Can't Wrap my Mind Around this "Bluewater" Thing!

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

But a skeg hung rudder is not "a beam supported on both ends". In the end the skeg is also only supported on one end.

You have just changed the problem from "how do I design a rudder that is strong enough" to "how do I design a skeg that is strong enough". I'm not making this up. This is right from the pages of Steve Dashew, who is both an experienced cruiser and designer.

Hit the bottom with a skeg hung rudder, and you might end up damaging the bottom bracket so it won't turn anymore (or worse, remains stuck at an angle). Hit the bottom with a rudder designed by Dashew and you lose the bottom part, but you can still steer...

Good one, KVB!

Jim

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by vancouver25

As an example, twenty years ago we lived in a condo on the beach and absolutely every piece of metal in that condo rusted badly within a few years, with the sole exception of a stainless steel cheese grater from...Sweden...that my grandma had passed on to us. It's still in perfect condition today.

But you can still buy that stainless steel cheese grater that lasts forever.
However "last forever" is not necessarily better.

Cheaper has it's advantages too, even when it comes at the expense of quality.
Going from "the only option is expensive and built to last" to "you can chose which trade of between price and quality suits your lifestyle" is progress.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by vancouver25

The argument that "newer is inherently better" by virtue of its modern design and construction is just abject fallacy...

Then again, last month I met a gentleman with two boats parked next to each other; one, a well-maintained older 34' Pacific Seacraft for sale and the other, his brand new Catalina 355. In his words, there was "no comparison" as he thought the design and construction of the new Catalina, along with the space and layout, made for a far superior boat in every way.

Personally, I'd have kept the Pacific Seacraft and the $100k+ difference and cast off.

I am somewhat biased, since the belowdecks layout of the C355 mirrors that of our boat, oddly enough from the same design team at Catalina Yachts, you know, one of those toy boat builders...

The Catalina 34 was the first, if not among the first, production boats with an, get this, aft head. Gee, ya didn't need to work yourself all the way up forward in a seaway to bounce around and try to find the aiming spot, seated or not. You just went down to the bottom of the companionway steps, turned left, and there you were, right in the center of motion. That's why I get such a kick out of those folks on head forums who are so very proud of their "Gentlemen must sit down to pee" signs. Sigh...

IIRC, Nigel Calder's Cruising Handbook discussed the ergonomics of belowdecks layouts, and pointed out quite clearly that some well respected yachts left some very important issues to be resolved, one of them being the design of the seatbacks. Curved corners make little sense. While I am on the boat at the moment, and the book is at home, I seem to recall that the PS34 has those funny curved corners that make sitting back a not so great idea. If not the 34, then perhaps the 37. One might want to check that book out, since he makes many good points about layouts. And he had a PS40 IIRC.

In 1986, when our boat was first being sold, they made 800 of them in the first two years of production, a total of 1,800 in 20 years. Pretty much the same #s for the C36, and 6,000 C30s.

The C355 has just reached 100 hulls in two or three years of production. Yes, it is much more expensive, inflation adjusted, than our boats were.

But part of that is because there are many more "standard" features on the out-of-the-box hulls that skippers have desired over the past 30 years that were add ons in earlier times. Formerly owner and dealer add ons are now being provided by the factory, from now-inexpensive VHFs to chartplotters, anchors, windlasses, etc.

Finally, I think many of the posts on this subject seem to be missing the point, or have come to it indirectly.

We, perhaps, have been comparing apples and oranges. There remain boatbuilders who ARE building "go anywhere" yachts. These shouldn't be compared to the majority of boats that are being produced for those who choose NOT to go offshore, and whether or not the interior layouts are marina queens and/or comfortable at anchor is an important feature for many recreational yachtsmen and their families.

OTOH, I do enjoy the hybrid nature of my boat, since it is comfortable when at anchor, and can handle sometimes boisterous Northern California ocean coastal cruising very well, won't take me offshore (it wasn't designed to do that but the C355 has been, same layout down below), and is one of those "hard-to-find" boats on the used lists.

It's 27 years old, but everything, I mean everything, is easily accessible for maintenance, unlike, for example, the Benetau 35s we often bareboated in the islands. Those boats required one to completely disassemble the aft berth to get to the oil dipstick and every hose and wire was cleverly hidden behind unnecessary filler panels.

Let's not get carried away with comparing two different species.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Not much manufactured today is sufficiently repairable. Interior woodwork, the laminated rubbish, also doesn't appeal.

The main issue for us relates to the very efficient manufacturing of today. It benefits the manufacturer and not us.

That's why we bought a liberty 458. 1984 vintage interior made from real air dried wood, hull overbuilt and everything is repairable and maintainable.

I think it's an illusion that a new yacht will require less maintenance than an older vessel.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Strangely millions like the laminated look, timbers in homes have moved from dark to light , modern flush finishes etc. Boat interiors always follow interior trends. Heavy dark timbering cones from the Victorian era.

1984 is hardly vintage !

I suspect the exact same conversation will be had about 2013 boats in 2040.

Arrgh "I remember , young laddie , when interiors had real wood in them, not this modern all synthetic stuff. , nothing good has been made since we banned tree felling , them modern boats yonder will never last , I tell ye , get a good 2012 beneteau instead , now that's a real boat " Arrgh

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

The comparison with 70s cars is misleading, to my way of thinking, because roads have got better since then, at least the roads which the vast builk of new car buyers use have.

In places where roads are still shocking, like sub-Saharan Africa, 70s Landcruisers, Hilux pickups, and late 60s - early 70s VW Beetles are still preferred, because that's what they were built for, (and they can be fixed anywhere).

The reason most modern boats are not built for shocking seastates is the same reason most modern cars are not built for shocking roads: there's no money in it.

Even "serious" SUVs will now often invalidate the warranty if you drive across a river. The electronics in the wheel hubs do not take kindly to submersion.

The overwhelming majority of new boats sold will hardly ever leave a marina, let alone cross an ocean. It would be a stupid waste to make them suitable for something they will not be asked to do.

So provided you have faith in your ability to avoid shocking seas, crossing oceans in most modern boats seems to me like a fair gamble. What's the worst that could happen?

Talking about wading ability , you have never owed a 1979 Alfa Romeo. It died everytime it rained. Or driven several brands of British leyland where the electrics were marginally worse then acetylene lamps.

Or had the body of a 1970 Rennault rust out from under you in 10 years.

Or 1968 Beetle engines worn out at 150,000 miles. ( my last 2006 jeep has 180k still running )

As someone who worked in auto assembly line design , older models in Africa and elsewhere get preferred not because of reliability ( they are often shockingly unreliable ) , but because every corner witch doctor mechanic can repair them with a lump hammer , often using local sourced parts machined to poor tolerances which the cars of that era could handle.

The cars them selves arnt simply not as reliable as modern vehicles. Can you imagine getting a 5 years all parts warranty on a 1970s car !!!!

Dave

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I am somewhat biased, since the belowdecks layout of the C355 mirrors that of our boat, oddly enough from the same design team at Catalina Yachts, you know, one of those toy boat builders...

The Catalina 34 was the first, if not among the first, production boats with an, get this, aft head. Gee, ya didn't need to work yourself all the way up forward in a seaway to bounce around and try to find the aiming spot, seated or not. You just went down to the bottom of the companionway steps, turned left, and there you were, right in the center of motion. That's why I get such a kick out of those folks on head forums who are so very proud of their "Gentlemen must sit down to pee" signs. Sigh...

IIRC, Nigel Calder's Cruising Handbook discussed the ergonomics of belowdecks layouts, and pointed out quite clearly that some well respected yachts left some very important issues to be resolved, one of them being the design of the seatbacks. Curved corners make little sense. While I am on the boat at the moment, and the book is at home, I seem to recall that the PS34 has those funny curved corners that make sitting back a not so great idea. If not the 34, then perhaps the 37. One might want to check that book out, since he makes many good points about layouts. And he had a PS40 IIRC.

In 1986, when our boat was first being sold, they made 800 of them in the first two years of production, a total of 1,800 in 20 years. Pretty much the same #s for the C36, and 6,000 C30s.

The C355 has just reached 100 hulls in two or three years of production. Yes, it is much more expensive, inflation adjusted, than our boats were.

But part of that is because there are many more "standard" features on the out-of-the-box hulls that skippers have desired over the past 30 years that were add ons in earlier times. Formerly owner and dealer add ons are now being provided by the factory, from now-inexpensive VHFs to chartplotters, anchors, windlasses, etc.

Finally, I think many of the posts on this subject seem to be missing the point, or have come to it indirectly.

We, perhaps, have been comparing apples and oranges. There remain boatbuilders who ARE building "go anywhere" yachts. These shouldn't be compared to the majority of boats that are being produced for those who choose NOT to go offshore, and whether or not the interior layouts are marina queens and/or comfortable at anchor is an important feature for many recreational yachtsmen and their families.

OTOH, I do enjoy the hybrid nature of my boat, since it is comfortable when at anchor, and can handle sometimes boisterous Northern California ocean coastal cruising very well, won't take me offshore (it wasn't designed to do that but the C355 has been, same layout down below), and is one of those "hard-to-find" boats on the used lists.

It's 27 years old, but everything, I mean everything, is easily accessible for maintenance, unlike, for example, the Benetau 35s we often bareboated in the islands. Those boats required one to completely disassemble the aft berth to get to the oil dipstick and every hose and wire was cleverly hidden behind unnecessary filler panels.

Let's not get carried away with comparing two different species.

OR

You could just get a Catamaran.
Can pee anywhere... and not miss... if that is the criteria... and.. doesnt roll too much at anchor... jes sayin'

What?!

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by weavis

OR

You could just get a Catamaran.
Can pee anywhere... and not miss... if that is the criteria... and.. doesnt roll too much at anchor... jes sayin'

What?!

you had to quote a whole long post to make your informative reply about peeing

[weavis]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

you had to quote a whole long post to make your informative reply about peeing

>Yes<

[Blue Crab]

OK ... I came, I read, I'm going home. Gimme that 10 min of life back. Skip's post #2 said it for me. Wish I'd have stopped right there cuz we've ALL been down this rocky road so many many times now.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

OK ... I came, I read, I'm going home. Gimme that 10 min of life back. Skip's post #2 said it for me. Wish I'd have stopped right there cuz we've ALL been down this rocky road so many many times now.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by bigjer40

Can't Wrap my Mind Around this "Bluewater" Thing!

Here, this 'outdated' tome should help narrow your focus :-)




It's a pity this book doesn't merit a wider readership today. It does a marvelous job of explaining why a wide array of design and construction CHARACTERISTICS make certain boats more suitable for sailing offshore than others, and why it's generally more advisable to go to sea on boats specifically designed for such a purpose, rather than aboard some more modern boats obviously designed from the inside out, by fitting a hull and deck about an interior accommodation plan...

Perhaps my single biggest gripe about many of today's boats, is the appallingly poor deck and cockpit ergonomics to be found on so many of them, always the result of compromises made to increase interior volume. Excessively wide cockpit coamings, for example - necessary to create headroom in quarter cabins or passageways to aft cabins - but that result in the need to awkwardly straddle these gigantic, often rounded, coamings to step out on a ridiculously narrow side deck... Don't mean to pick on Hunter here, I know their 49 has circumnavigated, or done a drive-by photo op out to Cape Horn, but this is NOT a proper 'Bluewater' side deck, in my opinion :-)




Nor, is this an example of limiting the potential for downflooding via the companionway being one of the top priorities of the designer :-)






Could that boat be sailed offshore, or cross an ocean? Of course it could... However, that's not to say that it might not possess certain inherent characteristics that might make it less suitable for doing so than many other designs...

Oh, and one more thing... I know it's become all the rage today, but the placement of picture windows in the topsides of modern production cruisers has no place on a boat intended to really go places...

Or, even just from one marina to the next, for that matter... :-)

[sailorboy1]

When wide swiping statements become the norm I sense the time to place a thread on ignore so as to stop gaining the "knowledge" in it.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

OK ... I came, I read, I'm going home. Gimme that 10 min of life back. Skip's post #2 said it for me. Wish I'd have stopped right there cuz we've ALL been down this rocky road so many many times now.

You're right.

I saw the OP over on sailboatowners.com, and replied that the OP should come over here and read, and when I visited here, found the same question posted here.

Some folks simply bother to do much checking on the appropriate forums, and just ask away. Not like that'll ever change...

[bigjer40]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

You're right.

I saw the OP over on sailboatowners.com, and replied that the OP should come over here and read, and when I visited here, found the same question posted here.

Some folks simply bother to do much checking on the appropriate forums, and just ask away. Not like that'll ever change...

Stu, I guess your suggesting a person should always consider one source when seeking advice. In that case, I will pass on yours

The intent was to never start the usual "can a bene, cat, hunter cross an ocean". I am just really struggling with modern technology and materials being so inferior that even todays coastal cruiser isn't as solid as boats from the 60,70,80's. There are great points here that have helped me "wrap my brain around this" although not entirely. My last boat was a 1984. I sought out an independent surveyor with good reputation and in my opinion he missed things that I now would think were pretty obvious (furler attached to far inward and started to separate the forestay from the bow causing rot) among some other expensive repairs. Now I know you can have build issues with a new one, but it sounds like certain builders (I have heard good warranty reputation from Catalina) will take care of you after the sale. This may just be wishful thinking on my part.

Our plans now are to sail down the western coast of the US and Mexico, and C. America and not be on any timeline. I have heard this could take years if you enjoy the area and take in the experience. Then we would most likely cross at the canal and head for the Caribbean. No timeline and at the weathers beck and call, so this would suggest coastal cruising and a so called modern day dock queen would be great. I just don't want to rule out the possibility of being able to hit the south pacific of the med.

I apologize if the thread wasted your time and really appreciate those of you that love this life as much as I do and are always willing to help a brother out. I am just a blue collar worker that already was burned on the financial burden of boat ownership and looking to minimize the charring on the next one.

By the way Stu, if you read this far, I was just kidding. You seem very knowledgeable

[weavis]

Originally Posted by bigjer40

Stu, I guess your suggesting a person should always consider one source when seeking advice. In that case, I will pass on yours

The intent was to never start the usual "can a bene, cat, hunter cross an ocean". I am just really struggling with modern technology and materials being so inferior that even todays coastal cruiser isn't as solid as boats from the 60,70,80's.

I have an issue with the assumption that modern glass fibre techniques are inferior. Thinner? yes. Not as strong? Incorrect. Fixed a lot of delamination issues? Yes.
It is down to the builder to use these techniques properly.