# Just what is a blue water boat?



## Jrthomus (Jul 29, 2017)

I have heard the term “blue water boat” a lot and was wondering what is the difference between a cruising boat (like my 1982 Watkins 27) and a blue water boat. Please enlighten me o’wise sages of sailing.


----------



## snokid (Oct 25, 2016)

cruising and blue water can be the same....

your are going to get more opinions than you want on what's a blue water boat.

Bob


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I can not even figure out where blue water is, never mind what a blue water boat is. 

Good luck, you may have just kicked a hornets nest


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have never liked the term 'blue water cruiser'. It does not mean anything to me. To me I prefer to think of boats as Offshore Distance Cruisers and Coastal Cruisers. Where folks sometimes end up trying to pick fly poop out of the pepper is whether a coastal cruiser is an offshore cruiser and that is a messy topic because a properly prepared and well made Coastal Cruiser is fine for limited diet of offshore legs of a reasonable length. But that is different than what a purpose built offshore distance cruiser is meant for. (A Watkins 27 is basically a mid-level coastal cruiser.) 

But anyway, I wrote this for another purpose and I apologize that it is quite long but it looks at many of the issues that distinguishes one type from the other. 

Jeff

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.


----------



## Jrthomus (Jul 29, 2017)

Thank you all, I have a better understanding, the answers are along my lines of thought.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

It really depends on how old a boat you're thinking about buying. I've seen a 50 year old "blue water" Hans Christian fall apart offshore in relatively mild conditions. And I've seen a "non-blue water" 5 year old Hunter round Cape Horn into an F11 and come through just fine. In essence, the term mostly means something on forums...not in the ocean.

Generally I like Jeff's post above. But in reality for modern boats it comes down to tankage more than just about anything else. If you're not crossing oceans or doing high latitude sailing pretty much any modern brand within the last 10 years will do everything you ask of it. Then, if you're crossing oceans, you'll need more tankage in that brand for longer sailing duration. Then, if you're sailing high latitudes, you might want to look into a boat just for that to handle ice, etc.

If you're really *cruising*, the boat, whatever the brand, won't be the limitation. It just won't. Unless *you* screw up.

I've kind of put this whole debate to bed anyway...

The Blue Water Debate is Dead | SMACKTALK!


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

IMHO,

Blue water implies being away from services. The boat should not be so lightly built it can't take a significant SNAFU with grace. It should be able to survive a hard grounding without an immediate haul and inspection. And, tremendously to my personal embarrassment, you should be able to tangle with a steel buoy without holing the boat.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Virtually ALL 'dynamic' structures are usually designed with important safety factors applied.

Safety factors are applied multiples of _additional_ strength, to insure the long term usage _without structural failure_ ... eg. a Safety factor of 3 would define a structure that is three times _stronger_ than what is needed to operate at 'normal' conditions. 
Safety Factors are applied to address '_unknown and unforeseen_' but 'sometimes' expected stresses during usage. Factors of Safety are based on comprehensive historical or insurance casualty records ... in the case of 'boats' these are called "Scantling Rules" - Eg.: a particular boat survived a complete circumnavigation, was designed with a FS=3, had NO, structural issues; Another particular brand of boat didn't survive a complete circumnavigation, had major structural problems ... and was only designed with a FS=2. 
These safety factors are applied with the intent to insure that a boat, auto, aircraft, nuclear power plant, etc. etc. etc. 'doesn't come apart' in the venue intended.

For 'light service' (& high end racing, etc.) you may see a Safety Factor as low as 1.5 (or less) to reduce the mass/weight of the boat; FS=2 is typically found in boats designed for "coastal" service; Boats that are specifically designed for open ocean sailing will typically be designed at FS=3, Boat that are designed for 'rescue' work in extreme weather will typically have a much higher Safety Factor.
FS=1 Conceptual design
FS=1.5 Small lakes and 'inshore' service
FS=2 Normal Service
FS=3 Normal to 'heavy/rough' service involving a high propensity of possible overstress ('blue water' capable - IMO)
FS=4+ Hazardous or Lethal service

FWIW - (My impression is) Bob Perry's boats that are designed for long distance sailing are typically designed @ FS=3 ... and a lot of their 'critical' structure have a much higher Safety Factor, when you 'back calculate' these components. 
Of course, reducing weight/mass - thus reducing the safety factors - is a part of modern boat design ... only time and insurance claims over a long time period will prove or disprove if these reductions will 'survive'.

Inotherwords, don't expect a Macgregor-26 or a Hobie Cat to survive a circumnavigation; and, no matter how 'good' a sailor you think you are.

As an aside but still pertinent to such a discussion - many of the newer 'lighter weight' boats (with obvious reduced safety factors) cannot even survive a haul-out and improper blocking on the hard without having a much higher probability of structural failure - quite a few of these 'production boats' are now increasingly being condemned due to improper 'blocking' causing major structural failure .... if you speak with surveyors who specifically do such insurance casualty claims. 
There is currently a discussion ongoing here on Sailnet that involves bulkhead cracking and severe 'liner' shifting ... as a possible example. Over the past few years Ive seen 'several' of the exact same ... luckily the owners had 'agreed' value insurance policies to cover their '_totaled_' boats.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

RichH said:


> As an aside but still pertinent to such a discussion - many of the newer 'lighter weight' boats (with obvious reduced safety factors) cannot even survive a haul-out and improper blocking on the hard without having a much higher probability of structural failure - quite a few of these 'production boats' are now increasingly being condemned due to improper 'blocking' causing major structural failure .... if you speak with surveyors who specifically do such insurance casualty claims.


I've not seen this before. Can you provide examples? I'm interested. Before I blame the boats, I'm going to strongly suspect the yards...just based on the myriad examples of damage/problems caused by yards across the entire planet.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The best answer is have is..... a blue water boat qualifies if the skipper thinks it's one. 

This skipper thinks in terms of the margin of over engineering first, then sea kindlyiness second. I reject anecdotal examples of specific boats that did or did not successfully make a passage. Ever since I read Tinkerbelle, I realized anecdotes mean nothing.

Another hornets nest, it's not BWC unless it has a Rocna anchor hanging off the bow roller.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

One thing that might be of interest is that coastal voyages are defined by the SOLAS convention as being voyages that take place within 200 miles of shore, and unlimited voyages are voyages that are beyond the limits of a coastal voyage.

I personally would equate blue water sailing to an unlimited voyage, so voyages beyond 200 miles from shore. Which makes me very definitely a coastal sailor, which I'm good with. 

I guess a blue water sailboat would be a boat designed to operate more than 200 miles from shore?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Arcb said:


> One thing that might be of interest is that coastal voyages are defined by the SOLAS convention as being voyages that take place within 200 miles of shore, and unlimited voyages are voyages that are beyond the limits of a coastal voyage.
> 
> I personally would equate blue water sailing to an unlimited voyage, so voyages beyond 200 miles from shore. Which makes me very definitely a coastal sailor, which I'm good with.
> 
> I guess a blue water sailboat would be a boat designed to operate more than 200 miles from shore?


+1

I wrote an article for Cruising World on AMVER rescues and that 200 mile range is also right at the max range of a CG helo rescue. So, I think that's a pretty good limit if you need to apply one. But then people get into quibbling about "blue water" vs "offshore", etc. It's all a bit much.


----------



## aenlic (Sep 14, 2017)

Jeff_H said:


> I have never liked the term 'blue water cruiser'. It does not mean anything to me. To me I prefer to think of boats as Offshore Distance Cruisers and Coastal Cruisers. Where folks sometimes end up trying to pick fly poop out of the pepper is whether a coastal cruiser is an offshore cruiser and that is a messy topic because a properly prepared and well made Coastal Cruiser is fine for limited diet of offshore legs of a reasonable length. But that is different than what a purpose built offshore distance cruiser is meant for. (A Watkins 27 is basically a mid-level coastal cruiser.)
> 
> But anyway, I wrote this for another purpose and I apologize that it is quite long but it looks at many of the issues that distinguishes one type from the other.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff, I deleted the majority of your message from my quote for sheer efficiency (and to avoid eye strain and headaches for novice sailors such as myself). :-D

I find your post very informative in more than one sense: First, I may well print it out and highlight the words which I need to look up and understand, as it's prime 'glossary fodder.' ;-)

Second, I've discussed this topic with my various g'boat yodas,' but this is the most thorough and well-worded explanation I've seen.

Third, the thoroughness means that this document fulfills the requirements for a 'perfect' explanation. Because it is precise and thorough, even where it's seen as 'wrong' by others, it can be precisely and thoroughly honed until all agree that it's (arguably) authoritative.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together and share it.

aenlic


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

As many have already indicated this subject is very subjective. My Pacific Seacraft is what many might say is a good example of a blue water boat. To me any boat that gives the sailor aboard a belief that it can handle what the ocean may throw at it when far from the sight of land could be considered a blue water boat. I have seen quite a few boats that I would never leave protected waters in many many miles off shore. The captains and crews looked happy so in their mind they were on blue water boats. Always remember that the boat you ply the oceans with will usually stand up to more punishment than you can endure. 

Bluewater ocean dreams are what keep many sailors alive but in reality, the time spent in blue water is minuscule when compared to the time you spend at anchor or tied to the dock. Get a boat that is comfortable for the good times as well as the challenging.


----------



## Yorksailor (Oct 11, 2009)

My boat, a Tayana 55, my wife and I are out in the Blue Water and we are about to re-cross the Pacific. Every kind of boat imaginable is out here and crossing oceans...Oysters to Beneteaus to some boats that are small and one might think only good for the ICW.

During the last two years of the boats we know, had a beer with, shared an anchorage with, talked on the radio with, the loss rate has been 1% per year for a total of four boats.Only one boat sank because of structural failure but three sank because of operator error. And the recent cats that hit reefs in the Pacific are not included.

More important to ask "What is a Blue Water Sailor?"

Phil who is married to an outstanding Lady Blue Water Sailor.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I've not seen this before. Can you provide examples? I'm interested. Before I blame the boats, I'm going to strongly suspect the yards...just based on the myriad examples of damage/problems caused by yards across the entire planet.


Back when, when they wanted to clean or do work on the bottom of a boat, they would just pull them into a 'carenage' and roll them over on their topsides (usually by the masts). I'll bet you not one in a hundred production boats could handle that today. 
I'd be a lot more skeptical of a story about a Hunter surviving a force 11 storm rounding either cape, from my experience sailing several of their models and just looking at a couple of dozen others, at anchor or in marinas. Of course, anybody can get lucky, but there just aren't enough of some manufacturers' models sailing those waters to call that story anything but a fluke, if it is indeed fact.


----------



## Jrthomus (Jul 29, 2017)

I’ll take this opportunity to thank all who have commented and those that might. The answer is as I suspected it would be Clear as Mud however the verity of answers provided does give me a better understanding of the topic. I would like to make an Atlantic crossing in a few years but for now cruising the east coast will suffice. It seems that the question I need to ask is do I have what it takes to be a blue water sailor, I suspect I will have the answer to that question when the time arises.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

That Hunter 49 (owned by a former member here) not only "survived" that F10/F11 off Cape Horn (between CH and Isla de los Estados), the boat sustained no real damage whatsoever. From what I recall there was a windvane pin that bent and a couple of the cockpit enclosure secure points ripped from the frame - but all in all that Hunter did exactly what a good boat does in the Southern Ocean.










Micheal was/is a very, very experienced captain. And he purposefully chose his Hunter. I don't think luck was involved. You can read about it here if you wish...

https://www.amazon.com/Sequitur-Cap...5&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=sv+sequitur+cape+horn

So, yeah, it is indeed fact. I wouldn't bring it up otherwise.

And I have no intention to careen my Hunter to clean it like they did in the 1800's. I prefer lifts or divers.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

smackdaddy said:


> So, I think that's a pretty good limit if you need to apply one. But then people get into quibbling about "blue water" vs "offshore", etc. It's all a bit much.


Agreed, it can get pretty nit picky. That's why, personally if I feel like I need to define a voyage, try to stick to describing it as Sheltered Waters (where I do most of my sailing these days), Near Coastal which is out to 200 miles and does include all 5 of the great lakes, and unlimited voyage.

That way if somebody says, what do you mean by Coastal, I can quickly put my hand on an internationally recognised definition.

I think most folks would agree that blue water is synonymous with an unlimited voyage. The term offshore is what seems to be the muddiest. I have no idea what it means, except that it isn't the little river flowing past my house 

Edit: I guess there is also high latitude, which has its own set of challenges.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Really...
It comes down to physics...and limits.
Conditions vary and skippers' actions vary....does one or the other exceed limits...at any one place in time...
Do you stay within limits, or do you find that limit...


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I believe any boat one wishes to venture offshore on should be a very forgiving one. Those of us who have done a bunch of offshore/blue water sailing have made some pretty serious mistakes and on a good offshore/blue water sailing vessel, these have not resulted in catastrophe.
Things like having *WAY* too much canvas up in a blow (not reefing early enough), an accidental tack or jibe or three when set up for a long passage or in a squall, or just failing to secure something well enough (drums of deck loaded diesel on one voyage, comes immediately to mind).
A good offshore/blue water sailing vessel would be able to get her crew to a safe port whether she is being sailed under a jury rig after a dismasting, with the emergency steering or without an engine, should the need occur. This vessel, coupled with a knowledgeable, experienced and able crew are the safest way to venture offshore. Of course, every skipper has his/her own idea of what boat this might be, as you can see from this thread and the many hundreds of it's incarnations, that have gone before.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

I guess my beef with this discussion is the implication that "blue water" sailing is more challenging than coastal. I simply think that is wrong.

The hidden implication is that in coastal sailing, under 200 miles, you are within the reach of rescue services, and therefore "safer."

Because I sail in Newfoundland it's pretty easy for me to be over 200 miles from rescue services. And the winds blow, and the rocks are hard and I'm often outside VHF range of anyone. So in this sense my "coastal" sailing can be more challenging than a milk run crossing. 

For those reasons I want a stout boat that can take a smack or three and get me home. For convience I call this a blue water boat because it has a lot of similarity to boats doing long passages even though I'm really doing coastal sailing, albeit with >150 mile legs.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Kinda like flying, isn't it? Its the takeoffs and landings that are the most critical.

To some degree you might equate transoceanic passages with the same flights - as long as the plane(boat) stays in one piece and the pilot(skipper) doesn't make too many boneheaded moves it should turn out fine... at least until you reach the airport 

Maybe equate coastal cruising with low altitude flying over land.. more hazards (towers, cities etc) and less margin for error - and more immediate consequences when things go wrong...

Oversimplification, I know......


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

You actually make a very good point Fast. You deal with FAR more hazards and dangers near shore than you do offshore. No question.


----------



## aenlic (Sep 14, 2017)

I'm no sailor yet, of any ilk. When I've asked the question, my premise is that 'blue water' is DEEP water, capital letters and all. Again with the physics, I would think that enormous waves are routine in 'blue water' and uncommon in coastal waters.

The difference in safety factors seem for 'classes' of vessels seem to bear this out. If heavy weather will break your boat, you'd best not cross an ocean with it. Isn't that the main requirement for a blue water boat?

I'll stand by to see if those who know from experience tell me if this sounds logical but is not in fact the case. 

(Interesting discussion for a noob.)

aenlic


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Allow me to qualify a few of these thoughts....



aenlic said:


> When I've asked the question, my premise is that 'blue water' is DEEP water, capital letters and all. Again with the physics, I would think that enormous waves are routine in 'blue water' and uncommon in coastal waters.


Deep water is WAY better than shallow water for big waves. Waves are dangerous *when they break*. If they're not breaking, they can be ginormous and not be an issue (as long as you're not surfing out of control down them). And it takes a lot more for them to break in deep water...and a lot less in shallow water. So you need to be careful with those physics...and trusting forum blather.



aenlic said:


> The difference in safety factors seem for 'classes' of vessels seem to bear this out. If heavy weather will break your boat, you'd best not cross an ocean with it. Isn't that the main requirement for a blue water boat?


Truly heavy weather will break ANY boat. Period. So don't be deceived that someone calling a boat a "blue water" boat means that heavy weather won't break it. That will definitely get you dead. The point with ANY boat is to *do anything and everything you possibly can to stay away from truly heavy weather*.

As for 'classes' of vessels - the bigger BeneJeneHunterLinas are CE Category A Ocean rated just like Hinckleys or Swans or Oysters, etc. So that doesn't really hold water either. They will all do the job of blue water cruising. You just need to avoid truly heavy weather.



aenlic said:


> (Interesting discussion for a noob.)
> 
> aenlic


That's why it's always an important discussion.

BTW - This is one of the best books you can read on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/HANDLING-STO...339306&sr=1-1&keywords=handling+storms+at+sea


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Hpeer, I absolutely agree with you about the conditions in Newfoundland being challenging. But, you do see people launching dories with outboards off the beach, go fishing for the day and return.

I would think that you would want to be a very good waterman to do that kind of boating.

Or further up north where the locals take their big motor canoes out for a few weeks of hunting on the Arctic ocean. I'm thinking you would see on average, a pretty high level of boating competence with those folks 

I think the issue with an unlimited voyage type trip is just range. Plain and simple. You've got to be able to carry weeks worth of food, fuel, spates, carry or make water, have adequate accommodations to sleep and shelter enough crew to stand watches and you have to be able to withstand several days of weather on the open ocean.

Back to the airplane thing. You just don't see Q400's doing Atlantic crossings. They don't have that combination of fuel and speed to make the trip in an economical fashion.

But, the other side of the coin is 777's suck as commuter plains, can't land at regional airports and you definitely don't want to land one on a remote gravel airstrip.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

smackdaddy said:


> I've not seen this before. Can you provide examples? I'm interested. Before I blame the boats, I'm going to strongly suspect the yards...just based on the myriad examples of damage/problems caused by yards across the entire planet.


Sorry I can't/won't due to the potential of present cases of ongoing litigation and in progress or being considered within litigation.

Suffice it to say that those are boats with their keels attached to the hull at a more forward location than the older style fin keels and with severely swept back keels w/ bulbs and beaver-tails and l-o-n-g overhanging spaces between the aft end of the keel-hull join and the stern make for some interesting structural/blocking problems (due the keel aft end 'rotating up' into the boat & overstressing the bulkheads and 'liners'; all due to insufficient blocking) ... especially when during the spring thaw the jackstands sink into the unstable ground beneath the jackstands .... and when a minimal number (only/typically 3 per side) jackstands are used to support them and the bows and sterns begin to 'droop', the hull buckles which allows more of the boats mass to be supported by the swept keel and the keel begins to 'rotate' into the hull, etc. Overbuilt boats from the past with _large_ factors of safety in their design simply don't do this. My observation is: What is starting to happen is that the normal blocking (so many jackstands per 'side') as was used in the past is now beginning to be 'breaking' and with total casualty loss of a lot more of such 'production' boats.

I make the prediction that insurance underwriters will ultimately issue formal blocking plans to be precisely followed by the yards (ultimately responsible and verified by the owners) for such boats to prevent such apparent growing casualty losses. BTW - and then one can only wonder what will happen when these vulnerable boats take a severe grounding because they are so (apparently) 'flimsy' (due to obvious lesser inbuilt factors of safety incorporated into the structural design).

... and yes, IMO - such is probably/primarily a yard knowledge problem on how to correctly block these more modern 'lighter structure' boats.

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

RichH said:


> Sorry I can't/won't due to the potential of present cases of ongoing litigation and in progress or being considered within litigation.
> 
> ;-)


Of course. I understand completely.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Agree best working definition for bwb is frequently sailed outside SAR helicopter range.
In practice ( talking with fellow OCC and sdr members) most consider.
Degree of redundancy. Here Jeff’s beloved frac rigs fall short for some.
Simplicity. Here Jeff’s ideal boat scores high marks.
Durability. Even Smack admits the increasing tendency for disposable boats in the large production series.
Survivable in mishaps and easy repair to original strength with service in low tech boatyards. Also applies to sails, rig and equipment not just hull.
Tolerance to operator error. The old saw “you take care of a multihull- a monohull takes care of you “ is less true as both strive to increase performance. Some think to the detriment of current crop of monos as bwbs.
Carrying capacity which equals displacement. Yes the Volvo boats and the like are totally amazing in how they preform in the worst possible conditions but they don’t allow the ability to carry a complete tool set, three spares for everything and hot showers on passage with gourmet meals at dinner eaten at a table. 
Excellent quality of life offshore. This is multifactorial. Easy motion. Easy to carry out activities of daily living. Here the big cockpit, twin wheeled, open transom boats have troubles as it’s hard to maintain balance in a seaway without something to hold on to. But some are quite clever in adding features in orginal design to limit impact of this issue. Easy to sail inside performance window. Good performance without constant attention to trim. Good ergonomics to allow you to safely move around all parts of the boat. Good places to comfortable sleep away from traffic flow and without need to contort to brace yourself against motion. Adequate berths aft of the mast. Dedicated accessible place for tools,spares and performing work.
Ease of service. Our use is very limited compared to our peers. Still do 5 or more oil engine/genset changes per year. Have switched out racors and other filters, fixed wiring/ electronics , redone/tuned rigging details, swapped out lines, fixed boat details ( hinges, pumps etc. while underway. All kind of things if coastal you would just wait until moored/slipped to deal with after a quick visit to West. Different mindset on a bwb. If you didn’t bring it you don’t have it. Fix it right now. You may need it when it’s 2 am and blowing dogs off of their chains.
The above is premised on there being a lack of a shore support team or a unlimited open wallet.
But ultimately a bwb is like pornography. You know it when you see it.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I am not sure about the Helicopter thing. It probably makes sense in the US, but the use of Helicopters for SAR I think is considerably less in less populous parts of the world. 

Like Canada- with it's 4 Helicopter bases. Sure it's possible for a helicopter to hop from refueling stop to refueling stop, but limitations on crew flight time, fuel availability, and narrowing weather windows means, it could be a long while before one shows up.

What you sometimes get in remote areas is SAR techs parachuting to the rescue from C-130's. Talk about huevos, jumping out of a low flying C130 into the arctic, with no way of getting back up.

Or, if this option is too dicey, you might be waiting for an ice breaker to show up...

Having said that, people can and do take open boats out in these areas.

I think if you are sailing from the US or western Europe the helicopter thing makes sense, probably less so in much of the rest of the world, where the roughly 200 miles thing still applies.

I guess with 200 miles, it is reasonable to expect most boats to be capable of reaching an anchorage or safe harbour in a day or two, or even beach if they have to. I think that's more the thinking than the helicopter thing, is vessels ability to reach safety itself within a reasonable amount of time (say the amount of time a crew can reasonably be expected to stay awake for).

I think in much of the world, it's shear folly to expect a helicopter to rescue you, if you can't help yourself, even close to shore. In my mind remote does not equate to blue water, it's just remote.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

9.5 years, 1 circumnavigation, about 45000 nms in this boat and... People still suggest my boat is crap. 

But they lourd a goose in a bathtub trying to row the Atlantic or a little 16 YO girl in a 30 footer sailing the 'world' as long as she shows a bit of virginal leg, or an over-engineered expensive haute culture Yacht that can't go 5 knits unless dropped by a crane.

So I stay out of these threads ☺


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> 9.5 years, 1 circumnavigation, about 45000 nms in this boat and... People still suggest my boat is crap.
> 
> But they lourd a goose in a bathtub trying to row the Atlantic or a little 16 YO girl in a 30 footer sailing the 'world' as long as she shows a bit of virginal leg, or an over-engineered expensive haute culture Yacht that can't go 5 knits unless dropped by a crane.
> 
> So I stay out of these threads ☺


Sea Life is a fine boat... I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I think a blue water boat is any boat a "reasonable" sailor would be willing to take out into the ocean. In today's world with good forecasting, well know seasons and routes, and good communications almost any boat someone "reasonable" is willing to take out is probably good enough.

If you hang at a hurricane hole marina during hurricane season there will be a bunch of experienced well traveled cruisers. If you look at the wide variety of boats it is apparent that a "blue water" has a pretty reasonable definition i.e. there would not be a buch of 27-35' boats (if any) no matter what "list" they may be on. 

Now if you want to talk extreme sailing, that's a way different thing to me.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> 9.5 years, 1 circumnavigation, about 45000 nms in this boat and... People still suggest my boat is crap.
> 
> But they lourd a goose in a bathtub trying to row the Atlantic or a little 16 YO girl in a 30 footer sailing the 'world' as long as she shows a bit of virginal leg, or an over-engineered expensive haute culture Yacht that can't go 5 knits unless dropped by a crane.
> 
> So I stay out of these threads ☺


doesn't seem you stay out of these threads :grin

BTW - your boat is crap! Show us your legs!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Don0190 said:


> In today's world with good forecasting, well know seasons and routes.


I'd venture that today historic weather forecasting is no longer as reliable as it was some years back. My reference books, including Ocean Passages of the World and pilot charts, leave me thinking that the weather patterns the old sailors used are no longer as viable as they once were.
Voyage planning just isn't as easy as it was back in the 70's, and even way back then, I spent my first 6 months south of the equator in the SoPac, and never saw a trade wind south of east.
Communication is certainly better and there is plenty of real time weather information available, but I'll still be forecasting my own weather rather than putting our lives in the hands of someone sitting safe and sound at home.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Just to add another wrinkle, how does Blue Water Boat relate to live aboard? Blue Water implies extended periods aboard. And who wants to live in a space capsule? So a BWB also needs to be a comfy home, well, at least mine.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

The repetitive statement that weather routing and forecasts permit less seaworthy craft to safely cruise and voyage is absurd and a very dangerous mindset.
Look at the last half dozen 1500s or sdrs. Highly skilled routers got it wrong in both rallies in different years. Boats were lost, dismasted, assistance called and rescues necessary.
Anyone who has done passages knows regardless of brand and skill of operator there are days the sat phone or the ssb doesn’t work adequately to get weather by voice or file or text. 
Anyone who sails even coastal or near shore knows of days when the girbs or text shows one vane and you’re sitting in 50 of t storm or if offshore line squalls. 
Like politics all weather is local. Seem to recall even Lee said you need to pay to very local phenomena to be safe and NOT solely depend on others judgment from a distance or a computer model. Learn to read clouds( all books about heavy weather sailing have a section on this) carry a recording barometer. Yes download weather underway daily and look for a good window when leaving but sole reliance on third parties put your boat and your life at risk.
Turning back to OPs question. Can you and the boat weather a storm? Can it put up with the stresses and abuse of passage making? If so it’s a bwb. Design, execution, maintenance, prep,and added safety equipment determine this. Talking about brand, size and age can be quite misleading.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

hpeer said:


> And, tremendously to my personal embarrassment, you should be able to tangle with a steel buoy without holing the boat.


This doesn't make sense. Buoys are specifically NOT to be hit - steel or not. Basing a BWB definition on being able to hit one without suffering damage is absurd. Why not make the definition include being able to hit an anchored freighter without damage? Hitting a lighthouse without damage?

I've hit many, many solid objects at speed with my Sunfish, including cement docks, without a lick of damage. Does this make my Sunfish a BWB?

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> Of course, reducing weight/mass - thus reducing the safety factors - is a part of modern boat design ... only time and insurance claims over a long time period will prove or disprove if these reductions will 'survive'.


Weight and mass is a silly argument - and completely wrong. Consider three boat hull scantlings: one with 1" of chopper gun CSM, one with 1" of alternate layers of woven roving and mat, and one with 1/2" of foam core with 1/4" stitched fabric skins in load bearing directions.

The first is heavy as a large tank, the second heavy as a slightly smaller tank, and the third very light - probably 1/2-1/3 of the weight of the other two. Mass is the same relative ranking.

Now rank those three hulls in any terms of strength and "safety factor" you wish. The result will not be in line with weight and mass.

Weight and mass are meaningless to strength and safety factors, and do not even define scantlings in any way.

Engineering and build execution is another matter.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> Back when, when they wanted to clean or do work on the bottom of a boat, they would just pull them into a 'carenage' and roll them over on their topsides (usually by the masts). I'll bet you not one in a hundred production boats could handle that today.
> I'd be a lot more skeptical of a story about a Hunter surviving a force 11 storm rounding either cape, from my experience sailing several of their models and just looking at a couple of dozen others, at anchor or in marinas. Of course, anybody can get lucky, but there just aren't enough of some manufacturers' models sailing those waters to call that story anything but a fluke, if it is indeed fact.


If you want to define BWB as one being able to be driven ashore and rolled onto its sides so that the bottom can be cleaned, then good for you. But it isn't a real definition in any sense.

Then there are those pesky catamarans that easily take to ground for bottom cleaning with no damage regardless of build quality and scantlings. Of course, if you stubbornly insist on the "roll them over on their topsides" part of that definition, then I guess pretty much all of them will break.

Besides, how many people with "true" BWB's are going to be rolling them over on their sides every time the bottom needs cleaning?

Can you give an example of a boat model in which enough of them have survived a force 11 storm rounding the capes to be statistically valid to not call them a fluke?

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Many of these qualifications being stated are funny, in that they seem to represent the poster's limited/biased viewpoints, mostly focused on their particular boat, while ignoring better qualifications on other boats they probably wouldn't consider BWB..

For example, comfort under way: Our maximum heel angle is 5* and we never corkscrew down waves or even yaw much. Broaching is something we never worry about, and we don't even have fiddles on our counters nor lee cloths on our queen sized beds. Walking about in all weather is easy.

Redundancy, jerry rigging and getting home: We carry a spare engine and a spare rudder. 

Blocking and taking to ground: We do both better than any monohull made. We don't even need poppets. With <4' draft, we glide right over most rocks and bars.

Ease of service: We can walk right into our engine rooms. Any work needed underway is done on a level platform. Deck work has acres of flat space to do it - a sail could be laid out for repair on it.

Yet, many would not consider our boat a "BWB" based just on its type alone. It's weight and mass seems to disqualify it for some, since it is cored with honeycomb and skinned with directional stitched fabrics. Its rig is only held up with 3 wires, and it is a fractional rig, so that disqualifies it for some. It can't be rolled on its side without breaking, so that isn't good. If we hit a steel buoy, I'm pretty sure it will put a hole in the hull - but the first 8' of our bows, and 4' of our sterns can be ripped completely off without water entering the boat, so I don't know how to judge that.

These BWB threads are always amusing.

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

colemj said:


> Can you give an example of a boat model in which enough of them have survived a force 11 storm rounding the capes to be statistically valid to not call them a fluke?Mark


Nope, but I'm sure someone can.
I have no doubt that there are a number of production glass boats out here that could be careened without damage. One that immediately comes to mind is a Westsail 32.
However, in the case mentioned above, I ask you, "Would you be willing to take a stock production boat built by Hunter around Cape Horn?" If so, then you have a lot more intestinal fortitude than I.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> Nope, but I'm sure someone can.
> I have no doubt that there are a number of *40yrs out of* production glass boats out here that could be careened without damage. One that immediately comes to mind is a Westsail 32.


There I fixed that. If living on, sailing, and cruising in a Westsail 32 is your ideal of BWB, then more power to you. I'm pretty sure the rest of the list of careenable boats are of similar age and ilk.

Have you ever rolled your boat over on its side? Have you ever seen another cruiser do so (purposefully)? Do you really think that sort of thing drives many people's boat decisions with regard to BWB? To me, it is about the lamest definition of BWB presented yet.

In fact, the types of designs that would allow this could be considered dangerous in BW. For example, heavy layup, round bilge, shallow keel boats that gracefully fall over easily and support themselves, but roll right around in big waves, and scoot sideways in high winds.

I venture a guess that the total number of boats who have survived a force 11 storm rounding Cape Horn is very small indeed - let alone the number of any one particular model of boat. So I submit that your statement about a particular model being a fluke compared to another model is unsupported.

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

colemj said:


> There I fixed that. If living on, sailing, and cruising in a Westsail 32 is your ideal of BWB, then more power to you. I'm pretty sure the rest of the list of careenable boats are of similar age and ilk.
> Mark


I don't believe I ever stated that my ideal BWB was a Westsail 32, though it was and still is one, of the most successful glass cruisers ever produced. One could certainly choose worse, 40 years old or 6 months.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

colemj said:


> This doesn't make sense. Buoys are specifically NOT to be hit - steel or not. Basing a BWB definition on being able to hit one without suffering damage is absurd. Why not make the definition include being able to hit an anchored freighter without damage? Hitting a lighthouse without damage?
> 
> I've hit many, many solid objects at speed with my Sunfish, including cement docks, without a lick of damage. Does this make my Sunfish a BWB?
> 
> Mark


Mark,

Real people occasionally screw up. Slocum put Joshua on the beach. Mointisser lost what, 3?, boats. Stuff happens.

Crashing into stuff and surviving, whether it was avoidable or not, is an ADDITIONAL requirement to the others.

Since you seem to crash your poor sunfish I think you can relate. But you seem to think crash survivabilty is not an important factor. OK, happy sailing. I'm not here to argue, but contribute my experience.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

My point was, where and why does one draw the line in your definition? You drew it at steel buoys (and apparently only after you hit one without damage). Why not cement piers? Or anchored freighters?

Crash survivability is all relative - shipping container, granite ledge, freighter, steel buoy, reef. The list of objects is endless, as is the degree in which they can inflict damage.

So what makes surviving a steel buoy hit without damage a condition of a BWB, but not surviving a freighter hit? Does the definition only involve hitting it bow-on, or does it involve a large sea lifting the boat up and bringing it down on top of it amidship and underneath?

This is what I was speaking to above about people biasing their BWB definition based on their current boat choice. Not many non-steel boats are going to survive a hard crash into a large steel buoy without damage.

So only steel boats are BWB?

And how many steel buoys do you expect to find offshore in blue water? I've never seen any offshore myself, so I would think that the ability to survive a hit with one should be more a definition for a coastal cruiser.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Thanks Mark for bringing some logic and rationality into the thread. Since no one seems to be able to provide examples, let me throw a couple more out regarding the Southern Ocean bar of what is a "blue water" boat with examples...

1. We have the Micheal's Hunter _Sequitur_ proving itself just fine in F10-11 conditions.

2. We have the well-regarded Oyster _Hollinsclough_ sinking in roughly the same area _Sequitur_ was in.

By this math and the above tortured logic, Hunter is much more a blue water boat than Oyster. No question.

As I've said in my latest GeekZone vid regarding "Production Boat Eyerolls", I've done hundreds of offshore miles (races and deliveries) in a Pacific Seacraft 37, which most definitely consider "blue water", a Pearson 365 - which many consider Pearsons to not really qualify as "blue water", and my Hunter 40. And I definitely prefer my Hunter out of all the above for both inshore and offshore work.

As you say, these debates really mean nothing. I'm with you though on the whole cat thing. Pretty nice.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> and my Hunter 40. And I definitely prefer my Hunter out of all the above for both inshore and offshore work.


Anybody can be lucky for some time, but if your luck does run out, then I think it matters a great deal just how well built that boat you are on, out in the ocean, really is. I speak from some experience on this, having hit logs/trees, a telephone pole, a whale, fishing buoys, nets and floats, a refrigerator and a container in a gale. Other than superficial esthetics (scratched/chipped paint), none of the vessels I was on suffered damage. I am not talking about steel boats, only glass and wood.
But of course, I've done quite a bit more than "hundreds of offshore miles", so I've had a lot more opportunities to hit things. lol


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Even in my vast thousands of offshore miles (I was talking about hundreds in the PS and Pearson respectively) I've hit stuff in my Hunter. In fact here is the indention from our stem in a bulkhead we ran directly into when a friend accidentally towed us into an impossible situation after we'd lost our engine and left me nowhere to go at the end of a fairway...










Yep, much worse than any log, net, float, refrigerators, etc. No give whatsoever - and directly into it at about 4 knots or so. Our Hunter left a huge dent in this hardened, treated 2X plank...










And not a single scratch on our boat. Nothing. It was pretty incredible.

So, it sounds/looks like we've both hit stuff in very stout vessels. I try to avoid that as much as I can though...despite my Hunter obviously being fit for blue water.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

This has evolved into a fun thread....


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

C'mon Smack.... you hit a rotten piece of wood with arguably the strongest structural part of any boat... I'd hope there was no damage!!


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Coleman,

I didn't draw the line anywhere. I simply gave an example of an error I made.

I don't give a rats behind where or what you sail. Apparently you don't like my logic. That's great. Maybe someone else will and profit from it. Maybe not.

In any case, go find someone else to be rude to.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Faster said:


> C'mon Smack.... you hit a rotten piece of wood with arguably the strongest structural part of any boat... I'd hope there was no damage!!


Heh-heh. No, I hit the *earth* - covered in a bit of steel and wood. And Hunter won. As it usually does.

Are you going to give it a go with your boat, Fast? Let's see some pics! Boom! Big Freakin' Smack!


----------



## snokid (Oct 25, 2016)

I have been reading this, what I have taken out of this is you must be able to hit something in the water and not sink to be BWB.

Trying to gain information on my new knowledge, is there a standard for this? What I mean the object you hit has to be at least this size (seems like a buoy is the smallest) that my vessel must pass after hitting. Do they rate it by the speed at which you are traveling? ie. hit a buoy at 4 knots, then a shipping container at 2 knots?

I tried searching google and I can't find the standards for this, I thought google had the answer for everything I guess not.

Could someone be so nice as to direct me to the website that has these standards laid out for us not in the know?


thanks
Bob


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

hpeer said:


> Coleman,
> 
> I didn't draw the line anywhere. I simply gave an example of an error I made.
> 
> ...


I took your post as a poke at yourself.
Really, I like to hear about the mistakes...we all make.
It's life
And it's helpful


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

snokid said:


> Could someone be so nice as to direct me to the website that has these standards laid out for us not in the know?


Sailnet.com

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Though I no longer post there due to a severe lack of wit and egalitarianism, I DO have the most popular threads on CruisersForum (like I do most everywhere else). One of those happens to be this one...

Production Boats Fit For Blue Water - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

You can find some interesting attempts at such definitions in that thread - including cryptic, Illuminati-esque conspiracies regarding CE ratings. It's quite remarkable really.

Or you can just peruse my collection of a few Hall of Shamers here (which needs an update by the way)...

BeneHunterLina Bashing Hall of Shame | SMACKTALK!

All in good fun.

Better yet, you can just buy a boat you really like and go sailing.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

This has not become a fun thread. Seems the lack of focus on the original post here has become just like you see in Facebook. Twitter etc. Real simple blue water boat is what makes you feel safe. If you feel safe in a Hunter 600 miles off shore than you have a bluewater boat. When the crap hits the fan you may think you were right or you may reevaluate based on your experience. There is no magic bullet to this question. Best of luck on the OP.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

capta said:


> Nope, but I'm sure someone can.
> I have no doubt that there are a number of production glass boats out here that could be careened without damage. One that immediately comes to mind is a Westsail 32.
> However, in the case mentioned above, I ask you, "Would you be willing to take a stock production boat built by Hunter around Cape Horn?" If so, then you have a lot more intestinal fortitude than I.


Just another day at the office.....Singlehanded too. Blocking system seemed to work. The weather router was spot on too. No, I won't be sailing around cape Horn in a force anything.


----------



## aenlic (Sep 14, 2017)

As a sailing newbie of the first order, one thing I've learned from this thread: I've discovered at least one of the Religious Arguments where sailing is concerned. :-D

Donning flak jacket and retreating to safety, if there is any... flame on, brothers and sisters! ;-)

aenlic


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

smackdaddy said:


> Are you going to give it a go with your boat,


My boat survived a pitch pole at 14 and a half knots today without damage. Does that make her a blue water boat 

I'm going to say no, because although the boat is fine, the skipper needs some Tylenol, wine and A535


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Arcb said:


> My boat survived a pitch pole at 14 and a half knots today without damage. Does that make her a blue water boat
> 
> I'm going to say no, because although the boat is fine, the skipper needs some Tylenol, wine and A535


I'm not the one making the argument that your boat needs to be able to hit or roll around on hard stuff to somehow prove it's "blue water" capable. I'm just illustrating that boats some errantly think are below that weird standard are just as tough as ones they think meet it.

Now, about that 14-1/2 knots....pics or it didn't happen!

Actually, I totally believe it with the Prindle. Here's to our beachcats!


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

To make you all more uncomfortable the good book says that time and chance happen to everyone. Kind of knocks the wind from the sails of those who believe that mankind and technology have the ability to neuter nature. Maybe a little more thought is in order.....


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

A few thoughts to share:

Blue Water? Needs to hold enough provisions for weeks on end. That capacity depends on your level of expectations. I like to eat well, so MRE's are not gonna do it for me.

Big cockpits and big cabins? I have spent a fair amount of time on commercial boats. LOTS of room. You learn to hold on when the boat's moving. On my current boat I put on extra handholds.

Production boat equiptment? Any boat I go out on for an extended cruise, I'm looking at beefing it up. Any boat.

Big waves at sea vs. coastal? Dude, ANY big wave is dangerous. Yes, coastal waves break, and are affected by bottom and current, but open ocean waves are affected by wind and fetch. (Smack, you WRONG) (Hee heee heee). I've seen ocean waves that would scare anyone. Well, anyone sane.

Are all X (you fill in the name) BWC? Not all boats by a given manufacturer are the same, some are more solid, some less. Some of the same models have been better cared for, or better equipped. People also have different standards of what they are looking for. I'm looking at the individual boat to see if it is Blue Water Capable.

One last comment: No small boat is truly BWC. Come to think of it, no boat at all is BWC. Size does matter. The ocean is bigger and badder than any of us or any of our boats. All of us get the best boat we can, prepare it the best we can, prepare ourselves the best we can and then it's in Gods hands. (just my opinion)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Scotty C-M said:


> Big waves at sea vs. coastal? Dude, ANY big wave is dangerous. Yes, coastal waves break, and are affected by bottom and current, but open ocean waves are affected by wind and fetch. (Smack, you WRONG) (Hee heee heee).


Wrong? Now let's not get carried away. It is true that as long as the wave doesn't break and you aren't surfing out of control down its face, it can be very big and you'll be okay. And you're less likely to get breaking waves in deep water than shallow. That's just physics.

If, however, you do have enough wind and steepness in the waves, and they're huge and breaking you get this...











And no, you most likely won't survive that - even in a "blue water" boat.

So, as usual I'm right. But very humble.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here's another couple of classic examples...


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

hpeer said:


> IMHO,It should be able to survive a hard grounding without an immediate haul and inspection.


I don't know of any boat so well built I would run hard aground and not want an inspection before setting off across an ocean.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Believe wants missing here is a lack of acceptance there are multiple ways to skin the cat. 


Multis are wonderful but from experience many(self included) feel to be bwb they should have:
No bridge deck before the mast.
Adequate clearance under the bridge deck.
Fine hulls with very fine entrance 
Adequate length to prevent pitchpoling.
Mechanism to reduce speed at all points of sail.
Ability to handle the main and reef safely by one person in a seaway.
Able to carry adequate weight for stores,tools and spares.
Helm position that won’t make average sailor sick and offers protection from weather. i.e. not >10’ up.
I been on outremers, catanas, broadblues Whites Atlantics and the like. Also the various cats made for the charter trade I’ve done races on tris build for nothing but ocean racing. There is no question just like with monos there are coastal and bluewater multis. Same issues as with monos with some variation.
For monos avs. For multis resistance to pitchpoling.
For both resistance to down flooding. Those glass sliding doors are a no-no in a pooping.
For both way to stay at appropriate speed relative to wave front.
For both reducing slamming but much more difficult consideration in multis.
For both vmg. Surprisingly if you look at reality on passage there is not much difference if comparing by lwl. Monos losing with wind behind the mast and multis if before.
Twin wheels and rudders offer better tracking with less wetted surface on both but the farther away they are from each other the more critical very thoughtful stout engineering is required. Have heard of steering failures offshore in both. KISS principle is key offshore. Failure of seals in hydraulics, poor alignment after repetitive loading, structural failure when taken aback being examples. Have seen this design element done flawlessly but at considerable expense.
There is a speed through the water racers will tolerate but cruisers won’t. Although the Rapido 60 is the boat of my dreams from talking to friends cruising on cf one off rocketships believe it would be throttled back much of the time.
So in our current considerations talking with the bride we’ve been talking about land based issues versus cruising issues. Depending on how things go we may switch out from our much beloved Outbound which is a boat I’d take anywhere in just about anything to a 49’ Atlantic mastfoil. Wife is enamoured by the room and absence of fiddles. I’m impressed it was designed from the get go as a blue water cruiser. Boat offshore isn’t the problem rather it’s the logistics when the boat isn’t moving or occupied. Voyaging one needs 45’ or more on a multi. Travelifts, slips, even moorings become difficult in our home summer waters. Any bwb is ripping up thousand dollar bills in a cold shower but I’ve yet to figure a way to decrease the bleeding running a bwc multi and unfortunately this is a limitation for us as well.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

Not to derail, but why not, this thread is way off the rails already, but I have a theory that has nothing to do with righting moments, pitchpoling, hull forms, or anything like that. I present this theory without proof, but I hold it to be true, and I believe it explains why these threads get such attention.

I believe that boats are like sports cars. Lot's of people want to have fancy sports cars that can theoretically go really fast, but very few take them out on the track and do it. They show them to their friends, parked in the driveway and say, hey this baby could do 150 MPH around a tight curve. We open the hood, look inside, not really knowing what we are looking at, but it looks cool!


Yep and there are a few people on this thread that are actually doing it. Good for you guys, if I wanted to do some hard core blue water stuff, I'd listen to you, and in fact I do and find it helpful when we occasionally do a passage.

IMHO the vast majority of us are sitting in the driveway, talking about how fast their car might go if we ever put the key in the ignition.

Please continue, this is highly entertaining .


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Btw- Scotty is right (as usual) and due to lack of consideration of all factors involved smack not so much (as usual). Other than tsunamis you just don’t commonly see waves the size you do in shore than offshore. Even if not breaking from ground effects inshore produces drag. Consider the effects of reflection, deflection and overall loss of energy and you may see confused seas but nothing like the wave chains that will rock the sticks out and pucker your butt. Spend a few days surfing tons of boat where a bit of inattention equals a broach or the slightest weakness in the rig or sails is the first step of a catastrophe. A bit of chafe may mean the engine goes on coastally as you power behin the breakwater or into a protected bay. It means some dangerous scary work in the dark offshore. I’m not talking about survival storms and the like. I’m talking about stuff you should expect on any offshore passage. (Smack use >200m for >5 days when replying please not a near shore coastal jump).


----------



## dreamdoer (Mar 7, 2013)

*Re: Just what is a blue water boat to me?*

I think that the definition of what a blue water boat is or isn't often gets confused with what an individual thinks is necessary to be comfortable for months at a time. I keep hearing that you need a boat that is bigger to carry months of provisions and be more seaworthy. As the owner of 2 22 foot "blue water" boats that have crossed oceans (not with me on board), that can carry months of provisions (my boats settle 1 inch for every 2,000 pounds added) I disagree. The defining factor of "blue water boat" to me is how well my boats are made and how heavy their fittings and construction are.

I owned 19 and 22 foot coastal cruisers before my current boats and you can't help but notice and be impressed with the difference. My boats are more heavily constructed and fitted out than the majority of 26 foot boats in the harbor. And I have watched some of these lighter and larger boats struggle in conditions where I was sipping soda and concentrating on fish catching. Sure under many conditions these lighter and larger boats will sail past me as I plunder and plow through the seas, but that is a price I am not only willing, but glad to pay for my security.

To anyone who wants a valid answer to "What is a blue water boat?" in my opinion the only means to an answer is to spend sufficient time on or around boats until the answer is apparent and obvious. If you need to ask this question, you are probably not in a position to sail any vessel into "blue water". Only when you have gained enough knowledge will the answer come to you. I say this because we are all unique and our needs to sail however far will be unique to us. So while one may say you need a 44 foot XYZ brand boat at the minimum, your reality and perfect boat might be a 22 foot ABC brand boat.

While it is fine to ask this question, you won't find the ultimate answer here. Acknowledge your uniqueness and know that only you can determine the right boat! So rephrase the question to ask, Just what is a blue water boat to me? Now go out and discover the answer. The journey is where all the fun is.:cut_out_animated_em


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

“While it is fine to ask this question, you won't find the ultimate answer here.”

Ahem brother. As I said like pornography. You know it when you see it. 

Most would take a BCC at 28’ anywhere. Most wouldn’t a 60’ boatominium. Neither is it material. Wood boats out of Covey island or legendary yachts are definitely BWBs. Don’t need cf on high density foam. Nor is it brand. A badly maintained boat with stretched out sails, tired rig, frozen through hulls isn’t regardless of how many zeros on the original purchase check. Nor is it type. Plenty of full or fin keels. Monos or multis. Nor rig as plenty ketches sloops, fractional, masthead, solents, unstayed, rotating masts do just fine. It is was it built, equipped and maintained for that purpose.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Both of the sailboat knockdowns in the example videos I posted above easily prove my point. Both boats have no trouble with the waves on their way in *when they are not breaking*.

Those waves, both non-breaking and breaking, are all of similar size and steepness. If not breaking, the boats easily deal with them. If breaking, both boats are immediately and violently knocked down. You also see the issue with surfing that you have to watch out for on that "Sailing Yacht Accident" video. Though that boat handles it pretty well at that time, you would definitely need to start figuring out how to control that speed if it was continuous and increasing at sea.

As I said before, this maxim of breaking waves is true both near-shore and offshore. It's just that in shallower water they typically break FAR more violently. Look up the Farallones race accident report on _Low Speed Chase_.

It's also very easy to find video of plenty of sailboats caught in huge seas in major storms. As long as they're not hit by the breakers, especially of the size and intensity of that other video I posted, they do fine.

So, if you don't want to believe what I say - that's okay - at least believe what you actually see. One doesn't even need to brag about how many miles one has to try to prove an easily provable point.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Originally Posted by hpeer View Post
IMHO,It should be able to survive a hard grounding without an immediate haul and inspection.
---------------
I don't know of any boat so well built I would run hard aground and not want an inspection before setting off across an ocean.
Share
| Like
Jordan 
West Wight Potter 14 "Lemon Drop"
Oceanside CA.

---------

There is a large difference between requiring an "immediate haul" and doing an inspection before setting off. What do you do if there are no haul out facilities within say a week or 500 miles?

This is where MY PERSONAL definition of BWB may well be different from someone else's. Or may vary from trip to trip. If ime going from the USA East coast to the Azores, it's not much of an issue. If I'm coastal sailing above 52N, then it's a big issue. 

The ground tackle for the two trips may also be vastly different.

This is all to say there there is no SINGLE definition of a BWB, except in our individual minds. 

One needs to be flexible and realistic about your needs and support systems. A BWB, if that is the moniker you want to append, needs to be fit to purpose.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I agree that breaking waves are a bigger issue when it comes to a sudden catastrophic loss of stability. However, I'm not really sure that's the only cause for vessels being lost at sea.

What the videos do not account for is the cumulative effects of hogging, sagging, panting and racking, vibration and heeling. Overtime vessels work in a seaway. Hatch seals work and openings appear, chain plates work and weaken, through hulls work, keel bolts and rudder posts are subject to the cumulative effects of shier stress.

At first a little bit of water works its way in through the openings, but as the stresses and forces continue, they work the gaps and cracks, bends and deflections multiply and allow more water in.

The pumps have to be able to keep up with the water, which may mean running engines continuously to dewater, a bent rudder shaft becomes a broken rudder shaft, a stressed chain plate results in a dismasting.

As fuel is consumed, pumps begin to fail and the ingress of water becomes unmanageable. If you are a two day sail from shore, its conceivable that you ma be able to work manual pumps or bail until you reach shore, or jury rig an alternate means of propulsion. But if you are many days from a safe haven, your capacity to deal with what were initially minor issues will diminish. 

I don't see any of that in the YouTube videos.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

smack continues to reference extreme single events whereas most long term cruisers and voyagers KNOW its the day to day commonly experienced occurrences that are as much if not more germane. Just doesn't get it. As A says what breaks, leaks, and fails during passage is determinant. Look at a boat aimed at coastal use even if EU "A" and one aimed at passagemaking after a few years of constant use. A typical passage not some youtube video. You don't typically see 30-40' breaking waves inshore or offshore. You can expect line squalls and days of fresh breeze or higher and days of 10-12'. Maybe a gale. Hopefully no storms but be prepared for that eventuality.
Sure its great to have a boat that can tolerate a knockdown. Better to be hard to knockdown. Great to survive a rollover. Better to have functioning steering, good design and not broach. 
But on the day to day best to have no delamination, no oilcanning, no distortion so drawers and doors still open and a dry boat. Best to be on a boat designed from the get go for its intended use.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I think this is one of the best depictions of a cruising sailboat in the open ocean in very rough conditions. As mentioned in their description, they are in the Roaring 40s near the Cape of Africa. 50+ knots and 30' seas. You can see for yourself what the seas are doing and how the boat handles them...






And if those seas get much bigger and nastier - you get this...even on a "blue water boat" like a VO70...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Interesting that amel has everything wrong for a bwb for some. Various features said to be wrong as one picks through them. Read other threads on this subject on this site. A few follow. 
Fe not Pb for a keel.
Fin not full.
Balanced spade on the new ones.
In mast roller furling.
Center cockpit.
Hydraulics.
Complicated sail plan.
Still loads of amels go cruising. See them in all parts of the world. Generally considered excellent bwb.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I just climbed through around 70% of the monos at the Annapolis Sailboat Show, including brokerage cove. I'm usually a bit more targeted, but a buddy is in the market. 

Here's a take away that was pretty clear. Some boats are and some boats are not built with the expectation that the owner will be taking them on a blue water passage. That's distinct from whether the boat itself could survive a BW passage. Most of the boats, in fact, lacked basic, sufficient hand holds, any apparent means to secure floor boards or folding table leaves, sufficient cockpit drainage or companionway protection, etc. Some/most designs emphasized comfort at anchor, a few had protection at sea in mind in their design. You could easily see the differences in things like rigging size for the same LOAs and displacements. The sturdier will obviously take a bigger and/or more frequent hit. Both would probably get the job done once, which is why the anecdotal arguments are irrelevant. But, 90+% of boat owners are never going to make a BW passage and the manufacturers aren't bothering to design for it. Can't blame them.

I was impressed, btw, to see the Outbound 46 had a handhold rail on the deck to within a few feet of the foresail. The Beneteau 55 had a companionway big enough to fit a piano through it. Not designed to be tossed about, when coming up for your watch in the dark. It's clear, which of those brands is expecting what usage. Hunter, btw, didn't show. Even Island Packet was there.

Clearly, any of the boats in the show could potentially make a passage across the ocean. Goodness sakes, people have rowed across the ocean and sailed it in homemade plywood boats. Literally. As I've said, every skipper is entitled to decide which they think can do the job for them. Some hulls, however, were conceived with the expectation that the owner would coastal day sail with their kids and tell fish stories about their experience, others were designed to take more punishment. You pick where you want to be.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

So, hopefully what this thread has shown is the futility of the question and the resulting attempted definitions of what a mythical "blue water boat" is.

Pretty much ANY of the modern major brands of sailboat that are CE Cat A rated will do just fine in blue water. As discussed, you might have to make adjustments to certain things depending on the duration of your passages - and you'll need to equip and prepare for such a trip. But the boats will stand up to most everything a typical cruiser will experience at sea - assuming that cruiser is not in the habit of sailing into survival storms. Beyond that, it's just extremely subjective wants/don't wants in the properties of a boat that drive the wildly conflicting advice on the various brands and models.

The critical lesson here is *never take your primary advice from forums*. It's not worth much. As I illustrated in my famous Production Boats thread over on CF - instead look at the evidence of what *BOATS are out there actually doing it*. That's all that really counts. Do that, and you'll see how myopic, antiquated, and misguided these forum definitions typically are.

Enjoy your sailing.


----------



## AgingBull (Oct 10, 2017)

Rich makes some good points but he fundamentally misunderstands what a safety factor is in engineering (or naval architecture). Using the example of a boiler (or any pressure vessel, of which most boats have a few), the engineer or designer first assesses what the service conditions will be. In this case, what will be the temperature, pressure, and properties of the liquid or gas contained in the vessel. Let's just say we are not talking about a corrosive environment, and all the engineer has to consider are temperature and pressure. Using the best tools at his (or her) command, a design is produced which satisfies all the requirements, in this case temperature and pressure, as well as fitting other restrictions such as size and materials. Engineer One designs a boiler that will operate at a maximum temperature of 300 deg F, and a pressure of 60 psi. Engineer two designs a boiler that will operate at 400 deg F, and a pressure of 500 psi. (Please, no nit picking, I am just making these up.) The two engineers calculate the thickness of the material needed to withstand their given operating conditions, being as accurate as possible. Engineer One calculates that a material of mild steel, 1/8 inch thick, will be suitable. Engineer two figures he must use a thickness of mild steel of 1/2 an inch. According to the boiler code, a safety factor of two is appropriate to protect the public in this example. Each engineer then re-calculates the stresses expected in the boiler material, and increases the thickness of the steel until the calculated stresses are one half of the original calculations. Lets say that the results in each case show that twice the thickness of steel is necessary to satisfy the boiler code with a safety factor of two. Engineer One must use 1/4 inch plate to achieve a safety factor of 2. To achieve the same safety factor, engineer Two must use 1-inch plate. Two designs, same safety factor, but one design is much beefier. It is not that the safety factor is greater for one design. It is that the design conditions are different. A Hobie might have the same safety factor as the QE2, but the design conditions are wildly different. Safety factor is not a good way to assess the differences.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

*Re: Just what is a blue water boat to me?*



dreamdoer said:


> As the owner of 2 22 foot "blue water" boats that have crossed oceans (not with me on board), that can carry months of provisions (my boats settle 1 inch for every 2,000 pounds added) I disagree.


Excuse my OCD, but a 22 foot boat would settle 1 inch for every roughly 600 or so pounds added.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Smack we’ve had this discussion in the past and I’m struck we must live in different worlds. Of course I don’t have your vast experience and knowledge of the cruising world. In my, abet limited, knowledge what I see among US, Canadian, and European long term cruisers is a very limited number of large run production boats. Yes I see them cruise for a year or two but then folks either move on to boats designed from the getgo to cruise and do passages or stop cruising altogether.
Point has been made the biggest purchaser of new sailboats is the charter companies. Next private sales to coastal sailors. Last a very small number of long term cruisers. Manufacturers know this obvious fact and aim their output to these markets. Even live aboards are a larger market share than cruisers. Inspite of your assertion what I see is long term cruisers tend to be on HR, Hylas, oyster, Valiant, Amel, Outremer, Catana,Passport, older Swans and Hinckleys, Al from France or Netherlands and the like. In short designs old and new constructed with passagemaking in mind. Sure I have close friends who have cruised a Juneau for many years but they’re the exception proving the rule. Know families successfully home schooling their kids while exploring the entire east coast/Bahamas on their hunters. One owner is able to work via internet and a good guy and knowledgeable. Tried to get him to buddy boat with us. Recall him saying - kids and Wife really like the hunter. Even the cats do. But she’s just not built for that kind of abuse. It’s not what she was made for. When they start high school maybe rethink it and get something else. But for now the hunter does just fine.
Smack I know you love your hunter and god bless it doesn’t make you a bad person but for a decade or more the market has divided into large builders with output aimed at the large market segments and niche builders. The whole industry is minute and to be cost effective the economics dictate this behavior.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Smack I’ll be blunter. Your hunter has been out of production for decades. It’s a great boat. I don’t mean to hit on it. But hunter wisely knows it’s too dark below, too narrow, too deep for loa, too poor a performer c/w current naval architecture etc. Hunter wouldn’t sell any so they stopped making them. Their current model in that general size is a very different boat. Can’t speak to it’s quality as haven’t sailed one but it looks like a fine boat for coastal cruising and weekending. 
Stop already with the eu “a” thing. Any cruiser knows that there’s no relationship to how it will function as a cruiser. Pershaps the mathematic term “necessary but not sufficient “ sums it up.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> it's too dark below, too narrow, too deep for loa, too poor a performer c/w current naval architecture etc.


Sounds like this group's ideal BWB.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

*Re: Just what is a blue water boat to me?*



slap said:


> Excuse my OCD, but a 22 foot boat would settle 1 inch for every roughly 600 or so pounds added.


I'm thinking it is even lower than that. Probably 400-500lbs.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Arcb, you really need to work on getting your threads straight... 

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Ya, deleted 

But I'm not sure, it sounds like people want to equip the F24 for Blue Water anchorages, so maybe this is the right thread


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

outbound said:


> Smack I'll be blunter. Your hunter has been out of production for decades. It's a great boat. I don't mean to hit on it. But hunter wisely knows it's too dark below, too narrow, too deep for loa, too poor a performer c/w current naval architecture etc. Hunter wouldn't sell any so they stopped making them. Their current model in that general size is a very different boat. Can't speak to it's quality as haven't sailed one but it looks like a fine boat for coastal cruising and weekending.
> Stop already with the eu "a" thing. Any cruiser knows that there's no relationship to how it will function as a cruiser. Pershaps the mathematic term "necessary but not sufficient " sums it up.


No worries Out. I do love our current Hunter. And I'm not worried about its seaworthiness one bit. But there is no way I'd buy or even recommend the new Marlow-Hunters to anyone. I'm absolutely not a fan. And I've said that many times.

If buying newer, it would be a Jeanneau or Beneteau for me - or more likely a cat (which is even further away from all the boats you've listed above in terms of "blue water" pedigree for "real cruisers").

Apart from that, I absolutely stand by everything I've said.

PS - As for your Hunter history and description of my boat, I'm going to assume you're just joking.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

AgingBull said:


> Rich makes some good points but he fundamentally misunderstands what a safety factor is in engineering (or naval architecture). Using the example of a boiler (or any pressure vessel, of which most boats have a few), the engineer or designer first assesses what the service conditions will be. In this case, what will be the temperature, pressure, and properties of the liquid or gas contained in the vessel. Let's just say we are not talking about a corrosive environment, and all the engineer has to consider are temperature and pressure. Using the best tools at his (or her) command, a design is produced which satisfies all the requirements, in this case temperature and pressure, as well as fitting other restrictions such as size and materials. Engineer One designs a boiler that will operate at a maximum temperature of 300 deg F, and a pressure of 60 psi. Engineer two designs a boiler that will operate at 400 deg F, and a pressure of 500 psi. (Please, no nit picking, I am just making these up.) The two engineers calculate the thickness of the material needed to withstand their given operating conditions, being as accurate as possible. Engineer One calculates that a material of mild steel, 1/8 inch thick, will be suitable. Engineer two figures he must use a thickness of mild steel of 1/2 an inch. According to the boiler code, a safety factor of two is appropriate to protect the public in this example. Each engineer then re-calculates the stresses expected in the boiler material, and increases the thickness of the steel until the calculated stresses are one half of the original calculations. Lets say that the results in each case show that twice the thickness of steel is necessary to satisfy the boiler code with a safety factor of two. Engineer One must use 1/4 inch plate to achieve a safety factor of 2. To achieve the same safety factor, engineer Two must use 1-inch plate. Two designs, same safety factor, but one design is much beefier. It is not that the safety factor is greater for one design. It is that the design conditions are different. A Hobie might have the same safety factor as the QE2, but the design conditions are wildly different. Safety factor is not a good way to assess the differences.


Sorry but ... the final products of each pressure vessel, etc. engineer MUST have minimum material strength requirements and be tested/validated to pass pressure testing (to ASME Code 8, or Code 3, etc.) which validates the included safety factors (including corrosion allowance). This is a requirement by insurance underwriters for any pressure vessel and regardless if the vessels are 'code stamped' (full code requirements, including traceable materials for 'physicals and chemicals', certification of the welders expertise and ability) or simply whats known as a ASME "U Stamp" (non-cert'd materials, etc.) ... that pressure testing be performed to well beyond the rated operating pressure (MAWP) will be done at sometimes several 'multiples' of the operating pressure .... and regardless of the thicknesses, etc. Those 'engineers' are also cert'd and professionally licensed in accordance to (usually) state statutes.
Sure 'the engineer' may choose to build with larger thicknesses than 'code' spec's etc.; but, in a highly competitive world his/her employer won't economically survive vs. those who are 'dead on' to 'spec' .... and that non-compliant engineer will soon be employed for mixing up and serving fancy lattes & capuchinos at Starbucks, etc.

Aircraft, vehicles, cranes, 'nuclear', any industry that has the potential for large casualty losses, injury or death of a large amount of people, etc., etc. are usually extremely well regulated by 'self', their insurance carriers and usually by some governmental agency - FAA, FDA, Bureau of Ships, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Recreational boats - not so much, and generally, insurance casualty issues as well as the EU 'STIX'/ISO, USCG, 'published scantling rules' (Lloyds, etc.) etc. etc. ... and especially the avoidance of the potential of large litigation costs ... is what drives compliance and establishes the accepted, expected normal 'factors of safety'.
Engineering is a continual evolutionary process as the reasons for those accepted and applied 'factors of safety' become more and more evident.

;-)


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

*Re: Just what is a blue water boat to me?*



colemj said:


> I'm thinking it is even lower than that. Probably 400-500lbs.
> 
> Mark


I was being generous. I assumed a 21 foot waterline, about 8 foot waterline beam, and a 0.70 waterplane coefficient.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I was going to stay away from this thread, until I read the part where someone asked "What is bluewater?" In reality, the term bluewater comes from the commercial, and later on, the recreational fishing industries. Bluewater is essentially designated as the edge of the continental shelf, which is where depths fall off dramatically and the water changes color from greenish blue to an azure blue. This is where most of the pelagic species are caught by both commercial and recreational fishermen, primarily tuna, billfish, certain species of shark, etc... Commercial and recreational fishermen also refer to the edge of the shelf as "Offshore" fishing, while those fishing inside the shelf are considered inshore fishing, or greenwater fishing. The term bluewater has been around longer than I have been alive and was often referred to by ancient mariners and whalers. 

As for what boat is best suited for this part of the ocean, well, everyone has their own personal preference, and most likely, none are etched in stone.

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

So, interesting side discussion about the tons per inch immersion on the 22 footer.

I frequently see size referenced as being a major part of the Blue Water vs Coastal equation. I often see the minimum size as being something in the neighborhood of the size of whoever's postings boat. Convenient.

But by definition, blue water isn't in an anchorage. The boat maybe made a blue water passage to get there, but maybe not. For example, a lot of boats reach the Carribean via the ICW then island hopped from the Bahamas down. So, in some cases, you can have folks, living in exotic places, who have never made a blue water passage.

I have owned 2 live aboard boats that I lived aboard and coastal cruised with but that I most certainly would not have made blue water passages on without spending a ton of money first.

So, in my mind, a boat capable of making a safe blue water passage and a boat that is good for living on, are not the same thing. Often times the features are combined, but they don't need to be.

Back to the 22 footer. 500 lounds per inch immersion. Assuming a single hander, that could be divided into 300 lbs of water and 200 lbs of food.

That is easily enough provisions for one person for several weeks, or 1000 miles at 50 miles per day (short water line).

Based on that, I can't see any reason why an appropriately constructed, aproriately maintained, appropriately equipped 22 footer couldn't make blue water passages of 1000 miles or more, single handed, if the skipper was okay with a lesser degree of comfort.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

RichH said:


> Sorry but ... the final products of each pressure vessel, etc. engineer MUST have minimum material strength requirements and be tested/validated to pass pressure testing (to ASME Code 8, or Code 3, etc.) which validates the included safety factors (including corrosion allowance). This is a requirement by insurance underwriters for any pressure vessel and regardless if the vessels are 'code stamped' (full code requirements, including traceable materials for 'physicals and chemicals', certification of the welders expertise and ability) or simply whats known as a ASME "U Stamp" (non-cert'd materials, etc.) ... that pressure testing be performed to well beyond the rated operating pressure (MAWP) will be done at sometimes several 'multiples' of the operating pressure .... and regardless of the thicknesses, etc. Those 'engineers' are also cert'd and professionally licensed in accordance to (usually) state statutes.
> Sure 'the engineer' may choose to build with larger thicknesses than 'code' spec's etc.; but, in a highly competitive world his/her employer won't economically survive vs. those who are 'dead on' to 'spec' .... and that non-compliant engineer will soon be employed for mixing up and serving fancy lattes & capuchinos at Starbucks, etc.
> 
> Aircraft, vehicles, cranes, 'nuclear', any industry that has the potential for large casualty losses, injury or death of a large amount of people, etc., etc. are usually extremely well regulated by 'self', their insurance carriers and usually by some governmental agency - FAA, FDA, Bureau of Ships, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> ...


And while the pressures on a cylindrical steam vessel are pretty easy to calculate, the stresses and forces acting on a boat are not. Most of these have been abstracted to 'rules of thumb' or scantlings that were developed through trial and error but which lacked the sophistication to accurately address non-standard conditions. Often the assumed values or scantling methods were decades or centuries old and its only now that we are beginning to better understand the real numbers.

For example, when the EU Small Craft Directive was being developed there was a whole lot of research performed, some which was amalgamating the results of tests performed independently, and some were performed specifically to validate the the assumptions being used. Around that time, I attended a series of lectures on the process. One of the more unusual studies examined actual boats which had been damaged in wave action and in one in particular, they looked at a steel hulled sailboat which had dropped off a wave and landed on the side of the bow buckling the plating and framing. This was useful because they could accurately measure the deformation of the steel, replicate that in the lab, and measure the forces required to achieve that deformation.

The net result of this and other similar studies was that the long assumed slamming force per square foot on a small boat was greatly increased from what the asumptions had historically had been. Back engineering of many of the older scantling rules suggested that some of the historic yacht scantlings were on the light side for some members and heavy side for others.

But also, while I basically agree with Rich's accessment that different designers and engineers may use different 'factors of safety', at the heart of it, factors of safety are only as good as the accuracy of the prediction of the actual stresses that the boat is likely to encounter.

With better measurement tools we are learning to more accurately anticipate those stresses, and with better engineering programs we can more accurately map the way those stresses move through the structure of the boat. With both we can more accurately fine tune the safety factors of the structure as a system so that one member is not way over strength while another is not too weak, and one member is not so stiff that it overloads the member next to it.

When exposed to this kind of detailed analysis it really does comes down to how much of a safety factor the engineer applies, either in the form of using stock coefficients, or perhaps increasing the anticipated forces acting on the boat, or making a determination that all members need to be a given percent stronger than the calculations might otherwise suggest.

But , while I would like to say that the science and practice of yacht structures has advanced to the point that the real loads and real strengths can be very accurately determined and applied, they rarely are. Very few boats are submitted to the kinds of rigorous calculations that would be required to even begin to do so. Instead simplified formulas are applied and any safety factor is assumed to be part of that formula.

Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Arcb said:


> Back to the 22 footer. 500 lounds per inch immersion. Assuming a single hander, that could be divided into 300 lbs of water and 200 lbs of food.
> 
> That is easily enough provisions for one person for several weeks, or 1000 miles at 50 miles per day (short water line).
> 
> Based on that, I can't see any reason why an appropriately constructed, aproriately maintained, appropriately equipped 22 footer couldn't make blue water passages of 1000 miles or more, single handed, if the skipper was okay with a lesser degree of comfort.


By discussing the PPI, we weren't making any aspersions to whether it is BWB or not. Just that it would have to be a very strange design indeed to have a PPI of 2,000lbs like the person claimed. For comparison, the PPI on our 40' catamaran is 900-1,000lbs.

Mark


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Jeff_H said:


> .......
> With better measurement tools we are learning to more accurately anticipate those stresses, and with better engineering programs we can more accurately map the way those stresses move through the structure of the boat. With both we can more accurately fine tune the safety factors of the structure as a system so that one member is not way over strength while another is not too weak, and one member is not so stiff that it overloads the member next to it.
> 
> When exposed to this kind of detailed analysis it really does comes down to how much of a safety factor the engineer applies, either in the form of using stock coefficients, or perhaps increasing the anticipated forces acting on the boat, or making a determination that all members need to be a given percent stronger than the calculations might otherwise suggest.
> ...


Those safety factors are assumed to anticipate 'unforeseen and unexpected loads' ... as per assumed historical data. I don't think we'll ever arrive at the point of well defined 'unforeseen and unexpected'.
I fly much more at ease on a Boeing than an AirBus simply because Boeing has been chasing and anticipating the unforeseen for a much longer time. 
Boat builders do not test total structure to failure and then do a complete forensic analysis to arrive at the most probable cause as do the mfgrs. of aircraft, vehicles, critical stuff, etc. etc. etc. etc. 
;-)


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Sure glad I drink! 

Gary


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

travlin-easy said:


> Sure glad I drink!
> 
> Gary


Me too! Only aboard my blue water boat laying to an all chain rode of course!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Steve you're right I was pulling your chain. Is it bbb?

One thing not adequately explored on this thread in discussing bwb is the pragmatics of keeping the water out, the boat moving and right side up.
Talk to and read about people who have had troubles. Also blessed being with people much more knowledgeable and experienced than me. They look at boats differently. They see the multimillion multi and note there are watertight bulkheads in front of the engines and steering (excellent) but working on those things while in weather is going to be a bear( bad). Understand this as I had a psc34. Engine was under a panel which also served as the sole of the cockpit. Any issue with it underway couldn’t be dealt with until the sea was nearly flat.
We’re at the boat show on the latest offering from a Finnish builder. Companionway “door” cleverly slides down. What if it jams? What do you have to take apart to get to its guts as you’re bouncing around?
Look at that pretty boat. It has three vertical windows in it’s hull. You say it has how many thru hulls and they are where? Do you have a sheet showing where they all are? Why no manifolds?
Damn that’s a double digit boat. Bet it would do passage in half the time. Where do you sleep? How do you get in and out of the bunk? How noisy is it in there? Is there any ventilation?
Boy this boat has everything. Yes but the second freezer is under your feet. The watermaker scattered throughout the boat. Access to some of the through hulls requires emptying lockers.
Wow look at all those berths. A bunch aft of the mast. Boy you can always sleep to leeward and stretch out. Great but where are the tools? Where can you work?
Isn’t it clever how they have the tanks without loss of storage space. Yes but there’s only one for water and one for fuel.
I’ve gone to boat shows tagging along with more educated and experienced sailors. Continued to be amazed how I look at a boat and think it’s absolutely perfect and how they look at it and see the weaknesses. Come to the conclusion there’s no such thing as a perfect bwb. Not mine not yours. Nor is the term definable. All have weaknesses the sea may exploit. All boats are compromises. All have their problems. And there are so many big and small details that go into a good bwb most of us can’t even be aware of them. So if someone asks “is that a bwb?” Talk to the owner. If he’s honest he’ll tell you what’s wrong with it and are it’s weaknesses when sailing blue water.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

My latest definition of a BWB.

A ship that can be successfully sailed on a passage that is outside the range of a stranger asking this question.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

RichH said:


> Those safety factors are assumed to anticipate 'unforeseen and unexpected loads' ... as per assumed historical data. I don't think we'll ever arrive at the point of well defined 'unforeseen and unexpected'.
> I fly much more at ease on a Boeing than an AirBus simply because Boeing has been chasing and anticipating the unforeseen for a much longer time.
> Boat builders do not test total structure to failure and then do a complete forensic analysis to arrive at the most probable cause as do the mfgrs. of aircraft, vehicles, critical stuff, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> ;-)


Rich,

I think that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing, only you said it more succinctly.

Jeff


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Ideally the discussion should consider budget because a new Beneteau Oceanis 45 isn't the same as a new Hallberg Rassy 44. They are different boats with different design demands. The Beneteau is more than adequate sailing in the conditions it's designed for and if sailed in season the boat is probably going to be trouble free providing a fun and comfortable platform. Facing an 800 mile beat into a tough seaway the HR is probably a better choice, it's construction is simply more robust. But the Beneteau sells for $280k while the HR sells for $800k and who wants to sail 800 miles upwind?


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

I have read avidly and participated in threads like this in the past. I often regret it but here goes.

I personally think splitting the total sum of the cruising experience into 'bluewater' and 'coastal' is unhelpful and an oversimplification.

To be honest IMHO I feel it betrays a naivety on the part of those that hold firmly to such _forumesque_ definitions. Particualrly when it comes to selecting a boat.

So called 'bluewater' boats will spend a vast amount of time 'coastal cruising'. Even your typical circumnavigation will see you spending most of your time at anchorage or close to an island or shore. Secondly there are different shades of blue. In season crossing of the pacific? Yes please. New Zealand to Chile via the Southern Ocean? No thanks.

On the other hand some of the scariest bits of water on this planet are 'coastal'. I have cruised in Bass Strait. It is an amazing place but not somewhere to be in the wrong conditions. The fact that it is close to land does nothing to change my opinion.

The decision when buying a vessel for cruising to far flung locations is a very complicated one full of variables and individual considerations. Boats are compromises. Every last one of them.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

CHALL!!!!!!!! What's up brother?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

And *a big +1 *on your post.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Yes Chall, great to see you again!


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Absolutely. A vessel needs to be made seaworthy for it's intended voyage, regardless of what that voyage is.

You can get a boat that matches an intended voyage, or you can match a voyage to an intended boat. Usually a bit of column a and column b.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

smackdaddy said:


> CHALL!!!!!!!! What's up brother?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> And *a big +1 *on your post.


I do like to stick my head in here every now and then......

I am in the UK at the moment, off to look at a 'Bluewater' boat in Italy on the weekend


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chall03 said:


> I do like to stick my head in here every now and then......
> 
> I am in the UK at the moment, off to look at a 'Bluewater' boat in Italy on the weekend


Pics or it didn't happen!


----------



## dreamdoer (Mar 7, 2013)

Just to retain any credibility I might have here, my 22 foot boat, as reported by the manufacturer sinks 1 inch at the water line per every 1,000 pounds, not 2,000 pounds as I wrote earlier. An honest mistake and I apologize for it. I found a picture I wanted to post earlier of a sister ship to my Westerly Nomad "Maggie", hard aground and waiting for a tow/rescue. Bilge(twin), external iron keels and able to take a hard grounding and set upright on any relatively flat surface without damage. Very seaworthy and sea kindly for a small boat. In my humble opinion the perfect blue water boat. But that is me and if you ask 1,000 people what is the perfect blue water boat OR what IS a blue water boat, the only certainty is you will get 1,000 answers. And each answer will be right for the person writing the answer. So the only question that remains is, what is a blue water boat to you and which one is the best. The only way to know this is to look and climb all around and sail many boats until the ONE comes along. It's like dating. Writing on blogs and reading helps and is important, but the reality has some barnacles below the waterline, and a slight musty low tide smell to the bilges that makes you stop and breath deep, and then want to sail out of the harbor to the horizon.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Arcb said:


> But if you are many days from a safe haven, your capacity to deal with what were initially minor issues will diminish.


Or alternately, if one is sailing a 60 odd year old gaffer and she spits out some caulking in a storm between Hawaii and Tahiti (most likely a hurricane, but we didn't know about those in that area back then), one can wait until the weather abates. Then it's was a simple matter of going over the side with lead strips, underwater caulk, copper tacks and a ball peen hammer and cover the leaking seams. We went from pumping 45 minutes out of every hour to less than an hour every 24 hours. 
A couple of weeks recaulking in Papeete and she was good as new for years.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

dreamdoer said:


> Just to retain any credibility I might have here, my 22 foot boat, as reported by the manufacturer sinks 1 inch at the water line per every 1,000 pounds, not 2,000 pounds as I wrote earlier. An honest mistake and I apologize for it. I found a picture I wanted to post earlier of a sister ship to my Westerly Nomad "Maggie", hard aground and waiting for a tow/rescue. Bilge(twin), external iron keels and able to take a hard grounding and set upright on any relatively flat surface without damage. Very seaworthy and sea kindly for a small boat. In my humble opinion the perfect blue water boat. But that is me and if you ask 1,000 people what is the perfect blue water boat OR what IS a blue water boat, the only certainty is you will get 1,000 answers. And each answer will be right for the person writing the answer. So the only question that remains is, what is a blue water boat to you and which one is the best. The only way to know this is to look and climb all around and sail many boats until the ONE comes along. It's like dating. Writing on blogs and reading helps and is important, but the reality has some barnacles below the waterline, and a slight musty low tide smell to the bilges that makes you stop and breath deep, and then want to sail out of the harbor to the horizon.


Westerly Nomad?

LWL = 18.33; Beam = 7.42 (waterline beam unknown); assume a 0.70 waterplane coefficient; seawater is 64 lbs/ft^3.

Pounds per inch immersion = 18.33 feet X 7.42 feet X 0.70 X 64 Lbs/ft^3 / 12 inches per foot = 508 lbs per inch.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

IMO - a blue water designed boat will be able to take care itself in almost all ocean conditions thrown at it; and, ... with no 'help' from the crew needed. 
A 'sea-kindly' boat, not a flimsy, vomit-comet.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Yep, much worse than any log, net, float, refrigerators, etc. No give whatsoever - and directly into it at about 4 knots or so. Our Hunter left a huge dent in this hardened, treated 2X plank...
> 
> And not a single scratch on our boat. Nothing. It was pretty incredible.
> 
> So, it sounds/looks like we've both hit stuff in very stout vessels. I try to avoid that as much as I can though...despite my Hunter obviously being fit for blue water.


Hitting something head on with the stem is hardly the test of a vessel's strength IMO. Taking a hit from a container amidships at the waterline in a gale in the Atlantic is something else entirely.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

outbound said:


> Believe wants missing here is a lack of acceptance there are multiple ways to skin the cat.
> 
> Multis are wonderful but from experience many(self included) feel to be bwb they should have:
> No bridge deck before the mast.
> ...


IMO the very best blue water cruising boat I've ever sailed was a Jim Brown designed 37' Searunner. I sailed her from Pago Pago to the US Virgin Islands via the Red Sea and the Med. 
The wind vane, designed into the boat by Brown, would sail the boat in winds from 6 to 60 and probably higher, but at that point it is my job to steer anyway, so I never let her self steer in more than 60 knots, or at speeds greater than 10 knots. "Our father who art on the stern, who doth steer night and day"
In those days, before roller reefing was common, I had side by side double headstays, one with a 130% genoa and the other with a Yankee Jib. With the mast in the cockpit, all sail handling, steering and navigation were all within an arm's length of the helm. 
She'd sail the trades with the ease, stability and grace of a thing born of the ocean, 200 mile days easily attainable, but not often sought. She sailed just out of reach of one hurricane in the Indian Ocean, beating for ten days in 40+ knots to make Bab-el-Mandeb with ease. She pounded her way up the Red Sea, without even one day of the promised southerlies that half the trip should have had. Beating 1200 miles up a 60 mile wide channel surrounded by deserts, 15 degrees off the wind in winds to 35 knots. Never mind a hundred or more ships a day to deal with. That's tiring. 
She got us to a safe anchorage before dark after a horrid trip from New Caledonia to Oz, doing over 50 miles in a bit less than 4 hours. Its awfully difficult to navigate when one doesn't see the sun, moon or stars for even 5 minutes on a six day voyage, especially nerve wracking when headed for a passage in the Great Barrier Reef.
She sailed through a storm in the Atlantic between Gibraltar and the Canary Islands which killed at least 12 people I'm aware of, including Alan Colas aboard Manureva, without a bit of trouble, surfing breaking seas larger than her length. 
She was cutter rigged, 37' X 22.5 and 5 tons, a stable platform from which to set sails. Asymmetrical floats and a centerboard that put her draft at 6', which was much less for leeway (that's what the asymmetrical floats were for) but more something deep in the blue water around which she would turn, rather than slide sideways, when needed. 
But like all sailing multihulls, she had a limited payload as acceleration was the safety factor, since she wouldn't heel easily. No scuba tanks, no large spares kit (unnecessary anyway on a 5 ton boat), no huge battery banks or fuel and water storage. 2000 pounds above the vessel's weight was it.
I strongly disagree with your statement "Fine hulls with very fine entrance" are a good thing on an ocean sailing multihull, as from my experience a great deal of buoyancy in the bows is the only way to prevent a multihull from tripping and pitchpoling or cartwheeling. When things are at their worst, in seas of unimaginable size and power, one is often traveling through a lot of white water on the face of a breaking wave. Monohulls are often decks awash or worse in those conditions and very difficult to control. Trimarans end up surfing on their wings and cats the surface between the hulls (bridgedeck?). Having a lot of buoyancy in the bows is an absolute must, I think, which is one reason the new wave piercing bows terrify me. Less buoyancy the deeper they dig in?????
Another thing about the Searunner series was the fact that they are unsinkable. They were built of epoxy glass covered plywood, so even full of water or upside down, they had no reason to sink.
At lot of folks are afraid of multihulls because they fear tipping over. I have yet to hear of a single ocean sailing multihull (cat or tri) that tipped over. Every story of a multihull capsize I know of was caused by the sailors aboard her. I know of at least one trimaran that sailed from the Galapagos Islands to Fiji over about (I don't remember exactly) 8 months with all her sails up, after the owner had fallen overboard (rescued without incident). Just imagine how many squalls and storms that boat sailed through unmanned for some 5000 miles, to end up on that reef in Fiji.
I've delivered some boats across a thousand miles of ocean or more, which I'm sure many members on here wouldn't even day sail, without incident and have had some hellacious voyages on the very best boats made. It's all about each individual's choice, experience and confidence. Hopefully the more uncommon choices come with a bit more luck.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> Having a lot of buoyancy in the bows is an absolute must, I think, which is one reason the new wave piercing bows terrify me. Less buoyancy the deeper they dig in?????


That's not how they work. All of the bow buoyancy is on or near the waterline. As the bows submerge, this buoyancy counteracts that. The difference between the two is when the bows do submerge or take a large wave, the piercing bow has much less resistance to coming back up, so it has less of a probability of tripping on its bow.

It seems counterintuitive on first glance, but consider equal length boats - one has a longer waterline with no/negative overhang, while the other has a shorter waterline with long overhang. The overall bow buoyancies are identical because the volumes are identical, and both will completely submerge at the same point, with the same forces, but one comes back up faster.

What trips most people in thinking about them is forgetting to compare a piercing bow boat with an equal LOA overhang bow boat - not an equal LWL one.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sailed a wood epoxy Chris White designed Tri in a Newport to Bermuda. Agree with everything you said Capta but some think the Searunner series were outliers in many respects. Wave piercing fine bows along with the other features I mentioned have less propensity to pound. Are faster. Point better if daggerboards are incorporated. And if the NA has done his job are no more likely to pitchpole. If you look at the successful monsters racing the Southern Ocean for the last few decades you see the features I mentioned incorporated in all of them. Not stating the Searunners aren’t great boats - they are. Rather saying there is another way to skin the cat. 
Just like with monos successful characteristics from the racers trickle down to the cruisers. Difference being in multis it seems the intent is more likely to be preserved whereas in monos it becomes a fashion statement. 
Big fan of Nigel Irons and Chris White. They have had some great ideas for how a ocean going multi should work. Although we both know of multiple boats that have pitchpoled we both also know of multiple multis where continuing on was untenable and the boat abandoned. 
Still for many when choosing a bwb the issue isn’t the ocean but rather where they homeport if they do. Some throw up the hook and cruise the world but many take breaks for work, land travels, or family. Some like to live in a slip for awhile. Know others here have said “not true” but I’ve talked with multi owners and yards. At least where I’m likely to travel costs while not moving are significantly higher. Still waiting for 49’ mastfoil to come on the market and rethink this. I love the mast foil concept. Performance at the level of a sloop but simplicity it self. Truly a big platform easy to run. Also redundancy. An Atlantic mast foil lost a stick while cruising the west coast. Just continued on until their scheduled stop. 
There are great bwb of all descriptions. Cats, tris, heavy and light displacement monos. All sizes as well although generally speaking bigger is better. People talk about brands which is stupid. They should be looking at particular boats studying that individual boats design, features and condition.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Although we both know of multiple boats that have pitchpoled we both also know of multiple multis where continuing on was untenable and the boat abandoned.


There have been pitchpoled boats that remained tenable and continued on without abandonment?

Mark


----------



## dreamdoer (Mar 7, 2013)

Thanks for the calculations. I included this qualifier "as reported by the manufacturer" in my thread to cover someone debunking a manufacturer's inflated claim. Still as a backpacker who once hiked 2,121 miles with a maximum pack weight of 73 pounds (and that heavy only once), this is still a bounty for me!

Regards


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

colemj said:


> That's not how they work. All of the bow buoyancy is on or near the waterline. As the bows submerge, this buoyancy counteracts that. The difference between the two is when the bows do submerge or take a large wave, the piercing bow has much less resistance to coming back up, so it has less of a probability of tripping on its bow.
> 
> It seems counterintuitive on first glance, but consider equal length boats - one has a longer waterline with no/negative overhang, while the other has a shorter waterline with long overhang. The overall bow buoyancies are identical because the volumes are identical, and both will completely submerge at the same point, with the same forces, but one comes back up faster.
> 
> ...


Interesting way to look at it. I'll be interested to know how they fair in the white water on the face of a large wave.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

RichH said:


> ...a flimsy, vomit-comet.


I think it would be helpful it you'd list those. I'd be very interested. I'm not sure I've ever been on one. Well I take that back - I and the boys did puke on a Pearson 365 once. Is that what you mean?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

capta said:


> Hitting something head on with the stem is hardly the test of a vessel's strength IMO. Taking a hit from a container amidships at the waterline in a gale in the Atlantic is something else entirely.


Are you saying your Pearson or any "blue water boat" is certain to survive that?


----------



## SV Siren (Mar 8, 2013)

colemj said:


> That's not how they work. All of the bow buoyancy is on or near the waterline. As the bows submerge, this buoyancy counteracts that. The difference between the two is when the bows do submerge or take a large wave, the piercing bow has much less resistance to coming back up, so it has less of a probability of tripping on its bow.
> 
> It seems counterintuitive on first glance, but consider equal length boats - one has a longer waterline with no/negative overhang, while the other has a shorter waterline with long overhang. The overall bow buoyancies are identical because the volumes are identical, and both will completely submerge at the same point, with the same forces, but one comes back up faster.
> 
> ...


Cole,
I don't follow you on this...let me explain, and give you a chance to respond. If you take a look at a cross section of two boats, one plumb bow and one with a long overhang, both with the same LOA, and same gross weight. If you look at the newer bows, and at the waterline cross section to deck level at the most forward waterline, you will have a thin, almost pencil thin shape that is almost parallel side to side. Compare that to the cross section of a long overhang boat at the same spot most forward bow/waterline intersection, and the result will give you a pie shape. The pie shape will give you more volume of buoyancy, than the thin one of a more modern hull. The longer overhang, as it submerges at the bow in a wave will have more volume to displace forward of the waterline, and therefore should not submerge as far as a plumb bow. The hobbyhorse effect of longer overhangs and their inertia to hobbyhorse might counteract the reserve buoyancy that is carried forward of the forward waterline..

Am I missing something? I am by naval architect, but the reserve buoyancy would keep the bow from submerging as far in a wave, correct?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Is this what we're talking about?










No thanks.

I didn't know Jim Brown had a side gig. But I can see the design sensibilities...helmet and pads...










Heh-heh.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> Interesting way to look at it. I'll be interested to know how they fair in the white water on the face of a large wave.


It isn't how I'm looking at it, it is just how it is. Since all ocean racing multis have wave-piercing bows, I suspect there is an engineering and physics-based reason for them, and that reason has to do with what you fear happens in white water on the face of a large wave.

Of course, like many other design features, some boats simply copy the look for esthetic/marketing reasons. Like a wing keel or large tumblehome, or extreme bustle on a mono in days past.

As an aside, it is always interesting how BWB discussions center around survival situations. Surfing down breaking 40' waves, fore reaching in 90kt winds, etc.

Seems to me that some are looking for a survival capsule and not a BWB.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SV Siren said:


> Cole,
> I don't follow you on this...let me explain, and give you a chance to respond. If you take a look at a cross section of two boats, one plumb bow and one with a long overhang, both with the same LOA, and same gross weight. If you look at the newer bows, and at the waterline cross section to deck level at the most forward waterline, you will have a thin, almost pencil thin shape that is almost parallel side to side. Compare that to the cross section of a long overhang boat at the same spot most forward bow/waterline intersection, and the result will give you a pie shape. The pie shape will give you more volume of buoyancy, than the thin one of a more modern hull. The longer overhang, as it submerges at the bow in a wave will have more volume to displace forward of the waterline, and therefore should not submerge as far as a plumb bow. The hobbyhorse effect of longer overhangs and their inertia to hobbyhorse might counteract the reserve buoyancy that is carried forward of the forward waterline..
> 
> Am I missing something? I am by naval architect, but the reserve buoyancy would keep the bow from submerging as far in a wave, correct?


Yes, if you compare completely different boats, with different prismatic coefficients, rocker, etc, then you might draw conclusions based on just bow cross sections that are true in a narrow sense, but erroneous overall.

If we look at two, otherwise identically designed boats, that differ only in how they treat the bow, then the volumes of each bow are identical, as shown in the first drawing. The bows are just "flipped" from each other - the resistance to submerging to deck level is the same, but once submerged, the reverse bow comes up faster. The other difference is that the reverse bow will be stiffer because most of its volume is put to use counteracting submersion immediately. The overhang bow will gradually stiffen up as more volume comes into play. This bow will allow more hobby-horsing.

Now if you compare an old flared overhang design, like a Solaris, with a new piercing, non-flaired design, then what you are asking about is true only when looking at the bows. But the rest of the boat design is also important.

Designs like the Solaris example have V'd cross sections and large hull rocker, while the newer piercing designs have U-sections and much flatter rocker. The Solaris has a lower prismatic coefficient than the newer design. Like in the other drawing.

Of course, when a bow hits a wave, the rest of the boat design also plays a part. It isn't just the bow that resists going under - much of this resistance is also the volume of the entire hull, as well as its tendency to resist hobby-horsing and dipping the bow lower and lower in resonance on a wave train.

So even though the bow of a newer design may be "thinner", the boat itself is stiffer toward immersion. And it comes back up faster, and resists resonance hobby-horsing better, than older designs.

I apologize for the crude hand drawings, I lost the ability to use my drawing program when I upgraded my OS, and I am a really, really bad artist.

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Are you saying your Pearson or any "blue water boat" is certain to survive that?


I am and it did!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - I'm going to get serious here for a second because I think it's important...

Here is the very real problem in these discussions: Using complete edge-case examples to justify whatever point one is trying to make is dangerous.

Hitting a steel container amidships in an Atlantic gale is a perfect one. Unless one really understands all the implications of such an example, this mindset can actually get a somewhat inexperienced boat-buyer/sailor killed.

In other words, if they believe that simply by buying some "forum approved blue water brand" will allow them to survive something like this, they are deluding themselves. I don't care what sailboat you're on, if you do come down off of a wave with sufficient force onto a floating steel container in an Atlantic gale, there is 99% chance your boat is going to be broken and sinking. End of story.

*Let me be very clear* - using edge-case scenarios like hitting a container in a gale, or coming through a survival-level storm in the Southern Ocean *should not be a standard for what boat is "better" than another boat*. But that's how these examples are typically used in these debates. It's the "I have the right boat you don't" mentality. And though it can certainly be fun *in debates* (especially because my own boat has always been in the "you don't" column), it's extremely off-kilter in reality.

I used the example of Michael's Hunter 49 earlier to show that, unlike the typical proclamations by the Blue Water Crowd that such a boat CANNOT POSSIBLY endure such conditions, it did...easily. BUT, unlike the inverse arguments being made by the Blue Water Crowd, I DO NOT mean with this example that a Hunter is somehow BETTER than any other boat - and I also ABSOLUTELY DO NOT mean that it's a good idea to choose a Hunter (or a Pearson, or Hinckley, or even Oyster as we've seen) for high-latitude sailing. The reality is that there is no common-brand sailboat out there - apart from perhaps the non-fiberglass expedition boats like the Dashews, Haymens, and Garcias - that are INTENDED for such conditions.

*But that IS NOT CRUISING!* So let's be honest here.

IF ANY fiberglass boat, be it a Hunter or a Hans Christian or a Hinckley, shrugs off a collision with a container - it's *pure luck*. Nothing else. Period.

The bottom line is that it's important to bear in mind that on these forums we are talking about CRUISING. And we are doing so in the midst of a lot of newbs reading and trying to figure out what that actually means and what boat is best for that activity. And the truth of the matter is, regardless of personal taste, most common and respected brands of "larger" sailboats that have been built in the past 25 years (especially those that are CE Cat A rated) will handle what 95% of sailors do with them while *cruising* - as long as that sailor is prudent.

Implying that someone should buy some particular brand or model or "build" of boat because it's going to allow them to sail right through a survival storm or not worry about hitting containers is flat out dangerous. It really is.

So, if you're a newb reading these forums for advice, be very, very careful about making ANY boat decision based on "extreme edge-cases". The bottom line is that YOU SHOULD *ALWAYS* AVOID THOSE. And if nothing else, you should understand that if you do happen to get caught by one, you should NOT think that your boat, any boat, will simply shrug it off. The ONLY decision you should make in regards to such examples is that you should be prepared with the proper safety gear and procedures to keep you and your family as safe as possible *when the boat goes down*. Because it likely will.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

colemj said:


> Seems to me that some are looking for a survival capsule and not a BWB.Mark


Now you are just being silly. Would you go mountain climbing and not prepare for the worst you could possibly encounter, say an unexpected snow storm? Do you not carry a spare in your vehicle even though you have AAA?
If one is going sailing on the ocean, one may, one day, encounter a storm of serious magnitude. One that was not forecast or even if it was, it is traveling at a speed you could not possibly avoid. Being in a vessel that could not survive in those conditions is rather foolish, IMO. Being prepared for the worst possible weather one could possibly encounter on a voyage is only prudent seamanship, not paranoia or fear.


----------



## snokid (Oct 25, 2016)

capta said:


> Now you are just being silly. Would you go mountain climbing and not prepare for the worst you could possibly encounter, say an unexpected snow storm? Do you not carry a spare in your vehicle even though you have AAA?
> If one is going sailing on the ocean, one may, one day, encounter a storm of serious magnitude. One that was not forecast or even if it was, it is traveling at a speed you could not possibly avoid. Being in a vessel that could not survive in those conditions is rather foolish, IMO. Being prepared for the worst possible weather one could possibly encounter on a voyage is only prudent seamanship, not paranoia or fear.


First my car didn't come with a spare!!! cost and weight savings...

I have read and read many of these debates, because that is what I intend to do in less than 2 years.

The problem I always have is it ends up in a my boat is better than your boat debate....

What I did to purchase my boat was to look at what was sailing around the world and weight that with what I could afford.

I ended up with a bene 38 first, I'm sure you all know about the many people that have crossed many oceans on them.

Is it a true BWB? That answer I really can't answer, but what I can tell you it's my BWB....

Bob


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> Now you are just being silly. Would you go mountain climbing and not prepare for the worst you could possibly encounter, say an unexpected snow storm? Do you not carry a spare in your vehicle even though you have AAA?
> If one is going sailing on the ocean, one may, one day, encounter a storm of serious magnitude. One that was not forecast or even if it was, it is traveling at a speed you could not possibly avoid. Being in a vessel that could not survive in those conditions is rather foolish, IMO. Being prepared for the worst possible weather one could possibly encounter on a voyage is only prudent seamanship, not paranoia or fear.


There isn't a vessel made that can survive everything the ocean could throw at it. You seem to be drawing some arbitrary line regarding what you think is "prepared". This is illogical. Particularly given that we have many records of people who spent their entire lives cruising, around the world and into more adventurous areas, wrote books about it, and never got into anything like you describe. The reality is that the situations you fear are probabilistically rare. Deadly car crashes are orders of magnitude more probable, yet people do not drive tanks because the probability is still very low.

If you are climbing the Alps, do you prepare and carry equipment like you are climbing Everest? On your boat, where do you draw the line on what it should be able to handle? 60kts and 30' seas, 70kts and 40' seas, 80kts and 50' seas - where? And why draw it there?

Smackdaddy is correct about these edge cases. If everyone feared like you do, they would never drive a car, use a toilet, or eat a hotdog, because if one is honest with oneself, all of those are orders of magnitude more probable to kill you than cruising in just about any sailboat one chooses.

If one still drives a car, uses a toilet, or eats hotdogs, and still bleats on about how a BWB needs to be able to hit 40' steel containers in a full Atlantic gale with no issues, and be prepared for the most extreme weather that can occur on earth, then one has deluded themselves and is wearing blinders in life.

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> One famous example is an Oyster with a family aboard going down after a growler strike in the same Southern Ocean waters in which the Hunter 49 I talked about earlier easily handled an F10-11. .


Forgetting everything else in your post, I am *completely* mystified by your thought processes.
How in the world can you equate hitting a growler with being in a F10 storm, even if both happened in the same area?
Just pretend there is an emoticon here that signifies a jaw dropping to the floor.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Was it this thread or another one where we were complaining about steel boats. 

Impact with a growler is exactly the situation I would want a steel boat above a certain latitude. They're reasonably common as far south as Newfoundland, at least on the east coast.

I think it was even a Newfoundlander who said he liked steel boats.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Was it this thread or another one where we were complaining about steel boats.
> 
> Impact with a growler is exactly the situation I would want a steel boat above a certain latitude. They're reasonably common as far south as Newfoundland, at least on the east coast.
> 
> I think it was even a Newfoundlander who said he liked steel boats.


I like steel boats. Heck, I love steel boats and if I were 30 years younger I might have one. If one knows how to weld, use a grinder and a paint brush, there's not much one can't do to maintain and repair a good steelie. And for ice, most certainly, though a lot of Europeans seem to favor aluminum.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Arcb said:


> Was it this thread or another one where we were complaining about steel boats.
> 
> Impact with a growler is exactly the situation I would want a steel boat above a certain latitude. They're reasonably common as far south as Newfoundland, at least on the east coast.
> 
> I think it was even a Newfoundlander who said he liked steel boats.


If one expects a Pearson to always take a direct steel container strike in a gale without damage, why would one not expect an Oyster to take a growler strike?

For what it's worth, I would personally choose a Garcia/Dashew/Haymen for that kind of high-latitude sailing. In actuality - I have ZERO desire to do that kind of sailing. Sun and sand beats ice and gales every time.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I'm a little bit obsessed with high latitudes. Ironically, the only way I can figure out how to do that with my current budget is with a trailer sailor. 

It's years off if I ever do get to do it. 

However, if I was to do it in a big cruising style boat, it would be a one off steely with a big reliable engine, lots of fuel and a low centre of effort. Maybe a schooner.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

There is this great guy on SA (also a FB friend of mine) who does some serious high-latitude sailing. He really gave BS headaches when talking about the reality of steel boats. His name over on SA is Yigael. You should look up his posts there to see how it's really done. Lots of great pics and videos. He definitely knows his stuff.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Thanks Smack. I've done thousands of miles in ice in (other people's) steel boats.

However, one can always learn more, I might look up his posts.

Good tip.

I occasionally read Estrazingers posts on CF. He's a good one too.


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

Blue water cruising in a sailboat caries a reasonable risk.

The dangers are not as great as some sports that I participated in but the risks are amplified because if you embark on the lifestyle the duration of exposure is significant.

You only live once, who wants to die in a nursing home, life is for living, are all valid sentiments which I believe have a lot of merit. However, the choice of yacht has a significant effect on the risks if you want to sail long distances.

There are of course many other factors that play a role. Crew experience is vital.

Determining if the risk to yourself and other people on board is acceptable is purely a personal decision. If you want the ultimate safety cross oceans in a commercial plane. If you are prepared to take significant risks a kayak maybe acceptable.

For many of us something in between is what we would be comfortable with. So select your ride depending on the risks you are prepared to take. 

Don't kid yourself that your chosen boat is "safe". There is only "safer" and "less safe".

The notion that a certain standard of boat suddenly becomes "safe" is wrong, but there are some boats that I do not consider have an acceptable risk, personally for myself and family, when considering a blue water voyage. I think everyone should make up there own mind where their own personal limits lie. 

I don't think we should try and impose our own standards on someone else.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> If one expects a Pearson to always take a direct steel container strike in a gale without damage, why would one not expect an Oyster to take a growler strike?


I swear, one of us must be from another planet. I really do not understand you at all.
I did not buy my Pearson with the expectation that it would survive a strike from a container undamaged, but I'm damn glad it did. It did not take a strike from a growler, so I have no expectation that it would survive that undamaged, as these are two *completely different objects*. From my experience sailing the few Hunters I have, I am positive that none of the models I've sailed would have survived that particular container strike. I was there, I felt the hit and that is my conclusion. Comparing that incident to a growler strike or sailing round the Horn in an F-10 gale is way beyond me.
I will tell you right up front that other than a small dodger protecting the companionway, I'm not going to attempt a rounding of Cape Horn with a full cockpit enclosure and Bimini, as the vessel you keep touting apparently did! So, how many snaps failed is a completely moot point. The real point however, is that should the crew have been steering in those conditions and the vessel did take a knockdown or a severe gybe, I'd not want to be in the cockpit, in the tangled mess of metal and cloth that the full cockpit enclosure could be after such an event.
I'm sorry, IMO you've shown me nothing but poor judgement and seamanship as an example, in that case. Other times you find it interesting to compare apples and oranges, such as a stem to wood confrontation that pretty much any production fiberglass boat should survive unscathed, to being struck by a metal container amidships in a gale in the Atlantic.
We are obviously communicating on two completely different plains and though I'm trying hard to see your point, unfortunately I cannot.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Just to complete the picture. I bought Sequiter's book, the Hunter 49. I don't think Michael would describe his F10 experience as easy. While he left the West Coast of Canada, with the stated intention of sailing around the world, he rounded the Cape, sailed up the East coast of South America and sold it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yeah, cap, I think we might indeed be on different planets.

I've never sailed Cape Horn myself - so I have only immense respect for those who have successfully pulled it off. Doing so shows *incredible judgement and seamanship* regardless of any details one might want to criticize. So if you've done it, you have my respect - and my ear.

Otherwise...I would highly recommend Micheal's book...









https://www.amazon.com/SEQUITUR-Com...1508111142&sr=1-1&keywords=sequitur+cape+horn

He's a true mariner and great writer - and it's a great read. Even seasoned cruisers can learn a hell of a lot from him and Edi.

In the mean time, you can read some of his blog...starting with that run off Cape Horn...










*Sequitur Blog*
(Just hit the "Newer" button to read the posts following this one.)

Unfortunately a lot of the great photos he and Edi took have been removed (you'll need the book for those) - but it's still a great read and has much of the same narrative as the book. Here are some snippets about the storm I've mentioned, how the boat did, damage thereafter, why they decided to head north, etc.



> At 1413 we were about 4 miles from the entrance to Fitzroy when sustained winds over 50 knots and rapidly building seas made progress difficult. Thoughts of approaching an increasingly lee shore as the wind backed made me reexamine the situation. At 1430 I rolled-in the last hanky of the main and put our stern to the storm to run with it to seaward under power.
> 
> At 1440 I decided to turn southward into the troughs, shut-down the engine and lay a-hull under bare poles. I had pointed our bows south incase I needed to use the engine to gain some southings to clear Wolf Rocks to the east-northeast of us. I watched our drift on the cockpit chart-plotter and was pleased with its direction.
> 
> ...


-and the damage-



> After breakfast on Wednesday morning we started with cleaning-up from the heavy weather. Down below, we had sustained a broken bowl and a chipped candle holder. Up top the Hydrovane suffered a bent retaining pin and a sheared one. I hadn't removed the sail from the unit, and the hurricane-force gusts were a tad much for the pins.
> 
> I hacksawed the bent pin in two to remove it.
> 
> ...


And afterward they assessed the boat and themselves and decided to head north instead of east to Cape Town. Here are his words...



> With our onward direction in mind, we assessed Sequitur's condition. We have nothing but high praise for the Hunter 49, finding it a wonderfully sea-kindly vessel, very comfortable and secure in all weather through Force 12. However; the poor quality of the installation work done during the fit-out by Specialty Yachts in Vancouver continues to jeopardize our safety and to impair our enjoyment of this wonderful boat.
> 
> The Raymarine chart-plotter continues to malfunction, losing the radar scanner input, rebooting, going back to factory default and erasing all data and settings. This happens randomly every few hours, seemingly the result of a particular, though as yet unidentified vibration. It began a few days south of Puerto Montt, after we had crossed the Buco de Guafo into the northern Patagonian channels. With this, we have lost the input from both of our AIS units, the Raymarine transceiver and the SeaCas receiver, so we can see no other vessels' AIS signatures. Fortunately though; our transceiver works, so we are visible to other vessels. I suspect some more of Specialty's poor connections are to blame, but so far through my troubleshooting up the mast and down below behind the system's components, I have not been able to track-down the cause.
> 
> ...


...and they were still weighing their options as they made it to Brazil, with Cape Town still in the mix...



> We were still unsure of our onward route as we left. From Piriapolis it is about 3600 nautical miles to Cape Town, but we still needed repairs. Online I had found a Lewmar dealer listed in Rio de Janeiro, but my emails to them had bounced. It is a bit over 1000 miles to Rio, and we could put-in there without visas, claiming a need for repairs. From there it is 3300 miles to Cape Town. Alternatively from Rio, it is 2600 to the Cape Verde Islands. From there we could head via the Canaries or the Azores 1600 or 2400 miles to Europe. Another thought was that if we couldn't get repairs in Rio, it is 3600 miles around Brazil through the Windward Islands to Puerto Rico, where there is a Hunter dealer, and it is only another 1100 miles through the Bahamas to Saint Augustine, Florida and access to the Hunter factory.
> 
> We opened the hatches and portlights to allow the 15-knot breeze to blow through Sequitur and cool her interior. We variously napped and relaxed, had a celebratory bottle of Undurraga Brut Royale with dinner and reflected on where we were and where we had been. Since leaving Vancouver, we have covered 15,166 nautical miles, which is just over 70% of the distance around the earth. Almost a quarter of our travel, 3500 miles has been in the past seven weeks since we left the Falklands, and most of it through adverse and contrary conditions, both ashore and at sea. We needed a break.


As I say, it's a great read. And as for judgement and seamanship, apart from these obvious successes, Micheal's CV speaks for itself...



> Michael Walsh was born in 1944 on Canada's east coast. After school, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force, moved to the west coast and trained as a Pilot. During the next two decades, he made a name for himself as an exploratory mountaineer, with over six dozen first ascents on four continents. In the late 1960s, he transferred to the Navy and served as a Navigator and a ship's Captain among other duties. After eighteen years service, he resigned his commission to pursue his wine, writing and boating passions. From the early 1980s through to this century, he was a prominent wine and food educator, columnist and feature writer. He has published four nonfiction books on boating, and he is now venturing into fiction.


These particular mariners are the real deal. No question. Micheal and Edi have definitely earned any *serious* sailor's respect.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

No serious BWB would chip a candle holder. 

You get what you pay for...

Mark


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

I have a Blue Water Boat.


The hull is BLUE.

It sails in the WATER.

It is a BOAT.


Therefore, BLUE WATER BOAT.


----------

