# Modern day blue water sailboat?



## Jhiggy (Aug 28, 2013)

What sailboats being produced today are blue water sailable? I just want to take a peek at the design differences from older boats to the new modern ones. Preferably in the 25-30 foot range. Thank you!


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

Very few boats produced in that size range that are even offshore capable never mind blue water.

Nowadays people think Gunboat 60 for a RTW.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

There are very few boats with that size that we could call bluewater boats. In the general view a bluewater boat is a boat specifically designed for offshore work. I would prefer to call it small boats with an offshore potential.

There are not many because since the introduction of the RCD to be able to sail offshore they have to pass the criteria for class A boats and few boats with that size (25 to 28ft) have the conditions to be approved. If old boats were submitted I believe that almost all would fail too.

For being really small (25/28) and be able to pass the criteria they have to be unsinkable. The smaller I know off approved as a Class A boat is this one:

Interesting Sailboats: DJANGO 7.70 on a CIRCUMNAVIGATION

These two are favorites of many:

Interesting Sailboats: RM 890, ONE OF THE BEST RM EVER






probably you have noticed that they are all beamy boats. Yes they are beamy but with a low CG and a good AVS. Being beamy and with a low CG is a sure way to increase overall stability that in a small boat is never too much. They are also heavily influenced by mini solo racers and are light and fast boats.

Regarding more traditional type of boats I would suggest you look at the Dehler 29 that is one of the boats that have been more time in production among the ones that are made by mass production builders. A great boat.

http://www.dehler.com/#/gb/29/exterieur/

Or to the more modern Winner 9.0 (I don't know if they have managed to approve it as class A)

Sail-World.com : Yacht Feature: Winner 9.00, 'European Yacht of the Year' nomination

I believe that among the two type the superior overall stability and better dynamic stability will make the first one more suitable but again, I would not call them bluewater boats.


----------



## Jhiggy (Aug 28, 2013)

Thanks for the responses. I figured there wouldn't be many in that size range but thanks for the provided links. I do some reading. =)


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Cute little salty boat of the yesteryear:

CONTESSA 26 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

The new 30' boat is today's 40" to 60" with a garage plus all other goodies.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

If you can pack light you might want to look at the Mini Transat boats. They come up on the market sometimes. They're fast and certainly seaworthy for their size. Personally, I'd go for a Dana 24 in the same size range.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Pacific Seacraft...Cape Dory


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

its a weird question for sure

I have often wondered if simply designs of yesteryear made with newer materials would simply become the bluewater boats of today...

I think there is a point where one can no longer advance sailing in cruising terms...or maybe Im wrong...

are people in 50 years going to be on foils, singlehanding 100foot trimarans...as standard?

maybe? will that be considered bluewater or what?

dont know but these questions always leave more things unansrwered...

honestly I have no idea what new boats or designs are considered bluewater...these days(and im young)

in any case


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

Jhiggy said:


> What sailboats being produced today are blue water sailable? I just want to take a peek at the design differences from older boats to the new modern ones. Preferably in the 25-30 foot range. Thank you!


When I think "modern ocean boat" I think long, narrow, and light with the ability fly plenty of sail. Most boats designed for passages built today in your price range were designed 20+ years ago, so are not really "modern" in the sense you probably mean.

Here is one that is close to your size and much more "modern": Hallberg-Rassy - Yachts - Aft Cockpit Boats


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

christian.hess said:


> honestly I have no idea what new boats or designs are considered bluewater...these days(and im young)
> 
> in any case


An old salt once said. There is no blue water boat, only blue water sailors. If building a few more feet and adding a few more tons to the boat, it will make us safer. I don't think so.

To think of it, I don't even know how to define a blue water sailor. Just like studying for an exam, you study and study over again. There is never a point that you will say - Hey that is enough. In the storm, there are so many variables, You just can't say, I am ready; hit me hard.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

christian.hess said:


> honestly I have no idea what new boats or designs are considered bluewater...these days(and im young)


I would put it down to the designers intent. Did they design it for cruising or for day sailing? Does it have enough tankage and storage for cruising? Is it comfortable enough to live on?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Bristol Channel cutters at 28' are considered by many to be the ideal small blue water boat. Many have done extraordinary passages and some the clock. They are back in production by Cape George Yachts.
Had a PSC 34' in the past. She never made me nervous. They are still in production down in N.C.
Had a small Cape Dory ( one a 25' another a 30'). Fine boat but not something I'd do blue water in. A bit squirrelly in strong wind when on broad reach to run. Used to drop the main >25-30kt. off the wind.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

RainDog said:


> When I think "modern ocean boat" I think long, narrow, and light with the ability fly plenty of sail. Most boats designed for passages built today in your price range were designed 20+ years ago, so are not really "modern" in the sense you probably mean.
> 
> Here is one that is close to your size and much more "modern": Hallberg-Rassy - Yachts - Aft Cockpit Boats


does tha5 boat have a nice bridgedeck to prevent flooding in following seas?

I see a stepped open transom...

I cruised on a steel boat with this type of a design extensively...and in big waves water would rush in...and we would have to barricade it...now nothing happened as there was a nice step that prevented water ingressing into the cabin and scoops too, but Im assuming these designs have a lot of buoyancy aft as noticed by the high deck area aft...

anywhoo


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

RainDog said:


> I would put it down to the designers intent. Did they design it for cruising or for day sailing? Does it have enough tankage and storage for cruising? Is it comfortable enough to live on?


ok Ill play this game...

what has changed then in the last 200 plus years? or say the last 50 from wood to glass...

to be considered blue water design and modern?

basically I think there is a ceiling that doesnt change...

a boat, a keel, sails...buoyancy...

some things cant be improved upon at least drastically with technology today...we still rely on the same scnearios and formulas and basic design

thats why I commented on what consitutes modern blue water cruising or what it will be in 50-100 years

will all boats be foilers, will all boats be made in carbn fiber or othermaterials?

will all boats cruise really fast

will all boats have buttons to raise and lower sails as standard therefore making it easier and SAFER to cruise in a performance way? in bigger boats?

looking at that rassy, I like it but its hard to say objectively that design wise or intentio wise its much different than older boats...

its still a keel a rudder a hull and sails...


----------



## ChristinaM (Aug 18, 2011)

christian.hess said:


> does tha5 boat have a nice bridgedeck to prevent flooding in following seas?
> 
> I see a stepped open transom...
> 
> ...


The previous model (HR31 built from 1992-2009) had a closed transom and a more overhang at the bow.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

christian.hess said:


> or say the last 50 from wood to glass...
> 
> to be considered blue water design and modern?


I am certainly no design expert, but my amateur answer would be:

Last 50 years:
- Transitioned from all full keels to mostly fin keels
- Transitioned from barn-door rudders to balanced rudders. Transom/keel hung to combination of skeg hung or fin rudders.
- Displacement has gone down considerably.
- LWL has gone much longer for a given LOD.
- Roaches have gotten fuller
- Beam has gotten wider
- Have added sugar scoops / walk through transoms
- Have gone to from spit rigs to sloop rigs on most boats < 45 feet.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

yup

BUT more blue water? better?


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

christian.hess said:


> does tha5 boat have a nice bridgedeck to prevent flooding in following seas?


Looks like unimpeded path for the water!


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

christian.hess said:


> yup
> 
> BUT more blue water? better?


You can tell from my choice of boat that I do not think so (in this size range). But for OPs desire to compare "modern" boats to boats of some past date, I expect that is what will be the most noticeable. Of course the other one is that boats have gotten way bigger, which is why there are tons of good old cruising boats 25-30 feet, but almost none designed in the past 10 years. Even Island Packet does not build under 36' these days.

I guess it is almost impossible to market a 200K, 30' boat when there are so many good ones on the used market to be had at a fraction of that price.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

wow didnt know they didnt even build under 36

its interesting to note the changes, modern blue water...it will be interesting to see how sailors change and how they will sail with different boats in the same oceans...

honestly I dont see modern boats being designed for offshore cruising or for the cruising market

I see the whole bigger, and beamier and more compfortable but that hardly makes a boat more blue water friendly


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

RD- Agree with you except some will pay for cult boats like the BCC or for the beauty of them. Boat I always wanted to own but never did is the little Shannon 28'. Hear they were quite a reasonable vessel in blue water.
A bit bigger than OP suggests but have weathered a storm in a Hinckley pilot 35' off shore. She handled remarkably well and now can be had for short money given what you are getting.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

I think there are plenty of bigger boats designed specifically for cruising (which to me is the same as "blue water") in recent years: Island Packets, Saga, Ovni, Amel, Atlantic Cats, etc. 

There are of course blue water racing boats too, but that is another beast.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

for me old designs built high tech would make me a happy camper in my older days...

I like how old boats sail and enjoy their perks and performance and offshore capabilities

for example making a nice folkboat in kevlar or something with ultralight masts and sails

making here even BETTER...I wouldnt see how putting a fin rudder on that boat would make it better for bluewater or a better design

newer materials and STRONGER YES...but what constitutes blue water and offshore capable has already been defined and proven countless times over...

for example whose out there cruising on new boats and how do they like them that would be a great way to see what constitues modern blue water capable boats I think


----------



## Jhiggy (Aug 28, 2013)

Wow! This turned into quite the discussion. Mostly I wanted to see if there were any major improvements to hull design and rudder/keel shape/weighting. (Just for my own personal curiosity) Not only that but it's fun to dream about buying a brand spanking new boat. =)


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

I think computer modeling has revolutionized sailboat design. I think it turns out boats do not work the way we thought they did. Also previously you had to build a boat, stick it in the water, and then see what happens. Now you can design one and see what happens on a computer. This enables iterative design. 

I read somewhere recently from a designer (can't find it now) that "Sailboat design has changed more in the past (20?) year than in the previous 500". I know for sure much of this is in the rig, but also in the keel and hull. Not sure how much of this will trickle down to cruising. Certainly much has already such as better sails, better sail shape, better rigging, better keels, roller furling. If you look at almost any rig designed in the past 10 years, it will have a full-roach main and multiple headsails on furlers. 20 years ago, there was much more variety in the types of rig designs. Furlers + material improvements + computer design has led to this complete change in the way we think about sailboat rigs. The same forces are part of what is making boats larger.

Hopefully we will hear a real designer weigh in on this and correct all my blunders


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

RainDog said:


> Looks like unimpeded path for the water!


Well, it's not quite _THAT_ bad  The walk-thru transom can be 'closed' when underway, and there is a bit of a sill to that companionway, the cockpit sole is about level with the top step...

Lots of compromises on boats of that size, the sill on my companionway is even a bit lower than on that H-R. But I think with the addition of a bulletproof, gasketed storm board that can be bolted on outside of the drop boards up to the level, or higher than, the cockpit seats when the weather gets up, for me that's an acceptable trade-off...

Still, hard for me to see how the new H-R 310 is an improvement in terms of being sailed offshore, than its predecessor, the 312 Mark II... Mounting a windvane on the 310 would be very problematic, and the cockpit on the 312 is _FAR_ more suitable for offshore sailing, and you can see a proper bridgedeck, though one still below the level of the seats...










Even builders like H-R have to accept that one has to give buyers what they want, and it seems one of the features The Market 'demands' these days, is the convenience of a stroll-thru transom...


----------



## sugarbird (Dec 23, 2013)

Kind of an interesting question, and as a certified 'old fart' who started sailing in '63, I have a few opinions (shocking!). When I was a young dockrat the term "bluewater" applied to boats and sailors who were fully prepared to go over the horizon in stalwart boats, with sketchy weather forecasts, often minimal electronics, mostly manual systems, maybe a wind vane, and no expectations of being rescued from the **** they got themselves into. They typically chose to sail heavy ass boats that could stand up to a beating weather-wise, that they could repair and maintain themselves and/or with minimal assistance, but were often sluggish in light air, and few were equipped to motor long distances.

With modern weather forecasting, GPS navigation, reliable power generation and autopilots, watermakers, satphones, SSB email, EPIRBs, generally speedier vessels under sail that are equipped & expected to motor well, all under the umbrella of greatly expanded search and rescue capabilities, and well, IMHO it's a whole different ballgame. If you have a modicum of common sense and a bit of sailing experience, the risks associated with "going offshore" have been tremendously reduced.

So, (finally), back to your question about modern bluewater boats. Are you asking what bulletproof, heavy double enders are in current production, or what modern small boats are designed and built with the idea that they provide safe offshore passages when equipped with modern equipment and sailed smartly?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I think that properly answer this question you need to start with an agreement defining what we are actually discussing. When I look at the collection of criteria, “modern day”, “bluewater sailboat” and “25-30 foot range” these collection of attributes seem almost mutually exclusive from my point of view. It is not that you can’t design a 25-30 foot bluewater cruiser, but pretty much by definition it would not be modern. (Yes, I know that was a double-negative but this is after-all the internet) 

In my mind, by definition the term blue-water implies a boat that is optimized for distance voyaging. That boat would be different in my mind than a boat that was merely capable of making distant open water passages. Many boats can make a transoceanic passage with a bit of luck and a skilled crew. But to be optimized for distance voyaging, the boat would need a certain amount of self-reliance, robustness and capacity to carry all of the gear and consumables that the crew would need to make a long distance voyage. 

As a rule of thumb that means the boat needs something like 4,500 lbs to 11,000 lbs (2000 kg. to 4989 kg.) of displacement per person. In the past, boats derived from traditional working water craft may have been able to carry that kind of displacement in 25-30 length on deck. But by definition, modern designs aim at L/D’s somewhere in the 110 to 165 range, with 165 actually being considered pretty heavy. That would suggest that at the light end a 4,500 lb, modern single-handed distance cruiser would have a 23 to 26 foot waterline, but at the high end, an 11,000 lb modern single hander would have a waterline in the 31 to 35 feet in length. If this were a double hander minimally it would have a waterline length around 29 feet, more optimally somewhere 37 feet, and at the high end of the load range, a truly ‘modern day’ cruiser for a couple would displace something less than 22,000 and have as much as 45 feet of waterline length. 

If you make the boat shorter for its weight, it could still be a good offshore cruiser but it would not be a ‘modern day’ offshore cruiser. If you made a modern day design lighter and therefore shorter, it would eventually (somewhere greater than 30 feet) lack adequate carrying capacity to properly support its crew as a distance voyager, and fall back into a category that I would perhaps call a boat with passage making capabilities. 

In any event, there are a lot of folks building decent boats with passage making capabilities, some of which are modern day designs. And there are still some folks building small long distance voyaging vessels. But I don’t know that anyone is building modern day, bluewater cruisers in the 25-30 foot range, nor do I believe that such is actually possible by the definitions above. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

I think you are all nuts. A modern boat is safer, faster, and more capable than anything of the same leingth from 50 years ago. Two hundred years ago the mortality rate for a circumnavigation was assumed to be over 50%. Today people do it all the time with little concern. 

The reality is that boats from 50 years ago are heavier than they need to be, weaker than they could be, and slow. 

If you want a modern Bluewater boat take a look at the mini 6.5, or the Pogo. A little longer and you get into a Quest 30, or a Figgaro-Beneteau 33. Rocket ship fast, stable, easy to sail, in fact most of these are designed for single handed racing. Sure they have a different motion than boats five times their weight, but that's a good thing.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

why on earth are you guys talking mini transat boats?

first off there is and should be a clear distinction between offshore racing boats and cruisers

you cant compare them and try to make them the same

you just cant

sorry! jajajaja


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> Cute little salty boat of the yesteryear:
> 
> CONTESSA 26 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
> 
> The new 30' boat is today's 40" to 60" with a garage plus all other goodies.


Heh, it's not "of the yesteryear" for me.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

asdf38 said:


> Heh, it's not "of the yesteryear" for me.


the one boat I regret selling was my international folkboat....

few boats do everything well and with charm


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

christian.hess said:


> the one boat I regret selling was my international folkboat....
> 
> few boats do everything well and with charm


Have you seen this video? It certainly makes me want a folkboat someday.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

loading it right now!

nice thats a nordic folkboat, mine was the marieholm, in plastic but still man what sweet boats the contessa had some mods done to it but still a great boat

anywhoo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

To the OP. In that size range would add a Bob boat. Robert Harris not our BP. The boat is a Vancouver 27. Sweet strong craft. Still as usual Jeff hit the nail on the head. All the small boats I think of as blue water cruisers ( meaning they will carry a meaningful payload and allow a measure of comfort) are heavy displacement and by modern standards narrow and slack bilged. The modern flyers are at the opposite end of the spectrum. As stated there still is a market for some of the best of the older designs so they are still in production.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

copacabana said:


> If you can pack light you might want to look at the Mini Transat boats. They come up on the market sometimes. They're fast and certainly seaworthy for their size. Personally, I'd go for a Dana 24 in the same size range.


The Django 7.70 is a mini a bit bigger with a better interior. They have also a real mini (6.70) adapted to cruising but the boat is only approved in class B. The bigger one has more stability.

Django 770 : teaser de l'essai complet en vidéo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jeff_H said:


> ...
> .. But to be optimized for distance voyaging, the boat would need a certain amount of self-reliance, robustness and capacity to carry all of the gear and consumables that the crew would need to make a long distance voyage.
> 
> As a rule of thumb that means the boat needs something like 4,500 lbs to 11,000 lbs (2000 kg. to 4989 kg.) of displacement per person. ...


There are two guys circumnavigating on a mini racer that weights less than 2500lbs. They seem to be doing quite well in what regards provisions. As you know a mini racer circumnavigated non stop, taking on the boat from the start the full provisions needed for all the circumnavigation.

A small modern boat, for instance a Pogo 30, can perfectly take all the provisions needed for a couple to do long range voyaging, if they live in a kind of a spartan way. Anyway modern boats are beamier and have for the same size a bigger loading ability than older boats with the same size.

Modern or old a small boat will be taking more risks on an oceanic crossing than a bigger boat. I am not saying that the risks are big but any boat takes some (small) risks on an oceanic crossing, unless it is really a big one.


----------



## opc11 (Jun 8, 2011)

RainDog said:


> You can tell from my choice of boat that I do not think so (in this size range). But for OPs desire to compare "modern" boats to boats of some past date, I expect that is what will be the most noticeable. Of course the other one is that boats have gotten way bigger, which is why there are tons of good old cruising boats 25-30 feet, but almost none designed in the past 10 years. Even Island Packet does not build under 36' these days.
> 
> I guess it is almost impossible to market a 200K, 30' boat when there are so many good ones on the used market to be had at a fraction of that price.


you might be surprised. check out this project. it's gaining some momentum too: Series: Adventure 40 (Free) «


----------



## opc11 (Jun 8, 2011)

Jhiggy said:


> Wow! This turned into quite the discussion. Mostly I wanted to see if there were any major improvements to hull design and rudder/keel shape/weighting. (Just for my own personal curiosity) Not only that but it's fun to dream about buying a brand spanking new boat. =)


check out the soft wing sails they're now rigging. also the dynamaic stability wings. they are wings built into the boat's hull to keep it upright. very interesting stuff w/ marked improvement.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Interesting a boat with two at 2500lbs
My water and fuel (200gal. water 200gal. Of fuel) weights more than their boat . Add in pots/ pans/ tools/ fun stuff/ books/ clothes/safety/ communication stuff and my wife and I are probably well past their total weight with all their supplies when we are just cruising around. This is not considering the weight of our boat/sails/dinghy/ outboard nor our food and libations. 
Nothing spartan about us and don't think we are hedonists either from what I see around. Rather fairly in the middle of the road. Crouch rockets v. Gold wings or K bikes. 3 thousand v 30k. Oh well won't trade places. Would get old fast living like that.
No wonder they went non stop. Probably couldn't get off the boat or dress nice enough to go out.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

PCP said:


> There are two guys circumnavigating on a mini racer that weights less than 2500lbs. They seem to be doing quite well in what regards provisions. As you know a mini racer circumnavigated non stop, taking on the boat from the start the full provisions needed for all the circumnavigation.
> 
> A small modern boat, for instance a Pogo 30, can perfectly take all the provisions needed for a couple to do long range voyaging, if they live in a kind of a spartan way. Anyway modern boats are beamier and have for the same size a bigger loading ability than older boats with the same size.
> 
> Modern or old a small boat will be taking more risks on an oceanic crossing than a bigger boat. I am not saying that the risks are big but any boat takes some (small) risks on an oceanic crossing, unless it is really a big one.


I think that you and I are probably saying something very similar. To me the guys sailing a mini around the world is the perfect example of a boat that is a capable passagemaker. It is capable of providing adequate seaworthiness and carry supplies to make a very long passage with two people aboard. I was not able to find information on the boat, but I would have to assume that 2,500 lbs is its 'dry weight' and that loaded it might have as much as an extra 1000 lbs of crew and consumables. And at that weight I would have to guess that they are dependent on keeping everything to a minimum weight and relying on using solar panels to produce electricity and being able to make their own drinking water and use dried food along the way.

To me that is in contrast to a boat optimized for distance cruising, which in my mind would need to carry things like a dinghy, enough cold storage to stock up on fresh foods along the way, and carry the kinds of complexity, clothing and gear that the ability to go ashore in multiple ports adds to a voyager.

I am in agreement that it might be possible to cruise very long distance in a boat like the Pogo assuming a high level of ingenuity, discipline, and keeping things bare bones. But I am not sure that gets to the question at hand. I think in reality, when someone says that they want a 'Modern Day' boat that would seem to imply modern amenities beyond simple 'Modern Day' performance, and those amenities add weight and that adds length if 'modern day' performance is to be achieved.

Respectfully, 
Jeff


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Once again Jeff is spot on- That's the fundamental dichotomy. Weight is the enemy of speed. Weight means creature comforts. Elimination of weight requires construction methods that devolve into great expense and use of materials/methods that require addition expense if repair required. You decide up front- I want a boat that's reasonably fast but place a premium on safety and long term comfort or I want a boat that's as fast as possible and are willing to deal with the compromises that entails. When cruising most live on the boat. Even when voyaging most still spent more time on the boat than on land. I have no interest in leaving the boat for a hot shower, a big berth, or a good meal. That's why in the OPs size range modern boats are being bought and sailed by the mountain climbers not the hikers.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jeff_H said:


> I think that you and I are probably saying something very similar. To me the guys sailing a mini around the world is the perfect example of a boat that is a capable passagemaker. It is capable of providing adequate seaworthiness and carry supplies to make a very long passage with two people aboard. I was not able to find information on the boat, but I would have to assume that 2,500 lbs is its 'dry weight' and that loaded it might have as much as an extra 1000 lbs of crew and consumables. And at that weight I would have to guess that they are dependent on keeping everything to a minimum weight and relying on using solar panels to produce electricity and being able to make their own drinking water and use dried food along the way.
> 
> To me that is in contrast to a boat optimized for distance cruising, which in my mind would need to carry things like a dinghy, enough cold storage to stock up on fresh foods along the way, and carry the kinds of complexity, clothing and gear that the ability to go ashore in multiple ports adds to a voyager.
> 
> ...


In a post n the beginning of the thread I said about you have said regarding a modern 25/30ft boat not to be a voyage boat. In a modern sense neither any small old boat is, even if both can be used do to that. The divergence is that you seem to put it on the loading ability, I see as more important the limited seaworthiness in extreme situations a small boat boat has compared with a bigger boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo you are undeniably right - bigger boats are safer. But is also true some prefer boats that sail in the water rather then on the water for comfort and carrying along the kitchen sink. However, looking at folks like the Pardeys or the blogs of BCC owners it's also true many voyages have been successfully been completed by these small, heavy displacement craft.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Interesting a boat with two at 2500lbs
> My water and fuel (200gal. water 200gal. Of fuel) weights more than their boat . Add in pots/ pans/ tools/ fun stuff/ books/ clothes/safety/ communication stuff and my wife and I are probably well past their total weight with all their supplies when we are just cruising around. This is not considering the weight of our boat/sails/dinghy/ outboard nor our food and libations.
> Nothing spartan about us and don't think we are hedonists either from what I see around. Rather fairly in the middle of the road. Crouch rockets v. Gold wings or K bikes. 3 thousand v 30k. Oh well won't trade places. Would get old fast living like that.
> No wonder they went non stop. Probably couldn't get off the boat or dress nice enough to go out.


No, the one that went non stop was Solo. Those other two in a mini are enjoying life and making a lot of stops along the way. Not for old guys but they seem to be having a lot of fun.
Have a look:

Interesting Sailboats: CIRCUMNAVIGATING ON A 16 000 EUROS SAILBOAT

When I was 30 I cruised in a boat with about that size with a completely empty interior. I used to live aboard with my wife for a month and a half making many hundreds of miles. Great memories. When you are young and adventurous the priorities are not properly comfort


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo once owned a one off built for an OSTAR. Original owner got off the boat put it on the hard and went home. Got it for a song. Loved the boat and singled it a lot. Cruised it with one of my children on rare occasion but that was basically singling as well. No question great fun but no question not a cruiser.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Paulo you are undeniably right - bigger boats are safer. But is also true some prefer boats that sail in the water rather then on the water for comfort and carrying along the kitchen sink. However, looking at folks like the Pardeys or the blogs of BCC owners it's also true many voyages have been successfully been completed by these small, heavy displacement craft.


I did not said it was not possible. Those two are circumnavigating in a mini and on a previous post I talked about a guy that is circumnavigating with a Django 7.70. I said that today a boat like the one that the Pardeys had could not be considered a voyage boat. Sure. it can do it as many other small boats can. that does not make specially appropriated for voyaging.

When I say today am referring to comfort. Many couples that voyage today don't pass without AC, or without regular sweet water showers, without a freezer and so on. I am not so demanding but even for me, today, the Pardey's boat had a tiny interior and very small storage space or loading ability. I guess it would be alright for those two guys circumnavigating on the Mini racer...but I bet they would be bored with the lack of speed and would not change their boat by the Pardey's boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Once again agree with you. Given the trade offs probably better to get a bigger used boat of good solid construction then go with a smaller boat capable of planning. Even voyaging in cutting edge boats majority of sailing is in light or moderate air so in displacement mode where LWL is probably most important if SA is adequate. Or wait until you hit the lottery and can post your Neal or Gunboat on the money no object thread. Even approaching that crowd in mid sized monos HR, Morris, Passport, and Outbounds continue to sell.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> *I said that today a boat like the one that the Pardeys had could not be considered a voyage boat.* Sure. it can do it as many other small boats can. that does not make specially appropriated for voyaging.


Well, I understand what you're saying, but I'm guessing there are more than a handful of 'voyagers' out there today, who might disagree with that assessment 

Thies Matzen and Kicki Ericson might be among them... Nice to see they weren't disqualified for consideration for their recent Blue Water Medal, for having sailed 135,000 miles in a boat not considered by most today to be a 'true' voyaging boat - lacking air conditioning, a freezer, and all... 

For most people, it's simply a matter of what the NASCAR boys like to say:

"You gotta run with what you brung..."

Hard to believe, I know, but the folks sailing WANDERER III actually appear to be quite content with her... Different strokes for different folks, but I'm guessing they wouldn't have done much of the voyaging they've done aboard a Pogo 30, not sure wintering over in South Georgia would be very do-able on one of those...

Wanderer III's owners talk about sailing a classic wooden yacht | Cruising World


----------



## jsaronson (Dec 13, 2011)

Here are the specs for the mini:
Sailboat: Shaw650 high performance sportboat, fast and affordable sailing boat: boat specification.
Jeff, #1 is one on a trailer at EYC - first boat as you enter. It is entered in the Annapolis/Bermuda race. He'll get there days before me, but I rather be on my boat.
Joel


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Given that the OP said bluewater boats being produced today (not necessarily "modern") in the 25-30 foot range, there are but a few options:

Cape George Marine Works in Port Townsend, WA will still build you a BCC 28, Falmouth Cutter 22 or a Cape George 31, all capable and proven for offshore cruising.

I think you can also still buy a new Nor'Sea 27 from Nor'Sea Yachts in Dana Point, CA.

There's probably a few others too.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

PCP said:


> I said that today a boat like the one that the Pardeys had could not be considered a voyage boat.


I don't get this. Boats like their are pure voyaging boats. That is pretty much all they are built for. They are certainly not in any sense "modern" voyaging boats, but for sure are voyagers. They carry a ton of gear, make fast, safe passages, and carry plenty of water.

I think sometimes the focus on LOA confuses the issue of true size. The Pardey's current boat is heavier, has a longer water line, and carries more sail, than a Pacific Seacraft 37. It is a bit narrower, but it is a very large boat. Compare this with a Catalina 30, which is about half the displacement and sail area, and considerably shorter on the WL. It cannot carry nearly as much gear and has much smaller tanks.

When we talk about size, we really should talk about displacement, not LOA. This goes to what Jeff was saying: technology has allowed modern boats to stretch that displacement to a much longer LWL compared to boats of a generation ago. That provides faster passages and more accommodations for nearly the same price (since boats are generally priced by the pound, not the foot).

For example, compare the BCC and the Saga 35. Both have similar displacements, sail areas, tankage, beam. But the Saga is 8.5 longer overall, 7 feet longer on the waterline, and a foot wider. It can carry just as much gear, but is much faster, points higher, has a much easier handled rig, has more room below, and is much cheaper (although price is an unfair comparison). The Saga is the "modern" boat. BCC is way old school. Most good old cruising boats will be between these two extremes for a given displacement. They will also cost 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of either of these.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

RD makes a great point. Displacement is perhaps a better measure of size unless you are paying for slips, panama transit, or yard fees. However, water plane and hull form may also need to be considered. The BCCs and like boats would seem to suffer less in performance when loaded past their lines than modern hull forms. Perhaps a good thing given the superior performance of the more modern forms.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

I found it kind of disconcerting on another thread how small the ballast to displacement ratios where for a couple of small boats

they were modern beneteaus

one a 265 and the other a "cruiser" oceanis series a 281 or something

one had rougly just over 25% ballast to displacement ratio

I had a folkboat that had 50% almost to the T

can someone explain to me how this can be considered blue water today or better or even the same

please explain this to me...

is it simply that the beam and fat stern makes up for stability...therefore ballast isnt as importan as it used to be or needed to be?


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

christian.hess said:


> please explain this to me...
> 
> is it simply that the beam and fat stern makes up for stability...therefore ballast isnt as importan as it used to be or needed to be?


Is the ballast carried deeper? A deeper ballast, especially combined with a fat stern, makes the righting arm longer as the boat heels. This make the weight much more effective.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

RainDog said:


> Is the ballast carried deeper? A deeper ballast, especially combined with a fat stern, makes the righting arm longer as the boat heels. This make the weight much more effective.


not necessarily it was almost a 4 foot draft....yes a fin but still

25 percent? one was even less

like 1500 in a 5500lb boat

the boat was really beamy at least in my eyes...Im thinking thats more the reason than the actual ballast itself...

but what about righting movement in a knockdown or 180 wouldnt it be less? kind of like emulating a cat?


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

The ballst to weight ratio tells you nothing about stability or righting moment of the boat...
It is an useless number, if you do not know at least the draft (if the main ballsat is at the end of the keel) or where the ballast is placed...
CG anyone?


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

I disagree....I know depth of the ballast is essential to know but thats why there are tender boats and stiff boats and it mostly has to do with how much ballast and weight is carried low

Im just surprised how much the actual amount of ballast has gone down with the years and designs compared to before

Im thinking that its because boats used to be narrow wine glass shaped and now they are so beamy and flat astern and wide that you have extra stability from that


for the same given hull though, if you have one with half the ballast of the other its hard to argue that the one with more ballast wont right itself quicker in the same conditions

all other things equal

I guess my question is why the dramatically decreasing ballast ratios today?


----------

