulheads and stringers are going to stand up better than bulkheads set into a pan with glue (or worse, "floating"). I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a "blue water" boat should be built to take long-term punishment. Many of the details that characterize quality builds are expensive (labour, time and material).


That all sounds good, but it assumes older methods are "better". Do you have data that proves this or is it just an opinion? I have a 16 year old Hunter that has those bulkheads set into a liner and tabbed to the hull and a small pan that is glued to the bottom of the hull in the forward and aft berths. I've pounded the boat pretty hard (much harder that I was comfortable being in) and nothing has ever come loose or broken. In fact nothing on the hull/deck/rubber structure has ever had a problem.

There are lots of "old school" methods that are still being used by custom and semi-custom builders not because they are better, but because they don't have the scale of production to justify investing in the equipment etc that modern production uses.


----------



## mstern

smackdaddy said:


> most of these boats are no longer being made (Island Packet being a more recent casualty).


Island Packet (including Blue Jacket) was acquired by Hake Yachts (builders of the Seaward retractable keel boats) last year; this was about a year after IPY and Seaward announced a cooperative deal that both lines of boats would be built at the IPY facility in Florida. Not too long after that, IPY unexpectedly shut its doors and seemed to be on the verge of bankruptcy before Hake came in and acquired them. As of today, the glossy sailing mags continue to have IPY and Seaward ads every month.

One big change at IPY: the new owner has said that you don't have to have a buff-colored hull if you don't want one; he'll make it whatever color you want!


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks Stern - I followed that story when it was going down. The proof in the pudding will be the number of new Hake IPs sold. I'll just say that I'm skeptical there will be a boom.


----------



## copacabana

Don0190 said:


> That all sounds good, but it assumes older methods are "better". Do you have data that proves this or is it just an opinion? I have a 16 year old Hunter that has those bulkheads set into a liner and tabbed to the hull and a small pan that is glued to the bottom of the hull in the forward and aft berths. I've pounded the boat pretty hard (much harder that I was comfortable being in) and nothing has ever come loose or broken. In fact nothing on the hull/deck/rubber structure has ever had a problem.
> 
> There are lots of "old school" methods that are still being used by custom and semi-custom builders not because they are better, but because they don't have the scale of production to justify investing in the equipment etc that modern production uses.


Sorry, the bulkhead thing just came to mind. I suppose it's just opinion, but I really do appreciate the quality lamination on my boat and the fact that it's a monocoque construction (hull and deck is one piece) with everything fiberglassed to the hull and deck (and no pan liners to hide it).


----------



## colemj

smackdaddy said:


> Does anyone know the story on Hinckley? I just looked at their website and they appear to now only be building 2 sailing yachts - the Daysailer 42 (what the name implies) and the Bermuda 50 (more of a luxury racer platform) - with the rest of their line being motorboats. Is this right? Are they no longer making cruising boats? Wow!


It has been that way at Hinckley for many years now. In fact, they got out of the sailboat business completely for many years before building the new B50, and more recently the DS42. I don't think there are many of the B50 actually made. We saw one in Bermuda this year, but I think it was hull #1.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow. Thanks Mark. I honestly didn't know that.

What American builders are still doing their thing (not under duress like IP and PS, etc.)? It seems like we've not got much left over here. Even from the point I started this thread in 2009 most of them have gone belly-up.


----------



## colemj

Couldn't make money building BWB's. Nobody was buying them.

Mark


----------



## colemj

Catalina is building for themselves and contracted for the Gemini catamarans. Endeavor will still build a sailcat on special order, although they are mostly powercats now. Mainecat is building power and sail cats, but pretty low volume. I think Tartan got another life. Morris has gone even higher-end, but still building. Columbia came back 10yrs ago or so and builds a one-design. Marlow-Hunter, but we won't talk about them. I don't know if Pacific Seacraft is still building new boats. J-boats are going strong, but not really focused heavily on cruising, like always. Cabo Rico, Passport, Outbound, and Caliber, although I'm not sure manufacturing is actually in the US, and I think those are low volume. Wyliecat, but again low volume. You never know when Shannon is going to pop up, but they always go back down.

Beneteau is the 800lb American boat builder gorilla now.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

It actually seems like there is a potential emerging market for "lower cost" cruising cats somewhere between Geminis and FP/Leopard/Leopard/etc. The list of manufacturers seems to be pretty big... but I've never heard anything about most of these guys.

If I were going to invest (which I'd NEVER do) - this would certainly seem to be a potential niche with a future.

PS - It looks like that list is WAY outdated. Many of those companies no longer exist.


----------



## colemj

Don't go by broken websites - many of them have changed URL's and moved domains. Of that list, only 4 are no longer in business, although I would count Gunboat as a 5th.

None of those represent "lower cost" boats between Gemini and the next tier. Tomcat is with Gemini, Broadblue/Privilege/Nautitech/Cape Royal/Voyage/Seawind are in the same general tier as FP/Leopard/Lagoon, although there is always space to spread them out in there. The others represent higher performance/cost boats, with the exception of St. Francis, which is just a higher cost boat because of size and outfitting. Fusion is a kit build.

FP/Leopard/Lagoon/etc are actually pretty reasonably priced boats.

I doubt there will ever be another "lower cost" cruising catamaran because the margins are too thin and nobody wants them. Our Manta was considered one of these back in the day - priced competitively with Lagoon/FP, but much higher quality - and I doubt if the company still existed, they could sell a new one today.

The best way to get near this category is to build a kit boat or contract a builder to build it (the latter would probably wipe the boat out of the category, though).

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

I actually liked the Charter Cats Wildcat (of Bumfuzzle fame). It seemed like a boat that fit that niche pretty well. Of course that all went south pretty quick. Too bad.


----------



## ianjoub

So, when folks have boats built instead of buying 'production boats', does this skew the market?


----------



## smackdaddy

I've been watching the SDR fleet. Pretty mellow ride out there thus far.

Also, to give some perspective on these crazy edge-case scenarios some use to justify heavy, old boats...though I'm not a huge fan of their channel, here is a young couple that have been cruising the world on their FP Helia for the past 3 years. This includes crossing the Atlantic, Pacific, and now down to NZ.

Here is the heaviest weather they've faced this whole time...






There are no dragons out there - unless you own a "blue water" boat and neglect the weather.


----------



## Jeff_H

The SailNet Moderators have chosen to close this thread. Over its 8 year life, it has served the worthwhile purpose of fleshing out a range of useful discussion points, arguments and counterarguments on this topic. But it's sheer size has rendered it unwieldy so that sub-topics were lost in the sheer quantity of posts. 

We do encourage members to create threads which adds *new* information in a manner that specifically addresses a current event or new piece of information that might be relevant to the potential role of production boats offshore. But we see no point in creating another thread that becomes this kind of general clearing house for the information on this topic. 

Respectfully,
Jeff_H 
For the moderation Team


----------

