# Production blue water boats



## TSOJOURNER

Theres a thread on Hunter Boats, with some contributors saying they'd never own one with others saying they'd make okay coastal boats but they wouldnt circumnavigate in one.

This last was a puzzlement as there was a series of articles in one of the sailing mags several years ago on a circumnavigation on one. 

Anyhow, I am now curious as to what production boats people WOULD suggest for blue water cruising? 

I note on YachtWorld there are a number of Morgans, Hunters, Columbias, C&Cs, etc etc, 

I am really interested as I am searching YW almost daily for a good cruising boat.


----------



## FrankLanger

I can't check now, but I recall a book written a number of years ago with a title something like "Design characteristics of the Offshore Cruiser", which was well-written and covered lots of desireable/undesirable aspects of boats, explaining what and why certain characteristics were important for offshore cruising. It rarely mentioned individual boat makes, but might be good background to help you better evaluate various boats to suit your intended purpose.
Also, if you do a search on this site, there have been lots of posts comparing boats for offshore capability.
Good luck!
Frank.


----------



## Gene T

You could circumnavigate in almost anything. The odds of completing the trip go up with the quality of the boat. A true offshore cruising boat would means different things to different people. If you look at the different custom boats built specifically for certain cruisers you will find them built out of steel, aluminum or even cold-moulded. They generally have small cockpits, a rugged sail plan and heavy duty rudders among other attributes. There just isn't much of a market for cruisers as experienced wealthy cruisers are fussy and particular. Some will want fin keels and some long keels. Some Ketches, some Cutters ans some want Fractional rigs. Note that for day sailing and close to shore you would want large cockpits for entertaining or racing, large interiors for dockside pleasure and fiberglass for light weight, ease of maintenance and manufacture.

There are a few builders that come the closest to a true world cruiser. I don't know them all but a few are Amel, Valiant, Westsail. Others will chime in on some they know about.


----------



## PBzeer

The thing with most of the large volume production boats is they are designed with the weekend sailor in mind. Long on amenities, short on storage, tankage, and other things that are found on bluewater boats. It isn't so much that they aren't built well enough, it's that they aren't built for that purpose. Nigel Calders The Cruising Handbook does a good job of describing what to look for in a passage maker. An online source would be here http://www.mahina.com/cruise.html .

Regards,


----------



## Cruisingdad

Jake,

Frank is right. There are a number of old threads comparing different boats and their capabilities, etc. Now, most of these are opinions - so take them as such. I have owned a Catalina (actually many of them) and have put them in some really bad seas offshore... so it is basic generalities. I would also like to make a statment that most offshore boats are built stronger than most "island hopping" boats... but that does not make them a better boat - IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT FOR. I try and scream this to people all the time. Let me tell you why:

One of the more recognized "bluewater" boats is a Valiant. They are very heavy boats and built extremely well. In general, they have smaller and fewer hatches, lots of water, lots of fuel, a small cokpit, and wide cat-walks on the deck. They have a very nice lazarette and a well planned out spot for generators, watermakers, and a lot of the other gear that is required far from shore. Now, that is all great and neccessary if you are punching across seas and to distant shores... but those small hatches dont ventilate as well as a "hatch-filled" boat, those wide cat walks make for a more closed in cabin down below, all that water and fuel eats up space in other parts of the boat, the small cockpits are not great for laying out and spreading out watching the sunsets or entertaining, those nice lazarettes take out living space below... get the picture? The Valiant is a stronger boat and will take a much harder beating than any Catalina or Bene or Hunter... but it would not (is not ) my choice for a island hopper.

Buy a boat for what you are going to use it for primarily. Most passagemakers never leave the first marker... but if I was going to circumnavigate or cross oceans, a Catalina or Hunter or Bene would not be my first choice for the very reasons listed above. Does it mean you cannot do it? No. Does it mean you cannot take a Valiant and Island hop? Of course not. But if you buy the boat for how you will primarily use it, you will be happier, safer, more comfortable, and probably even save a lot of money!


----------



## sailingdog

Another valid point is that bluewater boats often aren't as good for shorter passages in lighter winds, as they're often too heavy to sail well in those conditions, where a coastal cruising boat would be more than happy to move along nicely. Getting a boat that matches what you're planning on doing really makes the most sense. Don't get a tank if you're not going into battle, and don't buy a sports car if you want to haul along everything and the kitchen sink.


----------



## paulk

*Lots of reading*

The book Frank refers to above is "Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts" written by the Technical Committee of the Cruising Club of America and edited by John Rousmaniere. My copy is from 1987. The different chapters are written by renowned experts including Olin Stephens, Richard McCurdy, and William Lapworth, among others. It gives you a LOT to think about. Steve & Linda Dashew's "The Circumnavigator's Handbook" also provides interesting ideas and advice that might be helpful. Books by people who've sailed extensively like Knox-Johnston, Hiscock, Roth, Moitessier and the Pardeys can also provide insight. They each have different approaches that might suit what you want to do and the way you want to do it. The more it snows this winter, the more time you'll have to read.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Excellent input, thanks all, much to think on, and read about, I am adding those books to my books to get list, right now its got 15 entries. 

My own plan is a liveaboard for coastal cruising but an Atlantic crossing in a year or two. Otherwise much time in the Carribbean. 

Keels were brought up, which is the better for a coastal that can do blue water ? I agree on the tankage, see very few on Yacht World that have what I consider reasonable tankage. 

Cocktail partys are out, just not my thing. The time is better spent fishing.

That said, the few floor plans I have seen dont show a whole lot of good options for stowing fishing equipment/snorkling/diving gear. 

Actually the two best possibilities I have seen recently are older wooden boats. One 38' and one 40'. I have seen a Morgan 38' and a 35' that look good but wonder about the blue water capabilities.


----------



## sailingdog

Jake-

I'd avoid wooden boats. From what I've seen of most wooden boats, the maintenance is far higher, and you'll be spend far more time maintaining the boat than you would on a fiberglass boat. Most people who have never owned a wooden boat have no real idea of the massive amount of maintenance they require, especially compared to a boat made of "frozen snot" as one old timer referred to fiberglass.

One boat that may fit your requirements, as a liveaboard, coastal cruiser, but is fairly capable as a bluewater boat is an Alberg 30 or Pearson Triton. Both of these are Alberg-designed boats, and quite capable boats, with fairly good light air performance as well. They are both reasonably priced and simple to single hand as well.

Of course neither of these boats was built as a "blue water passagemaker" as both were designed before people had such silly classifications for boats.  If you're curious about the capabilities of the Triton, try looking at this website. The Alberg 30 is basically a larger, refined version of the Triton IIRC.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I've seen several Alberg and Pearsons advertised, fine looking boats, the Atom sounds intriguing, I'll be looking into them,

ref keels for cruising and 'blue water' boats, of the several I've seen on the hard they had full 'fin' keels, only one with a 'spade'. 

Comments/opinions on the better ?


----------



## sailingdog

Jake-

Bluewater boats are available with both fin keels and full keels. The Contessa 26 and 32, the Alberg 30 and Pearson Triton are all very capable bluewater boats, that are smaller and more affordable, and have full keels. Many of the newer bluewater boats, like the Hallberg Rassy 342, have fin keels and spade rudders.

The "spade" generally refers to a rudder type, a semi-balanced or balanced, freestanding rudder with no skeg or keel attachment is generally called a spade rudder. While some argue that a spade rudder has no place on a bluewater boat, because they are more vulnerable to damage, not being protected by a skeg or the keel, this is nonsense IMHO, since spade rudders have proven themselves to be reliable, and often provide much better steering response than skeg or keel-mounted, unbalanced rudders. Full keel designs tend to be a bit less manueverable, but will tend to track better.

The Atom is a Pearson Triton, 28' LOA or so. The Alberg 30, is a bit larger, but by the same designer.


----------



## Jeff_H

This is the kind of a question that would require a book to answer properly, but I will take a stab at it. I apologize in advance for the length of my reply. Most of this response was written as a series of articles meant for another venue and so I am not sure that this flows all that well either, and for that I also apologize. 

I think that the terms 'offshore' and 'coastal' get bandied about quite freely without any real thought about what the differences are. Even the term 'race boat' is a bit vague since all kinds of boats are raced in all kinds of differing types of competition. Race boats can therefore vary quite widely depending on the type of racing that they are intended for. I am assuming that you are not asking about small one design race boats as much as boats that at least to one extent or another can be raced or cruised in a pinch. 

For the most part, race boats are optimized to perform better than the racing rating rule under which it is intended to race. This has a lot of implications. Under some rules (IMS and IRC for example) race boats are optimized to be fast and easy to handle across a wide range of conditions, producing great all around boats, but in the worst cases (International, Universal, CCA and IOR rules for example), the shape of the hulls, and design of the rig are greatly distorted to beat the shortcomings and loopholes in the rule, producing boats that become obsolete as race boats, and to a great extent as cruising boats as well, once the rule becomes history. 

While the EU does have a system that certifies boats into one of 4 categories, this rating system was intended to remove trade barriers between the various EU countries. It represents the lowest common denominator between all of the regulations that pre-existed the formation of the EU. A boat that is certified as meeting the CE Small Craft Directive, in the offshore category, has met this minimum standard but it does not certify that the vessel is actually suitable for offshore use. For example the EU standards do not look at motion comfort, or the suitability of the interior layout for offshore use. Stripped out racers with minimal tankage and fragile rigs can and do obtain offshore certification. The U.S. does have the ORC, ABS, and ABYC standards which are somewhat helpful, but again does not certify that the vessel is actually suitable for offshore use

In a broad terms, a well made coastal cruiser should be more expensive than a dedicated offshore distance cruising boat, because it needs to be more complex and actually needs more sophisticated engineering and construction than most people will accept in a dedicated offshore boat. When new, the high tech materials used, and the first class hardware generally employed, make racers comparatively expensive as well. They are also expensive to maintain in full race condition since maintaining a smooth, fair bottom, good sails, running rigging. and sophisticated electronics does not come cheaply. But as they grow older and less competitive, they often become real bargains. 

In a general sense, all boats are a compromise and with experience you learn which compromises make sense for your own needs and budget. Most times the difference between an optimized race boat, coastal cruiser and a dedicated offshore cruising boat is found in the collection of subtle choices that make a boat biased toward one use or the other. A well designed and constructed coastal cruiser will often make a reasonable offshore cruising boat and club level racer, while traditional dedicated offshore cruising boats usually make very poor racers or coastal cruisers. 

Which brings up another key point. I would think that most knowledgeable sailors use the term 'offshore cruiser', they generally think of traditional, long waterline, full keeled or long fin keeled, heavy displacement, cutters or ketches. But in recent years there has been a whole series of 'modern offshore cruisers', which have been designed to take advantage of the research into stability, motion comfort, performance, and heavy weather sail handling that emerged as the result of the Fastnet and subsequent disasters. These boats tend to be longer for their displacement, often have fin or bulb keels, and carry a variety of contemporary rigs such as fractionally rigged sloop rigs. Depending on the specifics of the boat in question, a race boat may also make a reasonable coastal cruiser or offshore cruiser but will rarely be ideal as either and will generally take some adaptation to reach a reasonable standard for these applications. 

Looking further, when I think of the distinctions between a raceboat, vs. coastal cruiser vs. a dedicated offshore boat, there are specific attributes that I would look for:

-Structure: 
A typical well-used coastal cruiser might only sail five hundred to a thousand miles a year. Most do less. A well-used offshore cruiser may do as much as 20,000 to 30,000 miles in a single year (10,000 15,000 being more typical). Whether traditional or modern, offshore cruising boats need to be designed to stand up to the long haul. A single year of offshore cruising can literally be the equivalent the abuse encountered in 20 or 30 years of coastal cruising. 

Traditional offshore cruisers come in a range of flavors. Whether fiberglass, steel, alloy or timber, traditional offshore cruisers tend to have robust hulls that are simply constructed. Hull panels tend to be very heavy, accessible and maintainable. Internal framing tends to be widely spaced or almost non-existent. Engineering tends to be simple and reliable. Materials tend to be low tech, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The down side is that a weight goes into these structures using up valuable displacement that could be used for additional carrying capacity or ballast. Some of his weight is carried high in the hull and deck structure reducing stability and increasing roll and pitch. 

Modern offshore cruisers tend to use higher tech materials and structural design. Some robustness and redundancy may be given up, but often the better of these newer designs have greater strength despite their lighter weight. These newer designs often take advantage of sophisticated framing systems and purposefully selected alloys or laminates. They often benefit from careful engineering intended to improve impact resistance and longevity. 

Whether traditional or modern, offshore cruisers need to be able the cyclical loadings that insidiously wear out a boat over long passages. Larger margins of safety are required. In offshore cruising boats more than the other types, a little weight added, an often breed a whole lot more weight. A little added weight has a way of ricocheting through the whole design cycle. A little weight added means that perhaps the sail area needs to be increased. The increased sail area means a little more ballast. The added ballast perhaps means larger keel bolts and more robust transverse frames. This additional weight and sail area means higher stress on the rigging and so perhaps heavier rigging and attachment points get added, and that means perhaps a decrease in stability or perhaps a bit more ballast. The added weight means more drag and so fuel consumption increases and perhaps so does the size of the fuel tanks. And with all that added weight the designer is then faced with an under-canvassed design or else adding a sail area and risking going though another round of weight addition. Which is why, when all is said and done, traditional offshore cruising boats tend to be so much heavier than race boats, coastal cruisers or even more modern offshore designs. 

Coastal cruisers generally benefit from better performance than offshore boats and do not have as stringent a requirement for a robust structure as and offshore boat. As a result coastal cruisers greatly benefit from lighter construction using modern materials and methods. Redundancy and self-sufficiency is less of a requirement. Fully lined interiors and other conveniences are often the norm on cruisers. Even quality coastal cruisers use molded force grids or pans that are glued in rather than laid up in place. Framing is often wider spaced and less robust. Hull panels are often cored and thinner than on an offshore boat. Rarely do they receive the careful workmanship that is required for a quality race boat, or the high safety factors ideally applied to a dedicated offshore cruiser. Then again they don't need either as their use and abuse is generally much less harsh then encountered in the life cycles of either racing or offshore cruising boats. 

Race boats generally benefit from the most sophisticated engineering of the three. Weight is the enemy of speed and motion comfort and so great attention is paid to reducing weight where weight can be reduced. But since breaking a boat is a very slow way around a racecourse, with some notable exceptions for specific racing classes, and racing periods, race boats are surprisingly tough. They are designed for very heavy loadings compared to coastal cruisers since racing crews will often carry on in no matter what nature throws at them, carrying far more sail than one might normally consider prudent. Their larger sail area to weight ratios, proportionately higher ballast ratios, their use of low stretch line and sails, the willingness to carry a lot of sail into higher wind ranges, and placement of the crew weight (often as much as 15% or more of the displacement of the boat) out on the rail as moveable ballst results in enormous strains compared to similar displacement offshore or coastal cruisers. 

By the same token, race boats are designed with smaller safety margins so the engineering better be right. The problem with smaller safety margins is that over time race boats wear out quicker than other types of boats. Designers and owners somewhat see that as acceptable since rules also change over time making race boats more likely to become obsolete. Historically there is nothing man made (except perhaps a 15 year old computer) that is quite as obsolete as an obsolete rule beating race boat, and so historically designers are more willing to view them as disposable. At least with some of the newer rules, the boats being produced are good all around boats and quite a bit more robust and so may find a long useful life cycle. 

Race boats generally use higher grade and higher tech materials. They are often the first to benefit from advances in structural design. They often have fewer openings in the hull and deck, which results in much greater stiffness and potentially less fatigue issues. Structural workmanship is often as good as it gets in the world of building yachts even if the interior finishes often seem a little crude. Race boats often gave very sophisticated internal framing systems, which take up room within the interior but make them far sturdier than their light weight would seem to imply. 

All of that said, this has not always been the case, CCA era race boats often suffered from the mediocre engineering and poor laminating practices of the day, and IOR era and early IMS era boats often had fragile rigs. 

-Accommodations:
On a coastal cruiser there should be good wide berths, with enough sea berths for at least half of the crew for that night run back to make work the next day. An offshore cruiser is often handled by a smaller crew and so fewer berths and fewer sea berths are necessary. The berths on an offshore boat should be narrower and have leeboards or lee cloths. On both I am looking for a well-equipped galley but the galley needs to be larger on a coastal cruiser so that there is adequate space to prepare meals for the typically larger crew or a raft-up. Refrigeration is less important on a coastal cruiser, where ice is typically readily available at the next port of call, although the case can be made for no refrigeration or icebox if you are going offshore. Race boats tend to have Spartan accommodations. Offshore oriented race boats will often have enough seaberths to sleep half the crew on either side of the boat so that the off watch crew can be tacked along with the boat. Water tanks are often reasonably sized to take care of a race boat's large crews, but fuel tankage is often a bad joke. Storage is generally huge to carry a race boat's large sail inventory, but it does not work well for carrying groceries, spares and supplies. 

-Cockpit:
A comfortable cockpit for lounging is very important on a coastal cruiser. It should be larger than an offshore boat to accommodate a larger number of people which is OK since pooping is less likely to occur doing coastal work. Dedicated offshore boats generally have smaller cockpits with very large drains. The cockpits are deeper and have taller coamings to protect the crew. This makes them less comfortable for lounging and less easy to move in and out of. Ideally offshore boats have bridge decks that are higher than the lowest point of the coaming and companionway slides that can be locked in place to avoid down flooding. All of which makes moving about a bit less convenient. Race boat cockpits tend to need the wide open spaces to house the vast crowds that inhabit them on the race course. If you think of a race boat cockpit at a mark rounding, you have a helmsman, mainsail trimmer, guy trimmer, sheet trimmer, pit person, and perhaps a grinder or two. That's a whole lot of people and each need their own space to that voodoo that they do so well. Coamings and seats just get in the way. Modern racer-cruisers often have removable seats that double as cockpit lockers and which are removed for racing (along with a few hundred pounds of the 'unnecessary gear' used to deliver the boat to the race course). 

-Deck hardware:
While gear for offshore boats need to be simple and very robust, coastal cruisers need to be able to quickly adapt to changing conditions. For the coastal cruiser greater purchase, lower friction hardware, easy to reach cockpit-lead control lines, all make for quicker and easier adjustments to the changes in wind speed and angle that occur with greater frequency. There is a big difference in the gear needed when, 'we'll tack tomorrow or the next day' vs. auto-tacking or short tacking up a creek. 

-Displacement: 
Offshore boats need to be heavier. They carry more stuff, period. The traditional rule of thumb was that an offshore boat needs to weigh somewhere between 2 1/2 and 5 long tons per person. A coastal cruiser can get by with less weight per crew person but generally is cruised by a larger crew. The problem that I have is that most offshore sailors and many coastal cruisers seem to start out looking for a certain length boat and then screen out the boats that are lighter than the displacement that they think that they need. This results in offshore boats and some coastal cruisers that are generally comparatively heavy for their length. There is a big price paid in motion comfort, difficulty of handling, performance and seaworthiness when too much weight is crammed into a short sailing length. 

I suggest that a better way to go is to start with the displacement that makes sense for your needs and then look for a longer boat with that displacement. That will generally result in a boat that is more seaworthy, easier on the crew to sail, have a more comfortable motion, have a greater carrying capacity, have more room on board, and be faster as well. Since purchase, and maintenance costs are generally proportional to the displacement of the boat the longer boat of the same displacement will often have similar maintenance costs. Since sail area is displacement and drag dependent, the longer boat of an equal displacement will often have an easier to handle sail plan as well. 

-Keel and Rudder types:
I would say unequivocally that for coastal cruising a fin keel is the right way to go here. The greater speed, lesser leeway, higher stability and ability to stand to an efficient sail plan, greater maneuverability and superior windward performance of a fin keel with spade rudder (either skeg or post hung) are invaluable for coastal work. Besides fin keels/bulb keels are much easier to un-stick in a grounding. In shallower venues, a dagger board with a bulb or a keel/centerboard is also a good way to go. 

There is a less obvious choice when it comes to the keel and rudder type for offshore cruising. Many people prefer long or full keels for offshore work but to a great extent this is an anachronistic thinking that emerges from recollections of early fin-keelers. Properly engineered and designed, a fin keels with a skeg hung rudder can be a much better choice for offshore work. There is the rub. Few fin keelers in the size and price range that most people purchase for offshore cruising are engineered and designed for abuses of dedicated offshore cruising. That said, popular offshore cruisers like the Pacific Seacraft, and Valiants have adapted skeg-hung spade rudders while the Island Packets have chosen to use a rudder post hung spade rudder. 

Of course race boats thrive on stability and low drag. For them, under most racing rules, there is only one choice, fin keels and spade rudders. Under some of the older rules, (International, Universal and CCA) race boats often had fin keels with attached rudders. This was the worst of all worlds. The boats do not track as well as a spade rudder but have all of the negatives of a keel hung rudder (greater exposure to damage being close to the depth of the keel, higher loading, less maneuverable). Newer race boats have minimal foil area and large bulb keels. This combo was chosen for greater stability and therefore sail carrying capacity as well as minimal drag. As a side benefit this keel type has been demonstrated to offer increased seaworthiness and motion comfort that results from a significantly lower center of gravity relative to the vertical center of buoyancy, better dampening, and the ability to stall at high side loadings which reduces the likelihood of being rolled in a large breaking wave. In US Naval Academy studies of groundings, bulb keels were also shown to be the easiest to extract from a grounding, which is a very good thing considering that more modern race boats generally have significantly deeper drafts. 

-Ground tackle:
Good ground tackle and rode-handling gear is important for both cruising types but all-chain rodes and massive hurricane proof anchors are not generally required for coastal cruising. Race boats often lack proper anchor handling gear or in the most extreme cases, they may even lack fixed cleats to tie up with. Frankly from the racers point of view these are simply things that get in the way of that perfect hoist, douse , tack, or jibe. 

-Sailplan:
At least on the US East Coast, (where I sail and so am most familiar with) light air performance and the ability to change gears is important for a coastal cruiser. It means more sailing time vs. motoring time and the ability to adjust to the 'if you don't like the weather, wait a minute' which is typical of East Coast or Great Lakes sailing. If you are going to gunkhole under sail, maneuverability is important. Windward and off wind performance is also important. 

With all of that in mind, I would suggest that a fractional sloop rig with a generous standing sail plan, non- or minimally overlapping jibs, and an easy to use backstay adjuster is ideal. This combination is easy to tack and trim or change gears on. I would want two-line slab reefing for quick, reliable on the fly, reefing. I would want an easy to deploy spinnaker as well. 

For offshore use, traditional cruising boats tend to have a very high drag relative to their stability and so low aspect ratio rigs are important. Depending on the size of the boat, cutter and ketch rigs are the time-tested solution. They work reasonably well as long as simplicity and performance are not important. 

More modern, lower drag offshore cruisers seem to be using fractional sloop rigs with a great deal more frequency for many of the same reasons as coastal cruisers. But modern offshore cruisers can be found with the full range of rigs; masthead sloops (with and without removable jib stays), cutters, ketches, even schooners you name it. 

Racers are only concerned with efficiency, the most drive for the least sail area as measured by the rule. It is this last phrase that has lead to terrible distortions to rig proportions relative to what is easy to handle or actually efficient in an absolute sense. For example, the CCA under penalized genoas and mizzens, and so yawls and huge overlapping headsails appeared. The IOR fairly measured mizzen sail area and so yawls disappeared again, but the IOR over penalized mainsails and under penalized headsails and so masthead sloops with tiny high aspect ratio mainsails and huge genoas and spinnakers became the rage. The IMS measures the impact of sails more fairly and so fractional rigs with their ease of shifting gears has become the rage. 

The bad news for coastal cruisers is that the racing rig fad dujour often shows up on next year's coastal cruiser. The really bad news is that since coastal cruisers often stay in production for many years these bad fad ideas often stay in the coastal cruiser marketplace for a very long time. If you doubt that look at the IOR proportioned rig on most Catalinas. 

-Speed:
I think that speed is especially important to coastal cruising. To me speed relates to range and range relates to more diverse opportunities. To explain, with speed comes a greater range that is comfortable to sail in a given day. In the sailing venues that I have typically sailed in, being able to sail farther in a day means a lot more places that can be reached under sail without flogging the crew or running the engine. When coastal cruising speed also relates to being able to duck in somewhere when things get dicey. 

It can be argued that speed is less important to the offshore cruiser. What's an extra knot when you have an ocean to cross. On the other hand, a little more speed can allow a crafty distance cruiser to pick the wind system that he is sailing in or keep moving in a doldrum. It can mean more sailing relative to motoring and so a lower requirement for fuel, stores and water capacity. It can mean somewhat less expense for a given passage. It can mean more time in an interesting port relative to time at sea, which is an advantage to those who prefer portside to offshore, but which is a disadvantage to those for whom cruising is all about the passage making. 

Of course, race boats are all about speed, speed in all conditions. The best race boats are fast in all conditions and are quick to shift gears on the fly dealing with whatever Mother Nature throws at them. I often hear how cruising boats are faster than race boats in a breeze. I just have not seen that at all. Big wind or small, most modern race boats are radically faster than their non- racing sisters from the same era. The possible exception to this would be the CCA era boats with their short waterlines, and the pre-Fastnet IOR boats with their distorted hullforms and rigs. 

-Ventilation:
Good ventilation is very critical to both cruising types. Operable ports, hatches, dorades are very important. While offshore, small openings are structurally a good idea, for coastal work this is far less of an issue. Ventilation is irrelevant to most dedicated race boats, but boats intended as racer cruisers need all the ventilation they can get, if nothing else to dry out after a spinnaker that has been shrimping gets dumped down below to be packed. 

-Visibility and a comfortable helm station: 
Coastal boats are more likely to be hand steered in the more frequently changing conditions, and higher traffic found in coastal cruising and are more likely to have greater traffic to deal with as well. A comfortable helm position and good visibility is critical. Offshore, protection of the crew becomes more important. Racers need to see their sails, the waves, and their competition. Visibility is important, but often gets compromised by the use of deck sweeping jibs and low booms that wipe out visibility from 'the high side'. 

Storage and Tankage:
There is a perception that coastal cruisers so not need storage. I disagree with that. Coastal cruisers need different kinds of storage than an offshore boat but not necessarily less storage. Good storage is needed to accommodate the larger crowds that are more likely to cruise on a short trip. Good water and holding tankage is important because people use water more liberally inshore assuming a nearby fill up, but with a larger crew this takes a toll quickly. Holding tanks are not needed offshore but they are being inspected with greater frequency in crowded harbors and there are few things worse than cruising with a full holding tank and no way to empty it. Offshore boats generally need larger fuel tanks. 

Motion Comfort and Seakindliness

This is probably the most controversial of the topics. It is important to understand that when it comes to motion comfort, there is no universally right, one size fits all. Relative motion comfort derives from the amount of motion and rate of acceleration that is inherent in the design of a boat as it is actually loaded. How comfortable the motion feels results from the combination of those two factors; amount of motion and the rate of change in motion. It is very hard to design a boat that inherently has both a minimal range of motion, and which also has slow acceleration rates. It can be done, but historically it wasn't. 

Complicating this discussion further, is that fact that people are affected by motion differently. In a U.S. Navy study of motion sickness, it was found that of the people who are prone to motion discomfort, roughly one third were predominantly affected by the amount of movement, but were minimally affected by the rate of change. Another third were predominantly affected by the rate of change, but were minimally affected by the amount of movement. And the remaining third were affected by both the amount and the rate of change. The ideal solution then is to find out how you personally are affected by motion and then to seek a boat with a motion consistent with your own natural preference. 

There are a lot of factors that affect a boat's natural motion but the biggies are inertia, stability, buoyancy distribution, and dampening.


----------



## camaraderie

Jake...you mostly find fin keels or full keels on cruising boats. There are variations on the fin type like the wing keel which ads wings to the bottom of the keel which can reduce draft and help speed but isn't much fun when you go aground! Spade is typically associated with a rudder...it being a type that is WHOLLY supported by the rudder shaft. Many cruising boats use SKEG mounted rudders which support the rudder from an integral skeg o the hull and hinge on the forward edge of the rudder and often the bottom of the rudder as well. This makes for more protection for an important part of your boat!


----------



## TSOJOURNER

MUCH to think about here guys, Jeff yours is going to deserve reading several times at least, Cam you're right, I've seen a couple I thought the builder had watched too many Star Treks.

My plans would probably break down to 60-75% coastal, and the rest crossing the pond, probably once a year to VI or Bahamas/Azores. Going to the Med is plausible, seem to have family scattered all around it. But mostly Israel. I can see going across then coming back when the winds shift. But for the most part living entirely on the boat, and crusing wherever I am at. 

As I study boats available I am already weeding out the ones with low tankage, and under 30-40hp, tells me the builders wernt aiming for off shore cruising while boats with healthy tankage tell me they may well offer other good traits. At the moment I have a couple 35s bookmarked and up to 40'. I hope in a couple months to be able to start looking at them. 

One thing I have seen so far in only two boats is grab rails, either to the side or overhead. Seems like a major omission to me. Gradually what I am looking for is shaping up. 

Much thanks to all of you for helping me along, its appreciated.


----------



## sailingdog

Jake-

Just remember, as the boat gets longer, the costs for dockage, storage, haulouts, and such get more expensive. Also, the equipment is generally more expensive to maintain/replace/upgrade, as the equipment has to be larger. Single handing a 40' boat is a bit much for many people. 

I don't know what your budget/finances are, but a smaller boat, especially if you're going to sailing solo, may make much more sense. There are plenty of people who bought more boat than they actually needed or could handle easily and ended up with a dock queen. 

YMMV. Just a few points to consider.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Size*

Hi Dog
the ones I've been collecting info on are from 35' to 40', one really nice 35, and two nice 38's.

Been out with friends on their 42' ketch, and liked the handling of it, he laughs about people saying they're complicated, watching him handle lines without leaving the wheel is interesting. His cockpit layout helps that. Its an older wooden boat, but as people say, its a lot of maintenence which they love.

There seems to be a lot of light displacement small boats available which scare me off. The storage is a big item for me, as well as tankage and water. Still have found a couple that are beginning to fit the vision I have. Its shaking out. Got all winter to look.

I appreciate all of the good info.


----------



## sailingdog

I've seemed to notice that wooden boat owners spend more time maintaining their boats than I would be happy with. I prefer the less rigorous maintenance demands of a "frozen snot" boat. 

I'm not saying that a properly equipped boat, even as large as 42' isn't able to be single handed...but there is much to be said for the simplicity and lower costs of a smaller boat. They can generally go more places, as they'll have shallower drafts as a general rule, and are easier to handle, especially short-handed.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I have been surfing yachtworld and other sites looking and comparing, I ahve seen a number of Endeavors that caught my attention, there are a few on YW, inclduing a ketch, three of them I like, here is one :

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rrency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1709&url=

comments/opinions invited, they have more tankage, weight to displacement seems better then most of the ones I call coastals, and interiors seem better thought out, lost count of how many I have seen without nav stations, some otoh seem way overburdened with bunk space, I'm for sure not into racing. I'm a pickup-station wagon person.

Anyhow, comments appreicated on these as to why good or bad for coastal cruising with some pond crossing down the road.


----------



## camaraderie

Jake...I like Endeavors as good coastal boats that are reasonably well built but would not see them as blue-water cruisers. Certainly they are capable long distance cruisers for runs to the Caribe etc. but the actual construction is not that robust IMHO to stand up to when the pond isn't a pond.


----------



## Melrna

*Bluewater*

Like all the rest of the wannabie's liveaboard bluewater cruisers I have been researching this now for two years. It boils down to person tastes and where/what you are going to use the boat for and how handy a sailor is at fixing things. Just for arguement sake here is my list.
Hull - Fiberglass, modified fin keel
Deck - Fiberglass, no teak ( leak waiting to happen, more maintance, and cannot walk on it in the tropics to hot)
Size -38-42 feet
Tankage - min 100 gal fuel, 150 water
Storage - Can never have enough
Heads - 1 real nice one vs 2 small ones
Saiplan - vote is still out Sloop, cutter or ketch
Cockpit - I prefer aft, the CC that I have seen from older boats 1980's I don't like, to small and in my opinion dangerous. I haven't seen enough CC in the newer designs to rule them out. I do like the CC layout in the salon area though.
Just my thoughts so far
Melissa


----------



## sailingdog

Melrna-

Are you aware that most bluewater boats have smaller cockpits as a safety feature. A large cockpit, that gets pooped, can hold enough water to endanger the safety of the boat in many cases. Coastal cruisers, which are generally not out in as heavy weather, since they can turn into harbors relatively quickly, have larger cockpits for the larger crews that are often on them for daysails.

Also, 150 gallons of water is 1200 pounds of weight and takes up about 20 cubic feet. 100 gallons of fuel is about 700 lbs. Most of the boats that can carry this amount of water and fuel in built-in tanks are going to be towards the higher end of your size range. 

Are you sure that both you or your partner will be capable of handling a boat this size alone in an emergency?? Just something to consider. A Hallberg Rassy 40, which is in the size range and about the same tankage as you're looking at, has almost 870 sq. ft. of sail area between the mainsail and the 100% jib. If the boat has a problem and the electric winches die...would you be able to reef the main sail manually?? 

Just a few points for you to consider. Also, as the boat size goes up, so does the amount of maintenance, the cost of repairs, hauling out, docking, mooring, etc. Do you want a floating condo or a sailboat? Some others on this site, who have boats in that size range, never seem to sail them... just use them as floating or drydocked condos... which seems to be an awful waste of money to me.


----------



## Melrna

*Sailingdog*

If one was take your arguments than the 1,000 of cruisers out there would never get off the dock. 
Tankage. Good designed boats puts the tankage below the waterline and in the centerline. This gives the boat a better CG (center of gravity) and more stability. As an example Caliber and Super Amels do this the best. I read a lot of cruisers blogs and find they run out of diesel fuel because their tankage is weak and/or pay high prices for fuel when they get somewhere when the next island or port has fuel for less. Carry jerry cans to make it somewhere is an option but it clutters the deck. Furthermore, who wants to drag them into town in a dingy, drag them back and than fill the tanks. Talk about strength!
Aft cockpits. I agree with large open cockpits can be dangerous. I have ruled out most production boats for this, Catalina's, Bennie, Hunter, ect. 
Sail area and electric winches. Most sailboats in this size don't have them. Even costal cruisers don't or racers. So reducing sail area your argument is mute. If the sailboat is properly set-up than no problem. I don't think with all the retiree's out there the strength to reduce sail is a problem. Of course good seamanship always helps too. 
Fair winds
Melissa


----------



## TSOJOURNER

If I am crusing from Bahamas to Azores I would want more then 70 gallons of diesel. Just in case. The 1900 lbs of fuel and water has to be carried down low, but a 37' boat should be able to do it ornot be built. IMO.

The need to fly all possible sail is to me the arguement for a cutter or ketch as the sails are smaller/easier to reef. One awkward fore sail but the others are easier to handle.

Question of Endeavor not really heavy enough, in what respect ? The displacement is heavier then most all the production boats. So where does it need beefing up, if possible ? 

Thats why I posted that link, pick it apart please, before I buy one. Looking at cockpits, again, not too hard to pick out the ones built for the close-in cruisers and day sailers. Others otoh, are smaller and have protection.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

To throw in another topic, 
I have been reading through my Wooden Boat books and noted that the displacements on most of these are way higher then comparable sized glass boats. Ex few of the 40s listed on Yacht World are above 20,000 lbs while many of the well known wooden 40s are pushing 40,000 lbs. 

Are glass boats engineered for the difference or is it just a cost saving manufacturing thing ? 

Whats a good displacement for a cruiser that can do blue water trips? Say a 35', a 37' and a 40' ? To their credit a number of the listed 37s did have fairly good tankage.


----------



## sailingdog

Traditional wooden boats have to have thicker hulls to have the same strength as GRP boat of the same size IIRC. 

Also, most traditional wooden boats have to have internal framing, which is often not necessary on a GRP boat. 

The tensile and compressive strength of GRP is far higher. For instance, Douglas Fir has a tensile strength of 2150 PSI and a compressive strength of 2000 PSI, and weighs 34 lbs per cubic foot. GRP with cloth and roving has a tensile strength of 35000 PSI and a compressive strength of 25000 PSI, and weighs 106 lbs per cubic foot. To get the same strength from the wood, you would require a significantly heavier weight of wood, even though the material is less dense. 

BTW these figures are from Daniel Spurr's Upgrading The Cruisng Sailboat.

This doesn't necessarily apply to cold-molded laminated wooden boats, similar to those made by the Gougeon Brothers of West Epoxy fame.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Displacements*

okay, to take under consideration, will want that book.

then what are reasonable displacements for 'heavy cruisers' of the 37' to 40' range?

I am trying to weed out boats on the market unfit for serious cruising, so far looking at tankage, displacements, cant find figures on rigging size components, thru-haul fittings etc, such things arnt even mentioned on YW listings other then for some tankage and about half displacement and ballast. Majority of attention is on dockaminium appeal.

Its a slow process. Eventually will find a cruiser that can make that passage from the Bahamas to the Azores.


----------



## sailingdog

I'd avoid wooden boats, as the maintenance is much higher than most people are willing to do nowadays. A couple of other good books to get are Dave Gerr's The Nature of Boats, and John Vigor's The Seaworthy Offshore Sailboat.


----------



## PBzeer

Heavy displacement doesn't necessarily translate to heavily built. In looking at boats, you can't get too fixated on one component, at the expense of others. Chances are, the only boat you'll find that fits all your criteria, is one you have custom built. Unless you're independently wealthy, any boat is going to be a compromise of what you want, with what you can get.

Regards,


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*factors*

Hi John
unfortunately yachtworld listings etc dont tell how hulls are connected, how thick or what thru-hulls there are, and what they use. They just stress the cosmetics, not whether the boat will take you not only out of the bay but bring you back.

but tankage and displacement does tend to indicate those who are making boats for serious useage and not as dockaminiums.

I'm on the wrong side of the learning curve as to which companys are producing serious cruising boats, somehow got to winnow these hints and clues out. NOBODY wants to say this or that make/model is strictly a dockaminium and this one is a good blue water cruiser. Following prices doesnt help in that, too many people with the money to lay out a quarter million for once a summer sailing dockaminiums. The occasional sailing yacht that shows up has different sailing characteristics then what I want. I'm a pickup man not a sports car driver. I'm looking for a Ford 4 WD F150 or Toyota Land Cruiser in a boat, not a 'vette.

But, from reading here and talking to some forum members I am slowly deleting those boats not to be given serious consideration. Its a process. I appreciate all of the input.


----------



## PBzeer

Whitby 42, or Brewer 12.8, both designed by Brewer, the 12.8 a newer rendition basically. I believe JeffH spoke about them in a recent thread, though I don't recall which thread it was.

The yachtworld listings are just a compilation of broker listings by and large, so what you read is what brokers think is important to sell the boat.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*weeding them out*

Hi John
thanks, added those two to the list, slowly getting one, even slower finding them, this all takes time, meanwhile working on the reading,

right on about the brokers lists, pretty sells apparently more then seaworthiness.

one of these days I'll post a glossary of what the various brokers description phrases really mean.


----------



## PBzeer

I spent 3 winters living on the net researching boats. The hardest part was determining what I would actually do, as opposed to what I'd like to do. Once I figured that out, the boat search became much easier. I ended up with a sound coastal cruiser, that I know of one sistership that has crossed the pond. After 6 months, it's been everything I expected, and a bit more.


----------



## jay1956

I love my Morgan 36 O/I for open water sailing but I do have an original morgan that was made in 1974


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I am trying to absorb a lot of the good advice I have run into here, right now through spring is homework time, much to do, including working on the sale appeal aspects of my place here, I am in a strong buyers market where I am. 

One thing I havenot had much input on is bank financing for boats. My present credit union does loans on boats but as they do cars, five years is it. So I am going to have to find a bank that knows what sailboats are. 

I wrote a post a week ago on this but it never appeared, taboo subject ? I havent seen any threads on it.

As John says, we can spend too much time researching when we need to have an action plan to do it. Mine is to get this place sold and then get out and look at boats while getting in some sailing time, I am planning on both ,some courses to get regrounded mixed in with sailing with several friends on their boats. 

I had begun looking at boats from 35' to 41', still have two 40s on the list but most are 37-39'. Along the way ahve dropped those bookmarked with small tankage, shalow draft and what I thought as minimal displacement. I have also gotten picky on a couple interior items like galley layout and adequate nav centers. Several with extra settees I decided could have book shelves and stowage in place of some of those settees/berths.One with two quarter berths aft looks like those berths could hold auxillary fuel tanks. 

One thing I canNOT find is sizes of rigging material on any of them. I have several sources for SS cable/rope, and fittings, I have priced out this compared to several yacht catalogs and the yacht catalongs I think, are aimed at the dockaminiums checkbooks. A little time spent on the Thomas Register can payback big time on much of these. 

Also, I have a local Amish metal fabricating shop which has the best prices on custom metal items I have seen anywhere, give him an object and they will duplicate it far more reasonably. Good folks, his Dad owns the biggest local feed store. If interested its Miller Machine Company, Kittle Rd, Mio, Michigan. No email, you'll have to write them, or call, 989 826 2181. You can get the stuff made there and then send somewhere for coating. 

I am beginning to downsize my things, major book sorting through, put some on permanent loan, a few to a library, some to give away, and more sailing related to get. 

Most of these boats have very little in the way of tool storage. I cant see going offshore with just a roll of duct tape. Yet that seems to be what a lot of designers think is adequate. My major critique of the production boats is they seem to stress dockside living to the expense of practical sailing offshore. 

nuff,

comments ?


----------



## sailingdog

Most companies that will do a marine mortgage will want you to have USCG documentation on the boat, as it affords them far better protection than a mere consumer loan does.

BTW, a marine mortgage's interest can be deductible on your taxes if the boat has a permanent head and galley, as it can qualify as a home. I don't know what your budget or your plan is, but it would probably be wiser to go and get a slightly smaller boat, and pay cash for it, rather than finance it.

The reason I say this, is that most people who are going cruising long-term-and since you're talking about making bluewater passages, so I'm guessing you're planning on heading out for an extended period of time-don't want to have the recurring payments at a time when their income is considerably lower than it was previously.

Also, almost all boats are going to be a compromise of some sort. Whether it is sailing performance for storage and cabin size, or more tankage and less storage space, or full-keel versus manueverabiilty, etc... Finding the perfect boat is very unlikely...._you really have to find a boat that you love, and has a layout, design and build that you can work with for the type of sailing you want to do. _

One question I have for you is this... *have you actually been aboard any of the boats you're looking at, or are you just doing this via specifications and photos. * Buying a boat is often not a rational thing-often it is a matter of stepping aboard and knowing that this is the boat you want-regardless of whether it is "perfect" for your needs.

Just my $.02 on the boat buying process.


----------



## PBzeer

sailingdog said:


> Buying a boat is often not a rational thing-often it is a matter of stepping aboard and knowing that this is the boat you want-regardless of whether it is "perfect" for your needs


Jake,a few thoughts, based on your posts:
Boats are what you make of them. Storage is something you adapt to what you have. Few areas are dedicated to specific items outside of the galley. You improvise and utilize.

If you intend to cruise, you're far better off having a boat that is paid for. Not only does it eliminate a recurring cost, it also helps in the matter of insurance. The cost of full coverage insurance, once you leave coastal waters is prohibitive enough that many go without it. Something that isn't an option on a loan.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Displacement alone is not as important as you seem to credit it. Nor is shoal draft necessarily a bad thing. You want to assess a boat as a combination of all the factors, not just one or two.

Lastly, don't forget that "better is the enemy of good enough".

Regards,


----------



## SVAuspicious

*HR 40 reefing*



sailingdog said:


> Are you sure that both you or your partner will be capable of handling a boat this size alone in an emergency?? Just something to consider. A Hallberg Rassy 40, which is in the size range and about the same tankage as you're looking at, has almost 870 sq. ft. of sail area between the mainsail and the 100% jib. If the boat has a problem and the electric winches die...would you be able to reef the main sail manually??


I happen to have an HR 40 with a conventional, full batten main with three reefs. All halyards and reefing lines are at the mast. As long as I keep the cars and track clean and lubricated, reefing is a 3 or 4 minute job for one person (and the autopilot). It is yet faster with someone else driving the boat to luff the main at just the right time.

I do have one electric sheet winch (it is the "windlass" for my stern anchor setup). Nonetheless, I'd put money into a good battcar system before spending money on electric winches. Just my experience.


----------



## mike dryver

i totally agree with paulk note find that book and it will open your eyes as to the questions you are pondering. i have one, very insightful. i wouldn't give it up for anything (not that follow it or any other to a t), but it will give you a better of an understanding of the forces at play and how different designs react to those forces. of all the books i've read on these subjects and there have been a few, this is by far the better in imho. i am not an architech or anything like that, but like to read and understand what is written. there are alot of dynamics involved in design and construction, and then the interior details. anyway good luck in your search!
regards mike


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Good input thanks. For me banking is as simple as I can make it, direct deposit for income, and as much as possible direct transfer payments out, I write VERY few checks anymore what with debit cards and some credit card use. As long as I can get to an internet connection I can access the bank accounts.

I can pay cash for a boat, but looking at the YW lists that would be buying one and doing a several year refit, doable, but not my preference, a fairly small loan would give me more boat with a shorter refit list. An answer might be a smaller boat, most cash down with a small loan. Lately have been looking closer at the 37's because of that.

Yes, I've been on a number of boats, but most all wooden boats, I fell in love with a 37' wooden ketch. But the owner is probably going to live to a 110. Hope he does. Also as it happens my sailing experience has been on wooden boats. So these frozen snot boats are a pretty new world to me. I have seen several projects that look intriguing/attractive, but are certainly going to need a survey prior to making any kind of bid. This is one reason why plans are once this place is sold to get a RV trailer and hit the road looking at boats. 

I am looking down the road for a pond crossing but mostly its as a live aboard and cruiser. I am fairly sure I'll be doing a couple years shakedown coastal cruising before trying a passage east. 

What I am trying to do with all of these posts is to build up a mental or real checklist to evaluate boats when reading about them or looking at them. As someone else once said here brokers are stressing the cosmetics and leaving out the nice things like condition of thru-hulls and general sea worthiness. I will be a surveyors shadow on any boats I make a bid on. It'll be well worth the extra money to have him explain as he goes along. 

I totally agree that the general feeling on stepping aboard and ambience is a major factor, but it can also cause us/me to gloss over some things that I shouldnt. I for one really have to be cautious on that.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Theres been a number of good books suggested, last eve I went to amazon.com to scope out what is available, to date I had put a list together of 18 books, and expected to add more, of the 18 that I had listed, I found 13 in used, 'good as new' condition. Total including postage was $ 179. 

Some of these I saw on Woodenboats.com bookstore at $ 30-55 ea. I think I got some good buys, will see when they arrive. As it turned out about a third are sailing and seamanship, a third on boat systems and a third on cruising and blue water handling/circumnavigating. There's 4-5 others I saw that I also plan on getting. 

I already had 4 on the list and another six on miscl boats, so one thing for sure, whatever boat I get needs ample book shelving.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

From Jeff H's post: "A well designed and constructed coastal cruiser will often make a reasonable offshore cruising boat"

Any specific models that you feel would fit into that category?


----------



## sailingfool

Voila:
http://www.sailboatowners.com/classified/ownerview.tpl?owno=11605739411290807&fno=400&brsku=11605739411290807.2&bd=CS&p1=0&p2=1000000&xs=All&l1=36&l2=36&active=T&sb=placed&dr=de&ad=all


----------



## TSOJOURNER

sailingfool, you are the man. you have turned my head in a new direction, there's one in my home port (Van, BC) that i am going to go see tomorrow. The 5 or 6 on YW seem to be very well equiped, providing a pretty good clue about how their use as an extended cruiser. beutiful boat, can't wait to get aboard. will keep you posted, thanks for the tip!


----------



## yotphix

Not in your area but for the sake of comparison.
http://www.patsturgeonyachts.com/search.taf?function=search
I have sailed a fair bit in Lake Ontario on a cs36T which did two transatlantics and it is a well built, great sailing comfortable yacht.


----------



## sailingfool

newtoschool said:


> sailingfool, you are the man. you have turned my head in a new direction, there's one in my home port (Van, BC) that i am going to go see tomorrow. The 5 or 6 on YW seem to be very well equiped, providing a pretty good clue about how their use as an extended cruiser. beutiful boat, can't wait to get aboard. will keep you posted, thanks for the tip!


In fact the PO of my boat wrote a book about cruising the CS 36T:
http://www.amazon.com/Travels-Yeti-Hiram-Connell/dp/097675908X/sr=8-1/qid=1162661568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7622359-6542523?ie=UTF8&s=books


----------



## Goodnewsboy

An Allied Seawind Ketch (Gillmer design) is an excellent long distance boat.


----------



## Balage

To simplify the question...
Do you think a Beneteau First 44.7 would go round the world on the 'traditional route' (Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope...). Not thinking about the water/fuel tanks but of the structure of the boat, sails, rig etc... 

If not, what would you choose for circumnavigation (traditional route) when you'd like it fast (and you'd also want to survive it...)? Well yes, you could build a Volvo 70 and it would be bloody fast, but you also know that isn't what I'm thinkig of...


----------



## camaraderie

Balage...
How about a nice Halberg Rassey or Saga instead? The Bene is not the boat for that kind of sailing.


----------



## Balage

Well, yes, I'm agree with you, that a HR would surely circumnavigate, but what if performance and speed is what you need?


----------



## camaraderie

Well if you want even faster than the HR you could get one of those Hunter HC-50...Hunter's Child which was designed for fast around the world sailing. 
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...units=Feet&access=Public&listing_id=9944&url=


----------



## capecodphyllis

*Fast Cruising?*



camaraderie said:


> Well if you want even faster than the HR you could get one of those Hunter HC-50...Hunter's Child which was designed for fast around the world sailing.
> http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...units=Feet&access=Public&listing_id=9944&url=


That's around 450,000 more than he was looking to spend. And if he's looking for speed, a cruising cat is the way to go - forget about a monohull.


----------



## camaraderie

Phyllis...How do you know what Balage wants to spend??? I recommended an even more expensive H-R and all he posted back was that he wanted a faster boat. The HC-50 is about as fast as a blue-water production boat gets unless you want to step up to the Deerfoots. What would YOU suggest that is FASTER and CAPABLE of going around both southern capes AND cheaper in a production catamaran??


----------



## TSOJOURNER

One thing to keep in mind---less than 10 percent of time is actually spent out on the ocean. By buying a pure blue water cruiser you have spent a lot of extra money for a boat that optimizes sailing capabilities less than 10 percent of the time or put another way it is not a good bet 90 percent of the time. Therefore a good coastal cruiser that can be upgraded for the occasional offshore passage is a better way to go and there are plenty of sailboats that fit into that category. Hal Roth has taken that approach.


----------



## camaraderie

LWL...a coastal cruiser trying to do a bluewater circumnavigation around both southern capes like Balage wants to do might end up like Mr. Roth did... being rescued by he Chilean navy off the rocks in Antarctica.<grin> I understand the theme of upgrading a solid coastal cruiser for occasional blue water...but there is blue water and VERY blue water!!


----------



## CaptKermie

Camaraderie,
I have noticed on a couple of threads here the recommendation of the Contessa 32 as a blue water boat or blue water/coastal. Out of curiosity I did a google search on it and came up with lots of data, some of which specifically says it was built as a cruiser/racer yet it is being touted as a blue water boat and has been proven as one. Is it just blue water or VERY blue water. The biggest disappointment in the data I found was availability, it is mostly found in Europe with only about 10% of total production in North America and it is extremely rare on the west coast. Too bad, sounds like a nice coastal cruiser that could easily moor in a 30' slip. I always keep my eyes/ears open for my next upgrade from 26' and after reading many of the threads & posts here, it appears that reality restricts me to a 30' slip and a coastal cruiser. I think 33'LOA & LWL of <28' is the max for a 30' slip. I have seen a few good recommendations on this board to consider and even if some are blue water I will never be doing it, prefer to be in sight of land. Pacific Northwest will take me many many seasons to see it all.


----------



## catamount

At least one Contessa 32 has been around Cape Horn.

Just because a boat is described as a cruiser/racer does not make it un-suitable for VERY blue water. 

There are a lot of ocean racing boats (Whitbread and Volvo 60s, Volvo 70s, Open Class 40s, 50s, 60s) that are designed explicity for VERY blue water (i.e. southern ocean sailing).


----------



## camaraderie

Kermie...despite the racer/cruiser designation...the Contessa is a very well built boat and has blue-water credentials and things blue water cruisers look for like skeg hung rudders and modified cutaway long keels. It would not be considered a racer today but was in its time. It is designed to hold up to very heavy weather but is a bit small and light for the Southern Ocean IMHO. The major drawback as a true bluewater cruiser is the very minimal tankage...no doubt minimized to enhance racing performance. Another 100 gallons total of fuel/water would add about 900 pounds to the boat or close to 10% of displacement which is not insignificant and will lower the waterline and degrade performance. So...I guess I am saying that while the boat can go almost anywhere...she is best cruised on short passages where a couple of extra fuel/water jugs can get you into port after she sails nicely through whatever the weather comes up with! Nice boats...but not as roomy as a Hunter 32!! <grin>


----------



## FrankLanger

There were a number of Contessa boats in Ontario when I was there a few years ago--it wouldn't be terribly expensive to tow/have it trucked to the west coast.
Frank.


----------



## Johnrb

Here is a past Sailnet article about the Contessa 32 (by John Kretschmer). Gigi made two passages around Cape Horn east to west both times. I believe the boat was most recently sold about three years ago (in Texas I think).

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/buying-boat-articles/19542-gigi-one-boats-story.html


----------



## catamount

To clarify the point I was trying to make: somebody else's pigeon-holing of a boat as a cruiser, cruiser/racer, racer/cruiser, or racer, does not _necessarily_ say anything about the boat's suitability for blue-water sailing (high lattitude or otherwise).

Better would be to determine whether a boat was designed and built with coastal/inshore sailing or ocean/offshore sailing in mind, regardless of what style of boat it is. There are coastal cruisers and there are ocean cruisers, just as there are inshore racing boats, and offshore racing boats (and sometimes good offshore racers can make reasonable ocean cruisers).

And to reiterate a point that I think has probably already been made in this thread, boats of all descriptions have been sailed around the world (and many of them have been around Cape Horn). My belief is that, usually, it is the sailor -- moreso than the boat -- that determines the success or failure of ANY voyage.


----------



## VMacDonald

catamount said:


> At least one Contessa 32 has been around Cape Horn.


And Ascent, the C32 which was the smallest boat (and only one in its class) to finish the 1979 fastnet, was I think subsequently successfully taken to both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Wikipedia article for Contessa 32 list a few other noteable passages.

That said, for a true comfortable blue water cruiser the C32s are pretty cramped down below (especially by modern standards) and, as has already been said, have limited tankage. But the same is probably true to an extent of any truly seaworthy boat of that size as all things are a compromise.

Oh, and I own one so may be more than a little biased ;-)


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Comfort, comfort, comfort as in *"SEA-KINDNESS".*

A sea-kind vessel (by design) built for offshore work is what will protect the weakest part of the cruiser: IT'S CREW !

Research the design elements that make a vessel sea-kind. Let me suggest two sources of information regarding seaworthiness:

r.e Design
SEAWORTHINESS The Forgotten Factor.
C. A. Marchaj
Tiller. 
St. Michaels, MD USA.

r.e Construction, Equipment, etc.
THE SAFETY OF SMALL COMMERCIAL SAILING VESSELS-A CODE OF PRACTICE
Maritime Coastguard Agency-United Kingdom-
Developed with the collaboration of:
American Bureau of Shipping
Bureau Veritas
Lloyds Register
Det Norske Veritas, among others.

.... enjoy the hunt!


----------



## seadaddler

*Blue Water Boat*

Try looking at used pacific seacraft they are a real good blue water boat.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

This boat has recently been refit and equipped for exactly thetype of cruising you want to do.

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...=&currencyid=100&city=&spid=208&pbsint=&ps=30


----------



## chris_gee

Get a grip guys. If you want to go as fast as posible around the world fly. If you might go to to Israel to see the cuzzies fly. If you want to do Chesapeake and the odd flip over to the Bahamas thats one thing, if you are really serious about doing more maybe you will do the hard yards first.


----------



## brak

What was done to it? Why is it for sale? 
Also, what is the draft - looks pretty deep.



Sailormann said:


> This boat has recently been refit and equipped for exactly thetype of cruising you want to do.
> 
> http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...=&currencyid=100&city=&spid=208&pbsint=&ps=30


----------



## RicCooper

*Offshore cruiser*

Just loock at www.geronimosaintmartin.com.ar
He was 10 years sailing in a 18 foot fiberglass sailing boat from Bs Aires to Artic pole and returning to la Patagonia.
I meet once him in Colonia yacht club in Uruguay and saw the boat. If that was possible over 10 years so you can trusth in Hunter, Benneteu, Jeanneau and all other boats to do everything.
Also in Piriapolis, other port in the Atlantic coast of Uruguay, where sailing boats coming from France, Germany, Spain, etc, where the cruisers prepare the boats and them self to cruise Cape Horn and Antartic, you will find a lot of not traditional sailing boats made of fiberglass, wood or steel that were not made so strongs like Hunter or Beneteau. They also are some years at sea and still doing miles without this worry. 
Hope you will excuse my English.
Ric


----------



## captainchetco

*Another boring point of view*

The Albergs and Pearsons mentioned are indeed sound boats that sail well. Their downsides are: They sail on their ear which reduces their comfortability and their shape makes for poor use of interior spaces.

Their are lots of great cruising boats; Valiant is one of the best, as it is strong, comfortable and comparably fast yet very seaworthy. Don't forget the creelock/Pacific Seacraft boats, Gulfstars are a lesser known excellent cruiser which gives good stowage and decent speed, particularly upwind. The list of good cruisers is long and highly variable. I would however avoid the downwind planing hull designs as they are abastard going into a sea.

As someone noted, nearly any boat can be taken cruising, but some are better than others. I prefer sufficient speed and pointing ability that I can make port and ride out the storm at the yacht club bar.


----------



## CKH

*Circumnavigaters in history*

Just for the fun of it, search:
Joshua Slocum Society Single Handed Circumnavigators.
It looks like some of them did it in a bathtub.
Skill and determination seem to be the most necessary ingredient.
Of course, those who failed are not listed.


----------



## damies

This boat (12') was a successful circumnavigator so yes it's possible in anything....









But ask yourself how comfortable you would be on your chosen boat for several weeks at sea (no land in sight). I have not personally done a long stint at sea, but know I couldn't do it in a boat like the one above, nor my current 25' Tri, I would want something bigger.

Most of the threads I have seen here about people looking for recommendations on blue water boat seem to be from people who are relatively new to sailing, or offshore sailing. Around here (Oz) the usual recommendation is you do some coastal trips in your boat, get comfortable with that first, after a few years of regular off shore sailing experience then consider a short blue water trip, this would be the point at which you decide whether your 30' boat is suitable or if you need a different boat.

For those interested here is a site that details both successful and not circumnavigation attempts in small boats (or bathtubs if you like  ) Famous Small Boats

Dave.


----------



## TQA

Great web site in the above post is and very humbling. I had not realised that so many others had circumnavigated in sub 20 footers.

I had read about Shane Acton and "SHRIMPY" before I went cruising in a 37 foot steel ketch and anytime it was a little hairy I would dig out my copy and read a bit.


----------



## Cruisingdad

damies said:


> This boat (12') was a successful circumnavigator so yes it's possible in anything....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But ask yourself how comfortable you would be on your chosen boat for several weeks at sea (no land in sight). I have not personally done a long stint at sea, but know I couldn't do it in a boat like the one above, nor my current 25' Tri, I would want something bigger.
> 
> Most of the threads I have seen here about people looking for recommendations on blue water boat seem to be from people who are relatively new to sailing, or offshore sailing. Around here (Oz) the usual recommendation is you do some coastal trips in your boat, get comfortable with that first, after a few years of regular off shore sailing experience then consider a short blue water trip, this would be the point at which you decide whether your 30' boat is suitable or if you need a different boat.
> 
> For those interested here is a site that details both successful and not circumnavigation attempts in small boats (or bathtubs if you like  ) Famous Small Boats
> 
> Dave.


Dave,

We reccomend the same here (US) - but not everyone listens!! The reality is that many people buy the bullet proof tanks because they think it will make up for their lack of sailing (and seamanship skills). THey also would love to have a boat that can circum - even in reality most of them will never leave sight of land. What I have really been trying to bang into peoples head is that every boat has a tradeoff - and the tradeoff of a bulletproof shoe box for coastal is considerable. And remember - we are all coastal in reality. No one sails out to sea to just set there out at sea.

My opinions.

- CD


----------



## damies

Cruisingdad said:


> but not everyone listens!!


So often the problem here too.... Personally I am working my skills back up after not having sailed for nearly 20 years (I can't believe I let it go that long between sails) So for the first dozen sails on my boat I took someone who had sailed recently (a colleague and my Step Dad). And I was an experienced off shore sailor 20 years ago, but being landlocked for 20 years makes you rusty and changing from mono's to a tri meant some new things to learn, so I took the cautious approach that I would advise others to take.

My plans are to start with this boat, get my skills back up then upgrade to a bigger boat that I can do some longer coastal hopping and spend a few weeks aboard at a time with the family, then maybe further down the track upgrade again to a comfortable live aboard.

Do as I do not as I say... oh hang on...... Never mind


----------



## SteveMH

For my money, a Valiant, the cockpit is a bit small but acquaintances have one and they say it is a dream to sail with a great galley, good sea motion and bullet proof construction. The tumblehome stern is a thing of beauty unto itself.


----------

