# Production boats- justified bias?



## bradfalk (Jul 31, 2008)

Hey all. Would like some input and sorry for asking an opinion question that could generate some hackle raising responses!!

I grew up sailing and continue to do so with my family now. We had a Caliber 28 and are moving up to a 40-ish boat mostly for bay cruising as well as a "year off" cruise with our 3 kids (in 4 years). Looking for boats and have appreciated the feedback on this forum. 

I grew up thinking that anything not Bristol/island packet/cape dory was no good.. People used to rag on bene's and hunters (this was 1980's) and touted bristols etc as "good boats". Here's my question: does the same "production boat" stigma still hold? I've been doing a lot of research on Beneteau Bavaria Catalina (haven't read too much on hunter yet) and I just don't see the difference anymore between the "high quality boats" and production. Finesse and fine woodwork aside, if you have a fiberglass hull, end grain balsa cored decks and good quality ports hatches and hardware, lead keel etc where is the difference? I've been really interested in a Catalina 42. But then I started looking at hunter 42 (online) and they look good too (and their websites list all the same design stuff). Similar displacements etc. 

I guess my question is: does the same bias from years ago still hold true or have "name brands" and production boats met somewhere in the middle (save for the really high end boats)? 

I am pretty budget conscious and want to get as much boat as I can for the money. So I'm trying to come to terms with considering boats that in years past all the old salts ragged on (not Catalina- always heard good things). I'm coming to the conclusion that the bias is dated and not accurate today. Am I missing the obvious?

thanks in advance


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

There is a long thread about that:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising-liveaboard-forum/53366-production-boats-limits.html


----------



## bradfalk (Jul 31, 2008)

thanks-- will check it out now


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

For what you have in mind I think the Catalina 42 is a good fit.. While Hunters get a lot of grief from pretty well all fronts, I personally think that some of them are decent boats.. it seems they had a few bad patches structurally here and there (the early arches, eg, didn't stand up to offshore conditions from what I've heard). My major beef with Hunters (personal opinion and subjective as all getout) is the styling decisions they've made. I quite like the late 80s early 90s Legend series.. very much don't like the backstayless rigs/hot tub cockpits of subsequent editions. I'm not sold on the current 'new' look either, but plenty of manufacturers are headed that way too nowadays.

The classic 'upper crust' of the likes of Sabre and other higher end builders are probably overall 'better' than your basic Catalina.. but is that difference enough to justify the cost for what you might 'gain'???

FWIW I think Catalina has done a great job of keeping true to their line, updating and modernizing the look of established designs in a way that appeals widely to weekend and seasonal cruisers...


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Regardless of ratings and marketing hype, I think the different builders have very different philosophies in the design and construction of their boats. The resulting boats are as different as the underlying philosophies.

If you closely look at (let alone sail) different builders' boats, you can set a sense of what those philosophies are, and which one may best fit yours. 

For example, one builder may encourage the designer to package maximum space, comfort, and convenience with minimal cost in their boats. If you sit in the cockpit, you are struck by the spacious and comfortable seating, maybe highlighted by some stern rail seats. Go sailing, and when the boat heels, suddenly there's no where to sit, the comfortable seats dump you into the open cockpit with no foot bracing, and the rail seats are useless. A cockpit that happily hosts a party of twelve at the dock, but at 20 degress of heel, everyone is hanging onto something just to stay in place.

Down below, you have a regular condo feel, nice fabrics and bright wood with modern finishing. Are there any handholds on the cabin top? How about sea bearths? Do the forward and aft cabins have island queen beds that allow you to walk 270 degrees around them? Any bunks with leecloths? Do the doors, storage bins and access panels all have positive lock catches? So it all looks great until your down below and someone is heeling the boat again. You find there's not a bunk you can sleep in without rolling out, nowhere to sit without holding on to something, going forward means bouncing off the settees, and meanwhile various cabinet doors are opening and shutting as they wish. 

After a while you start thinking, how soon is this trip ending?

Figure out whose philosophy best matches yours, production boats are not cut from the same cloth at all.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

As someone who has done a lot (for a non-marine professional) work on may different boats... my pet peeve w/ Catalina's for example or Hunters, et al is not so much build quality but the inaccessibility of stuff when it comes time to repair/replace. One thing that comes to mind is how hard it was to remove and rebed a stanchion on a Catalina 320. I really needed fingers that were half the diameter of mine and an extra knuckle joint would have made it a lot easier! 
Oh, and the fact that Catalina's ideal of how to install a stanchion is take a stanchion post, weld a thread rod on the bottom and insert it through the molded toe rail. While there was a backing plate on deck, this design was just about guaranteed to leak eventually. 
I remember seeing a Jeaneau at the boat show w/ pressboard cabinet doors and vinyl stickon veneer. Wanna guess how long that will last in a humid environment?
Contrast this w/ the Canadian Sailcraft I own and almost everything is accessible. (one stanchion base would necessitate removing cabinetry) The build quality of my boat is markedly better than what I've seen in BeneHuntaLina's of past years. 
I'm sure the overall quality of the stock production boats IS better than in the past, but you do get what you pay for.


----------



## arf145 (Jul 25, 2007)

It doesn't seem to me that sea berths are usually all that important if you're cruising somewhere like the Chesapeake Bay, where anchorages and marinas are less than a day away--frequently only hours. I don't know how much other coastal cruising grounds resemble this, but I suspect this is what the designers of production coastal cruisers are thinking. Now regarding those cockpits. That seems indefensible. They are sailboats after all and should be designed to be sailed, even if not for passage-making. If I were going to give the designers of the current very beamy production boats the benefit of the doubt, I wonder if they aren't thinking that we're half way to sailing them like catamarans, with all that initial stability. Reef early and don't heel.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I guess I may be a bit biased, owning both a Catalina 27 and 33 Morgan Out Island, and having been aboard a 36 and 416 Hunter for dinners, there are certain attributes that may not be necessary, but sure do make that cruising craft a lot more comfortable. And, I sincerely believe that all those little things, such as positive drawer, door and compartment latches, interior overhead hand-rails, secure berthing, etc..., are readily available from both dealer and aftermarket sources for very little money.

I can tell you first hand that if MY Morgan 33 Out Island heeled 20 degrees, it would scare the Hell out of me. On the 27-Catalina it was different, and heeling 30 degrees never bothered me. I even buried the rails on a few occasions. The Morgan(s), all of the Out Island series I sailed on, do not heel, yet they tend to sail very well, with the possible exception of close haul. They are not nearly as slow as some folks would lead you to believe, and they're a very comfortable riding boat, even offshore in marginal conditions. Same seems to hold true with the larger Catalina and Hunter boats, vessels 36-feet and larger. 

Production boats seem to have come a long way over the past couple decades, and before jumping to conclusions about their quality, it would likely be a good idead to check them ALL out before making a decision.

Good Luck on whatever you decide upon,

Gary


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

sailordave said:


> I remember seeing a Jeaneau at the boat show w/ pressboard cabinet doors and vinyl stickon veneer. Wanna guess how long that will last in a humid environment?


Either you like it or not, using real solid wood is a way of the past since it is not sustainable. Particle board and glue have improved significantly over the year, your concerns are unfounded. WHy don't you ask the dealer give you a piece of board and you can soak it in salt water see what happens. You will be amazed.

Today's production boats are far more better in design, manufacture and tighter spec than the old stick built boat in the 80's. Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina and hunter are still in business. It means they did something right. I can't imagine how much R&D have goon into the production. I doubt the Mom and Pa operation of the yesteryear boats can compare.

If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming. A fifty foot wave has no respect of any boats in it way. We are better off to avoid and run fast with a good seamanship and plans.

The questions that bother me the most is how to stop water entering when the boat turtled.

I am just sayin'


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

What exactly is a production boat?
All boats are 'produced' in some fashion - and no, I'm not being deliberately obstinate here.

My Irwin has Bob Johnstone's (Island Packet founder and designer) fingerprints all over it -





It's built to the same scantlings, uses the same hull designs types, chain plates and keel methods (concrete slurry with lead pigs). 
It's not volume of hulls that defines it, more IP's are out there that Irwin's. Year for year IP also produced more.

My Gemini 105mc was "built to a price" point, I suppose you could say that makes it production - although the didn't start a hull until they had a buyer. The customizations I had included and added on while at the factory increased the price 13% - does that make it custom?

Now, I've been on a 1990 IP 38 - so I can see the difference in quality of workman ship, between it and my 3 year older Irwin 38 - no argument there. 
Let's be honest here - that handcrafted rubbed finish don't mean diddly to the force 8 storm rolling in. It doesn't make the ride any smoother, the boat point any better - or TRULY affect anything more than the price of the boat.

I've also sailed on Endeavor's - another boat with Johnstone's ringers all over it.

And then too - I've sailed on Guiletta (former poster here) - as custom as a boat gets unless you specifically commission a NA. It's so custom it's one of a kind with it's modifications and only 3 hulls launched in over 10 years. 
Guiletta's dynacell foam cored custom interior didn't do a dang thing to keep it from bouncing around on the waves like the 42 foot dinghy it was. It's a great short range cruiser, and a splendid racer; I'd not want it as it's too hard to sail by less than semi-pro's.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

chucklesR said:


> What exactly is a production boat?
> All boats are 'produced' in some fashion - and no, I'm not being deliberately obstinate here.
> 
> .


Henry Ford ensured that all boatbmakers are using production lines in some form or another. I have never met in my four years cruising anyone in a no expenses spared, one off 40 to 60 footer. They dont exist. If someone has that sort of money they probably would go 65 plus feet.

If all boats that we are talkng about are Production boats, then its all price point. Lower price point to upper price point. Those that can afford the upper price point boats, well and good. I am not snotting your ability to earn money, or your ability to save, be economical to be able to purchase a higher price point than me.



arf145 said:


> It doesn't seem to me that sea berths are usually all that important if you're cruising somewhere like the Chesapeake Bay)


Well, i have never been in Chesepeake Bay unless you count the few miles from the mouth to Norfolk. I have never needed a sea berth in my 35,000 nms on Sea Life nor the other boats i have been on.

Sex is something thats importnat to many couples. A sea berth is not conducive to sex. Why have a sexless bed if you dont need it?



sailordave said:


> I remember seeing a Jeaneau at the boat show w/ pressboard cabinet doors and vinyl stickon veneer. Wanna guess how long that will last in a humid environment?


Then dont buy it.
Theres no law that says you must buy a boat you see at the boat show.
If you dont like it then dont buy it.
If you saw a deficiency in your mind at the boat show wouldnt others see it? Were Jeanneau hiding it? No. It was on display.

In the supermarket I can buy the beans from the highest priced company, or the home brand beans for cheaper. You and i know there is going to be differences in the beans or how else could we have saved a dollar on the cheap ones? You dont need a brain transplant from a higher universers to work out beans, why does one need it on boats. Buy what you want and can afford.

Low price point boats have opened the ability for people to buy a sail boat that only a few years ago was the realm of the rich and super rich.
Now with low price point boats and electronics normal average, every day people can cruise the world in higher safety and more comfort than those who did it 30 years ago. Perhaps thats the bug bear... Those that did it in the 70's or 80's dont like the uniqueness of their adventure diluted by all the Johnny Come Lately's.

Well I am one of those Johnnies. My goal on these forums is to get as many people out there doing it too and reading my new book: "Circumnavigating! It was Nice. Nothing Bad Happened."

So for those reading this thread: yes you can do it on a Cataline 40 or a Hunter 40 or a Beneteau 39. I know. Nothing bad is gunna happen.

Mark
PS Im not writing a book but thats the title I would use... It wouldnt sell too many books! To sell a book its gotta be called STORM! Or SURVIVAL!! Or DEATH BY BENETEAU! Or F ME that was a ROGUE WAVE! :laugher


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> *Today's production boats are far more better in design, manufacture and tighter spec than the old stick built boat in the 80's.* Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina and hunter are still in business. It means they did something right. I can't imagine how much R&D have goon into the production. I doubt the Mom and Pa operation of the yesteryear boats can compare.


Sorry, but such blanket assertions are simply meaningless... To suggest that a Valiant "cannot compare" with a Beneteau because the latter is still in business, is absurd...

All things being equal, I'll take a stick built boat over one with a liner/pan construction, or conventional shaft propulsion over a saildrive, every time... Many of these features seen on newer production boats today, are largely a result of the drive to streamline the production process, make the build more economical, more than necessarily being an advancement in design, or construction...



rockDAWG said:


> *If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming. * A fifty foot wave has no respect of any boats in it way. We are better off to avoid and run fast with a good seamanship and plans.


I recently finished up the coastal delivery of a popular modern production boat... The deck and cockpit ergonomics were so poor as to be, IMO, downright dangerous in anything other than moderate conditions, in protected waters... Leaving the cockpit on that boat, offshore at night in dirty weather, no way... Again, to suggest that an "old blue water" would not be much safer than a modern production boat designed from the inside out in that regard, is simply nonsense...

Having said all that, I'm sure there are many production boats out there today that will suit the OP for his intended purposes, just fine...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

rockDAWG said:


> Either you like it or not, using real solid wood is a way of the past since it is not sustainable. Particle board and glue have improved significantly over the year, your concerns are unfounded. WHy don't you ask the dealer give you a piece of board and you can soak it in salt water see what happens. You will be amazed.
> 
> Today's production boats are far more better in design, manufacture and tighter spec than the old stick built boat in the 80's. Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina and hunter are still in business. It means they did something right. I can't imagine how much R&D have goon into the production. I doubt the Mom and Pa operation of the yesteryear boats can compare.
> 
> ...





> Either you like it or not, using real solid wood is a way of the past since it is not sustainable. Particle board and glue have improved significantly over the year, your concerns are unfounded. WHy don't you ask the dealer give you a piece of board and you can soak it in salt water see what happens. You will be amazed.


Maybe your past not mine. My furniture at home is made of solid wood...no veneers...no particle board. Why should my boat be any different. Yes you pay for quality for sure and thats a choice you have. What is better the real think or the glued together reproduction. Thats your choice. As far as sustainability it requires a larger carbon footprint to fabricate the modern day woods and finishes than real wood. In addition real wood will eventually decompose...not so with plastics so thats a moot argument.



> Today's production boats are far more better in design, manufacture and tighter spec than the old stick built boat in the 80's. Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina and hunter are still in business. It means they did something right. I can't imagine how much R&D have goon into the production. I doubt the Mom and Pa operation of the yesteryear boats can compare.


There are production boats Hunter, Catalina, Jenneu and Benetau that are still in business you can have your particle board there.

Then you have the mom and pops still in business Tartan, Sabre, C& C, Caliber, Island Packet, Not your run of the mill production boats ( some dont even consider them as such) who still use quality woods, have superior designs and major R&D monies and modern designs. They are still in business too and are very solvent companies.



> If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming. A fifty foot wave has no respect of any boats in it way. We are better off to avoid and run fast with a good seamanship and plans.


A true statement, a 50 foot wave as no respect for any boat, any age. I would rather be in a heavier boat, well designed for sea motion, than in a boat all the weight was taken out of it to save money.

Buying a boat is trade offs, quality, budget, use etc. I would never denigate someone whole decided to by the mass productuion boats vs the more expensive ones. All sail, all have customer followings.

There is a difference though, you get what you pay for. Check the resale numbers and % depreciation. Of the first tier production boats Catalina holds its value the best. All of the second tier hold their values.

Dave


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Question becomes, "what is a production built boat?" To me, if it got listed in one of the granted out of production, "Worlds best boats" then it is a production boat. Oyster, swan, Morris are some of the higher priced production built boats. Jeanneau, beneteau, catalina et al are some of the lower price point built boats. The question becomes, what price can you afford?

Reality is, ANY of the current produced boats over 35' excepting a few cases due to design, will probably handle ANY current plans for one to cross oceans etc. They might not like Katrina style storms. but with todays forecasting etc, one should not get caught in a Karina. 

While many say IP's are great boats, You could not give me one! A morris, swan, oyster etc, yes, same with jeanneau, beneteau and some of the other shall we call them Chevy/ford/dodge style boats. maybe even a Hunter.....probably not due to I do not like the look. But they would work.

Look at the ARC. Which brand has more boats than any other? vs which has the least? Jeanneau is #1, both for the atlantic arc, or the round the world arc. Oyster one of the fewest, probably due to cost. The Caribbean 1500, probably a bit different numbers, due to where the boats are built and what is built in NA. but still, more typical lower price point built boats than Oysters or equal. So with this in mind, overall, you can get from point A to B in a typical production built boat, be it a high end, or one of the lower price point boats. 

I have a mid 80's Jeanneau, it will and has crossed oceans. Granted my personal boat has not crossed oceans, but others have! 

Marty


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> So for those reading this thread: yes you can do it on a Cataline 40 or a Hunter 40 or a Beneteau 39. I know. Nothing bad is gunna happen.


Not according to capt Ron. "
"Might as well go cause if something bad is going to happen it will happen out there."


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Selecting your boat is a bit like selecting your home or your car. If you have unlimited funds, you can have whatever your heart desires, but if you are short on funds, you have to look at the low end of the spectrum.

For a boat, it seems to me that you can narrow the problem quite a bit by:

1) Define how much money you have to devote to this hobby or endeaver.
2) Will you be using the boat for coastal (inshore, close offshore, down to Bahamas, etc) or will you need "bluewater" capability (crossing oceans, circumnavigating)? Be honest.....not that many people circumnavigate. In tractor language, do you need a John Deere farm tractor (coastal) or a Caterpillar bulldozer (blue water)
3) What size will you need or do you want?
4) Will you buy used or slightly used or new....used = older Mercedes that you can maybe rebuild, slightly used = volvo or Lincoln, new = Chevrolet or Ford....all for same money.
5) Get one that you think is good looking...it'll give you pleasure just to walk down to the dock to admire it and think how lucky you are. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it's what you like, not what others suggest.

Talking about Morris or Oyster or even Island Packet makes no sense if you can't afford one.
If you are really going off shore (crossing oceans and circumnavigating), you have a different set of requirements ...extra heavy construction and rigging, lots of storage space, cockpit and equipment with ample backups for such a journey (wind/solar cell power, watermakers, radar, tankage for water and fuel, windvane steering, electronics, etc.), and so no one will be offended, handholds everywhere, and maybe a pilot berth. And, a third category is racing...will you be primarily racing? If so, you have a third set of demands...special sails and go fast design, etc.

If you will be going the coastal route, then the new designs with condo cabins and large cockpits make a lot of sense. That's where most of the production boats are ....Catalina, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Hunter, and others., and realistically, that is where most sailors are...you'll like the space and features. Even today's very large, high end boats are going the same way....look at the magazines. 

There's lots of snobbery in boating....some of those old shoes that people talk fondly about are like that old Mercedes that has 250,000 miles, bent fenders and rust, with smoke coming out of it. And when they meet you, in your new Ford or Chevy, they tend to turn up their noses, after all, they have a Mercedes. Same with boats. The major boatbuilders, in my opinion, know better than most of us what most people want or need. They do a pretty good job at it too, giving a lot for the money. Truth is, most of the people that have an old shoe, it is because it's all they can afford, and there might even be a touch of jealously that your new or like new production boat (Catalina, Hunter, Beneteau, etc.) has all those nice new features that they don't have.....buy older, you can get a bigger boat, or same size boat of fancy brand for the same money as the new or like new C/H/B. Your choice, whichever you like (you are buying for you and not what people on this list might like for themselves).

For a good number of years, reading and listening to people, I steered away from C/H/B because I tended to listen to all those tales about those boats, in some way, being substandard. Then one day, I faced how I would use the boat, decided that I wanted a new boat instead of an old one that I had to rework, I wanted one of a certain size, and had a certain amount of money that I was willing to put into this hobby item. I looked around, and the C/H/B group fit just fine. I bought a Catalina. Having owned it for 12 years and being completely satisfied with it, I now believe most of that talk about C/H/B being somehow inferior is a bunch of baloney. And Catalina (and I suspect all boat builders) have improved their offerings greatly over the years. 

And could you take a C/H/B type production boat offshore on a long passage. My guess (and people seem to be proving it) is yes. Would it be the best for such usage, probably not, but in reality, it might be better than some older fancy brand boat that has been "upgraded", especially where the upgrade was by an amateur owner. If you look at some of the things that pull into port that are set up for long range cruising, there's a lot of junk that, somehow, successfully makes it. And also lots of really nice fancy boats that other people can afford, but perhaps not me or you.

A final thought: The beauty of sailing is that any of us, whatever our financial means, can enjoy sailing. If you have a few hundred dollars or a few million, there is a boat out there for you. The pleasure comes in the sailing, not how much you paid, or how big, or how fancy your boat is.

Less someone gets their shorts uptight and ask what my qualifications are, none. Just a guy who has been messing around for years. It just my opinion.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

> a final thought: The beauty of sailing is that any of us, whatever our financial means, can enjoy sailing. If you have a few hundred dollars or a few million, there is a boat out there for you. The pleasure comes in the sailing, not how much you paid, or how big, or how fancy your boat is.


+1!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> A final thought: The beauty of sailing is that any of us, whatever our financial means, can enjoy sailing. If you have a few hundred dollars or a few million, there is a boat out there for you. The pleasure comes in the sailing, not how much you paid, or how big, or how fancy your boat is.


Good and true statement

Dont feel you have to settle either. You should " really like "the boat you choose. Some people like to follow the crowd and some like to be unique, some people like the designs with the raked bows and reverse transoms, some like the new plumb bows and teardrop windows, some like traditional ( like Victorian Homes) and some like modern. You can find all in a large number of used or new boat builders.

Some people choose the off brands because of quality differences. They may prefer to buy something a few years older because they like the warmth and feel of wood inside, the equipment is of higher quality. Its a trade off. Many people are very fond of the brand of boat and will stay loyal to their brand. Some see the value of a Mercedes 3 years old rather than the new Chevy. I dont think it would be fair to characterize people make choices because of snobbery as we are all brothers in sailing and I cant imagine buying a boat so I could be a snob about it unless it were the Maltese Falcon.

I see the beauty in all boats, but I dont have envy for boats I decided not to buy new or not, only for the 52 Outbound, The Hylas 56, The hinckley 42 SW...those I truly cannot afford to buy.

You get what you pay for. Sometimes thats not apparent when new but it is after 15 years or so in terms of repairs and resale value. Look for safety but most of all love it so you go sailing on her. No boat has everything but the boat you choose should have everything you like.

Choosing a boat is a very personal experience I have found and seen. I have bought two and am looking fopr my third. No matter what anyone advises me, I will choose like I bought my first two and like I have bought my houses. When I get on the right one, I know..makes no difference in the nameplate....after all you boat for many is like your second home. The most important factor is does it make you smile.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I have always been the 'Production Boat' proponent on Sailnet... especially Catalina. SO I suspect many of these comments will shock some folks. I still am a fan of certain models in each production builder, as much as I am not a fan of many models in each production builder. I think there are some great low-volume production builders, and there are some that I think really are junk. That in mind, here goes my opinions:

First, the build quality and finish out of a production boat (Bene/Jeaunneau/Catalina/Hunter) does not even compare to the high end builders. I kept both of my boats at the Valiant yard (380 and 400) and would not have my boat outfitted anywhere else that I know of. Not only did they know their stuff, but they always erred on the overbuilt side. There was a thread running here about anchor rollers a few days ago or so, where Mainesail showed a bent AR. I bent mine under on my 380 too during a very bad storm (95 kt straightline winds). DIdn't hurt the boat, just the roller. Well, I had my friends at Cedar Mills (Valiant) rebuild me a new anchor roller that was NOT going to get bent. Ever seen the AR on a Valiant or a Cabo? The bow will rip off before that thing bends under. And sorry... got a CS across from me. No comparrison. This is just one example. I have many others. THe bottom line is that the higher end production builders could afford to make those things that strong and there really is a big difference in their build quality in many things (not all things).

Second, there is a difference in philosophy when building a higher end production boat. FOr example, for those that have never toured a high-volume production boat yard, everything is already exactly layed out where it goes and literally fits into a perfect mold. It is an assembly line of workers, where each one has a set job and there is a long line of boats going down a row. Reminded me of Ford. At Valiant, however, they would have one boat up and build it from scratch. It was the same workers, each with their own strengths, but they built the boat in more of a 'garage' setting versus prodution line setting. THere was a lot more attention to detail. Most important here, if not one of the most important things of many of the low-volume/high end builders: they install their interior components AFTER installing the furniture. Seem like a little thing? Nope. Not for any of us that have ever had to do a major repair or replace. Because they install everything after the fact, it is realtively insured to be able to come out. That becomes very important down the line when components start to fail and have to be replaced. I remember one boat in particular of the high-volume builders that had tie rods going through the middle of cabinetry and the chain plates buried on top of the cabinetry. Not if, but when, the chain plates start leaking, you not only ruin your cabinetry but you also have a massive repair to rip them out and rebed. Terrible design. To be fair, I have never had anything on any Catalina I have owned that was not abloe to be removed. As the Tech Editor for the C400's, I am not aware of anything that cannot come out of these boats and be replaced. And do be aware, that not all low-volume builders shared this philosophy. Try pulling out the black iron fuel tanks on some of these old boats. I am not downing the other high-volume mfg's, just have never had first hand experience.

Third, I am not a fan of many of the new production boats. Many of these cockpits are very unfriendly to be at sea. THe new trend with everyone but Catalina are these large seats behind twin helms that do not slope, no coamings, no sloping coamings, pittiful little lazarettes, HUGE freeboards, marginally sized rigging, masts with inmast that leave no room for a wrinkle (it will happen), piss poor handhelds (if there are any at all). Down below, handhelds are marginal and often do not run the length of the boat, curved settees (I do use our settes as sea berths and have), horrid furniture... some with sharp angled edges, minimal cabinetry for storage, Ikea level wood, Above-waterline holding tanks, and poor ventilation. I have more things I can list, but since I just came off another (new) production boat an hour or so ago, these are the things that went through my mind. I honestly think it takes being on a boat, living on a boat, or spending some time at sea to pick these things out. I suspect the typical buyer at the boat show with little experience would not recognize many of the things I don't like. In fact, many of these things I don't like may well be big positives for them. My concern is that should they choose to take this vessel cruising, or do any long distance sailing, they will face real frustrations. As I will say later, many of the deficiencies of many production boats for long distance cruising and living aboard can be fixed. Many of the things I see with these new boats cannot.

Fourth, just because you have a high-end vessel doesn't mean you wont have issues. For example, I have an acquaintance who traded in his Catalina 36 on a Valiant 50. He was very frustrated with the lack of diagraming of his wiring and the runs. Some were where they shouldn't be and others were not where they should. That's what happens when you build a boat in that manner (explained above). On a Catalina, for example, they can prety much tell you to the millimeter where your wiring, plumbing, (enter item of choice) is located on the boat, what is a retrofit, and get it to you. Do NOT underestimate the incredible value in that. Catalina runs a fulltime shop where they take orders on boats LONG out of production, walk the owners through the issues they are having, and either get them parts and ship them or they help them locate a suitable alternative. There's not much that is going to happen on your Catalina they can't help you with. Also, because of the large volume, you have large owners groups and lots of avenues for problem-resolution outside of the manufacturer. Again, this is an enormous benefit of Catalinas at least that is too often downplayed.

Fifth, I find too many of the typical bluewater cruiser to be HORRIDLY slow. I also think this is often downplayed by others who often comment, "I'm cruising. I don't care how fast I go. I'll take my time." Bologna. Speed and a good performing boat is your friend. THe difference of just a knot can have a huge impact on your cruising.  You might need to try and outrun an approaching storm or front. You are exposed to the elements much less. You will run your engine less because your boat does well under sail, thus increasing your potential range. THere are a multitude of reasons to have a good performing boat, but I cannot think of a single reason not to. Yet, many of the favorite boats often chosen on this forum cannot get out of their own way. THey make good SOG 5-6 kts. In some places, having that low of a SOG AVG means you are either leaving in the dark or arriving in the dark... neither of which make good sense to me.

Sixth, I am shocked at the prices of boats today... especially high-volume production boats. For example, the new 445 (the only Catalina I like as well as mine) is realistically going to be approaching 400k once you get it out the door and outfitted. You might get it under that some. I am quoting a dealer friend of mine. $400k? Really?? And even the low pricepoint Jeaunneus are 200-300k. Can you even buy a reasonable cruiser today, 36-38 feet, new, for under 200k? Geez... and that doesn't even include outfitting!!! Suddenly the price of many of these lower-volume production boats doesn't sound so bad. From where I sit, sailing sure seems to be getting more and more expensive and exclusive. 

Lastly, a sailboat is filled with third party equipment. Your pumps, hoses, winches, spar, lines, engine(s), wiring, lighting, tanks, faucets... etc, etc, etc... that is all third party stuff folks. Yet I have read on here and elsewhere that a member is pointed away from a relatively new production boat for some old blue-water relic simply because of name. Even design and construction has changed over the years. As a broker friend of mine (and very well travelled sailor) said to me just the other day: buy newer. There is nothing wrong with some of those old boats, but you better darn good and well know what you are getting into beforehand. Because outside of the hull/molding, there's not a lot more about that boat that wasn't bought from a vendor and may well be the exact same piece of equipment as you have in your production boat. Buyer beware.

Just a few of my opinions,

Brian


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Well written Brian especially your last three points.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I raced a Swan 65 across the Atlantic a few years ago. Sturdily built boat. Bilt like a brick outhouse.

But i would hate it for cruising! Hard, harsh, no galley but a commercial kitchen, no softness, no privacy (pilot berths in the saloon) no wall coverings just wooden slats... A total mans racing boat and a hideuos cruising boat for a female.

I would much prefer the MUCH cheaper Beneteau 54 or the Jeaneay 57 than a Swan 65.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Brad - I was the one that started that thread PCP linked to in the second post.

Bottom line, virtually any production boat will take you virtually anywhere you want to go in the world if it's in good shape and you don't get yourself into crazy weather.

I'd say this argument was definitively put to bed (at least in my mind) by this guy who took a Hunter 49 around Cape Horn in an F-11 storm:

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/sequitur/

'Nuff said.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> I'd say this argument was definitively put to bed (at least in my mind) by this guy who took a Hunter 49 around Cape Horn in an F-11 storm:
> 
> Sequitur
> 
> 'Nuff said.


It might have been, if Michael had _ACTUALLY_ taken Sequitur "around" the Horn in a F-11 storm... (grin)

Not to disparage Michael's accomplishments with that boat in any way, they were VERY impressive, no doubt... But, simply for the sake of accuracy, that's not really what he did....


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but such blanket assertions are simply meaningless... To suggest that a Valiant "cannot compare" with a Beneteau because the latter is still in business, is absurd...
> 
> All things being equal, I'll take a stick built boat over one with a liner/pan construction, or conventional shaft propulsion over a saildrive, every time... Many of these features seen on newer production boats today, are largely a result of the drive to streamline the production process, make the build more economical, more than necessarily being an advancement in design, or construction...
> 
> ...


Valiant is nice and pretty boat in her time. I have looked at two of them in the past, and I am sure I will sail her in the future to gain some hand on experience. I did not realize they were out of business. If they were still in production, I will not invest on them as an investor.

I found the old boats have no ergonomic what so ever. I always have stiff neck after sailing an old boat. Many like old boats, because they have small cockpit. I don't like old boat because the cockpit small and the sailing position sucks.

While sitting at the marina or at the anchorage, I cannot make an old boat cockpit bigger. For more recent boat, the wide stern is comfortable, erogom-nically design, it is far more comfortable to sail. When comes to sailing in dirty weather, one can easily rig up a few items in the cockpit to make it safe. In fact I am in the designing phase on these items to limit the crew moving during the storm. It is not so difficult at all.

I agree with you that some of the popular modern production boat have very few poor implementation. Obviously, all boat are not created equal either in the modern time or in the 80's. SOme of these poor installation are impossible of correct and costly to redo.

For example, the new Jeanneau DS. THey raised the cockpit deck so high so they can have more room below. But somehow that they forgot to raise the stanchion height. The lifeline is basically useless in rough weather.



> Again, to suggest that an "old blue water" would not be much safer than a modern production boat designed from the inside out in that regard, is simply nonsense...


Then it is needless to say, a new modern boat is not as safe an old blue water boat is just nonsense as well.

In the end we all want the same thing, but we have different ways to reach our objectives. Whose is right or wrong, who cares except our family.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> When comes to sailing in dirty weather, one can easily rig up a few items in the cockpit to make it safe. In fact I am in the designing phase on these items to limit the crew moving during the storm. It is not so difficult at all.


Running lines aft to "ensure" you'll never have to go forward in heavy weather, huh? Good luck with that...

As one who believes the first rule of sailing is "Don't fall off the boat", a safe, well designed deck and cockpit are vitally important to me, one of the most important characteristics in any boat, IMO... it's extraordinary, how rare that is among a large sampling of today's production boats... I've developed a knack for moving about a boat over the years, and doubt I'm very "klutzy", in that regard... However, on the boat I mentioned, twice during that delivery I came very close to slipping or tripping due to a poor design, or inadequate/poorly placed nonskid, etc...

Both times, that occurred when the boat was _tied to the dock..._


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

John,

Good or bad deck design can be on high or low end boats. While CD likes to talk about catalina in a good way, I know of two locally that I would NOT want. One is a C34 with the halyard lines trying to go thru, yes go thru the built in fiberglass risers for the cabin top mainsheet traveler. Obviously it will not go thru so it goes around it rubbing. 

This is probably the same issue with another poster that sold his third Catalina, and went with a CS36 over his preferred choice of a C36. Both the C30, 34, and 36 had deck organizers placed such that the lines from the mast did not thread easily to the cabin top. 

This is not to say Catalina's do not have positives. I personally believe they do. Even still, there are problems. I could probably find the same issue with an Oyster or Swan If I really had to look. My Jeanneau has some issues too. But like all things great and small, one needs to fix or correct them if one is going to be on them a lot. 

Valients have positives about them......but still are built to older school techniques if one will, hense why they probably went out of biz, just as another did recently with good style boats for the era they were designed in. 

At the end of the day, there is NOT a perfect boat! Even a 1-2 million dollar boat will have issues. Having been in the home building industry for 30 yrs, yeah bat building is different, yet the same, in that many builders build to a price point. the framing and structure part is the same! Just how much bling and type you put on it!

As this thread starts to go in the same direction that smackies original thread did! At the end of the day, does the boat meat your expectations of what you want it to do. Both looks, can you get around, live in it, like the looks etc. 

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> It might have been, if Michael had _ACTUALLY_ taken Sequitur "around" the Horn in a F-11 storm... (grin)
> 
> Not to disparage Michael's accomplishments with that boat in any way, they were VERY impressive, no doubt... But, simply for the sake of accuracy, that's not really what he did....


Man you're kind of picky dude. If I remember correctly, he did "round" the Horn west-to-east in better weather after popping out of the Beagle, then ducked into one of the Tierra del Fuego channels on the eastern side.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/83500-sequitur-rounds-cape-horn.html

After some recuperation, they popped back out to continue east, and got caught, in F-10/11 conditions, south of Isla de los Estados.

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/sequitur/?xjMsgID=210007


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Smack,

Either way you look at it, getting around the horn i one piece is a good thing. I also know of a 34' mid 80s Jeanneau that did a non stop around the horns also! I do feel Jeanneau builds a better boat than Hunter, but reality is, probably not by much. Kinda of a Chebby vs buick or olds difference. Or maybe a kia vs chebby or some such thing. 

marty


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Jeanneau builds a better boat than Hunter, but reality is, probably not by much.
> marty


I would say by a lot.
Hunter is in Bankruptcy and Jeanneau is one of the top selling brand names in the world and is fully owned by CNB which is the top selling boat manufacturer in the world. Thats a huge difference.

You become number one by having a great product.

You become bankrupt because you are not number 1.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> Maybe your past not mine. My furniture at home is made of solid wood...no veneers...no particle board. Why should my boat be any different. Yes you pay for quality for sure and thats a choice you have. What is better the real think or the glued together reproduction. Thats your choice. As far as sustainability it requires a larger carbon footprint to fabricate the modern day woods and finishes than real wood. In addition real wood will eventually decompose...not so with plastics so thats a moot argument.
> 
> ....
> Then you have the mom and pops still in business Tartan, Sabre, C& C, Caliber, Island Packet, Not your run of the mill production boats ( some dont even consider them as such) who still use quality woods, have superior designs and major R&D monies and modern designs. They are still in business too and are very solvent companies.
> ...


Dave, there are top bluewater modern boats, very expensive boats, that don't use wood neither for bulkheads neither for the interior. For bulkheads and for the interior they use lighter, stronger composite materials that in some cases just have wood in their composition and does look like wood but has only a fraction of the weight.

The reason is to take away all the not needed weight from the upper parts of a sailboat to concentrate all the weight on a lead keel. That permits not only a more strong and seaworthy boat with a overall better stability but also a more stiff and powerful boat, a faster boat and not less comfortable since the weight is the same.

A good example of this kind of boats are XC Yachts, boats that are more heavy than for instance HR, but faster. I don't no if you noticed but last year and this year, different XC making the ARC had one thing in common: amazing results given the weights of the boats. That's what I am talking about, fast comfortable and seaworthy cruisers with all the weight at the right places.

A good Christmas to you

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Hunter is in BK more due to the parent which also owns a number of power boat makes. That is the side that is BK! The Hunter portion had to go with the parent. Hunter will probably come out alive IMHO. For that matter, Jeanneau also was BK in the mid 80s, but being as it was french, when bangor-punta the parent went BK, the French gvmnt had a buyer/take over person that sold to Group Beneteau, which has allowed Jeanneau to take over as the overal #1 boat builder in the world with their PB range being pretty large. There is also a inflatable line that was the Fench maker that also went BK, in which GB also took over. Going back to BP's BK in the 80's, they also owner Cal, O'Day and Ranger IIRC along with a few others that are no where to be found other than used today. Henri Jeanneau that started that company, did start with high power motor boats, later switching to fiberglass, then a sailboat in the late 60s from is initial start in the later 50's. 

many manufactures have gone thru some tough times and come out swinging. Hopefully while I do not like the Hunter line for various and sundry reasons, nothing major, I do hope it comes out swinging in the end! still building boats etc. WE in NAmerica need boat builders/manufacturing jobs etc. Not all of us can be puter key pushers!

Jeanneau/beneateau/lagoon do build in high tech factories, keeping things pretty tight as far as materials go etc, so they can build at a profit. Jeanneau does have some 30 and 33' boats one can get into for less than 150K base, out the door for less than 200K, but that still takes a 100-200K salary minimum to afford this with a home etc. Still out of the range of an ave income earner of 50K here in NA!

Marty


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but such blanket assertions are simply meaningless... To suggest that a Valiant "cannot compare" with a Beneteau because the latter is still in business, is absurd...
> 
> .....


What Rock is saying is that a good modern designed cruiser like the Hanse 415 or the jeanneau 409 is a better designed boat than the Vailant not because the Vaillant was not a great boat (and still is) but because 30 years in design developments make the modern boats better overall sailing boats.

I believe we all agree on this. I am quite sure that if an overall 40ft going around cruiser was commissioned today to Bob Perry, the boat would have more in common with the Hanse or the Jeanneau than with the Vailant.

A good Christmas to you 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

PCP said:


> Dave, there are top bluewater modern boats, very expensive boats, that don't use wood neither for bulkheads neither for the interior. For bulkheads and for the interior they use lighter, stronger composite materials that in some cases just have wood in their composition and does look like wood but has only a fraction of the weight.
> 
> The reason is to take away all the not needed weight from the upper parts of a sailboat to concentrate all the weight on a lead keel. That permits not only a more strong and seaworthy boat with a overall better stability but also a more stiff and powerful boat, a faster boat and not less comfortable since the weight is the same.
> 
> ...


Yes you are right. I was looking at some of the other cruisers too like Hylas, Amel, Nordic, Outbound I am not as well versed in the Eiorpean boats as you and dont get to see them here much. I know they use composite materials now, but the quality between them and the others even in the interiors is at different levels IMHO

Good christmas and new year to you too. I am the Hanhnuka guy and my wife is the christmas person in this family so we get to celebrate both


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

PCP said:


> I believe we all agree on this. I am quite sure that if an overall 40ft going around cruiser was commissioned today to Bob Perry, the boat would have more in common with the Hanse or the Jeanneau than with the Vailant.
> 
> A good Christmas to you
> 
> ...


I would agree basically because its newer and the use of computers in designer have a greater influence today in terms of virtual testing etc as well as new age materials not aorund 30 years ago.

Not sure Perry would go for the beammmy boats For example if you look at one of my favorite more modern Perry designs which I like, the Saga 43 it is narrow by todays production boat standards. Thre are so many variations and design attitudes its hard to pin point an overall stratagy. New materials is an advancement.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I think it really comes down to one thing. Would you like to be sailing a boat that can take a hit from a container in 40 knots of wind without damage, or not?
Some manufacturers have a reputation for strength and quality, others have fans.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

capta said:


> I think it really comes down to one thing. Would you like to be sailing a boat that can take a hit from a container in 40 knots of wind without damage, or not?
> Some manufacturers have a reputation for strength and quality, others have fans.


Hold on, you hit a partially submerged container, in 40 kts wind, and you did no damage? What do you sail? How fast were you going? 40 kts of wind is gale+ conditions... how large were the seas? How did you know it was a container? WOuld love to hear that story.

Brian


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

It happened between Newport and Bermuda, November 2010. It was dark so I really cannot answer the waves question, possibly 12 feet??? Probably sailing at 5 to 6 knots, reefed and beating into SE winds, but I wasn't on the wheel so I don't know for sure.
It was a tremendous "bang" and threw us on our beam ends, as it either came down the face of a wave or we slammed into it, just aft of the main shrouds at the waterline. We noticed a piece of the boot stripe missing at that spot when we got in the dink in the VI.
I've hit a whale before and that's like punching flesh; this was an extremely hard, solid hit that threw a 38 ton vessel on her beam ends instantly. I do not know for a fact that it was a container, but it's my best guess and the lost paint is sort a of square bit, like the corner of a container would make.
The boat was a Pearson.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Capta so you dont know at all if it was a container. You dont even know the size of the waves but you know the unseen loud bang was a container? That wont stand up in court.

We fell off a wave once in another boat and when we hit the bottom there was a tremendous crash, absolutly tremendous smashing sound that had us in the bilges looking for leaks. When we haulded the boat later we saw the indentation in the antifouling of a turtle shell.

And not a big turtle at that.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay, Mark, that's not nearly as exciting as a container.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Read this thread on Xmas morn and bless the Lord I was able to build a semi custom boat. Our learned contributors note the crew is the weak link is sailing. They do not stress that on a semi custom boat you have the comfort knowing everything is stronger then needed, everything is set up to meet your needs and sensibilities. When you get in the bad stuff you worry about what's important- not the boat failing you. I've spent the last ten years planning my escape. Figured it's worth getting rid of the "toys" ( motorcycles, cars, downsizing the house etc.) to be able to afford the boat I want. Wife knows the fancy vacations, clothes,furniture etc. is a thing of the past. You are betting your life on your boat. What's your life worth to you. They say "if you didn't bring it with you -your don't have it". What they don't say is that's true in the hours before anyone will show up in a coastal setting as well as in the middle of the ocean. Coastal cruising is packed with more potential dangers. It's the hard edges, ships and breaking waves that sink you. Features I thought important
good gyradius and >120 degrees capsize quotient
solid glass hull
internal lead ballast with bulb
non metallic tanks
No balsa, no wood anywhere as structural element
manifold to limit thro hulls
Not dependent on form stability, good comfort motion
All systems accessible for repair or replacement
Designed with "blue water" in mind
collision bulkhead
prop on a shaft
Fast and weatherly

I have nowhere the experience of some other respondants but have done multiple Bermudas and long transports. Been in the 50kt+ storms. Been knocked down, have had the floorboards floating, pooped, watched the hull "oilcan" when the in fill of a "production" boat let go,been called overdue with the Coastguard out looking for us.

If you can afford a semi custom boat - go for it. Evertime you sit in the dinghy and look back you will know you made the right decision. If you can't afford it look at used boats that were single owners and well maintained. Rather be on a twenty year old Shannon,Cherubini, Valiant, PSC, Mason etc. then worry what some hungover line worker did. Want the safety factor of all systems to be in mulitples.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

Hi all. It has been a LONG time since I've visited SN, and I hope everyone has been well!

Even after a few years (literally) of being away from here, I see the exact same discussion persists -- the merits of production boats. Too funny. You know what they say, the more things change ...

I was part of that prior thread started by Smacky, and a few other similar ones. At the time, I had just taken delivery of our then-new Bene 49. Having come from a more higher-end boat before the Bene, and now having had about 5 years with her, and considering that this discussion rages on, I figure my experience might be of interest.

We've used our boat pretty meaningfully. We don't live aboard or cruise full time, but we've put our fair share of miles under her keel, mostly coastal, but we've been offshore plenty, including Bermuda, and offshore runs lasting more than 24 hours. We do live aboard for weeks at a time with our family (admiral, two boys and our pooch). After that sample set of use, here's my view:

1. As a general matter, I like the boat quite a bit. In most respects, she has exceeded my expectations. She is quite fast, both under sail and power, she is very comfortable, and she feels more solid at sea than I expected. She can pound a little, but nothing like my Bayfield (though our Freedom never pounded ever). She also has held up better than I thought she would. Five years in, with a lot of use, and two rambunctious boys who climb, swing, pull, poke and prod, I was expecting to have to refit her a bit by now, but that's just not the case. In fairness, we are pretty religious about maintenance, and don't let things go when it appears we might have a problem, but I expected to have needed more work by now. This is not to say that she doesn't have her shortcomings, which I'll get to below.

2. For all those who say the cockpits and cabins on modern boats don't work at sea, I respectfully disagree, at least as to our boat. The cockpit certainly is large, but we've been at sea in some weather (nothing like hurricane strength, but gale force), and we never felt insecure in the cockpit. Plenty of footholds, good high bridgedeck, and plenty of strong attachment points to clip in. Down below, we had no trouble rigging lee cloths for sea berths, cooking in some sporty conditions, and we were able to make our way around down below without drama, even in a seaway.

3. She seems able to handle offshore duty, at least as between the east coast and Bermuda and various points in between. I've not experienced Force 10 conditions, so I can't speak to that, but we've had our fair share of snottiness, including some elephants in the Stream. We've also given her some tests on our way around the Cape (Cod, not Horn). I'm not seeing any evidence of moving bulkheads, leaking chainplates/stantions/hatches/fittings, weeping rudder post, unexplained water in the bilge, or any of the other indices of a hull and deck working in a seaway. In short, I'm satisfied the boat can handle the conditions we'll put her in, and I have developed confidence in her hull, deck and rig.

4. Speaking of the rig, one of the concerns I had when taking delivery was the furling mast, particularly for offshore work. Those concerns have been allayed. The system has performed flawlessly, without a hitch, even in reasonably heavy weather offshore. I've been able to furl, deploy, and reef the main, by hand, without the need for a winch, in all conditions. In fairness, because it was an area of concern for me, I've been all over it in terms of maintenance, inspection, and careful/deliberate use. A limitation, however, is that you really need to have the boat pointed into the wind in order to furl. In lighter air you can cheat on this a little, but as the wind builds it becomes important.

5. At anchor, she's nothing short of spectacular. The cockpit is awesome, and the ventilation is great, with many opening hatches and ports. I easily could live on this boat, and hope to! This aspect, I'm sure, is no surprise to anyone.

6. We did do a lot of upgrading on stuff that I consider important. For instance, we swapped out the through hulls to install proper seacocks, and we moved a few that were located in absurd locations (base of a ladder into the forward deck locker? Forward of the engine when the raw water intake is aft? What were they thinking?!?!). We added backing plates for all the cleats and the main traveler (came with large fender washers). We re-plumbed the heads, and we did a bunch of other stuff too, but I'm not bothering to list it all here. We certainly didn't do anything particularly "structural," save for reinforcing the transom for the davits.

7. In terms of stuff that I've found frustrating, Beneteau does not use the best parts for what I'll call less mission-critical applications. For instance, the latches for the cabinets are flat out awful, and I've replaced and upgraded just about all of them at this point. The domestic faucets are crummy quality. The original bilge pumps are not high enough capacity, in my view. The air conditioning system is not the best, and the engineering for removing condensate is absurdly poor, as the tiny little pumps fail all the time.

8. Storage. It's a little light in the master cabin, but we've been able to make up for it by using lockers located elsewhere. It's not overwhelming, but I'd describe the storage as sufficient, and we do bring tons of "stuff" with us. Deck storage actually is great (three large lockers in the cockpit, and a massive one on deck).

9. Tankage. Never a strong suit for mass-produced boats, and ours was no different. She came with 65 gallons of fuel, and 130 of water. We added a 35 gallon fuel tank, so now we carry 100 gallons of diesel. It's worked for us, but that could be a problem for serious and extended offshore work.

10. The interior furniture and joinery quality is OK, but not great. I think this is one of the areas where the price point really shows. You go down below in a Swan, Hinckley or Sabre, and you feel a sense of craftsmanship in the furniture and other woodwork that just isn't there for the mass-production boats. There's no getting around the difference in this area. The higher-end boats are just nicer, particularly down below.

Here are two links from a trip to/from Bermuda. As you'll see, we had much better weather going than coming, and as we all know, video/pictures never does it justice:

To Bermuda: 




From Bermuda: 




In the end, I pretty much agree with Brian on his assessment, though not necessarily on the cost front. While even production boats are expensive by any rational standard, more limited production, higher-end boats still cost multiples. So whereas it might cost $400,000 for a BeneHuntaLina, that same size Sabre/Swan will cost two to three times as much, if not more. And like everything else in life, if you can afford the higher quality, and it suits your needs, more power to you!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

good for you Dan. keep sailing and smiling.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Great to see you around Dano!!!! And AWESOME videos!

I love the fact that Judy was working on burying the rail in that first vid. THAT'S a sailing chick!

Also, fantastic write-up on the boat. Hopefully this silly argument will be settled soon.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> What Rock is saying is that a good modern designed cruiser like the Hanse 415 or the jeanneau 409 is a better designed boat than the Vailant not because the Vaillant was not a great boat (and still is) but because 30 years in design developments make the modern boats better overall sailing boats.
> 
> I believe we all agree on this. I am quite sure that if an overall 40ft going around cruiser was commissioned today to Bob Perry, the boat would have more in common with the Hanse or the Jeanneau than with the Vailant.


Well, as for "better overall" sailing characteristics of newer designs, I'd still suggest _"not necessarily"_ (grin)...

Last June I delivered a V-42 from Guatemala back up to Annapolis... We had a NE breeze between 20-30 from the the start up all the way up to Isla Mujeres, and again across the Yucatan Channel to roughly abeam of Havana... Hard on the breeze the entire way, fightiing to claw off the reef in Belize, and the lee shore of the Yucatan... Anyone with no prior experience with a staysail, would have really come to appreciate their value after that ride...

Nevertheless, even on a boat as heavy and seakindly as that Valiant, it was a brutal trip... I can't imagine what such a bash would have been like aboard a flatbottomed flyer like a Hanse 415, the punishment to both boat and crew would have been extreme... And, wouldn't surprise me if you would have had to throttle back to a speed perhaps even less than what we were making on a V-42, trucking along under a staysail and double-reefed main...










I've no doubt that Hanse is a blast to sail in moderate conditions, but such a boat will never be my first choice to sail across an ocean... Perhaps it can be made to heave-to, but I would bet to do so would require continuous tweaking of sails and rudder position, the last thing a tired crew wants to be bothered with when hove-to. That underbody is certainly not conducive to it, and with the absence of any usable bulkhead forward, rigging an inner forestay on such a boat could pose a real challenge...

And, as far as really getting "out there" in such a design, no way would such a boat be my choice... If you were to suffer a hard grounding in a remote region, hundreds of miles from the nearest Travelift, with a keel with such a narrow chord, you could be well and truly screwed...

Wonderful sailing and "performance" with such boats, unquestionably...

But as far as being "better all-around", I remain unconvinced... (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > It might have been, if Michael had ACTUALLY taken Sequitur "around" the Horn in a F-11 storm... (grin)
> >
> > Not to disparage Michael's accomplishments with that boat in any way, they were VERY impressive, no doubt... But, simply for the sake of accuracy, that's not really what he did....
> ...


Well, if you're gonna claim that a particular achievement settles an issue once and for all, there should be no need to embellish it&#8230; (grin)

Once again, I don't mean to diminish Michael's accomplishment in any way, it's far more impressive than anything I will ever manage... I'm in awe of anyone who gets their boat in the position to snap a photo of the Sailor's Everest over his shoulder without resorting to Photoshop, but&#8230; I'm sorry, but this sort of track does _not_ qualify as a "rounding" of Cape Horn.










I'm sure Michael would be the first to agree, as impressive an accomplishment as making the quick dash out and back to that waypoint is, it is not in the same category as that of Jeanne Socrates, Matt Rutherford, Donna Lange, and scores of other sailors who have truly sailed around Cape Horn, during their passage from one ocean to another&#8230;

BTW, the big weather Michael experienced, and handled admirably and with relatively little fuss, was in the lee of the Falklands, not in the vicinity of Staten Island&#8230; Could have been a whole different ballgame in the much more exposed and open waters near Staten, known for their vicious tide rips and overfalls&#8230;

If you want to argue for the capabilities of a production boat like SEQUITUR, I think the late Mike Harker's singlehanded sprint around the world in something like 11 months on his Hunter 49 is pretty good evidence, as well&#8230; Although, it should be noted that Mike carried a complete spare rudder on WANDERLUST after the one on his previous Hunter 456 broke while on approach to the Marquesas a few years before&#8230; (grin)


----------



## ScottyIrwin (Nov 30, 2012)

I have been reading this with great interest, because I have a friend that once put down my O'Day 30 as a "production boat". Hey I was in my early 20's when I bought that boat and didn't have an unlimited bank account. Sure his Bristol 40 was a pretty boat, but I wouldn't want it. Built in the late 60's, its loaded with wood (even the rudder was wood!) Over the years of sailing the O'Day natrally I had some troubles with her. The chainplates needed to be replaced (actually the entire knee and shelf's that stiffen the knee), I even ended up repowering at one point (larger diesel engines don's make a slow boat faster BTW), and over the 5 years I had her this friend watched all the work that was done to her and after a while his tune changed. Suddenly all these things he was criticizing (lack of access to repair things, boat was not sea worthy) started to change. That boat served me well. I am based in Buzzards Bay and my family sailed that boat from NYC to Booth Bay Harbor in Maine. 

When it came time to upgrade we got bit by the new boat bug, and started looking at all these modern designs (H, B, C) with a huge effort on finding a Catalina 36 or 42. Like someone above said, I hardly picked the boat I have today. I HATED center cockpit sailboats. Who the heck is Ted Irwin? Some quick research told me this was a great cruising boat. Bluewater? Sure. With today's electronics, there is no reason that boat can't make it across the pond. Will I ever take it? I sure hope so, but its doubtful. Would i hesitate if the opportunity arose? No way. 

The point here is opinions are like boats everyone here (or almost everyone here) has one. I wouldn't shy away from a production boat. Just make sure you know what you are buying.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

ScottyIrwin said:


> Bluewater? Sure. With today's electronics, there is no reason that boat can't make it across the pond.


Well, as magnificent as today's electronics have become, I'm not sure they have yet reached the capability of enhancing or ensuring a particular boat's _SEAWORTHINESS_... (grin)


----------



## ScottyIrwin (Nov 30, 2012)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, as magnificent as today's electronics have become, I'm not sure they have yet reached the capability of enhancing or ensuring a particular boat's _SEAWORTHINESS_... (grin)


HAHA Your putting words in my mouth! I meant that with today's electronics there is no reason to make the trip in questionable weather.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Last June I delivered a V-42 from Guatemala back up to Annapolis... We had a NE breeze between 20-30 from the the start up all the way up to Isla Mujeres, and again across the Yucatan Channel to roughly abeam of Havana... Hard on the breeze the entire way, fightiing to claw off the reef in Belize, and the lee shore of the Yucatan... Anyone with no prior experience with a staysail, would have really come to appreciate their value after that ride...
> 
> Nevertheless, even on a boat as heavy and seakindly as that Valiant, it was a brutal trip... I can't imagine what such a bash would have been like aboard a flatbottomed flyer like a Hanse 415, the punishment to both boat and crew would have been extreme... And, wouldn't surprise me if you would have had to throttle back to a speed perhaps even less than what we were making on a V-42, trucking along under a staysail and double-reefed...


Jon, I totally agree on people like Jean (with whom I've exchanged a few emails, especially after her knockdown off the Horn...see the Heavy Weather Sailing thread in Seamanship) and Harker, et. al. Freakin' rockstars. But, I still think you're really nitpicking here. Anyway everyone knows that embellishment is the MSG of sailing.

But your point above is the one that I think is the most pertinent here. Basically, the arguments of seakindliness seem to always come down to this...how the boat behaves bashing to weather. The quote above really underscores this...especially when you make the point that the Hanse would have to throttle back to less speed than the Valiant to be "comfortable".

This goes back to the points that are made over and over for the "older, heavier" boats - that the weight, longer keel, and deeper hull designs make them "better bluewater boats" than the newer, lighter, flatter boats.

Your points above are obviously made within the context of deliveries. You have a schedule...you have to get there. But in the context of cruising - what's the big deal in backing off a bit to be more comfortable for a relatively short time? At the end of the day, I personally would MUCH rather back off an upwind bash for a day or so while the weather blows through, and still have the ability to easily do a solid 10+ knots SOG the rest of the time stylin' in modern comfort, than know that I can eek out an extra knot in a nasty upwind slog on a Valiant and be relatively "comfortable" - but_ never _be able to sail fast.

I just think this is a specious argument...especially in light of the type of sailing 99% of the sailing world does. Until we see production boats falling apart and sinking with regularity - I think this argument is a bit Chicken Littleish. Always have.


----------



## ScottyIrwin (Nov 30, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> I just think this is a specious argument...especially in light of the type of sailing 99% of the sailing world does. Until we see production boats falling apart and sinking with regularity - I think this argument is a bit Chicken Littleish. Always have.


Agreed!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> And, as far as really getting "out there" in such a design, no way would such a boat be my choice... If you were to suffer a hard grounding in a remote region, hundreds of miles from the nearest Travelift, with a keel with such a narrow chord, you could be well and truly screwed...
> 
> Wonderful sailing and "performance" with such boats, unquestionably...


I know that we mostly agree and this is not to piss you quite the contrary. I want to show you, in what regards the kind of boats you mention above, the best the market has to offer in what regards production boats...and not that expensive considering the material and quality. In the 80's there were also boats to fit this purpose even aluminium ones but the quality of the design of this one is light years ahead and the overall quality is also probably better.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Paulo,

What about the Perry designed 43 Saga, which is a fairly modern boat. This is one of the boats on our short list for cruising

Doesnt seem like the boat you describe?


> where the beam and the very large transom


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> Paulo,
> 
> What about the Perry designed 43 Saga, which is a fairly modern boat. This is one of the boats on our short list for cruising
> 
> Doesnt seem like the boat you describe?


Dave, I like the Saga 43. Certainly it is a modern hull and an efficient boat, I have no doubt about that. There are other modern boats that continue to be designed over that principle and I mean, a narrow hull that demands a more proportion of B/D.

The disadvantage of that is an interior of a smaller boat (if we consider a boat like the Hanse) a boat that will need a lot more heel to sail (the ballast only makes effect with heel and the boat has not much form stability) a boat that will go better and more comfortable upwind but that will be more unstable downwind (specially on autopilot) and will be a less stable platform in bad weather, I mean for instance when you are reefing.

The Hanse 415 is a good design in pretty much the way modern designers look at what should be an all around sailing boat, one that has a lot of influence of solo racing boats. the boat in what regards sailing is much more suited than a Saga 43 for sailing in the trade winds (if it was of the same size), where you got mostly downwind sailing.

I am not saying it is better, probably if I had the money, I would even prefer a modern boat like a Saga 43, regarding a boat like the Hanse (I am not talking about the difference in quality). For instance, I really love the Luffe 45 that is a boat with some similarities (even if with a more modern hull in what regards transom) but then I am not going to circumnavigate neither sail in the trade winds and get a lot of upwind sailing. That's in what the Saga 43 and the Luffe 45 are specially good at : upwind sailing.

If I was going to voyage extensively I would want a boat that could go well upwind but maximized for downwind sailing one that I could leave on autopilot, even going fast, and go to sleep, a boat easy, forgiving and one that would sail with little heel. for that and if I had the money I would design my own boat with the support of a NA, if I would not have the extra cash I would have this one:






I don't even have the money for this one, even used so probably I would have something like an used Pogo 12.50 or even an adapted old 40class racer. If I was circumnavigating I would not be living on the boat, but mostly sailing the boat so the interior quality would be less important.

Anyway that is not the type of boat that I have or I want. For what I do I have narrowed in the type of boats like mine (Comet 41) or Salona that are a medium term between the Saga and boats with a large beam like the Hanse (and almost all modern designed all around cruisers).

Of course my boat is quite capable of crossing the Atlantic and even circumnavigate, it is just not the boat that I would have chosen for that, but is the boat I would chose has an all around boat, adapted to my sailing needs and tastes, that may include some ocean crossings but would be used mostly in coastal conditions in variable winds. That may not be the one that fits you even if we sailed on the same cruising grounds.

Some guys just don't dispense AC and TV, others like a more soft sea motion. I am pretty zen when I cruise. What I like is to be in nice places and most of all, sail and sail fast. But then I don't live all year on a boat and I have a house with all those comforts for the winter

I would say that for me the more important is a boat that can sail with very little wind (because I hate motoring and besides I don't have the money for it) and a boat with a minimum stability requirements, not anybody requirements, but my own, a boat with a nice comfortable interior and, of course, a boat that I can afford.

Even my boat sails at its max performance with 17/20º of heel. A boat like the Sabre needs 24/27 to sail well upwind. They really need the RM from the keel and that one you only get with heel. That can be agreeable for day-sailing or having fun but certainly not for sleep or cooking.

I really don't know for what type of cruising you want the boat so I cannot really be specific but I can tell you one thing, If what you want is to circumnavigate against the prevailing winds (I mean to West) the Saga 43 is the boat you need

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

I've been cherry picking my way through this thread and some good points have been raised. 

The funny thing is these threads always tend to run towards "what would you want while slogging through the Southern Ocean..."

Honestly I could give a rats hairy backside how well a boat will weather the Horn.

That's not where I sail; it's not even something I aspire to. I'm a coastal sailor who lives aboard weekends 5-6 months a year. Production boats do a fantastic job meeting the needs of sailors like me. And I suspect they do a very good job for sailors island hopping the Caribbean as described in Dan's post. That's why companies like Catalina, Beneteau, etc. have been so successful.

That's not a bad thing. Would I like to own a Sabre, Passport or Malo? Absolutely but it's not the right boat for me right now. 

If owning a boat capable of rounding the horn gives you a feeling of pride that's cool and I hope you get to fulfill that dream. But don't be so quick to look down on my Catalina. It makes us happy and there's a lot to be said for that.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

ScottyIrwin said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > Well, as magnificent as today's electronics have become, I'm not sure they have yet reached the capability of enhancing or ensuring a particular boat's SEAWORTHINESS... (grin)
> 
> 
> HAHA Your putting words in my mouth! I meant that with today's electronics there is no reason to make the trip in questionable weather.


Well, for anyone who sets out from North America across "the Pond", it's generally only a matter of 72-96 hours at best, before the weather might begin to become "questionable"... Unless you're sailing something like this, there's no such thing as a "weather window" sailing across the Atlantic...












smackdaddy said:


> But your point above is the one that I think is the most pertinent here. Basically, the arguments of seakindliness seem to always come down to this...how the boat behaves bashing to weather. The quote above really underscores this...especially when you make the point that the Hanse would have to throttle back to less speed than the Valiant to be "comfortable".


Well, I would rate a boat's ability to heave-to easily as being critical to a boat intended to go offshore... But, I realize such a tactic has become all but forgotten among modern sailors, and considered to be hopelessly passe'... The skipper of RULE 62, to name one, obviously thought so...



smackdaddy said:


> This goes back to the points that are made over and over for the "older, heavier" boats - that the weight, longer keel, and deeper hull designs make them "better bluewater boats" than the newer, lighter, flatter boats.


Sure, no need to take my word for it, of course... However, I'd suggest the views of people like John Harries might be a bit harder to dismiss out of hand:

Sailing Comfort, Speed And Safety Are Boat Design Essentials

http://www.morganscloud.com/2012/09/29/adventure-40-hull-form/



smackdaddy said:


> Your points above are obviously made within the context of deliveries. You have a schedule...you have to get there. But in the context of cruising - what's the big deal in backing off a bit to be more comfortable for a relatively short time? At the end of the day, I personally would MUCH rather back off an upwind bash for a day or so while the weather blows through, and still have the ability to easily do a solid 10+ knots SOG the rest of the time stylin' in modern comfort, than know that I can eek out an extra knot in a nasty upwind slog on a Valiant and be relatively "comfortable" - but_ never _be able to sail fast.


Actually, in the context of the example I cited, any cruiser would have been compelled to do the same... Very much worse weather was on the way, Chris Parker was adamant that we had to depart the Rio _IMMEDIATELY_... Good thing we did that bash, we would have been stuck in Belize, or perhaps Isla Mujeres, for a couple of weeks, as the one the first tropical systems of the season was spawned in the Western Caribbean, and a very strong NE flow persisted off the Florida coast for a week or more... By taking our initial licks, me managed to stay just ahead of all that crap, and eventually wound up having a perfect passage from Canaveral on up to Beaufort...



smackdaddy said:


> I just think this is a specious argument...especially in light of the type of sailing 99% of the sailing world does. Until we see production boats falling apart and sinking with regularity - I think this argument is a bit Chicken Littleish. Always have.


I'm always mystified why it seems so difficult to make it understood that it is the _CHARACTERISTICS_ that I'm referring to in these discussions, rather than the integrity of particular "brands", or whatever... For shorthanded crews or couples making passages, it is _MODERATION_ in design and construction which will serve them best...










Of course, I could mention that probably 10X, or 20X as many Hallberg-Rassys have sailed in the ARC as Hunters... And yet, to the best of my knowledge, there is no record of an H-R having been abandoned, and sunk, after the rudder fell out of the boat...

But, that would be a cheap shot, so I won't... (grin)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, for anyone who sets out from North America across "the Pond", it's generally only a matter of 72-96 hours at best, before the weather might begin to become "questionable"... Unless you're sailing something like this, there's no such thing as a "weather window" sailing across the Atlantic...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course, but you have weather statistics and you will know what is the probability of having bad weather on a given route at a given time. On most of the routes if you chose the right season the probabilities of having a storm are as little of 5% or even less.

Funny thing is that a modern HR is pretty much similar to some less expensive boats, I don't mean in what regards the interior but in what regards design. A modern HR is much more similar to a Hanse 415 than with a 30 or even 20 year old designed HR. Or do you think designers don't now what they are doing and the 30 year old HR is better than a new one?

I heard about a given batch of Hunters having problems with the rudders has I know about a specific Bavaria model having a problem with the keel. I know that many Bavarias have circumnavigated, many solo and I don't know of any other problem with keels, except the one on that model. I have also heard about Hunters that circumnavigated. I am not so familiarized with Hunters.

They still have problems with the rudders? In fact a google search gave multiple hits.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I would rate a boat's ability to heave-to easily as being critical to a boat intended to go offshore... But, I realize such a tactic has become all but forgotten among modern sailors, and considered to be hopelessly passe'... The skipper of RULE 62, to name one, obviously thought so...


Jon, I don't think it's a fair criticism that heaving-to is a forgotten art. I would think most sailors would know how to heave-to. And for god's sake don't raise the specter of the Rule 62 zombie thread  I thought that thread would never die !

And while I understand your example from Belize I think Smack is right in saying that in most cases you can pick a weather window.

Crossing oceans is a whole other discussion and there are plenty of "blue water boat" threads. My point was most sailors are coastal and will never cross an ocean. That's neither good nor bad. Just reality. And production boats serve that market well.


----------



## jaasun71 (May 15, 2009)

chucklesR said:


> What exactly is a production boat?
> All boats are 'produced' in some fashion - and no, I'm not being deliberately obstinate here.
> 
> My Irwin has Bob Johnstone's (Island Packet founder and designer) fingerprints all over it -
> ...


Who is this Johnstone guy you speak of ?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> Jon, I don't think it's a fair criticism that heaving-to is a forgotten art. I would think most sailors would know how to heave-to. And for god's sake don't raise the specter of the Rule 62 zombie thread  I thought that thread would never die !


You may be right, but I see precious little evidence of that... For example, in the accounts of the boats abandoned a 14 months ago between Newport and Bermuda, I don't recall any evidence that heaving-to was an applied tactic... or, if it was, it was unsuccessful...

I continue to see many more examples of people determined to enter ports at night, rather than standing off, and waiting until daylight... And, I very rarely hear other cruisers making mention of employing the tactic... I posted a link elsewhere a couple of weeks ago to the encounter the Caribbean 1500 fleet had with the remnants of Hurricane Mitch, and it was obvious that some in the fleet had never tried to do so previously... It's a bit hard for me to believe that "most sailors" are familiar with the tactic, when a significant number of entrants in the Caribbean 1500 had never before done so...



JimMcGee said:


> Crossing oceans is a whole other discussion and there are plenty of "blue water boat" threads. My point was most sailors are coastal and will never cross an ocean. That's neither good nor bad. Just reality. And production boats serve that market well.


If you look at my first post in this thread, you will see that I am in full agreement with that..." I'm sure there are many production boats that will be perfectly suitable for the sort of sailing the OP has in mind..."

The discussion morphed - as it invariably does - in my response to another poster's claim that *"If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming."* And, subsequently, another poster's claim that a Hunter 49's rounding of Cape Horn has settled this issue, once and for all...

So, don't blame me for taking the direction of this discussion "offshore"... (grin)


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

JonEisberg said:


> You may be right, but I see precious little evidence of that... For example, in the accounts of the boats abandoned a 14 months ago between Newport and Bermuda, I don't recall any evidence that heaving-to was an applied tactic... or, if it was, it was unsuccessful...


You may be right and I may be too optimistic. The gentleman who taught me to sail showed me how to heave-to the first time out and kept stressing that it should be second nature, so I think of it as a basic sailing skill.



JonEisberg said:


> The discussion morphed - as it invariably does - in my response to another poster's claim that *"If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming."* And, subsequently, another poster's claim that a Hunter 49's rounding of Cape Horn has settled this issue, once and for all...
> 
> So, don't blame me for taking the direction of this discussion "offshore"... (grin)


Thread drift on SailNet??? *That NEVER happens* :laugher


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> You may be right and I may be too optimistic. The gentleman who taught me to sail showed me how to heave-to the first time out and kept stressing that it should be second nature, so I think of it as a basic sailing skill.


One of the best reasons for starting to learn how to sail in a dinghy or small keelboat, one of the first things you need to know is how to stop, or "park", the boat...

Someone who starts out with a 40 footer, they think the means to do so involves the use of an engine, or a bow thruster...


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Of course, I could mention that probably 10X, or 20X as many Hallberg-Rassys have sailed in the ARC as Hunters... And yet, to the best of my knowledge, there is no record of an H-R having been abandoned, and sunk, after the rudder fell out of the boat...


In these discussions of boats, one's financial means quickly get lost. My guess is that almost every new B/H/C/J... owner would select the new Hallberg-Rassy, if for the same size, they were priced same as a B/H/C/J... It's a high end boat...it costs maybe twice as much, so yes, it is, and should be better constructed with attention to fine detail. So the problem is do I deny myself a boat because I can't afford the Hallberg-Rassy, or do I buy an old boat (and to get the price down to what most of us can afford, it has to be real old if it is a H-R and may need lots of work), or do I buy a B/H/C/J? So one then looks at how they would use the boat...coastal cruising, weekends, occasional close offshore, crossing the ocean not likely, rounding Cape Horn..never going to do that, etc. Then suddenly, a B/H/C/J... comes into the picture and fits the picture. They seem to do the job quite well.

And even if one could afford the H-R, they might still select the B/H/C/J, given their intended use, and opt for a waterfront condo with it's own slip with the difference in price.

B/H/C/J.. are the big volume builders for a reason. They build what most people eventually wind up buying. Boats that give good value for price (relatively speaking...they all are high) and that can give lots of fun. Then, instead of reading of other's adventures because they can't afford a H-R (or equivalent), more people can have their own adventure in a boat they can afford.

Size is another issue wherein affordability and intended use are controlling factors. For long extended voyages, a larger boat might be more appropriate; for day sailing or occasional short cruises, a smaller boat might be the choice. And cost can dictate the boat size.

As to rudders falling off and the like. If one such event occurs for whatever reason, people will use that to somehow trash the entire brand...all sizes, all models, all ages. And truth be known, since the H-R didn't experience the "exact" set of forces in the exact place, location, or time, how it would have faired is unknown. The ocean is a big place and just because they sail in the same rally, they don't experience the same conditions. In my visits to boatyards, I haven't seen too many....actually any...Hunters where the rudder has fallen off, bent maybe, damaged maybe, but falling off is not typical...it's an outlier event.

If one can afford the H-R or equivalent, by all means, go for it. And if one had rather have an old H-R or equivalent and try to up grade/ restore it, go for that.
But for a great many of us, B/H/C/J.... allow us to enjoy the sport, often in a well equipped, new or relatively new modern design.

If you really are going to sail in extreme conditions, cross oceans, round Cape Horn, then you have a different set of issues and will arrive at a different solution. Same if you are going into extreme racing.

Just my opinion, as a old guy with no qualifications.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> I'm always mystified why it seems so difficult to make it understood that it is the _CHARACTERISTICS_ that I'm referring to in these discussions, rather than the integrity of particular "brands", or whatever... For shorthanded crews or couples making passages, it is _MODERATION_ in design and construction which will serve them best...


I'll see your dated yacht design book and raise you...










_PS - I just want to make it clear that JonEisberg has forgotten more about sailing and sailboats than I'll EVER know...but it's always fun to have an opinion._


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Y....
> The discussion morphed - as it invariably does - in my response to another poster's claim that *"If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming."* And, subsequently, another poster's claim that a Hunter 49's rounding of Cape Horn has settled this issue, once and for all...
> 
> So, don't blame me for taking the direction of this discussion "offshore"... (grin)


I don't know who said that and in what contest but I sure would be much more confident crossing the pond in a new Hunter 49 than in any 30 years old boat from a well known brand reputed by its seaworthiness in its day.

The Hunter has a new mast and rig. the chances are that the old boat has a 15 year old rig and probably the original mast, the Hunter has a new engine and new sails, the old boat probably has 10 or 15 year old fragile sails and a 15 year old engine, the plumbing electric system the refrigeration is all new on the Hunter on the old boat, if lucky they are 10 years old, the keel structure and chain-plates on the Hunter are brand new, the old boat had flexed and worked its structure, has metal fatigue on all non substituted parts....yes give me a brand new hunter and keep the old boat that in its day, when was new, was a very seaworthy and reliable boat.

That's like comparing the reliability of a 30 year old used Mercedes with the one of a new Hyundai.

Sure, you can have a reliable old Mercedes if you substitute everything (and at what cost?) and even so the Hyundai will be better by design. But who substitute the mast, the rig, the chain-plates, the keel bolts and the inside structure of any old boat? On a discussion here about rigging the overall conclusion was that a 15 year old rig was alright if looked alright with a visual inspection.

Ask to any reputable rigger and he will say that no matter how it looks the rig should be ditched each 10 years and the chainplates each 15 years. Most 30 year old boats have yet the original chain-plates that are alright because they look alright.

Yes, give me the brand new Hunter 49 to cross the pond and you cross with the old timer

Go to any insurance company with a reputable 30 year old good bluewater boat and make an insurance to cross the pond, if they will make it, it will cost the double of the one that they will charge you for the new Hunter (if the value of the boat is the same). Guess why? Those guys know about risks more than you or me. That's their living and they are not there to lose money.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KIVALO (Nov 2, 2011)

About sums it up perfectly for me, well said.



NCC320 said:


> The beauty of sailing is that any of us, whatever our financial means, can enjoy sailing. If you have a few hundred dollars or a few million, there is a boat out there for you. The pleasure comes in the sailing, not how much you paid, or how big, or how fancy your boat is.


----------



## petmac (Feb 27, 2007)

bradfalk said:


> Hey all. Would like some input and sorry for asking an opinion question that could generate some hackle raising responses!!
> 
> I grew up sailing and continue to do so with my family now. We had a Caliber 28 and are moving up to a 40-ish boat mostly for bay cruising as well as a "year off" cruise with our 3 kids (in 4 years). Looking for boats and have appreciated the feedback on this forum.
> 
> ...


Catalina 42 ? For that kind of money you could buy a used Bermuda 40. That's what I would do.


----------



## petmac (Feb 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> One of the best reasons for starting to learn how to sail in a dinghy or small keelboat, one of the first things you need to know is how to stop, or "park", the boat...
> 
> Someone who starts out with a 40 footer, they think the means to do so involves the use of an engine, or a bow thruster...


What's a bow thruster ?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

PCP said:


> I don't know who said that and in what contest but I sure would be much more confident crossing the pond in a new Hunter 49 than in any 30 years old boat from a well known brand reputed by its seaworthiness in its day.
> 
> The Hunter has a new mast and rig. the chances are that the old boat has a 15 year old rig and probably the original mast, the Hunter has a new engine and new sails, the old boat probably has 10 or 15 year old fragile sails and a 15 year old engine, the plumbing electric system the refrigeration is all new on the Hunter on the old boat, if lucky they are 10 years old, the keel structure and chain-plates on the Hunter are brand new, the old boat had flexed and worked its structure, has metal fatigue on all non substituted parts....yes give me a brand new hunter and keep the old boat that in its day, when was new, was a very seaworthy and reliable boat.
> 
> ...


30 years old maybe so but lets look at whats available

2012 new Hunter 49 is $380,000 to $420,000

On Yacht World in the US lisiting onlt lets see whats available in that price range, These could be negotiated down even 10%

*20 years old*
1993 Taswell 49
1992 Trintella 49
*14 years old*
1999 Moody 46
*10-12 years old*
2003 Sabre 45
2002 Pasport 47
2001 Tayana 46
2000 J 46
*4 years old*
2009 Island Packet 46

Can you compare these to the Hunter?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > The discussion morphed - as it invariably does - in my response to another poster's claim that "If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming." And, subsequently, another poster's claim that a Hunter 49's rounding of Cape Horn has settled this issue, once and for all...
> >
> > So, don't blame me for taking the direction of this discussion "offshore"... (grin)
> ...


Here's the relevant larger context from which that quote was lifted:



rockDAWG said:


> Today's production boats are far more better in design, manufacture and tighter spec than the old stick built boat in the 80's. Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina and hunter are still in business. It means they did something right. I can't imagine how much R&D have goon into the production. I doubt the Mom and Pa operation of the yesteryear boats can compare.
> 
> If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming. A fifty foot wave has no respect of any boats in it way. We are better off to avoid and run fast with a good seamanship and plans.


I read that not as a comparison of a new boat vs an older boat in 30 year old condition, but rather as an assertion that today's newer, more "advanced" designs are inherently superior, all other things - such as the relative condition of the boats - being equal... Sorry, I don't buy it...

To point to just one example, let's compare the decks of the Hunter 49, with those of the Hinckley Sou'wester 42 featured on the cover of Rousmaniere's book...

I'm sorry, but these side decks, coupled with the sloped sides of the deckhouse, are a freakin' joke... Absurdly narrow for a boat of that size:



















I'm sorry, but to assert that going forward on such a boat would be "much safer" than aboard this "outmoded" decades-old McCurdy & Rhodes design, is patently absurd:


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Jon,

I've got to agree with you on need for the wider decks....in fact, that's why I selected my C320 over the other volume production brands in that size. Important for a guy who isn't too sure footed to begin with. (Of course, there is a world of difference between 32 ft. and 49 ft. and their likely usage).


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - so if it's so dangerous on the H49 side decks...how exactly did that chick in the green mumu get to the foredeck for some sunning? I don't see a harness pal. Maybe you just need a green mumu.

Mmmmmhhhhmmm.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Jon,

That bottom pic looks like a J-boat with a skinny ass!! I'll take the J over the older one! But that is me....

Not sure who said the HR vs Hunter in the ARC comparison. Frankly, that is a bad comparison. As Hunter is a non issue for folks in Europe. Are they sold there, yes, in any great quantity, NOT! Jeanneau or Beneteau vs HR in the ARC, now that is a decent comparison, as both are built in Europe. jeanneau wins that one hands down! Been the #1 boat used for the past 3-5 yrs or so. Even the top boat in the world ARC the last two runnings. The size difference in the two ARCs is worth noting. Ave size boat for the W-ARC is 45-50', with the ARC being in the 35-45' range. One year the most used boat model was a Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37.

An HR in my book is also a production boat. Granted a higher priced production boat! BUT a production boat none the less. More in line with an MB vs a chevy. I would still take a new chevy or kia over a 30 yr old MB for many of the reasons Paulo mentions. By the time you take and overhaul a 30 yr old body to handle the stress's, wear out items to be replaced, one could have gone with a slightly smaller NEW rig for the same expense. At the end, it depends upon how you want to spend you money!

SO with that, need to find some dinner as it is that time of the night here on the left coast of the US!

marty


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> 30 years old maybe so but lets look at whats available
> 
> 2012 new Hunter 49 is $380,000 to $420,000
> 
> ...


That's not the point. The point is why and old boat that was seaworthy in its time and many would still consider seaworthy no matter what, can in most cases be less seaworthy and reliable than a new production boat that would be much cheaper if the older boat was still made today.

The boats you posted are not 30 year old boats and some like a 2009 Island Packet would probably not need anything and will be as new.

Regarding the others each case is a case but most of them will need a new rig, the others not only the rig but also chain-plates, the older ones probably a new engine the ones with 15 years a complete overall of the engine, all except the IP would need new electronics and all except the IP would have things that stop functioning.

If you have the money and buy a new boat my experience is that you don't have to worry with nothing for 5 years or so. Than some maintenance starts to be needed but not much till 7/10 years then you have to change sails, rig, sail drive rig, more expensive maintenance engine and so on.

Personally I think that, at least here, the best time to buy a boat is between 3 and 6 years old, but that's me that like to sail and not pass a lot of time upgrading the boat. But I still think that if you have the money for the boat you want and for sailing there is nothing like a new boat and a brand new design. Much of us, including me don't have it and have to compromise.

Regarding all the boats you posted I would not exchange a new Hanse 415 by none of them. Most of them because some are just slow and old designed and others because they are just too big , to heavy or to old.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion that is just that and does not mean that I want to impose it to anybody. Fact is that I know that many think other way or don't have the money for sailing and a 5 year old boat and have to compromise more. The important thing here is to have a boat and to sail. My first boat was fully repaired, hull included by me, not because I didn't perfer to pass the time sailing but because I had not the money and that was the only way I could have a sailing boat.

The Hanse 415 is a seaworthy well done boat that would fulfill my needs and none of the boats you posted are interesting to me. Now, offer me a 2006 Luffe 45 or a 2008 J133 for the same price of the new Hanse 415 and if the boat is as new, or in very good condition I will have them instead of the new Hanse....but just because I don't have the money to have a new Luffe 45











But I doubt very much that I could have those boats with that age by the price of a new Hanse 415 so....

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> 
> I read that not as a comparison of a new boat vs an older boat in 30 year old condition, but rather as an assertion that today's newer, more "advanced" designs are inherently superior, all other things - such as the relative condition of the boats - being equal... Sorry, I don't buy it...
> 
> ...


I have no problem in agreeing with you there. But you can only compare what is comparable. You can only compare a top cruising boat of the past with a top cruising boat of today. Compare it wit a XC 42 and you will have an equally seaworthy boat with a much better (bigger) interior and with a better sailing performance on all points of sail for about the same price. I guess that it was about that he was talking about


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

I have been looking over this thread an I would like to ask What makes a boat a Non-production boat ? Is it a one off? Does X number of boats per year make it so ? Cars have been used as an example. Since I am from Ky and have been in and know about the corvette Factory. I know you can go to the corvette factory and (order) make the choice of what you want to have and watch them build your personal car start to finish and even help some with your car for a fee. This is a production car for sure. If you order your boat is it a non-production boat? Does a factory make a boat a production boat? The number of employees working on it?
How would you know the employee laying the fiberglass and mixing the resin is so much less skilled then the Craftsman preforming the same duty in the plant? This is one point I saw in this post. The skill level of the worker building. I for one would want my boat built buy a worker paid a living wage. This might mean a boat from the EU or USA. Canada or other place I will not try to name every country I have left several great places out. My thought What makes production good or bad? Is it craftmanship the way the boat is built? Is it the plans and design? Learning from you all, Lou


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Not sure who said the HR vs Hunter in the ARC comparison. Frankly, that is a bad comparison. As Hunter is a non issue for folks in Europe. Are they sold there, yes, in any great quantity, NOT! Jeanneau or Beneteau vs HR in the ARC, now that is a decent comparison, as both are built in Europe. jeanneau wins that one hands down! Been the #1 boat used for the past 3-5 yrs or so. Even the top boat in the world ARC the last two runnings. The size difference in the two ARCs is worth noting. Ave size boat for the W-ARC is 45-50', with the ARC being in the 35-45' range. One year the most used boat model was a Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37.


You're making way too much of my offhanded mention of the Hunter in the ARC... It was not intended to be a "comparison", I just tossed it in at the end of my post to tweak Smackdaddy... (grin) A rudder can drop out of any boat, I'm sure...

However, Googling "Hunter rudder failure" produces 4+ million hits, while the same for Hallberg-Rassy comes up with 68,000... (grin)

Some folks seem to get way too easily bent over this subject... If I thought there was something inherently wrong with "production boats", I wouldn't be sailing one myself, after all...

I simply see a lot of features in many of today's designs and trends not to like, is all... Sorry if I offend any sensibilities, in pointing such such shortcomings out... Just one man's opinion, of course...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> I have no problem in agreeing with you there. But you can only compare what is comparable. You can only compare a top cruising boat of the past with a top cruising boat of today. Compare it wit a XC 42 and you will have an equally seaworthy boat with a much better (bigger) interior and with a better sailing performance on all points of sail for about the same price. I guess that it was about that he was talking about


Agree completely... But, the bulk of what I've been posting in this thread, has been in response to the blanket assertion that "today's production boats are far better... than the stick built boats of the 80's"...

I LOVE the X-Yachts Cruising series boats, the XC-38 was one of my favorite boats at the Annapolis show this year... If I had a lot more money, and Barnegat Bay was a couple of feet deeper, an XC would be on my short list, for sure...


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Jon,

Then do not look up rudder failures on Jeanneau's. I know of at least one or two, Zanshin had a SS shaft issue in his previous jeanneau. Then again, like many production boats, he is on his 3rd or 4th one! Kinda like CD and catalina, and others for that matter.

At the end of the day with some of these issues, it is how the manufacture treats you. Look at all the C&C/tartan issues with the previous owner's and lack of support, yet a 15 yr warranty! Meanwhile, I see a few complaints at the Jeanneau owners forum, but overall, a few. Think some of the complaints are folks that like to make sure everyone knows about the issue, vs politely dealing with it, or letting the dealer/manufacture deal with it. I'm certainly not going to say which is better, my chebby pickumup, or spouses ML320 SUV, answer might surprise you! Both cost about the same too!

With that, I am very happy with my jeanneau. Many seem to notice I push these, as CD pushes Catalina. Both are good boats for the person they go after. I know of one 49iP that has been to OZ and back! That person OWNS the local Jeanneau dealer, Had his choice of Jeanneau, Tartan, C&C, X-yacht when he purchased his boat for this 2-3 yr cruise. Those are the manufactures whom they sold new at the time. X has not sold a new boat locally in probably 10 some odd yrs, and three dealers later! Jeanneau meanwhile sells 10-1 over Tartan and C&C, and has been doing on par or better with Hunter, since this dealer took over that brand too. 

Good well designed boats, that sail well, have decent interiors, good dealership/manufacture support will always sell well if priced appropriately for an ave person. 

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Lou452 said:


> I have been looking over this thread an I would like to ask What makes a boat a Non-production boat ? Is it a one off? Does X number of boats per year make it so ? Cars have been used as an example. Since I am from Ky and have been in and know about the corvette Factory. I know you can go to the corvette factory and (order) make the choice of what you want to have and watch them build your personal car start to finish and even help some with your car for a fee. This is a production car for sure. If you order your boat is it a non-production boat? Does a factory make a boat a production boat? The number of employees working on it?
> How would you know the employee laying the fiberglass and mixing the resin is so much less skilled then the Craftsman preforming the same duty in the plant? This is one point I saw in this post. The skill level of the worker building. I for one would want my boat built buy a worker paid a living wage. This might mean a boat from the EU or USA. Canada or other place I will not try to name every country I have left several great places out. My thought What makes production good or bad? Is it craftmanship the way the boat is built? Is it the plans and design? Learning from you all, Lou


Speaking very generally...

These debates typically define the major brands such as Beneteau, Jenneau, Hunter, and Catalina as "production boats" (along with O'Day, Irwin, etc.).

Top line boats such as Swan, H/R, Oyster, Tayana, Hinckley, Passport, etc. - are typically considered gold-standard "blue water boats" (with tastes varying this list).

Then you have the old-ass (relatively cheaper but heavy) boats like Albergs, Valiants, Pearsons, Bristols, PSCs, etc. that also make the "blue water" lists - but really aren't considered "production" in this debate.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> But, the bulk of what I've been posting in this thread, has been in response to the blanket assertion that "today's production boats are far better... than the stick built boats of the 80's"...


I think the main assertion in all this is, and always has been, this:

*Production boats can handle "blue water" just fine. You might have to deal with certain compromises and limitations (as with any boat) - but there's no reason you can't take them anywhere on the planet if you take care of them, be smart, and sail them well.*


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Lou452 said:


> I have been looking over this thread an I would like to ask What makes a boat a Non-production boat ? Is it a one off? Does X number of boats per year make it so ? Cars have been used as an example. Since I am from Ky and have been in and know about the corvette Factory. I know you can go to the corvette factory and (order) make the choice of what you want to have and watch them build your personal car start to finish and even help some with your car for a fee. This is a production car for sure. If you order your boat is it a non-production boat? Does a factory make a boat a production boat? The number of employees working on it?
> How would you know the employee laying the fiberglass and mixing the resin is so much less skilled then the Craftsman preforming the same duty in the plant? This is one point I saw in this post. The skill level of the worker building. I for one would want my boat built buy a worker paid a living wage. This might mean a boat from the EU or USA. Canada or other place I will not try to name every country I have left several great places out. My thought What makes production good or bad? Is it craftmanship the way the boat is built? Is it the plans and design? Learning from you all, Lou


Hi Lou,

Without pretending to teach nobody, normally you call all boats that are not unique (one off) and are made at the same shipyard, production boats. Normally even if some customization is allowed in small production, the hull molds, furniture molds and other stuff is used to make several boats.

We call mass production boats the ones that are made in big shipyards using robotics, advanced and very expensive machines and techniques that assure a very good control quality but are only possible (by their price) to be used on a large scale. This type of production effectively brings the prices of the boats down but does not allow customization (except options) and many times does not provide the same quality of finish of the boats made with more intensive man work and craftsmanship.

Regarding design many times small shipyards that only build very few boats of each model don't have the financial capacity to have the best NA designing their boats (even if they can get lucky and hire a young talent) and the best interior designers doing the interior. Regarding boat design it is not only being talented or not but having access to computer programs that cost more than a boat and to tank testing (also very expensive) tools that today are commonly used by big NA firms to design better and faster sailboats.

So, normally on the mass production boats you get the best designs, hull and interior but not always the best materials or finish. On small shipyards you get semi-custom boats with a very good finish and handcraft but not normally with the best designs. Most of the time on the small shipyards it is the owner that is also the designer. Sometimes they are very good in designing their boats, like in the case of Nordship, most of the time, just average even if the interior is almost always good. Of course the price of these are substantially more, sometimes almost the double.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> I think the main assertion in all this is, and always has been, this:
> 
> *Production boats can handle "blue water" just fine. You might have to deal with certain compromises and limitations (as with any boat) - but there's no reason you can't take them anywhere on the planet if you take care of them, be smart, and sail them well.*


Preface that quote with the word "Some" - aw, hell, I'll even grant you "Numerous" - and I would agree...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Agree completely... But, the bulk of what I've been posting in this thread, has been in response to the blanket assertion that "today's production boats are far better... than the stick built boats of the 80's"...
> 
> ....


And that is true if we take that as a generalization. Regarding production boats in the 80's the quality was a lot less homogeneous than today, in what regards control quality and in what regards design quality.

Today only American mass production builders insist in designing the boats in the house and having the owner a definitive way regarding how the boats should be designed.

In Europe all the mass production builders have the best NA and the best interior designers working for them and the owner just wants to provide what sailors want and not sell to them his idea of what a sailboat should be. This have put boat design on the hands of the best professional and the results are clear in what regards top quality.

That does not mean that there was not great boats made in the 80's or great designs just that the global quality of design and control quality was average when compared with today.

Another issue is that the market today is a lot more diversified than in the 80's and the choice of type of boats is much wider than what was before. Some boats, not to say many, even if they can sail pretty well, have prioritized interior spaces over sailing functionality and have higher freeboards or small deck passages than what should be convenient for a better sailing functionality. I have to say that on that Hunter 49 the space is really very small for a 49ft boat

There are also boats that are good overall sailboats with an adequate stability, easy to sail, with great storage space and a great interior at a price, that comparatively with the boats from the 80s is low. These boats sail better than the boats from the 80's have more interior space, more light and storage. Eventually upwind they can be a bit less comfortable but it is a small price to pay for an overall better performance.

When you deliver a Jeanneau 409 or a Hanse 415 I would like to have your opinion. The rigging is very simple and they are not made for the ones that like to trim perfectly the boat, they are made for the ones that buy point and shot cameras, but as with some of those, they can get very good results without knowing much of anything.

Not all modern cruisers, even if they look alike are the same. The main difference many times has to do with the ability to sail upwind with waves, that is something that most of the sailors don't do these days and the builders and designers know that

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

petmac said:


> Catalina 42 ? For that kind of money you could buy a used Bermuda 40. That's what I would do.


Really?

The OP is looking to cruise with his wife and *THREE* kids.

The Catalina 42 is a solid coastal cruiser with a HUGE interior volume and is available in two and three cabin models. It's designed for the type of cruising the OP described.

The Bermuda 40 was a solid *offshore* boat when built, but the interior accomodations are tighter than in my Catalina 30!

Not to mention the fact that most of the B40's on the market are from the 60's and 70's. To make that boat a viable, reliable family cruiser you're looking at a huge expense over the purchase price for a complete refit - think 1970's wiring standards for a start.

Hmm I can have a safe, comfortable, modern coastal cruiser with plenty of storage and room for the family to stretch out both above and below decks. Or for $100K more, after a lengthy refit I can have a 40 year old phone booth that will make everyone miserable and break down because after all it's still 40 years old.

Now which way should I go?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> And, as far as really getting "out there" in such a design, no way would such a boat be my choice... If you were to suffer a hard grounding in a remote region, hundreds of miles from the nearest Travelift, with a keel with such a narrow chord, you could be well and truly screwed...
> 
> Wonderful sailing and "performance" with such boats, unquestionably...


I know that we mostly agree and this is not to piss you quite the contrary. I want to show you, in what regards the kind of boats you mention above, the best the market has to offer in what regards 40ft production boats...and not that expensive, considering the material and quality. In the 80's there were also boats to fit this purpose even aluminium ones but the quality of the design of this one is light years ahead and the overall quality is also probably better.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

I have not looked at paulo's video, but somewhere on U-tube is Hunter's how they in water test boats. yes, one of the tests is running aground at hull speed! I believe there is a video of a European builder doing the same, DuFour?!?!?! also what would be a production boat builder in the same genere of J, B, H and C. 

Then there is also a story of a Jeanneau SO37 that was in charter, one person hit a rock, keel fell off unbeknown to the charterer. Another took the boat out for a week, then the 2nd person brought the boat back saying it was not sailing well, only THEN to find out the keel has fallen off 2 weeks/charter's before!

High volume production boats are bad?!?!?!? I Do not think they are "that" bad!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Jon,

I read John's (Morgan's Cloud) articles you linked above. And though they're pretty good, there's this...



> Our own Morgan's Cloud, designed by Jim McCurdy, has a tiny interior for her size and her fine ends make the lazarette and forward cabin cramped. But she can slug it out to windward for days on end, never pounding and rarely bringing green water on deck.
> 
> Yes, I know, ladies and gentlemen don't go to windward and nobody believes that more than I. But if you really go out there voyaging, sooner or later you won't get a choice; the wind will be forward of the beam, maybe for days on end. When that happens it is vital that you have a boat that doesn't make the experience any more uncomfortable than it has to be, or worse still, dangerous.


I'm sorry, but how exactly is enduring a "tiny, cramped interior and poor aft storage" for the entirety of my sailing life - just so I can _finally_ be happy when the weather _finally_ swings around on my nose for a day or two, and I can fly both the jib and yankee as I "slug it out to windward", only puking 3 times instead of 6, and going 1 knot faster than that production boat behind me - a good thing?

Nope, just not a convincing argument. I'd rather slow my production boat down a bit and eat some gnocchi as I stretch out in my ginormous modern cabin wondering why that dude in the old boat in front me is working so hard.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

smackdaddy said:


> Nope, just not a convincing argument. I'd rather slow my production boat down a bit and eat some gnocchi as I stretch out in my ginormous modern cabin wondering why that dude in the old boat in front me is working so hard.


Or heave to, throw some popcorn in the microwave and watch a DVD on the flatscreen 



smackdaddy said:


> sooner or later you won't get a choice; the wind will be forward of the beam, maybe for days on end.


How many of us typically sail for "days on end". In reality most destinations for most of us are day sails or overnighters.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

blt2ski said:


> I have not looked at paulo's video, but somewhere on U-tube is Hunter's how they in water test boats. yes, one of the tests is running aground at hull speed! I believe there is a video of a European builder doing the same, DuFour?!?!?! also what would be a production boat builder in the same genere of J, B, H and C.
> 
> Then there is also a story of a Jeanneau SO37 that was in charter, one person hit a rock, keel fell off unbeknown to the charterer. Another took the boat out for a week, then the 2nd person brought the boat back saying it was not sailing well, only THEN to find out the keel has fallen off 2 weeks/charter's before!
> 
> ...


Jesus Marty, look at the videos I post

I even post the ones you are talking about:laugher











Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Come on guys you are looking at the extremes here. I wouldnt call a Sabre, Caliber, IP or Tartan some old wooden boat. There is a reason they are still made too. They arent antiquated designs. They are not terribly slow boats. The workmanship, accompanyments, standard equipment quality such as winches, traveler are a cut above the average production boat. The interior wood is beautiful. It no more fair to denigrate or make fun of them than someone making fun of the Catalinas, Benetaus, and Hunters. They cost more yes. Just like a Lexus costs more than a Chevy. People who buy them dont feel they are wasting their money. Hey my friend with his newer Sabre 402 can pop his popcorn, watch his TV and is in a comfortable boat. They hold their value better than the production boats. Some like Paulo want that Hanse 415 a nice quick cruiser...moderately priced. Looks like good quality. I will go check it them out as I value his opinions on boats And guess what youll be eating that Sabres dust on your normal coastal cruising too. 

Every boat is a trade off and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No one should be made to feel less than in the boat they decide to buy. The object is to go sailing whether its in a production boat, or a specialty boat.

Dave


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Not all Americans that used to sail good traditional old American sailboats think like Jon, even if I think you guys are exaggerating in what regards what jon thinks about modern production boats.

Anyway Steve posted this on the interesting sailboat thread and I don't think he minds if I repost it here. It is a very interesting post, obviously from a very experienced sailor:



hannah2 said:


> Sorry had a post almost done when I received an email to do a weather routing through the convergence zone.
> 
> A bit of history. My wife and I are old Yankee New Englanders who have sailed from when we were small kids. Being yankee we are also very traditional when it comes to boats. That was until our last crossing of the Pacific starting in 2007 in our Mason 44. In the S. Pacific we started seeing these aluminum centerboard, mostly Ovni's and Garcias cutter rigs. On board were French cruisers with if I might say,"shat eating grins" on their face. They were coming back from Antartica , sailing to atolls we could only sail by because we had too much draft. But always in love with their boats. Those boats for their size were fast but comfortable, one can throw out all the old math for waterline and stability. Both my wife Tracy and I started to see something new, something to understand and research, something we N. Americans were not hearing much about.
> 
> ...


Boreal is a small French shipyard that makes production voyage boats with some space for customization. Allures and OVNI that are a much bigger shipyards are the main competition.

I know that according with the Smack definition this is not a production boat, but it is according to mine. It is just a type of boat more specialized than the all around basic cruiser that are proposed on the bigger mass production shipyards and therefore has a smaller demand.

Even mass production shipyards diversify its demand in what regards different types of cruising boats, some times having several lines like Benetau or Like Hanse and Bavaria owning several companies that produce boats for different market segments.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Jon,
> 
> I read John's (Morgan's Cloud) articles you linked above. And though they're pretty good, there's this...
> 
> ...


Did you read his article on the Hull form of the Adventure 40, as well? No reason the interior of such a boat MUST be cramped, or tiny, of course...

Funny, John just posted this to his site a few days ago, emphasis mine:



> "Fun Tax"
> 
> I got an email from yacht designer Ed Joy, about something else, to which he added the following:
> 
> ...


Oh, well... What would a guy like Ed Joy know about cruising boats, anyway?

Lyman-Morse 55 - Offshore Cruising State of the Art


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> I have not looked at paulo's video, but somewhere on U-tube is Hunter's how they in water test boats. yes, one of the tests is running aground at hull speed! I believe there is a video of a European builder doing the same, DuFour?!?!?! also what would be a production boat builder in the same genere of J, B, H and C.


My point, to which Paulo replied, was that I would not care to venture into a remote cruising destination with an underbody that featured a keel with as narrow a chord as a boat like the Hanse 415...










There's some pretty compelling reasons why you don't see (sensible) sailors taking boats with such high-aspect foils to places like, say, Labrador...

Perhaps foremost, is a phenomenon of Physics known as "Leverage"... It's the reason why I swapped out Brit Chance's very scary "Shark Fin" popular in the early 70's, for the much more moderate Beavertail I now have on my own boat...





















blt2ski said:


> Then there is also a story of a Jeanneau SO37 that was in charter, one person hit a rock, keel fell off unbeknown to the charterer. Another took the boat out for a week, then the 2nd person brought the boat back saying it was not sailing well, only THEN to find out the keel has fallen off 2 weeks/charter's before!
> 
> High volume production boats are bad?!?!?!? I Do not think they are "that" bad!
> 
> Marty


Yeah, I've heard that one before... Do you happen to have a cite for that story? I've always thought that one just might have gotten stretched somewhere along the line, just a bit... (grin)


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Paulo,
Thanks for the post on the Boreal 44. I did a quick Google search and it's a really interesting boat. Sail away would be about $460,000 US for a true custom go anywhere boat. A cost that's in-line with a lot of 44's, though out of my price range.

Cool boat.

Jim


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Did you read his article on the Hull form of the Adventure 40, as well? No reason the interior of such a boat MUST be cramped, or tiny, of course...
> 
> Funny, John just posted this to his site a few days ago, emphasis mine:
> 
> ...


Yeah, I read both articles. And, you're right, his Adventure 40 article was much more "progressive" in its premise.

To be sure, I have absolutely no grounds to say you, John, or EJ are "wrong" in any way. You guys are in a different universe than I am when it comes to sailing. I readily admit that.

_But, as a very interested, motivated sailor/consumer,_ I'm just saying that most of the arguments being made against newer boats are just not that convincing (even when they come from very knowledgeable dudes) - especially when put up against the type of sailing the vast majority of people will ever do...even in blue water.

It simply comes down to priorities. And I personally am not willing to sacrifice speed, space, and modern comfort during the ~95% of the time I'll sail in my lifetime, for the potential discomfort during the ~5% imposition of the "fun tax".


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> .....It simply comes down to priorities. And I personally am not willing to sacrifice speed, space, and modern comfort during the ~95% of the time I'll sail in my lifetime, for the potential discomfort during the ~5% imposition of the "fun tax".


This is exactly how one should buy a boat. Spec the one that you will actually use for its intended purpose 90% of the time. Way too often, people buy the boat they need only 5% of the time.

We wanted a big cockpit to entertain and have the kids around on our coastal cruising. Not ideal for a trip to Bermuda, but it won't stop us from going.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> My point, to which Paulo replied, was that I would not care to venture into a remote cruising destination with an underbody that featured a keel with as narrow a chord as a boat like the Hanse 415...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry but I don't understand your point. It has all to do with the way the keel is fixed to the hull and the way the forces are redistributed. There are several thousands of Hanses out there, some doing the Hobart, others circumnavigating and I never heard about a single one with a keel problem. Several thousands of boats and you will not find any reference to keel problems in the google. Even so you thing the keels are fragile?

Looking to Hanse keel and to your boat keel what I see is an older designed less efficient keel in your boat and a modern efficient keel in the Hanse.

I would take a new Hanse in the right season everywhere ans even in the wrong season it seems to me that the Hanse 415 would be certainly faster and probably more seaworthy than your boat, since it is a bigger boat with a considerably bigger area under the RM curve and a good AVS.



JonEisberg said:


> Quote:
> *"Fun Tax"
> 
> I got an email from yacht designer Ed Joy, about something else, to which he added the following:
> ...


After all it seems I was wrong and that you really believe old designed boats are better and more seaworthy than modern designed boats

So Ed Joy thinks that way, Yes he designed some beautiful boats, not many, mostly classic and of course everybody can have an opinion but the more successful NA, the ones that made major contributions to modern Yacht design would not agree and that's why they design modern boats, even bluewater boats the way they do. Not one but almost all of them (if not all major ones).

Regarding that story of old designed boats being better to bluewater cruising that don't make sense. Jimmy Cornel can explain you why. He circumnavigated several times in all kinds of boats and ended up having what you would consider an unsuitable boat with a pretty flat bottom and a beamy hull. He recommends that kind of sailboat to any blue-water cruiser (a beamy aluminum center-boarder).

Also some years ago the Shards had opted for a beamy modern boat to continue their wanderings and those two are sailing for many years on old designed sailingboats. They say wonders about the new boat. They liked so much that they have already changed it by a bigger one from the same brand.

Do you really think that all the top NA are wrong and you and Ed Joy right?

Of course nothing wrong in preferring to sail in a less efficient sailing boat, an older one, but that does not mean that new ones have not a better overall performance and that's why they are designed the way they are, even bluewater boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> My point, to which Paulo replied, was that I would not care to venture into a remote cruising destination with an underbody that featured a keel with as narrow a chord as a boat like the Hanse 415...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hard to argue with your point, but I think that's not necessarily addressing the question, or at least not the question as I understand it. Would you be concerned about cruising a modern "production boat" (whatever the heck that actually means) up and down the US east coast, Bermuda, Bahamas, Med, to/from El Carib, French Polynesia, just to name some of the more well-travelled cruising grounds?

I'm asking because I think I actually agree with your view, but I think everyone on this thread might be separated by a common language, so I think a straight-up answer to the above probably gets a lot of people going, "Oh! Yeah, I agree with that. I thought he was saying that he would never cruise in a production boat." On the other hand, I could be wrong and your answer might continue to drive the conversation.

I do agree completely, by the way, that if I'm doing Antarctica, or even rounding the Horn, I'm not doing it in my Beneteau. I'm doing it in something far more substantial with a different design. Likewise, as I said before, there's no getting around the fact that nicer boats are in fact nicer (that's why they're nicer). Just can't compare the fit and finish of an HR with a Beneteau. Absurd, in my opinion, even to argue otherwise.

Jon, by the way, what kind of boat are you picturing? Feel like I should know, but can't place it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Did you read his article on the Hull form of the Adventure 40, as well? No reason the interior of such a boat MUST be cramped, or tiny, of course...
> 
> Funny, John just posted this to his site a few days ago, emphasis mine:
> 
> ...


Interesting as rthe Mason 43/44 and the Saga 43 are on my wife and my short list. We have put two bids on two different masons, but the owners just thought they were to good to come down in price.

I just PM Hannah for feedback on the Mason


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Jon, I see you 'got rid' of that skinny skeg as well... I presume that was a big improvement too?


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> This is exactly how one should buy a boat. Spec the one that you will actually use for its intended purpose 90% of the time. Way too often, people buy the boat they need only 5% of the time.


Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## hannah2 (Nov 15, 2012)

Chef, I just PM you.

Mason owners don't come down in price but I am seeing some reduction over the last 3 years. 

We sold ours in NZ in a down economy for more than we paid for it, put into it and sailed it for 2 years across the pacific. A couple from Europe flew in and loved it offered me a price that made sense to me. Most likely lucky but a lot of sailors wanted it.

They hold a good value because they are a very well made boat and they are beautiful to look at. I miss that look but we are moving on to something much more important to us. A modern centerboard boat that really sails. Just think of the anchorages in the Bahamas that few can get to.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Been following this thread now for days and have greatly benefited from the "wisdom" of our senior members. Explored many of the boats mentioned especially the Boreal 44/6. Their cds and our corespondance furthered my interest. However bringing the rode to the mast base, worrying about electrolysis and having a "european galley" not so much. Rather have a good gyradius by having all the tankage in the center of the boat. Ended up with an Outbound as I think Carl was ahead of his time. The basic design for the 46 is now ~13y.o. but every one shows evolutionary changes with significant advancements from the one before. This is a feature I think one sees more commonly in small run "production boats" be they from scandinavia,France,Netherlands, China, US, New Zealand or south africa. The basic tooling and the molds are fixed but it seems more problematic for the large manufacturers to make major changes to the infill and vendors of components. Think my new "house" will be safe,weatherly and fast with a excellent comfort motion. With a hard dodger and bimini comfortable in all climes improved. As you spend more time below than above and as little time as possible at the wheel the modern comforts and beauty of the internal structure are important. As with everything you get what you pay for and when dealing with the variables of mother nature moderation may have it's virtues.
My impression that the Atkins derivatives ( valiants/PSCs etc.) or other "slack bilge" designs still may make more sense below ~40' for a voyaging boat but above that modern hull design shines?comments. Still nervous about the hull lights/ports seen in recent designs. ?Anyone one have problems with those or the large runs of glass on the houses. ? Wonder what our senior members think is the "ideal size " for a boat. Once heard it said that due to the physics of our oceans and weather 40-50' allows for the best compromises in design.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

hannah2 said:


> ...
> Mason owners don't come down in price but I am seeing some reduction over the last 3 years.
> 
> We sold ours in NZ in a down economy for more than we paid for it, put into it and sailed it for 2 years across the pacific. A couple from Europe flew in and loved it offered me a price that made sense to me. Most likely lucky but a lot of sailors wanted it.
> ...


Well, after this year's season I guess you will know enough to make a full comparison in what regards sailing. It is booked then, I mean that comparison.

I guess we are all very interested and this is the right thread to do it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> _But, as a very interested, motivated sailor/consumer,_ I'm just saying that most of the arguments being made against newer boats are just not that convincing (even when they come from very knowledgeable dudes) - especially when put up against the type of sailing the vast majority of people will ever do...even in blue water.
> 
> It simply comes down to priorities. And I personally am not willing to sacrifice speed, space, and modern comfort during the ~95% of the time I'll sail in my lifetime, for the potential discomfort during the ~5% imposition of the "fun tax".


Well, I can't help but notice the irony of the guy who's all about _"Big Freakin' Sails"_ is the same one most determined to ignore the perspectives offered by those who have actually _DONE_ some truly Big Freakin' Sailing... (grin)

OK, here's another to dismiss... John Neal, with 300,000+ miles in the South Pacific, Caribbean, Patagonia, Antarctica, Atlantic, Scandinavia and the Arctic, has likely seen his fair share of Big Freakin' Sailing...



> Windward sailing performance is nearly as important as passage-making speed. On the other extreme, a very modern, light displacement boat with a flat entry may tend to pound when sailing to windward and may lack directional stability when sailing downwind with large following seas. The ability to sail off a lee shore in an emergency is dependent on windward performance.
> 
> Mahina Expedition - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I can't help but notice the irony of the guy who's all about _"Big Freakin' Sails"_ is the same one most determined to ignore the perspectives offered by those who have actually _DONE_ some truly Big Freakin' Sailing... (grin)
> 
> OK, here's another to dismiss... John Neal, with 300,000+ miles in the South Pacific, Caribbean, Patagonia, Antarctica, Atlantic, Scandinavia and the Arctic, has likely seen his fair share of Big Freakin' Sailing...


I'm not ignoring those perspectives at all. I'm just balancing them with the body of _other_ sailors that have _also_ done their share of serious BFS'n, yet prefer the more modern designs...as well as the general industry itself which has moved away from the deep/long/heavy design paradigm.

As PCP says above, today's NAs can't _all_ be stupid.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Quote:

Windward sailing performance is nearly as important as passage-making speed. On the other extreme, a very modern, light displacement boat with a flat entry may tend to pound when sailing to windward and may lack directional stability when sailing downwind with large following seas. The ability to sail off a lee shore in an emergency is dependent on windward performance.

Mahina Expedition - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising*

*Windward sailing performance is nearly as important as passage making speed* - I agree and I agree also that some modern boats have a problem here, not in normal conditions but with bad weather and waves. Even regarding mass production boats there is big differences. For instance an Oceanis 41 may have a problem with that, the Hanse 415, the Jeanneau 409 or any of the performance cruisers will not.

*On the other extreme, a very modern, light displacement boat with a flat entry may tend to pound when sailing to windward * - Yes, it will pound more than a boat with more rocker upwind in waves. Mass production cruisers more than performance cruisers that have finer entries.

*light displacement boat with a flat entry ... and may lack directional stability when sailing downwind with large following seas.* - - Assuming the boat is well designed and modern mass production boats are, this is a complete nonsense. Quite the contrary modern mass production beamy boats with all beam brought back are designed that way precisely to *be more stable* sailing downwind. The influence and knowledge comes from the open boats that are designed to sail downwind over 20K on autopilot.

*The ability to sail off a lee shore in an emergency is dependent on windward performance.* - That's obvious isn't it?

.....


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Sorry but I don't understand your point. It has all to do with the way the keel is fixed to the hull and the way the forces are redistributed. There are several thousands of Hanses out there, some doing the Hobart, others circumnavigating and I never heard about a single one with a keel problem. Several thousands of boats and you will not find any reference to keel problems in the google. Even so you thing the keels are fragile?


Sorry, I guess you missed my point...

I was simply saying that if I were ever to suffer a hard grounding in a remote location, I would much prefer to do so on a boat with a longer, more moderate keel, than one similar to that seen on the Hanse...

Simple physics, damage at the hull-to-keel joint is much less likely to be catastrophic, if the forces of impact are spread out across a longer hull section, than if confined to as narrow a chord length as the keel on that Hanse... I can't imagine any experienced high-latitude voyager, such as John Harries, endorsing such an underbody for that type of sailing... the late Ned Cabot was the rare exception, cruising the Arctic in his J-46, which is still a fairly moderate design compared to a boat like today's Hanse 415...



PCP said:


> Regarding that story of old designed boats being better to bluewater cruising that don't make sense. Jimmy Cornel can explain you why. He circumnavigated several times in all kinds of boats and ended up having what you would consider an unsuitable boat with a pretty flat bottom and a beamy hull. He recommends that kind of sailboat to any blue-water cruiser (a beamy aluminum center-boarder).
> 
> Also some years ago the Shards had opted for a beamy modern boat to continue their wanderings and those two are sailing for many years on old designed sailingboats. They say wonders about the new boat. They liked so much that they have already changed it by a bigger one from the same brand.
> 
> ...


I'm quite familiar with the Alubats and Southerly's, thanks... I helped bring an Ovni north about 10 years ago, it was a wonderful boat that would suit me quite nicely... My only real complaint, when that aluminum hull started pounding a bit, that was probably the noisiest boat I've ever sailed on...

I've always been a big fan of the old "whale-bottom" keel-centerboarders of Ted Hood's - some of the sweetest-sailing, most seakindly boats I've ever sailed...

And, I love the centerboard designs of Craig Walters, it's a pity more of them weren't built... The Clearwater 36 from Holby Marine, and the Seguin 40 from Lyman-Morse, both definitely on my short list of Dream Boats, I love that concept...

Evans Starzinger, however, is not entirely convinced re boats like the Alubat... He says that he's never encountered one in the Southern Ocean/high latitudes, that hasn't had their spreaders in the water more than once... (grin)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - so this thread seems to be drifting a bit toward the "Interesting Sailboats" thesis (which is obviously awesome due to the number of views it's had)...

SO, let me try to put a finer point on where we are...

Jon, if I look at your citations, I see a lot of _very_ experienced sailors preferring and extolling the heavier/deeper/longer design paradigm.

BUT (and this is one big-ass but) - the justification for those preferences hinge on sailing in places like the Southern Ocean, Labrador, Antarctica, and the Capes...and/or through very serious storms.

Now you and these guys ACTUALLY DO sail in places like that and in conditions like that. So these perspectives *are definitely hard-won and valid*.

THAT SAID, *what the hell does that have to do with typical cruising?* And why would I buy a boat that is specifically suited for Labrador or Cape Horn when I have absolutely no desire to take my boat to those places?

_*THIS is the issue at the crux of the "blue water" debate.*_

If "blue water" means, at the outside, the Coconut Run - this entire debate becomes silly. What modern production boat CAN'T handle the Coconut Run? Seriously.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

outbound said:


> Been following this thread now for days and have greatly benefited from the "wisdom" of our senior members. Explored many of the boats mentioned especially the Boreal 44/6. Their cds and our corespondance furthered my interest. However bringing the rode to the mast base, worrying about electrolysis and having a "european galley" not so much. Rather have a good gyradius by having all the tankage in the center of the boat. Ended up with an Outbound as I think Carl was ahead of his time. The basic design for the 46 is now ~13y.o. but every one shows evolutionary changes with significant advancements from the one before. This is a feature I think one sees more commonly in small run "production boats" be they from scandinavia,France,Netherlands, China, US, New Zealand or south africa. The basic tooling and the molds are fixed but it seems more problematic for the large manufacturers to make major changes to the infill and vendors of components. Think my new "house" will be safe,weatherly and fast with a excellent comfort motion. With a hard dodger and bimini comfortable in all climes improved. As you spend more time below than above and as little time as possible at the wheel the modern comforts and beauty of the internal structure are important. As with everything you get what you pay for and when dealing with the variables of mother nature moderation may have it's virtues.
> My impression that the Atkins derivatives ( valiants/PSCs etc.) or other "slack bilge" designs still may make more sense below ~40' for a voyaging boat but above that modern hull design shines?comments. Still nervous about the hull lights/ports seen in recent designs. ?Anyone one have problems with those or the large runs of glass on the houses. ? Wonder what our senior members think is the "ideal size " for a boat. Once heard it said that due to the physics of our oceans and weather 40-50' allows for the best compromises in design.


You've made a great choice, IMO... I love the Outbound, that's just too much boat for me (financially, of course, but size-wise, as well...)

An Outbound scaled-down to about 40 feet, however - for me, that would represent absolute perfection... As to your question re size, 38-40 is my ideal, but that's just me... I'd never want to own anything more than about 44', most anything I deliver bigger than that scares me... I suspect they scare many of their owners as well, that's why I get the call (grin)

good luck with her, what a beautiful boat...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

thank you. Jon


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

Jon, from your posts, I get the sense that sailing is something to be endured, and not enjoyed. Do you see it as a challenge to be conquered or a way to relax?


----------



## hannah2 (Nov 15, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so this thread seems to be drifting a bit toward the "Interesting Sailboats" thesis (which is obviously awesome due to the number of views it's had)...
> 
> SO, let me try to put a finer point on where we are...
> 
> ...


Your right Smackdaddy, even production boats do the milk run. But remember **** happens on the milk run too. Our last trip from Bora Bora to Samoa, I think it was 2 Tayanna 52's and one Linn and Larry style boat got knocked down. They all survived and they all had good stability numbers so what does that mean? But if your going to have the chance of a good knock down or some better than worse weather then choose your production boat carefully. Some hold up better than others and I hope new cruisers and old alike take that into consideration before buying and setting sail. But your right they all can make it.

What are your concerns with the production boats you are interested in? If you are a sailor I'm sure you have had a few sleepless nights thinking about all that can go wrong with your boat.

I think when buying any boat one should only look at the down side first then if your convinced you can live with the bad then the nice things about the boat shine.

Cheers


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

danielgoldberg said:


> Hard to argue with your point, but I think that's not necessarily addressing the question, or at least not the question as I understand it. *Would you be concerned about cruising a modern "production boat" (whatever the heck that actually means) up and down the US east coast, Bermuda, Bahamas, Med, to/from El Carib, French Polynesia, just to name some of the more well-travelled cruising grounds? *


In general terms, of course not...

However, there are many examples of the generic "modern production boat" on which I would not do so... Primarily for reasons of things like deck and cockpit ergonomics, which I refer to often, the sort of stuff that is typically of designing boats from the inside-out, or for charter service, as so many production boats are today...

One thing really bothers me about "today's production boats" when being considered for such duty, however... Namely, the difficulty in finding out the LPS for a particular model, from a particular manufacturer... If, indeed, all these production boats are good to go for a Milk Run Circumnavigation, why aren't those stability numbers part of their marketing? Can anyone tell me what the LPS of a Hunter 50, for example, is? One would think if all these production boats had impressive Limits of Positive Stability, it would show up SOMEWHERE in their marketing, no? Why do such numbers appear to be held in comparative secrecy by most production builders today? Wouldn't by any chance be because many of them might be, at best, _MARGINAL_, no?

But, in general, I still tend to favor the older iterations of most production boats... The older Frers-designed Beneteau First 38 & 42, for example, I'd take one of those anywhere I'd ever care to sail, just a wonderful boat...

I'll admit, probably due to the fact I do so much singlehanded sailing, I'm rather obsessive about safe decks, and minimizing the likelihood of falling off the boat... Probably my single biggest gripe about many of today's boats, I find the decks on so many them to be appallingly bad...



danielgoldberg said:


> Jon, by the way, what kind of boat are you picturing? Feel like I should know, but can't place it.


Pretty rare boat, it's an old Chance 30-30, built by Allied in 1970... Brit Chance design, mine is Hull #1 originally launched as BOOMERANG, which compiled an impressive racing record in her day, on LIS and the Southern New England circuit... I've added a lot of weight, probably raised the waterline about 5 inches... (grin)



Faster said:


> Jon, I see you 'got rid' of that skinny skeg as well... I presume that was a big improvement too?


As I'm sure you know, Brit Chance was known for doing some strange things to the rear ends of boats... (grin)

Yeah, that original skeg was a joke... More of a hydrodynamic element than anything else, it certainly didn't offer much in the way of structural support...

The original rudderpost was only1 1/4 bronze, which I thought was a bit under what it should have been. So, I rebuilt the rudder as well, using a length of 1 5/8 Nitronic 50 rod that had been clipped off of a 170' Perini Navi... That rudder is now about as bulletproof as it will ever be, I would guess...

I converted it to a more balanced spade, built the leading edge out about 15% of the chord length forward of the post... that resulted in a HUGE improvement, it's very nicely balanced, now...

I should mention I received SUPERB advice from our moderator Jeff H throughout my keel and rudder project... Anyone who knows Jeff appreciates how generous he can be with his knowledge, and support... I'll never be able to repay him for the help he gave me, and he was absolutely spot on in every dimension, etc, that he suggested... The guy knows his stuff, BIGTIME...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hannah2 said:


> What are your concerns with the production boats you are interested in? If you are a sailor I'm sure you have had a few sleepless nights thinking about all that can go wrong with your boat.


Han,

I guess I'm wired a bit differently. I don't think about my next boat _primarily_ based on what can go wrong.

For example, if I take your scenario listed above, not even the Tayana 52 or the L&LP-style is enough of a boat to handle those conditions. So should I go still heavier, older, longer to make sure I can be "comfortable" in such conditions?

Again, I base my decision on what I will be doing out there 90+% of the time.

Is it possible that I'll get caught and knocked down? Sure. But will I _definitely die_ in a production boat whereas the Tayana just gets a knockdown? I seriously doubt it...based on many stories I've read of production boats in such conditions.

Now, again, you've done the run between Bora Bora and Samoa. I haven't. I'm still just under 1,000 miles in off-shore runs. But I've read many, many accounts of sailors with varying degrees of experience that have done so on pretty low-level production boats and have done just fine. So what does that tell me?

Someone show me the stats where production boats are regularly failing and sinking in serious conditions and I'll believe.

If you can't do that - then there's something else at play in the examples typically offered up such as the Rule 62 tragedy, etc. It ain't the boat.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Jon,

HERE you go on the SO37 that lost a keel. I believe there was also an article in the UK Yachting rag too.

marty


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Paulo,

Up late this morning, did not have time to look at that video you posted this morning, and thank you for linking the Hunter and DuFour test grounding video's. 

Now will see how much time I have to play on the puter a it is after work, about 5pm drink time or some such thing!

Marty


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, I guess you missed my point...
> 
> I was simply saying that if I were ever to suffer a hard grounding in a remote location, I would much prefer to do so on a boat with a longer, more moderate keel, than one similar to that seen on the Hanse...
> 
> Simple physics, damage at the hull-to-keel joint is much less likely to be catastrophic, if the forces of impact are spread out across a longer hull section, than if confined to as narrow a chord length as the keel on that Hanse... I can't imagine any experienced high-latitude voyager, such as John Harries, endorsing such an underbody for that type of sailing... the late Ned Cabot was the rare exception, cruising the Arctic in his J-46, which is still a fairly moderate design compared to a boat like today's Hanse 415...


What I meant is that the Arctic or Antarctic are not shallow places and you can very well manage your draft. You just need to be careful. On those latitudes what you need is not a different keel but a steel or Aluminum boat.

Regarding resistance I have seen recently a very light performance cruiser with this type of keel(Sydney) to be pounded and through over rocks and the keel remained on one piece, or a Mini racer thrown to a beach and then pulled back to the sea by a fishing boat with no problems to the keel. I guess that you have little confidence in modern materials and building techniques even if they obviously provide strong solutions.



JonEisberg said:


> I'm quite familiar with the Alubats and Southerly's, thanks... I helped bring an Ovni north about 10 years ago, it was a wonderful boat that would suit me quite nicely... My only real complaint, when that aluminum hull started pounding a bit, that was probably the noisiest boat I've ever sailed on...
> ...
> Evans Starzinger, however, is not entirely convinced re boats like the Alubat... He says that he's never encountered one in the Southern Ocean/high latitudes, that hasn't had their spreaders in the water more than once... (grin)


Well, than you should know that the Southerly is a very different boat compared with the OVNI, heavier and with an overall stability that is better than most fin or full keel boats. On the Southerlies the centerboards are nor really centerboards but ballasted swing keels. They have ballast on the keel and on the bilges.

Regarding the OVNI, the Boreal and the Allures are much more stiff boats with an AVS similar to most fin keel cruisers. They have a very good dynamic stability in nasty weather with the centerboard up ( not tripping on the keel) and at the same time have a comparable static stability with most fin keel keelers.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## hannah2 (Nov 15, 2012)

Smackdaddy,

It is not about dying in a knock down but what can happen to some production boats that might not happen to others. Most boats can survive the knock down but remember we are out sailing to enjoy life. And with that in mind there is nothing worse than a boat not designed to take a knock down. The owner has to live with the aftermath of a knock down.

Will all your lockers open flying perfectly good stuff into crap. Does your wife like doing stitches on your forehead because the locker locks were not made to a very good standard. 

Will the boom hold up on a knock down when the reefed main fills with water and the boat rights itself. Does that production boat have as good a goose neck as the other production boat. 

How about the companion way is it made as well as some other production boats, will the boards be pushed through on a knock down, does it even have storm boards? 

How did the port lights do in the knock down? I'm sure they must be OK.

Those engine mounts, fuel tanks are they good enough to survive or are they there to ruin your beautiful cruise if by chance you get knocked down. 

Like a lot of fine sailors here have said the deck is everything, does this deck compare to the deck of another production boat? I don't know if you have ever gone forward even on a boat with good deck in a storm, especially at night. Just plain scary but sometimes it has to be done. I would not wish that on anyone even my best enemy on some production boats mentioned.

Sometimes we worry on forums about boats and death, we are human. But when I'm at sea I want to have already worried what could go wrong with the boat I own and know I did the best I could in choosing some type preventative selection. Not just because this type of boat has crossed oceans countless times. 

You do not have to choose a bigger boat, you just need to understand what you could be getting into. Look for the bad stuff first and honestly see what you can live with. The nice stuff about a production boat is always there for the many days we enjoy sailing. But it takes only one bad day to ruin a lot of good days that lay ahead.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> ... Ended up with an Outbound as I think Carl was ahead of his time. ..


Yes, I agree. The design of the hull is advanced for its time and the overall shape is still quite modern:










Only on the keel and ruder design we can notice some differences to what is done today.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Ninefingers said:


> Jon, from your posts, I get the sense that sailing is something to be endured, and not enjoyed. Do you see it as a challenge to be conquered or a way to relax?


LOL! Well, certainly some deliveries turn out to be "endured", but once I'm on my own boat, the intent is purely for pleasure. I can assure you...

No question, I can enjoy the challenge, and often find it a bit difficult to completely escape from the "delivery mode"... I favor going places, than sitting in any one for very long, so I tend to keep moving at a pretty good clip, that's part of the enjoyment for me, no question...

However, my reason for sailing is, ultimately, for relaxation... In case you haven't noticed, one of the few things that consistently get me bent out of shape, is seeing so many other sailors out there not "relaxing" as I am, but rather motoring through ideal sailing conditions... (grin)

It's a big part of my arguing in favor of more seakindly boats, after all... Day after day offshore in boats more towards the performance end of the spectrum can often be very tiring and uncomfortable, I'll gladly accept a bit of a tradeoff for a ride more relaxing...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Jon,
> 
> HERE you go on the SO37 that lost a keel. I believe there was also an article in the UK Yachting rag too.
> 
> marty


thanks, Marty... Amazing story...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> ...
> Jon, if I look at your citations, I see a lot of _very_ experienced sailors preferring and extolling the heavier/deeper/longer design paradigm.
> 
> BUT (and this is one big-ass but) - the justification for those preferences hinge on sailing in places like the Southern Ocean, Labrador, Antarctica, and the Capes...and/or through very serious storms.
> ...


And that is not even true. An Allures 45 weights 11 800kg and has 4.43m of beam. A Boreal 44 has 4.30m of beam and weights only 10290kg. This is pretty light for a 44/45ft boat and pretty beamy too. However those are just the boats that today are designed to extreme voyaging. Take a look at this one:










Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

hannah2 said:


> Your right Smackdaddy, even production boats do the milk run. ... But if your going to have the chance of a good knock down or some better than worse weather then choose your production boat carefully. Some hold up better than others and I hope new cruisers and old alike take that into consideration before buying and setting sail. But your right they all can make it.....
> 
> Cheers


I fully agree. Many seem similar and are quite different, not on the interior or sailing in good weather, but going in nasty weather against the wind or when knocked down. If you have some practice you can just access it by the beam, type of hull, type of keel, draft and B/D ratio but a look at the stability curve is a much easier way.

Cheers

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hannah2 said:


> Smackdaddy,
> 
> It is not about dying in a knock down but what can happen to some production boats that might not happen to others. Most boats can survive the knock down but remember we are out sailing to enjoy life. And with that in mind there is nothing worse than a boat not designed to take a knock down. The owner has to live with the aftermath of a knock down.
> 
> ...


I don't know how you feel about the Najad 38 - but here's what it looks like after a knockdown off Cape Horn:



















That's Jeanne Socrates' boat (http://synereida.livejournal.com/113101.html). Definitely not a "production boat" in the context of this thread.

Real knockdowns are rough on any boat apparently.



hannah2 said:


> Like a lot of fine sailors here have said the deck is everything, does this deck compare to the deck of another production boat? I don't know if you have ever gone forward even on a boat with good deck in a storm, especially at night. Just plain scary but sometimes it has to be done. I would not wish that on anyone even my best enemy on some production boats mentioned.


Yeah, I've worked the foredeck in the past few off-shore races I've been on...in fairly stinky weather...at night. I get it.



hannah2 said:


> Sometimes we worry on forums about boats and death, we are human. But when I'm at sea I want to have already worried what could go wrong with the boat I own and know I did the best I could in choosing some type preventative selection. Not just because this type of boat has crossed oceans countless times.
> 
> You do not have to choose a bigger boat, you just need to understand what you could be getting into. Look for the bad stuff first and honestly see what you can live with. The nice stuff about a production boat is always there for the many days we enjoy sailing. But it takes only one bad day to ruin a lot of good days that lay ahead.


This part I totally agree with.


----------



## BCC1 (Dec 18, 2011)

I have a 2012 Beneteau 41.

Really big cockpit, comfortable layout below, super easy to maneuver around the dock and a delight to sail on the Chesapeake. Easy. Fast. Friendly. Exactly suited to the kind of sailing we really do.

Is it a floating condo? No. Though we do weekend on it, comfortably.

Would I go round the world? No.

Does it sail well? Yep, Both light air and strong winds. Fast too.

We sail most every weekend, beginning of April to the end of November.

I also owned a 2002 Catalina and 2004 Beneteau. The '12 is much, much better from a design and quality perspective, for the kind of sailing we do. The recession must have made builders up their game.

We love it. Could afford it, too.

Wouldn't turn down a Swan, though.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so this thread seems to be drifting a bit toward the "Interesting Sailboats" thesis (which is obviously awesome due to the number of views it's had)...
> 
> SO, let me try to put a finer point on where we are...
> 
> ...


Where you get the idea that the perspectives of people like Harries and Neal apply only to voyaging to places like Labrador, or Cape Horn, is completely beyond me... What they are arguing, is essentially very much in line with the views presented in the book I've recommended over, and over, here...










I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of sailing to weather a "typical cruiser" is likely to encounter on a trip from the East coast to the Eastern Caribbean, for example... A weatherly boat is a desirable attribute for anyone intending to go places, even those well short of the high latitudes... A boat that will heave-to with little fuss is a desirable attribute in an offshore boat, the crews of those abandoned last fall between Newport and Bermuda may have a greater appreciation of that fact, now... And, finally, it is not so much a matter or what a particular BOAT may or may not take, but rather which sort of boats will best take care of their CREW?

That is the ultimate question, IMHO, and the most important argument in favor of the importance of Seakindliness in a boat that's going to be sailed offshore...


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> If you can't do that - then there's something else at play in the examples typically offered up such as the Rule 62 tragedy, etc. It ain't the boat.


Maybe this is the difference:
Boat hit hard, No unusual leaks but 30k in damage,
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/93285-grid-system-repair.html

Maybe the boats survive a bad go but are pretty much totaled after the fact.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Man, you're slippery! Okay, let's take this one at a time...



JonEisberg said:


> Where you get the idea that the perspectives of people like Harries and Neal *apply only to voyaging to places *like Labrador, or Cape Horn, is completely beyond me... What they are arguing, is essentially very much in line with the views presented in the book I've recommended over, and over, here...


I've not said that your or these guys' perspectives apply ONLY to anything. I said that when arguments are made against modern production boats - the examples (including yours above) tend to be about Labrador, or "slugging it out for days to windward" (John's), or the Southern Ocean, high lats, etc. Back to your point above about the guys that have really DONE BFSing. That's where these types of older/heavier boats really come into their own - in those places, in those conditions. No question.

My point is that if you're not planning on sailing those places (i.e. - "extreme voyaging"), the odds of encountering conditions inherent to those places drop pretty considerably, therefore changing the equation when considering the type of boat one will buy for the conditions one will likely encounter.

I mean, have you seen the pic in PCP's post above? Do you honestly think I have ANY desire to go hang out in that god-forsaken deep-freeze? Ahhhhh - no. No sand, no babes, no booze. And since that's the case, I have no desire to buy and sail an ice-crusher (unless it's for drinks) just because it can do what's in that pic...giving me the comfort of knowing that if I hit any icebergs in the BVIs, I'm golden.



JonEisberg said:


> I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of sailing to weather a "typical cruiser" is likely to encounter on a trip from the East coast to the Eastern Caribbean, for example... A weatherly boat is a desirable attribute for anyone intending to go places, even those well short of the high latitudes...


Which production boats cannot sail to weather? I think most all of them can do so pretty well.

Again, for your point to be valid here, the weatherly conditions must be severe enough that the newer production boat is going to seriously pound...and the boat has to be driven hard enough to make that happen.

Again, these extreme examples just don't hold water in this debate - as extreme conditions are pretty rare in typical cruising if one is prudent (at least according to Hal Roth).



JonEisberg said:


> A boat that will heave-to with little fuss is a desirable attribute in an offshore boat, the crews of those abandoned last fall between Newport and Bermuda may have a greater appreciation of that fact, now...


Generally, I totally agree with this statement. As to whether production boats can or cannot heave-to (compared to the old heavies), I don't have enough experience on enough boats to know. I can say that thus far I've hove-to (at the helm) on a Pacific Seacraft 37 Cutter, a Pearson 365 Ketch, a Beneteau 380, a Hunter 30, and a Catalina 27. Every one of them were stable in moderate conditions.

I'm a big fan of heaving to...and fully agree with you that it's a tactic that is invaluable and probably underutilized.



JonEisberg said:


> And, finally, it is not so much a matter or what a particular BOAT may or may not take, but rather which sort of boats will best take care of their CREW?
> 
> That is the ultimate question, IMHO, and the most important argument in favor of the importance of Seakindliness in a boat that's going to be sailed offshore...


No argument at all from me on this. It is the ultimate question for sure. I'm simply saying that I've not seen enough evidence that production boats are not taking care of their crew. I know of at least one Hunter 49 that did a stellar job of that.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> I don't know how you feel about the Najad 38 - but here's what it looks like after a knockdown off Cape Horn:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The English is very poor in what regards the word knock down. It can be a 90º knock down or a 120º knock down and sometimes is also used referring a boat rolled or almost rolled.

Those three circumstances are very different for the "health" of the boat.

On a knock down at 90º a modern boat would have normally no problems. I had been knock down violently on a Bavaria 36 with winds out of the chart and got away with only a ripped sail and a shredded banner. In most cases the boat has not any problem and there is no damage. Most of the knock downs I have heard about are from this type.

On a knock down that almost roll the boat and puts a large part of the mast inside the water the chances are that the mast will not survive. On a roll the mast breaks almost every time.

Having a boat able to recover quickly from a 90º knock down is very important because if the boat is still on its side the next wave will roll it. Many times is that what happens. The boat is knocked at 90º by the first wave and rolled by the second.

In what regards this situation integral center-boarders have an advantage because having no keel they are pushed by the wave and dissipate the wave energy in kinetic movement. Normal sailboats will also be able to dissipate some energy in kinetic movement (other than a rolling one) but the keel has always a tripping effect, more or less according with the immersed area. Heavier boats have more difficulty in being moved laterally by the wave (more inertia), lighter boats can do that more easily.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

davidpm said:


> Maybe this is the difference:
> Boat hit hard, No unusual leaks but 30k in damage,
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/93285-grid-system-repair.html
> 
> Maybe the boats survive a bad go but are pretty much totaled after the fact.


Now THIS is actually a great point DPM. It would be great to see damage data for production and traditional bluewater boats that have come through similar conditions.

It might well be the case that the lighter built production boats are damaged past the point of repair more quickly/easily than the trads. I could see that as a possibility.

Any studies out there?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

And here's an Allied Seawind Ketch after a knockdown (definitely not a production boat):




























http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ted/47351-big-freakin-sails-9.html#post415364

(Killer BFS story BTW)


----------



## hannah2 (Nov 15, 2012)

That's BS. The guy just lived that way.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of sailing to weather a "typical cruiser" is likely to encounter on a trip from the East coast to the Eastern Caribbean, for example... A weatherly boat is a desirable attribute for anyone intending to go places, even those well short of the high latitudes...
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry... Wrong, wrong, and wrong... (grin)

I delivered the Trintella 50 pictured below for years, and have more miles offshore on her, than any other single boat... 4 years ago, we ran her from Annapolis to the BVIs, in December... Incredibly powerful Ron Holland design, raced in the Fastnet, a couple of Bermuda Races, the Pineapple Cup... Chosen by Cruising World as the year's "Best Full Size Cruiser", a total state of the art modern cruising machine, incredibly powered-up (almost an 80' stick on a 50-footer)... A build quality right up there with the best, and if you had to pound to weather for a week, this was the sort of boat you'd want to do it on... (Although, you'd wish the Miele cappucino machine had been gimballed)










That's pretty much what we had, basically ran into tradewind conditions about 800 miles out of Tortola... We were hard on the wind the entire way, barely managed to fetch our destination... It was a BRUTAL trip, the boat on its ear for 6 days. A lesser boat, without tacking, would have wound up in Puerto rico, perhaps even the DR... I can't imagine making that same trip in any number of "ordinary" production boats - especially the one I just delivered down the coast a couple of weeks ago. The level of discomfort would have been extreme, we would have taken a lot of water below, and I would have been fearful of breaking something major, pressing the boat in such conditions even remotely as hard as we were compelled to sail VALOUR...

My point is, those conditions were nothing unusual or extraordinary... We'd seen more wind off Hatteras, but once it came on the nose, it never dropped below 18, nor ever rose above 28-30... Nothing "extreme", at all, the sort of breeze and seas one has to expect any time you venture offshore - only unusual in the direction, and duration... but if you think most of today's production boats would have handled that trip "pretty well", I think you're dreaming... The way the boat I just ran pounded into a Chesapeake chop simply motoring from Annapolis to Solomons in a SW breeze of 18 knots, I can't imagine trying to sail that thing hard on the wind to the islands, without doing serious damage to something, or someone...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> And here's an Allied Seawind Ketch after a knockdown (definitely not a production boat):


If Allieds were not production boats of their day, I don't know what was... They were about as basic, and identical, as they come... Built like brick ****houses, to be sure - but "production" brick ****houses, nevertheless...

The Kuhners are definitely the real deal, alright... One of the best cruising articles ever written, IMHO, as their comparison (published in BWS years ago) between their circumnavigations on the Seawind, and 2 decades later on their Valiant 40... It really put things in perspective, in many respects their 1st go-around in a much simpler, more basic boat, really was the purer and more memorable experience...


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Not sure if mentioned yet, for the Sydney-Hobart race, their are "9" beneteau first 40's racing out of 75 boats plus another 3-5 other sized bene's, making that the most popular brand, making up about 20% of the fleet. The rest of the fleet had maybe 2 or 3 boats of the same brand, no other model was over 2 maybe three also. Something to be said for this model(s) of a higher volume production boat builder! 

In the past, there has been a 1D fleet of Sydney 38's, only saw maybe 2 racing this year. I did not see that the 1st 40's had there own division, but with that many, there should be. I also did not paruse the fleets real close either.

Marty


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

I have said it before and will say it again, "No production boat manufacturer builds their boats to fail". If you race your boat and want to be competitive, then it needs to be modified to allow for the extreme conditions you would expect to encounter in the ocean. The cruiser not having to follow the fleet has the luxury to sit tight and enjoy another few days of partying and exploring their anchorage, waiting while the nasty weather passes. With today's weather routing and long range forecasts there is no reason to punch into rough weather, albeit we do tend to use the motor more than I would like, but the wife is happy and I do get good meals at set times with a drink at sun down. Occasionally you will get hit by a squall, but these are short lived and as long as you are ready can be exhilarating. Traveling to windward is only fun when the seas are small and the wind less than 15 knots and for a short duration of time, going to windward for days on end is just a pain and a sure fire way to piss off the cook/crew/significant other, that is unless a necessity of an ocean race. Buy the boat you like and can afford take precautions and plan ahead and you can go sooner and in comfort.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

SimonV said:


> I have said it before and will say it again, "No production boat manufacturer builds their boats to fail". If you race your boat and want to be competitive, then it needs to be modified to allow for the extreme conditions you would expect to encounter in the ocean. The cruiser not having to follow the fleet has the luxury to sit tight and enjoy another few days of partying and exploring their anchorage, waiting while the nasty weather passes. With today's weather routing and long range forecasts there is no reason to punch into rough weather, albeit we do tend to use the motor more than I would like, but the wife is happy and I do get good meals at set times with a drink at sun down. Occasionally you will get hit by a squall, but these are short lived and as long as you are ready can be exhilarating. Traveling to windward is only fun when the seas are small and the wind less than 15 knots and for a short duration of time, going to windward for days on end is just a pain and a sure fire way to piss off the cook/crew/significant other, that is unless a necessity of an ocean race. Buy the boat you like and can afford take precautions and plan ahead and you can go sooner and in comfort.


Well said


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Capta so you dont know at all if it was a container. You dont even know the size of the waves but you know the unseen loud bang was a container? That wont stand up in court.
> We fell off a wave once in another boat and when we hit the bottom there was a tremendous crash, absolutly tremendous smashing sound that had us in the bilges looking for leaks. When we haulded the boat later we saw the indentation in the antifouling of a turtle shell. And not a big turtle at that.


Your absolutely right, I do not know for a fact that it was a container we hit.
But to go from rolling to port to having the stb rail in the water virtually instantly, and moving sideways to stb away from whatever we hit with water nearly entering the cockpit from leeward, I don't know what else it could have been. I've fallen off waves in a very strong norther in the stream and other places with a lot of noise, hit a few pretty big logs in the PNW and numerous other things at sea and have never had a boat thrown so quickly and violently on her side.
I had absolutely no idea at the time, and like you, I thought it was a large wave hitting the rubrail, but when we got in the dink and saw the lost paint square, it seemed a logical conclusion. Others sailors saw the lost paint and agreed that it was distinctly possible that we had hit a container.
I really don't need to make up stories, what exactly would I stand to gain from it? I do not seek attention or approval from anyone; OK, maybe a little from my girlfriend. We were full of fuel, water and stores, never mind the masses of spares we all carry when departing on an extended cruise to the Caribbean, on a very heavy, fairly large boat. It certainly wasn't a turtle, nor a whale; but I am open to any other realistic suggestions.
And just to clarify another point; I am in no way, nor have I ever intended to say that all production boats are poorly built or of low quality. There are numerous high quality production boats on the market, new and old that IMO would be wonderful, safe and comfortable cruisers.
Curiously, these discussions seem to be about the "seaworthiness" of various boats, with little mention of comfort, at sea or at anchor. IMO, "livability" or comfort is a very important feature in a cruising boat, as we all spend much more time at anchor than underway.
If a boat hobbyhorses violently underway, or rolls horribly at anchor in a small swell, wouldn't that be something anyone, as a prospective buyer, would like to know? In Hawaii, a friend who did not know how to sail, bought an Ingrid, a boat I thought was the bee's knees in cruisers. I was so excited when he asked me to go out with him a few times to show him a bit about sailing it. It was shocking at how much that boat hobbyhorsed in small chop. I have seen what appeared to be excellently designed cruising boats become almost unlivable in a small swell at anchor, this summer in Prickly Bay, Grenada. One in particular (I do not know the design or manufacturer), a 48' to 52' ketch, (a boat I would have bought, had I found her for sale when I purchased our present boat, in a heartbeat!) that almost rolled her rails under when most other boats were doing OK. The owner set up a bridle on the anchor to bring the bow into the swells, but then the boat began to pitch violently. We watched in awe, literally. This was a beautiful, heavy displacement cruiser I would guess was built between 1970 and 1986. Boy was I happy I hadn't bought that boat!
I've no idea what it would be like living on and cruising a boat like the Hanse 415, for instance. Does the deep fin keel inhibit or enhance rolling? I am not denigrating the boat, only asking.
I got lucky; I purchased this boat because the Pearsons I have sailed, none of which was a 530 by the way, seemed well built and had a good over all reputation. It had most of the features I wanted in the last boat I'd ever own and the price was right. With the centerboard it is usually quite comfortable at anchor and sails much better than I thought it would. I honestly thought it was a motorsailor when I bought her; how wrong I was! But again, I got very very lucky.
Since we can't agree on seaworthiness of various boats, perhaps we can put forth some constructive information on the "livability" of boats that forum members are considering purchasing?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

SimonV said:


> I have said it before and will say it again, "No production boat manufacturer builds their boats to fail". If you race your boat and want to be competitive, then it needs to be modified to allow for the extreme conditions you would expect to encounter in the ocean. The cruiser not having to follow the fleet has the luxury to sit tight and enjoy another few days of partying and exploring their anchorage, waiting while the nasty weather passes. With today's weather routing and long range forecasts there is no reason to punch into rough weather, albeit we do tend to use the motor more than I would like, but the wife is happy and I do get good meals at set times with a drink at sun down. Occasionally you will get hit by a squall, but these are short lived and as long as you are ready can be exhilarating. Traveling to windward is only fun when the seas are small and the wind less than 15 knots and for a short duration of time, going to windward for days on end is just a pain and a sure fire way to piss off the cook/crew/significant other, that is unless a necessity of an ocean race. Buy the boat you like and can afford take precautions and plan ahead and you can go sooner and in comfort.


^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!

(From a guy who knows.)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry... Wrong, wrong, and wrong... (grin)
> 
> I delivered the Trintella 50 pictured below for years, and have more miles offshore on her, than any other single boat... 4 years ago, we ran her from Annapolis to the BVIs, in December... Incredibly powerful Ron Holland design, raced in the Fastnet, a couple of Bermuda Races, the Pineapple Cup... Chosen by Cruising World as the year's "Best Full Size Cruiser", a total state of the art modern cruising machine, incredibly powered-up (almost an 80' stick on a 50-footer)... A build quality right up there with the best, and if you had to pound to weather for a week, this was the sort of boat you'd want to do it on... (Although, you'd wish the Miele cappucino machine had been gimballed)
> 
> ...


I am a bit confused,* the Trintella 50 is a modern beamy boat*. It has more beam than for instance a First 50. The under-body is a modern one even if its keel design is not very modern in what relates to maximizing RM regarding ballast weight, even considering this type of boat.

Trintella 50:










Maybe that has contributed to Trintella bankruptcy for lack of demand on their boats while its main competitor on the Dutch market has survived.

Contest offered the same luxury and build quality in more modern hulls (look at the keel) and provided a better performance:










Perhaps the most successeful boat on that segment luxury market is the Xc50:










Also with a more modern keel.

Anyway if you had picked a First 50 and sailed upwind at the same speed and wind angle you would not find it a lot different. Off course, the First 50 can go a lo faster upwind, a lot closer to the wind and then you would find a big difference in comfort, but that has to do with the superior speed and being at a worst angle with the waves (closer to the wind), not with the hull design.

yes, probably the marginally bigger rocker and superior weigh of the Tintella would not compensate the positive effect of the much more narrow entries on the First but the difference would not probably be big. An on a limit situation the capacity of the First to make way upwind would be bigger than the one on theTrintella.










I agree with you that the ability to sail upwind is not the same in all modern yachts as it is not the same the ability regarding sailing downwind fast on autopilot. Many times these two requisites are contradictory in what regards hull design. Some boats have a balanced hull regarding the two priorities, very few privilege upwind sailing and many privilege downwind sailing just because cruisers sail more time downwind.

That doesn't mean that some boats that privilege downwind sailing have not a very good upwind ability, at the cost of more pounding.

There are not miracles regarding a boat with a good ability to sail upwind. For that is convenient to have a considerable draft and power (stiffness).

Sailing with waves, If you have a narrower hull you need less power because the wave drag is a lot less. if you have a beamier hull you need more power because wave drag is bigger. That is not a problem since beam gives form stability and stiffness but will result in a harder ride.

But I agree with you that there are some modern mass production cruisers that have not the extra power to compensate the increased wave drag effect on a beamier hull. The Trintella 50 is not one of them, the First 50 even less neither the Hanse 415 or the Jeanneau 409 but I have my doubts about others and some certitudes about some



















Of course, those boats that will have problem to go upwind against waves and considerable weather will not have any problem in sailing pretty well upwind in more moderate conditions and even so consider that I am talking in sailing *close* upwind. Any of the modern mass production designs (generally speaking), if with the right size, would have any problem to escape a lee shore sailing at 60º of the wind. That means slowly progress against the wind even if at a considerable speed over the water, but no danger to the boat.

Many times people confuse quality of interiors with seaworthiness and a lot would say that for the same size a Halberg Rassy would be much more seaworthy than a Hanse. Some would even say that a HR is a bluewater boat ans the Hanse a coastal one.

Take a look at this stability curves comparison between a Hanse 345 and the HR 342:










We can see that the Hanse is a more stiff boat with a bigger max RM, a boat that would require more energy to be capsized. Regarding final stability we can see that the Hanse has a superior stability till 95º of heel and a much superior one between 60 and 75º. The Halberg Rassy has a marginal better stability from 95º till the AVS point that is also marginally better for the HR (120 to 122º). we can also see that the Hanse pays its superior positive stability with an also superior inverted stability.

It makes any sense to say that a HR is a bluewater boat and the Hanse not?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry... Wrong, wrong, and wrong... (grin)


Cool - I think we're finally making progress...slugging it out to windward as it were! Heh-heh.

We're now backing off the extremes (Labrador, the Capes, Antarctica, etc.) and talking about more typical conditions. That's good.



JonEisberg said:


> I delivered the Trintella 50 pictured below for years, and have more miles offshore on her, than any other single boat... 4 years ago, we ran her from Annapolis to the BVIs, in December... Incredibly powerful Ron Holland design, raced in the Fastnet, a couple of Bermuda Races, the Pineapple Cup... Chosen by Cruising World as the year's "Best Full Size Cruiser", a total state of the art modern cruising machine, incredibly powered-up (almost an 80' stick on a 50-footer)... A build quality right up there with the best, and *if you had to pound to weather for a week, this was the sort of boat you'd want to do it on*... (Although, you'd wish the Miele cappucino machine had been gimballed)


What typical cruiser _has_ to pound to weather for a week (see Simon's post above)? And how often does that happen for said cruiser during his/her sailing life?

Again, you're a delivery skipper - which definitely informs your perspective. But you have to admit, it's a completely different calculus from the typical cruiser.

However, you're right....sweet boat.



JonEisberg said:


> That's pretty much what we had, basically ran into tradewind conditions about 800 miles out of Tortola... We were hard on the wind the entire way, barely managed to fetch our destination... It was a BRUTAL trip, the boat on its ear for 6 days. A lesser boat, without tacking, would have wound up in Puerto rico, perhaps even the DR... I can't imagine making that same trip in any number of "ordinary" production boats - especially the one I just delivered down the coast a couple of weeks ago. The level of discomfort would have been extreme, we would have taken a lot of water below, and I would have been fearful of breaking something major, pressing the boat in such conditions even remotely as hard as we were compelled to sail VALOUR...


This was a delivery, correct? You had a schedule. I've read countless times that one of the most dangerous things a typical cruiser can do is "have a schedule". Why be compelled to sail the boat so hard? Isn't that a fundamental problem in itself? Shouldn't one simply ease up on the boat?



JonEisberg said:


> My point is, those conditions were nothing unusual or extraordinary... We'd seen more wind off Hatteras, but once it came on the nose, it never dropped below 18, nor ever rose above 28-30... Nothing "extreme", at all, the sort of breeze and seas one has to expect any time you venture offshore - only unusual in the direction, and duration... but if you think most of today's production boats would have handled that trip "pretty well", I think you're dreaming...
> 
> The way the boat I just ran pounded into a Chesapeake chop simply motoring from Annapolis to Solomons in a SW breeze of 18 knots, I can't imagine trying to sail that thing hard on the wind to the islands, without doing serious damage to something, or someone...


Now this is where it gets a little whacky. Are you honestly trying to tell me that production boats just can't sail from Tortola to Annapolis without falling apart if the winds are northerly at 18-30 knots? And that those Hunters, Beneteaus, Catalinas, etc. that try it come apart and sink? And that only you in a Trintella 50 could make it (barely) in such conditions - there were no other lesser boats out there?

Really? This is what you want me to believe? Jon - please.

I understand perfectly that _you_ feel much more comfortable pushing a boat hard for a delivery in such conditions if it's a boat like VALOUR. And I understand that this is how you judge boats - based on the way you sail them...most always pushing them for delivery. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But to imply that production boats _couldn't_ make that trip without coming apart and hurting someone is really beyond the pale. They do it all the time! Or am I wrong and there are never any production boats from the islands along the East Coast until the winds turn south and drop to 10 knots?

Look, you are obviously UBER experienced. I want to be clear that I have huge respect for your accomplishments and advice. I do. I promise.

But, especially in this debate, applying a delivery skipper's sailing methodology to the way a typical cruiser is going to use the boat he/she buys is _definitely_ extreme. Very, very few cruisers sail like delivery skippers (or racers or voyagers) - hence, very few face the conditions delivery skippers (or racers or voyagers) will face. They wait it out...they go easier. That's good!

Now, to be clear, the conditions and sailing methodology (pressing hard) you DO face as a delivery skipper CAN and DO occasionally happen to typical cruisers - sometimes with bad results. So, there's definitely merit to your arguments. No doubt. But it goes back to what has been said ad infinitum. What percentage of your sailing life do you want to buy for as a cruiser? The 99%, or the 1%. And, more importantly, if the former, how can you prepare yourself and your boat to better handle that 1% if and when it comes?

Different people will make different calls on that obviously. But at least give production boats their due based on what they're built for - and what they'll typically face. There's NOTHING inherently wrong with them!

I have no doubt that you would NOT have wanted - _by any stretch of the imagination_ - to have been on SEQUITUR in that F10/11 off Cape Horn. I have no doubt that, according to your post above, you would have been certain it would have been severely damaged...if not sunk - in such conditions. It would have been to you a production boat WAY out of its league in the Southern Ocean.

But...it did just fine...even with a full cockpit enclosure.

Face it, there is absolutely no doubt that there are FAR more SEQUITURS than VALOURS plying the treacherous waters off the east coast - all year long - completing the trip without too much death and mayhem. So let's keep it real here.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> What percentage of your sailing life do you want to buy for as a cruiser? The 99%, or the 1%. And, more importantly, if the former, how can you prepare yourself and your boat to better handle that 1% if and when it comes?


I would do what lots of people apparently do. That is, take the money I saved on a production boat and use it to hire Jon to bash to windward for 6 days, while I wait on a sunny for his arrival


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> We're now backing off the extremes (Labrador, the Capes, Antarctica, etc.) and talking about more typical conditions. That's good.


Look, in my first post in this thread, I expressed my agreement that a boat like a Catalina 42 would suit the OP admirably...

I am not the one who has introduced the "extremes" into this discussion... I have simply been responding to the overly broad generalizations that *Today's production boats are far more better in design, manufacture and tighter spec than the old stick built boat in the 80's...*or *If anyone thinks the old blue water boat is much safer in crossing the pond is dreaming...* And, of course, your own assertion that *virtually any production boat will take you virtually anywhere you want to go...*, and that the fact that a Hunter rounded Cape Horn is sufficient to settle the matter definitively... My mention of a destination like Labrador was solely an offhanded reference to Paulo's comment that he would be comfortable taking a Hanse 415 anywhere, and I simply pointed out that I would not care to take any boat with such a keel to such a remote region, one so poorly charted, where a hard grounding on rock is a distinct possibility... I am certainly not arguing that the "typical cruiser" needs a boat suited to sail to such places...

The two anecdotal examples I've offered - my trip back up from the Rio Dulce, and a trip to the BVIs - are certainly well within the realm of passages today's typical cruisers might make in a "production boat"...



smackdaddy said:


> What typical cruiser _has_ to pound to weather for a week (see Simon's post above)? And how often does that happen for said cruiser during his/her sailing life?


Apples to oranges, coastal cruising to an offshore passage... I've already explained why a cruiser would have been compelled, given the long range forecast, to beat it out of Guatemala just like I did, earlier this summer...



smackdaddy said:


> This was a delivery, correct? You had a schedule. I've read countless times that one of the most dangerous things a typical cruiser can do is "have a schedule". Why be compelled to sail the boat so hard? Isn't that a fundamental problem in itself? Shouldn't one simply ease up on the boat?


Again, on a passage, one doesn't always have that option. One is often compelled to keep moving, in an effort to avoid even worse weather. The loss of the IP 38 TRIPLE STARS and one of her crew in November '11, for example, might have been avoided if they had kept moving as I believe Herb had advised, rather than allowing themselves to be overtaken by heavier weather, or being saddled with a boat that might have had difficulty making decent progress into contrary weather...



smackdaddy said:


> But, especially in this debate, applying a delivery skipper's sailing methodology to the way a typical cruiser is going to use the boat he/she buys is _definitely_ extreme. Very, very few cruisers sail like delivery skippers (or racers or voyagers) - hence, very few face the conditions delivery skippers (or racers or voyagers) will face. They wait it out...they go easier. That's good!


Oh, really?

I don't intentionally "punish" the boats I deliver, simply because I might be sailing to a schedule... Quite the opposite, actually, I'm not interested in breaking stuff on someone else's million dollar boat. That's not very good for business, after all...

For example, in the fall of 2011, I left Hampton at the same time as the Caribbean 1500 rally, on a Valiant 42 going to Antigua... When the forecast began to show the possibility of the development of another tropical low further down the rhumbline, we took the decision to divert to Bermuda... I only recall 2, maybe 3 of the Rally fleet that elected to do the same... So, it was my delivery crew who relaxed in St. Georges for 4 days, while many of the "cruisers" in the rally endured a pretty good butt-kicking, sailing close-hauled in 25-30 knots for the better part of 3 days... Go figure...



smackdaddy said:


> Now this is where it gets a little whacky. Are you honestly trying to tell me that production boats just can't sail from Tortola to Annapolis without falling apart if the winds are northerly at 18-30 knots? And that those Hunters, Beneteaus, Catalinas, etc. that try it come apart and sink? And that only you in a Trintella 50 could make it (barely) in such conditions - there were no other lesser boats out there?
> 
> Really? This is what you want me to believe? Jon - please.


No, that is NOT what I'm trying to tell you...

Most any boat can handle that trip with a breeze out of the North... However, the tradewind conditions I described were out of the East, that's a whole different ballgame... And, yes, I think there are plenty of Bene-Hunta-Linas that would have been seriously "challenged" by such conditions...

Of course they're not likely to "break apart and sink", I'm not suggesting any such thing... I'm talking about the sort of lesser, niggling problems that so ofter arise when such boats encounter difficult conditions...

Topside leaks, for example... I realize you don't want to hear this, but in my experience, a Hunter is far more likely to be plagued with the unwanted intrusion of water below, than a Trintella... Few things are guaranteed to make a trip miserable, become a distraction and major PITA, and degrade the morale of the crew, than battling deck leaks, or the collection of water in a shallow bilge without a deep sump... Just one example of the sort of shortcomings I'm referring to, that are likely to be more common on many typical production boats...



smackdaddy said:


> But to imply that production boats _couldn't_ make that trip without coming apart and hurting someone is really beyond the pale. They do it all the time! Or am I wrong and there are never any production boats from the islands along the East Coast until the winds turn south and drop to 10 knots?


Again, I am NOT implying that...

On the other hand, look at the list of boats abandoned off the East Coast in recent memory, those high-profile rescues by cruise ships, etc... All that I can recall off the top of my head, just happened to be one of your vaunted production boats... Same with an event like the ARC, the two recent abandonments that immediately come to mind (there may be others, of course) were a J-Boat, and a Hunter... Go figure...



smackdaddy said:


> Now, to be clear, the conditions and sailing methodology (pressing hard) you DO face as a delivery skipper CAN and DO occasionally happen to typical cruisers - sometimes with bad results. So, there's definitely merit to your arguments. No doubt. But it goes back to what has been said ad infinitum. What percentage of your sailing life do you want to buy for as a cruiser? The 99%, or the 1%. And, more importantly, if the former, how can you prepare yourself and your boat to better handle that 1% if and when it comes?


You've also posed the question, "What production boat CAN'T handle the Coconut Run?" Sorry, but think you're naive about the sort of conditions one might be likely to encounter on a typical "Milk/Coconut Run" circuit...

For one departing from the East coast, such a trip usually involves heading to the Eastern Caribbean, first... the appropriate timing for that ride is very narrow, one has little latitude for waiting it out, for an ideal window... Usually, a few weeks in November is about it, the weather generally starts going downhill pretty quickly after that.. It's very likely you're gonna get pasted with at least some near-gale conditions during that trip, and quite possibly in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream...

Same thing with the passage from Tonga to NZ that many doing the Milk Run typically make... There's a very good possibility of hitting big weather there, or having to slog thru hard weather in order to avoid a worse system on the way...

The Red Sea, when people were doing it, is usually about 1,000 miles of very hard sailing to windward, good luck with the strategy of waiting around until conditions improve... And, by all accounts, the Indian Ocean can be a VERY boisterous passage, one during which seakindliness in your boat will likely be greatly appreciated, over speed, or "performance"...

Of course, many "ordinary" modern production boats are capable of such a voyage, no question... Whether they are the best overall choice, however, when compared to more "moderate" designs, is certainly debatable, IMHO...


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

I haven't seen a new Trintella for years but I well remember a new 44 that was shown here years ago. Comparing it in any way to a mass or mid market builder is patently absurd. It was Nautor quality and price. IIRC it was *double* the price of a very similar, quality built local boat (Spencer 1330).


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> .. Paulo's comment that he would be comfortable taking a Hanse 415 anywhere, ...


I did not said properly that. I have said anywhere in the right season.

If someone wants to sail on the North Atlantic on the stormy season or at 50º of latitude, or in the Arctic or the Antarctic, that's not the indicated boat. I am simply not interested in doing that and I guess that 95% of the cruisers, even the ones that circumnavigate are not interested either.

Let me point out that I understand why the Hanse 415 is designed that way but I sail too much upwind on the unstable med winds to see that boat as desirable for me. The Hanse 415 is the type of boat that can sail upwind because has the power to do that, but at the cost of a more uncomfortable ride.

Regarding mass production mainstream cruisers personally I would favor much more a boat like the jeanneau 409, that is a more balanced boat and will sail more comfortably upwind. However I can understand that the ones that sail mostly downwind would prefer the Hanse 415. The boat sails with less heel and is more stable sailing downwind.



JonEisberg said:


> Of course, many "ordinary" modern production boats are capable of such a voyage, no question... Whether they are the best overall choice, however, when compared to more "moderate" designs, is certainly debatable, IMHO...


More moderate designs? Is the Trintella 50 a moderate design? I don't know what is a moderate design. Boats are designed to perform better in a given set of conditions and those conditions have some variability according with the designs. I cannot see anything of "immoderate" on modern mass produced boats. The evolution of mainstreaming cruising boats on the last 10 years has as a common dominator designing boats that are more stable, that heel less, that are more easy to sail by a couple and that have a better and easy performance sailing downwind.

That's the qualities that most sailors want on a cruiser.

The source of inspiration for those boats was obviously not boats that need a full crew to be raced but solo racers that have to be easy boats and boats that can be steered by autopilot even in harsh conditions, boats with a big directional stability.

Why are this kind of boats immoderate? Seems to me very moderate even if personally like less moderate sailboats, lighter and faster ones, more narrow and more tricky to sail, better upwind, no doubt.

Regarding keels, that is a completely different matter. Modern techniques and materials permitted to design safe keels with almost all ballast at the bulb. Those keels were first developed on racers and when they become reliable started to be used on cruisers.

The advantages are obvious in what regards using a lot less ballast for the same RM and therefore being able to design lighter sailboats with a better performance and the same stability.

I agree with you that a boat that is meant to sail in uncharted or badly charted waters would not have ideally that kind of keel but one that can swing when an obstacle is hit, like the ones on the Southerly, Boreal, Allures, OVNI, Pogo, Opium or many other boats.

A boat with a variable draft is also very convenient and a Aluminum hull is the more adequate, but most sailors are not interested and will never sail on uncharted waters so for the majority, even for the ones that circumnavigate, a high performance keel is the more adequate solution because it is the one that allows the better performance with the less costs. That's why they are today the norm on modern designed overall cruisers. Nothing of immoderate about that.

Of course even among mainstream mass production cruisers you have clearly two types: The ones that favor sail functionality and the ones that favors interior space at the cost of sailing functionality even if most of them are still capable cruisers. I prefer the first but can understand that the ones that don't sail much and live extensively on the boat would prefer the bigger interior space.

The reality is that most cruisers live much more time on the boat compared with sailing time. If you check the engine hours on most boats with 5 years you will find out that they average about 500 hours. Many boats are used for sailing also but most of the time as a second house. For those a bigger interior space makes all the sense even at the cost at the loss of some sailing convenience and functionality.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

SloopJonB said:


> I haven't seen a new Trintella for years but I well remember a new 44 that was shown here years ago. Comparing it in any way to a mass or mid market builder is patently absurd. It was Nautor quality and price. IIRC it was *double* the price of a very similar, quality built local boat (Spencer 1330).


And you will not see them again since they went bankrupt some years ago.

However you should not compare luxury and finish quality with seaworthiness or ability to sail upwind. See that stability comparison that I have posted some posts back between a HR and a Hanse.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

PCP said:


> ..............
> However you should not compare luxury and finish quality with seaworthiness or ability to sail upwind. See that stability comparison that I have posted some posts back between a HR and a Hanse.
> 
> Regards
> ...


Funny you should quote this in a way, lets look at the Morris MY50?!?!?!? large boat, but only has a european rating of B, not A which is open ocean. A VERY pricey, well built, designed boat no less......BUT, its design is NOT to go on an open ocean, around the horns etc. Well maybe a nice day sail in 10-20 knot winds and 3-4' seas max......Its basic design in not like a First 40, many other higher production built boats. In fact, NONE of the MY series boats are ment to cross oceans, Not sure the Alerion's are either, very similar in look and design. Altho build quality will be different, being as one can get into an Alerion for 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of a Morris equal. Morris DOES build boats that were designed to cross, and have crossed, gone around cape horn all the way to Antarctica and back.

It all boils down to the design, scantlings etc of the given boat. Is it able to or not. Most boats will out last the people part.

Marty


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

blt2ski said:


> BUT, its design is NOT to go on an open ocean, around the horns etc. Well maybe a nice day sail in 10-20 knot winds and 3-4' seas max..
> 
> Marty


As a sailing newbie I am trying my best to learn from this thread. A few things have me scratching my head and I'm hoping you guys with tons more sailing experience can help.

I am confused by the quote above. Is this meant to be an obvious exaggeration to make a point? The reason I ask is that I sail my Morgan 22 in 10-20 knots and 3-4' seas all the time. Those are quite enjoyable conditions even on my tiny little boat.

I would expect a 40' boat of any make whatsoever to handle those conditions as if it were small lake sailing.

If you were being facetious, as I suspect, then please ignore my silly misundertanding.

I'm looking at larger boats as we speak, primarily because my little boat is cramped with 2 adults on it. I'm thinking that practically any boat that floats will be sufficient for cruising the Florida gulf coast between Tampa and the Dry Tortugas. (One more reason for a larger boat... tankage. My tankage is currently measured in the amount of coolers I bring on board.)


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Go look up an MY50, look at the design brief, and you will see it is not designed to cross oceans etc. Maybe yes, the winds I mentioned are on the lower side of what that boat will handle. BUT, if you look at the design etc, it does not come with, nor designed with safety lines around the boat. My 28' boat has better offshore design options than that one. Some others include the entry to the cabin is higher than the cockpit seats, so if the cockpit floods, the cabin does not. The MY and some others, the entry door is at the cockpit floor level. This is a design issue that could sink a boat in the ocean in BIG waves.

Look up the European design ratings that came about after the 79 fastnet race. This will help you understand why and how some boats should handle certain conditions vs others that will not. B rating as the morris MY designs, and possibly your Morgan, altho suspect your morgan is a C, can handle up to IIRC 6 m seas, no place for a life raft, where as an A rated needs a life raft, and can handle 10m seas. Righting moment is higher for an A vs B vs C. C is inland protected, B is sorta protected, A is open water. 
The number after is the number of occupants. Some boats will have an A6B8C10, meaning for open ocean, 6 max, semi protected, 8 max, protected, 10 max occupants on board. 

I'm sure I have not explained the above correctly, but it gives you and idea. I think I have a link, will see if I can find the definitions for you to read. If I can not find them, I a sure Paulo knows where they can be found at.

Marty


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

EUR-Lex - 31994L0025 - EN

Found them, wave heights are wrong, only 4M, over for an A, up to for a B, 
A is ocean, B is off shore, what I might call a coastal cruiser. C inshore, D protected.

It should take you a moment or two to read all of it, but has some interesting info etc, along with things to confuse one too!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

blt2ski said:


> EUR-Lex - 31994L0025 - EN
> 
> Found them, wave heights are wrong, only 4M, over for an A, up to for a B,
> A is ocean, B is off shore, what I might call a coastal cruiser. C inshore, D protected.
> ...


*A. OCEAN:* Designed for extended voyages where conditions *may exceed wind force 8* (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of *4 m and above*, and vessels largely self-sufficient.

*B. OFFSHORE:* Designed for offshore voyages where conditions *up to, and including, wind force 8* and significant wave heights *up to, and including, 4 m *may be experienced.

*C. INSHORE:* Designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers where conditions up to, and including, wind force 6 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 2 m may be experienced.

*D. SHELTERED WATERS:* Designed for voyages on small lakes, rivers, and canals where conditions up to, and including, wind force 4 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 0,5 m may be experienced.
Boats in each Category must be designed and constructed to withstand these parameters in respect of stability, buoyancy, and other relevant essential requirements listed in Annex I, and to have good handling characteristics.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

ShoalFinder said:


> I sail my Morgan 22 in 10-20 knots and 3-4' seas all the time.


These ratings come from the European Union but I don't think there is an equivalent for the USA

It's shown on a compliance plate at the Nav station.
Mine is a French built Beneteau 393 so it has a European CE rating shown as

A 8
B 10
C 12 
D 12

The numbers are the number of people on board as a maximum
The letters mean a type of sailing condition

A' OCEAN: Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4 m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient.
'B' OFFSHORE: Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 4 m may be experienced.
'C' INSHORE: Designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers where conditions up to, and including, wind force 6 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 2 m may be experienced.
'D' SHELTERED WATERS: Designed for voyages on sheltered coastal waters, small bays, small lakes, rivers and canals when conditions up to, and including, wind force 4 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 0.3 m may be experienced, with occasional waves of 0.5 m maximum height, for example from passing vessels.

So if a vessels CE rating is
A 0
B 0
C 6
D 6
You could expect it to be a small light boat that's fine in 25 knots up to 6 foot waves. But death on wheels in 50 knots and 20 foot waves.

Of course people in theses threads only agree with these ratings if they help their argument, otherwise they dismiss them and say bribery has taken place 

But no one has sued for wrongful death.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Of course, many "ordinary" modern production boats are capable of such a voyage, no question... Whether they are the best overall choice, however, when compared to more "moderate" designs, is certainly debatable, IMHO...


Cool. That's good enough for me.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

ShoalFinder said:


> I'm thinking that practically any boat that floats will be sufficient for cruising the Florida gulf coast between Tampa and the Dry Tortugas.


Yes, I think you are right.
That gives you great scope to find a boat that's going to be good and comfortable below, a bit more luxurious that the current boat, and that you can have fun sailing.

Another way to look at it would be the distance in time to a safe port. So if you are sailing along, sailing, sailing and the VHF goes off with a weather warning for 12 hours time can you get somewhere safe within that time?
I don't know your area but there's plenty of safe places, aren't there?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...
> Mine is a French built Beneteau 393 so it has a European CE rating shown as
> 
> A 8
> ...


Just to make it clear, it means your boat is a class A boat but only if you carry a max of 8. You can carry 10 but then it will be considered a Class B. The max you can carry are 12 people and on that circumstance your boat is only considered a class C.

Normally in Europe it is not only enough to have a Class A boat to be allowed to register the boat as class A. For that you have to have the boat equipped with the required security items that are less in a class B or C.

Most boats are Class A but have a register has class B for having less safety equipment.

Finally for sailing on a class A boat far away for the shore you need a unlimited captain's licence. On a class B you can sail with two different licences, one that demands you to sail near the shore the other allows you to sail till 200nm offshore.

To complicate things there are some differences among licences in different countries and in UK they don't require none. I don't know how they do because when you charter a boat in any other country, including Croatia they ask for your licence.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> These ratings come from the European Union but I don't think there is an equivalent for the USA
> 
> Of course people in theses threads only agree with these ratings if they help their argument, otherwise they dismiss them and say bribery has taken place


Heck they wonrt even believe and expert like Jon and hes a delivery captain and has been on many of these boats and different types. Who better than to compare,

He gets challenged by graphs..pictures and theoreticals or that he pushes boats too hard. Imagine we have an expert..who is too expert

IMHO who knows better than someone who does it, whos sailed it,

You can make anyboat into anything you want it to be. Thor Hyerdol sailed a log ( or did he row it) throughout the seas. Everyone has their own qualifications for what they find important in a boat. Everyone who truly uses a boat, sooner or later, wheather in the ocean, large bay will run into adverse weather and sea state, no matter how carefull you plan your weather window. Im sure many of these boats are safe enough for that. Bbut they all are no equally as safe at all.

Anyone who has done any blue water sailing for an extended period of time knows its not all about sailing charter boats downwind between line of sight islands in the Carribean for just 5 hours.

One difference Ive noticed between poeple who buy production boats and the " other kind" is that many who own the "other kind" own them for years and years, especially when they have gotten up into the 35+ foot range. The production boats all have a number of smaller sized boats as a rule also, where the non production boats concentrate on the larger sizes.

There will be no end to this argument

Buy a boat that suits your needs and that you love. Sail it. Get on many before you buy and dont be predisposed to like on or the other just on the production boat moniker alone.

Dave


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

PCP said:


> Most boats are Class A but have a register has class B for having less safety equipment.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


It's a builders code so equipment put on afterwards wouldn't matter, nor the ticket of the operator. It's straight building compliance.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> He gets challenged by graphs..pictures and theoreticals or that he pushes boats too hard. Imagine we have an expert..who is too expert
> 
> ...


Well. Others that have done the same thing and have a different opinion. Some have done the same thing and are also NA and now design boats, others have circumnavigated many times.

Fact is that like Jon says, there are boats that are better then others offshore and even if all agree in what regards the ones that are really bad, regarding the ones that are good the preferences varies with different sailors and different NA.

Regarding those graphs, well they show that one that you would not consider a mass production boat and other that is a production boat (an Halberg Rassy and an Hanse) have a similar stability curve. That is not a challenge to nobody, that is a fact and only true for those two boats. That only means that sometimes things are not what they seem to be and somethings taken for granted are not true.

Each boat is different and it is not necessarily to be an expensive boat with a great interior and luxury finish that it is necessarily more seaworthy then another less expensive even if it is that the case many times.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

JonEisberg said:


> The way the boat I just ran pounded into a Chesapeake chop simply motoring from Annapolis to Solomons in a SW breeze of 18 knots, I can't imagine trying to sail that thing hard on the wind to the islands, without doing serious damage to something, or someone...


This thread is a long way from the OP's question. So let me nudge it in another direction.

I'd like to ask those sailors like Jon _*who have experience on a lot of different boats*_ to comment on what boats have had a comfortable motion, what boats have been a misery and what design elements each had in common.

Forget charts & graphs, production or custom, European or American. I'm talking about personal experience. It's also important where that experience occured. For example a boat that experienced problems half way to Bermuda might still make a solid coastal cruiser - just not as a blue water boat.

My question is not about speed or performance but about reasonable comfort for the crew.


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Yes, I think you are right.
> That gives you great scope to find a boat that's going to be good and comfortable below, a bit more luxurious that the current boat, and that you can have fun sailing.
> 
> Another way to look at it would be the distance in time to a safe port. So if you are sailing along, sailing, sailing and the VHF goes off with a weather warning for 12 hours time can you get somewhere safe within that time?
> I don't know your area but there's plenty of safe places, aren't there?


Absolutely. The coast is littered with sheltered inlets, as well as ICW.

I do realize that most of the topics on this site aren't suited for me. You guys voyage around the world and I'm looking for a family-friendly party barge that will only rarely go over the horizon. My kids are ready to mutiny when it's been several hours without another swim call.

I have gotten surprised on the Gulf, years ago, on oil field supply boats when sudden storms came up. I do have respect for the Gulf lest anyone think otherwise. I hope my tongue-in-cheek intentions come through in my posts, although it's very hard to inflect tone in a written post.

Thanks for your response.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

blt2ski said:


> Go look up an MY50, look at the design brief, and you will see it is not designed to cross oceans etc. Maybe yes, the winds I mentioned are on the lower side of what that boat will handle. BUT, if you look at the design etc, it does not come with, nor designed with safety lines around the boat. My 28' boat has better offshore design options than that one. Some others include the entry to the cabin is higher than the cockpit seats, so if the cockpit floods, the cabin does not. The MY and some others, the entry door is at the cockpit floor level. This is a design issue that could sink a boat in the ocean in BIG waves.
> 
> Look up the European design ratings that came about after the 79 fastnet race. This will help you understand why and how some boats should handle certain conditions vs others that will not. B rating as the Morris MY designs, and possibly your Morgan, altho suspect your morgan is a C, can handle up to IIRC 6 m seas, no place for a life raft, where as an A rated needs a life raft, and can handle 10m seas. Righting moment is higher for an A vs B vs C. C is inland protected, B is sorta protected, A is open water.
> The number after is the number of occupants. Some boats will have an A6B8C10, meaning for open ocean, 6 max, semi protected, 8 max, protected, 10 max occupants on board.
> ...


Marty,

What is an MY50?

I can assure you that beyond any of the day sailors, which are not intended for world cruising, a Morris would be one of my first choices in construction and durability to take me anywhere. Course I could only afford a small Morris so unless cruising alone..... These boats are built like the proverbial "brick $hit house"...

Below is the fin keel for the Morris 36' DAY SAILOR., remember this is a DAY SAILOR not a boat intended for more than an occasional coastal overnight.. This keel is then bolted to a keel bed that is reinforced with solid fiberglass stringers directly glassed to the hull, not a glued in grid. These stringers have zero wood in them to rot out. Each u-shaped stringer beam has a wall thickness that exceeds 1/2" even for a very light displacement 36 foot day sailor. Vinylester resins are used throughout as are copious amounts of G10 and lots of solid fiberglass strong points. Chainplates are direct to solid glassed in fiberglass knees that extend to below the waterline. They are not supported by free floating screwed in bulkheads.. There are 13 keel bolts here with all but the aft two exceeding 1" and this is for a light displacement DAY SAILOR...









Here is a keel from a 36' production cruiser, just 5 bolts, and a significantly heavier displacement to the Morris 36 day sailor..









And another production cruiser of similar length and heavier displacement to the Morris DAY SAILOR. It has just eight 5/8" bolts.









To suggest that a Morris can't take ocean sailing is simply laughable to anyone who actually knows boat construction. As one who has been to both a "production boat" factory and the Morris yard, Able, Hinckley, Lyman-Morse etc. etc. etc.. it makes this even more amusing..

As an owner who has owned three "production" boats and who currently owns a CS, which was a higher level of production build quality, I can assure you there is little comparison in the robustness of build between our three production boats and the CS..

There are differences in construction techniques & how the boat feels on the ocean. Our CS-36 is significantly kinder than our C-36 was, so much so that even my wife who is not the most "observant" sailor constantly ribs me as to how we owned three of them..... I still like them but the creaking bulkheads in rough seas gave her an uneasy feeling. I can talk till I am blue in the face about how the boat is not coming apart but once she sailed on a boat with no creaking, done deal, and I've lost the WAF (wife acceptance factor) battle.. We have no such creaking or bulkhead/hull movement noises on the CS, none, even on a 33 year old boat. There are also differences in how the boats handle age/time over the long term. Being that I work on boats daily and get to see all the nooks and crannies I also see how boats of differing levels of build quality hold up to things like crazing, leaks, bulkhead movement, tabbing pops, rudder slop, chain plate leaks, hull deck joint leaks, stringer oooze/rot, keel smiles etc. etc.....

This is not to say a "production boat" can't do extended voyaging, they certainly can and do, but having owned three of them, delivered a number of others and had a bulkhead let go on one delivery, for which the owner tried to come after me on, I choose my boats a little differently now than I used to. This is admittedly partially driven by WAF on such things as "she feels Chloroxy" or "this boat won't creek & shudder when going to weather, right?"...

On our last "production boat" the screwed in bulkhead had some major issues that needed repair and this only after a season of ownership. The factory was very good about it but my wife was very uncomfortable and basically said "this is our last *******"..... Half the deck fittings were leaking after the first season.. Hell I really like the Catalina 42 but I know WAF would kill me on one....


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> who have experience on a lot of different boats[/B][/I] to comment on what boats have had a comfortable motion, what boats have been a miseryw.


That's their own subjective opinion.

All I know is that people can pound my boat. Buy she never pounds with me. So the boat or the sailor?

If the boat is pounding it is not being sailed properly.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Maine Sail said:


> ..
> Here is a keel from a 36' production cruiser, just 5 bolts, and a significantly heavier displacement to the Morris 36 day sailor..
> 
> 
> ...


That in fact does not look very strong. what is the brand of that 36ft boat?

Other production boats have much stronger attachments, look for instance to this Hanse 355, a light boat. Much larger ones:



















Or this Salona 37 with the bolts directly on a stainless steel structure:



















Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Maine Sail said:


> There are differences in construction techniques & how the boat feels on the ocean. Our CS-36 is significantly kinder than our C-36 was, so much so that even my wife who is not the most "observant" sailor constantly ribs me as to how we owned three of them..... I still like them but the creaking bulkheads in rough seas gave her an uneasy feeling. I can talk till I am blue in the face about how the boat is not coming apart but once she sailed on a boat with no creaking, done deal, and I've lost the WAF (wife acceptance factor) battle.. We have no such creaking or bulkhead/hull movement noises on the CS, none, even on a 33 year old boat. There are also differences in how the boats handle age/time over the long term. Being that I work on boats daily and get to see all the nooks and crannies I also see how boats of differing levels of build quality hold up to things like crazing, leaks, bulkhead movement, tabbing pops, rudder slop, chain plate leaks, hull deck joint leaks, stringer oooze/rot, keel smiles etc. etc.....


Thanks Maine Sail, that's the kind of feedback I'm looking for.

When you say the motion of the CS is significantly kinder, is it just the noise and flexing of the structure, or is the motion of the boat itself more comfortable and if so in what way? Is it simply a matter of the structure being more ridgid or is there a difference in the underbody design?

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Maine,

I may have the wrong size, but Morris does build, or had plans to build a 50' version of the 36' daysailer. If they did or did not is not the point. The whole line is designed as a daysailer/weekender. They are not designed to cross oceans!

Looked it up MY52 there is also a 29, 36, and 42 versions.

Morris DOES HAVE boats that will and HAVE sailed the 7 sea's, but this series is NOT designed to sail the 7 sea's!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Heck they wonrt even believe and expert like Jon and hes a delivery captain and has been on many of these boats and different types. Who better than to compare,
> 
> He gets challenged by graphs..pictures and theoreticals or that he pushes boats too hard. Imagine we have an expert..who is too expert
> 
> IMHO who knows better than someone who does it, whos sailed it...


This is always a strange nuance on forums...that some readers like me won't simply "believe an expert like Jon".

First, Jon would have to be essentially saying that what he's writing is indisputable, infallible gospel. I don't think he's saying that. He can certainly correct me if I'm wrong - but I think he's giving his opinion...which is undeniably hard-won through a tremendous and very respectable amount of experience. Yet, what he writes is _his opinion_, colored by a lot of nuance by his perspective and tastes, and the complex definitions of what we're trying to nail down (e.g. - "what is blue water really"?) - hence these debates.

Second, there would have to be this strange rule that _only readers more experienced_ than Jon could dare question his opinion. And, again, I don't see where he himself holds out this standard.

If you've noticed, Jon is pretty patient about going through arguments with guys like me - pointing out areas where my assumptions are wrong, accepting certain things I argue if they hold water, etc.

He doesn't throw a hissy fit, incensed that "inferior sailors" dare question his papal decrees (like others have in the past). He just debates it - and we all learn a lot. That's cool.

Jon's a tremendously experienced sailor and we're lucky to have him around here. But he's a sailor...he can take a punch and swing back. He doesn't need a security detail. That's why I like the guy.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> ..... I still like them but the creaking bulkheads in rough seas gave her an uneasy feeling. I can talk till I am blue in the face about how the boat is not coming apart but once she sailed on a boat with no creaking, done deal, and I've lost the WAF (wife acceptance factor) battle.. We have no such creaking or bulkhead/hull movement noises on the CS, none, even on a 33 year old boat....


I do off-shore races on a Pearson 365 Ketch, and on a Pacific Seacraft 37 Crealock before that. Both boats creak when the seas get up a bit. Within the context of this thread, I never really considered that a sign of a poor construction - especially since both of those are pretty well regarded blue water boats.

(Oh yeah, and the head and cabin doors are always sticking - but they still sail pretty well. We did win our last race against some very fast boats.)


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Heck they wonrt even believe and expert like Jon and hes a delivery captain and has been on many of these boats and different types. Who better than to compare,
> 
> He gets challenged by graphs..pictures and theoreticals or that he pushes boats too hard. Imagine we have an expert..who is too expert...


Thanks, Dave - but I hate to burst your bubble... I'm certainly no "expert" on sailing yacht design... (grin)

My knowledge of the subject is pretty paltry compared to someone like Jeff H, for example... and, I really appreciate the perspective of a guy like Paulo, he has a much broader understanding re design than I do...

All I can really offer is my personal anecdotal "impressions" of the variety of boats I've sailed... Those have informed my own opinions on what makes a good boat, of course, but I'll admit they are pretty subjective, and tailored to the type of sailing I prefer to do... However, they do tend to fall pretty much in line with the sort of recommendations of offshore sailors like John Harries, John Neal, Bill Siefert, Ferenc Mate', Beth Leonard, and so on - including the various authors of John Rousmaniere's book, which I've cited repeatedly here...

One of whom was some guy named Olin Stephens, he sounded like he might have had some idea what he was talking about... (grin)

Another highly recommended read is Steve Killing's YACHT DESIGN EXPLAINED... Even some guy named Bob Perry admits that one's pretty damn good... (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Jon's a tremendously experienced sailor and we're lucky to have him around here. But he's a sailor...he can take a punch and swing back. He doesn't need a security detail. That's why I like the guy.


Thanks, Smack... Too bad the feeling ain't mutual...

(grin, BIGTIME)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks, Dave - but I hate to burst your bubble... I'm certainly no "expert" on sailing yacht design...
> 
> My knowledge of the subject is pretty paltry compared to someone like Jeff H, for example... and, I really appreciate the perspective of a guy like Paulo, he has a much broader understanding re design than I do...
> 
> All I can really offer is my personal anecdotal "impressions" of the variety of boats I've sailed... Those have informed my own opinions on what makes a good boat, of course, but I'll admit they are pretty subjective, and tailored to the type of sailing I prefer to do... ....


Thanks Jon, the appreciation is mutual. I don't think that I disagree with you most of the time. I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. Sometimes I find you do too big generalizations

The idea that all the mass production boats are the same makes no sense, even in what regards main brands they have different designs that are optimized to do better different things. They are all very well designed since they are designed by the better NA but evidently since they are different you have to chose the one that fill better your sailing tastes and type of cruising, even in what regards offshore cruising. The idea that a non production boat is always better in what regards seaworthiness than a production boat makes no sense too.

It all comes to design criteria and what one wants from a cruising boat. Certainly they have more luxurious interiors and in some case have a better build but in others we stay only with a better quality interior and finish. Regarding design they are not better designed and many times have an inferior quality in design.

Even in what people see as an ideal bluewater cruising boat, the ideas are very different and the boats also. I understand your perspective regarding that but others will prefer to have a boat as seaworthy as the ones you like, not as comfortable in a storm (even if not less safe) but way better and faster 95% of the time. Look for example at the boat Jean-Pierre Dick, one of the most experienced sailors around, designed in partnership with a good NA for bluewater cruising.






You may think that the guy is crazy and that is an isolated case but the guy is not crazy neither this is an isolated case but a very common one:

Ourson rapide

Spirit Of Adventure 65 Blue Water Cruising Yacht : Owen Clarke Design - Yacht Design and Naval Architects

Regarding this one a letter from the client to the NA:

*"Dear Merf and Allen

Friday last week, I and my friend Ecki arrived well in Auckland around 0200 pm on the mooring of the customs....

In exact 12 days we sailed 2483 m ( may be more, because I calculated it only in the charts day by day). We have had wind till 45 kn and the ship was sailing very safe with the solent and 2 reefs in the main on an angle to the wind of 120 till 140 degrees. In this strong wind we have got a speed of around 16 kn in the top. The ship was always easy to control and to handle. ...

Also the interior is fine designed. On the whole trip we have had always a good lunch easy to prepare and to work in the galley. The idea to adjust the beds in the aft cabins is also super. When the ship was heeling, we adjusted the angle and it was fantastic to sleep well.

... All is running well. The ship should now stay in NZ till April 2005. Than I´ll start to an other trip. But the destination is not quite fixed. About this I have to talk with Elke.

So I will confirm you once again this ship is really my dream. Thank you. It was the right decision.

...

Kind regards

Peter"*

I understand the design criteria that is not fa away from a Pogo cruiser or a Cigale and if I planned to circumnavigate by the trade winds such kind of design would be in my horizon.






There are a member that has one of those and says wonders about the boat. This is not certainly a marina boat and is made to cruise fast and to far away places.






Personnaly as I do not plan to do that I prefer a better boat upwind and less good on downwind sailing but the point is that many experienced sailors prefer those boats as bluewater voyage boats. I am sure it is not your case even if your perspective of what should be a bluewater boat is far from be a lonely one...but certainly not the only one

The reason I have posted those hull pictures was to show that modern boats don't have all the same type of hull even if a less discerning eye assume that they are all the same. Someone that took an interest in boat design is able to see those differences and understand why they are different (and for what purpose) and that does not certainly mean that any of those are badly designed boats. I am sure you can see the differences looking at the hulls and can understand that in what regards rocker probably the First is closer to the Trintella than to the Hanse and also that the Trintella is a modern hull, being an older designed keel the only outdated part.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> This is always a strange nuance on forums...that some readers like me won't simply "believe an expert like Jon".
> 
> First, Jon would have to be essentially saying that what he's writing is indisputable, infallible gospel. I don't think he's saying that. He can certainly correct me if I'm wrong - but I think he's giving his opinion...which is undeniably hard-won through a tremendous and very respectable amount of experience. Yet, what he writes is _his opinion_, colored by a lot of nuance by his perspective and tastes, and the complex definitions of what we're trying to nail down (e.g. - "what is blue water really"?) - hence these debates.
> 
> ...


Thanks Smacky....not sure where the other assumpotions you stated are...and I also have a right to support statement Jon has made, just like you have the right to disagree.

That doesnt mean I am his security detail. He certainly doesnt need one for sure.



> Second, there would have to be this strange rule that _only readers more experienced_ than Jon could dare question his opinion. And, again, I don't see where he himself holds out this standard.


Dont really see where that was being said, must have been your interrpretation of it. I think what I said is that I value his opinon and thought what he posted was true IMHO....more than yours in this case, as I think his experience far out weighs yours. Not sure that constitutes a hissy fit if you aimed that at me.

Thats nice that you all let us know how highly you think of him and explained what he says ...kind of like his security detail right?

I think I have the right to my opinions also, however unfounded they may be. Thats the beauty of SN. Even non sailors like me with no experience can post. So now I expect the usual personal attacks right.

I stand by what I said,,,there is always a strange nuance on some forums...some will not beleive what experts or people with a lot of experience say..sometimes it appears its because of the person saying it and sometimes it because they simply have made their minds up already and want to just argue their own points.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks, Dave - but I hate to burst your bubble... I'm certainly no "expert" on sailing yacht design... (grin)
> 
> My knowledge of the subject is pretty paltry compared to someone like Jeff H, for example... and, I really appreciate the perspective of a guy like Paulo, he has a much broader understanding re design than I do...
> 
> ...


I agree Jon. I have high regard though for someone who actual sails the boats ober boat design. JeffH of course is very very knowledgeable about design and that coupled with the many boats he has actually sailed is what makes his contributions so valuable. Paulo is also very detailed and exact about his feelings about boats and has a goood handle on them ( although I think he is fixated on the Hanse 415 and only European boats)( meant as a complimet Paulo).

I wish he would post more on the boats I see here in the States more as his critiques are insiteful

While theoretical knowledge is wonderful. I really value actual sailing on them to be more telling for me You and Jeff have that experience (jeff also has a lot of theoretical too). I want to know what it was like underway in real life conditions. I want to know how many have had structural problems, material construction problems, how many have lasted over the years. Some want to know how to get every 10th of a knot out of them, most however are looking for a boat that handles all points of sail fairly well and is constucted to handle the type of sailing they do the best. You do a lot of the same type sailing I do and want to do, thats why i listen carefully to your analysis of the boats you have been on, no bubble burst there. Having actual sailing comparisons to other boats is helpful to me right now especially as I am looking to find our last boat.

I beleive I have sailed on enough boats to know which ones scare me somewhat in terms of longevity and taking heavier weather over a long period of time. While I agree a lot of the newer designs that Paulo talks about are invarieably better sailing machines, after I have owned it for 20 years as I have owned my present boat, what will it look like then? There are very few production boats around from the 80s that are worth much. Yet the C&Cs, Tartans, Sabres, CS PS still are around and sailing. There is something to be said for that longevity and it speaks to their original quality as well as design.

I know what the differences between a 15 year old Tartan, Sabre, CS, Moody, Creaklock and a similar age production boat are. Historical data provides that.

JOon keep your reviews coming they are very insightful. Dont worry about your bubble...or halo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> .. Paulo is also very detailed and exact about his feelins about boats and has a goood handle on them ( although I think he is fixated on the Hanse 415 and only European boats)( meant as a complimet Paulo). I wish he would post more on the boats I see here in the States more as his critiques are insiteful
> 
> While theoretical knowledge is wonderful, i really value actual sailing on them to be more telling, and you and Jeff certainly have that.


Well, I do actually sail for many years and sailed many thousands of miles in different sailingboats but you probably do not know that.

Regarding the Hanse 415 I guess that you have understood it all wrong. That would be a boat that personally I would never buy or favor.

That does not mean that I don't find it very well designed regarding the things he was designed to perform. With that I do not mean that it is not an offshore boat: Counting this year that's the second time the boat finishes the Hobart, that is mostly a upwind race in nasty seas, precisely the thing that the Hanse 415 does worst. If he was no problems doing the Hobart, I mean the thing he does worst, you can imagine that the things he was designed to do better he does them really well. That's why I like the boat.

Regarding mass production mainstream cruisers, if it was for me, I would chose easily the Jeanneau 409. That of course does not mean that the Jeanneau 409 is a better boat, just more adequate to my sailing and cruising grounds. I could easily recommend the Hanse over the Jeanneau to other sailor if I knew that it would fit more its sailing and cruising style. Both boats are very well designed and have strong and weak points in what regards sailing, but I have already said that before.

Personally if I could, I would not chose any of them but a slightly more expensive performance cruiser, not only for the better performance in lighter winds but also by the superior stability and for the more efficient controls they provide regarding sail shape and sail control.

Among them I would chose a boat particularly good in upwind sailing. That's why the boats I had looked closer were the Salona 41 and 38, the J133 and J122, the Grand Soleil 43, the Comet 41s and the Elan 380. I have tried many of them before decided for the Comet and I chose the Comet because that's what I could find as a better deal on the used market. I could have had any of the others if I had find a better deal. I love them all.

Regarding the american boats I have not any bias, as I have said J boats were on my short list, it happens that when you talk about American boats you talk normally about older designs and regarding those I think the same regarding 10/15 year old European designs: They are outdated and outperformed by more modern designs and have also more interesting and modern interiors.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

PCP said:


> Well, I do actually sail for many years and sailed many thousands of miles in different sailingboats but you probably do not know that.
> 
> Regarding the american boats I have not any bias, as I have said J boats were on my short list, it happens that when you talk about American boats you talk normally about older designs and regarding those I think the same regarding 10/15 year old European designs: They are outdated and outperformed by more modern designs and have also more interesting and modern interiors.
> 
> ...


I know you sail...and i have seen your stories about the differing boats too I am sure you have much experience

I dont think your biased to Euorpean boats, its all what you get to see and what you have around you. Many of us in the US dont get to ever see to many Alumnum boats, Hanses, Amels, etc.

Not sure that Tartan, C&C, Sabre, Caliber, Island Packet would agree with 10-15 year old designs.

Other than Bennetau and maybe Jennaeu why is it do you think that these far superior European designed boats havent penetrated the US/ Canadian markets?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> I'd like to ask those sailors like Jon _*who have experience on a lot of different boats*_ to comment on what boats have had a comfortable motion, what boats have been a misery and what design elements each had in common.
> 
> My question is not about speed or performance but about reasonable comfort for the crew.


OK, here are a few of my favorites over the years... People who tend to favor the "performance" end of the spectrum, will no doubt roll their eyes at a couple of these (grin)...

One of the biggest misconceptions about "Seakindilness" and Comfort, however, is that such boats are necessarily slow... In my experience, all the heavier, more sea-kindly boats I like, are always surprisingly, deceptively fast... I'd consider my own boat to be such an example. Extremely heavy for her size, one can see from the pics I've posted, more than half the damn thing is below the waterline... And yet, still a pretty slippery hull form, she's made it out to Bermuda in under 5 days (including 10 hours hove-to in the Gulf Stream), not bad for a boat only 25' on the waterline... Offshore, she certainly has the "feel" of a much bigger boat, and a very nice motion, in general...

One of my all-time favorites was an Alden 38 named SEAFLOWER. I ran her down to FL and back 4 or 5 times, and to Maine and back each summer from her home port of Stonington, CT...










Very interesting design... the appearance of an Aage Nielsen above the waterline, but with a modern split underbody... Beautifully built in Denmark, that boat was a delight to sail, and surprisingly quick, and would have even been quicker with a conventional main, as opposed to in-mast furling... I loved that boat, and I see she's for sale, once again:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...id=1852&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public

I'd never sailed a Valiant until 2 summers ago... First surprise, was how nicely she kept moving in relatively light air (this was a 42, a better performer than the original 40, with a bigger sailplan) After taking it to the islands last year, I became a believer, just an incredibly seakindly boat offshore... And again, surprisingly fast...

The day after we arrived in Bermuda, the same Trintella named VALOUR that I referenced earlier arrived in St Georges (different owner, now) We both wound up leaving together a few days later, she was bound for Tortola, us for Antigua... Granted, in the strong NE conditions we had for the next few days, our sailing angle was marginally more favorable, but still... Monitoring their daily position reports to Herb, we were making virtually identical 24 hour runs... Again, not too shabby for a boat 8' smaller, against a performance design from Ron Holland with a massive rig... One day, we even outpaced them, making something like 168 NM to their 160...

As I mentioned earlier, I've always liked Ted Hood's designs... He's probably still one of the best examples of a guy who actually sailed the boats he designed, and vice versa... Back in the day when Bristol was still in business, I used to run a lot of their boats, and had a client with a 55' that moved around a lot... Another wonderful boat, with a hull form very similar to this smaller Bristol from the Hood office (Dieter Empacher, chief designer)

View Boat Photos - YachtWorld.com

In general, it seems tough to go wrong with most any design from Alden, McCurdy & Rhodes, Hood, and so on... In short, the sort of hull forms described in the article by John Harries cited earlier...

And then, of course, there is Sparkman & Stephens... The one boat I've sailed that stands above all the rest, in terms of being the perfect blend of seakindliness, and performance, came from their office...

The magnificent Seguin 52 FAIRWEATHER, built by Lyman-Morse... i only had the pleasure once, but it was a pretty fair test - a trip from Annapolis to Charleston, out around Hatteras, at the end of January...










Another classic design about the waterline, but a modern, but moderate underbody... Very fine ends, compared to most boats today... I see she's recently been sold, as well...










http://www.lymanmorse.com/boatDetails.php?boatID=37

Incredibly well-mannered and balanced, even in a good breeze, she could be steered with a couple of fingers... Solid as a rock, of course - if I ever hit the lottery, my boat will be built by Lyman-Morse...

That boat was a reminder of one of the sorriest trends in modern sailing yacht design... Namely, the demise of the pilot berth...

FAIRWEATHER had a pair amidships, they were like climbing into a Pullman berth on the Orient Express... One of the greatest pleasures I've ever experienced under sail, was catching a catnap in the leeward pilot berth on FAIRWEATHER, as she shouldered along at 8-9 knots in a big swell off Cape Fear, and the water rushing by inches from my ear...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

C'mon Jon comparing anything built by L-M is simply an UNFAIR comparison... The Seguin series are tremendous vessels in all aspects including price..... Still tough to find any yard that builds a better boat than L-M...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> Not sure that Tartan, C&C, Sabre, Caliber, Island Packet would agree with 10-15 year old designs.
> 
> Other than Bennetau and maybe Jennaeu why is it do you think that these far superior European designed boats havent penetrated the US/ Canadian markets?


I like a lot the new C&C 101. I have posted about the boat twice on interesting boats thread. I hope they can modernize the rest of the line with the same design quality they have been capable of produce on the 101.

I don't think we can call IP modern designs, with the exception of the Blue jacket that could be a great boat if some idiosyncrasies were taken away. Caliber are also old designs.

I like the Sabre 426 and 456 but they are really upgrades of older models and even so the 426 has already 10 years. Good boats but nothing exciting or truly modern about them, hardly new designs. The new Tartan is using an old hull from C&C. I guess that the one that is making more modern boats is Catalina. Good boats, well built, that I think could be improved a lot if designed by a major NA. Then you have the jboats and the Corsair that are so well designed that sell almost as well (or more?) in Europe than in the US. one of them, the J122 is even made in Europe.

Regarding European boats I guess that you have also Hanse, Bavaria and Halberg Rassy. American market is not so big in sailing boats and if boats are not made there the transport and tax will make the boats expensive. Besides American market is very Conservative comparing with the European one and many European boats would have only very marginal sells in the US. I see many European builders more interested in the Asiatic market than in the North American one.

It makes more sense for an American client of a specific boat (not mass market main stream) to buy it in Europe and sail it to US. I see many Americans doing that, some on this forum. this way they cut the dealer share, the transport to US and can probably get a boat for less 40% than if they buy it, imported in the US.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

JonEisberg said:


> OK, here are a few of my favorites over the years... People who tend to favor the "performance" end of the spectrum, will no doubt roll their eyes at a couple of these (grin)...


OK, those are some boats that would be great if I won the lottery. How about something for us mere mortals? 

Seriously are there production boats in the mid-30 to mid-40 foot range that stand out in your mind for reasons good or bad -- the boat you mentioned that did so poorly in the Chesapeake comes to mind. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same brand is represented in both the best and worst categories.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

I think I could learn to live with that RM1260. 

I think I'd prefer that "structure" in something other than galvanized steel though - that has a proven history of problems. I think I'd pay the price for aluminium or SS or something better.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

SloopJonB said:


> I think I could learn to live with that RM1260.
> 
> I think I'd prefer that "structure" in something other than galvanized steel though - that has a proven history of problems. I think I'd pay the price for aluminium or SS or something better.


The structure you are talking about is only the keel structure. I sailed the previous model the 1200, a great boat that is used by the French mainly as a voyage boat. The stability is really outstanding. The RM are around for many years and the fact that they had not been affected by the crisis, having increased sales and the very high resale value (if you can find one) are a measure of the solidity and quality of their boats.

There are not many around, if compared with mass production boats but they are everywhere even the smaller models. Some blogs:

La baltique en RM 10.50: Arrivée en Finlande, en voilier ou en camping-car ?
Pikourous au soleil

Sabay Dii

AMENAGEMENT | LES AVENTURES DU VOILIER "TIMELI" RM 10.50

Les aventures du voilier Kalinu

Le blog de su cantu 'e su entu.over-blog.com

Pingouin Tropical

Le bateau - bel ami

Tranquila 2009 -> 2011

juin « 2007 « harem

Here you have the smaller model:






Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> .....Seriously are there production boats in the mid-30 to mid-40 foot range that stand out in your mind for reasons good or bad --.....


How about the old Hunter Cherubinis? The 37 cutter looks like it would make a nice passage boat in that size range and they have some serious followers. I sailed a friends 33. It was a nice ride, although, I recall fairly tame conditions.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Continue to be in awe of the experiences of our senior members but have a question. Given some of us head south early November and north come hurricane season to satisfy the insurance pukes what's your suggested tactic for the typical cruising couple when it gets sticky. ?Hoving to ?Running with series drogue. Please speak to "modern" sloops/solents v. cutters/ketches. In my limited experience if there is adequate searoom dropping everything - deploying a drogue and waiting it out below when there is only two aboard is safest. Going on deck only to check for chafe and make sure nothing shook loose seems to be best. Would think the overly broad sterns and the fact the current generation of production boats float on the water instead of in it make either tactic more problematic. See alot of boats with no trysail nor storm jib. On many of the production boats noted in this thread seems difficult to rig these sails. Is is safe to be dependent on a triple reefed main and rolled up headsail?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> .... .... See alot of boats with no trysail nor storm jib. On many of the production boats noted in this thread seems difficult to rig these sails. Is is safe to be dependent on a triple reefed main and rolled up headsail?


A mass production cruiser comes rigged for what most people use the boat: Coastal cruising, simply be causes it is less expensive to rig it that way and anyway most people would not need more than that so, why waist money?

There are some production cruisers, like the Rm and the Allures and other voyage boats that come already with a cutter rig plus a place for a removable geenaker or code 0 on a furler. Boats like that point to clients that want boats already prepared for blue water cruising, so that makes sense but, off course, makes the boats more expensive.

Almost all modern cruisers of 36ft and over have the needed stability and can be adapted for blue water cruising. If you want and ask for that, the factory or the dealer in conjunction with the factory, will do it. That can assume a fixed cutter configuration or more commonly a removable textile stay with a tensioner that can be mounted in seconds or even be mounted before bad time arrives (just some seconds). On that stay you can mount a smaller front sail (if you have mounted on the furler a big genoa) or a storm sail.

The ones that use the boat only in coastal condition with an occasional small passage use many times a stormbag sail, or the american equivalent, to mount over the furled genoa if needed.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

outbound said:


> See alot of boats with no trysail nor storm jib. On many of the production boats noted in this thread seems difficult to rig these sails. Is is safe to be dependent on a triple reefed main and rolled up headsail?


There's new technology and old technology and its up to you what you want to go for.
I have been sailing all my life and the new technology is vastly superior IMHO.

Even if I was sailing the Antartic I would still have the same sail rig as a modern production boat, better than mine only in that I would want in mast furling for the main.

Mark


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Even if I was sailing the Antartic I would still have the same sail rig as a modern production boat, better than mine only in that I would want in mast furling for the main.
> 
> Mark


... interesting.... I'd have thought with potentially harsher conditions one would not necessarily want the added potential complication.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...
> Even if I was sailing the Antartic I would still have the same sail rig as a modern production boat, better than mine only in that I would want in mast furling for the main.
> 
> Mark


That seems really a bad idea to me. A lot of weight up on the mast in bad weather when the sail is almost all furled in, taking away stability when you need it more and.... all things that can jam will jam one day. What would you do with a big sail up in bad weather without any means to bring it down?

A furling boom is a better idea. if jammed or malfunctioning you can always take the sail down and when reefed the weight of the sail will be down, not up in the mast.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Faster said:


> ... interesting.... I'd have thought with potentially harsher conditions one would not necessarily want the added potential complication.


It's not a potential complication compared to sending people on deck in a storm to stuff around with trisails and storm jobs. The weight aloft is negligible.

Anyway a modern boat the storm tactics include the engine. Older boats don't because their power to weight ratio is worse.

What the old guys couldn't do was motor in a storm for 48 hours so they had no option but to sail. Now there's a myriad of options and the furling main adds to those because the sail can just be out a smidgen, half the area of a trisail, or whatever is wanted.

And there is increased safety with LESS complication as there's no three reefs to all tangle.

The only proviso is the furling main wants to be in good order, not a decade old.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

IMHP most of the furling problems are owner caused IF for no other reason the time necessary to use the systems in adverse conditions is NOT put in until its to late ?

The Cal 29 came with a first generation hood stoboom which is supposed to be the worst thing ever made 

The wife and myself took are time getting to know it during the first season, put it good working order and it performance is great and i would think the new booms must be really good










I spliced in a new line following Knotheads excellent instructions and made sure all the blocks were good










Once you mark the topping lift for the happy angle the sail can be rolled standing in the cockpit in 15 seconds to a size that balances out with the Genoa and the boat gets happy and just tracks


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

PCP said:


> A furling boom is a better idea.
> 
> Paulo


I disagree.
I have used them and hate them. Most boats with curlers have in mast. There's more than one reason, mostly because they fail less and are much cheaper. They are not production boat type equipment they are super yacht rich buggers stuff.

But that's an argument for another thread. I'm not into that one.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Tommays, that Cal 29 main does look lovely and flat.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> It's not a potential complication compared to sending people on deck in a storm to stuff around with trisails and storm jobs. The weight aloft is negligible.
> 
> Anyway a modern boat the storm tactics include the engine. Older boats don't because their power to weight ratio is worse.
> 
> ...


I disagree regarding the use of the engine in storm conditions. In a storm you need to have the boat tied to a side (by the wind, not deeply heeled) and not bouncing around at the waves mercy and that's what happen if you are using an engine only. If you use the engine and sail in stormy conditions probably you are going to kill the engine. The engine is not made to work with more than 15º of heel and in stormy conditions, if you go upwind you will have more than that.

I agree with being a bad idea to go forward in a small boat on stormy conditions specially if you are alone but with automatic reefing plus a two lines third reef you don't need to do that. You don't need to go there also for setting a trysail because modern boats work well in extreme weather with only a small front sail, specially if it is a storm sail. Take a look:






Really bad weather with modern meteorology should not fall on a unprepared sailor. The boat should be ready before bad weather comes even if you have to wait some time for it.

Regarding furling booms, there are bad and good. This is a good one. I know that it works very well even on a performance boat like this one:










Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Faster said:


> > Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife
> > Even if I was sailing the Antartic I would still have the same sail rig as a modern production boat, better than mine only in that I would want in mast furling for the main.
> 
> 
> ... interesting.... I'd have thought with potentially harsher conditions one would not necessarily want the added potential complication.


Well, his would be the minority opinion among those like Skip Novak, or Hamish & Kate Laird, who sail to the Antarctic for a living...



> I knew exactly what I wanted and the formula was very pragmatic - keep it simple! The first meetings went something like this, "Do you want a bow thruster?" NO 'Hydraluic furlers?" NO "Electric winches?" NO "Watermaker?" NO "Refrigeration?" NO, NO, NO, and so on. I am amused again and again when I see the astonished faces of the suppliers of equipment when they realize we intend to trim our sails and furl them - by hand!
> 
> Skip Novak News Pages





















Expedition Sail - Antarctica


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Skip Novak uses a furling genoa and a slab reeled main ... No trisail, no storm jib. He has a few furlers, his boat isn't a production boat.

Anyway, you lot can do what ever you want. I really don't give a rats bum.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Regarding furling booms, there are bad and good. This is a good one. I know that it works very well even on a performance boat like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed...

I had a few glitches with the earliest versions of the Leisure-Furl, but Forespar seems to have gotten it pretty well sorted out, now... I still wouldn't want one with the motor in the boom, however - I think using the conventional arrangement with the downhaul led to a cockpit winch is a far more reliable system...

A far superior system to in-mast furling, IMHO... You certainly get a far more effective mainsail, that's for sure... Although, I must admit I've never tried the latest versions employing vertical battens, they probably are a bit of an improvement...

Still, a Leisure-Furl or similar, coupled with a hydraulic vang, is the way to go on bigger boats, IMO... Good ol' fashioned slab reefing is still the way to go otherwise, however... (grin)


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Thanks for the 20 plus pages ! I am new and trying to digest all this and learn. Can I ask for stability, do sailers have a world index for each type of boat? ISO 12217 ? Categogy A,B,C, 1,2,3 ? Do they hide this data? I was looking at the Chicargo to Mac. race. They are trying to make a (safe) boat rule. Is there a way to put a stamp or number to every boat to judge apples to apples ? You have upright and inverse stablity. You can build a huge pencil put a weight on the bottom a sail on the top. It will have a large phrf and not out run the weather. It will not capsize. Should I have some easy way to know this? THANKS, LOU


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I disagree.
> I have used them and hate them. Most boats with curlers have in mast. There's more than one reason, mostly because they fail less and are much cheaper. They are not production boat type equipment they are super yacht rich buggers stuff.
> 
> But that's an argument for another thread. I'm not into that one.


FWIW, I have had both and have used both offshore. Pluses and minuses to both. I have greater fear with the in-mast for the usual reason, which is what to do if it jams halfway out, but the reality is that while you get better sail shape, full roach, etc., with furling booms (and that ain't nothin' by the way), they are indeed more finicky, and halyards jam too with a sail halfway up/down! The in-mast is very easy to use, much easier than in-boom. Frankly, from a convenience standpoint, the in-boom is only marginally more convenient, if at all, than a well setup set of lazy jacks or a Dutchman system.

Interestingly, the only trouble I ever have had with either system was with the furling boom. Gooseneck broke halfway to Bermuda, so we couldn't furl or deploy the main. It broke when the sail was reefed, i.e., halfway out, so we had a problem for a short while, until we were able to drop it to the deck, which actually took a little doing. In contrast, after 5 seasons, our furling mast has never given us a lick of trouble, whether offshore, coastal or inshore. But truth be told, I do still "think" ("worry" probably is too strong) about that potential jam with the sail half out, even though it never has happened to us.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Lou452 said:


> I was looking at the Chicargo to Mac. race. They are trying to make a (safe) boat rule.


Like the Fastnet race tragedy? That race series was won first, second and Thrid by Australian boats.

So look at Sydney Hobart race tragedy in 1999 that race was won on handicap by a Beneteau.

So figures misrepresented on the Internet mean diddly-squat.

My take is modern is better. Everyone else says old is better, complicated is better, expensive is better.

You figure it out


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Although, I must admit I've never tried the latest versions employing vertical battens, they probably are a bit of an improvement...


I have partial vertical battens. You still lose a fair bit of performance. Sail is smaller than those on my sisterships with conventional mainsails, and while you don't have a hollow or "negative" roach as with early in-mast sails, I still don't have positive roach. I've been looking at Doyle's fully vertical battened furling mainsails, and they claim they support a full roach. I'm likely to give them a go when I replace my main, but I'll probably wait one more year before pulling that trigger.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Ask yourself this......can my boat meet the European cat A requirements that I posted earlier, and can you meet the ISAF off shore racing requirements......while not exact, still a reasonable copy can be found in cat 1 HERE! If so, you should be reasonably set for an offshore passage, in the boat of your choosing. Be it a production, one of the Morris daysailors I posted earlier about, or one of the offshore boats they build, or what ever the brand it may be be be it a true one off custom, semi custom ie Morris, or true production style boat.

To go off shore, takes a brain cell or two, unlike some of us with one brain electron.....

In the mean time, seaslugs won today, so off to the playoffs they go! I'm trying to figure out what I have here at home that I took off my 25 yr old Jeanneau, put it back on new years day, hopefully go for a sail, after taking of the 2800 or so xmas lights!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Skip Novak uses a furling genoa and a slab reeled main ... No trisail, no storm jib. He has a few furlers, his boat isn't a production boat.
> 
> Anyway, you lot can do what ever you want. I really don't give a rats bum.


Didn't you sail around the world, Mark?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Lou452 said:


> Thanks for the 20 plus pages ! I am new and trying to digest all this and learn. Can I ask for stability, do sailers have a world index for each type of boat? ISO 12217 ? Categogy A,B,C, 1,2,3 ? Do they hide this data? I was looking at the Chicargo to Mac. race. They are trying to make a (safe) boat rule. Is there a way to put a stamp or number to every boat to judge apples to apples ? You have upright and inverse stablity. You can build a huge pencil put a weight on the bottom a sail on the top. It will have a large phrf and not out run the weather. It will not capsize. Should I have some easy way to know this? THANKS, LOU


A class A boat means that conforms with a complicated set of measures some of them having to do with stability. Any modern 36ft boat should pass that conformity and a very well designed 30ft can manage that even if for that has to have a very good stability for its size. A good example is the A 31.

That kind of very narrow boat you describe with a lot of ballast deep down looks like the last AC monohull. A boat like that is great upwind but not very fast and very tricky to sail downwind. Not fast because it would be very difficult or impossible to reach planning speed, tricky because the boat will tend to balance from side to side, specially with lateral waves since it has not a substantial hull form stability to damp that movement. Besides these inconvenients a narrow boat will need always a lot of heel to sail and will offer a very small interior space.

Regarding accessing a boat stability the better instrument is a stability curve. On the interesting sailboat thread I have a post explaining how to read one regarding the meaningful data.

Some boat builders publish the stability curves, others will give them to you if you ask and others don't really like to give them but if you say that you won't buy the boat without seeing it, they will give it to you

They all have them because they are needed for the EC certification of the boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay, after debating this issue for lo these many pages, and after deep genuflection on all the salient points made herein, I've come to a startling conclusion...

Production cruising boats will handle virtually any conditions on the ocean (aside from the true extremities). If you, as the sailor of said boat, can deal with said conditions, the boat will very likely not fail you.

Catalina, Hunter, Beneteau, Jenneau, whatever....it will keep you afloat just fine...if you've got the stones to ride it out.

Well, I guess that settles that. Now what?

(PS - I might be missing the large body of data that proves this conclusion wrong...but I've sure not seen anything like that. So, I gotta go with the facts.)


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> > Originally Posted by Lou452
> > Thanks for the 20 plus pages ! I am new and trying to digest all this and learn. Can I ask for stability, do sailers have a world index for each type of boat? ISO 12217 ? Categogy A,B,C, 1,2,3 ? Do they hide this data? I was looking at the Chicargo to Mac. race. They are trying to make a (safe) boat rule. Is there a way to put a stamp or number to every boat to judge apples to apples ? You have upright and inverse stablity. You can build a huge pencil put a weight on the bottom a sail on the top. It will have a large phrf and not out run the weather. It will not capsize. Should I have some easy way to know this? THANKS, LOU
> 
> 
> ...


Regarding the difficulty of obtaining stability curves for American production boats, I'm guessing it might just possibly be due to the fact that so many of them suck...? (grin)

There will be such data for boats that have been measured for the IMS... There is supposed to be a document or booklet available from US Sailing - PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN IMS FLEET - but after a quick look at their website, I didn't notice any link to it, but it should be available somewhere...

As to Lou's question, Nigel Calder has a pretty thorough discussion of these issues in the first chapter of his CRUISING HANDBOOK... It includes a table of key parameters of a small assortment of about 2 dozen contemporary US & Euro boats between 38-42 feet... For example, the LPS of a Catalina 400 MK II is only 111 degrees, whereas for a Pacific Seacraft 40, it is an impressive 143... Numbers like that could someday translate to a VERY meaningful difference, say, somewhere between Newport, and Bermuda...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ....
> 
> As to Lou's question, Nigel Calder has a pretty thorough discussion of these issues in the first chapter of his CRUISING HANDBOOK... It includes a table of key parameters of a small assortment of about 2 dozen contemporary US & Euro boats between 38-42 feet... For example, the LPS of a Catalina 400 MK II is only 111 degrees, whereas for a Pacific Seacraft 40, it is an impressive 143... Numbers like that could someday translate to a VERY meaningful difference, say, somewhere between Newport, and Bermuda...


From the same book:










There is much more from a stability curve than an AVS. A boat can have a high AVS and not be a good sailing boat. Not saying that the Pacif Seacraft is not a good sailboat but it is better than the Vailant 40? Well certainly the one of the Vailant is better than the one of the Sabre 402 but without looking to the one of the Pacific Seacraft I would not know.

Certainly a sailing boat should have a good AVS, at least over 110 but ideally around or over 120, but that is not what defines the power and stiffness of the boat needed to sail in bad weather, specially upwind. what defines that is the first half of the curve, specially till 45º.

Also the value at 90º is very important and in some soft curves with a low max GZ and a high AVS the value at 90º can be a lot smaller than in boats with a hard curve and a high GZ and for instance an AVS of 115.

The max GZ and the downflooding point are also very important in what regards safety as also the area under the positive part of the curve. Other important factor is the proportion between the area under the positive and negative part of the stability curve.

Here you have the stability curve of the new Elan 400 that I believe will be a very good overall sailingboat and particularly good in upwind sailing:










This is a RM curve while the others are GZ curves, they are proportional and have the same AVS but to obtain a GZ from a RM curve we will have to divide the values by the boat displacement.

If you do that we can see that the Elan GZ values are much better for a similar AVS value, considering the Vailant 40. We can see that the Max GZ of the Vailant is about 0.7m and the one of the Elan is about 1.0m.










Regards

Paulo


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Well let me wish all of you a happy New Year ! Thank you for your post ! I enjoy and like to see more that one side. I learn more when you all pick a different point of view. It is like a book that is interactive. I saw some of the 2012 volvo ocean race on netflix just the other day. It was kind of nice in some ways to see the pros have some issues, Sails getting jammed and such. They move the keels. Any Non-pros doing this?? It might be good for me to see some take it easy lay back and relax type of sailing. My next read will come off the book thread hear at sailnet. Maybe Adlard Coles, Nigel Calder , John V. , Gregg Nestor They will not take a question like you all. I like to hear about the one off custom boats... What a production boat can do.. Unless I am blessed beyond my dreams the one off custom boat will be out of my reach :-( Wish you all - skill, and great plans for the new year, Lou


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Didn't you sail around the world, Mark?


Yes, I finished this circumnavigation two years ago and have since been in the Caribbean and up to New York, now heading back to the Caribbean and then to the Med. then Brazil for their Olympics.

I have done a half circumnavigation before, in 1998/99 on other people's boats including the Great Lakes to Nova Scottia and Israel to argentine.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Lou452 said:


> ... They move the keels. Any Non-pros doing this?? It might be good for me to see some take it easy lay back and relax type of sailing. ..
> I like to hear about the one off custom boats... What a production boat can do.. Unless I am blessed beyond my dreams the one off custom boat will be out of my reach :-( Wish you all - skill, and great plans for the new year, Lou


Yes there are some cruisers having canting keels on their boats but they are very rich cruisers and normally on big yachts. One of the smaller that use it is that JP52 that I posted some posts back with a movie.

Not much to know about its use. The really reason they are not used on production boats is cost that is proportionally higher on a small boat than in a big yacht.

However there are some not very expensive racers using them and I mean racing minis. They cant them by hand but again not any that is a production boat either, at least to my knowledge.

A good year to you also and to all.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Yes, I finished this circumnavigation two years ago and have since been in the Caribbean and up to New York, now heading back to the Caribbean and then to the Med. then Brazil for their Olympics.
> 
> I have done a half circumnavigation before, in 1998/99 on other people's boats including the Great Lakes to Nova Scottia and Israel to argentine.


That's what I thought. And you did your circ in a production boat...and didn't die? And I think you're actually still sailing it because it hasn't fallen apart yet?

Yep, I'd definitely consider you one of the experts.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> OK, those are some boats that would be great if I won the lottery. How about something for us mere mortals?
> 
> Seriously are there production boats in the mid-30 to mid-40 foot range that stand out in your mind for reasons good or bad -- the boat you mentioned that did so poorly in the Chesapeake comes to mind. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same brand is represented in both the best and worst categories.


Rather than focusing on particular boats, the point I've always been trying to make in these discussions is to think in terms of the "characteristics" of a design which contribute to seakindliness... There are many affordable boats out there which share the sort of hull form that John Harries describes, and of the boat's I've cited...

Honestly, I haven't sailed all that many different boats in the 30-40' range, most of my delivery work has always involved boats larger than 40'... C couple that come immediately to mind are the Bristol 35.5 and 38.8, and the Little Harbor 38, all very nice all-around boats... I've only sailed a Tartan 37 in smooth water, but it was a very well-mannered boat that certainly felt right... That's a boat with a very solid reputation, hard to go wrong with an S&S design, of course...

John Neal's list is as good a place to start looking, as any:

Mahina Expedition - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising

Again, when you're looking for characteristics in a boat, I think it's more helpful to focus on the design pedigree, rather than the builder... For example, as Minnewaska mentioned, the Cherubini-designed Hunters are an entirely different animal from the contemporary Hunter line... IMHO, it's hard to go wrong with a design from S&S, Bob Perry, Chuck Paine, Ted Hood and his proteges, and so on...

I'll just mention a couple of others in your size range, that while I've never sailed, have always intrigued me, and would be on my personal short list...

The Hood 38, from Wauquiez... Herb McCormick, who's probably sailed a wider variety of boats than anyone I know, sailed aboard one in Alaska years ago, and told me that would be on his short list, for a go-anywhere, affordable boat...

And, the Pretorian 35, also from Wauquiez, was Hal & Margaret Roth's last boat... That says something, in my book...

Chuck Paine's early designs, such as the Able Whistler... that has always looked like a wonderful boat, to my eye... the Morris 36/38 looks like a gem, a yacht broker friend of mine who's also sailed a bunch of different boats, rates that one as one of his favorites of all time... Of course, such a boat will still be out of the financial reach of most of us "mere mortals", unfortunately...

Sadly, most all of these kinds of boats will share one trait in common, beyond their seakindliness, comfort, safe decks, and decent performance under sail... Namely, their interiors - when compared to the overwhelming percentage of production offerings exhibited in Annapolis each October - will appear relatively small, cramped, and dark... Thus, for those having to convince a somewhat less enthusiastic spouse or girlfriend to come along the ride, or has a family to consider, it can be tough sell to have them appreciate the virtues of boats designed to _SAIL_, as opposed to those designed from the inside-out, and thus to "show well" in the side-by-side comparison taste test represented by the Boat Show...

Basically, I blame the rise to prominence of The Boat Show and Charter Industry as being responsible for all of the worst trends in modern sailing yacht design and production over the last couple of decades... (grin)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

My boat is Ocean "A" rated. For 13 passengers no less, which is comical. That's a ridiculous crowd for a day sail on the Bay.

Nevertheless, I admit, she will pound the fillings out of your teeth, if beating to windward with steep seas. She sails fast, is pretty stable in heavy wind, has an AVS of 116 and a reasonably protected, but drainable cockpit. I think she has every reason to qualify as a reasonable ocean passage platform. However, her big flat bottom and plumb bow are undoubtedly to provide for plenty of interior space and that clearly comes a some price. It's a price I'm willing to pay, as the conditions she might suffer in are very infrequent for our use. To date, I've had hundreds of dinner down below and guest aboard at some beautiful New England anchorage. When we cross to Bermuda, we might wish for a more sea kindliness, but think our production boat will do fine. The irony is, even serious ocean travelers seem to spend more time coastal cruising than crossing oceans.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> > Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife
> > It's not a potential complication compared to sending people on deck in a storm to stuff around with trisails and storm jobs. The weight aloft is negligible.
> >
> > Anyway a modern boat the storm tactics include the engine. Older boats don't because their power to weight ratio is worse.
> ...


Agreed, reliance upon an engine as a strategy to deal with storm conditions is not a good plan... Didn't work out very well for the BOUNTY, I seem to recall...

Heavy weather is precisely the time when engines aboard sailboats are most likely to have problems... The abandonment of the yacht SANCTUARY enroute to Bermuda in November '11 is a classic example, seawater apparently shorted out their starter/electrics when they attempted to fire up the engine, and they were then left without a means to recharge their batteries, satellite phone, etc, which turned out to be a major contributor to their decision to abandon...

And, a week or so later, TRIPLE STARS was abandoned after the loss of one of her crew, and reportedly having problems with her autopilot, and in-mast furling system...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> That's what I thought. And you did your circ in a production boat...and didn't die? And I think you're actually still sailing it because it hasn't fallen apart yet?
> 
> Yep, I'd definitely consider you one of the experts.


Smack, expert regarding what? To show that an Oceanis 39 is well capable of circumnavigate if one chose carefully the right seasons and evade high latitudes?

I have a fellow countryman that had circumnavigate solo 2 times with the same boat, a Bavaria 36, I know of at least another guy that had solo circumnavigated solo on another one, heard about a Frenchman that was doing it and have a friend that had crossed the Atlantic several times and sailed extensively with one.

Sure, production boats, even smaller ones that the one Mark has can do it with a reasonable safety margin but that does not mean that they are the most appropriated, comfortable or safe boats to do that, even in that length class.

I know very well the Bavaria 36, had made about 15 000nm in one and I know also Mark's boat since a fiend had one on my marina and I used to sail in it and also sailed together with them.

I know for instance that the Bavaria 36 can go closer to the wind and faster than the Oceanis 39 in fair weather (we sailed many times together) but I also know that kind of boats (with a low B/D ratio) have problems going against a lot of sea close to the wind even with a lot of wind and they slam if keep too close to the wind. Both boats have the same kind of hull, with not much rocker and entries that cannot be considered fine.



















Of course as Mark says his does not slam sailed by him, and for that you have just to go away from the wind and have a more open course but that will translate in a worst performance, meaning a worse velocity made good against the wind.

Both boats have similar keels and the Oceanis 393 has a better D/B ratio (27% and 29%) even if both boats cannot compare for instance regarding that and particularly stifness with Elan 400 that I posted before. This will make the Bavaria a more tender boat and in fact one of the Bavaria characteristics was that he sailed with a lot of heel, at least if one wanted to go fast. With a lot of waves I doubted that the Bavaria could be faster upwind. Pretty sure that it would be slower.

Anyway I can assure you that a boat like the Elan 400, or my own boat will pound less and sail faster against the wind than the Bavaria 36 or the Oceanis 393.

Bottom point, I believe that Mark is a very experienced sailor but that does not make him necessarily an expert about the best boats to circumnavigate. Any boat designer with a lot of experience in sailing and designing boats will have a more expert opinion about that.

Anyway I don't believe that there is only a type of boat suited for bluewater cruising and that's why very experienced NA come with very different solutions. I believe that almost all mass produced boats with over 33ft can do it with an adequate margin of safety (if rigged and prepared for that) I believe also that there are better boats to do that then others, even considering the several personal options regarding sailing style and living lifestyle.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> Basically, I blame the rise to prominence of The Boat Show and Charter Industry as being responsible for all of the worst trends in modern sailing yacht design and production over the last couple of decades... (grin)


Not really that. The number of boats sold for charter are much less than the ones sold to private owners. I guess you can blame it on the utilization most sailors give to their sailboats. They are adjusted to that.

But regarding that you can still find lots of different boats adapted to different types or sailing, more or less living aboard oriented, more or less efficient regarding sailing, upwind or downwind more or less balanced. I guess you have for all tastes and all sailors when before the choice was much more limited. I think a wider choice is a good thing, it permits to give to each sailor what he wants and needs regarding cruising and sailing.

Increase of beam and shape of hull have also been greatly influenced by the abandon of shapes determined by a racing rating (IRC, ORC) to shapes that come from the experience in solo open racing boats, boats that are made to be solo sailed. that makes sense and have contributed to cruising boats more easy to sail and more adapted to the short crews that today normally sail cruising boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

I am continually amazed at people making statements about passage making capabilities of their production yachts. Capsize ratios and stability indexes don't tell the whole story. Construction details are overlooked in these. When your hull is oil canning like crazy, your hatches leaking due to flex in your cabin top, and your bulkheads are coming loose from their tabbing all those ratios don't mean a thing. It still comes down to where you are sailing. If you get caught in some bad weather hitting the gulfstream or one of the stream's eddies that trip to Bermuda just might be a little more than your boat can handle. Running your engine to get out of trouble can have some issues also.

I used to think a lot like most of the posters here. After I experienced a 3 day gale (35 to 55 knots true, braking 20-25 foot seas, short duration waves) in the North Atlantic way offshore my opinions have changed. Dropping off a 20 foot wave repeatedly changes your perspective on boat construction. The custom built aluminum pilothouse I was in survived this with no damage. It probably was due to the ring frames, longitudinal stringers, crash bulkheads, engine in a a gasketed watertight compartment etc. Our friends, in a well found production boat one day behind us, detoured to Bermuda to miss most of the storm. In the 24 hours they were in it they endured major structural damage to their boat with crew injuries. The hull flexed like crazy, bulkheads separated, the nav station separated from the hull, the sole broke etc. They survived but the boat was a total loss. Their boat, an Ericson 46, had some pretty good numbers, was well maintained, and well equipped. Specifications for the Ericson 46
LOA 45.8 ft. LOD 45.8 ft. 
LWL 35.0 ft. Beam 13.2 ft. 
Draft 7.2 ft. Displaces 31,500 lbs. 
Ballast 16,500 lbs. Sail Area 1,064.0 sq. ft. 
Performance Indicators
D/L 328 B/D52 % SA/D 17.1 
Comfort 39.1 Capsize 1.67 L/B 3.5 

Bottom line, you can sail around the world in most production boats. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time most of the boats can get you into trouble. If you are sailing offshore of the east coast of US your chance of encountering those wrong places is pretty good in the spring and late fall when low pressure systems coming across the continental US are unpredictable. I'm not saying that most production boats won't make it and aren't suitable for passage making, it is just that there are risks involved. Some boats aren't suited for those extremely rough conditions that we all hope we don't encounter.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

PCP said:


> Smack, expert regarding what? To show that an Oceanis 39 is well capable of circumnavigate if one chose carefully the right seasons and evade high latitudes?
> 
> I have a fellow countryman that had circumnavigate solo 2 times with the same boat, a Bavaria 36, I know of at least another guy that had solo circumnavigated solo on another one, heard about a Frenchman that was doing it and have a friend that had crossed the Atlantic several times and sailed extensively with one.
> 
> ...


Our best friends have a Bavaria 36. Shes a nice boat. Quick and easily sailed. Tender like our C&C though. easily reefed and you have to do it early to keep it on its feet. Ultra thin keel and rudder. I have been in it in rough weather and it does pound some. I Nice interior for the size boat and well made. Nice light wood feel vs plasics. I like that the transom isnt open, but can be swung down. I am not fond of the Volva engine. Tankage would need to be increased for offshorre sailing. Lotta fun to sail. Looks like a good deal for the money it costs.

Dave


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

PCP said:


> Of course as Mark says his does not slam sailed by him, and for that you have just to go away from the wind and have a more open course but that will translate in a worst performance, meaning a worse velocity made good against the wind.


*would you mind not insinuating I can not sail, you F'ing peanut.*


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > ...
> > Basically, I blame the rise to prominence of The Boat Show and Charter Industry as being responsible for all of the worst trends in modern sailing yacht design and production over the last couple of decades... (grin)
> 
> ...


One can't help but notice that most of the boats you cite in these discussion tend to be considerably more "performance oriented" than those that many of us Americans sail, and tend to go off cruising on... I think that reflects a fundamental distinction between the mindset of most European builders, and their American counterparts - which, of course, is primarily a function of how the respective "markets" actually use their boats...

Which, in turn, is largely a function of geography... It makes perfect sense that there is a higher premium on more weatherly, seakindly boats in your part of the world, where so much more of the sailing is done in open, unprotected waters. It's no surprise that the French, for example, have produced the sort of sailors they have, when pretty much the only sailing that can be done on their Atlantic coast, is to head out into the Bay of Biscay...

America's coastline - at least along the East and Gulf coasts - is unique in that so much of our sailing can be done in protected, sheltered waters... Two of our most popular cruising grounds - the Chesapeake, and Long Island Sound - are for the most part quite placid and tame bodies of water, with safe shelter never far away... A far cry from the sort of sailing one does along your coastline, or in a place like South Africa, for example...

And then, of course, we have the Intracoastal Waterway, which given a bit of luck, makes it possible to transit the entire length of the Eastern seaboard without ever taking a drop of seawater on deck... (or, without ever hoisting or unfurling a sail, for that matter)

We really do do a different type of "sailing" over here... I'm hard-pressed to imagine much of a market on your side of the pond for a boat like an Island Packet, for example - it simply wouldn't suit the sort of sailing most Europeans are compelled to do... Over here, however, it's the Dream Boat for many a Snowbird's winter sabbatical, with it's ability to plow down the ICW with the comfort and economy of a trawler, and a shoal draft suitable for exploring the shallow waters of the inland waters of the East coast or the Bahamas...

If Europe had an Intracoastal Waterway like ours, I bet you'd see much more of a market for boats where performance under sail takes a back seat to comfort under power, as well...


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Jon, 

While not an ICW, they do have some canals that can be toured on over there, many are motorized barges, or smaller sailboats with masts that can be brought down by one or two people. So to a degree, many boats are designed to handle the waterways that one sails on. There is probably also a reason why on the west coast of Wa and OR as to why it is called the graveyard of the pacific too! While cape Hatteras has sunk a number of boats, the columbia river bar has sunk a lot, as have some of the other bars, and the rocky coast with no where to hide per say. The east coast from what I can tell would be a cake walk to sail/motor up and down as compared to this side of NA.

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

PCP said:


> Smack, expert regarding what? To show that an Oceanis 39 is well capable of circumnavigate if one chose carefully the right seasons and evade high latitudes...


He's sailed tens of thousands of blue water miles, for several years, in a somewhat "standard" production cruising boat. That certainly puts him in expert territory as to insight on how a production boat handles sailing in the oceans...around the world. And, I'll let him speak for himself, but he seems pretty pleased with it - despite how some may insist that shouldn't be possible.

At some point, this whole argument becomes too academic or too subjective. As to the OP - there is definitely bias against production boats - but I certainly don't see where the facts hold that out...especially when there are many, many sailors like Mark and Michael proving the bias wrong pretty much every day out there.

There are always "better boats"...always...regardless of what you have. But I see no evidence that modern production boats are not capable of sailing blue water - pretty comfortably and safely even.

Mark can correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> *would you mind not insinuating I can not sail, you F'ing peanut.*


I don't insult nobody and I don't like to be insulted. See if you cab manage your behavior. nothing that I said implies or insinuates that you don't know how to sail. I have said that you are certainly a very experienced sailor. Regarding that thing about motoring through storms in a sailboat as a storm tactic, I don't agree that is the best way to do it and no insult was meant, merely show disagreement. Do you think that a difference of opinion mean or insinuate that you don't know how to sail?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I've decided my production boat is fully capable and I'm leaving now!! Who's coming?

Of course, we just finished dinner and a couple bottles of great wine and are heading down to our favorite local for a cocktail (walking distance), so I should consider this again in the morning.

Happy New Year all !!!!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> Our best friends have a Bavaria 36. Shes a nice boat. Quick and easily sailed. Tender like our C&C though. easily reefed and you have to do it early to keep it on its feet. Ultra thin keel and rudder. I have been in it in rough weather and it does pound some. I Nice interior for the size boat and well made. Nice light wood feel vs plasics. I like that the transom isnt open, but can be swung down. I am not fond of the Volva engine. Tankage would need to be increased for offshorre sailing. Lotta fun to sail. Looks like a good deal for the money it costs.
> 
> Dave


Yes, I agree with what you say. I don't know how was equipped your friend's boat but maybe we can say here something that was not made clear about production boats. Some brands have just some options but others have from lead keel, to epoxy hull, bigger mast, different masts, different size of winches, more winches, different rigging, back stay tensioner, removable stay and a lot more options.

In some brands a top boat is very different from a basic boat and also a lot more expensive. when I bought the Bavaria 36 in 2002 I thought that it was going to be my final boat so I equipped it the way it seems to fit my tastes and needs. The result was 35 000 euros of extras on a 100 000 euros boat.

Of course the boat was not comparable with a basic one since the money was not wasted on the interior but on a bigger draft, a lead keel, a not furling mast with a boom with automatic reefing (more expensive than the standard furling mast), a third reef, better sails, better electronics and so on.

So, even regarding apparently similar boats from the same brand there could be substantial differences in quality and performance that are expressed in the difference in PHRF the boats have that can be quite considerable.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> He's sailed tens of thousands of blue water miles, for several years, in a somewhat "standard" production cruising boat. That certainly puts him in expert territory as to insight on how a production boat handles sailing in the oceans...around the world. And, I'll let him speak for himself, but he seems pretty pleased with it - despite how some may insist that shouldn't be possible.
> 
> .





> Jon's a tremendously experienced sailor and we're lucky to have him around here. *But he's a sailor...he can take a punch and swing back. He doesn't need a security detail*. That's why I like the guy. Smackdaddy Post #147


You could substitutes Marks name for John here.

Marks got plenty of experience and he doesnt need a security detail either by your own own words and standards.

His opinion on its own is well respected and he has plenty of experience. Just saying


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

PCP said:


> I don't insult nobody and I don't like to be insulted. See if you cab manage your behavior. nothing that I said implies or insinuates that you don't know how to sail. I have said that you are certainly a very experienced sailor. Regarding that thing about motoring through storms in a sailboat as a storm tactic, I don't agree that is the best way to do it and no insult was meant, merely show disagreement. Do you think that a difference of opinion mean or insinuate that you don't know how to sail?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Grow a sense of humour young lad.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Ninefingers said:


> Grow a sense of humour young lad.


No, I am not a young lad. That is your sense of humour

regards

Paulo


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Since age has come up. Do we see production sailboats trying to appeal to a muture crowd ? More comfort easy to sail with less crew. Is the mean age for the average sailor on the rise. Is this due to less disposable income across the world. Is it TV. potato chips, I phones, I pads, PC chat tweets taking time interest and funds away from sailing? Who buys and sails the boats in blue water? Will humans keep sailing in blue water? Per capita are the numbers going up or down? boat yards will follow the trend ?> It would be hard to lead or make a trend. Build a boat and they will come. I put a lot of questions together. I think they are related. Regards Lou


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Since age has come up. What is the average age of the blue water sailor? The boats have to reflect the age and ability of the sailor? Per cap is the number of blue water sailors going up or down. The boat yards have to follow these trends right? The boats will be made to please the crowd right? Has the TV,PC,tweets and potato chips made blue water dreams yesterdays news. Will humans still want to go in numbers large enough to justify building boats? Lots of questions from my I think they are related. Regards, Lou


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

Sanduskysailor said:


> I am continually amazed at people making statements about passage making capabilities of their production yachts. Capsize ratios and stability indexes don't tell the whole story. Construction details are overlooked in these. When your hull is oil canning like crazy, your hatches leaking due to flex in your cabin top, and your bulkheads are coming loose from their tabbing all those ratios don't mean a thing. It still comes down to where you are sailing. If you get caught in some bad weather hitting the gulfstream or one of the stream's eddies that trip to Bermuda just might be a little more than your boat can handle. Running your engine to get out of trouble can have some issues also.
> 
> I used to think a lot like most of the posters here. After I experienced a 3 day gale (35 to 55 knots true, braking 20-25 foot seas, short duration waves) in the North Atlantic way offshore my opinions have changed. Dropping off a 20 foot wave repeatedly changes your perspective on boat construction. The custom built aluminum pilothouse I was in survived this with no damage. It probably was due to the ring frames, longitudinal stringers, crash bulkheads, engine in a a gasketed watertight compartment etc. Our friends, in a well found production boat one day behind us, detoured to Bermuda to miss most of the storm. In the 24 hours they were in it they endured major structural damage to their boat with crew injuries. The hull flexed like crazy, bulkheads separated, the nav station separated from the hull, the sole broke etc. They survived but the boat was a total loss. Their boat, an Ericson 46, had some pretty good numbers, was well maintained, and well equipped. Specifications for the Ericson 46
> LOA 45.8 ft. LOD 45.8 ft.
> ...


With respect, I'm not sure I understand your basis for these conclusions. First of all, many people look at an Ericson as an example of the kind of boat that is so much better than today's production boats. I always find that kind of thing hilarious, as Ericson's, C&C's, Irwins, Cal., etc., were the production boats of their day, yet critics of today's boats regularly point to those as examples of how a boat ought to be constructed.

More importantly, however, as far as I know, I don't believe there are mass reports of production boats collapsing in on themselves during offshore passages up and down the U.S. east coast. Please don't misunderstand my comment as suggesting that they are the best, most hardily built boats, or that they're "better" than higher-end boats, or have a better motion at sea than other designs. But the suggestion that the bulkheads collapse, hatches pop out, etc., particularly while plying the waters up and down the U.S. east coast as you suggest, does not seem supportable to me.

Not picking a fight, just seizing on something that I see as a bit of an extreme position.

Respectfully,


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Sanduskysailor said:


> ...
> 
> .... (35 to 55 knots true, braking 20-25 foot seas, short duration waves) in the North Atlantic way offshore my opinions have changed. Dropping off a 20 foot wave repeatedly changes your perspective on boat construction. .... Our friends, in a well found production boat one day behind us, detoured to Bermuda to miss most of the storm. In the 24 hours they were in it they endured major structural damage to their boat with crew injuries. The hull flexed like crazy, bulkheads separated, the nav station separated from the hull, the sole broke etc. They survived but the boat was a total loss. Their boat, an Ericson 46, had some pretty good numbers, was well maintained, and well equipped.
> ....
> I'm not saying that most production boats won't make it and aren't suitable for passage making, it is just that there are risks involved. Some boats aren't suited for those extremely rough conditions that we all hope we don't encounter.


I am also confused about your post. You say that an old Ericson 46 was caught in a storm and suffered structural damage. That's a 35/40 year old boat and in fact I believe boats with that age are far away from their new condition. Many think that Fiberglass does not lose strength properties with time but that is not true and even if the boat was well maintained it was still a 35 year old fiberglass boat. The Aluminum boat where you endure the storm was also a 35/40 year's old boat? Why do you think a modern new production boat would not be more solid than a 40 years old fiberglass boat?

There are risks involved in everything we do. When people go out of their houses they risk more than when they stay at house but people go out of their house everyday. In our life we are continuously managing risk and accepting the ones that are reasonable.

If you only sail to bluewater on a boat that can endure all the conditions the sea can create than you don't sail because only a ship is able to survive those conditions.

Sailors in small boats like ours (small sailing boats) should make everything possible to avoid sailing in bad weather and chose the right season and the right latitude to cross oceans. Thinking that on an Halberg Rassy or on a Malo one is considerably more safer than in a same sized Jeanneau or a Bavaria and on account of that be more forgiven about the season or the latitude one chose to sail can have tragic consequences. The difference, if any, is not meaningful regarding what the sea can come up with.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

See bleow


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

On reflection my new years resolution is to quit getting into discussions like this. It seems every 2-3 years I get sucked into this or similar themed discussion. Being hard headed I usually fail to realize that I don't have the experience or intellectual capacity to contribute to this topic.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

danielgoldberg said:


> With respect, I'm not sure I understand your basis for these conclusions. First of all, many people look at an Ericson as an example of the kind of boat that is so much better than today's production boats. I always find that kind of thing hilarious, as Ericson's, C&C's, Irwins, Cal., etc., were the production boats of their day, yet critics of today's boats regularly point to those as examples of how a boat ought to be constructed.
> 
> ,


With all due respect the big 3 Hunter over 52,000 sailboats), Catalina ( over 60,000 sailboats, and Jennaue ( over 75,000) sailboats) have been produced.

I doubt all the Eriksons, C&Cs, Sabres, and Tartantogether equal any one of these totals.

The big 3 boats have been mass produced in assembly line and modern factories and were always striving to do this lower the price points for the average sailor.

To say the Erikson, C&C, Tartan of the 1980's were on the same level price wise, quality of construction, trim and accompanying accesories wise as the Hunters, Catalinas, Jenneaus of the 1980 I dont think is correct.

Look how many of the older Catalinas, Jennaues and Hunters from teh 80 are still for sale % to the number produced to show you whether they have stood the test of time. Look also at the resale values that should give you somewhat of a clue of the big 3 compared to Sabre, C&C, Tartan Erikson of the boats built in the !9890-1990 range

Again I am no denigating any of the production boats, Ceratinly the Cherubini Hunters were special boats for instance. They were builkt for different price points, Just like cars are.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

Sanduskysailor said:


> Being hard headed I usually fail to realize that I don't have the experience or intellectual capacity to contribute to this topic.


I sure do feel like this sentiment applies to me, only I lack the wisdom and judgment to make the New Year's resolution!


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> With all due respect the big 3 Hunter over 52,000 sailboats), Catalina ( over 60,000 sailboats, and Jennaue ( over 75,000) sailboats) have been produced.
> 
> I doubt all the Eriksons, C&Cs, Sabres, and Tartantogether equal any one of these totals.
> 
> ...


I think you're mixing metaphors a little. Take Sabre and Tartan (of certain eras anyway) out of the equation, as they were built to a different price point and definitely have better fit and finish than today's BeneHuntAlina.

70's and 80's C&Cs, Ericsons, Irwins, O'Day and the like we're no better built than today's "productions boats," as that phrase is being used in this thread. They just weren't. Consider only the number of voids in their hulls/decks, and the absurd way hardware, including high-load fittings, once were just screwed/bolted into cored decks. These are just examples by the way. Today's construction techniques are much better, when comparing apples to apples (i.e., 1980 C&C to 2013 Jeanneau).

In terms of "design," as opposed to construction quality, the older production boats really don't hold a candle. Jon's point about how modern designs employed by Henderson, Farr, Barret-Racqpeau, et al. are less conducive to offshore seakindliness than some other designers is an interesting one (to me anyway), but there's no reasonable debate to be had, in my opinion, about whether the engineering and design of a 2013 Jeanneau or Hanse compares to that of a 1980 C&C.

In the same way that there's no comparison between an H-R or Morris and a Beneteau or Catalina, there's also no comparison between a 2013 Beneteau and a 1980 C&C (or a 1980 Beneteau for that matter!).


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> The big 3 boats have been mass produced in assembly line and modern factories and were always striving to do this lower the price points for the average sailor.
> 
> To say the Erikson, C&C, Tartan of the 1980's were on the same level price wise, quality of construction, trim and accompanying accesories wise as the Hunters, Catalinas, Jenneaus of the 1980 I dont think is correct.


It's difficult to address this without committing the sin of over-generalization, but I think that is basically correct...

I'd cite a boat like the First Series boats designed by German Frers, built by Beneteau in the 80's... IMHO, those are a great example of a "go anywhere" production boat, a 38 or 42 would definitely be on my short list if I ever go to a bigger boat... There's good reason Ferenc Mate' included them in his book THE WORLD'S BEST SAILBOATS, along with the likes of Alden, Able, Cherubini, Hinckley, Swan, etc. when it was published in 1986... (Amazing, out of the 20 builders in that book, only 5 or 6 are still building sailboats, mass production rules, nowadays)

I've had a very close look through a First 42 that's done the Bermuda Race several times, and have poked around the recent offerings from Beneteau at the boat shows over the years... While Beneteau is still doing a very nice job these days, and are offering a product that will suit the overwhelming percentage of their "market" admirably, their current boats are not a "product" that I would care to attempt the sort of voyaging the Danish couple who own SOL have done with their "outmoded" stick-built Benny from the 1980's...

Very impressive sailing, here, well worth a look... Interesting argument in favor of a windvane over an autopilot that I'd never thought of before - When you get close to the vicinity of the Magnetic North Pole, your autopilot will become pretty worthless, while your vane won't be affected at all (grin)

Northwest Passage

SOL hauled for the winter in Nuuk, Greenland... If you're gonna sail from Svalbard to South Georgia, around Cape Horn and then over the top of North America via the NW passage, I'll take the old-fashioned underbody without a big flat section forward, a hull-to-deck joint capped with a perforated aluminum toerail, and a solid glass hull sans sexy picture windows, every time...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

A prior post referred to the service life of a vessel. Given the potential differences due to cored v solid hull, lay up schedules, scantlings, glass v unobtainium, stress fatigue, thermal contraction/expansion fatigue,deformation fatigue, water migration and the host of other factors resulting in decline in boat strength- one would think the small run production boats may fair better over time. Would most appreciative of the opinions of our senior members. ? How old a boat will you take offshore ? What factors enter your decision.? Does lg. run production v one off v. small run enter your decision? . All our boats are "used" once we buy or build them. Should buyers expect a more limited service life that's significantly different for current production boats?
Tx. best to you and yours this up coming year.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

danielgoldberg said:


> I think you're mixing metaphors a little. Take Sabre and Tartan (of certain eras anyway) out of the equation, as they were built to a different price point and definitely have better fit and finish than today's BeneHuntAlina.
> 
> 70's and 80's C&Cs, Ericsons, Irwins, O'Day and the like we're no better built than today's "productions boats," as that phrase is being used in this thread. They just weren't. Consider only the number of voids in their hulls/decks, and the absurd way hardware, including high-load fittings, once were just screwed/bolted into cored decks. These are just examples by the way. Today's construction techniques are much better, when comparing apples to apples (i.e., 1980 C&C to 2013 Jeanneau).
> 
> ...


Daniel////good to see you back by the way

I think maybe I wasnt being clear. I wasnt comparing the C&C, Sabre, Tartan of 1980 vs todays production boat. I was comparing apples and apples by by comparing it to the build quality of the 1980 Hunters, Catalinas, and Benne. Thus the refernece to Cherubini exception and the resale values.

I think the same applies today and dont put the modern Tartan, Sabre and C&C in the same category as the mass production boats. A 2011 C&C, Tartan , Sabre, while I Know Paulo may disagree about design characteristics which he knows more about, is a significant differnt quality boat than the mass produced ones. Thus the price differences/


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

Something I've been wondering about which this thread hasn't covered...

What about livability? Of course, the best go-anywhere boat from an engineering standpoint would have no windows and be built like a tank. (Can't leak if there are no openings to the weather or sea.) But when we step away from the theoretical, we have to have a boat that someone can actually stand to be on, and God forbid, possibly enjoy sailing.

My question is about the climate you intend to sail. If I were in the extreme North or South where the weather is horrible and cold, I want the best weatherproof shelter I can find. However, between those latitudes where the majority of humanity lives and thrives- it gets hot and humid. Weatherproof also means breeze-proof.

I see a lot of boat with almost zero ventilation. While this would be vastly superior for seaworthiness, can anyone stand to go below during the daytime?

Where would you trade some inherent safety for livability, design-wise?

I love the general design of the Endeavors / Irwins I see for sale. Lots of opening ports for ventilation, and open cabins for air circulation. Obviously not the boat one would feel most secure in the Roaring 40s, but likewise I cannot imagine spending time in the Caribbean or even the Southern US, in a boat without a lot of opening ports. 

I lived two years in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba working tugboats. Sleeping at night went like this: Lie in bed sweltering. Wait ten minutes for your sweat to completely soak your bedding so that you are laying in a sopping sponge of your own sweat. Once completely wet, evaporation would begin to cool you off enough to sleep.

I don't care to live like that anymore. So what desgin factors are you guys willing to compromise perfection in order to have a boat you want to be on?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

danielgoldberg said:


> Interestingly, the only trouble I ever have had with either system was with the furling boom. Gooseneck broke halfway to Bermuda, so we couldn't furl or deploy the main. It broke when the sail was reefed, i.e., halfway out, so we had a problem for a short while, until we were able to drop it to the deck, which actually took a little doing. In contrast, after 5 seasons, our furling mast has never given us a lick of trouble, whether offshore, coastal or inshore. But truth be told, I do still "think" ("worry" probably is too strong) about that potential jam with the sail half out, even though it never has happened to us.


That's what I've always considered to be the primary drawback to the Leisure-Furl, the incredible weight of the boom on a bigger boat... The fittings at the gooseneck, and vang, have got to be massively overbuilt, the loads can be enormous...

Sailing that Trintella 50, with such a massive main, one of my biggest fears was always an accidental jibe... And, with the deeply swept-back spreaders on that rig (another modern production boat trend I'm not a fan of on a cruising boat), sailing deep downwind that was always a possibility...

I can't imagine having to deal with a broken gooseneck on a L-F boom, on a boat of that size... You were lucky no one was hurt, in that episode...


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

PCP said:


> So, even regarding apparently similar boats from the same brand there could be substantial differences in quality and performance that are expressed in the difference in PHRF the boats have that can be quite considerable.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I think Paulo is on to something significant here. When a boat fails in a big sea it is not as if the whole boat fails. Something specific fails first which causes a cascade of events that the crew can not handle.
The port lower shroud fails. 
Or a chain plate pulls out, 
Or a deck leak causes the electronics to short out, 
or makes the crew so miserable they can't think.
A gooseneck breaks,
The engine fails which means the power everything doesn't work.

Any of those things can be better or worse on any specific boat depending as much on the refit choices as the model.

Several of the stories I've read of successful deep water cruisers consisted of serious upgrades to their second boat. They knew exactly what was important to them and refit their boat accordingly.
This included adding stiffening beams in any place they thought the hull would flex too much and adding backing plates and up sizing rigging.


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

I am going back to the age thing. The Sailor and the boat ? Happy New Year ! A mark of the age 2013. We like to think the things we have are as good or better than they ever. The same can be said for the sailor. I am not going to cast first stone, well maybe I did? Age has to come into play. We are looking at the production boat. Everyone should agree if you pay 2 times or 5 times the cost for a one off just the cost should make it better. You do get what you pay for. I think the question is has time and tech made the production boat safe enough to go to sea. The question may be what is safe ? Great Thread Men ! Thank you, Lou


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sanduskysailor said:


> I am continually amazed at people making statements about passage making capabilities of their production yachts. Capsize ratios and stability indexes don't tell the whole story. Construction details are overlooked in these. .....


Absolutely true, but you overgeneralize the point about these ratios as well. All boats and sailors have their limits and you must respect them. Either try to avoid conditions beyond your boats capability or, rather than continue to pound through them, understand you'll be hanging on a drogue longer than a more capable boat. Both boats can still make the passage.

I do understand that my boat is not an all-purpose any condition boat. None really are. You need to understand what it can and can't do and manage that properly. Otherwise, she is perfectly capable of handling rough weather. Do her bulkhead tabs have the same strength of some others? Nope. I know a sister ship that has sailed from Newport to Tortola and back about a half dozen times. He has minor alignment issues with doors now. However, the boat has made the trip without any trouble and he absolutely loves the platform for its all around usefullness, not simply whether she was made to hunt hurricanes. As I do.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


>


First thing that catches my eye in the comparison of those two boats, is yet _ANOTHER_ trend I don't like in many of today's production boats... (grin)

Namely, the increasing use of saildrives... The principal advantage of them is to the builder, as their installation greatly simplifies the build - but there seems little to recommend them over a conventional shaft drive to the end user, mostly what I see are downsides, that are not overruled by their very few advantages ...

Needless complexity - why induce 2 right angles, into a drivetrain that could otherwise be direct?

BIG hole in the bottom of the boat, the potential for corrosion issues, and in some saildrives, the boat needs to be hauled simply to change the unit's gear oil... that's just insane...

Their typical placement further away from the rudder greatly reduces the effect of propwash against the rudder, making them less effective in close-quarter, slow speed maneuvering...

I'm a big believer in having the prop as accessible as possible from above the water, or as close to the end of the boat as possible... If you've ever had to dive on a prop to clear it of a line, or similar, you will greatly appreciate the difference of having to do so on the 2 boats pictured above... The location of that saildrive would make it very difficult to free-dive on it, much more so than the prop on the Beneteau... One of the downsides of today's boats with very beamy aft sections, getting to the prop - by either diving on it, or using a hook knife on a pole - is gonna be a lot more work on many modern boats, than on a boat like mine, with much finer ends...

I'm actually able to at least touch my prop without even putting my head underwater, so it's very easy to dive on, and in the couple of times I've caught a wrap on the prop, I've always managed to cut if free from the cockpit, without even having to put my dinghy over the side...


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Looking at the last few post would a sea trial be the test of the boat and crew? Enter a race? If the boat and crew do below the average should they both stay close to home until they met a degree of satisfaction ? Do I need X number of certs or miles logged ? The: " Can I sail to Bermuda with no experience thread" It has been put forth the numbers are not to be the only factor. How do you judge?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

You mean a coastal race? I don't think that would either prove nor prepare the crew for anything other than coastal racing. In fact, coastal racing techniques are probably the worst ocean passage techniques. You push more, with more options. A good ocean passage is filled with patience, not over powering.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> It's difficult to address this without committing the sin of over-generalization, but I think that is basically correct...
> 
> I'd cite a boat like the First Series boats designed by German Frers, built by Beneteau in the 80's... IMHO, those are a great example of a "go anywhere" production boat, a 38 or 42 would definitely be on my short list if I ever go to a bigger boat... There's good reason Ferenc Mate' included them in his book THE WORLD'S BEST SAILBOATS, along with the likes of Alden, Able, Cherubini, Hinckley, Swan, etc. when it was published in 1986... (Amazing, out of the 20 builders in that book, only 5 or 6 are still building sailboats, mass production rules, nowadays)
> 
> ...


Jon, sometimes there are needed many years for naturally more conservative cruisers to find out that some of today's performance cruisers are just great cruisers. Try to remember and you will see that at the time those First were on the market as new boats, cruisers at that time regarded them as racing boats unfit for any serious cruising.

The same happened when the Vaillant 40 arrived at the market.

As I have said there are a huge variety of cruising boats and cruising hulls, mostly in Europe were more sailboats are sold. I will suggest you to try to sail the current First 45 or the 50 and I guess you will find out that they are great offshore cruising boats. I am sure that they will be regarded in the future as great bluewater cruising boats. They don't have the flat underbodies you are talking about and have a great cruising interior, one that certainly would be more than adequate for me. Take a look (First 45):

Beneteau-first-45

That Elan 400 that I had posted some pictures on a previous post has also not a flat bottom and I am quite sure it will be a great upwind boat.

There are several characteristics on a hull, in what regard design, that are important regarding a sea-kindly boat in what refers going upwind with waves. You would want a boat with a considerable rocker, a boat with fine entries and a boat with a moderate beam. Those are characteristics you find on the First 45 and on the boat you have posted.

For not only be seakind but also to sail well upwind you need a big draft, a good B/D ratio that can be maximized by a modern designed torpedo keel and by draft (assuming the boat is well designed).

What makes a modern good upwind hull regarding older hulls is not a difference in beam or rocker but has to do with an improved hull, specially in what regards the point were max beam is located and with transom design, that allows, without any inconvenient to the sea-kindliness, a better directional stability downwind ans a smaller transverse roll. The ones in the First 40/45/50 or even more the one of that Elan 400, are examples of very good upwind boats and also seakindly boats, I mean, if you sail them at the same speed and at the worst wind angle that an older cruising design would oblige.

As a 75 years Dragonfly solo cruiser said to a friend of mine when questioned if that boat was not very uncomfortable for him: "Well, I can go slower but you cannot go faster ".

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Jon, What a good looking boat you take great care of her ! Nice points about the easy access and the maintenance issue. What I would like to ask is in large seas will your prop stay in the water ? I assume it will because the rudder would have to stay in also. your boat does not seem to have a huge rocker look so the stearn will always be in the water. Questions by a new sailor. The only dumb question is the one not asked. I have tons of questions. Someone will post answers before I ask them most of the time.


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> You mean a coastal race? I don't think that would either prove nor prepare the crew for anything other than coastal racing. In fact, coastal racing techniques are probably the worst ocean passage techniques. You push more, with more options. A good ocean passage is filled with patience, not over powering.


Ok how not to prove. How does one test and find and fix the weak places in the boat and crew ? Is it not a little late 1000 miles from home? How is it done? Thanks ,Lou


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

outbound said:


> All our boats are "used" once we buy or build them. Should buyers expect a more limited service life that's significantly different for current production boats?
> Tx. best to you and yours this up coming year.


This is a great question - and one that's overlooked quite a bit in these debates.

When examples are presented of production boats sustaining structural damage in a storm...what does that really mean in terms of whether it's a "good boat" for typical cruising? In other words, let's take the opposite extreme in this example.

Where the "proper bluewater boat" sustains little or no structural damage in a significant storm (which in itself is actually pretty rare - something always breaks) - the production boat sustains more damage...but protects its crew and gets them home.

Would this be considered "failure" on the part of the production boat? I don't necessarily think so.

The premise underlying these arguments is that a boat should be built to last forever (to outbound's point). Is that the most important directive in design and construction? Maybe not.

Again, it comes down to price point. If boats are being built more lightly to service the typical use of the market, to the price point that market is willing to pay - BUT those boats still do a good job protecting its crew in serious storms...albeit with some damage...I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

What really changes in this equation is the used boat market. And that's the crux of outbound's question. If the above is happening and is a shift away from what the market was demanding 30 years ago in the more heavily built boats, it makes buying used production boats that are 10-20 years old a more sobering proposition.

More "disposable" boats at a lower price point? Hmmm. Any NA's or builders want to weigh in on that one?

I"ll think about it while we sailing today on our traditional New Year's Day outing. Later suckas!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Well, I will agree that a coastal passage or race would get the crew familiar with systems and coordinated roles. I interpreted your question to related to emergency procedures. You can and should train to heave to and deploy whatever sea anchor/drogue you use. Changing sails, etc, can all be done without actually being in the nastiest stuff.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I know a sister ship that has sailed from Newport to Tortola and back about a half dozen times. He has minor alignment issues with doors now. However, the boat has made the trip without any trouble and he absolutely loves the platform for its all around usefullness, not simply whether she was made to hunt hurricanes. As I do.


Hell, at 30 Y/O my HOUSE has minor alignment problems with its doors and it's never moved an inch from its moorings.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> ....I"ll think about it while we sailing today on our traditional New Year's Day outing. Later suckas!


If you can sail today, you did New Year's Eve wrong.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> First thing that catches my eye in the comparison of those two boats, is yet _ANOTHER_ trend I don't like in many of today's production boats... (grin)
> 
> Namely, the increasing use of saildrives... The principal advantage of them is to the builder, as their installation greatly simplifies the build - but there seems little to recommend them over a conventional shaft drive to the end user, mostly what I see are downsides, that are not overruled by their very few advantages ...
> 
> ...


Totally agree - a saildrive would be a complete deal killer for me.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Daniel////good to see you back by the way
> 
> I think maybe I wasnt being clear. I wasnt comparing the C&C, Sabre, Tartan of 1980 vs todays production boat. I was comparing apples and apples by by comparing it to the build quality of the 1980 Hunters, Catalinas, and Benne. Thus the refernece to Cherubini exception and the resale values.
> 
> I think the same applies today and dont put the modern Tartan, Sabre and C&C in the same category as the mass production boats. A 2011 C&C, Tartan , Sabre, while I Know Paulo may disagree about design characteristics which he knows more about, is a significant differnt quality boat than the mass produced ones. Thus the price differences/


Wow, step out for a few hours to put on the winter cover (which sucks!) and two pages of posts appear! All great stuff. Going to work tomorrow is going to be tough!

I see your point now. Apologies for missing it. That said, I'm still not sure I agree. Take Hunter out of it. The 70's and 80's was an early time for that company, and they made a lot of junk back then (IMHO).

I just don't think C&C, Pearson, Ericson, etc., made better boats than Beneteau or Catalina of similar vintage. Not from what I've seen.

By the way, current C&C is not the same build quality as Sabre, or even Tartan. I know it's owned by the same Tartan peeps, but the boats are much more lightly built. I think the new Tartans are incredibly nice. The C&Cs are just not in the same category. The C&C is no better than the Bene's or Catalinas. I've spent time on them, and I see nothing distinguishing them.

As for Tartan and Sabre, and others, I certainly agree, they are nicer than BeneHuntAlinas. In my opinion anyway. That's why you pay twice as much for them!


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> That's what I've always considered to be the primary drawback to the Leisure-Furl, the incredible weight of the boom on a bigger boat... The fittings at the gooseneck, and vang, have got to be massively overbuilt, the loads can be enormous...
> 
> Sailing that Trintella 50, with such a massive main, one of my biggest fears was always an accidental jibe... And, with the deeply swept-back spreaders on that rig (another modern production boat trend I'm not a fan of on a cruising boat), sailing deep downwind that was always a possibility...
> 
> I can't imagine having to deal with a broken gooseneck on a L-F boom, on a boat of that size... You were lucky no one was hurt, in that episode...


It's a pretty interesting story, but the truth is it never felt "dangerous." It's not like the whole thing "blew up" or anything. First thing though, just to clarify, it wasn't a Leisurefurl. It was a Furlboom. Main difference is that the furling drum is below the boom, aft of the mast. My personal opinion is that this is better than the Leisurefurl drum being forward of the mast, where it catches jib sheets, etc.

Anyway, our situation occurred during our first rally event in 2008. We were about halfway to Bermuda, with a reefed main. Then all of the sudden, the main started unrolling from the boom, which is how we knew something was wrong. Because we were reaching, and that boom furling mains feed into a luff groove on the mast, we had a hard time getting the main down, but managed.

We were on a Freedom 45, and if you know the boat, the main is large and the jib is tiny. Being without the main is a real issue. Thankfully, the wind was aft of the beam, so we were able to get the chute up and go with that for a bit. But then the wind moved forward and went very light. We were a motorboat at that point, as a practical matter. Problem was, we weren't sure if we had enough fuel. We were calculating and recalculating almost constantly, or at least I was!

Then the story got interesting, as we came across a cruise ship, and we were able to raise them. They agreed to give us some diesel, and it was a very cool experience. They launched a boat, put in a crew, all helmeted and ready for battle. They gave us 30 gallons of diesel in kitchen cooking oil containers! We were able to make it in to Bermuda where we effected repairs. We have a little bit of a write-up here, with some pics: 2008 Event.

There was also an article in Lats&Atts, but I can't seem to find it.

Sorry for the hijack, but it's a cool story, so figured I'd share.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> First thing that catches my eye in the comparison of those two boats, is yet _ANOTHER_ trend I don't like in many of today's production boats... (grin)
> 
> Namely, the increasing use of saildrives... The principal advantage of them is to the builder, as their installation greatly simplifies the build - but there seems little to recommend them over a conventional shaft drive to the end user, mostly what I see are downsides, that are not overruled by their very few advantages ...
> 
> ...


When I had the first boat with a saildrive, more than 10 years ago, I had about the same distrust as you and for the same reasons. If I could I would have the same boat with a conventional drive. At that time the boats that had saildrives were a minority and not as today where almost all use it, including for instance Halberg Rassy and many very expensive boats. As you can imagine in what regards to expensive boats they use it because they consider it a better system and I don't think it is a cheaper one anyway.

From one engine brand using Saildrive (Volvo-Penta) you have now all brands using saildrive as the most common system by far.

10 years after I understands better the advantages and become assured in what seemed to be the disadvantages. While I have heard of several boats sunk with problems with the conventional system (shaft broken, ingress of water) I don't know of a single one that went down with a faulty saildrive ring and are tens of thousand using it.

The main advantages are absence of vibration, silence, less maintenance (one time each 7 years) and completely watertight.

The advantage you refer of having the propeller near the surface will turn quickly in a disadvantage trying to come out of a port with big waves or in any other situation you need the engine with big waves and no wind. Those conditions will bring the propeller in and out of the water resulting in a very reduced efficiency and potential mechanic problems.

That's not by accident that today the actual successor of Mark's boat on Beneteau (the 41 and all the others) use sail-drive.

You are right regarding the disadvantage of maneuvering in port but today's boats with skinny keels turn in their own length and besides, at least here, the normal final approach is in reverse to have the boat with the bow to the outside and in that situation you have no advantage having the propeller nearer the rudder.

Anyway I believe that the standard will become quickly the two rudder system that has many advantages (not only for boats with a fat transom) and that would make completely irrelevant in what concerns maneuvering to have or not saildrive.

I believe we will see more and more the use of saildrives that can turn around giving you almost for free a stern thruster. The diminished maneuverability in port that the two rudder system provide would make necessary or at least very desirable a solution like that. Those saildrives are already used as part of the system on modern docking solutions for bigger boats.

I see that you have a Brunton's propeller. I had also one and they are great but I am a bit surprised to see a 3 blades in the one in your boat. I am sure it is correct but I am curious. Your boat needs more than a 30hp engine?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

ShoalFinder said:


> Something I've been wondering about which this thread hasn't covered...
> 
> What about livability? Of course, the best go-anywhere boat from an engineering standpoint would have no windows and be built like a tank. (Can't leak if there are no openings to the weather or sea.) But when we step away from the theoretical, we have to have a boat that someone can actually stand to be on, and God forbid, possibly enjoy sailing.
> 
> ...


Another great point. And another reason that there is absolutely no one-size-fits-all solution.

Nothing wrong with picture windows...as long as they don't leak.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

minnewaska said:


> absolutely true, but you overgeneralize the point about these ratios as well. All boats and sailors have their limits and you must respect them. Either try to avoid conditions beyond your boats capability or, rather than continue to pound through them, understand you'll be hanging on a drogue longer than a more capable boat. Both boats can still make the passage.
> 
> I do understand that my boat is not an all-purpose any condition boat. None really are. You need to understand what it can and can't do and manage that properly. Otherwise, she is perfectly capable of handling rough weather. Do her bulkhead tabs have the same strength of some others? Nope. I know a sister ship that has sailed from newport to tortola and back about a half dozen times. He has minor alignment issues with doors now. However, the boat has made the trip without any trouble and he absolutely loves the platform for its all around usefullness, not simply whether she was made to hunt hurricanes. As i do.


^^^^^^^this!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

ShoalFinder said:


> Something I've been wondering about which this thread hasn't covered...
> 
> .....
> My question is about the climate you intend to sail. If I were in the extreme North or South where the weather is horrible and cold, I want the best weatherproof shelter I can find. However, between those latitudes where the majority of humanity lives and thrives- it gets hot and humid. Weatherproof also means breeze-proof.
> ...


You make the right questions but the answers are out there. You have just to look at the kind of boats that are used to cruise and live aboard on the North of Europe (if someone has the money to buy them) and on the South :











Solaris ONE 44 from Richard Langdon on Vimeo.

Two very seawothy boats with great interiors, the difference is that one favors living inside and the other outside, including sailing. The reasons for this different focus are obvious and have to do with climate.

You have several manufacturers of bluewater pilot/deck salons....all in the North of Europe because that is there where those boats make sense and where they are sold (I am not referring to false deck salons that are designed not to be sailed from the interior but just to have a bigger interior space).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> > Originally Posted by ShoalFinder View Post
> > Something I've been wondering about which this thread hasn't covered...
> >
> > What about livability? Of course, the best go-anywhere boat from an engineering standpoint would have no windows and be built like a tank. (Can't leak if there are no openings to the weather or sea.) But when we step away from the theoretical, we have to have a boat that someone can actually stand to be on, and God forbid, possibly enjoy sailing.
> ...


Well, that's a mighty big "IF"...

For ShoalFinder, it's a mistaken assumption that to believe "liveability" is not a primary consideration in a voyaging boat... There is an entire chapter dedicated to the subject of Ventilation in the source I repeatedly refer to in these discussions, DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS, after all...

Unfortunately, this is another area where many American production boats fall well short of the mark... With their almost exclusive use of forward-opening hatches, and rarity of those "outmoded" Dorade vents, many of today's production boats need to be buttoned up pretty tight, in any conditions where spray might be coming aboard... With an aft-facing main hatch, I can leave mine open and drawing in all but the worst of weather...










And, I've yet to see a more practical and elegant solution to ventilation offshore than Rod Stephen's old-fashioned Dorade vent, and yet they seem to be increasingly rare on today's modern boats...










Wanna know what the solution to ventilation on the Trintella 50 was in the tropics, when water was coming aboard?

Fire up the generator, and run the AC... It's amazing how many boats I see nowadays, where that seems to be the approach to "climate control"...

Now, don't get me started on opening ports in some of those sexy, ridiculously sloped cabin sides, that need to be closed back up for every passing rain shower... (grin) I'll take one of these clunky, hopelessly passe' vertical deckhouses, any day...


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Now, don't get me started on opening ports in some of those sexy, ridiculously sloped cabin sides, that need to be closed back up for every passing rain shower... (grin) I'll take one of these clunky, hopelessly passe' vertical deckhouses, any day...


I think I could learn to live with it as well.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Jon, sometimes there are needed many years for naturally more conservative cruisers to find out that some of today's performance cruisers are just great cruisers. Try to remember and you will see that at the time those First were on the market as new boats, cruisers at that time regarded them as racing boats unfit for any serious cruising.
> 
> The same happened when the Vaillant 40 arrived at the market.
> 
> As I have said there are a huge variety of cruising boats and cruising hulls, mostly in Europe were more sailboats are sold. I will suggest you to try to sail the current First 45 or the 50 and I guess you will find out that they are great offshore cruising boats. I am sure that they will be regarded in the future as great bluewater cruising boats. They don't have the flat underbodies you are talking about and have a great cruising interior, one that certainly would be more than adequate for me. Take a look (First 45):


That is a very good point, lots of merit to that argument, no doubt... Offshore sailors/cruisers tend to be more conservative and harder to convince, no question...

That First 45 is a beautifully executed boat, perhaps it will become a preferred passagemaker of the future... Still, I see some things I wonder about...

Pretty striking how difficult it is to find one pictured with a dodger, for one... There is not even a coaming built into the deckhouse to accommodate the fitting of one... With all those lines run aft along the coachroof back into the cockpit, it's gonna be a bit of a chore to fit a dodger that has much in the way of watertight integrity...

Bottom line, however, is the base price of that boat, roughly $450K USD... When I start poking around Yachtworld, and see what one could have for that kind of money in an older boat from a builder like Morris, Alden, Sweden, etc - well, seems like a no-brainer, to me...



PCP said:


> The advantage you refer of having the propeller near the surface will turn quickly in a disadvantage trying to come out of a port with big waves or in any other situation you need the engine with big waves and no wind. Those conditions will bring the propeller in and out of the water resulting in a very reduced efficiency and potential mechanic problems.


If my prop ever comes remotely close to coming out of the water, I've got far bigger problems than my prop coming out of the water...

You make some good arguments in favor of a saildrive, but I still don't like them... (grin)



PCP said:


> I believe we will see more and more the use of saildrives that can turn around giving you almost for free a stern thruster. The diminished maneuverability in port that the two rudder system provide would make necessary or at least very desirable a solution like that. Those saildrives are already used as part of the system on modern docking solutions for bigger boats.


I'm afraid you are correct about that one...

One hour into the start of one of my deliveries this fall, I was sitting at the fuel dock at the Annapolis Yacht Basin, minding my own business while taking on fuel... A 35' powerboat was maneuvering alongside, when he suffered what he claimed to be a "software issue" with his Joystick/Pod Drive system, and came dangerously close to clouting my boat with his... Needless to say, best not get me started on the proliferation of these freakin' Dock n' Go training wheel setups for people who can't handle a boat, but have more money than they know what to do with... (grin)



PCP said:


> I see that you have a Brunton's propeller. I had also one and they are great but I am a bit surprised to see a 3 blades in the one in your boat. I am sure it is correct but I am curious. Your boat needs more than a 30hp engine?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


No, that's only a 13" prop, and my engine is a 29 HP Perkins Perama, it's a pretty good match...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> That is a very good point, lots of merit to that argument, no doubt... Offshore sailors/cruisers tend to be more conservative and harder to convince, no question...
> 
> That First 45 is a beautifully executed boat, perhaps it will become a preferred passagemaker of the future... Still, I see some things I wonder about...
> 
> ...


Most photos you find on the boat are promotional photos from Benetau. They don't feature a dodger because the boat looks sexier without one.

A dodger is available as an optional equipment in that boat as in the vast majority of boats. Cruisers use them almost always. Here you have two different ones with the boat dodger:



















Regarding prices here you have a 2007 First 50 from 2007 for 270 000 euros:

BENETEAU FIRST 50 S - Ano : 2007 - EYB

and a 2008 First 45 for 244 163 USD

2008 Beneteau First 45 Power Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Regarding comparing prices of 5 year old boats with the prices of 20 or 30 year old boats, luxury or not, you can only be kidding.



JonEisberg said:


> If my prop ever comes remotely close to coming out of the water, I've got far bigger problems than my prop coming out of the water...


Some times you talk about the superior performance of a given sailing boat as a decisive factor in the choice of a boat and regarding that a propeller near the surface is also a bad choice. Many years ago, sailing not in dangerous weather but on a very uncomfortable one (left overs of a storm, big short steep waves, no wind, strong current against the wave direction) trying to comply with the request of a friend to arrive at Port in time for him not to miss a train, I just blew out the engine probably because the engine was sucking air on the cooling system. I should not have insisted but I was young and foolish.

Also long time ago I had a friend with a big steel boat that only give pleasure sailing with high winds and we used to go out in force 9/10 for having fun. I remember sailing at 12K on that big heavy boat and the image of passing fast 20m fishing boats, that were bouncing around sometimes with the propeller out of the water, is one that I would never forget. His boat, like mine, was on a very busy fishing port and he had quite a reputation as a sailor among fishermen and they don't have normally a lot of respect for pleasure sailors.

Anyway a lot of sailboats have a shaft propeller system almost as down as the one of a saildrive and that would not be a motive of concern and even with one nearer the surface as yours, well, you would only have to take that into consideration, it has disadvantages, but as you say, also advantages.

Regarding that do you know this system? Not really expensive as a safety item. I am considering having one:

http://www.piplers.co.uk/3336/Beuchat-Emergency-Diving-Kit.html



JonEisberg said:


> ... Needless to say, best not get me started on the proliferation of these freakin' Dock n' Go training wheel setups for people who can't handle a boat, but have more money than they know what to do with... (grin)


Modern 50 ft are very easy to sail and are rigged to be sailed by two people and offer an added security in what concerns sailing offshore, offering a more stable platform than a smaller boat. There is also needed a bigger breaking wave to capsize them. What prevented the use of those boats by a couple in what regards autonomy was the difficulty to dock the boat on a marina, in and out. Those joystick systems made just that not only possible but easy.

Of course, as all systems they can fail and the more complicated even more but we ride on very complicated cars, fully of electronic controls and not on old very basic ones and their reliability is very high.



JonEisberg said:


> No, that's only a 13" prop, and my engine is a 29 HP Perkins Perama, it's a pretty good match...


That was also the engine power I had on the Bavaria 36 that had a two blade autoprop. I guess both were recommended by autoprop technicians so probably it is to due to your boat being considerably heavier.

Have a nice year, "bom vento" (as we say) to you.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

This comes from further back on this thread. I knew about these videos but I could not find them at the time and they are interesting in what regards to show the solidity of a narrow well built keel in what regards its attachment to the hull.

The boat is a Sigma 400, a light performance production cruiser from the 90's and still today a light and competitive boat (7500kg) by today's standards, a boat well ahead of its time. That boat was still in fact a local champion and a race winner, it has a big draft (2.29m) ballasted keel. It is a design from Rob Humphries the same designer of the Elan 400. We can see that not only its keel stood up but even the more fragile ruder is still in one piece. Off course the boat needs probably to be repaired but this was just not a sigle hit but a massive pounding.

*Great story here*:

http://www.skerriesnews.ie/files/may12.pdf

Sigma 400 Boats for Sale


----------



## EWB (Mar 14, 2021)

sailingfool said:


> Regardless of ratings and marketing hype, I think the different builders have very different philosophies in the design and construction of their boats. The resulting boats are as different as the underlying philosophies.
> 
> If you closely look at (let alone sail) different builders' boats, you can set a sense of what those philosophies are, and which one may best fit yours.
> 
> ...


Agree. Also certifiable. Though hard to accept (maybe) is what exactly is one using the boat for. Pretty sure so many boats see very little of the owner let alone make passages regularly with the owner. Just saying a well built blue water boat may have advantages at sea that make life at the marina less comfortable.


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

Winner.
Many educate themselves to choose with as best they can achieve balance of wants needs.

Some friends added keel bolts to brace keelson intersection. Problem being if stalled and broadside mother nature can supply a multiple tonne sledge hammer.
Yet some have run aground whilst going hard on heel to shortcut a reef. I'm pretty sure I recall hearsay of fell off.
Hearsay again.. friends took Beneatu on Sydney Hobart early 1990s. Brutal year. At least 1 keel fell off but understand that is mother nature smashing 3 oceans together. Confused Indian crossing shallower BassStrait meeting fast strong Pacific Heat directly into Cold Hard blow of Southern. They survived and were held against rear railing during voyage.
Ain't my cup of tea, I don't mind running along deck into 70 kmph? of wind whilst grabbing anything to brace slippery but hit by solid water is getting hard.

In my best belief, open eyes would have noticed and strengthened changes to many vessel manufacturers. 
Farr I believe use hard wood to brace keel. Beautiful location for weight is keelson plus wood give is gift of acceptance; eg makes a great brace.
I looked at Jeanneau other day and then brain stormed when heavy weather ability was read. No prejudice of other production makes, simply fits in berth plus broker I've bought from before and other makes were to wide to accommodate. 
I'll most probably go fuller keel to remove worry of misread weather and simplicity of tiller; that way brake, that way accelerate yet if heaved brake accelerates and accelerator brakes. Just reflective moments of momentum. 

However.. Jeanneau are made for purpose too.
Customers are always wright.
Arrow bow to pierce, rocker that is probability tuned to wash aft with displacement aiding creation of bow wave , wind wave, tide wave buoyancy to surf vessel upwind thus benefiting enough creation of wonderful physics to activate keel. Flow past that lifting vessel as well as dampening rotation thus more speed. I ain't their employee, I only guessing hypothetically.
My friends would rather that and so would I in many ways. Hard chines creating a heeling keelson for traction when blown over thus instead of bogging down, faster acceleration initially to activate keel if lost of hydraulic film at keelson or knots.
It'd be an awesome vessel. 8 times the price though and wary way if caught out when she blows hard.

I believe if seaworthy, use as best can in conditions that suit experience and vessel type.
I'm scared of alot of stuff. Been recovered from unconscious underwater and unconscious face down in water. Rear swim platform I like but I'd like midship ladder too because not always flat and yachts can be big hammers. Fuller keel has same rear ladder, just saying, mid ladder can be useful even a rail tie rope type.
😆 old post. Love your work bro


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Most boats are production boats, not one off. Some are better builds than others, some are more comfortable designs, than others, some sail faster than others... some have a had failures like dropped keels, others not so. 
Not all production boats are created equally and neither are all designs equal.

Design and production both involve "compromises". "Better" boats probably cost more per foot LOA than lesser boats. Materials are a factor.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Enjoy this 9 year old thread folks!


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

JimsCAL said:


> Enjoy this 9 year old thread folks!


Jim, new people join and want to weigh in something which often is a topic/thread already discussed. Why not?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

SanderO said:


> Jim, new people join and want to weigh in something which often is a topic/thread already discussed. Why not?


Is there really anything new about the "production" boat discussion other than new people saying the same thing?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Don L said:


> Is there really anything new about the "production" boat discussion other than new people saying the same thing?


nothing new under the sun on the sea


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> nothing new under the sun on the sea


If we were restricted to only commenting on new things under the sailing sun, this would be a pretty quiet forum.


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

MikeOReilly said:


> If we were restricted to only commenting on new things under the sailing sun, this would be a pretty quiet forum.


Love that
French proverb
The more things change the more things remain the same.
I get that American and European sailors are a dominant number thus vessels to suit them would be of advantage. They're built towards the doldrums moreso than the hurricanes because that's when people would like to go sailing or ride rode whilst swimming. 
Heavy anchorage though, I'd look at fore keelson stow of some weight and get under weather as best I can. Would disable swim platform; is a truer indication of vessels underway weathering ability yet in-between nothing and extreme is where our smiles would rather beam.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Be careful of assertions made without facts. 
Beneteau in Sydney - Hobart yacht race have never lost keels in the race. Moreover the Beneteau First 41 has won its Sydney Hobart division more than any other brand of boat. 

I'll also point everyone to a rule change since this thread was started a decade ago: 
*2e.Members may not insult someone's choice of boat. This includes disparaging terms, nicknames, etc.*

So please, carefully consider the thread is old and not vetted for total bunkham 🤔😊😊😊


Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

If i lie and just make this up am i in trouble?

My production boat is a pos and has killed me 26 times the last 10 years. Too bad that came too late to stop a Hunter 410 owner from reproducing and passing on his genes.


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

Thanks..
We simple too.
Beneteau I had to scroll many times to type correctly. 😆 dad and grandmother speak French. Used to smiling. Dad's previous boss had a race boat/cruiser and we laughed with often.
Although experienced, one of his crew stood on looped line one day and she tensioned. He went flying 14 feet above gunnel and into the drink.

We got used to a smaller production boat. Concave aft cut to produce surf from displacement. Easier seen on kayak above hull thus 1963 made lightweight kayak displaces a bit then rides on own surf thus used in uphill rapids but wasn't me. I just cruise along.
Anyway, years ago, a friends dad then bought a 24 footer with a massive concave aft of keel. Used properly vessel was in competition with the 40 footers because they could start her up, surf her a bit, engage properties of tapered keel benefits and heave N.

Catalina were and are well respected. Island in East of earths largest ocean; their influences are ???

Their deeper keelson entry allowing a much better torque of keel via maintenance of keelson film of water past leading edge of tapering keel.

Our keelson is shallow, thus unless crew want to earn hard work, we don't beat well. But.. makes for better during lighter conditions. 

Either way works.. choice is preferences. I know our production vessel been in our hands 40 years and no thank you, we'd rather keep because of benefits such as.
Easy to use. Easy to learn on. Suits beginners through to advanced. 
Key is speed. Although uncomfortable on anchor due to watt ever. Underway, like all vessels, key is momentum which is speed basically. If stuck in heavy weather and learning or not; we just reefed early or charged.
Longer keels same, suit beginners through to advanced. I don't know any production longer keels down here though. Much slower in conditions when beginners would prefer to be out learning but stable momentum when conditions grow meaning less work on deck basically. 

If tapered keels were unsafe they wouldn't be using them on those 70 foot clippers. They are safe with knots which stabilise their ability of lift and rotation. 

Weather watching.. knowing work if unable to out run, go around or find Lee waters before she blows.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

OK that's the post of the day! 

I came to your funeral many times 😁

Mark


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

🤩

Production boat bias..

Problem isn't so much bracing of keelson to make usage of a weighted tapering edge.
Problem moreso seaworthiness and experience. 
I just trust surveyors educated opinion and listing of repairs and replacements.

Wind is never consistent; otherwise clothes drying on line would remain at a consistent angle.
They wouldn't sell us boats that aren't seaworthy and seeing topic is related to used vessels; a surveyors opinion would be strict on seaworthiness!
Yet.. experience comes to play with seaworthiness and conditions.. experienced crew that have spent hours of boredom and delight would be much more understanding towards non forced consistency on keeping tensions on systems inclusive of hydraulic sail. 
Yet fare go.. ain't like a newer bloke to be going out in conditions that require momentum or loss.
From beginner through to most experienced seaman or lady; weather watch is always learnt. 
There is always a risk.

Years of learning we didn't understand why we would underpower vessel and continually learn to respect Lee side of sail flow. We just plotted along a few years; loved the venue and kept accepting that we had lighter tensions to learn such flow. Saved our rig later and a rewarding gift of sailing with bow wave during hanging tails still was found because Lee wouldn't flow yet windward to watt looked like nothing did.

They're beautiful boats sir. None antagonistic attempts of trues and lies simply targeting vital systems to keep fellow yachtsmen alive and thus joyful often. Such as is vessel seaworthy? Keelson keel brace exists.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

I was going to suggest a drinking game where we all take a shot of rum every time Beyond says "keelson", but then I realized I would be pie-eyed after the last 2 posts alone!

Beyond some Weather, I am curious, what modern boat would you consider a good hull design based on your theories?

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

Any..
I don't look to much.
Birds and bees sail better than all of us because they are natural. I'm just nice to them too, protecting their home as best we can. In return I guess physics thoughts being different language than spoken tongue is shared with those whom cared. 

If targeting weather windows such as weekend racing.. 😆 flatter hulls paying out larger volume hulls during most conditions days. Then larger volume hulls cracking tinnies and calling," a bit uncomfortable mate?" on lumpier days until windward bouy then overtaken on reach anyhow. 

I don't know. 
Any around being made with fuller keels? I'm really lazy. Never really see full keel yachts being other than laughed at by above weekend racers yet when their both blown over maybe difficulties with conditions making rescue dangerous would have a full keeler rather maintain momentum. 
I like look of Seven Seas 38 footers but slow and steady she'd be; happily feeding hidden drag on Lee side of sail whilst crouching in cockpit. 
Bolt keel boats I'm limited again having only quickly browsed Beneteau, Jeanneau and yachthub.com.au. Beneteau to wide for my parking allowance, Jeanneau maybe with vigilant watch on weather knowing short of hands, I'd prefer Seven Seas, Roberts Offshore which mightn't be a production boat though. 🤔 
Roberts steel I like; lightning. Yet keel looks thin which means rotational hammer is with choice of mother nature again hence the worry of fastenings of keels on keelsons. 🤣

Whether used in appropriate weather depends on hands and experience is simple. 👍 

Thus production vessel. 
No thanks (or maybe) long keel if made such as Catalina cut long keel strengthened with bolts maybe.
No thanks (or maybe) tapering edge keel such as shoal draft Jeanneau 410. Maybe but doubtful here not due to quality but more so intended usage and higher price.
Maybe Roberts but non production. 
Seven Seas. Lovely carry ability yet just slower to get there although after hidden from mothers eye and lady Gales argument maybe first out the Webb to get a head start.
My friends kids including our big kid; my dad would probably prefer performance orritated at below 50 knots type of that Jeanneau.


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

SchockT said:


> I was going to
> 
> Beyond some Weather, I am curious, what modern boat would you consider a good hull design based on your theories?


Just to be a bit more decisive..
👍 Kevin Costners WaterWorld trimaran for sale at moment. 
Jeanneau 60 foot, 47 foot beam. 
That one would be preferred. 

But I can't afford. I've already bought a smaller berth and that won't fit. I quickly researched NSW swing moorings and that'd be okay but I lack coordination to do all preparation work required; finance and homing such during work years for short holiday usage. Like everyone; hoping good use..
Got me stuffed how buoyancy is weathering condition but weather eye watch and floor it would work well and ignorance is soon replaced with physical of such for someone else. I don't know, never even been on deck of a trimaran. Risk and reward I guess too as best we can. 
1 metre draft..
(Hoping I spelt stars name correctly. Doing my best too)


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

I give up. I can't make sense out of Beyond's disjointed ramblings.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

JimsCAL said:


> I give up. I can't make sense out of Beyond's disjointed ramblings.


To tell the truth, Jim... Nor can I.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

First, we need to cut the guy a break. English is clearly not his first language, and we need to welcome new members, which Sailnet desperately needs.

While I find his posts difficult to comprehend, it is not really any worse than the "paralysis by analysis" found in the prior 300 posts on this thread. I'm not going to re-read all that stuff, but from what I remember over the past 10 years, there is a bunch of silly stuff arguing about stability ratios and other arcane calculations that can never take the place of actually sailing a boat. The recent posts just continue that. Some may enjoy reading that stuff, others can skip over it. I fall into the latter group.

Here's what I recommend for anyone looking to buy their first boat: 

1) Recognize that everything is a compromise. An ocean-going boat is going to give up a lot of niceties in favor of larger tankage and greater stability in ocean conditions. An inshore/coastal boat may have more creature comforts which make for very nice accommodations if you stay inshore.
2) Try to figure out how you will use your first boat. But recognize that you're unlikely to be crossing oceans when you're first learning, and very unlikely to keep your first boat long enough to get to the point of crossing oceans.
3) Buy a first boat that will be easy to learn on and will meet your minimal needs for getting started in sailing. Learn how to sail, how to provision, how to dock, and how to anchor. Buy that boat that will meet your immediate needs - do not try to buy one that you will "grow into" in 10 years.
4) Decide if you like sailing. If not, sell the boat and get out. If you like sailing, decide whether you are a daysailor, weekender, long distance cruiser, or whether you really want to cross oceans, which takes a major commitment and change of lifestyle. If you find that you have outgrown your first boat (or realize you're using if differently than you expected), sell it and get your second boat which best fits how you find yourself actually using your boat. After you've developed enough experience to sail and cruise safely, I strongly recommend chartering as a way to try out different boats. My charter experience had a significant impact on what I chose for my second sailboat.
5) Rinse and repeat.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I can only write with experience with the one boat I have owned since 85 - Contest 36s fractional / deep fin keel. It's Dutch production boat marketed (and I presumed designed) as a "racer cruiser". I don't race but I do cruise.
It's an excellent design for a 36' LOA with reasonable tankage. Having done passages from LIS to the Caribbean, it's doable with the tankage and some jerry cans of fuel. 
I fitted the new boat with equipment to make it more comfortable for living aboard: forced air heating, refrigeration, electric windlass w/ chain, roller furling, baby stay for a storm jib, full battened main w/ Dutchman, solid vang,secondary winches, mast winch, adjustable pole, custom mainsheet, cockpit cushions, a groco w/c
gooseneck spouts, cockpit shower, LED lighting, inverter, water maker, electronics w/ radar and some cabinet upgrades. The boat was super for live aboard in the Islands and do ocean passages. I added a liferaft and dink, MOB pole. As purchased the boat was suitable for coastal cruising. My adds made it better for than and suitable for ocean work.
Contest makes PRODUCTION boats, albeit a bit toward the high end of the quality/build spectrum.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Cruisingdad said:


> I have always been the 'Production Boat' proponent on Sailnet... especially Catalina. SO I suspect many of these comments will shock some folks. I still am a fan of certain models in each production builder, as much as I am not a fan of many models in each production builder. I think there are some great low-volume production builders, and there are some that I think really are junk. That in mind, here goes my opinions:
> 
> First, the build quality and finish out of a production boat (Bene/Jeaunneau/Catalina/Hunter) does not even compare to the high end builders. I kept both of my boats at the Valiant yard (380 and 400) and would not have my boat outfitted anywhere else that I know of. Not only did they know their stuff, but they always erred on the overbuilt side. There was a thread running here about anchor rollers a few days ago or so, where Mainesail showed a bent AR. I bent mine under on my 380 too during a very bad storm (95 kt straightline winds). DIdn't hurt the boat, just the roller. Well, I had my friends at Cedar Mills (Valiant) rebuild me a new anchor roller that was NOT going to get bent. Ever seen the AR on a Valiant or a Cabo? The bow will rip off before that thing bends under. And sorry... got a CS across from me. No comparrison. This is just one example. I have many others. THe bottom line is that the higher end production builders could afford to make those things that strong and there really is a big difference in their build quality in many things (not all things).
> 
> ...


I read a few pages of replies, then things start to go down hill.

This post struck me as pretty good because it enumerated a lot of factors without settling into a "best" solution.

We have 2 custom boats and I like both very much, they work well for me and how I use them. It is a very personal thing.

I have looked at buying another boat, sometimes the steel issue get to me. But I would give up a lot, and I would be embracing a different construction I know very little about. 

The question arises, did we domesticated cats and dogs or did they domesticated humans? Kinda like that for my boats, did I find the perfect boat TWICE, or did I just adapt to the boat perfectly?


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

hpeer said:


> I read a few pages of replies, then things start to go down hill.
> 
> This post struck me as pretty good because it enumerated a lot of factors without settling into a "best" solution.
> 
> ...


Cruisingdad does make some good points, even though he does have a heavy Catalina bias, and makes incorrect assumptions about other production brands. He talks as though Catalina is the only company to include detailed wiring diagrams withe their boats! I can assure you my Jeanneau came with a very comprehensive manual and schematics for all the systems.

I agree with him about the importance of performance. There are so many heavy full keeled cruisers that are painfully slow by modern standards, and seem incapable of sailing upwind. More often than not I see those boats motoring in even a moderate breeze that is prime sailing conditions for my boat. I recently read a post where someone was stated that they were pleased that their 50ft full keeler could sail at 6kts! That is the kind of boatspeed I get in light air! In a good breeze we are in the solid 8kt range without even trying, and we are only 39ft. That makes a huge difference when you are going any distance. Even coastal cruising in daylight hours that could mean an extra 20 miles in a day.

I also disagree with cruisingdad about the comfort level of modern production boats. I don't know what model he was complaining about but I find the ergonomics of our Jeanneau to be light years ahead of older boats. There are multiple very comfortable helm positions for our twin wheels, and the sole behind each wheel is curved giving you solid footing even when the boat is heeled. The coaming around the cockpit is wide and curved so that it is very comfortable when the boat is heeled. There are solid handholds everywhere for moving around under way. The big, wide cockpit is easy to move around in even with the fixed cockpit table in the middle. If needed you can brace yourself against the table and it is plenty strong enough, (although I prefer you keep your shoes off the varnished leaves if you can help it!)

Certainly there are compromises with production boats compared to boutique brands. The cabin sole in my boat is a synthetic laminate rather than teak and holly, but it looks good and is very durable. The millwork is laminates trimmed with solid wood, and is not as fancy as the more expensive brands, but still looks nice. 

There is a lot of criticism of the modern construction methods used by Groupe Beneteau, particularly as it pertains to the glued in structural grid in the hull. Apparently it is more difficult and expensive to repair after a hard grounding, but after 15 years there is no evidence that this building method is any less safe than older build methods. On the other hand, they have developed innovative build processes such as the injection molded decks which allow them to precisely control the amount of resin used in the layup. The result is stiffer, lighter decks and less resin used which has economic and environmental benefits. Using that process also produces decks with a smooth gelcoat finish inside. This means that they don't have to cover the entire interior with headliner. This further saves weight and production costs, and the finished product is attractive and lends a welcome brightness to the interior. Innovations like the injection molded decks are possible though economy of scale. It would be difficult to justify the much more expensive molds if you were only producing a small number of models.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

TakeFive said:


> cut the guy a break.
> English is clearly not his first language, ... welcome new members, which Sailnet desperately needs.
> 
> While I find his posts difficult to comprehend, it is no, there is a bunch of silly stuff arguing about
> ...


Smile. 
Thank you
Enjoy 😉 

Physics is my primary language. 
I am vary proper with English. 
Arguing about is a main laughter with bouys regarding long keel short keel, keel about to drop off.

Have fun.

When match racing keel yachts my friend was leading skipper of every week. Our yacht was backpack, chatting with a cruising yacht out there racing each weekend, playing your yo basically whilst watching my friends. 

His crew had their habits, after pre start brief whilst walking to dock I mentioned it looks like wind will shift, might want to use genie on 3rd leg. Got told I'm an idiot basically. 

We rounded outer bouy and my crew said that we doing okay today, eg well. 
Barking orders, trim brace, open genie, open haul, cleat eye sheet, trim brace, close haul main.
She's a plane ride.
Leading skipper saw this and then decided to follow suit yet looked like a clown with look here, look sail, look here.

It is physics. English would be something like extra fixed luff providing a high pressure boast to help fill pocket whilst flexible luff protects most area yet Lee flow of kite now a reach to main leach. Eh a simple jet thrust. 

Have a nice sail. 👍 environment is the winner


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

SchockT said:


> Cruisingdad does make some good points, even though he does have a heavy Catalina bias, and makes incorrect assumptions about other production brands. He talks as though Catalina is the only company to include detailed wiring diagrams withe their boats! I can assure you my Jeanneau came with a very comprehensive manual and schematics for all the systems.
> 
> I agree with him about the importance of performance. There are so many heavy full keeled cruisers that are painfully slow by modern standards, and seem incapable of sailing upwind. More often than not I see those boats motoring in even a moderate breeze that is prime sailing conditions for my boat. I recently read a post where someone was stated that they were pleased that their 50ft full keeler could sail at 6kts! That is the kind of boatspeed I get in light air! In a good breeze we are in the solid 8kt range without even trying, and we are only 39ft. That makes a huge difference when you are going any distance. Even coastal cruising in daylight hours that could mean an extra 20 miles in a day.
> 
> ...


We use West system epoxy on repairs.
Prod boats usually hollow resin strands. Epoxy waterproof because epoxy is a solid resin.
It'll tube it's way into the hollow resin around the repair thus aiding bracing of repair patch plus seal good bit that didn't need repair from moisture ie osmosis. 
Friends say the balsa is more difficult to repair but bridges are truss. Trust truss strength everytime you drive an auto over one. It allows less weight with high strength. 
Foam sandwich same. Light weight high strength.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

@TakeFive 
Yes, thank you, Rick. Well said.


----------



## danstanford (Aug 3, 2010)

_'There is a lot of criticism of the modern construction methods used by Groupe Beneteau, particularly as it pertains to the glued in structural grid in the hull. Apparently it is more difficult and expensive to repair after a hard grounding, but after 15 years there is no evidence that this building method is any less safe than older build methods.'_

There is a school of thought that this grid functions as a fuse in the case of a hard grounding where the grid can break/delaminate rather than the keel ripping out of the hull.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

By either of these criteria I would be on hulk 3 or 4 by now.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

bradfalk said:


> I grew up thinking that anything not Bristol/island packet/cape dory was no good.. People used to rag on bene's and hunters (this was 1980's) and touted bristols etc as "good boats". Here's my question: does the same "production boat" stigma still hold? I've been doing a lot of research on Beneteau Bavaria Catalina (haven't read too much on hunter yet) and I just don't see the difference anymore between the "high quality boats" and production. Finesse and fine woodwork aside, if you have a fiberglass hull, end grain balsa cored decks and good quality ports hatches and hardware, lead keel etc where is the difference? I've been really interested in a Catalina 42. But then I started looking at hunter 42 (online) and they look good too (and their websites list all the same design stuff). Similar displacements etc.
> 
> I guess my question is: does the same bias from years ago still hold true or have "name brands" and production boats met somewhere in the middle (save for the really high end boats)?


From post #1 almost 10 years ago.

I can say that Yes the bias is still there. But as time goes by it has decreased because year after year there are more production boats cruising and less of the others. Even though all these production boats are out there doing it with no problems there will always be someone who needs to justify their boat choice with empty words or extremely rare “examples”.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

danstanford said:


> _'There is a lot of criticism of the modern construction methods used by Groupe Beneteau, particularly as it pertains to the glued in structural grid in the hull. Apparently it is more difficult and expensive to repair after a hard grounding, but after 15 years there is no evidence that this building method is any less safe than older build methods.'_
> 
> There is a school of thought that this grid functions as a fuse in the case of a hard grounding where the grid can break/delaminate rather than the keel ripping out of the hull.


I know of no school of thought within the yacht design community or yacht building community that looks at the structural framing grid as a 'fuse' in the case of a hard grounding. 

The engineering principal behind structural grids is to distribute the keel and rigging loads into the largest area of the boat as possible. While every component of a dedicated race boat is designed to be as lightest possible while remaining reasonably reliable, in the case of production boats, these small margins of safety are neither necessary, advisable, or cost effective to pursue. In other words, by and large the structural grids are not designed to be expendable on production boats.

The issues with glued construction are more complex. As yacht engineers will readily point out, these glued joints are stronger than the fiberglass laminate or wooden components that the joints connect. In other words, when the joints are tested to failure, the wood or fiberglass is pulled apart while the glue joint remains intact. 

This is where the issue gets a little complex. These joints need to be designed to transfer a specific design load. If designed around the glue joint, the wood and fiberglass are therefore experiencing a higher percentage of their safe working loads. That increases the rate at which these materials weaken due to fatigue. 

But the economy of using glued connections comes from minimizing the glued contact area (faying surfaces). This reduction in faying area is especially true in comparison to a traditional tabbed connection.

What that means is that while initially the glued connections may have the same or even more strength when fabricated, over time, the laminate bonds and wood veneers bonds are more likely to weaken due to fatigue.

The way to eliminate that level of fatigue would be to enlarge the faying areas. That would actually result in stronger and more durable connections over tabbed connections, but would increase the cost of the connections and therefore the boat considerably. 

And in that regard, how this kind of structural detailing gets handled is one area that separates higher quality production boats from lesser quality production boats.

In conversations with both the then CEO of Catalina and the research and design group at Hunter, both said essentially the same thing. They both said that their boats are designed for their typical user. They both defined that as being coastal cruising with the bigger boats engineered for occasional offshore passages. 

I will note those discussions predate the current EU standards which have resulted in production boats becoming more robust than the production boats of the 1990's.

Jeff


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Jeff,

That is interesting and makes a lot if sense, they are designing to a model, or image of how they view the typical user. Nothing wrong with that. However, it would be helpful if that design criteria were more accessible, that they clearly stated their design goals. 

At the moment I have a bug about the NZ requirement for window boards being affixed before leaving on passage. There is a long discussion about that on a different board and it has left me with myriad open questions.

At first glance the rule implies any boat with a window over 2 Sq feet is inherently unsafe for a open ocean passage. There is no design criteria for the window strength or hull flex. Maybe they are correct, there was a yacht lost last week presumably from windows blowing out, 39' Bavaria Oceanius IIRC. I thought this was the open ocean series? Is that a criteria we should pay attention to? It was also noted a hatch also blew out but could be reclosed, NZ boat. Why is that acceptable?

Second is that there is no quantitative measure for how strong the windown or boards should be. Are we talking 3.2mm ply and duct tape or 1/2" with 1/4" through bolts with backing nuts? Both are boards.

Third is that I can't figure out if the problem is the window attachment, or hull flex. Maybe both? Seems to me you need to figure out the mode of failure before prescribing fixes. 

Forth is that manufactures seem to not care. And maybe they should not, NZ must be a small market. I was just ogling a new Jeannue 64' sloop. Very sexy, big curved windows. Now way in hell to attach boards over them. So is that yacht not worthy to make a passage? 

Finally, I can't get an answer on catamarans. Are they exempt? Most all of them have huge windows. And those underneath emergency escape hatches. Someone suggested it was because you can't knock a cat down, not a very satisfying answer.

So there is my dilemma, what constitutes a vessle safe for passage? How is that defined? Then we can look at production boats and see if they meet that criteria. Other than that we all have our own experiences and opinions and of course they don't match. Which is tolerable, until some silly government chimes in with their version of boating morality.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

hpeer said:


> Jeff,
> 
> That is interesting and makes a lot if sense, they are designing to a model, or image of how they view the typical user. Nothing wrong with that. However, it would be helpful if that design criteria were more accessible, that they clearly stated their design goals.
> 
> ...


Howard,

I am not all that familiar with New Zealand's regulations except that I know they exist. What I can say is that there are a plethora of rules that define what individual trading regions define as small craft safety standards for vessels being taken offshore. There has been some effort to unify those regulations. For example before the CE RCD (Recreational Craft Directive) was approved for by European Union. many of the various countries each had their own set of regulations. This resulted in boats from one country being padlocked and prevented from leaving if they did not meet the standards of the country they were in. 

Probably around 20 or so years ago, New Zealand found itself in the uncomfortable position of doing a disproportionate number rescues at sea. Because of that NZ made a deliberate decision that boats entering their territorial waters would need to meet their minimum safety standards before being allowed to leave. I don't know the extent to which this is enforced, but it created quite an outcry at the time. 

The portlight issue is a tough one. I really don't know the sailing conditions in NZ, but I seem to re call descriptions that makes it sound there are areas with big steep waves near the NZ coast, Conceptually there are conditions where portlights (especially those installed in the hull) can experience the full slamming force of a wave anywhere else on the hull. Those can be very large square unit (i.e. per square inch, or per square cm) forces. 

I don't think that flexure of the boat is a significant factor. Modern boats don't flex all that much as compared to older designs. 

My sense is that it is more about the glazing materials and the methods of attachment. Modern boats literally have their fixed portlights glued in. I suppose that if the engineering process demonstrated that the portlight (as a system) has adequate strength to withstand the full force of an impact, then perhaps NZ will accept that portlight without be accepted as not needing additional protection. 

But I am skeptical that the average design, production boat or otherwise, are engineered to meet a standard of withstanding a full impact either initially or worse yet over a prolonged period of time., The "over time" thing is important, because plastic portlights lose strength pretty quickly when exposed to UV. Depending on the specific material and exposure, it can be as little as 5 years or as many as 30 years before that becomes significant. But even laminated glass loses strength over time as the plastic membrane and its bond in the laminated glass would break down over time, just at a slower rate then plastic portlights. 

Since determining the actual strength of the portlights and their attachment would be nearly impossible on pretty much any individual boat, I can see why NZ would simply have a blanket requirement for having weather boards affixed when going offshore in their territorial waters. I don't know but could only assume that there are specific published standards for what is acceptable materials and attachments for those weatherboards, and when if ever there are exceptions. I would think that the weather boards would need to be something like aluminum if they are required on some of these modern designs with curved portlights, but again, I don't know for certain. 

I realize and apologize that this is not really an answer to your questions, but perhaps it provides some context. 

Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suppose the historical record will reflect how successful the various "keel-hull" reinforcement design have been. There must be data about loose keels, dropped keels and so forth... as well as grids which "break".

What would concern me more would be the number, size and spacing of the keel bolts and the backing "plates" plus the hull make up and thickness where the keel is attached.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SanderO said:


> I suppose the historical record will reflect how successful the various "keel-hull" reinforcement design have been. There must be data about loose keels, dropped keels and so forth... as well as grids which "break".
> 
> What would concern me more would be the number, size and spacing of the keel bolts and the backing "plates" plus the hull make up and thickness where the keel is attached.


There has been an ongoing multi-year study of the issue of boats losing keels and of keel to hull connection failures. The results that I have seen are still somewhat preliminary. Ignoring designs that were specifically designed as dedicated race boats, the small amount of reports that I have seen that looked at various cruising boat keel failures have identified several prevalent failure modes.
1) In boats without internal structural systems, almost equally between bolt-on and encapsulated keels, there is a failure of the hull laminate at the edges of the keel sump or keel contact footprint.
2) In boats with internal framing there is a bond failure or frame damage, typically from an impact, that leads to a failure of the hull laminate at the edges of the keel sump or keel contact footprint.
3) In older boats with bolt-on keels, there have been bolt failures due to corrosion of the keel bolts mostly where they pass through the laminate.

There are already standards for the thickness of the hull at the keel bolts, and those date to the early 2000's. Few boats before that time actually meet those standards. The irony is that the exception were boats built to be raced that had to meet the scantlings requirements within the racing rules of their era.

Oddly, backing plates do not seem to come into play. While arguably backing plates that are too small or too thin would seem to concentrate the loads on too smaller an area, that seems to be a minor issue since pretty much all manufacturers get that right. 

I suppose the backing plates would come into play in those designs where there is no sump or other form of keel recess. In those cases, there would tend to be less stiffness to any framing that was provided, or even worse in those cases where framing was omitted as cost cutting measure. 

Under that circumstance, the backing plate can act as a transverse frame and therefore would ideally tie pairs of bolts together and transmit the loads out into the hull a reasonable distance past the edge of the keel footprint. That was done on some IOR era boats from the 1970's and 1980's. For that the backing plates to act as transverse framing they need to be very large. For example, X-yachts used hot dipped galvanized wide-flange steel beams. 

Jeff


----------



## redgar (8 mo ago)

Jeff_H said:


> I am not all that familiar with New Zealand's regulations except that I know they exist.


I've never sailed in NZ waters, but I've got some Kiwi friends. (Who doesn't? ) I believe this is the rule in question, however I live in a bureaucratic zone where it really pays to read the actual law rather than depend upon what "guides" say or what attorneys and law enforcement think, so take this as the reference it is rather than something with which to fight city hall:

Yachting New Zealand - Safety Regulations of Sailing 2021-2024​
In section 13.0 FLOODING PREVENTION, HATCHES, WINDOWS, BILGE PUMPS, STORM COVERINGS, pages 34 & 35:

*13.11 (K) Storm coverings shall be fitted for all windows more than 1852cm² in area.*​*13.12 (M) Storm coverings for exposed windows more than 1858cm² in area shall be fitted. *​
(K) indicates the rule applies to Keelboats​(M) indicates the rule applies to Multihulls​
So what does 1852cm² amount to?

bigger than an oval 80 cm x 29 cm
bigger than a circle with 48 cm diameter
bigger than a square 43 cm x 43 cm
bigger than a rectangle 77 cm x 24 cm

That begs the question... How big are your windows? 

There are many things of interest in those regs... Do you have your companionway hatch attached to the boat with a lanyard? Do you have your 4 buckets of stout construction? Do you have your yacht's name on your lifejackets? With attached light? With crotch strap? Life raft capable of carrying entire crew? Do you carry an axe for hull cutting?

Also note that some rules are for those racing and others for different categories. Perhaps more important for most here: PART III PLEASURE YACHTS DEPARTING NEW ZEALAND FOR OVERSEAS. It looks like if you arrive in a boat with a hull less than 12m in length, you might never leave!

For more information, contact Yachting New Zealand: Tel 09 361 1471, email: [email protected], web: www.yachtingnz.org.nz

--
Red


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

New Zealand cyclone 1994 Queens Birthday weekend 

Keels are there with a mission; target sea floor.
Regardless of whether bolt on or encapsulated. 

1 big safety issue many miss is bouyancy. Bolt ons tend to slap as bouyancy breaks free-fall whilst keel try's to break free. Construction held up in video. 
Encapsulated try to break free too!!! Being attached via sheer lines of a graceful hull thus when they get a stalled drop amongst the steep ones they take entire vessel with them.

We've been on a pretty rough ride similar weather to video 1988 Southern Ocean give take a year. That bought a tapered keel hull under a couple of times yet if I was on my long keel race boat she'd be sunk. Thus why men insist on quality hatches and seals. Extremely important. 

Keeping speed up most important though. Another bonus of a spade is ability to dig in and recover. Twin spades looking nice but I really don't know, we've only ever had 1 and been happy with them. But when moving along and breaker rolls a fall, vessel lands on freeboard, keel gets lifted, calling a spade a spade, such rudder digs in and returns vessel to pace quickly.
Taper versus long. Man sheer versus sheer lines of hull.


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

I meant this video. New Zealand 1994 Queens Birthday Weekend cyclone.

Researching square rigs for personal self. To maybe fit Max size 90 sqft 1080 sqft array. Replacing halyards with Hal brace to raise and halyards lateral creating yaw sails for none obstruction turbine side sail flow either tack plus square fore running. Stay sails thus a permanent ability to create pressure until strength of wind lifts point of true higher and higher.
Then park him up in harbour and enjoy a slow boat on 3 rules of surviving storms.

#1 know vessel 
#2 know whether 
#3 stay calm and love Lee 

🤣 Wollongong that be modern or old??
Keelson 🍻
Mindful wind or a forced partial set?
Once we're sailors


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Jeff et al,

Thanks for the replies, I was not really looking for a NZ specific answer but attempting to point out what struck me as a rather knee jerk reaction. A rule to fix a poorly defined problem.

AND that if this is a legitimate trend, then manufacturers will need to make some serious changes to their designs. Like that 64 Jenneau.

Ax for cutting hull, that would work well on my steel boat. LOL

I had HEARD that initially NZ attempted to apply these rules on foreign nationals but that was found to be against international conventions, foreign nationals need to meet the rules of their home port country, not every country they visit. But that may have changed as you are the second person to imply it is now universal.


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

Kiwis are beautiful. 
Brave are coast guard.

Modern biases.. 
Love of digging in to get her going is beautiful but being a man sheer such tires us mere men and if without speed to course a smooth river in a storm many opt towards hull sheer lines aka long keels. Yet they being encapsulated will simply sink when keel breaks free because keel is yacht.

I'm with Kiwis with regards to assisting education which is primary safety for any of us.
I know you are too!

I don't speak European otherwise I'd be wondering if they could brace a couple of keels instead. Bilge keel an enormous effort offshore providing a vertical hammer as well as aligned Lee flow Lee keel. They're already digging with 2 spades.
Should I ring Ben and Jean in eu? Nah.. I'd waste their time. Ben to fat for me berth. No offence intended, maybe he will fall to sleep some day 😅
Jean a great bloke too. Maybe is hang out an extra 3 years and enjoy coastal with stay aware if dare venture outside. Automatic man a nice steer yet how much can he handle before it is required to brace helm with self?
Slower bias towards older girls. Well, they like to get wet so maybe their hatch seals should be regularly inspected. Yet they do brace for helm and run like demons when mountains are high.

Steelie. You champion. More maintenance with steel says whom? Ignorance? Ongoing maybe.

Welcome to earths Kingdom. 
Yo ho Jean, bilging from keelson 🍻 on thoughts yet. Fast, traction, man sheer helm, shallow draft, beach able for inspections remote yet clear of sand crabs infecting our seacocks.
Keelson..
🍻
Please don't get sucked in to attraction of depression eye. She's simply spinning a yarn


----------



## Beyond some weather (7 mo ago)

Expanding on future keel drop off's
😅

If they went bilge keel for traction ratios.
Like weather , whether we know or knot s a tiring subject.

Eagles evolved wing tips for agility + speed
Boeing shortened their wings on airbuses following suit.
Bilge keel Lee traction is up up and away from sea bed ... or beach if grounded.


Wondering.. 
Hmm
Don't buy that the wing tip will fall off


----------

