Rudder Failures

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I generally agree with you. But I think this approach has be taken for BOTH sides of the debate.

And, I think you need to stay away from hyperbole as much as possible. For example, I never said that because Sequitur did so well in a severe storm off Cape Horn that "therefore all such boats are fine for that passage."

Those are your words, not mine. I don't believe that to be true.

What I do believe to be true is that this is a great example of what a new, well-maintained Hunter can endure in the right hands - and that is makes a very strong argument that Hunters can handle the kind of sailing 99% of cruisers out there will EVER do.

As for Cheeki-Rafiki, from what I've seen of that keel failure, I AM suspect of those boats. If I owned one, I'd be a bit nervous. But I wouldn't condemn ALL Benes or ALL production boats based on that case - just as you say.

Using your logic, all the folks who want to sail around the world in a small boat should be looking at Moore 24's. Just because one sailor is able to round the horn in a gale does not necessarily say a lot about the boat they are sailing, what it does speak to is the competence of the skipper and crew. Someone else sailing the same boat may have broken it so while I am in agreement with you that Hunters and the like do in fact meet the needs of 99% of the sailors one should still be prudent on the use. Only about 1% of the EPIRB emergency calls actually save someones butt but few people want to leave without one so that last 1% is not a bad place to be when you are choosing a boat for extensive offshore use.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sorry, a Force 10 blowing for days in the Northern N Atlantic off Greenland is not just a "major storm", it's a "bloody major storm", and I'm sure not more than one or two people posting on this thread has the slightest idea of what those conditions look like.

It's the sea state, not the wind, which will get you, and a strong gale which blows through a coastal area with a gust to 60, like the katabatic storms in the Med, is not at all the same as what happens up there with thousands of miles of fetch and days to build up the sea state. And the nasty short seas in short sharp blows in enclosed water like the Med or Baltic are also a completely different kettle of fish; extremely unpleasant (BTDT) but child's play compared to this. A short-lived F10 in the Med or in the Solent -- something I've experienced -- is very unpleasant but not life threatening for a decently well-found boat decently managed. A F10 in the open Atlantic, on the other hand, given enough time, will make 15 meter breaking waves -- something which doesn't exist in the Med -- and the long period is no comfort. It's the breaking crests which will roll you over, if you don't have a way to keep her head or stern into the waves (a drag device, and skills to deal with the situation), and smash the inside of the boat to pieces, making it uninhabitable inside -- which is what happened to that unfortunate IP. Or even pitchpole you. And F10 is quite enough for that; even less wind will do it as long as there's enough fetch and enough time.

Another misstatement is that "no small boat will survive a really big storm" -- also false. Small boats even lying ahull are rolled over and dismasted but are very rarely sunk by even the biggest hurricanes. The problem is that the people inside can't survive -- the interior of the vessel becomes uninhabitable.

So experience in strong weather in the Med is not applicable. And what happened to that IP says nothing about IP's being weak. The boat itself did not break up -- it just became uninhabitable inside. This has nothing to do with the boat -- the crew were apparently incapable of dealing with the situation, and apparently didn't have a drag device.

Those kind of conditions never exist in enclosed bodies of water, and don't exist in lower latitudes outside of tropical rotating storms. They do exist in higher latitudes, all the time in the Southern Ocean (infinite fetch!), and frequently enough at latitudes frequented on W-E Atlantic crossings. Cheap production boats will handle anything 95% of all sailors will ever experience in their lives -- no question about that. But more structural integrity is not at all a bad thing if you're venturing out far from shore in higher latitudes.

And of course, larger and heavier vessels do better than smaller or lighter ones. So I would certainly rather be in a Beneteau 57 than in a Hallberg-Rassey 40, for sailing to Greenland. But even much better would be a HR54 or even better still an HR64.

And preparation is more important than the boat -- namely being ready to avoid a roll by having a drag device and knowing how to use it, and by being ready to survive a roll, if it happens, by having everything tightly locked down inside the cabin -- including the generator. Sole plates screwed down tight, batteries (most important!) fully restrained, cabinet doors well locked, and all objects capable of flying around stowed away.

Yes, the North Atlantic can have major storms but then we are not talking about a F10 (48-55k) that is defined on the Beaufort scale as Whole gale. A major storm is what is called on Beaufort scale a violent storm (F11) or a Hurricane force storm (f12).

Regarding the effect that a F10 (out of land protection) have on sea on the North Atlantic and on the Med, this two movies give a good idea, even if the one on the Atlantic is probably a F11 and on the Med a F9.

Navy Ship in EXTREME Ocean Storm - YouTube

30/10/2008 GenovaFoce - mare forza 9 - Guardia Costiera in difficoltà - YouTube

Last year when I made it to Zante in Zakinthos, I come out of a F8, nothing bad since I was sailing downwind and having fun surfing between 10 and 13k. When I moored the guy next tome, a French on a 42ft steel boat, said to me:

It is too bad out there? I saw you coming, you were sailing fast.

I told him that no, that downwind it was alright, but that upwind it would be difficult.

That was the beginning of a large talk. The guy after all was much more experienced than me and was just finishing his second circumnavigation (he lived on the boat). Is last words were: If you can sail here (on the med) with bad weather, you can sail anywhere.
Before he was telling me some of his nastier sea stories and the worse ones had been on the med. I believe he knew what he was talking about.

The med conditions have nothing to do with the Baltic that is less prone to sudden rages. French navy sailors, that sailed all around the world had a nick name for the med: "La garce" that freely translated means the whore. I find the the nick name very appropriated.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

...

Here is another case: A particular boat was sailing the north Atlantic and the keel was ripped off the boat. Sadly, the boat was found inverted with all hands lost. Now some may have us apply the same "small data set" logic to this case and say something like, "Well it only happens not very often so you can ignore that case". I would contend that is not the right attitude. Random events usually tend to line up into a really bad situation only occasionally. Because bad outcomes are fairly rare, when they do happen they usually are trying to tell us about a fundamental problem. The trick is finding that problem so we can avoid it.
..

Obviously a keel lost is a very different case than a rudder lost. The effects on the boat safety are completely different and while many rudder losses can be attributed to bad maintenance and to the need to make them sacrificial regarding hull integrity (when they collide with an object), the keel should stay on its place no matter what, extreme groundings apart.

Those two incidents should be investigated since they show similarities on the delaminated area. Personally I am a bit afraid of inexpensive cruiser racer's keels. They have to be lighter (to be fast) and to make them lighter and as strong as more heavier mass production cruisers (like First versus Oceanis) they would have to be built with better materials and better building techniques and that would make them much more expensive. Yes they are more expensive (First versus Oceanis) but not that much.
I believe that it was because this dilemma that Bavaria finished wit its line of cruiser racers (Match) after some problems in some keels.

I believe that a problem that has to be considered is the effect of continuous stress, on a sailboat that is raced many years, can have on the boat structure, when this one is not made expensively. The boat can be all right when it is made and 15 years later the structure can have not the same resistance due to material fatigue. Of course that's unacceptable, out of racing boats.

Saying this I don't know if that was the case with that 2 first 40,7. Lots of them sailing and racing top ocean races, some cruising in remote places and no more cases that I know off. It can be the case that both keels have been damaged by previous groundings and that can reflect the way they show almost identical damage. I don't know but I strongly believe that both boats should be subject to an impartial investigation. With modern diagnostic equipment is possible to know exactly why it happen and that is fundamental to take measures to correct that, if the problem does not come from previous groundings.

If so, it should be made very clear to all sailors that after a severe grounding, even if the boat looks all right, all the boat structure should be checked and that is not the case, since it is an expensive operation that probably implies to dismount the keel. I remember some years ago a very expensive Sweeden Yacht 45, a beautiful and very well made yacht that lost the keel on a Transat. Posterior investigations showed that was due to a previous hard grounding on the Med, that did not leave exterior traces, but t had weakened drastically all the structure that supported the keel.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux you are equally as crazy as the rest of us, it probably was the perfect type of riding for you as even though you can't quite keep up, you never quit! LOL

You mean keep up with Vataneen an his machine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKgeCQGu_ug

Well I could keep up for a while, but believe me going at 120% and way over my level and only for the pleasure of seeing him drive. The ones that were at this level on motorcycles were very few: Peterhansel and some top Portuguese riders. I doubt very much you could keep with him any time To give you an idea of his performance and that machine, the motorcycle guys used to be on those 500kms about 1 hour faster then the first car and my level has about as fast as the fastest car. That year he made about as fast as the fastest motorcycle and one hour faster than the fastest car

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Using your logic, all the folks who want to sail around the world in a small boat should be looking at Moore 24's. Just because one sailor is able to round the horn in a gale does not necessarily say a lot about the boat they are sailing, what it does speak to is the competence of the skipper and crew. Someone else sailing the same boat may have broken it so while I am in agreement with you that Hunters and the like do in fact meet the needs of 99% of the sailors one should still be prudent on the use. Only about 1% of the EPIRB emergency calls actually save someones butt but few people want to leave without one so that last 1% is not a bad place to be when you are choosing a boat for extensive offshore use.

As for the Moore24 - if it's done a circ, I certainly won't say it can't be done in a Moore 24. But that's a long way from me saying "all the folks who want to sail around the world in a small boat should be looking at Moore 24". I certainly wouldn't say that either.

Apart from that, we seem to be in agreement. Production boats are perfectly fine for typical blue-water cruising. And skipper and crew need to be competent.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

As for the Moore24 - if it's done a circ, I certainly won't say it can't be done in a Moore 24. But that's a long way from me saying "all the folks who want to sail around the world in a small boat should be looking at Moore 24". I certainly wouldn't say that either.

Apart from that, we seem to be in agreement. Production boats are perfectly fine for typical blue-water cruising. And skipper and crew need to be competent.

I'd go further than that and say that almost any production boat made is capable of blue water sailing, including Catalina 27's or Santa Cruz 24's as long as the skipper is competent BUT there are many boats that I personally would not choose to sail offshore with for a variety of reasons. So is a Hunter a blue water boat? If the criteria is fully capable in storm conditions, high build quality, depending on the model, then its debatable but if its whether or not someone has sailed a similar boat offshore then sure it qualifies.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I'd go further than that and say that almost any production boat made is capable of blue water sailing, including Catalina 27's or Santa Cruz 24's as long as the skipper is competent BUT there are many boats that I personally would not choose to sail offshore with for a variety of reasons. So is a Hunter a blue water boat? If the criteria is fully capable in storm conditions, high build quality, depending on the model, then its debatable but if its whether or not someone has sailed a similar boat offshore then sure it qualifies.

A major full storm is something that small sailing boats are not designed to face and that does not mean they cannot survive it, but not always, not even what some call blue-water boats.

Anyway regarding smaller boats and bigger boats there is a huge difference between a Catalina 27 and a Hunter 49. It has nothing to do with the solidity of the building but with overall stability. Simply the size of the breaking wave needed to capsize a Hunter will be several times bigger than the one needed to capsize the Catalina and substantially bigger then the one needed to capsize a IP 38. So both boats can be built stronger than the Hunter but if the Hunter is strong enough to sustain those storm conditions (and I believe it is for an average storm) then it will offer more seaworthiness than any of the two other boats.

As it was pointed out, it can be built a small boat that will survive a major storm, being rolled over several times. It has to be a very strong one since things like batteries and generators and all sort of stuff tend to become lose, but the same cannot be said about the crew, that will have few chances to survive inside the boat on those conditions.

Here you have a solid one being capsized to see what happens:

Yachting Monthly's Crash Test Boat Capsize - YouTube

It was a very gentle capsize, on real conditions that boat would be rolled more violently and slammed around by waves till one brought it to its feet. Very different conditions.

Around here in Europe, regarding size and RCD class A boat, most mass production boats are designed to pass the requirements of class A with 33ft but that is not what is mentioned here as an offshore boat, even if it has obviously some potential to do that. Regarding that and boats looked as specially apt to do that we would be talking about boats with 45ft and over. Look at the vast majority of boats doing the ARC and you will find that most have more than 40ft and the ones with less are relatively few.

That does not mean that smaller mass production boats have not circumnavigated, many have without any problem. The chances of meeting conditions too hash for the boat, conditions that can roll the boat, are just bigger than on a substantially bigger boat.

That does not mean that a good crew, even if it is a solo sailor, it is not fundamental but if you find conditions that will roll a boat, that will not make such a big difference.

I am not saying that all boats are similar in what regards that and that there are not boats that trough weight, like the Island Packet, or trough a superior stability and better dynamic stability, like Pogo cannot have a seaworthiness and resistance to capsize bigger than a mass production boat of its size, yes they can, but the difference is relative and a relatively bigger mass production sailboat will have a superior resistance to capsize regarding the smaller boats, even if they are more suited to offshore work than a mass production boat of the same size.

I cannot post a link to it, but on my blog I had studied the stability of a 35ft Hanse and compared with the one of a considered bluewater boat of the same size, a Halberg Rassy and as you can see there, there is no difference. I am not saying that happens with all the boats, each case is a case but there are some misleading information regarding the comparative seaworthiness of both type of boats.

Many would say that an Halberg Rassy or a Island Packet is a bluewater boat independently of size as many would say that a Jeanneau or a Bavaria is not a bluewater boat independently of size. I don't see the logic of that.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

A major full storm is something that small sailing boats are not designed to face and that does not mean they cannot survive it, but not always, not even what some call blue-water boats.

Anyway regarding smaller boats and bigger boats there is a huge difference between a Catalina 27 and a Hunter 49. It has nothing to do with the solidity of the building but with overall stability. Simply the size of the breaking wave needed to capsize a Hunter will be several times bigger than the one needed to capsize the Catalina and substantially bigger then the one needed to capsize a IP 38. So both boats can be built stronger than the Hunter but if the Hunter is strong enough to sustain those storm conditions (and I believe it is for an average storm) then it will offer more seaworthiness than any of the two other boats.

As it was pointed out, it can be built a small boat that will survive a major storm, being rolled over several times. It has to be a very strong one since things like batteries and generators and all sort of stuff tend to become lose, but the same cannot be said about the crew, that will have few chances to survive inside the boat on those conditions.

Here you have a solid one being capsized to see what happens:

It was a very gentle capsize, on real conditions that boat would be rolled more violently and slammed around by waves till one brought it to its feet. Very different conditions.

Around here in Europe, regarding size and RCD class A boat, most mass production boats are designed to pass the requirements of class A with 33ft but that is not what is mentioned here as an offshore boat, even if it has obviously some potential to do that. Regarding that and boats looked as specially apt to do that we would be talking about boats with 45ft and over. Look at the vast majority of boats doing the ARC and you will find that most have more than 40ft and the ones with less are relatively few.

That does not mean that smaller mass production boats have not circumnavigated, many have without any problem. The chances of meeting conditions too hash for the boat, conditions that can roll the boat, are just bigger than on a substantially bigger boat.

That does not mean that a good crew, even if it is a solo sailor, it is not fundamental but if you find conditions that will roll a boat, that will not make such a big difference.

I am not saying that all boats are similar in what regards that and that there are not boats that trough weight, like the Island Packet, or trough a superior stability and better dynamic stability, like Pogo cannot have a seaworthiness and resistance to capsize bigger than a mass production boat of its size, yes they can, but the difference is relative and a relatively bigger mass production sailboat will have a superior resistance to capsize regarding the smaller boats, even if they are more suited to offshore work than a mass production boat of the same size.

I cannot post a link to it, but on my blog I had studied the stability of a 35ft Hanse and compared with the one of a considered bluewater boat of the same size, a Halberg Rassy and as you can see there, there is no difference. I am not saying that happens with all the boats, each case is a case but there are some misleading information regarding the comparative seaworthiness of both type of boats.

Many would say that an Halberg Rassy or a Island Packet is a bluewater boat independently of size as many would say that a Jeanneau or a Bavaria is not a bluewater boat independently of size. I don't see the logic of that.

If the message is larger boats are more resistant to capsize, no matter how they are built, no debate, I agree.

[neilpride]

To me the EU Cat ABC its a joke, a Bavaria 32 is rated A, i wonder how the EU is able to know which category for wich boat? they test the boats in major storms? for how long? downwind , upwinds, barepoles, hove to? because if is the clasic F8 inshore gale to me this is not a major storm... the EU instead of working in the funny EU CAT rates they need to establish a fair regulation about construction practiques, overall to much better than stamp a A decal in a bavaria 32.my 2 cents.

[stevewrye]

I know this is about rudder safety but I feel that the general design phylosphy of companies who build boats are the same the entire way through the building of the boat. What I'm saying is that if you built a rudder that can handle the loads needed for serious cruising why then would you not build an interior suited for serious cruising to go along with it.

I just want to say I have great respect for Pulox both as a person and a N.A. and I have a serious question for him and that is: What newly designed/manufactured European or American made boats over 35 feet that have standup head room and berths to sleep in would you not do a serious passage in, lets say a N. Atlantic passage West to east?

Is it true that every boat manufactured in Europe that is over 35 feet with stand up head room and sleeping berths pass the European standard of an offshore boat?

And for Smack, I just watched a sales video of some salesman I think in Oxnard,CA. selling a 49 foot Hunter and saying that this boat is class A and is made to do offshore passages. Aside from structural issues would you do a passage in the N. Atlantic West to East in a Hunter at 49 feet with the way they set up the interior design. Starting from the companion way doors down throughout the entire interior of the boat. Smack that interior is not designed to go off shore, you know that don't you? Have you read the recent article over at AAC about their interior design and how important it is in a bluewater boat for everyone aboard safety? I'm convinced that one could not stay below in the boat on the video for any time at all in savage 20 + foot seas without being injured. Even if one was not injured the effort to keep oneself upright would be astounding and if a crew was in for a long storm they would be at such a disvantage from being over tired. I would not want to be in that situation as it is hard enough on a properly made boat in extended storm conditions to keep alert and safe. Believe me that my wife and I in our Boreal with a very seaworthy interior aside from lousy Europen galley were exausted after 6 strait days of 35 to 40 kts and crossing 5 meter seas from the NW and NE. I just can't imagine having to do it on that 49 foot Hunter. But what is your opinion on that? Would you want to be aboard a 40 foot Hunter in the fairly good conditions we left the Canary Islands in for 6 days?

Cheers

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

To me the EU Cat ABC its a joke, a Bavaria 32 is rated A, i wonder how the EU is able to know which category for wich boat? they test the boats in major storms? for how long? downwind , upwinds, barepoles, hove to? because if is the clasic F8 inshore gale to me this is not a major storm... the EU instead of working in the funny EU CAT rates they need to establish a fair regulation about construction practiques, overall to much better than stamp a A decal in a bavaria 32.my 2 cents.

It is funny what is a joke for you. During some years many prominent European NA and at least an American one tried to define what were the minimum stability, minimum building requirements, minimum safety requirements sailboats should have to sail on different sea and wind conditions. The basic work that constituted the RCD has been followed through the years by a commission of experts (Naval architects and naval engineers) that each year, following eventual shortcomings have been modifying the RCD to provide safer boats and more information to customers.

It is obviously that you don't know RCD and don't know what you are talking about.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by stevewrye

I know this is about rudder safety but I feel that the general design phylosphy of companies who build boats are the same the entire way through the building of the boat. What I'm saying is that if you built a rudder that can handle the loads needed for serious cruising why then would you not build an interior suited for serious cruising to go along with it.

I just want to say I have great respect for Pulox both as a person and a N.A. and I have a serious question for him and that is: What newly designed/manufactured European or American made boats over 35 feet that have standup head room and berths to sleep in would you not do a serious passage in, lets say a N. Atlantic passage West to east?

Is it true that every boat manufactured in Europe that is over 35 feet with stand up head room and sleeping berths pass the European standard of an offshore boat?

And for Smack, I just watched a sales video of some salesman I think in Oxnard,CA. selling a 49 foot Hunter and saying that this boat is class A and is made to do offshore passages. Aside from structural issues would you do a passage in the N. Atlantic West to East in a Hunter at 49 feet with the way they set up the interior design. Starting from the companion way doors down throughout the entire interior of the boat. Smack that interior is not designed to go off shore, you know that don't you? Have you read the recent article over at AAC about their interior design and how important it is in a bluewater boat for everyone aboard safety? I'm convinced that one could not stay below in the boat on the video for any time at all in savage 20 + foot seas without being injured. Even if one was not injured the effort to keep oneself upright would be astounding and if a crew was in for a long storm they would be at such a disvantage from being over tired. I would not want to be in that situation as it is hard enough on a properly made boat in extended storm conditions to keep alert and safe. Believe me that my wife and I in our Boreal with a very seaworthy interior aside from lousy Europen galley were exausted after 6 strait days of 35 to 40 kts and crossing 5 meter seas from the NW and NE. I just can't imagine having to do it on that 49 foot Hunter. But what is your opinion on that? Would you want to be aboard a 40 foot Hunter in the fairly good conditions we left the Canary Islands in for 6 days?

Cheers

Hand holds???

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

It is funny what is a joke for you. During some years many prominent European NA and at least an American one tried to define what were the minimum stability, minimum building requirements, minimum safety requirements sailboats should have to sail on different sea and wind conditions. The basic work that constituted the RCD has been followed through the years by a commission of experts (Naval architects and naval engineers) that each year, following eventual shortcomings have been modifying the RCD to provide safer boats and more information to customers.

It is obviously that you don't know RCD and don't know what you are talking about.

But this post dont asnwer nothing, i mean you dont say nothing new here.
I dont think you mean construction practiques , then if there is any regulation about that maybe cheeki rafiki could be in Uk now and 4 sailors alive, but apart from that tragic episode i think you mean tank testing, and its nice , but in the real world, there is any builder testing their boats in storms?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by stevewrye

And for Smack, I just watched a sales video of some salesman I think in Oxnard,CA. selling a 49 foot Hunter and saying that this boat is class A and is made to do offshore passages. Aside from structural issues would you do a passage in the N. Atlantic West to East in a Hunter at 49 feet with the way they set up the interior design. Starting from the companion way doors down throughout the entire interior of the boat. Smack that interior is not designed to go off shore, you know that don't you?

Would I cross the Atlantic in a Hunter 49? Of course. Why not? Would I want to go "too far north" - no thanks.

Please point out why the interior is "not suitable" for offshore.

Originally Posted by stevewrye

Have you read the recent article over at AAC about their interior design and how important it is in a bluewater boat for everyone aboard safety? I'm convinced that one could not stay below in the boat on the video for any time at all in savage 20 + foot seas without being injured.

You may be convinced of it - but I have absolute proof that it's perfectly doable - even in an F10-11 near Cape Horn with Sequitur.

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.



We also watched the inclinometer jam-up a couple of times against the stops at 60º, but never could get a camera in position to record more than 43º. We were hit by a few breaking waves, and Sequitur took them in stride. I thought of launching the Jordan series drogue, but realized that we were just fine without.

We went below and cocooned in the rather more peaceful salon. From the chart-plotter there I monitored our drift east-northeast, and saw that if the wind maintained its direction, we should clear Wolf Rocks. I set-up a plot on the iPad to track our drift, and we laid down on the main salon couches to relax and watch the storm happen.

Originally Posted by stevewrye

Even if one was not injured the effort to keep oneself upright would be astounding and if a crew was in for a long storm they would be at such a disvantage from being over tired. I would not want to be in that situation as it is hard enough on a properly made boat in extended storm conditions to keep alert and safe.

I understand that this is your view of things and drives the way you see what's valuable and what's not. But there are many, many examples out there of sailors (including Sequitur) taking these production boats all over the world...offshore...and doing just fine.

Originally Posted by stevewrye

Believe me that my wife and I in our Boreal with a very seaworthy interior aside from lousy Europen galley were exausted after 6 strait days of 35 to 40 kts and crossing 5 meter seas from the NW and NE. I just can't imagine having to do it on that 49 foot Hunter. But what is your opinion on that?

Again, I completely respect your Boreal. That's a very serious boat. And it definitely informs your expectations of what a boat "should be". But I look at the evidence of what people are doing out there with production boats (again including Sequitur and/or Mike Harker in Hunters) and I see absolutely NO reason to think it would be the boat that caused me any problems in 35-40 knot winds and 5 meter seas (F8 conditions).

Now, agreed, 6 days of that would suck regardless of the boat. But that's kind of my point.

Your Boreal is awesome. No doubt. But it's definitely not for me. I'm very happy and comfortable with a Hunter.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by stevewrye

I know this is about rudder safety but I feel that the general design phylosphy of companies who build boats are the same the entire way through the building of the boat. What I'm saying is that if you built a rudder that can handle the loads needed for serious cruising why then would you not build an interior suited for serious cruising to go along with it.

A rudder, with adequate maintenance, should be able to resist all the loads that are needed for serious cruising...or the even greater ones that are needed for serious racing and that means that all boats should have rudders able to cope with everything the sea through to them...except objects that should not be on the sea, like heavy debris, containers, logs and so on.

In what regards that a rudder cannot be more strong than the hull and that means that it has to be designed in a sacrificial way. When a rudder hit for instance a container, if the rudder is hugely strong, the force made on the rudder, amplified by the length of the rudder would break the hull on the insertion point. So to prevent that a rudder should break before the hull breaks. That off course gives an advantage to steel boats and to aluminium ones that have a stronger hull but even on your boat the shaft of your rudder is massive steel, much stronger than the aluminium, so even if with a greater security margin, your rudder is designed to break or bend before the hull can be compromised.

Originally Posted by stevewrye

I just want to say I have great respect for Pulox both as a person and a N.A. and I have a serious question for him and that is: What newly designed/manufactured European or American made boats over 35 feet that have standup head room and berths to sleep in would you not do a serious passage in, lets say a N. Atlantic passage West to east?

Thanks Steve, the respect is mutual. I am not a NA but simply an A and even if one of the world's biggest NA is also simply a A, I had all my live designed houses and my interest for boat design is a relatively recent one (15 years).

That is a tricky question Steve and what I would do or not as to do with my shortcomings as a sailor and also with the type of boats I have experience with. For instance my experience with cats is very small but I know what on the market is considered safe for an average, kind of a family type of sailor and what is only suitable for a sportive knowledgeable crew.

So let's let cats aside that I would not consider, not because they are not safe but simply because I don't have enough experience with them and let's consider only monohulls. I would say that I would not be comfortable in a boat smaller than 36ft and even on one with that size I would have to choose it carefully, in what regards stability and built quality, but that does not mean that I would not find a mass market one that I was comfortable with.
I would be much more at ease on one of the 40ft the mass market offers.

But as important as the boat is the equipment. Mass market boats don't come equipped for that and I would have to equip the boat with a removable foresail and a storm sail, security lines, interior grabs, if the boat did no had them in enough quantity and more small details that even if not expensive, are necessary. You know perfectly well what they are. Modifying a mass production boat to have them is not as good as have them designed from scratch and come standard with the boat, but they will be able to perform their job.

Here among our community there is a member that had circumnavigated with a 40ft Beneteau. I bet that he had modified his boat on the points I am talking about, as do all that sail extensively and circumnavigate in mass production boats. Even I, that don't cross oceans, but sail about 2500nm a year, have modified my boat on some of those points, because I probably sail on more difficult conditions then the average that sail boats like mine, or at least they sail them with a crew.

That does not mean that a smaller boat with very good stability and dynamic stability is not safe to others, more experienced on that type of boats. The RCD limits practically that option to a bit less than 30ft and only for boast with exceptional stability characteristics (it has nothing to do with the size of the boat but with stability demands a smaller boat cannot pass).

Originally Posted by stevewrye

Is it true that every boat manufactured in Europe that is over 35 feet with stand up head room and sleeping berths pass the European standard of an offshore boat?
..

No Steve, stand up headroom or cabins have nothing to do with it.. The RCD was created after the Fastnet disaster were many boats and some lives were lost because the sailing community, specially the ones that had more responsibilities on it, wanted that never to repeat again and wanted a way to be able to forbidden dangerous boats to enter races.

Many of the boats that entered that race would not pass today the RCD certificate for Class A, namely in what regards stability requirement. The fact that most mass production boats with 35ft designed for coastal and offshore work are able to pass the class A certificate means that today's boats are safer and can pass stability requirements (and not only) that many boats on that tragic fastnet would not pass. They are designed to have the stability and the necessary STIX to be approved.

That says also a lot about the quality of modern NA. I remember that more than a decade ago( or more) OVNI had to commission to a top NA the design of his 36ft for passing the class A requirements.

A decade ago only very few 36ft were able to pass RCD class A demands. Today many 33ft can do that. The requirements today are more demanding then 10 years ago, it is the boats that are better designed. Have you noticed the increase on the last years of draft (or swing ballasted keels) on European boats as well boats with torpedo and deeply bulbed keels? All that has to do with the stability needed, that on the case of your boat is obtained by several tons of ballast slightly bellow the hull.

About a month ago a race on the med turned bad, with sustained winds of 45K gusting 60K. 120 boats on it, most of them light cruiser racers, some as small as 33ft. Many boats retired, two broke masts, a racing boat had a problem on the keel, but all of them made it to port by their own means and no boat capsized. That 33ft, with one of the designer as part of the duo crew made it to the finish and won the short crew category.

40 years ago we would have abandoned boats and probably lost lives. That was for what the RCD was created, for a Fastnet tragedy, with many boats in trouble, not to happen again (today all boats that enter offshore races have to be RCD class A approved).

I have covered on my blog that race extensively, the stories and the videos. If you did not saw it have a look (Middle sea race).