Bluewater Boat

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by perchance

I couldn't agree with you more. It is possible to cross the ocean in a shoe box by a knowledgeable and experienced mariner; once, but I wouldn't stake my life on it on a regular basis. In my opinion the so called light weight production boats are not targeting hard core off shore sailors. Just look at the brochures and see what they are emphasizing in the slick photos and add copy.

This is a presumption, that's all, modern opinion is that relatively light and fast boats are better at crossing oceans , many hundreds are doing so. Equally it could be argued that ocean crossings are no more then a longer series of Coastal cruises abd arguably some of the worst weather is met in coastal areas. Furthermore there are only really a couple of " ocean" journeys in the average circumnavigation. Bluewater cruisers is fact don't attempt a lot of ocean crossings

Sorry the ARC shows again and again that modern production boats are just if not better bluewater cruisers then anything else.

Dave

[sailorboy1]

I think boat size matters in the light production boat agruements. But, really I've come to the conclusion that this bluewater boat thing is nothing but talk. And I have been involved in a few of the "talks" the past couple of years.

When I got my Cal-39 a couple yeras ago people said it was a bluewater "capable" boat. But it is just another production boat designed to be more of a cruiser than a racer. Now I'm getting a Hunter 410 and it's construction is least as well as my Cal. If fact I believe the Hunter will be a better bluewater boat overall!

I think in the more expensive boats (the ones we call bluewater) you are paying for extra fit/finish/materials in the interior and a higher price to make-up for lower production units/higher costs. But for the price one needs to have a good story beyound that you have a lot of money and what to spend it.

In the older boats what is call bluewater is more about older "salty" boats that weigh alot because no-one knew. But back then weather forecasting etc weren't as good and you probably got caught in more serve conditions regularly so the these became the "bluewater design". Now days if you regularly get caught out in bad weather it is your fault and it makes a good satement about your sailing/cruising skills. But one hardly ever is going to talk someone out of the belief (I managed to talk myself out of it and get a boat for the 99+% of planned use time).

Near as I can tell most of the ocean racing boats are pretty light. In fact I wouldn't chose to cross an ocean in one. And yet they mostly make it and do so while continuing to sail in weather a cruiser would have run from. Light weight has nothing to do with a boat being bluewater!

[sneuman]

Was aboard a friend's Jenneau for our traditional Christmas Day sail on the Chesapeake (ok, it's only year two, but we plan to make it a tradition). I noticed a broken hatch cover - safety glass - which would have allowed water below and/or cut up someone's foot. Owner told me it happened a few months ago on a tack in 35kts of wind and it was the knot (no metal fitting) on the genny clew that thumped it and broke it. If that's the case, and it appeared to be so, it was poor design on Jenneau's part - it should have been able to take that.

[perchance]

Ocean racing boats and light weight production ain't exactly an apples to apples comparison.

[sailorboy1]

anything that someone is going to use crossing an ocean in rough weather is an apples to apples, but really I was saying that weight means nothing in itself (light doesn't mean weak and heavy doesn't mean strong)

[DeepFrz]

Near as I can tell most of the ocean racing boats are pretty light. In fact I wouldn't chose to cross an ocean in one. And yet they mostly make it and do so while continuing to sail in weather a cruiser would have run from.

I was surprised, and I think the race committee was as well, at how many boats had severe trouble in the last Vendee Globe. Lost mast, lost keels, cracked keel boxes, etc.

Light weight has nothing to do with a boat being bluewater!

To a point this may be true. However, are we talking capable of crossing an ocean or are we talking capable, comfortable and nice to live aboard with all of the cruising paraphernalia one accumulates as they travel around the world. There is also the work factor involved. How well rested will one be after a long crossing in a light boat as compared to how they will feel in a medium or heavy displacement boat?

Also, I have been aboard (what I consider to be a blue water boat) and the rigging, mast and all fittings were much more robust than your usual "production" boat. Strong backing plates, heavier fg layup, etc, etc.

But I think these arguments mostly boil down to personal beliefs. I remember having this discussion with a couple that I was learning to sail with, way to many years ago. People will go cruising on what they feel comfortable with. Many will have great difficulty that few will hear about, some will have difficulties that will be well publicized and many more will just pack it in quietly, for various reasons. And then there are some that most people will never hear about that just keep on going. How much is dependent on the boat I suppose we will never know. But I look at the boats that experienced cruisers build for themselves after spending a few years at sea and I see strong boats. Not necessarily heavy displacement, but strongly built with simple, easy to maintain systems.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by storyinframes

hi there everyone
this is my first post on this site. I am eager to learn from experienced members/boat-owners that which ocean going monohull boats can be obtained in a moderate budget of 37k-50k USD. length 31-36ft. looks are not an issue :-) i am interested in boat having good seakeeping qualities. after having searched many sites, i find only Catalinas fitting my budget.
Nauticats, Halberg Rossy are pretty expensive. so please advise.

We have found and are embarking on the restoration of Nigel Calder's Ingrid 38 "Nada". There are a few Ingrid 38's on the market and they are in your price range. In my opinion you would have to look hard to find a better blue water boat than this design.

SavingNada team

[wolfenzee]

As my boar is also an Atkin Design ocean cruiser (30' "Captain Cicero") I can agree whole heatedly. I have been on light weight production boats that shake and shudder as they crash into a wave, but but my boat and the Ingrids I have been on seem to absorb the shock and if they could speak would say "Yee haw"

[Brent Swain]

Older boats were built at a time when material and labour were far cheaper, no one trusted them as much, so overbuilt them. There is no way that making a hull thinner makes it stronger, or doesn't weaken it. That is wishful ,self delusion ( or sleazy salesmanship).
Go read Moitessiers book"The Long way" and compare his trouble free, walk in the park, high lattitudes circumnavigation to today's failure prone voyages. No comparison between his "Industrial " cruiser and today's "Flimsey Yachtieness"

[goboatingnow]

Go read Moitessiers book"The Long way" and compare his trouble free, walk in the park, high lattitudes circumnavigation to today's failure prone voyages. No comparison between his "Industrial " cruiser and today's "Flimsey Yachtieness"

whaaat, trouble free,Ive read all his books, the man was shipwrecked three times.

what I would like is an unexpurgated version, Id love to know what happened to the two air hostesses!!

Dave

[RainDog]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

There is no way that making a hull thinner makes it stronger, or doesn't weaken it. That is wishful ,self delusion ( or sleazy salesmanship).

I do not think this is quite correct. I am not a materials engineer, but my understanding is that as they have learned how to reduce the amount of resin in fiberglass, it has gotten much stronger inch-for-inch and pound-for-pound.

A hull build using a process such as SCRIMP (just to name one example) is much stronger than a hull of the same thickness build 30 years ago.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

whaaat, trouble free,Ive read all his books, the man was shipwrecked three times.

what I would like is an unexpurgated version, Id love to know what happened to the two air hostesses!!

Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm referring to the circumnavigations. He was shipwrecked twice in wooden boats and his third boat the "Joshua" is still sailing.
Go read "The Long Way"

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by RainDog

I do not think this is quite correct. I am not a materials engineer, but my understanding is that as they have learned how to reduce the amount of resin in fiberglass, it has gotten much stronger inch-for-inch and pound-for-pound.

A hull build using a process such as SCRIMP (just to name one example) is much stronger than a hull of the same thickness build 30 years ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

They didn't build the same thickness 30 years ago, they built them much thicker. Keels didn't fall of so often back then, and they didn't capsize and stay capsized back then. Osmossis was almost unheard of before 1980.

[goboatingnow]

He was still shipwrecked on the beach in Cabo.

And in reality he is not an ideal example of a modern man. He was very flawed. Equally the boat was very very rough by modern standards.

Ps I've read all three books sailing to the reefs , cape horn and the long way good read they are too

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

They didn't build the same thickness 30 years ago, they built them much thicker. Keels didn't fall of so often back then, and they didn't capsize and stay capsized back then. Osmossis was almost unheard of before 1980.

Not so the term osmosis was coined by the trade in the sixties to describe ( incorrectly) the blistering process that was encountered. It has existed as long as grp. Equally it's worth noting that there is much less of it about on new boats as the issues are now understood

Older boats with heavier layups ( only in some cases) had often very poor construction techniques , little technical understanding and very poor resin/ glass ratio control. There's simply no evidence to suggest that they were better and by corollary today's are worse. Mention of kneel failures are completely disingenuous. Very few keels as a percentage of builds " fall off". It's infinitesimal

Dave