# Boat brands to stick with for ocean rough seas?



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

Can anyone recommend boat manufacturers to stick with if wanting to round the globe in the Caribbean portion? Typically boats that can handle rough seas in case would be best I suppose.

So far I read bad things about Hunter and Morgan.

Beanteanu
Jeanneau 
Catalina so far are my top 3 picks, but the first 2 are more difficult to find here in the US.

Are there other brands that are more abundant/easy to grab that are solid built?


----------



## northoceanbeach (Mar 23, 2008)

Those seem more like middle weight boats, more so than pure globe rounders.


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

Northoceanbeach, I am confused by your reply. Many have used those top 3 brands I have listed to round the globe with no problems.

What do you recommend instead? I am new to sailing so I would love to hear your advice.


----------



## Irunbird (Aug 10, 2008)

What he means is that it all depends. It depends on the kind of sailor you are. You could probably sail anywhere on any boat (and as you point out, people have), but what you do with it and in what kind of weather/sea state is all up to you. Most people consider those boats you've listed as light/mid-duty boats, more suitable for coastal or inland sailing. Not for crossing oceans. There are many threads here on sailnet, which a Google search would probably render more fruitful, even for sailnet discussions on the matter. There is a lot more to circling the globe (even in the tropics) than just the brand of boat. If you want a more exhaustive list of boat brands, try this page here: Mahina Expedition - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising Down near the bottom is the list, but it still boils down to how you prepare yourself and the boat than just about any other factor.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

oh boy...can of worms thread!


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

hehe, sorry



christian.hess said:


> oh boy...can of worms thread!


----------



## Irunbird (Aug 10, 2008)

Yep, Solarwind- people are making popcorn!


----------



## southbound (Jun 9, 2013)

The fact that many people have done it doesn't mean they are the best tools for the job. People generally make choices based on the limitations at hand and not necessarily on what would be ideal if they had all their druthers. Also, the manufacturer of the boat might often be secondary to the year, model, and certainly maintenance and preparation. But all other things being equal, if you're intentionally headed toward probable rough seas and inclement weather, you would ideally be gravitating toward moderate to heavy displacement boats with heavily built hulls and proven rigging and systems. For many people, that would eliminate all Catalinas and most Bennys and Jeauneaus. But some are willing to accept less margin of safety in construction and design. Everybodys' formulas for risk management are different.


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

sunfish


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

Irunbird said:


> Yep, Solarwind- people are making popcorn!


Im out, pass some along please


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

Not nice!

I am sure there are boats that are like Fords and total garbage with too many issues and then there are boats that are like Toyotas/Hondas.

That is all I am looking for. Good reliable tough brands for ocean sailing. On the other hand, I don't appreciate all the mockery.

If you can't help keep your comments to yourself.



christian.hess said:


> Im out, pass some along please
> 
> next question:
> 
> "whats the best oil for my engine?" ajajajajajajaja


----------



## Tenoch (Sep 28, 2012)

solarwindsailor said:


> Beanteanu
> Jeanneau
> Catalina so far are my top 3 picks, but the first 2 are more difficult to find here in the US.
> 
> Are there other brands that are more abundant/easy to grab that are solid built?


I was going to say "ALL Others", but there are a few others that are a worse choice. Someone posted the list from The Mahina guy, also check Atom Voyages list here... Atom Voyages - Good Old Boats List

Three boats that you will not find on either list are Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, and Catalinas.


----------



## goat (Feb 23, 2014)

Mahina Expeditions conducts sailing and navigation training and expeditions in the South Pacific and offers offshore sailing seminars
Atom Voyages - Good Old Boats List

Before you go make sure you can stop. Starting a post about best anchor is always good.

goat


----------



## goat (Feb 23, 2014)

Tenoch said:


> I was going to say "ALL Others", but there are a few others that are a worse choice. Someone posted the list from The Mahina guy, also check Atom Voyages list here... Atom Voyages - Good Old Boats List
> 
> Three boats that you will not find on either list are Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, and Catalinas.


Damn. I'm too slow. 

goat


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

The list was excellent.



Tenoch said:


> I was going to say "ALL Others", but there are a few others that are a worse choice. Someone posted the list from The Mahina guy, also check Atom Voyages list here... Atom Voyages - Good Old Boats List
> 
> Three boats that you will not find on either list are Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, and Catalinas.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

christian.hess said:


> Im out, pass some along please
> 
> next question:
> 
> "whats the best oil for my engine?" ajajajajajajaja


No, no, no, no. First we have to talk about keels. Then gas vs diesel. Then the oil. Haven't you been down this thread before?

Sorry for the humor, such as it is, but this is a well worn path and a little searching around will reveal why the humorous comments. You can probably get some very good advice here if, before asking the question provide us with more information about you, your experience and your sailing plans. Brands mean almost nothing compared to specific models/designs/years of production/current conditions/etc.
John


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

Thanks for everyone's help who were courteous.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

solarwindsailor said:


> Not nice!
> 
> I am sure there are boats that are like Fords and total garbage with too many issues and then there are boats that are like Toyotas/Hondas.
> 
> ...


woooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaa

sorry if you took it the wrong way man...it was in regards to threads that bring out the popcorn viewers not you.

the best threads to get people riled up are as follows, and Im sure Im missing some

if you read a little on here you will see

1. taking small children offshore sailing
2. whats the best boat, or variation thereof
3. what gear must I have for cruising
4. chartplotter or not
5. modern fin keel versus full keel
6. diesel versus gas, and now electric inboard or not(thanks for the reminder ccriders)
7. ANCHOR THREAD

and many others...

ill correct my post...

sorry


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

I take it you are into more modern type boats ? I'm interested to know what size a boat you are looking for , and how much (roughly) you are looking to spend on it . Tank capacity, water /fuel and storage are things you should look for too . Pretty much any boat can be set up for single handing ,if that's your thing . I would also suggest self steering gear (wind vane ) plus electric AP. Solar panels/ windjenny, water maker, radar, chart ploter . The list for everything is long.
If by some chance you would be interested in what I call older more traditional designs look at Pacific Seacraft, Baba , Hans Christian , Bristol Channel Cutter , Union Polaris , Lord Nelson , Westsail . I left a lot of these types out but this a good start . Good luck !


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

in an effort to help, I feel bad, really I didnt mean to offend oops...

google up:
20 affordeable sailboats to take you around the world or anywhere cant remember
20 best cruisers of all time list

john vigors seaworthy offshore sailboat is a good read too

if modern yes there are many new boats that have gone around, same for old design boats...

endless possibilities


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

+1 on the Mahina list.

In my opinion you aren't yet ready to ask that question. By the time you are ready to ask you won't need to ask such an open question. Get out sailing. Take classes, walk the docks and pick up sails, charter, race on other people's boats, read SailNet, SSCA Forums, Cruiser's Forum, Sailing Anarchy/Cruising Anarchy, and YBW (don't make a career out of it - just follow along as your interests evolve), read the books by Beth Leonard and Nigel Calder and Jimmy Cornell.

If your retention is reasonable you will then know what you don't know and will be in a position to ask really good and focused questions and to fully understand the answers. Somewhere in there you'll be ready to buy a boat that may well take you around the world. You may have boat before that, which is fine. There aren't many people who circumnavigate in their first boat.

Welcome aboard. Now go sailing.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

We sailed around the world from 2009 to 2014. One thing I noticed was that there an incredible number of different boats being used. Rather than talk about a particular builder, because large builders in particular can make boats that are very different from one another it makes more sense to talk about different models of boats. One of the more common boats we saw was a Beneteau 50 (still only about four of them though). This does not mean that all Beneteaus are good for the task. Another vital consideration is cost. There is a little to be gained by knowing a particular builder (Amel and Oyster might be good examples) has a high number of boats (still about five - except for an Oyster RTW rally) sailing around the world if most of these boats cost seven figures.

Like a lot of things in life, it depends is the fairest answer.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

solarwindsailor said:


> Can anyone recommend boat manufacturers to stick with if wanting to round the globe in the Caribbean portion? Typically boats that can handle rough seas in case would be best I suppose.
> 
> ...


Respectfully, the "Caribbean portion" does not "round the globe."

Are you just talking about sailing in the Caribbean? Many blue water sailors do not consider that true blue water or offshore sailing as you aren't that far from land.

If you are limiting yourself to the islands, the pool of acceptable boats is enlarged beyond the list of boats on the Mahina site (which would be overkill) and your original list is perfectly fine for that location.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

When he uses the word Caribbean I am pretty sure he means a tradewind circumnavigation avoiding the capes.

Less often the chosen route nowadays because of the Somalia pirates and Red Sea issues.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

yeah think he meant "tropical" belly route...


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Interesting question, and one I had though of asking myself. My wife are starting small, learning to sail on a 25' Macgregor right now. We have discussed Caribbean island hoping and possible circumnavigation in 5 years when we retire. So far, what I like best from visual, apparent usefulness, and price point is a Hunter 50cc. It appears that one can get a lot of boat for little money in a 3 year old or less model.


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

I meant for the same trip route as from the documentary "Maidentrip" of the 14 yr old from Holland did. She corssed atlantic, then panama, then pacific, then indian ocean and then back to St Martins island in the Caribbean.

What would be good boats for this kind of trip?



DRFerron said:


> Respectfully, the "Caribbean portion" does not "round the globe."
> 
> Are you just talking about sailing in the Caribbean? Many blue water sailors do not consider that true blue water or offshore sailing as you aren't that far from land.
> 
> If you are limiting yourself to the islands, the pool of acceptable boats is enlarged beyond the list of boats on the Mahina site (which would be overkill) and your original list is perfectly fine for that location.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Mar 23, 2008)

solarwindsailor said:


> Northoceanbeach, I am confused by your reply. Many have used those top 3 brands I have listed to round the globe with no problems.
> 
> What do you recommend instead? I am new to sailing so I would love to hear your advice.


I myself am in the market for a heavy duty but small, offshore capable cruiser. If I had the money certain new jeanneaus and beneteaus would maybe, maybe be considered. Your best bet, is one of three websites to get you started.

Bluewater sailboats has a pretty good list with descriptions.

Atom voyages

20 best small cruisers to go anywhere

If I wasn't lazy right now I would pull up the actual links. But those words in good will find them.

If I had a lowish amount of money inwould get a Carl Alberg design.

If I had a mid amount of money I would get a used Pacific Seacraft.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

Here's another resource:

Sailboat Reviews of Offshore Cruising Yachts : Bluewaterboats.org

Lots of bluewater capable boats here of various sizes and price ranges.

Happy hunting!


----------



## tomandchris (Nov 11, 2009)

Defintely a can of worms post. Bene and Jeanneau hard to find in the US? Give me a break!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here is one of the best threads ever on the subject.

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


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

laura dekker sailed a jenneau ginfizz 38

i see now why those boats have entered your list, again endless possibilities

remember most boats can be sailed around the world, its the grey mass up in the skippers head along with some good old luck that pushes them round...

most of us have repeated some mentionable books and links by now to give you a lot of reading material to ponder over...

there is nothing special about a ginfizz and the same can be said about an alberg triton or a contessa or a valiant or a westsail etc...or a benetaue...

some boats do have higher build quality in general terms...HALLBERG RASSY is one that comes to my mind

some HANSES 

some pros and cons of design features and some are better build quality than others but for example

webb chiles is sailing on a racing moore 24, most would deem that crazy but its because of the experience, cool head and brains he has that he can make that call...succesfully now and in the past.

so again many a boat to chose from, no boat is a million times better than the next, basicaly all boats are compromises all boats have their quirks and all boats need something done to them to go round the globe

good luck and again sorry for the previous post


----------



## northoceanbeach (Mar 23, 2008)

bigdogandy said:


> Here's another resource:
> 
> Sailboat Reviews of Offshore Cruising Yachts : Bluewaterboats.org
> 
> ...


Whoa, hey now. That's pure plagiarism. I want another thanks. Actually I want more rep for having to suffer.

Do you have a new avatar Christian? It's nice.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

yup thats my beatiful turd boat(non special) on its maiden sail at the estuary mouth to costa del sol

jajaja

thanks


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

What about Seawind, Lagoon, Prout, Catana, Fountaine Pajot, Leopard? In the World ARC there are a bunch of different boats in it making the trip right now. As others have said, just about any boat can make it. What's your budget? That frequently proves to be the biggest determining factor.


----------



## sailpower (Jun 28, 2008)

solarwindsailor said:


> Can anyone recommend boat manufacturers to stick with if wanting to round the globe in the Caribbean portion?


I confess that I don't know what this means?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Just think of Tonga as a remote part of the Caribbean.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

sailpower said:


> I confess that I don't know what this means?


It means that if you consume enough locally made rum in a short enough time, you will be convinced that you've circumnavigated even though you've never left the Caribbean.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Just think of Tonga as a remote part of the Caribbean.


The Tonga Virgin Islands. Haven't made it over there on a day sail yet. Is that just past Tortola?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

FarCry said:


> The Tonga Virgin Islands. Haven't made it over there on a day sail yet. Is that just past Tortola?


It's to your left, silly.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

Oh!!! To my left is the Spanish Virgins. I will have to get the chart out. I feel so stupid.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Awww crap .... I am an hour into the thread Smack linked .... and apparently have a few hours to go.


----------



## paikea (Aug 3, 2014)

My humble question would actually be, what are the specific features/factors of a sailboat to make it suitable for open ocean/rough seas/rough weather. 

Hull design and shape? 
Hull material? 
Sails size and material? 
Mast material?
...
...


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

paikea said:


> My humble question would actually be, what are the specific features/factors of a sailboat to make it suitable for open ocean/rough seas/rough weather.
> 
> Hull design and shape?


Subject of religious war. See many previous threads.



paikea said:


> Hull material?


Not wood. Unless you decide to do wood.

I had a wooden boat. It was strong as all get out. I did terrible things to it.



paikea said:


> Sails size and material?


Size ... depends who you ask. Probably the answer today is, "Big, but have a good reefing setup."

Material is Dacron, unless it's not. But it is.



paikea said:


> Mast material?


Aluminum. Unless it's not. But it is.

(I had Canadian spruce spars. They were strong & heavy as all get out. I recommend aluminum).

...

I answered at least maybe half your questions, but I'm not sure I helped you. Go read more and don't worry about trying to know the answer.

Another good source I don't think has been mentioned: Bob's blog Yacht Design According to Perry He has talked about how he designed some of his famous full-keel boats. Interestingly, he seems to be a pretty committed proponent of spade rudders and deep fin keels.


----------



## paikea (Aug 3, 2014)

Thank you zedboy, I certainly don't want to start a war. 
I can appreciate and respect the fact that everyone will have some sort of opinion, based on facts, based on experience, and that's fine. We are all entitled to our own opinion. 

I can also at least hope everyone will be respectful about anyone else's opinion. This is not about who is right and wrong but simply about different experiences and angles. 

For me though I do like to understand these, 
ie, 
- a wider hull v. a narrow hull: one gives more speed than the other, but does it affect the same in rough seas and storms in terms of stability? 
- heavier boat v. lighter boat: how that would influence the stability? 

I will be shopping myself for a boat soon enough, I would probably first want to understand what I need and what for and then look for the models that meet these features. 
That's why I put out the hopefully decent debate.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

paikea said:


> My humble question would actually be, what are the specific features/factors of a sailboat to make it suitable for open ocean/rough seas/rough weather.
> 
> Hull design and shape?
> Hull material?
> ...


As long as it has a CQR anchor, no battens in the main, granite counter tops, Elmers glue wood filler in the cracks,composting head, paper charts and room for plenty of guns and ammo then you should be fine. For your comfort throw in a solar shower...


----------



## Irunbird (Aug 10, 2008)

Solarwindsailor- Here's another place you can read up on: Attainable Adventure Cruising The author has a lot of miles under his keel(s) and has "wrung more salt out of his socks" than most. He addresses many of the concerns that you are asking about and gives lots of examples for his reasoning. He is even in the process of offering a boat built specifically for that purpose (although it will be several more years before it will be available). There are so many options that sticking with one brand or another, unless you spend a large amount of money, makes no sense. I could go out right now and buy a boat built specifically for crossing oceans, but after 5 years (at least) of thinking on it, I've decided to wait. My mind has been changed so many times now I've lost count, and it may change some more down the road. The fact is, we're not ready to make that commitment yet and once you bought it, you're stuck with it (and the maintenance, sip fees, insurance, etc...). At least you have some idea of your cruising grounds, so you probably don't want or need aluminum, which opens up your choices tremendously. So, unless you have a timeline or a pile of money to burn like that, I'd wait and read up on all this stuff-- it won't take long and you might change your mind about where you want to sail, which will probably change the boat you end up buying for that voyage.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

northoceanbeach said:


> I myself am in the market for a heavy duty but small, offshore capable cruiser.


Remember that heavy-duty does not need to mean heavy, and certainly does not need to mean an old design.



zedboy said:


> Another good source I don't think has been mentioned: Bob's blog Yacht Design According to Perry He has talked about how he designed some of his famous full-keel boats. Interestingly, he seems to be a pretty committed proponent of spade rudders and deep fin keels.


Because Bob understands the history and drivers of boat design and construction. Modern materials and methods allow the construction of faster, more stable, safer, and more comfortable boats.



paikea said:


> For me though I do like to understand these,
> ie,
> - a wider hull v. a narrow hull: one gives more speed than the other, but does it affect the same in rough seas and storms in terms of stability?
> - heavier boat v. lighter boat: how that would influence the stability?


More good questions.

A wider hull will provide more form stability than a narrow one. Narrow hulls can be faster than wide ones but the hull width is a second order factor. The waterline shape (the actual, underway waterline) is a more significant factor. In rough seas performance and stability are a function of weight (and thereby inertia), section shape (and thereby resistance), windage, weight distribution, free surface, and other more minor factors.

Weight is in and of itself not a determining factor.


----------



## RickWestlake (Sep 22, 2009)

FarCry said:


> It means that if you consume enough locally made rum in a short enough time, you will be convinced that you've circumnavigated even though you've never left the Caribbean.


Circumnavigating the Caribbean, sailing strictly by the rum lines ...

I'll drink to that! :laugher

...Okay, I admit, that doesn't add anything useful to this thread. I'm looking at this same question, but not from a perspective of "brand names" so much as a perspective of particular models.

My current boat, a Bristol 29.9, is ideally suited to what I'm doing right now, sailing and gunkholing around the Chesapeake Bay. It's enough boat for a weekend, or a week, but not enough for me to cast off the docklines and Sail Beyond The Sunset. I'd like something 35-40 feet, for that; and in fact, the next boat might be something big enough to live aboard, without the distinguished pedigree of a purpose-built ocean cruiser design.

What I notice is that there are a lot of boats out there that could fill my bill. Many of them are older boats, which is fine for me; many of them are from manufacturers that are no longer in business, such as Pearson and Bristol and numerous others. John Neal has compiled a remarkable list of candidates, on his Mahina Expeditions website (cited above).

I'm going to assert that an older boat, even from a defunct builder, might be a better choice than a newer boat from one of the "Big Three." It would be more affordable, for one thing; it would be tried-and-true, for another; and the money you save on the boat is money you can use to cruise. (And I'm going to allow that next year might see me on a Pearson 365, Catalina S&S 38, C&C Landfall 38, or something on those lines. That'd be enough to sail down to the Caribbean and start following those "rum lines" among the Islands, mon!)

ON EDIT: I'm going to add a link to Sail Calculator Pro v2.72, which has "the numbers" for a large number of popular sailboats; not only LOA, LWL, beam, and displacement, but such things as the Capsize Ratio and Ted Brewer's Motion Comfort Ratio. You may find this useful.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

Ill add my last cents...

new sailors and or beginning cruisers often get caught in the NUMBERS game...

I mentioned in another thread way back when that real life doesnt always emulate what the designer wanted or planned...some boats are famous for proving different than what the designer wanted. Both in sailing characteristics and or end result.

if you play the numbers game, wanting one with the "best" capsize ratio, motion comfort, sa/d, ballast ratios etc...

you will invariably tick many damn decent boats off the list of an appropriate for blue water or offshore sailing type boat.

my example of the moore 24 a uldb, one of the first, currently going around the globe with a damn fine sailor at the helm shows that its NOT the boat so much as the conditions and experience of the skipper.

luck too

if a moore 24 goes around, as have many other small boats even down into the teens, there must be other reasons other than just numbers that make this plausible.

now before anyone says but you are cramped, uncomfortable, slow etc...rememeber that wave patterns and distance between crests is what will deem any boat uncomortable and make it hobby horse or pound etc...combined with hull shape(sections)

for example if your waterline length is 28feet and that is the distance more or less between waves say going into a canal guess what? your going to be hobby horsing pitching a lot, now make that DOUBLE the waterline lenght and hold on!!!!!!!!!! just as bad as a small boat with a smaller distance between said waves.

when the conditions are just right...any boat can be uncomfortable any boat can pound, slap around and make you crazy at the helm or down below...big or small.

Case in point I had a heavy full keel very well built and strong H28, that displaced very near to what my current boat displaces, maybe a ton less...both boats if conditions are right will hobby horse...but one wont POUND.

the so called comfort from a heavier displacement factor for a given waterline or overall length really doesnt make that much of a difference in certain scenarios, ease of motion is something I would say applies better...but ease of motion also comes from rudder and keel design mostly.

(for example finicky helms are often associated with very light, spade rudders that need constant feedback from the helm i.e and experienced racer)

a full keel westsail 32 wont...simply because of rudder design and to a certain degree keel design...NOT displacement.)

my folkboat had a similar design, was light for its size and guess what, tracked just as well, and wasnt HEAVY DISPLACEMENT by any standards...its the hull shape that counts.

...a real full keel boat wont pound as it pushes the water away nicely from vertical, a flat entry or first quarter of a hull like say a cal 40 thats designed to surf will always pound if launching off waves and falling down say upwind, really its simple to see, numbers aside.

its overall, in general terms when those conditions are mild and or "normal" that bigger boats will invariably feel more comfortable...weight not necessarily the determining factor but like auspicious says underwater hull shape and design.

having said that there are many that will argue there is no replacement for displacement or things to that tone...

buying the biggest boat you can afford type advice is a bit dated now too...not necessarily true...or wise.

for the most part older boats are big bang for buck when compared to something new and bigger and beamier and shinier...however both can do most of what is asked of them.

again, endless possibilities to chose from.

ps. here is one of the best "studies" I have read(yes it happens to be about my current boat) but it all makes sense...in very simple terminology that anybody can understand
http://www.antrimdesign.com/islander-36-clinic.html


----------



## paikea (Aug 3, 2014)

Oh boy, studying about boats, asking questions, this feels more and more like when studying sciences.  The more we think we know there, the more we discover, the more complex it gets, the less we actually do know. 

Christian.hess, thank you for the feedback, indeed for me now, all is quite new and intimidating and most probably I will get lost into a lot of facts and numbers that are less important on the long run. But only way to learn that is by following through the process of it, make some mistakes, learn from them, lose time, and not trying short cuts and easy ways out. 
I cannot depend on people to tell me what to buy without me understanding exactly why, that will cripple me from day one when it will come down to maintaining and sailing the boat. I need to understand myself the what and how and that will give me the only foundation to actually be confident to maneuver the tons of a beast when nature unleashes at us in full force. 

My first focus in looking for a boat will be safety and capability to sail it in the worst of conditions. All the rest come in second and third and forth and so on place. I certainly don't expect nor whine and moan if I don't have comfort during a storm. If that would bother me, then I might as well stay on land in a safe house and not get wet in all the wrong ways. 

I have two objectives now: 
1. decide on a marina to settle on for now (US or UK or Med) still not sure, still investigating and these are just logistics in the end but still so much I don't know about it, and 
2. decide on a sailboat. 

On point 2, yes, at one point I want to sail around the world, not a race, but leisure cruising. But that will still take years from now. So dilemma, do I get already a boat that can sail around the world, or do I start with something easier to manage and learn on for just cruising in a certain area, ie US Coast or the Med.
I read so much about the long years of refitting and upgrading a boat, and how a boat loses its value with years, and how its good to learn every corner of it and how to sail your own boat, to practice as much as possibly out there etc. That in theory would means I should already get a "round the world boat". 
Not to mention, I could buy something already in very good condition, but equally I would love to buy something with a great deal of potential and learn to refit it to my needs and personality. Great project to spend time and money on. 
But then you put your heart in it and you get a new one later on and start all over? I am sure I wouldn't be the first one to do that. 
However, no one can answer these questions for me, no one can just hold my hand here. Only I can answer these. But for that, I need to have people throw data at me as much as possible. I can weed through it. 

All in all, I know no one who liveaboard and sails around the world, apart from some really good people in here that so far greatly advised me. 
So I am sending you all my appreciations for doing that and for your patience with my silly and most often maybe ignorant questions.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

paikea...here is what you can do, while you study and read up on boats that will suit you

get a small trailerable boat say under 24 feet, sail and pocket cruise with it in whatever area you are

1. you save money and get to sail
2. you arent refiitting and spending money on the boat that will take you around.
3. you wont get flabbergasted by going all out this first round.

you can also sail dinghies, race on other peoples boats and maybe just maybe crew on some boats that are cruising per se...

that way you get a feel for what YOU like and not what others like.

for example it might be that you like lights fast cruising boats versus slower, heavier and more traditional boats

you might not even be insterested in sailing the trade wind routes but now the trend is in fact to sail more upwind routes and reaching routes...

the days of ddw or slightly higher or lower than the tropical route has past...doesnt mean most dont do it that way.

many dont even consider doing a round the globe trip that interesting anyomore versus say a northern atlantic circle

or a pacific circle that goes all the way down to the tuamotos and lower and then over to japan, or to hawaii, and over to alaska then down to california and back.

there are many interesting routes and many types of cruising that will more or less dicate what type of boat would suit you the best.

for example a pnw boat for higher latitudes wouldnt be that well suited to tropical sailing simply from a temperature and enclosure perspective.

a steel boat per se doesnt shine in the tropics...but does if you think you will be in icy zones where steel has a known record.

just throwing thoughts out there...

nothing is written in stone but look at cruising blogs and those that have done these voyages and there are definite benefits and plusses for certain boats in certain areas.

for now, sail sail sail, get to know yourself and what you like on a boat and what boat fits, then buy...

btw its a buyers market now...so dont wait too long! jajaja


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RickWestlake said:


> I'm going to add a link to Sail Calculator Pro v2.72, which has "the numbers" for a large number of popular sailboats; not only LOA, LWL, beam, and displacement, but such things as the Capsize Ratio and Ted Brewer's Motion Comfort Ratio. You may find this useful.


Do some hunting around and you'll find how little Ted Brewer thought of the Motion Comfort Ratio he threw together, mostly as a joke.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

bingo...


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Christian,
Those are two good posts you've made here. The only thing I would add is to take a good ASA 103 in a fabulous location. It'll really whet your appetite.
John


----------



## paikea (Aug 3, 2014)

ccriders said:


> Christian,
> Those are two good posts you've made here. The only thing I would add is to take a good ASA 103 in a fabulous location. It'll really whet your appetite.
> John


I did a US Sailing 101 so far. But what really got me all worked up now is that I went down to Lasers and Hunters and the immediate goal is to no longer capsize Lasers, its getting quite cold.  
Too bad I don't currently live in a good area for sailing, but work wise I am not bound to a location so trying to change that now.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

there is no such thing as not capsizing lasers, that is an impossibilty...even the world champs do so!

jajaja


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> Do some hunting around and you'll find how little Ted Brewer thought of the Motion Comfort Ratio he threw together, mostly as a joke.


The problem with the Motion Comfort Ratio is that it gives you only a small part of the picture. It isn't a bad measure of boat behaviour going upwind in a chop, but gives you no idea of the boat's tendency to hobbyhorse or wallow in a beam reach under power.

My Bristol has an MCR of 30, very high for a 31ft boat. It's a delight in a chop under sail. It can hobbyhorse under power. I simply avoid conditions that make it hobbyhorse.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

To the OP : My neighbor has a Norsea 27. They have a reputation (and the appearance) of being very seaworthy while being just about trailerable.


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

The Norsea is trailerable , that was one of their selling points . Although you need a substantial truck trailer. Also while I wouldn't really call it a globe trotter it is a very capable boat .


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

Yes, when I said "just about", I was referring to the weight. At 8100 lbs displacement, you're not going to be towing this with a Honda Civic.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

PAIKEA

You have a circumnavigation in mind as a long term goal. A trade wind circumnavigation via the canals is one thing. Going down into the southern ocean and passing the two great capes is something very different. 

Before you start boat hunting you need to decide which route.

I would be prepared to do a tradewind circumnavigation in almost any recent production boat above 32 ft. 

There are very very few production boats that I would take single handed down into the Southern Ocean. Jeanne Socrates did it in a Najad 380 so I suppose that has to be one, but it is worth reading through her blog to see how many problems she had to over come which were related to poor design or weak fittings. An Amel would be my top choice I suppose, just need the 3/4 m $


----------



## Luke1234 (Sep 2, 2014)

Heavy disp cruisers like Westsail 32, or Liberty 28 the Island Packet 28. The Liberty 28 boasts a 8.4 knots. And can go upwind.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

8.4 kts when? Are you going to fire it out of a gun?


----------



## Luke1234 (Sep 2, 2014)

She has put many bristol 32' to sleep and even a bristol 40 out of Baltimore. No fine tuning and a beautiful full keel and experienced helmsman is all it takes no guns required.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

8.4 knots?
Liberty 28?

I'll have to go with Mark on this.
Not very likely. I've sailed for far too long to believe that.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

There are some fast 26' boats so why not a 28?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

We won't be foiled again!

Cry:
At that displ with a full keel we are not talking about a 26' sport boat.


----------



## Tenoch (Sep 28, 2012)

Luke1234 said:


> The Liberty 28 boasts a 8.4 knots. And can go upwind.


Physics is not on your side here.


----------



## goat (Feb 23, 2014)

How to beat hull speed.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

and thats one way to end an otherwise decent thread...


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

No reason for it to end Christian. Nice to keep the discussion real though. Reality is a good common denominator when you are talking boats and boat performance.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

hey bob hows it going...? been a while

I agree...I guess

question has no boat ever gone above its theoretical hull speed and if you wouldnt mind explain to us why thats not possible?

Im not familiar with the liberty 28, dont know its limitations per se

peace


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Luke1234 said:


> Heavy disp cruisers like Westsail 32, or Liberty 28 the Island Packet 28. The Liberty 28 boasts a 8.4 knots. And can go upwind.


I don't believe you. Not on any of those boats in any reasonable wind, unless your sailing over Niagara Falls. Measured data, please?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Christian: I'm fine. It's pouring down rain here and I like that.

The theoretical hull speed is never a brick wall. Almost any boat can exceed 1.34 times sq. root of the DWL if the conditions are favorable and you have the power available. But let's take a typical 28'er. We'll be generous and give it a 25' DWL, short ends. That's a hull speed of around 6.7 knots. To get to 8.2 would require a speed/l of 1.75. That is very unlikely. Perhaps on the face of a wave for a brief burst you could see it.

But, in the real world, with fabulous sails, a clean bottom and a good helmsman I can't see a LIberty 28, very traditional, double ended, heavy 12,000 lb., full keel cutter sustaining 8.4 knots. The Liberty actually has only a 24'4" DWL. Downwind in a full gale? Maybe.

Now, take that 28'er, make it displace 3,200 lbs and put a huge rig on it and fin keel with a bulb, put some meat on the rail and you could top 8.4 knots in a heartbeat. This boat would plane.

I don't get on these threads to make people upset. I do get on when I see bad information being passed along. The OP wants good info and I'll do what I can to help.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

yup saw the specs..and one blog about it...

one owner noticed its SLOW so I find it interesting that one could consider it fast, for sure upwind you are never getting to 8.4 but I can see many a 28footer getting there on a beam reach or broad reach

hell my old h28 would do way above hull speed on main alone "surfplowing"

in any case

as usual fun stuff


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bobperry said:


> The theoretical hull speed is never a brick wall.





christian.hess said:


> hell my old h28 would do way above hull speed on main alone "surfplowing"


Bob is spot on while be unusually tactful. I'll be more blunt. Hull speed is a fantasy with no meaningful deterministic value. Everyone should stop talking about it.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

I know thats what I was trying to say...and part of my "numbers" post a few pages back

people who are sticklers for numbers especially searching for say a cruising boat will more than likely be dissapointed in what they find once out there

the simple fact however regrding HULL speed is that it STARTS from the design table..and gets boasted and spread like gospel to potential buyers...

I mean its just a standard way of placing a boat in a category that someone "created"

so people searching for boats, for example would say something like

I need to make at least a 5.5 knot average when cruising out there no matter what

and theyll go looking for hull speed as probably the first indicator of a boat that matches their criteria

instead of for example looking at real life mileage reports from boats actually cruising and or racing or whatever

I guess where trying to express the same sentiments here, from a different angle


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

Hull speed is a sound concept for a strictly displacement hull. But it is not a brick wall, it has some give. A foam wall? It merely represents the point at which the speed/power curve begins to rise very quickly.

Also, there is no such thing as a strictly displacement hull. The situation is made more complicated by lift (or suction!) generated by the hull form.

To significantly exceed hull speed, the hull requires surfaces that generate some lift. These tend to be flat and horizontal. Without these surfaces, you won't generate lift and can even generate some suction. There are hull designs that will actually sink if you try to drive them too far beyond hull speed.

Modern sailboats tend to have significant flat surfaces aft, and will surf some, especially down wind.

Of course, being light helps.

My Bristol has an almost round hull underwater, and isn't going to surf.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

"instead of for example looking at real life mileage reports from boats actually cruising and or racing or whatever"

The PHRF rating isn't a bad guide to overall performance. They could look at that, too.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Some good data and interesting passage times for the "milk run" is published by latitude 38. I think most will be surprised at the passage times for those supposedly "fast boats".
Trying to find the link, maybe some body with a faster connection can help?

Found it.

http://www.pacificpuddlejump.com/articles/11Recap.pdf


----------



## Tenoch (Sep 28, 2012)

It's interesting to me that the smallest boat listed in that article making the crossing was an Alajuela 33....and to me that is NOT a small boat.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I would not dismiss hull speed as easily as Christian appears to. It is real and it's used all the time in the world of naval architecture. I use it when doing calculations for powering and prop selection. I use it for rudder calculations. But, as one poster said, it's not a brick wall it's a soft foam wall. The S/L is not always 1.34. It will depend on prismatic coefficient ad slenderness of the hull in addition to general hull form. For some boats the S/L may be as low as 1.00. I don't dismiss any numbers. I look at them all, weigh them according to my experience and then make my decisions.

I also think, as mentioned by another poster,that PHRF ratings are the best indicator of a boat's potential performance. This is providing the rating is fair and based on the race performance of several boats. In the case of the Liberty 28 I seriously doubt that many of those boats have been raced at all. I could check my extensive PHRF files but I'd be willing to guess there is no existing rating for that boat. I certainly would not be interested in racing one.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

MarkSF said:


> Hull speed is a sound concept for a strictly displacement hull.


It isn't. Hull speed as a concept developed based on empirical data in smooth water when pretty much all hull forms were geometrically similar. For decades approaching centuries there were discussions in the literature of where between 1.1 and 1.2 the appropriate multiplier was.

As structural engineering progressed and new materials became available hull forms, particularly in smaller boats like ours diverged substantially. At the same time hydrodynamic models improved dramatically so naval architecture as a science set most empirical quantifiers aside. Most of them continue only in the discussion between marketing people and customers.



MarkSF said:


> "instead of for example looking at real life mileage reports from boats actually cruising and or racing or whatever"
> 
> The PHRF rating isn't a bad guide to overall performance. They could look at that, too.


The concept of PHRF as a way of comparing real world performance is attractive. There are two downsides: regional bodies make determinations based on performance in average local conditions (so PHRF ratings in San Fransisco Bay will differ from Chesapeake Bay) and there are political pressures on the rating boards. *sigh*



aeventyr60 said:


> Some good data and interesting passage times for the "milk run" is published by latitude 38. I think most will be surprised at the passage times for those supposedly "fast boats".
> Trying to find the link, maybe some body with a faster connection can help?
> 
> Found it.
> ...


Very interesting data. Average miles made good which you will have to calculate yourself is more useful than best and worst days. Of course there aren't enough data points to be statistically significantly and we can't discriminate between boat performance and crew performance.

I'd like to spend an afternoon with the crews of the two boats with the lowest engine hours.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Tenoch said:


> It's interesting to me that the smallest boat listed in that article making the crossing was an Alajuela 33....and to me that is NOT a small boat.


Well, seems to be pretty small, these days...  Don't you know that quite some time ago, CRUISING WORLD dubbed the Najad 355 a "Pocket Cruiser"?

Najad 355 Sailboat Review | Cruising World

I sail a puny 30-footer, and whenever I venture out on an extended cruise among other cruisers doing the same, I am invariably the smallest boat in most any anchorage...

And, most often, by a _CONSIDERABLE_ margin... Hell, many folks wanting to Live the Dream these days, their _STARTER BOATS_ are 10 feet larger than mine... 

Of the 4 boats I've delivered in the past year for people who were purchasing their first cruising sailboat, the sizes were 38, 41, 44, and 47 feet...

It's a Brave New World out there now...


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

nothing like a first 44ft fully decked out "cruising" boat to start to learn on!

man!!!!!!

people just dont know what walk the docks, buy a beer for the boat you crew on or learn on a crappy dinghy does to ones sailing soul...

btw Im not dismissing hull speed, im dismissing as a general rule the notion that numbers searching and critiquing when buying a new boat especially to those that might not be experienced and or are starting is a ways to get that PERFECT or best boat.

many boats can be a perfect match...most boats are...its the getting used to each boat that takes time.

the only real numbers I ever looked at on boat that I searched for where 

waterline length
displacement(total) ladden and not, sort of important for cruising purposes
sail area as a whole
ballast ratio

but I didnt just look at that I looked at the whole picture

for example a fin keeler with massively long keel benefits from less ballast simply because of the leverage it exerts from being so long

so would I discard a bulb fin keeler as a racer becaise it only has 30% ballast when compared to the rest of the boats displacement?

no...

what I do in those cases is I search for particular owners and designers reports on performance and handling

I find that when a boat doesnt have much info about it...I take real world experiences way above any sort of "data" that might or not be accurate.

sailboat data site is notorious for example for mixing up model boats and or mk1 mk2 or variations of a design and are wrong.

aeventrys example is golden as youd be suprised how similar performing most cruising boats are OVERALL

I always praise how well latitude38 does for showing the overall picture to new and old cruisers alike...

for example people crap on the westsail 32 all day long for being slow, but IN REALITY in trade wind sailing they are within a day or 2 of the faster boats in general terms, smaller and or bigger(racier or not, lighter or newer or not, older and bigger or not)) they pretty much arrive within days...

not weeks...

why? because even though people buy bigger boats for the comfort factor(true or not) or because of the safety factor being bigger(again true or not) they sail these boats even more conservatively than say a folkboat that sails just fine full sails up, hull speed all day long, just fine.


so maybe a big old ct41 or gulfstar 50 can and has the ability to go much faster, in reality THEY ARENT BEING SAILED any faster than joe blo on his albin vega 27.

apples and oranges when getting into these discussions...

it also comes from seing first hand this kind of stuff out there...

the only boats that would significantly be faster than the average cruising boat out there are those that are sailed by ex racers and are chute up whenever they can and full sails up, pedal to the metal.

I mention this boat repetitvely on here and some of you may know them on an esprit 37 from stockton california...

they passed us for example, after leaving 3 days before them and arrived 2 days before us when going from galapagos to french polinesia...

we were on a bigger steel new design boat, they had rod rigging a big symmetrical chute, an asysmetrical, full suit of sails and basically powered across the pacific having fun just like you would on a downwind leg on a race course....

they are however that 5% of cruisers that power cruise or race cruise I like to call it because they enjoy sailing fast and cruising fast...

the vast majority go slow because they dont need to be anywhere soon!

think about it.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

aeventyr60 said:


> Some good data and interesting passage times for the "milk run" is published by latitude 38. I think most will be surprised at the passage times for those supposedly "fast boats".
> Trying to find the link, maybe some body with a faster connection can help?
> 
> Found it.
> ...


crew and sailing style aside...Ill take 2 from that list as reference

the ever popular tayana 37(38 days from cabo)
the again popular alajuela 33(24 days from pv)

both these boats can sail well, shine in other areas etc...one is considered much slower than the other however.

I BET YOU the big factor and difference here was the fact that the tayana probably had a harder time getting down to the good wind, whereas those setting off from pv got there faster...

the biggest factor in making a good crossing is not the boat, but the weather...

and for kicks Ill throw a left fielder here, right above the alajuela 33 on that list is a benetau 38! that made it only hours earlier from the same puddle jump launch off PV

for all intents and purposes the bennie should of killed it...but wait, whats that about cruisin slow and comfortably? maybe the alajuela motor cruised or maybe the bene 38 was crewed by a new owner and was sailing conservatively, or or or or...

of course...whats the point of risking damage and sailing balls to the wall all the time...that gets old(unless thats what you like)

so why look at a boat that has slightly BETTER numbers than another boat instead of say

CONDITION
gear
hull construction
engine
sails
etc etc etc

I think that for cruising looking at phrf numbers or any other performance rating and or the best numbers is simply a great way to dismiss perfectly suitable boats to cruise on

but thats just my lowly and humble opinion.


----------



## AlaskaMC (Aug 19, 2010)

One of the few circumnavigators on this site is using a Benneteau. I would suggest reading Lattitude 38 as a great magazine that has constant updates from folks that actually go out and sail around the world. Reading that has been a great counter point to the online sites to say the least. Look at the list they print of the boats that did the "Pacific Puddle Jump" to see what people use to cross that 3000 nm of ocean.

I agree with everyone that say go sailing, have fun, learn and then the boat choice will sorta make itself known. Lists of ocean crossing boats are about as useless as threads discussing them. No one will ever agree and it will tend to confuse you when new to this world. When we came on here in 2010 I almost started a thread like this but read a lot first and was lucky to avoid the "advise".

You can drift around the world on an inner tube or sail around on the Maltese Falcon. I bet people would argue both sides.


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

bobperry said:


> I would not dismiss hull speed as easily as Christian appears to. It is real and it's used all the time in the world of naval architecture. I use it when doing calculations for powering and prop selection. I use it for rudder calculations. But, as one poster said, it's not a brick wall it's a soft foam wall. The S/L is not always 1.34. It will depend on prismatic coefficient ad slenderness of the hull in addition to general hull form. For some boats the S/L may be as low as 1.00. I don't dismiss any numbers. I look at them all, weigh them according to my experience and then make my decisions.
> 
> I also think, as mentioned by another poster,that PHRF ratings are the best indicator of a boat's potential performance. This is providing the rating is fair and based on the race performance of several boats. In the case of the Liberty 28 I seriously doubt that many of those boats have been raced at all. I could check my extensive PHRF files but I'd be willing to guess there is no existing rating for that boat. I certainly would not be interested in racing one.


My boat has a PHRF rating , or at least it did when I checked 15yrs. ago . The PHRF Captain said if I wanted to race they would get their calender calibrated .


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

AlaskaMC said:


> One of the few circumnavigators on this site is using a Benneteau. I would suggest reading Lattitude 38 as a great magazine that has constant updates from folks that actually go out and sail around the world. Reading that has been a great counter point to the online sites to say the least. Look at the list they print of the boats that did the "Pacific Puddle Jump" to see what people use to cross that 3000 nm of ocean.
> 
> I agree with everyone that say go sailing, have fun, learn and then the boat choice will sorta make itself known. Lists of ocean crossing boats are about as useless as threads discussing them. No one will ever agree and it will tend to confuse you when new to this world. When we came on here in 2010 I almost started a thread like this but read a lot first and was lucky to avoid the "advise".
> 
> You can drift around the world on an inner tube or sail around on the Maltese Falcon. I bet people would argue both sides.


I feel like I repeat myself at times

but my daily ritual and monthly ritual always includes reading letters, classifieds, and changes in latitude updates....at latitde 38

of course im biased because they are the reason I started to cruise, did the baja and kept on going

its funny however to see how much one changes with the years and see many letters, updates and changes that sound just like I did back when I was starting(thats not trying to sound snobby...just that time flies!) and so eager to learn, likewise I still look at and read them to keep on learning and keep up to date on many places anchorages, boats, etc...not to mention pretty unbiased reviews of equipment, like ais, or whatever with real life advice.

some old friends of mine continually publish updates and changes in lattitudes and its always good to hear from them as they were from the same sailing club we started from back in stockton, ca.

ps. I think Im done here, as many times over the same info is posted, repeated and or emphasized over and over again...

to any new sailor out there or newb cruiser wanting to learn I agree 100 percent with the advise to ask fewer questions and experience more, sail more...simply because some questions are so general and vague that it simply explodes on threads and forums like these

*there is simply too much info*, too many opinions and too much bias for any info good or bad to be of very good use.

because like alaska says invariably there is always someone, somewhere that will argue even the most extremes...causing any decent advice to get lost in all the jumble.

so with that said...

op good luck

see ya out there


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

christian.hess said:


> crew and sailing style aside...Ill take 2 from that list as reference
> 
> the ever popular tayana 37(38 days from cabo)
> the again popular alajuela 33(24 days from pv)
> ...


My old gal did the trip from the Galapagos to Fatu Hiva in the Marquesas in 21 day 4 hours. 150 mile average on a 31 foot waterline. No Spinaaker, poled out 110 most of the time, one reef in the main. Hardly adjusted anything for two weeks. Trade wind sailing at it's best on a purpose built offshore voyaging boat. Thanks Bob!


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

My pleasure 60. Anytime.


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

christian.hess said:


> woooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> sorry if you took it the wrong way man...it was in regards to threads that bring out the popcorn viewers not you.
> 
> ...


I don't know if "riled up" would be a good term but I started a thread about double enders vs. wider sterns and boy did I get some comments! I had no idea of how large the scope of knowledge was on just this one question! Maybe it's just worthy of an "honorable mention" but thanks to all that contributed!


----------



## solarwindsailor (Aug 28, 2014)

So who here has a high paying profession (e.g.; doctor, dentist, pharmacist, NP, Lawyer etc...)? Just curious as it takes money to sail. I am sure there are ordinary folks too who plan accordingly without being prodigal.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

It does take some money, but the amount varies enormously depending on the person. The boats we met in far places ranged from $3000 to $2 million+. if you want to do it you find a way. I taught high school for 31 years and now have a decent, indexed pension from a very solvent pension plan. Along the way I did not waste money and lived below what my and my wife's pay would suggest as a standard of living. We had no debt and were able to save quite a bit so now able to cruise and travel but still do it economically even though our boat is pretty nice. When we do land travel, e.g. in Ecuador, Peru. NZ, South Africa we are looking for bargain accommodation. We find that a backpackers place (we get a separate room with an ensuite if they have it - we are not kids) is much more interesting than a regular hotel. You get to know other budget travellers, mainly young people, who are quite interesting generally. In a month in South America the most expensive hotel was $28 a night.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I make a rule to only get "riled up" on Friday nights. I don't want to push my luck with the thought control police.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

bobperry said:


> I make a rule to only get "riled up" on Friday nights. I don't want to push my luck with the thought control police.


Now you've got my attention,,,

What's the verdict on the "Adventure 40"? Anyone??

Adventure 40, An Overview

Personally, I like what I see,,, :thumb:


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

christian.hess said:


> I BET YOU the big factor and difference here was the fact that the tayana probably had a harder time getting down to the good wind, whereas those setting off from pv got there faster...
> 
> the biggest factor in making a good crossing is not the boat, but the weather...


I suggest the biggest factor is the crew, followed by the weather, followed by the boat.

When you get to the boat, those with high block coefficients and prismatic coefficients will be slower than those with finer hull forms, especially when seas are up.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

When you get to the boat, those with high block coefficients and prismatic coefficients will be slower than those with finer hull forms, especially when seas are up.[/QUOTE]""

Who said that? It's a bit silly. (am I allowed to say that here?)

To begin with, your typical boat buyer at this level wouldn't know a prismatic coefficient if it hit him in the head. Even if he did, where would he get a reliable number. They are almost never published and you can't fake one from a brochure. Same with block coefficient. How the heck can you find that from brochures or broker babble data. I never use block coefficient in my work. Never have. It's a way too simplistic number. Even prismatic has it's problems. It lumps the fineness of both ends into the same equation!

"I suggest the biggest factor is the crew, followed by the weather, followed by the boat."
I think this statement is spot on.

I don't care at all for the Adventure 40. The design looks like it was done by a 15 year old. In fact, my 15 year old intern, Will Porter , just sent me a 42'er that is a far better design than the Adventure 40. For fun, consider how many other boats the design has designed. Where did he get his training? To my eye this is a very amateur effort. I wish them the very best and I hope that show me to be wrong.

Just for giggles I am going to blog next week showing designs I did back as far as when I was 18 years old. I recently ran across a tube of "historic" drawings of mine. Some are amazing. Some are silly. But it is clear that was having fun and trying hard without any help.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

bobperry said:


> I don't care at all for the Adventure 40. The design looks like it was done by a 15 year old. In fact, my 15 year old intern, Will Porter , just sent me a 42'er that is a far better design than the Adventure 40. For fun, consider how many other boats the design has designed. Where did he get his training? To my eye this is a very amateur effort. I wish them the very best and I hope that show me to be wrong.


hmm,, I guess the devil is in the details, and I've poured over them, - you know - the design criteria, and it's absolutely fantastic! The drawing itself appears to be just a 1st generation mock-up and perhaps hasn't represented the boat very well at this stage. Shame. No matter, I have a 'feeling' about this one Bob, and I'm thinking it will eventually shape up to be something very cool - a mile eater. I'm going to grab a another cup of coffee, catch you later.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Nemier:
I've been looking very hard at boats now for about 54 years. I am very critical of design work, including my own. I don't see much finesse in this effort. I could be wrong. I could be stupid. But I really don't think so. But we are probably wearing very different shirts today also. Mine is a black flannel shirt. It's good we like different things.


----------



## Irunbird (Aug 10, 2008)

I believe one of the first major test sails of the Adventure 40 will be a Newport-Bermuda race, so we'll see how well it does there. If things go according to plan, a friend of mine will be double-handing that race with John, so we'll see what all he has to say.. That is still a long ways off.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bobperry said:


> When you get to the boat, those with high block coefficients and prismatic coefficients will be slower than those with finer hull forms, especially when seas are up."
> 
> Who said that? It's a bit silly. (am I allowed to say that here?)


I said and say that. Shouldn't we take it on ourselves to help typical boat buyers to understand characteristics that are much more useful than silly things like "hull speed?"



bobperry said:


> Even if he did, where would he get a reliable number.


Going to have to calculate it, just like you and I do. That's going to mean getting lines which can be hard to come by. I took offsets from my boat which took pretty much a whole day, plus a half-day to work up the lines. I agree, before you say so, that most people wouldn't go to those lengths. It was fun though.

Block coefficient is interesting on larger platforms (most of my experience) for arrangements space and capacity. I agree with you that prismatic coefficient lumps the ends into a single descriptor. There is no substitute for an experienced eye looking at the lines.



bobperry said:


> "I suggest the biggest factor is the crew, followed by the weather, followed by the boat."
> I think this statement is spot on.


Thank you. The sailor makes the boat.



bobperry said:


> I don't care at all for the Adventure 40.


I agree. I haven't seen lines or really anything other than the cartoons on Morgan's Cloud website but I don't see it coming together. Even without many of the systems that in my opinion contribute to a comfortable voyage I don't know how they'll make the price point with decent quality. I'd love to be wrong.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

bobperry said:


> Nemier:
> ,,,, But we are probably wearing very different shirts today also. Mine is a black flannel shirt. It's good we like different things.


On a scale of 1-10 of Naval Architects that I respect, you are an 11, so I appreciate your point of view, no issues. I'm also sportin' a navy-blue V-neck T-shirt, so you are not far off base on that one either. As far as the Adventure 40 is concerned, if it ever gets into production, I suppose we shall see. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Irunbird (Aug 10, 2008)

nemier said:


> On a scale of 1-10 of Naval Architects that I respect, you are an 11, so I appreciate your point of view, no issues. I'm also sportin' a navy-blue V-neck T-shirt, so you are not far off base on that one either. As far as the Adventure 40 is concerned, if it ever gets into production, I suppose we shall see. Thanks for the input.


I'm all ears on this thing. The $200k price is attractive (even without all the stuff we'd undoubtedly have to outfit that boat with- it comes with nothing but sails and control lines).


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Irunbird said:


> I'm all ears on this thing. The $200k price is attractive (even without all the stuff we'd undoubtedly have to outfit that boat with- it comes with nothing but sails and control lines).


Hi Irunbird,
That is exactly what I'm attracted to,,, I'm happy that the $200K is going into the bones, the stuff that matters. I'd only be ripping the fluff out anyway. I think the design criteria is perfect (IMHO). I really wish the project well.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I think that it is a good thing that this thread has in part drifted from naming brands to broader discussions of how to prepare to cruise and what are the factors that make a good offshore cruiser, with valid points being raised along the way.

I apologize that the following are two long discussions that I had written which were written for other purposes but which address the basic topics that this thread has drifted towards. I also apologize that they contain some side discussions which may not be relevant to this post. The first deals with learning to go voyaging.

The dream of voyaging under sail can be a powerful one. There was a period when several times a month I would receive an email from someone who is considering doing just what you are proposing. I have watched literally dozens of folks go through this. Some are successful in getting 'out there', some discover that they really enjoy sailing and find that they really have no need to 'go out there'; some have discovered that the sailing life is just not for them, and others have not even gotten past the dreaming stage.

_From what I have seen, the most successful (especially when children are involved) have been the ones who have been somewhat systematic about going. There is a lot to learn before one can safely venture offshore. No one would assume that they could buy a jet airliner take a few lessons and be able to fly around the world. I think most rational people would expect to start with a small plane and work their way up. But for some reason people assume that they can just go out and buy a big boat, take a couple lessons, read a few books, and then go safely cruising.

While there are people who literally taken a few lessons, read a few books and went out cruising, those that were successful following that route are far more rare than those who have done some kind of apprenticeship. Learning to sail and learning to cruise involves a lot of knowledge and no matter how much you know, there will always be more to learn, but I suggest that you at least take the time to learn the basics, and that just about can't happen if you buy 'a big sailboat' and move your family aboard.

I find myself saying this a lot lately but here I go again. We all come to sailing with our own specific needs, our own specific goals and our own specific capabilities. The neat thing about sailing is that we all don't have to agree that there is only one right way to go sailing. There is no more truth in expecting that there is one universally right answer about many aspects of sailing than there is in trying to prove that vanilla ice cream is universally better than strawberry ice cream. One area of sailing for which there is no one universally right answer involves the amount of knowledge one requires to go sailing.

For some, all they need or want to know about sailing is just enough knowledge to safely leave the slip sail where they want and get back safely. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach. Lack of knowledge will impact the level of risk, cost, comfort, and performance, but if you want to get out there with minimal knowledge it can be done. But for others, like myself, there is much more to sailing than simply developing a rudimentary knowledge of sailing basics. If you fall into that camp, it is next to impossible to learn to sail really well on a boat as large as the one in question.

While I am in no way suggesting that this makes sense for everyone, for those who really want to learn to sail well, I strongly suggest that they start out owning a used 23 to 27 foot, responsive, light-weight, tiller steered, fin keel/spade rudder (ideally fractionally rigged) sloop (or if they are athletically inclined then a dinghy.) Boats like these provide the kind of feedback that is so necessary to teach a newcomer how to really sail well. Boats like these have small enough loads on lines and the helm that you and your children can all participate and learn together. Being able to learn and participate, the children will be more engaged and less likely to be bored and feel kidnapped.

By sailing well, I mean understanding the nuances of boat handling and sail trim in a way that cannot be learned on a larger boat. Used small boats generally hold their values quite well so that after a year or even few years or so of learning, you should be able to get most of your money out of the small boat and move on to a bigger boat actually knowing something about which specific desirable characteristics of a boat appeal to you as an experienced sailor rather than the preferences of some stranger on some Internet discussion group.

From the advice that you have already gotten you can tell that there will not be a consensus of opinion on how to go distance cruising.

In any event, I think that the first step should be taking sailing lessons. If I were in your shoes, I would sit down and put together a list of all of the things that I would want to know before I set off voyaging such as:
• Boat handling
• Sail trim
• Rules of the road
• Weather 
• Routing
• Boat husbandry, repair and maintenance
• Diesel/ gas engine maintenance and repair
• First aid
• Heavy weather tactics
• Legal restrictions on leaving and entering foreign countries
• Navigation, (Piloting, Celestial, dead reckoning and electronic) 
• Provisioning
• Radio operators license exam requirements
• Safe and dangerous fish to eat
• Sail trim
• Survival skills 
• Etc&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..

Once I had what I thought was a complete list, I would set up a schedule to try to develop those areas of skill that I was currently lacking. As much as possible I would try to involve all those involved in as many of those aspects as each is capable of understanding. This process could take as little as a year, but more often takes two to three years. The process itself can be very rewarding and can build the kind of family bonds that are required to be cast away on that oh so small island that a boat underway represents. _

And this next piece deals with some of the differences between distance and coastal cruisers.

_What are the differences between a Coastal Cruiser, Offshore Cruiser and a Race boat? This is a question that would require a book to answer properly but I will take a stab at a shorter version. I think that the terms 'offshore' and 'coastal' get bandied about quite freely without any real thought about what the differences are. Boats intended to be raced vary quite widely depending on the type of racing that they are intended for.

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

A well made coastal cruiser should be more expensive than a dedicated offshore distance cruising boat because it needs to be more complex and actually needs more sophisticated engineering and construction than most people will accept in a dedicated offshore boat. In a general sense race boats are optimized to perform better than the racing rule under which it is intended to race. This has a lot of implications. Under some rules (IMS and IRC for example) race boats are optimized to be fast and easy to handle across a wide range of conditions, producing great all around boats, but in the worst cases (International, Universal, CCA and IOR rules for example), the shape of the hulls, and design of the rig are greatly distorted to beat the short comings of the rule, producing boats that become obsolete as race boats, and to a some extent as cruising boats once the rule becomes history.

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

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

When I think of a race boat vs. coastal cruiser vs. a dedicated offshore boat, there are a number attributes that I look for:

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

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

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

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

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

-Accommodations:
On a coastal cruiser there should be good wide berths, with enough sea berths for at least half of the crew for that night run back to make it to work the next day. An offshore cruiser is often handled by a smaller crew and so fewer berths and fewer sea berths are necessary. The berths on an offshore boat should be narrower and have leeboards or lee cloths. On both I am looking for a well-equipped galley but the galley needs to be larger on a coastal cruiser so that there is adequate space to prepare meals for the typically larger crew or a raft-up. Refrigeration is less important on a coastal cruiser, where ice is typically readily available at the next port of call, although the case can be made for no refrigeration or icebox if you are going offshore.

There are often a mix of major design and more subtle details that distinguish a suitable offshore interior. On offshore boats, hand holds and footholds become critical to the safety of the crew. Cabin soles will often have some form of non-skid. The wide open spaces of a modern coastal cruiser, becomes a dangerous launch pad in heavy conditions. Ideally boats intended for offshore use have smaller passage ways, and compartments, with the saved volumes used for additional storage space. The edges of furnishings need to rounded or padded to prevent injuries. Crash bars need to present in the galley and so on.

-Cockpit:
A comfortable cockpit for lounging is very important on a coastal cruiser. It should be larger than an offshore boat to accommodate a larger number of people which is OK since pooping is less likely to occur doing coastal work. But offshore boats need to be able to be pooped or otherwise flooded and then drain quickly. This is often accommodated with some mix of a smaller cockpit volume, larger cockpit drains, or open transom panels (oft times with flaps).

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

-Displacement: 
Offshore boats need to be heavier. They carry more stuff, period. The traditional rule of thumb was that an offshore boat needs to weigh somewhere between 2 1/2 and 5 long tons per person. A coastal cruiser can get by with less weight per crew person but they are generally cruised by a larger crew.

This brings up problem that frequently occurs at this point in the selection process. Most offshore sailors and many coastal cruisers seem to start out looking for a certain length boat and then screen out the boats that are lighter than the displacement that they think that they need. This results in offshore boats and some coastal cruisers that are generally comparatively heavy for their length. There is a big price paid in motion comfort, difficulty of handling, performance and seaworthiness when too much weight is crammed into a too short sailing length.

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

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

There is a less obvious choice when it comes to the keel and rudder type for offshore cruising. Many people traditionally prefer long or full keels for offshore work but to a great extent this is an anachronistic thinking that emerges from recollections of early fin-keelers. Properly engineered and designed, a fin keel can be a better choice for offshore work. There is the rub. Few fin keelers in the size and price range that most folks consider affortable are engineered and designed for dedicated offshore cruising.

-Ground tackle:
Good ground tackle and rode-handling gear is important for both types but all-chain rodes and massive hurricane proof anchors are not generally required for coastal cruising.

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

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

Offshore cruisers need a robust and reliable rig that can shift gears across a very wide range of windspeeds but generally does not need to change rapidly as there is usually the luxury of lots of sea room. Traditional offshore rigs often feature low vertical centers of gravity to reduce heel angles, and multiple sails rigs such as cutters and ketches which can shift from moderate winds to heavy winds simply by dropping a single sail (and in the case of the cutter reefing the mainsail). As a result of better sailing handling hardware, sail and spar materials, more and more modern offshore cruisers are employing fractionally rigged sloops, which permit a very wide range of windspeeds for a single headsail and can then deal with building conditions by blading-out or reefing the mainsail.

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

But when distance voyaging, the need for speed is in the eye of the beholder, with non-compelling arguments to be made for the advantages of a faster boat (shorter passages, which equate to less crew fatigue and less carrying capacity requirements, and a better chance of being able to sail around the worst part of a storm) or a slower boat( We are sailing? How much real advantage is there to going a knot or two faster?)

-Ventilation:
Good ventilation is very critical to both types. Operable ports, hatches, dorades are very important. While offshore, small openings are structurally a good idea, for coastal work this is less of an issue.

-Visibility and a comfortable helm station: 
Coastal boats are more likely to be hand steered in the more frequently changing conditions, and the coastal greater traffic they need to deal with. A comfortable helm position and good visibility is critical. Offshore, protection of the crew becomes more important.

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

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## paikea (Aug 3, 2014)

Wow Jeff, you gave me a good read. Thank you.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Nemier:
Please drop me down to a 9.27. There is no way I can up to an "11".

I've seen a number of projects that initially had prices "too good to believe" and that was for a very good reason. The boat could not be built for that price! Often times the builder would realize he's upside down about half way through hull number 2 and looking at deposits for four more boats. The result being that hull's number 2 through 6 were poorly built with many cost cutting shortcuts. Remember the Islander Peterson 40 story? I'm not applying this to the Adventure per se but I' am saying beware of deals that appear to good to be true.

Will someone please take the coffee away from Jeff , PLEASE?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Jeff,

I agree with much but not all of what you wrote. Please don't let my objections cause you to lose sight of the topics I do not comment on, with which I generally agree.



Jeff_H said:


> -Accommodations:
> On a coastal cruiser there should be good wide berths, with enough sea berths for at least half of the crew for that night run back to make it to work the next day. An offshore cruiser is often handled by a smaller crew and so fewer berths and fewer sea berths are necessary.


I think the concept of sea berths is grossly overrated. They chew up space, reduce flexibility, and cut into storage in addition to reducing comfort when not on passage. Just about any berth, including the centerline queen on Auspicious, become a sea berth (or two) with the appropriate addition of lee cloths. The best sea berth of all is the floor, given a reasonable arrangement so that galley and head access doesn't conflict with sleep space.

With respect to the latter, heads (or at least a head) should be at the base of the companionway ladder. This provides a place to use as a wet locker and allows the watch to relieve themselves without waking anyone. The galley should also be close to the companionway for access and ventilation. I prefer the nav station to also be close to the companionway for communication (both radio and verbal) and logistics (turning nav lights on and off without waking the off watch). Get those three things right and lots of other day to day activities, offshore or inshore, become less stressful.



Jeff_H said:


> On both I am looking for a well-equipped galley but the galley needs to be larger on a coastal cruiser so that there is adequate space to prepare meals for the typically larger crew or a raft-up.


There are important human factors issues here. Offshore one person at a time is likely to be responsible for meal preparation, although I do try to hand some chores up to the watch when conditions allow. Mise en place helps a lot as does preparation ahead. For coastal cruising a two- or three-butt kitchen is more supportive of the desires of cooking crew. It is part of the social experience.



Jeff_H said:


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


I don't agree. First, short-tacking up a river on landfall after a long passage may not happen often, but the criticality is high. There aren't many boats with headsail sheets that aren't in the cockpit. I really don't like cockpit-lead control lines for other functions on offshore boats (too much friction and the cycle time for reefing is too high) or on coastal cruisers (takes too much space away from the "social" mission.



Jeff_H said:


> -Displacement:
> Offshore boats need to be heavier. They carry more stuff, period.


They don't need to be heavier. They need hull forms capable of carrying more cargo. The _boat_ certainly does not need to be heavier. Offshore boats do need to be stable over a much broader range of displacements.



Jeff_H said:


> ... which permit a very wide range of windspeeds for a single headsail and can then deal with building conditions by blading-out or reefing the mainsail.


Recognizing that there are still some of us that carry multiple headsails offshore. I have five: a 100 jib, a light 135 genoa, a staysail, a heavy asymm spinnaker, and a light symmetric spinnaker. One jib is on the furler. The others all fit in my sail locker.



Jeff_H said:


> -Speed:
> But when distance voyaging, the need for speed is in the eye of the beholder, with non-compelling arguments to be made for the advantages of a faster boat (shorter passages, which equate to less crew fatigue and less carrying capacity requirements, and a better chance of being able to sail around the worst part of a storm) or a slower boat( We are sailing? How much real advantage is there to going a knot or two faster?)


Faster passages ease provisioning, avoid fatigue, have a very minor impact on weather routing, and contribute to crew morale. The difference between average boat speed of 5 knots (120 mile days) and 7 knots (168 mile days) is 40%. Wow. If you leave Falmouth for the Azores and on to Bermuda you should (my opinion) provision to go straight to Bermuda in case weather drives you in that direction. 40% (or even 20%) in reasonable progress makes a big difference in food storage and water tankage. Fast is good. Can't carry enough food to skip Azores if the weather is better North or South? Too bad - leads to suboptimal decision making. The same applies to inadequate fuel tankage. I've never heard anyone say their boat was too fast, carried too much water, or carried too much fuel. Let's not forget that slower passages means more food waste from rot. Have you smelled a boat that had a 5# bag of potatoes liquefy?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Maybe this is not the right boat for everyone. But Heck,,,,I was 20 years old when I drew this boat. I think it's good for a chuckle on a Friday. Can't look at this and be depressed. Think of that starry eyed 20 year old kid pouring his heart and soul out onto the vellum.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

A very pretty little boat, Bob. I won't go further than that.

Did you do to a yacht design program and then apprentice with someone?


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

I vote for a Hobie 18 for 'ocean rough seas'. It would certainly separate the men from the boys.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

I agree about not needing separate sea berths and relying on lee cloths. We have six lee cloths in various spots and they work just fine. One issue I have is with boats where the normal berths/settees cannot be used for sleeping because of odd shapes and configurations. Who wants a lovely curved 'couch' if you have to sleep in a lovely cured way. Some of the designs you see - that are being sold as cruising boats are designed with no thought of a passage lasting a couple of weeks (how about a couple of days). Sometimes the best (and only) place to sleep is on the floor. Rant over.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bobperry said:


> Maybe this is not the right boat for everyone. But Heck,,,,I was 20 years old when I drew this boat. I think it's good for a chuckle on a Friday. Can't look at this and be depressed. Think of that starry eyed 20 year old kid pouring his heart and soul out onto the vellum.


And then there were the alcohol fumes from the Ozalid machine.



killarney_sailor said:


> Did you do to a yacht design program and then apprentice with someone?


The story is in Bob's book and a number of his articles. Bob draws pretty boats and writes well also.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I also think where those berths are is important. When shopping noted how limited many current boats are for berths you can comfortably sleep in offshore. I have 7 berths but 5 are aft of the mast and on either tack 3 are to leeward. All have leeclothes or a bungle board but it's nicer to not need them except when rough. Having twin doubles aft is fine but it's nicer to sleep in the middle of the boat DDW. The queen double forward is our favorite berth at anchor but rarely occupied underway.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Kill:
Yes, Aus is right. It's all in my book and there is a quick bio version on my web site. Surely you have visited my web site?

I am self taught. I applied for my first yacht design job when I was 21 years old. I showed a roll of my drawings to the potential employer and he said, "Can you start after lunch?" I said yes.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I was 19 and one year out of high school when I drew this boat. Note the spade rudder on a cruising boat, 1965! That black hull was a PITA to draw. I had to go back and forth with a drafting pen. But I was a kid with time and energy.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

If boats could talk I bet they would be saying:

*"Hey were do we find a non-Googan skipper? I want to go around the world but all these Googan's are of little help to me in doing that...."*



As the ever eloquent Bob Perry _agreed with_:

*"I suggest the biggest factor is the crew, followed by the weather, followed by the boat."*


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bobperry said:


> I am self taught.


There are only three meaningful undergraduate programs in naval architecture in the US: Webb Institute, University of Michigan, and MIT. Webb, my alma mater, has an intense work study program with fairly high standards for what "counts" for the work part.

My understanding is that Bob has graciously taken several Webb students on for qualifying work periods.

Thank you Bob.

I've taught myself a number of things in my professional life. It's often more difficult than structured education but the end result is no less effective. I may take issue with Bob from time to time from my own perspective. I still hold him in high regard, a fact I hope he recognizes. He sure has many more recreational boats on the water than I ever will, a task much more challenging than the commercial, military, and research platforms I have worked on.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Hey Maine:
That's is not my quote. I was quoting someone else here. Maybe Med. Don't recall. I cannot take credit for it. But thanks.

Here I am, 17 years old and still in high school, half way through my senior year and diligently working away on my final 1.69 GPA.
I had other things on my mind.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Bob, you're a natural! But at 17 weren't you out chasing girls?? How did you have the time to design yachts??!!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

bobperry said:


> Hey Maine:
> *That's is not my quote. I was quoting someone else here. Maybe Med. Don't recall. I cannot take credit for it. But thanks.*
> 
> Here I am, 17 years old and still in high school, half way through my senior year and diligently working away on my final 1.69 GPA.
> I had other things on my mind.


Doh'....... Sorry about that read fast, type fast....... Sometimes too fast...


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Copa:
Of course I chased girls and I learned to play the guitar. I was very normal. I think.


----------



## Tenoch (Sep 28, 2012)

Chicks dig yacht designers....(well, as long as they play guitar too).


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Ron Holland is a drummer. Ted Brewer plays the squeeze box and sings!


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

*When [email protected] hits the fan out there...*

This high performance off shore vessel I had the privilege to sail on..a Frers designed Palmer Johnson built named 'Javelin'..

Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Google News Archive Search

Formerly owned then Larry Bulman of Baltimore


----------

