Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[minaret]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

I am having trouble understanding this thread - there is a long history of thousands of "inexpensive" or "unworthy" production boats making long and difficult blue water passages. Why is there any debate about their ability to safely cross oceans. They have been doing just that for a very long time and they will continue to do so.

Here is a list of some of the Production boats that appear in the Puddle Jump (Western Mexico to South Pacific) Roster during the last two years. There are many Production boats in this list that are over 25-years old. None of the boats listed here sunk or disappeared so I guess they are “Blue Water” capable!

Catalina 34 MkII
Ericson 38 (2)
Pearson 36
Suncoast 42
Jeanneau i39
Fuji 40
US Yacht 42
J/120
Contest 33
Taswell 44
Islander 36 (3)
Freedom 42
Catalina 470
J/130
Pearson 365
Junneau 42 (2)
Jenneau 45
Morgan 41.5
Hanse 531
Hylas 46 (2)
Westsail 43
Jenneau 53
Catalina 42
Hylas 46
Dufor 32
Hunter 45
Beneteau 43
Bavaria 38
Morgan 46
Beneteau 423
Columbia 34 MkII
Tartan 41
Beneteau 50 (2)
Hunter 50
Dufour 51
Bavaria 42
Morgan 321
Beneteau 445
Jenneau 47
Westsail 32 (4)
Beneteay 40.7
Cheoy Lee 47
Jenneau 39
Morgan 46
Bavaria 49
Beneteau 44.7
CSY 44
Jeanneau 37
Irwin 54
Hunter 386
Jeanneau 42
Cape Dory 40

There is not any debate and never has been, except in the minds of a few.



Check out this boat, which did a transatlantic with husband and wife crew. I reiterate, any boat at all can do it, especially a trade wind passage in the tropics. The guy who did this one is currently building and planning for an eastabout circumnav south of the capes in a 10' boat. He is ancient. Of course, it's not a production boat, lol!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

The translation for this seems to be that I provide actual evidence for the points I make when others can't or won't.

Yes, we've seen your "actual evidence." Like this cheerleading thread, it usually fails to do nothing more than re-state the obvious, raise irrelevancies anytime a problem is pointed out with one of your cherished Hunter's, and blow your own credibility. But since you didn't like the opinions of the "Yard Guys" you requested in another thread, maybe this one will make you feel better. This is, after all, what starting all of these threads is all about.

What I have always failed to understand is, if these production boats are as great as you claim, why you & others wouldn't welcome any reports of deficiencies, whether systemic or not, so you can safeguard your own boats against them if need be?? I, for one, would have loved to have known more about the deficiencies of my Bristol's centerboard apparatus, for e.g., in advance of the problems I've had with it over the years!

In short, I don't understand why there seems to be so much ego invested. We all know the obvious points about many production boats' abilities to do ocean crossings, their roominess, their speed, blah, blah, blah. But we also know they are much less expensive to purchase. That's a great thing, but why not be more open about the likely trade-offs with anything that is constructed more cheaply, whether it impacts on fitness for blue water or not? And if, as the OP loves to point out, bluewater boats suffer from old age, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that more cheaply constructed boats would suffer that much more? May or may not be the case depending on usage & many other variables, but I would certainly want to check it out!

OK, let the cheerleading (and badgering) resume . . . .

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Julie my friend, this is the wine Smack drinks and why he set this thread up.

More like the crack he smokes, seems to me... I'm wondering what's taking him so long to fire this one up yet again over on Sailnet, or elsewhere...

:-))

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Actually, that's not right. On these kinds of threads it's typically - "my boat X is better than your boat Y because I spent Z".

And yet, why does this endlessly repeating "kind of thread" ALWAYS appear to be started by the same "Production Boat Owner", who spent LESS THAN $Z...?

:-))

[TacomaSailor]

Here is the count of some of the “inexpensive production” brands that made the Puddle Jump (Western Mexico to South Pacific) in the 2012 – 2015 time frame.

Beneteau 35
Morgan 13
Jeaneau 12
Catalina 9
Hunter 8
Islander 6
Pearson 4
Dufour 4

As far as I know – they all safely arrived somewhere 2,500 miles SW from there starting location.

What is to debate – any boat can make the trip!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

I am having trouble understanding this thread - there is a long history of thousands of "inexpensive" or "unworthy" production boats making long and difficult blue water passages. Why is there any debate about their ability to safely cross oceans. They have been doing just that for a very long time and they will continue to do so.

I totally agree with you. Yet, there seem to be a few very vocal people out there that continue to disagree with these facts. It is very strange.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Yet, there seem to be a few very vocal people out there that continue to disagree with these facts. It is very strange.

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

So, I'm very interested in your additional examples.

I agree...where are the examples of these "few very vocal people"...
Or are you just making **** up...na....you wouldn't be doing that would you?

Or Maybe it's this thread you are talking about? But I didn't see any Production Boat Bashing in it yet....so where did your straw man go....to Oz in search of a brain?

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...re-138959.html

[Julie Mor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Julie - boatman and randyon answered your question best above. Listen to them. They know.

Actually, Smack, they didn't answer my question. The question was which question is being asked? To me, before you know that answer, you really can't answer any questions and know you're talking about the same thing as someone else.

To the best of my knowledge, the term "bluewater" has never been officially defined by marine engineers or naval architects. If that is in fact true, how can we ever get the "right" answer to anything addressing "bluewater", unless we define it ourselves, like for the sake of a given discussion?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

More like the crack he smokes, seems to me... I'm wondering what's taking him so long to fire this one up yet again over on Sailnet, or elsewhere...

:-))



And yet, why does this endlessly repeating "kind of thread" ALWAYS appear to be started by the same "Production Boat Owner", who spent LESS THAN $Z...?

:-))

Heh-heh. JonE baby! What took you so long dude????

My "Production Boats and the Limits" thread over on SN kind of ran its course (after over 1100 replies and 142K views). I just thought people were kind of beating around the bush on the subject here on CF - so I dove in.

It's an important subject.

BTW - how much did you spend on your boat? Heh-heh.

Happy New Year man!

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I totally agree with you. Yet, there seem to be a few very vocal people out there that continue to disagree with these facts. It is very strange.

Who are those few Smack, I'd like to know? Dangerous if you don't answer..Bingo!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

Actually, Smack, they didn't answer my question. The question was which question is being asked? To me, before you know that answer, you really can't answer any questions and know you're talking about the same thing as someone else.

To the best of my knowledge, the term "bluewater" has never been officially defined by marine engineers or naval architects. If that is in fact true, how can we ever get the "right" answer to anything addressing "bluewater", unless we define it ourselves, like for the sake of a given discussion?

You're right on the definition of "bluewater". It means quite different things to different people. We went around on the subject quite a bit in my other thread. Is it 50 miles off-shore? 100 miles?

One of the better definitions, I thought, was 200+ miles because that's typically the range of a CG helo (which was the basis of the CW article I wrote on AMVER rescues).

But, honestly, why does it need to be so empirically defined? Does the boat type and ability really change so much from 50 miles to 200 miles? Especially understanding that, for the most part, coastal sailing presents far more ongoing hazards and risk than open ocean sailing.

Again, on the face of things - the answer is that production boats can (and very obviously do) cross oceans all the time. And they typically do so comfortably and safely. It's really pretty simple.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Who are those few Smack, I'd like to know? Dangerous if you don't answer..Bingo!

Indeed. Show us the much vaunted links! Heh-heh (vomit).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I totally agree with you. Yet, there seem to be a few very vocal people out there that continue to disagree with these facts. It is very strange.

Who might that be, Smack? Or is it that mythical nemesis of yours back on the dock who advised you to sail out into the storm, but ONLY if it was in a "bluewater" boat? You know, all your stereotyped curmudgeons who you frequently cite but never name who irresponsibly advise the newbies to buy 30-year old, full-keeled Westsail's & Hans Christian's over your perfectly designed & constructed 25 year-old Hunter.

If we can avoid the fantasies, acknowledge the inevitable bias, but start out with the premises that any boat can cross oceans, that any older boat needs maintenance, and that not all boats are constructed to the same standards, threads like these might actually become educational.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Again, on the face of things - the answer is that production boats can (and very obviously do) cross oceans all the time. And they typically do so comfortably and safely. It's really pretty simple.

But....if you already knew that....then why did you start this thread topic....ah....now we are getting somewhere.....could it be....

nar·cis·sism
ˈnärsəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: narcissism

1. excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.
   synonyms:vanity, self-love, self-admiration, self-absorption, self-obsession, conceit, self-centeredness, self-regard, egotism, egoism "his emotional development was hindered by his mother's narcissism"
   
   antonyms:modesty
   • Psychology
     extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.
   • Psychoanalysis
     self-centeredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.

[Julie Mor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

One of the better definitions, I thought, was 200+ miles because that's typically the range of a CG helo (which was the basis of the CW article I wrote on AMVER rescues).

And I would say a bluewater boat would be one that exceeds that. Because if you're out there, beyond the reach of immediate help, you want a boat that can take whatever Mother Nature can dish out.

Now that we're on the subject of definitions, how do you define "production boat?"

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

There is not any debate and never has been, except in the minds of a few.

You guys keep saying this over and over. If this is true, why do some posters feel the need (even jokingly) to say things like this:

Originally Posted by KnuckleDragger

I'm happily cruising the Sea of Cortez on my 2008 Hunter 38 (yes, I said it)

Again, he made it clear it was in jest - but it's also right on. If you have even a cursory look at virtually any sailing forum, you'll see this kind of bias being discussed quite often.

So, yes, there has ALWAYS been a debate. Hopefully, that can now end since we all seem to be in agreement that rated production boats are fine for blue water cruising.