# Irwin 43 - Bluewater or not ???



## Robby Barlow (Apr 23, 2006)

Over the last few days I've read lots of post, both here & ...well there, about the Irwin 43 being or not a bluewater yacht. As normal everybody has there own opinion  , unfortunately the majority have never owned or sailed one. Is there someone out there with first hand experience who is willing to share the pro's & cons, have you sailed 1 in 40knts & 4m seas? If you don't like the Irwin what would your choice be in 40-45 ft - CC - sloop - 100k class?
Look forward to hear/see your opinions, leaving apart external components like captain & crew which 1/2 the time only ruin a good boat.


----------



## haffiman37 (Jun 4, 2004)

Robby Barlow said:


> Look forward to hear/see your opinions, leaving apart external components like captain & crew which 1/2 the time only ruin a good boat.


Been through Your requirements, but Your last comment I find totally 'off'.

The captain and crew most probably the other half time makes a 'blue water' sailor out of an Optimist!

40 -45Ft and 100K, I hope You talk Pound Sterling and not USD. If the later You most certainly would need 'my' half of captain and crew.


----------



## Robby Barlow (Apr 23, 2006)

No offense meant, but I suppose you haven't sailed much along the s.e. coast of spain. For most people here I nice days sailing consists of buying a roast chicken, leaving the marina to anchor in the habour basin, eat, siesta and a return to the mooring. I think a yacht deserves more.


----------



## haffiman37 (Jun 4, 2004)

I passed by that area some years ago on my trip from Norway to Malaysia the long way: Atlantic -Panama -Pacific. You'll find my homepage in the 'profile'.
I would say I got what both I and my boat 'deserved' on the trip.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Robby...I owned an Irwin 44 which is essentially the same hull and build standard...and have been on Irwin 43's. They are great liveaboard boats, and decent performing coastal cruisers. We cruised happily all the way up and down the East Coast of the US and Bahamas twice in ours. They are completely NOT blue water boats as there is too much flex in the hull in big seas.
I would look at Kelly-Peterson44's and Whitby/Brewer42's for CC boats near the 100k range at the sacrifice of some living space. You will be looking at older boats in these models to hit your price point.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Geez haffiman, we're you in a bad mood when you responded? There was no personal attack in Robby's remarks whatsoever, they were completely generic (he even inserted a smile face, for Pete's sake!). Besides, doesn't saying "captain and crew which 1/2 the time only ruin a good boat" essentially imply that the other 1/2 makes a boat better? 

I bring this up as these types of negative, curmudgeonly responses to otherwise innocent posts and questions puts a lot of people "off", both seasoned members and newbies alike.


----------



## haffiman37 (Jun 4, 2004)

Moonfish:
Bad mood - no.
Smile face - no, but a sarcastic face - yes.
Intended negative -no.
What is a 'Blue water' boat?
People have been to the Antarctic in Maxi 68, crossed the atlantic on surfboards, You find 50Ft long-keelers on the reefs in Tuamoto, You hear about 40 and up gone missing at sea in bad weather.......
In my opinion the term 'Blue Water Boat' might be a bit misleading.
In my opinion it is the combination of boat - captain/crew/-cruising area that decides if the package is suitable for the intended passages, and the major factor is captain/crew more than the boat itself.
Whenever I see the question = is this boat a blue water boat, I get a chill. It is like someone that does not quite have the knowledge and experience wants an insurance that that specific boat is 'safe' wherever he wants to go. Nothing is safe if handled wrongly, and it is amazing what is possible if You know the limmits and how to handle.
We all have dreams, but unfortunately most of us have budgets. Matching the budget to the dreams is not allways easy. Looking at 40+ yacht with a limmit of 100k, that would take a rathed skiller captain/crew to survive.
It is not only the question of purchase price but a question of running costs. Insurance, maintanance costs, harbor fees, daily running costs, to me it does not add up to a 'safe' package.
If I by being a bit direct may prevent someone from not only ending in the sad statistic: Lost at sea, but from a financial mishap I have done 'my duty'. If some toes gets hurt on the way, better than the above alternatives.
It is not a question of putting people 'off', it is more a question of trying to prevent the dreams ending as a nightmare.
Dreams does not make You survive out here, reality does.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Haffiman, thank you for explaining your position. I agree with just about everything you say (95% of it). However, I believe the choice of vessel has more to do with one's personal level of comfort than their level of competence. Yes, a qualified and experienced sailor can take an open 18-foot open yawl and sail it around the world. Would I? Hell no. If I am going to do long open ocean passages, I want a boat that not only has the design characteristics and construction standards for the job, but will do so with some degree of comfort - both during the passage and at the destination. Can a 40-foot center cockpit sloop to do "bluewater" be found for around $100K? Yes. One just has to be smart about both the boat and the intended use. Therefore, IMHO, it is not out of line to ask experienced sailor's direct opinions of a particular boat model, especially if you hear conflicting reports regarding said boat.

I went back and reread Robby's original post. I've read similar posts and questions whereby the poster obviously had no real clue what they were asking. And, yes, when it involves the fanatasy of sailing around the world combined with no real-life experience, those poor folks do need a dose of reality. That "clueless" approach does not stand out clearly as the case with Robby. I understand that you meant well, and appreciate that. I just felt that Robby did not deserve a rebuke that assumed so much. All he really wanted to know was what people with experience on Irwin 43's thought of them. Which is why I read the post in the first place. I, too, am curious what those people have to say...


----------



## Robby Barlow (Apr 23, 2006)

Thank you guys for your opinions. But one thing that has never worried are personal insults or people saying that my ideas are crazy/stupid or whatever. 1 they are my ideas and normally don't involve them, and 2 most insults result from envy. Again no offense meant. I'm not trying to pretend I'm MR Super Sailor either, but with nearly 40 yrs of sailing behind me I rate my chances quite high on achieving my next goal, that is to cruise the Caribbean for a couple of yrs. What I will do later - know idea - but I like to keep the door open to all possibilities, so as Moonfish has pointed out, all I really wanted to know was what people with experience on Irwin 43's thought of them. Cause up to now most people knock the boat but without saying why, unlike Cam in his reply. A few more posts like that might actually be helpful. Thx


----------



## haffiman37 (Jun 4, 2004)

I find no personal insults in either mine or Monfish' comments above, and I do not see the words 'crazy/stupid' either.
I made some comments about the expression 'Blue water Boats' and indirectly what to get in the requested size for the budget mentioned. What made me drop a comment at all was Your last sentence:

"Look forward to hear/see your opinions, leaving apart external components like captain & crew which 1/2 the time only ruin a good boat."

By that statement You downgrade 50% of captains and crew - that is insulting.
I mainly turned it around and highlighted the importance of captain/crew.
It does not take much 'Googeling' to find out the caracteristics of the Irwin 43, but I left it out as You did only want 1.hand experience.
Due to Your reaction I'll post it anyway, perhaps it might give others some idea what to look for.

There are quite some Irwin 43 on the market, in different 'Mk' versions and prices ranging from 86.000$ (86 mod) and up to 175.000$ for 91 mod. To me that indicates a boat that will need quite 'an upgrade' to make in sea-worthy' condition for extended cruising if 100k is the budget. The price gap for 10 -20 year is too big just considdering 'normal aging'.
Even the 'newer' ones seems to have been 'uppgraded' for 10.000's of dollars, why?
Then do a comparison with a similar boat design, I used Hallberg Rassey 43. A quite reputable boat, built for handling the most.
One thing is the price difference - the Irwin goes for 30 - 40% of the Rassey price, there must be a reason aside brand name -quality!
They both have a displacement of 13Tons, but the Irwin has a ballast wheight of 7,6 tons, the Rassey 4,5 tons. To me it indicates an extremely light hull which normally means less rigid or more 'jelly'. That was even confirmed by Camaraderie, even he did not quite use that expression.
I could go on, but preferr to stop.

But You were far from insulted - but as said above: You insulted 50% of captains and crew.


----------



## Robby Barlow (Apr 23, 2006)

Guess there is nobody out there with an Irwin 43 willing to share their experiences! Thx anyway.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

while Camaraderie didn't own an Irwin 43, he did own the Irwin 44, and has sailed the Irwin 43.. and you might want to read what he wrote above. Cam's one of the better eggs on here, and I'd take his advice fairly seriously.



Robby Barlow said:


> Guess there is nobody out there with an Irwin 43 willing to share their experiences! Thx anyway.


----------

