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

[4music3]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

This is the bottom line--being realistic and honest in judging a boat's "bluewater" suitability. And it is about understanding the risks when your choice of boat places your family's and friends' lives in peril.

That there really is a bluewater category of boat is a given. When I last changed boats, I was specifically looking for a bluewater boat, one so seaworthy that any experienced sailor could tell, at a glance, that it was built to cross oceans, a full-keel double-ender. My search ended with the beginning of my Freya project.

Nice boat!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Actually there are many offshore 39 footers that would be a much better choice then the Benni 39 if you had to duke it out in bad weather.

Off course but that was not the point. The point is that no small yacht is designed to cross oceans in bad weather and when I talk about bad weather I mean bad weather, not 40k wind or a gale. That was what they said regarding that Beneteau.

Sure, some are better than other but even the Freya 39, with a relatively light weight for a steel boat and a limited stability (due to his size and weight) can be said that is designed to take Oceans in Bad weather. Sure I am convinced it can take more than an Oceanis 39 but it will be still easily capsized by a medium size breaking wave.

The full keel in what regards dynamic stability is a disadvantage, offering a tripping big surface inducing roll and not allowing the wave energy to be dissipated by a lateral slide.

The double ender type of transom offers also no advantage, diminishing the overall form stability (about that Bob Perry has an interesting article where he basically says he uses those type of transoms for aesthetically reasons) and increasing roll downwind.

Not saying that the Freya 39 is a bad boat, even as an offshore one, but assuming that it was designed to sail oceans in bad weather is not the right way to look at it. A bigger mass production boat with about the same weight and bigger (probably a 45/50ft) if well built and with an adapted rigging will be probably more seaworthy and much faster (that counts also in what regards getting away from bad weather).

A production voyage boat like an Allures 45, RM 1360 or XC45 will not only be more seaworthy, with a bigger interior space and more storage space, as it will probably not cost more, if we consider a new boat with the same type of finish.

I do not mean that 40ft production boats are not suited to cross Oceans. A countryman circumnavigated 2 times on the same Bavaria 36 and I know of more Bavaria 36 that have circumnavigated, not to mention the many hundreds or thousands of mini racers and Beneteau Figaro 33 that crossed the Atlantic, it means only that you should not do it in any small Yacht (Freya 39 included) in bad weather and that means the wrong season and the wrong places.

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by Polux

...even the Freya 39, with a relatively light weight for a steel boat...will be still easily capsized by a medium size breaking wave...
The double ender type of transom offers also no advantage...

Not saying that the Freya 39 is a bad boat, even as an offshore one, but assuming that it was designed to sail oceans in bad weather is not the right way to look at it. A bigger mass production boat with about the same weight and bigger (probably a 45/50ft) if well built and with an adapted rigging will be probably more seaworthy...
I do not mean that 40ft production boats are not suited to cross Oceans...it means only that you should not do it in any small Yacht (Freya 39 included) in bad weather...

With all due respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Production Freya's were molded fiberglass, not steel. These boats have circumnavigated. The advantage of a canoe stern to resist pooping, in following, breaking seas, is obvious to everyone except you.

And we were talking about a 39' boat, not a 50-footer.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

With all due respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

.

Why is it that whenever some one says "With all due respect........' Respect is the last thing that is intimated.........

The next statement always lays out the reason for the lack of respect

Easier to say "your an arce!"

lololol

[Kevin84]

Terra Nova, while I agree a canoe stern may lessen the odds of pooping your stern, as Polux pointed out, even Bob Perry is on the record as saying a canoe stern or double ender serves no useful purpose other than aesthetics. And seeing as Bob has drawn his fair share of double enders, I'm inclined to agree with him and figure he knows what he's talking about.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Kevin84

Terra Nova, while I agree a canoe stern may lessen the odds of pooping your stern, as Polux pointed out, even Bob Perry is on the record as saying a canoe stern or double ender serves no useful purpose other than aesthetics. And seeing as Bob has drawn his fair share of double enders, I'm inclined to agree with him and figure he knows what he's talking about.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I will say Bob dont sail many double enders in heavy weather in the past with all the respect to Bob, the Valiants have a fat ass as a canoe stern not the kind of fine entrys like in other double enders, i sail Angantyr for 6 full years around many waters ,its a 62 ft double ender cutter made in steel build by Abeking & Rasmussen with a real canoe stern , hig and with a slim profile, perfect for running big seas as we experience in a Azores aproach or when we get caught in the same year around Menorca in a nasty Tramontana (Mistral),, short step seas... and the stern dry like a bone not without mention how nice the boat steer in this conditions without risk a broach or pooping, some times even we see a cascade of water coming like a freaking train and just disipate around the stern, beautiful...Its not just aesthetic , depend of the design to... Valiants maybe....

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Polux

Off course but that was not the point. The point is that no small yacht is designed to cross oceans in bad weather and when I talk about bad weather I mean bad weather, not 40k wind or a gale.

Completely incorrect. Yes to some degree size can matter but in general more for comfort than ultimate safety. By far the most critical issue is the quality of the boat.

With the proper designed and constructed boat I would take a 39 footer (or smaller) anywhere.

[Matt sachs]

Surfboard-Sized Robot Vessel Makes Journey Across the Pacific | NBC Southern California is this the ultimate blue water craft?

[neilpride]

A contessa 32 , Fasnet 79, still sailing this days..

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

Yep and not our first rodeo.

A Yep, with the same cow pokes too!

But the thread is a good diversion and mind rester.

Back too...





Later,
Dan

[Andrew B.]

"According to[W.I.B.] Crealock, the canoe stern, Besides being a thing of
beauty, is "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is the stern
which will bear most of its venom.""

Pacific Seacraft 37

[4music3]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

"According to[W.I.B.] Crealock, the canoe stern, Besides being a thing of
beauty, is "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is the stern
which will bear most of its venom.""

Pacific Seacraft 37

Not convinced taking really bad seas from the stern is a good approach anyway but as far as size I once read (can't remember where sorry) that about 38' is ideal due to wave period.

Someone else mentioned a full keel not dissipating energy because it won't go with the wave. I'm far from an expert but I'm thinking when the wave is in charge of where a boat goes that's when the trouble starts.

My feeling is get the most Blue Water boat you can afford but any boat not no boat can cross an ocean (even in bad weather) not that I have it's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that the skipper and crew has more to do with the outcome not that anyone is saying otherwise.

[Andrew B.]

Just my interpretation. I believe Mr Crelock means that in spite of 'taking
bad seas' the best one can, however one determines that to be, that it will
be the stern that takes the most spanking. I don't believe he's saying,
nor implying, that one should take "bad seas' with the stern. But that's just my opinion.

My dream boat happens to be the Pacific Seacraft 37. I am sure there are
better boats, but for me it' sure seems to be one of the better all round
boats going.

Originally Posted by 4music3

Not convinced taking really bad seas from the stern is a good approach anyway but as far as size I once read (can't remember where sorry) that about 38' is ideal due to wave period.

Someone else mentioned a full keel not dissipating energy because it won't go with the wave. I'm far from an expert but I'm thinking when the wave is in charge of where a boat goes that's when the trouble starts.

My feeling is get the most Blue Water boat you can afford but any boat not no boat can cross an ocean (even in bad weather) not that I have it's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that the skipper and crew has more to do with the outcome not that anyone is saying otherwise.

[Kevin84]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I will say Bob dont sail many double enders in heavy weather in the past with all the respect to Bob, the Valiants have a fat ass as a canoe stern not the kind of fine entrys like in other double enders, i sail Angantyr for 6 full years around many waters ,its a 62 ft double ender cutter made in steel build by Abeking & Rasmussen with a real canoe stern , hig and with a slim profile, perfect for running big seas as we experience in a Azores aproach or when we get caught in the same year around Menorca in a nasty Tramontana (Mistral),, short step seas... and the stern dry like a bone not without mention how nice the boat steer in this conditions without risk a broach or pooping, some times even we see a cascade of water coming like a freaking train and just disipate around the stern, beautiful...Its not just aesthetic , depend of the design to... Valiants maybe....

You're using one specific boat with a canoe stern as an example. Bob has designed more boats with a canoe stern than any other designer. And probably more than every other designer of FG boats combined. He has also stated that his preferred personal boat is a double ender. But only for aesthetic reasons. I believe I'll take his word for it that double enders primary purpose is a pleasing shape to the eye and not particularly useful.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Kevin84

You're using one specific boat with a canoe stern as an example. Bob has designed more boats with a canoe stern than any other designer. And probably more than every other designer of FG boats combined. He has also stated that his preferred personal boat is a double ender. But only for aesthetic reasons. I believe I'll take his word for it that double enders primary purpose is a pleasing shape to the eye and not particularly useful.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Certainly not ideal for divers and access to water.

Not everyone wants to get on and off and into the water. Climbing ladders. pain in the arse. Just an old concept nowdays. I Like the sterns on the Dashew's monohulls.

Cheers