# Who makes Blue Water boat right from the start



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

To my understanding What makes a Blue Water boat? 

To my understanding, all decent coastal cruisers can make it in the blue water by upgrading their sails, hardware, tankage and etc. What other things one must have that is hard to upgrade later in a coastal cruiser?

LS


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

While coastal cruising boat designs can be upgraded and taken out on bluewater, they are not bluewater design boats, and upgrading them doesn't make them one. 

Bluewater passagemakers are designed quite differently from coastal cruising boats. They generally have narrower interior spaces and berths, which are more usable and safer in heavy seas, while coastal cruisers generally have more open layouts, with larger berths, which become dangerous in heavy seas. 

Blue water boats will often have a smaller cockpit than a coastal cruising boat. Large cockpits present a serious hazard if the boat is pooped, and the cockpit fills with water. A smaller cockpit will hold less water, and reduces the likelihood of the water's weight affecting the boat's ability to stay afloat. 

The bluewater boats will often have larger and deeper storage lockers than a coastal cruising boat. Larger fuel and water tanks are also the norm for bluewater boats, as you have to take it with you...and can't just stop at the next marina if you need more. 

The rigging and sails on a bluewater boat are often heavier than those on a coastal cruiser. The cockpit and cabin are designed to resist breaking seas and often have a very substantial bridgedeck separating the cockpit from the companionway. The ports are often smaller and more heavily built. 

They will often have a heavier ground tackle setup than a comparably sized coastal cruising boat. 

And so on...etc.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

rockDAWG said:


> To my understanding What makes a Blue Water boat?
> 
> To my understanding, all decent coastal cruisers can make it in the blue water by upgrading their sails, hardware, tankage and etc. What other things one must have that is hard to upgrade later in a coastal cruiser?
> 
> LS


How about upgrade everything? Here's a story about a coastal cruiser going bluewater, does it sound like fun? They got about 200 miles.

http://www.equipped.com/0698rescue.htm


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Sailingfool-

That story is a bit misleading. Part of the reason they left the boat behind is medical, and part is because they did not properly re-fit or prepare the boat. A lot of it was due to the boat being improperly prepared for a voyage of that magnitude, and not being aware of the weather conditions.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

SFool... good article and though there were issues of sickness and preparedness, I think it illustrates as you intended the futility of attempting to upgrade a coastal cruiser to blue water. 
Buy the boat that will take you there safely...you can't make a Chevy a Sherman tank no matter how much armor you put on!


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

sailingdog said:


> Sailingfool-
> 
> That story is a bit misleading. Part of the reason they left the boat behind is medical, and part is because they did not properly re-fit or prepare the boat. A lot of it was due to the boat being improperly prepared for a voyage of that magnitude, and not being aware of the weather conditions.


That the story is damning to the idea of a Catalina 36 as a blue water boat is not misleading. Weather conditions ranged from mild to moderate (25 knots wind). The owner stated he had planned and prepared for the trip for over three years. If you consider the problems experienced: broken blocks, hatches, leaking deck joint, etc. capped off by catrostropic failure of the steering, the insight should be that a Catalina 36 is not suitable for such use - proper prearation would start with reconsrtuction from a bare hull of a boat to be made fundatentally more sturdy and well finished than what Catalina built.
As a contrast, the prior owner of my CS 36T completed two successful passages New Engalnd to Latin America. Nothing broke on the boat in either trip. The only improvement he made to the boat as built, was to install two small drains in the seahood - he found when buttoned down below in weather where waves continually washed the length of the boat, water collected in the seahood form and he'd get a slow drip from the hatch. The net is, if the desiger and builder didn't spec a boat for offshore use, don't think the necessary changes are minor or economical or doable - buy a boat built for the how you intend to use it.


----------



## captnnero (Jul 19, 2006)

*water, water everywhere...*

A common problem I've heard when someone compromises with a coastal cruiser offshore is water intrusion. Less sturdy openning portlights weep and drip when pounded with boarding seas. Over time, the constant moisture on the interior trashes cabinetry and other vulnerable surfaces, besides detracting from the whole experience. Some people even silicone their portlights shut when they head offshore.

Something else to consider is condensation produced on interior hull surfaces from cooler seawater and air tempertures. That would seem to call for insulation of the hull in cooler latitudes.

I haven't been in offshore conditions so these items are only from what I've read or heard from those who have. Surely someone else in the forum can speak directly to wet interior issues when it comes to the original construction of the vessel.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

rockDawg, a bluewater boat can be anything that the owner wants it to be. I think most of us would argue over the details but we'd all agree a boat was included in the "bluewater" group if:

-It could withstand a rollover with no damage
-It could withstand breaking waves with no damage (and they'll drop with a force of well over a ton per square foot)
-It can maintain steerage in gale+ force winds
-It can sustain the crew safely, if not comfortably, in the same
-It can hold sufficient tankage, food, water, etc. to get the boat across an ocean, figure at least 1000 miles preferably 2000+.
-It is inherently seaworthy, that is, STABLE, both with regard to sailing and balance, and to capsize resistance.

Some of that you can retrofit, some you can't. There are plenty of tales of boats that literally had the cabin sides stove in during heavy storms (mostly pre-fiberglass) and I'd suggest reading "Fastnet, Force 10" and Cole's "Heavy Weather Sailing" for a look at how some hull designs and certain racing rules can make a big difference in what is more or less likely to make a good bluewater boat.

Even the QE2 has taken a beating in heavy wx, but somewhere in between "rogue wave" and "small craft warning" there's a range of typical bad wx to be found in oceans, and a bluewater boat has to be capable of at least dealing with whatever can sneak up on the prudent sailor, in between weathercasts and landfalls.

Oddly enough...an awful lot of abandoned sailboats are eventually recovered after the crew has bailed. A bluewater boat is no good without bluewater crew. "Batteries and crew not included, optional and extra."<G>

"Some people even silicone their portlights shut when they head offshore." Silly people, haven't they ever heard of duct tape?!<G>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

When it comes to a long distance voyage, a lot more should go into preparation than simply using vacuum packed bags and pre-prepared food. That Catalina sounded pretty beat up. I always include a series of inspections by professionals which would include basic items like:
1. Standing Rigging
2. Electronics
3. Blocks, hatches, any deck penetration.
4. Keel bolts, through hulls
5. Plumbing
6. Navigation 
7. Steering, 
8. Rudder
9. Life Raft Certification Up To Date
10. Safety Equipment Check List in Compliance with Ocean Races such as Newport to Bermuda. 
11. Sails examined by Sailmaker. 

(To name a few). But you want a good twice over by someone who actually knows what they are doing might save your life. 

As for the point of whether you should buy a new or used boat that is a matter of personal choice. The US has not adopted the EU boat rating standards yet but certain manufacturers like Island Packet have complied. So that might be a way to check. There are others on this site who can address this point in more detail but suffice it to say you that the seaworthiness of a boat for blue water purposes has been quantified. You can look that number up and find out if the boat has the right weight to length ratio to be safe in heavy seas. And frankly, that is the issue. The conditions described in that article were not particularly challenging. A boat in good condition with the right sail plan employed should comfortably handle 30 knots and 30 foot rolling waves.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

sailingdog said:


> Sailingfool-
> 
> That story is a bit misleading. Part of the reason they left the boat behind is medical, and part is because they did not properly re-fit or prepare the boat. A lot of it was due to the boat being improperly prepared for a voyage of that magnitude, and not being aware of the weather conditions.


Some would probably argue (and the reviewer was too polite to say) that a 1984 Catalina 36, even if refit well is simply not a bluewater boat. As great a boat as it was, I never would have attempted a 2000 mile open water trip in my own 36 foot coastal cruiser.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am sure Jeff H will have some good comments on this thread too, but here are my OPINIONS (just mine)...

Some boats really are built better for offshore sailing. THey have the right tankage, lots of handholds, are tighter (making moving around in seas easier), have fewer (and generally smaller and stronger hatches), and most of the gear is "oversized" compared to what we would call a coastal cruiser. There are many other things I will not go into.

All that being said, I would have no problem taking a properly equipped Catalina or Beneteau or Jeauneau offshore (and have done it many times). I know of one gentleman particulairly that has had his 36 to South America and circled the Statue of Liberty (with several stories of 20+ foot seas). Would I take it to Hawaii? Yes, but I would be pretty careful about weather windows, etc. I would prefer a Valiant or Mason or other good offshore boat.

I think it was Hello?? that said to buy the right boat for the right thing?? Very true. Many of us have said that many times. You really cannot make a Catalina into a Valiant, as it will always be stronger (plus it would be cost prohibitive). That DOES NOT MAKE A CATALINA A BAD BOAT... just better designed for island hopping. It has lots of room, lots of "airy" hatches, and is very comfortable down below. My only comment to that is most of the boats which are "offshore circumnavigators" never make it past the first marker... for reasons that are a whole other thread.

Big fat boats with wide beams and few handholds (I always add more) can be a real bruiser offshore... especailly in a breaking sea. I know this from experience. But when you get to the anchorage, and drop the hook, it sure is nice to have all that room!! 

Thus, if you really are planning on circling the globe, don't try and make an island hopper into a circumnavigator. I will also say that if you are planning on primarily Island hopping, don't try and make a circumnavigator into a fat comfortable liveaboard!! (Just my opinion, I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone). Buy your boat for how you will use it 99% of the time. 

If you want both, break out the checkbook and go buy a Nordhavn. Putting a sailing dinghy on the back so you can still call yourself a sailor!!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm not saying a Catalina is a bluewater boat, but a lot of the problems, like the failing electronics, broken hatches, blocks and rudder failure could have been prevented by proper maintenance and preparation. It isn't that a Catalina couldn't make that voyage, but whether it was wise to do so, with such poor preparation and planning. 

Generally, boats that are abandoned, are not abandoned because of any single thing, but a series of events that go wrong. Also, it does sound like the crew wasn't properly prepared for the conditions they'd face when offshore. The medical kit wasn't really appropriate for the conditions they faced.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I second what you said Sailingdog. I will also say this:

I WOULD TAKE A CATALINA AROUND THE WORLD WITH THE PROPER CREW AND PREPARATION BEFORE I WOULD TAKE A VALIANT 50 AROUND THE WORLD WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN OFFSHORE OR DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

From http://www.equipped.com/0698rescue.htm



> Jeff summed it up best for all of us when he said "This was the finest sailing I've ever experienced and some of the scenes were just beautiful!" Aimee's comment was "It's too bad the adults were worried. Jeff and I were having a great time!"


As I read it, there is nothing in the article that implies that a Catalina 36 is inherenlty a poor choice for a passage to Hawaii. It all comes down to the preparation of the boat and the crew.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*i would have turned around*

If my boat was pristine and i had a crewmember as sick as that -i would have turned around. the leaking hatch, soaked below, broken steering .
this combination couldn't get much worse, and being so close to land i would heave turned around for that also.

my personal solution would have been to send the sick crew home by helicopter and sail the broken boat to the nearest harbor.

i believe that that boat could be taken on long passages if it were properly scrutinized. mant tartan 30's have made long voyages and my tartan 37 logged over 15k miles in 4 years.

There are of course real blue water boats such as my Amel which is an "A" rated e/c boat. 4 watertight bulkheads. dry below. we have sailed a number of times in 50+ knots and cooked a great dinner and never felt in distress or unable to take the boat off of autopilot. or even put on our foulies as we do not have to go out of the closed in hard dodger to make sail adjustments.

just a few comments off the top of my head.
Fair winds,
eric


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Cat...I have owned and loved 2 Catalinas and the CATALINA 36 IS INHERENTLY A BAD CHOICE FOR A PACIFIC PASSAGE. I know how they are constructed and you can't "inspect" your way to safety...you have to design it into the boat. Poorly constructed (for blue water) boats need luck...well designed boats need good skippers.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*they also had the wrong medical kit*

the bigger offshore medical kit contains
Trimethobenzamide 200mg Suppositories (Tigan).
make sure you keep these in the reefer--the first time we pulled these out they were like vaseline--kind hard to install

it also has injectible form of scopalamine.
both of which should have stopped the vomiting.
eric


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

CB, 
I agree, The Cat36 is a really good coastal cruiser, not a bluewater boat. tankage and fuel are just too small (for starters). 
don't get me wrong, I really do like the Cat36 but its not going into the big blue pond for more than a week at a time.


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

As the owner of my second Cat 36 (divorce, long story) I must say that I absolutely LOVE my boat. It has cruised Mexico with the prior owner and I would take her there again, and of course, she's a great island hopping boat here in SoCal. However, much like a British sportscar which you should never drive outside the range of the towing company, I would NEVER take her across the Pacific. Could she make it? Of course. Have others done it? Sure. But being a boat maintenance and customizing nut, I have had the chance to take most of my boat apart at various times. The lack of backing plates, tank size, questionable tank mounting and extensive use of self-tapping screws among other areas would concern me if I was more than a few days offshore. I'm sure I could beef up the rigging, install backing plates, add tankage and some additional sail options which would help, but I still don't think that the overall robustness would be there. I would rather buy a Caliber 40LRC with 240 gals of fuel, watertight collision bulkheads, modified full keel, skeg-hung rudder, split rig, etc etc. The Cat 36 is about the best boat in it's class for what she is, IMO. But as nice as she is, I wouldn't run the Dakar rally in a Lexus, either.

Mike


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

*seaworthiness rating?*



Surfesq said:


> suffice it to say you that the seaworthiness of a boat for blue water purposes has been quantified. You can look that number up and find out if the boat has the right weight to length ratio to be safe in heavy seas.


Can anyone tell us where to look up and interpret this for any given boat?


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

funny I just visited a yacht designer's forum where the only thing they could agree on with respect to this fabled number is that it doesn't tell you anything conclusive about the yachts and that it can mislead you into thinking that yachts not meant for offshore are!


----------



## Canibul (Sep 1, 2006)

CBinRI said:


> Some would probably argue (and the reviewer was too polite to say) that a 1984 Catalina 36, even if refit well is simply not a bluewater boat. As great a boat as it was, I never would have attempted a 2000 mile open water trip in my own 36 foot coastal cruiser.


I didnt notice in the article whether he said he would have still made the trip if he HAD up-to-date weather fax. Thats a judgement call he didnt have the information to make.

Why doesnt the SSB still receive without a mike? I dont understand the logic of that, although I am sure some engineer somewhere does.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Canibul-

If the mic plug was damaged, it may have shorted the transmit switch pins and then the SSB would not be able to receive, as it is a simplex radio..and can not receive if it is trying to transmit. Same thing happens with most VHF radios.


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

camaraderie said:


> Cat...I have owned and loved 2 Catalinas and the CATALINA 36 IS INHERENTLY A BAD CHOICE FOR A PACIFIC PASSAGE. I know how they are constructed and you can't "inspect" your way to safety...you have to design it into the boat. Poorly constructed (for blue water) boats need luck...well designed boats need good skippers.


My point was that I see little in PANDA's story as told on the "Equipped" site that directly relates to whether the Catalina 36 as a class is inherently unsuited to such a passage, a point re-iterated by yotphix in his post. I did not mean to imply that the Catalina 36 _is_ a good blue water boat, just that you can't say it _is not_ based on this particular story.

If it were me, like eric, I probably would have had the sick crewman airlifted off the boat and sailed the boat back with the remaining crew -- and I would have figured out some alternative way of securing the hatch and jury rigging the steering mechanism after they broke (I would have had tools and supplies on board to do so).


----------



## Canibul (Sep 1, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Canibul-
> 
> If the mic plug was damaged, it may have shorted the transmit switch pins and then the SSB would not be able to receive, as it is a simplex radio..and can not receive if it is trying to transmit. Same thing happens with most VHF radios.


Okay, Thanks. I see what you mean. Basically the damaged switch might have been the equivalent of holding down the PTT switch, but with no mike input.

So the SSB would have been transmitting noise and blocking whichever channel it was tuned to, until the transmitter burned out as well, probably?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Most of the problems found in the story on the "Equipped" site are clearly due to improper or poor preparation and planning by the owner of the boat, rather than any inherent flaws in a Catalina. Even the rudder failure was something that the owner should have addressed, but did not. 

Setting out on a bluewater passage without a fairly complete set of tools is both foolish and dangerous. It is one thing to be few hours from help, and another thing entirely to be days away from help...which would have been the case if he had been in the middle of his voyage, rather than just starting out.

Canibul-

Exactly...and the SSB antenna would have been a fairly serious burn risk if the SSB was transmitting.


----------



## Canibul (Sep 1, 2006)

Its always connectors.


----------



## SteveCox (Jul 12, 2006)

SailingDog
Just to be nitpicky , a simplex unit is one where the communication goes only one way i.e. a fire alarm box where you pull the handle and the alarm goes off at the fire station. A VHF or SSB radio is a half-duplex unit that can either transmit or receive but not both at the same time. Full duplex is illustrated by a telephone where transmit and receive happen at the same time.


----------



## Canibul (Sep 1, 2006)

I am trying not to be too critical about the broken SSB connector, but thats certainly the sort of thing that can be McGyver'ed pretty easily by twisting wires together, by passing the connector entirely. With the liklihood that they would be voluntarily passing out of VHF range any moment as they kept sailing, and in keeping contact with USCG, I would have thought that would be worth the 5 minutes to make it a priority.

What I am hearing from this is that one needs to be pretty handy offshore, and lets face , some people are just not wired that way ( no pun intended..)

But its easy to second guess from this warm, dry, comfortable chair looking out at the swells breaking on the reef...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Steve- Yup... it is half-duplex, not simplex. BTW, some VHF units are full-duplex as they have two transceivers in them, but usually only high-end land-based stations.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Well…… Thanks for taking time to post. There are lot good comments.

One thing that I walked away from this thread is preparation and sailor skills are most important. I also agree that you cannot make a chevy into a Sherman tank. I just leave it at that. 

Thanks Sailingfool’s link for the Panda story. I enjoyed reading it and I will take heart when I am ready to sail the blue pond. Hellosailer mentioned the Fastnet book. I read the book more than 10 years ago, when I was learning to sail from Annapolis Sailing School. Knowing that I will be sailing more and more, I recently purchased my very own copy along with “A voyage for Mad Men” which I haven’t find time reading it yet. It is easy to learn from others.

There are a number of blue water boats were mentioned, ie. Valiant, Caliber, and Mason. I have looked into their constructions, I can see the difference. One thing that is clear all have full keel instead of fin keel. Are there other builders in this caliber? I am sure most of them are beyond my reach, but just want to learn more about it. I think an older Valiant or Caliber is workable. I still have a few years to make my decision and it will not be easy.

Thanks again for the well thought comments.  

LS


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

I thought "simplex" was the use of one frequency for the receiver and transmitter where a "duplex" will use one frequency for reception and another for the transmission. A duplex lends itself the use of repeaters. 

Jerry


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

_" Valiant, Caliber, and Mason........... One thing that is clear all have full keel instead of fin keel." _

That is not true at all, both the Caliber and the Valiant are fin keels with skeg hung rudders, as are most designs being promoted today primarily for offshore use. The exception to that might be the Island Packets, which have something between a long fin and a full keel, but oddly enough use a post hung rudder like any modern race boat, except that the bottom of the rudder on an IP is almost at the same depth as the keel making it more vulnerable.

Jeff


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

I stand corrected. Thanks Jeff...... and Paul too


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

jerryrlitton said:


> I thought "simplex" was the use of one frequency for the receiver and transmitter where a "duplex" will use one frequency for reception and another for the transmission. A duplex lends itself the use of repeaters.
> 
> Jerry


Full-duplex operation of a radio, whether ham, VHF, or SSB, requires that you have two frequencies assigned, one for transmit and one for receive. that way, you don't step on the other person's transmission with yours. Half-duplex operation uses a single simplex frequency-where you can either listen or transmit-but not both.


----------



## SteveCox (Jul 12, 2006)

A little interesting research on the web turned up that there are two definitions of "simplex". ANSI (and the US Navy where I learned it) define it as I did earlier which is one way ONLY i.e., broadcast radio and television or the fire alarm box. ITU defines simplex as one way at a time which is the definition I used for half-duplex. No wonder some of us seem way off base.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Steve, I think the difference is that the ANSI/USN definitions date back to the days when devices were simply DEVICES without any intelligence. Like an old TV or fire alarm box, which isn't and can't be "programmed".

Now, you come into the computer age and add intelligence into telephones and modems and things...and the difference between simplex and half-duplex can be in the equipment--or in the control programing. If I had to rewrite the definition I'd say a half-duplex device was a simplex device with enough brains and ambition to fake being full duplex, one way at a time. (And then if I wanted to confuse things further, I'd say half-duplex meant a timesharing emulation of full duplex.<G>)

Telegraph line: Simplex.
Telegraph line with two trained operators: Duplex.
Telegraph line with two drunk operators: Half-duplex?<G>


----------



## SteveCox (Jul 12, 2006)

When you started putting intelligence into the devices and software programming they became multiplex devices. I was trying to keep it simple. and the ITU definition evidently goes all the way back to Western Unions description of the capability of the trans Atlantic cable.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jeff H is of course right that the trend in bluewater boats is towards fin keels. I sailed my 37 foot Cutter which had a fin keel across the Atlantic and found it to be quite comfortable. My "nused" boat is a Hardin Sea Wolf which at one time was thought to be a very good blue water boat. It is a very heavy full keel Ketch. I am looking forward to sailing it to Bermuda in the Spring and comparing my own experiences with the two designs.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Jeff_H said:


> _" Valiant, Caliber, and Mason........... One thing that is clear all have full keel instead of fin keel." _
> 
> That is not true at all, both the Caliber and the Valiant are fin keels with skeg hung rudders, as are most designs being promoted today primarily for offshore use. The exception to that might be the Island Packets, which have something between a long fin and a full keel, but oddly enough use a post hung rudder like any modern race boat, except that the bottom of the rudder on an IP is almost at the same depth as the keel making it more vulnerable.
> 
> Jeff


I have a 70s era Swan with a fin keel that, properly prepared, is suitable for bluewater use, IMO. Most coastal cruisers have fin keels but that does not mean that fin keels are not suitable for offshore use.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

SteveCox said:


> A little interesting research on the web turned up that there are two definitions of "simplex". ANSI (and the US Navy where I learned it) define it as I did earlier which is one way ONLY i.e., broadcast radio and television or the fire alarm box. ITU defines simplex as one way at a time which is the definition I used for half-duplex. No wonder some of us seem way off base.


I guess I wasn't as off-base as you thought.


----------



## SteveCox (Jul 12, 2006)

The only reason I posted is that I hate it when technical terms get misused. It makes communication much more difficult and there are already enough difficulties with it already . However, if the standards organizations can't agree on the definitions I gues we'll all muddle through somehow.


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

Don't get me started on the 'amps per hour' debacle.


----------



## johnshasteen (Aug 9, 2002)

I've seen some coastal cruisers venture into blue water, a number of well-prepared boats have even gone on the Galveston to Vera Cruz regatta (650 mile race down the Gulf), but they were lucky.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

You know, I'm not sure our question was answered properly....
As simply as I can say it, after being at sea for 25 years as a Master Class 1, a blue water yacht is one that is designed and built to protect you from the elements. 
Stability, Strength and Security are the primary concerns here. They all dilute down to heeling angles, weight, sail area, watertight divisions and reliability and /or redundancy of your systems. The most important word in safe passage, is "safe". 
The gents who set off to Hawaii in their boat were, in retrospect, unprepared despite a year spent in planning. The time in planning doesn't mean anything if taxpayers have to pay to have you rescued! You may as well set out in a bathtub. The good news is they survived to write about (and learn from )their ordeal.

In my view, a blue water boat is one that meets the CE criteria, its one that Class Societies (Lloyds, DNV, etc) are prepared to certify for ocean passages.
Many factors contribute to making it "safe". All the ABYC wiring codes, Life Saving and Fire Fighting Appliances (LSFA) bilge pumping systems, fire systems, redunacy of systems, availabiliy of spares to name but a few.

I recently bought a 21 year old fibreglass pilothouse boat that is so well built, so well maintained and so heavy, solid under foot and "substantial" - A name we gave to our fat cat, - that I'm prepared to go anywhere in her, - other than ice regions. 

Long range on engine alone, (2,000 miles) - Heaps of fresh water and huge freezer. Soild, reduced rig, - not as fast as Steve and Linda's Beuwolf, but comfortable and manageable by a single person - (should one be incapacated) 
This is a blue water cruiser.
To misquote Neville, "But, that's just my opinion"
Buy well, be safe.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Hey Raffles - welcome to SN dude. It's great to have another salt on board.

Great post.


----------



## cormeum (Aug 17, 2009)

I'll admit i find Dr. Marchaj's "Seaworthiness, the Forgotten Factor" to be pretty compelling reading concerning "blue water" hull forms.

Basically IMHO, a blue water boat, as compared to a coastal or inshore boat is:

Long, skinny and deep
has a long keel or a moderate fin and skeg hung rudder
has narrow, longitudinal bunks, with leeboards/leecloths
a gimbaled centerline table
a seperate nav station
moderate to low freeboard (as compared to what's out there nowadays)
small and few hatches with no large fixed windows
a fairly low aspect ratio rig 
Usually two sticks
heavy mast extrusions
heavier stays
throughbolted hardware
a lot of lockers
a lot of handholds
small cockpit with a bridge deck
small wheel

etc.
the basic idea being able to stand up to heavy weather without rapid motion, and quickly recover from a capsize (AVS of 150deg or better).

At Strictly Sail a couple of years ago, the wife really frosted a broker selling a nice 45'+ "cruiser" by pointing *across* the main cabin and saying "that's a long way to fall"


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Isn't "amps per hour" how you measure overkill in a heavy metal rock band while they're performing in concert?


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*The small differences add up*

Yes you can upgrade a coastal cruiser to handle blue water but it does not make it a bluewater boat, just capable of handling bluewater. My only experience of anything resembling bluewater was crossing the Gulf of Mexico in the Regatta al Sol in a Catalina 380.

Checking out the boat before hand I was impressed out how luxurious and spacious it looked down below and what nice looking wide open cockpit it had. This should be a good time i thought. The start of the race brought big winds that only increased. One boat was dismasted on the first day and another dropped out as well because of the conditions. Under way the wide open cockpit , which would have been nice at anchor with 8 friends on board enjoying cocktails, was not longer an asset but rather a pain in the @ss, literally. The only person comfortable was the one on the low side that was resting with his back against the cabin bulkhead with legs pointing aft. Everyone else but the helmsman was on the windward side with their legs extended to the leeward side. With a cockpit this wide your feet could barely make it across and your but was perched on the edge of the opposite bench. Your back made it nowhere near the back support so you had to sit/stand like this for hours on end. We later brought coolers into the cockpit to add places to brace against. Unless I was the lucky person on the low side or second luckier as helmsman, though not very comfortable there, I found myself most comfortable on the cockpit sole jammed up against a cooler.

The wide open spaces down below were a liability as well. The handholds were few and far between. When moving forward down below you would time the motion of the boat to swing monkey bar style towards the next handhold. Once when the boat made a sudden unexpected lurch and I missed the next hold and flew across the beam of the boat.

I had read previously about the differences in the designs of boats before this but this was a first hand lesson in the design advantages for specific purposes. I wish sailboats were as cheap as kayaks so I could have one of each kind for my different sailing needs.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

cardiacpaul said:


> hey, I've got a 16 y. o. kid that thinks "50% chance of rain" means its going to rain in half the area...
> sigh. so it could always be worse.


Um, it does.


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

cormeum said:


> Basically IMHO, a blue water boat, as compared to a coastal or inshore boat is:
> 
> Long, skinny and deep
> has a long keel or a moderate fin and skeg hung rudder
> ...


Just thinking out loud, but sounds like you're describing the Crealock 34 & 37 other than the 2 masts. No wonder everyone seems to love them.

Mike


----------



## cormeum (Aug 17, 2009)

MikeinLA said:


> Just thinking out loud, but sounds like you're describing the Crealock 34 & 37 other than the 2 masts. No wonder everyone seems to love them.
> 
> Mike


They even made a few yawls IIRC. Yeah, they do what they're supposed to.

The same theory works for larger boats as well.


----------



## Flybyknight (Nov 5, 2005)

Hylas


----------



## cormeum (Aug 17, 2009)

Flybyknight said:


> Hylas


looks like it


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

danielgoldberg said:


> Um, it does.


Um, no it doesn't.

When a meteorologist says "50% chance of rain" what he is saying is that in the past, when conditions were comparable in the area, it rained 50% of the time.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

denverd0n said:


> Um, no it doesn't.
> 
> When a meteorologist says "50% chance of rain" what he is saying is that in the past, when conditions were comparable in the area, it rained 50% of the time.


I always thought it meant that he was at the golf course, did not feel like doing his job, and realized that at 50% he was 50-50 to get it right!!!! It might rain, it might not. FORE!

HEHE! Meterology. WHo else can possibly be paid that much money to be wrong 95% of the time!?? I sometimes wonder if those guys even look outside before making their predictions!!!!

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

cormeum said:


> Beamy aft= unbalanced heeled underbody. So not a "blue water" boat IMO.


Hylas is an awesome, bluewater, go anywhere boat in my opinion.

- CD


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

You know, after reading that article about the Hawaii-bound dude, I was pretty much ready to blame his poor preparation, etc. like everyone usually does.

*Then the freakin' USCG DRYER caught fire while drying their laundry.* There was nothing anyone could have done for this voyage. Not even Hylas.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Hey, CD, on a serious note, when talking about the handholds issue - how do you handle kids (too short to reach them) in heavy weather?

I've been wondering about these kinds of things thinking through our upcoming charters with our little ones.


----------



## cormeum (Aug 17, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> Hey, CD, on a serious note, when talking about the handholds issue - how do you handle kids (too short to reach them) in heavy weather?
> 
> I've been wondering about these kinds of things thinking through our upcoming charters with our little ones.


On our boat the "short ones" use the bunk and setee fiddles to get around. A "new" boat might not be so arranged.


----------



## cormeum (Aug 17, 2009)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hylas is an awesome, bluewater, go anywhere boat in my opinion.
> 
> - CD


checked it out- very nice and I stand corrected.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

smackdaddy said:


> Hey Raffles - welcome to SN dude. It's great to have another salt on board.
> 
> Great post.


Thanks. Pleased to be here. Lots of experience in the group without me, but happy to have joined. Love the ankle braclet. I assume you don't get offshore too much any more.


----------

