Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[leftbrainstuff]

To answer the question posed by the OP we need to consider much more than the spec sheet of a boat.

The topic posed is survivability. Survivability is an emergent property of a system. What does this mean? An emergent property has no direct causal link to just part of the system such as the the specs of a boat.

Thinking of a yacht as a system, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, means we need to include all the elements in play when the boat is used. This means the crew, the weather and local conditions, vessel condition, equipment, maintenance condition, remaining fatigue life of major structural elements and a myriad of other information.

Unlike cars we have little or no statistical data, from either destructive and certification testing or from in use data like accident statistics, to claim one vessel is safer or better than another. Statistics also represent a sufficiently large measurement set which is not available for yachts.

Ship ratings, for example, are only a spec sheet based rating and are not validated through testing. They don't include key elements of the system like crew experience, vessel condition and local conditions. They only satisfy liability and marketing needs. They can't be used to determine survivability.

So to answer the OP's question rephrased as which boats are blue water capable we can only base our response on empirical data. So the boats that have circumnavigated or survived a blue water crossing are recursively blue water capable.

We could continue this discussion on other 'ilities' like livability, maintainability, manouevrability.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[cpa]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I kinda suspect that those displacement numbers are a bit optimistic when compared to reality, Ralph, and the Pink Lady wasn't built by the UK builder who apparently supplied the data to that link.

But none the less, even with those numbers the D:L ratio is 290, which represents a medium displacement boat even in those days, and a pretty heavy one today. They are indeed a good design, and considering their age, continue to make a lot of good passages. They are very popular here in Oz.

Cheers, and all the best for 2015 (hope that you get out again)

Jim

I owned a 1969 S&S 34 for about 8 years and in racing trim she tipped the scales at 12k lbs. I always thought the design weight was off.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

There is definitely a lot of disagreement with the CE Category ratings. I see it a lot. But I honestly don't care. The reason is that most of the disagreement comes from people who are not in any way NAs or engineers or builders. They just don't like the rating for whatever reason. So their disagreement means nothing really. They don't know.

As I said above - the CE rating system is accepted within the industry and, as Polux has pointed out in another thread, is pretty well vetted by professionals.

So, unless we hear about vast deficiencies from those who actually know something about it - it's the standard...even if it gives some people heartburn.

I would agree it is "a" standard, but I'm honestly not sure after reading the lengthy explanations by Polux & others from other threads that it's "the" standard you are trying to represent, namely one geared for consumers to help them properly distinguish between different types of boats. My admittedly vague impression was that it was developed by the mfgs. & for the mfgs. that has been refined & enforced by European regulators. (For example in 2009 when they required certain mfgs. to beef up build quality with heavier scantlings, etc.). What I found somewhat confusing, again from a consumer point of view, is that the same boat may or may not get the same offshore rating based solely on account of the amount of its tankage. This is obviously an important criteria related to self-sufficiency on longer voyages, but it has nothing to do with whether the boat is built to withstand heavier seas.

Then again, there's nothing wrong with framing your thread around "a" standard. In fact it may be helpful given all the vagaries of defining "blue water" vs. "coastal" boats, etc. But if you're using a govt-approved, widely-accepted industry standard (incorrectly or not) as your measuring tool, then expect some pushback when people post about build quality issues on boats rated "offshore" by the regulatory bodies. Besides, isn't it good to know that our deck fittings, for e.g., may need reinforcing? Not sure why this raises such indignation from some.

Btw, you cannot possibly have any idea whether "most of the disagreement [with the CE std.] comes from people who are not in any way NAs or engineers or builders," just like you have no idea whether fender washers used instead of backing plates on cleats are purposely engineered as "fuses" or are just a cheap build practice. With all the constructive feedback from others, there's no need to keep straining your credibility.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would agree it is "a" standard, but I'm honestly not sure after reading the lengthy explanations by Polux & others from other threads that it's "the" standard you are trying to represent, namely one geared for consumers to help them properly distinguish between different types of boats. My admittedly vague impression was that it was developed by the mfgs. & for the mfgs. that has been refined & enforced by European regulators. (For example in 2009 when they required certain mfgs. to beef up build quality with heavier scantlings, etc.). What I found somewhat confusing, again from a consumer point of view, is that the same boat may or may not get the same offshore rating based solely on account of the amount of its tankage. This is obviously an important criteria related to self-sufficiency on longer voyages, but it has nothing to do with whether the boat is built to withstand heavier seas.

Then again, there's nothing wrong with framing your thread around "a" standard. In fact it may be helpful given all the vagaries of defining "blue water" vs. "coastal" boats, etc. But if you're using a govt-approved, widely-accepted industry standard (incorrectly or not) as your measuring tool, then expect some pushback when people post about build quality issues on boats rated "offshore" by the regulatory bodies. Besides, isn't it good to know that our deck fittings, for e.g., may need reinforcing? Not sure why this raises such indignation from some.

Btw, you cannot possibly have any idea whether "most of the disagreement [with the CE std.] comes from people who are not in any way NAs or engineers or builders," just like you have no idea whether fender washers used instead of backing plates on cleats are purposely engineered as "fuses" or are just a cheap build practice. With all the constructive feedback from others, there's no need to keep straining your credibility.

Just one more time-the idea that deck cleats have a designed failure point or "fuse" is madness. People die when deck cleats fail, its shockingly common. I personally saw the harbor patrol guys pick up the body last time it happened outside our marina; boat under tow, cheap bow cleat install with no backing plate, man on stern of tow boat looking aft took a 10" deck cleat in the chest on the end of 50' of heavy tow line. Might as well have been a cannonball, instant death. Proper deck cleat backing is serious life or death business, there is no room for confusion in this.

[neilpride]

To be clear is something i consider since some decks are really thin in deck cleat áreas , it can be 2 things, 1: just saving pennys and cost or 2: trying to avoid a big hole in the deck if the cleat blow out.,but nevermind is just a concern not a fixed idea Minaret... Cheers.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by neilpride

To be clear is something i consider since some decks are really thin in deck cleat áreas , it can be 2 things, 1: just saving pennys and cost or 2: trying to avoid a big hole in the deck if the cleat blow out.,but nevermind is just a concern not a fixed idea Minaret... Cheers.

I certainly understand your reasoning. And I too have seen plenty of exactly what you speak of, ie fender washers for backing plates. I'm guessing its 1 above as I'm sure the manufacturers are well aware of the liability in this. Just want to be extremely clear, no room for ambiguity in it. Deck hardware MUST stay attached, and cleats in particular can be very very dangerous. I know you are well aware of the risks, just don't want anyone who may not be to allow Smack to cause them to end up thinking that fender washer backing plates might be a good idea-it could honestly get someone killed.

[weavis]

Gentle People.
Forum Mods are now having to start cleaning up posts. Unless we get back to civilised disagreements the Thread will close.
Thank you.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by minaret

I certainly understand your reasoning. And I too have seen plenty of exactly what you speak of, ie fender washers for backing plates. I'm guessing its 1 above as I'm sure the manufacturers are well aware of the liability in this. Just want to be extremely clear, no room for ambiguity in it. Deck hardware MUST stay attached, and cleats in particular can be very very dangerous. I know you are well aware of the risks, just don't want anyone who may not be to allow Smack to cause them to end up thinking that fender washer backing plates might be a good idea-it could honestly get someone killed.

Smack he he, no , i dont want to allow someone think is a original feature , i scracht my head thinking seriosuly if it can be the case or not, but always lean to the saving cost cutting corners side..

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I'm always impressed in these threads just how many CF readers know more about boat design and building than the designers and manufacturers. Please provide your certification and experience in boat design and building prior to making statements.

Talking about a specific boat problem is fair, but applying it to a whole model run, manufacturer, multiple manufacturers is just a display of pig headed ignorance.

Be nice, remember we are discussing CE standards so if one boat builder can use fender washers or brass fittings they all can because that is the standard. Has nothing to do with with other boat builders because its just the standards we are talking about and I am sure many builders do not build to the lowest possible standards but some obviously do.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

and I am sure many builders do not build to the lowest possible standards but some obviously do.

So which build to the lowest standards? Which models and year of that manufacturer. What do you have to support and prove your claim? And to be clear you are suggesting they are building a bad product.

And to be clear a standard is a standard. Almost all industries have standards that are developed within their product category. And for the most part it is always a group of manufacturers etc. as they are the ones with the expertize in that industry. In this case I doubt CE had an internet forum member on the standards board unless they were really from within the boating industry to start with.

Arguing that a standard developed by an industry as a whole is wrong just because you don't like it and feel you know better is __________________.

[smackdaddy]

Some of you seem to be lost in the weeds. Either that, or you just like weeds. So I'll make it simple by going back to the beginning. Here:

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Modern Category A "Production Boats" - also referred to in forums as "BeneHunterLinas" and "Bleach Bottles" and other interesting names - are built for and perfectly suited to bluewater cruising. Period.

That's it. Everything else is quibbling.

So why the weeds? I think Tanzer nailed it with this:

Originally Posted by TanzerTom

For me personally, it's a moot point. I'm realistic enough to know I'm not going to be crossing the Atlantic or Pacific. While many sailors have romanticized visions of doing so, relatively few ever will. Some will feed that vision by having a heavy displacement, full keel, huge liquid capacity, so called blue water boat. A mass produced boat, while possibly capable of making a crossing, will not meet that psychological need.

No "standard" anywhere, any time, will disabuse people of this psychology...even though it's purely psychology - not facts. If you have this psychological need - you will do just about anything to justify it...even to the point of saying that the professionals don't know what they are talking about.

To those, I say sail on. Enjoy your boat. But I'll stick with the pros and the facts over your weedy viewpoints, thank you.

[CLady]

My 'wish list' to make my production :1980 C&C40Tall rig really 'just right' for extended 'blue water' cruising:
1. shorten the mast 4 to 5 feet
2. add another spreader to make it three of them
3. not have the swept up stern that is a challenge in quartering following seas
4. extend the fore/aft length of fin keel, (7.5ft. draft) so she doesn't pivot quite so easily

Shortening sail resolves many of the above problems--she behaves nicely in heavy weather when enough reduction of sail is done both going to weather and downwind.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, you cannot possibly have any idea whether "most of the disagreement [with the CE std.] comes from people who are not in any way NAs or engineers or builders," just like you have no idea whether fender washers used instead of backing plates on cleats are purposely engineered as "fuses" or are just a cheap build practice. With all the constructive feedback from others, there's no need to keep straining your credibility.

Are you an NA, engineer, or builder?

I've personally not claimed anything other than I accept the CE standards instituted by those professionals. In other words, I trust in their credibility - not my own. If you're one of these pros, I'll listen. If you're not - I probably won't.

Again, I don't mind pushback at all. But as sailorboy said earlier - the dismissal of the CE standard as some nefarious industry tool that manufacturers dreamed up is a bit beyond the pale of "push back"...especially when it comes from people that are none of the above.

We all have to choose whom to believe. I've chosen.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

Just one more time-the idea that deck cleats have a designed failure point or "fuse" is madness.

It's always funny how things can get so twisted in a conversation. I think this one wins the Pretzel Logic Award.

I didn't say that min.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would agree it is "a" standard, but I'm honestly not sure after reading the lengthy explanations by Polux & others from other threads that it's "the" standard you are trying to represent, namely one geared for consumers to help them properly distinguish between different types of boats. My admittedly vague impression was that it was developed by the mfgs. & for the mfgs. that has been refined & enforced by European regulators. (For example in 2009 when they required certain mfgs. to beef up build quality with heavier scantlings, etc.). What I found somewhat confusing, again from a consumer point of view, is that the same boat may or may not get the same offshore rating based solely on account of the amount of its tankage. This is obviously an important criteria related to self-sufficiency on longer voyages, but it has nothing to do with whether the boat is built to withstand heavier seas.
....

It is obviously that explanations regarding the RCD were not clear enough.
Regarding the reason it was created it had to do with the 1979 Fastnet tragedy with many capsized boats and the many IOR boast with very low AVS and very poor final stability characteristics. It was developed to create a mandatory minimum of stability requirements regarding boats sailing in diverse conditions and places.

Recently the Directive was modified and only the conditions remained because it was considered that those conditions can be meet on several places (and not only offshore).

Regarding the tankage or storage needed for a boat to be sailed offshore or to cross oceans that varies so much with cruisers that it does not make any sense to stabilish limits and each one will find the ones that fit him, the crew and his life style.

I talked here about a family of 4 that circumnavigated and cruised extensively on a J36 or about two friends that cruised extensively and circumnavigated on a mini racer with 22ft. It is clear that for some there is not needed a big tankage or a big load ability to do long range cruising so to each one their own criteria in what regards that makes sense.