A Good Article That Addresses The Most Asked Question On This Forum

[Jim Cate]

and that is not at all like a Tahiti Ketch!

Well, I agree that there are lots of different designs that were made under CCA rules, but the Tahiti ketch ain't one of them!

Jim

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, I agree that there are lots of different designs that were made under CCA rules, but the Tahiti ketch ain't one of them!

Jim

Yeah I was going for an extreme there.. may have reached too far.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Yeah I was going for an extreme there.. may have reached too far.

Probably have offended a bunch of Tahiti ketch owners, too! They tend to be a prickly lot with disdain for ANY racing rules (or ideas, or boats, or...).

BTW, I like you new avatar photo

Jim

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Probably have offended a bunch of Tahiti ketch owners, too!
Jim

Yeah but I can still outrun them with my ultra light modern fin keel (comparatively)!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Polux

But about how to chose a bluewater boat and there are very few that make bluewater sailing their preferred type of sailing. 99% are coastal sailors that eventually make some offshore passages and eventually cross oceans (for doing more coastal or island to island sailing).

For 99% of the sailors a boat fully adapted to bluewater conditions will not be the best boat. For almost all, the boat that makes sense would be a boat designed to be very good in coastal conditions (that allows to enjoy life and a has great living interior) that has also the capacity to sail offshore and cross oceans from time to time.

This is the heart of the matter. While there are the rare exceptions who spend months each year offshore, the vast majority never spend any time offshore and even those that do wind up coastal cruising better than 90% of the time.

Once the boat is reasonably seaworthy, the better boat will focus on the coastal cruising aspects as that is where the owner will benefit the most.

PS: The comment he made about a boat getting there in half the time not being a critical issue is huge. While wildly optimistic to assume double the speed, a boat that can do a 10 day passage in 5 days will typically have much better weather information to make the run without hitting unexpected bad weather.

[TJ D]

It will probably come as a shock to nobody that I line up a little differently on this question.

Some background-prior to owning our current boat, I owned 3 different full-keeled 'bluewater cruisers'. One was constructed in steel, the other two in GRP, between 36 and 43'. All were sailed pretty extensively, offshore.

5 years ago we purchased our current ride, and I can say with great certainty that I will never go back to a heavy tub with a D/L in the 300's. Going to an ultralight has changed our sailing lives completely, almost all for the better. Yes, it's more twitchy, and there are occasions when you have to dump the mainsheet to prevent a hockey stop, but honestly, that's exceedingly rare-no big deal even with just 2 of us.

The bulb keel sucks for grabbing stuff. In 15,000 miles or so on this boat, we've snagged fishing gear once, and kelp twice.... But, it's a risk.

Now, there's one BIG caveat here. A light boat with a fin keel and a spade rudder definitely does have to be constructed to a very high standard to be really suitable for offshore use, especially in harsher latitudes. This generally means expensive.

I do think that dollar for dollar, one will do better with a more traditional design.

Valhalla hit on an excellent point. Speed equals safety-no doubt. It's not about getting there ahead of the next guy, as Mr. Cunliffe suggests. It's about reducing exposure and being able to effectively route. We made that passage from NS to Ireland last year, making the crossing from St. John's to Dingle in 8 days. We left on the back of a big low, and got across before another one smacked us.

Some luck? Of course! But, shortly after our arrival, a strong gale crossed our track, and one of these heavy keelers would have taken the brunt of it.

Anyway, it's all a tradeoff, but I do think that light and fast do get short shrift in the cruising world. I was fully onboard with the traditional mindset once upon a time.

Until I wasn't.

We suffer upwind more than most, but I would be surprised if we've been hard on the wind 5% of the time in our many years of cruising.

Reaching and downwind? Glorious. It's awfully cool to have a big sea stack up behind you when you're sailing deep, and rather than the stern getting shoved around, the boat just quietly surfs away from the breaker, perfectly under control.

Heaving to? I don't know, honestly. I'm not sure if we could just go below, tie ourselves to the mast, and ride out a F10. I'd honestly be surprised to ever be faced with it. Probably, we'd end up fore-reaching very slowly with the trysail if we didn't want to run off. I don't think we could go more passive.

All this is to say, I reckon, that racier designs are also just fine for shorthanded cruising. Mostly, one just has to learn to sail conservatively and not focus on maximum performance. That's when things turn dicey. But, when you can sail along at 10 knots all day with the boat in a depowered condition? It's not too tough to relax.

[john61ct]

Now that's a great write-up layin out the counter-balancing factors.

In my case not enough to actually go that way, but it's excellent to see what drives the case for "the other side" in a rational balanced post, caveats an all.

Thank you.

[donradcliffe]

Ah, the Mason 44. Good looking boat in my eye but has an offset main companionway hatch--horrible idea for an offshore boat.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Ah, the Mason 44. Good looking boat in my eye but has an offset main companionway hatch--horrible idea for an offshore boat.

Just make sure you never have to go anywhere on a port tack!

[TrentePieds]

TJ D:

My thanks also. You may convert me yet :-)!

TD

[dcstrng]

Interesting discussion that really begins to fill in all the vacancies left by the article -- I didn't have time to read it when this thread started, but downloaded it to a tablet to read on my commute; generally found the article heavy on pictures but light on substance; however, I let my subscription to that magazine lapse years ago so I'm probably not up to speed on the current state of moderninity (craved a Mason 44 for many years however...).

My layman's synthesis of what I'm reading here in this thread is that the longer the vessel, the more likely lower D/L s are to be favored... Unless I win the lottery a Dashew is unlikely in my future, so I'm kind of the mindset that if I have a smaller boat, I don't want a flyweight cockleshell and if a longer, I don't' want a tank... that seems logical. There is another factor that was hinted at, but not really explored here -- some sailors relish passage making and others simply use the passage to go to their next cruising ground and then enjoy stays in anchorages and marinas for the bulk of the time -- then there is a small minority who aren't terribly entranced by immersing in yet another new culture and actually enjoy staying out on the water -- perhaps those like MingMing's skipper... At the moment I am reading Van Sants' 10th edition (which is a bit like reading Jack Norris on Propellers -- both unique, and you have to be in the mood, but worth the time nonetheless), and he mentions this dichotomy.

Not sure what that says about the type of boat, but I was a bit astonished to see the fin-keel, spade-rudder treated so favorably. Sure does undermine my long established theories about life...

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "... if I have a smaller boat, I don't want a flyweight cockleshell and if a longer, I don't' want a tank... that seems logical. "

Makes sense to me. However, to get any kind of accommodations that "modern", unromantic folk like me consider reasonable (or minimal) in a 30-footer, you really don't have a choice. TP is 6" shorter on the DWL and nearly TWO FOOT less in beam than is the O'Day 30.

The O'day's D/L is given as 243. TP's is 253, so there is little choose in that regard. Both boats can be claimed to have a “moderate” D/L. However, if we assume that the accumulated gear, stores and sundry clobber adds a ton to the design displacement, and we run the numbers on that basis, then the D/L for TP rises to 315. So now we are into what is considered the “heavy” range despite the fact that the hull shape remains that of a “light” displacement boat, and she's beginning to turn doggish!

Well, if you want the accommodations, you just have to live with that :-)!

For “big boat” sailors, the traditional v. modern debate may have some relevance, but for those of us who either haven't the funds to sail a “big” boat, or choose not to spend what money we do have in that particular way and therefore sail “small” boats, there is no decision to make: There is only one real choice: The “modern”, “fat” design. Else you are back to camping in an NF or a Vertue.

TP

[dcstrng]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

The O'day's D/L is given as 243. TP's is 253, so there is little choose in that regard. Both boats can be claimed to have a “moderate” D/L. However, if we assume that the accumulated gear, stores and sundry clobber adds a ton to the design displacement, and we run the numbers on that basis, then the D/L for TP rises to 315. So now we are into what is considered the “heavy” range despite the fact that the hull shape remains that of a “light” displacement boat, and she's beginning to turn doggish!

TP

Yep; right on the money -- theory/philosophy/ fancy is all fantastic, but reality rules... In my B24, I never planned to carry anything but food and water -- zero installed electronics, and am toying with chucking the motor and sealing the well for more storage/buoyancy (my total electronics I carry aboard in a small zipper-bag -- including depth finder and running lights) as well. The ODay is a different matter; the Admiral likes it, would like some intermittent use of a microwave, guess we have to be a tad more civilized, so now I'm shopping for battery banks, solar panels, extra fuel and water tanks, so your numbers are probably completely accurate, maybe even conservative. Oh well... it is what it is...

Gotta love the little boats, they help temper skippers' fantasies...

[TrentePieds]

Don't quite know what you mean by a "B24". Bristol 24, Traditional English design ideom, or a "dinghy with a deck"?

As I've said implicitly and explicitly since I first came here, TP's "job" is not to go ocean cruising or to satisfy MY need for speed. 'Er purpose is to keep MyBeloved happy on the water by going coastwise in the benign Salish Sea without scaring her. So if those are the desiderata you lay before a Naval Architect-cum-yacht designer, what are you gonna get? Something like the O'Day 30 or TP. Rail-in-the-water tramping to weather would freak her out. That I long for na S/D of 28 is not really relevant :-)! If I really, really need that kinda fix, I can pick up a used Enterprise dinghy for a coupla grand, pretend that she's a tender, and keep us both happy :-)!

TP

[dcstrng]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Don't quite know what you mean by a "B24". Bristol 24...

Sorry, yes = Bristol 24... one of the unsung little ones, but I like her and had started to gut the hull for my purposes... But the Admiral likes the Oday, so we've shortened our planned horizons... we're both just a hair north of seventy, so we probably should have anyway, but the skipper's ego was a problem for awhile...