Bluewater Cruising Capability

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . . waste of money Like watertight bulkheads, firstly that excludes about 95% of typical leisure boats, secondly , as was explained to me ,if most design made the bulkheads watertight , the boat actually cannot stay afloat with one of the areas filled. , hence they provide little additional safety . . .

Wellll, that depends on where they are and what spaces they enclose.

Just dividing the main cabin area with water tight bulkheads and doors does little for the reasons you say, but sealing off the ends of the boat with water tight bulkheads is excellent, especially if you manage to get all the throughhulls out of the main cabin space into the sealed off compartments, as Amel and Sundeer have.

I think you definitely want a watertight bulkhead in the bow, and this is not at all uncommon -- my boat has it, for example. The bow is the most likely part of the hull to get holed in some kind of collision, and I think it is a severe disadvantage not to have at least the anchor locker sealed off from the main cabin volume.

The Sundeers devote the aft section of the hull volume to a large sealed off, walk-in engine/mechanical room, where most of the boat's through hulls are (and all the rest are in the forward sealed off compartment, sail locker and anchor locker). Even if the boat wouldn't float very well with the aft compartment completely flooded, you still have a terrific leg up fighting a flooding situation if you can isolate the flooding in one compartment. Batteries are in the center section and will stay on line so you can keep pumping. I think this is terrifically good design; wish my boat were like that; wish more boats were designed like that.

At the very least, on a boat like mine, the designers could seal off the lazarette and steering gear. This would solve a number of problems, and I don't see why it would be so terrible to have a separate bilge for the last bit of the boat. As it is, the bilge is common, so any flooding through the transom or from a rudder seal failing or whatever ends up in the main bilge.

[barnakiel]

I think at times it is good to think of bluewater sailing ability vs. bluewater cruising ability ... (as per the OP).

A minitransat boat does have the former one but to CRUISE in a boat like this will be pretty punishing.

My biased opinion is that small boats are only bluewater cruising capable when they offer sufficient storage, tankage and liveaboardability. If the boat is small, this basically limits our choices to pretty classic designs (e.g. Vancouver 27, etc.)

As the design gets bigger, the volume increases rapidly and the designer has the choice as to how to distribute and 'use' it. Hence I believe a bigger cruising boat can come in many varied designs.

If we chuck safety into the picture then I would actually take out most of small boats as unsafe or else only marginally safe (as the a.m. Vancouver 27 - like boats, example generic). I think our own boat is of the marginally safe type, and reading Smeeton's book I sometimes think ...

So to say, to me, bluewater cruising capability starts with designs of some size and in the lower ranges the desirable designs will be very limited, with more choice and of greater variety as the size of the boat gets bigger.

poopcorn
b.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by OldPelican

It bears repeating that it's the sailor, not the boat, that needs to be "bluewater" capable. Offshore passagemaking can be done in anything that floats in the hands of a capable and prudent sailor. so it comes down to what OTHER criteria are important to you.

Says the man riding a log across the North Atlantic.

[Seaworthy Lass]

This thread morphed long ago into one about blue water suitability of cruising boats and I think it's an important discussion. Do we all agree that almost anything (including hollowed out logs) may be capable, but not everything is suitable? And that an experienced crew add a huge amount to the equation? And that what is meant by "blue water suitable" is what is likely to withstand extreme conditions (not what is usually encountered ocean sailing if bad weather has been avoided). Anyone disagree?

I suggest we stop arguing about the above and get down to the nitty gritty. What characteristics are needed for suitability in extreme conditions? Perhaps level the playing field and say all the boats are being crewed by experienced hands, and conditions are force 10-12 out in open ocean (as this possibility is what really differentiates blue water versus most coastal cruising).

I voiced my opinion in post #553.
Goboatingnow has already disagreed with me saying a monohull is just as good as a catamaran, GRP not aluminium is the best material, AVS and characteristics of the stability graph are poor indicators and do not need to be considered, watertight bulkheads provide little additional safety, etc. He finishes off:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

......
This is why " bluewater " criteria listing is essentially nonsense. Most boats are more then adaquate , more then safe " enough " and more then strong " enough" to do the task.
......

I strongly disagree with goboatingnow, particularly that "most boats" are safe in extreme conditions (in fact probably nothing is truly safe, it is all a matter of degree), but I am not about to start arguing.

It is up to each individual to decide what they are happy cruising with, but that doesn't mean we have to get defensive about our choices and can't discuss optimum.

So, apart from me, does anyone else here feel certain characteristics help increase blue water suitability of cruising yachts and if so what are they? What order of importance roughly (eg I think size makes a difference, but it is certainly not near the top of priorities). Over to you .

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Wellll, that depends on where they are and what spaces they enclose.

Just dividing the main cabin area with water tight bulkheads and doors does little for the reasons you say, but sealing off the ends of the boat with water tight bulkheads is excellent, especially if you manage to get all the throughhulls out of the main cabin space into the sealed off compartments, as Amel and Sundeer have.

I think you definitely want a watertight bulkhead in the bow, and this is not at all uncommon -- my boat has it, for example. The bow is the most likely part of the hull to get holed in some kind of collision, and I think it is a severe disadvantage not to have at least the anchor locker sealed off from the main cabin volume.

The Sundeers devote the aft section of the hull volume to a large sealed off, walk-in engine/mechanical room, where most of the boat's through hulls are (and all the rest are in the forward sealed off compartment, sail locker and anchor locker). Even if the boat wouldn't float very well with the aft compartment completely flooded, you still have a terrific leg up fighting a flooding situation if you can isolate the flooding in one compartment. Batteries are in the center section and will stay on line so you can keep pumping. I think this is terrifically good design; wish my boat were like that; wish more boats were designed like that.

At the very least, on a boat like mine, the designers could seal off the lazarette and steering gear. This would solve a number of problems, and I don't see why it would be so terrible to have a separate bilge for the last bit of the boat. As it is, the bilge is common, so any flooding through the transom or from a rudder seal failing or whatever ends up in the main bilge.

I spoke extrensively with Amel and others ( Passport, Tayana) of this issue, firstly many anchor lockers are now seperate, but often in a small boat the first practical point for a water tight bulkhead is at the forward cabin bulkhead and the aft cabin bulkhead, and in a lot of designs this does not encompass the engine room.

Its also clear from their feedback that the boat is not really capable of sailing if these compartments are flooded, and they provide a dubious level of additonal security. ( especially aft area flooding). The sub divisions are too large in relation to the boat size. In larger boats and in 60+ up it starts to make more sense.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

I strongly disagree with goboatingnow, particularly that "most boats" are safe in extreme conditions (in fact probably nothing is truly safe, it is all a matter of degree), but I am not about to start arguing.

Disagreeing with me is fine, but why, whats your view and what is it based on ?

I suggest we stop arguing about the above and get down to the nitty gritty. What characteristics are needed for suitability in extreme conditions? Perhaps level the playing field and say all the boats are being crewed by experienced hands, and conditions are force 10-12 out in open ocean (as this possibility is what really differentiates blue water versus most coastal cruising).

I live at 54 North , let me tell you a F10 on the continental EUropean shelf is far worse that a F10-F11 in the deep atlantic, Ive been in a F9-F10 in Biscay ( an accompanying boat foundered) and while I was only 50 miles from land , it was the worst beating ever. Ive sailed through storms in the Med, that were far worse then deep ocean storms.

Ive been in extreme situations, doing deliveries in standard production boats often under equipped, believe you me, its not the boat thats the issue. I seen perfectly capable boats lost ( with loss of life) due to poor seamanship and inadequate preparation and experience, Ive seen poorly maintained and supposedly "inadequate" production bioats taken through huge weather systems by extremely competent people ( and I learned shedloads from them).

The fact is the under experienced , constantly seek to find the "ultimate driving machine" , that there is a combination of feature that protects them from foulups or inexperience in the crew. Its a fools gold. Its like fools that buy Range Rovers and then get stuck in the nearest blizzard.

In particular Americans seem obsessed by metrics, yet the french ( and teh NZers) arguably the best sailors on teh planet have completely different ideas of what is "bluewater" ( whatever that means) Who should you listen to. ( I know) . Alternatively you could take the opinions of people say that sail in a very small proportion of world sailing and where significant numbers of them are below 40N!!. Just open your mind to best practice and experience elsewhere


( I recently met a circumnavigator in Las Palmas, who said after the whole trip around, the worst bit that virtually tore his boat up was off the Balearics, 5miles offshore)

Bluewater has nothing to do with storms in oceans.


Secondly there is never a "level playing field", the crew and the skipper are the major asset. Since humans arnt "level", you are making a purely hypothetical point.

It is futile to search for boat types that will save you ass in a storm, they dont exist. Its your ability you need to search for. Thats the nonsense of these bluewater debates. You can take a stock Beneteau out of the wrappers and sail across the Atlantic , I know, Talking about tankage etc, bulkheads just obscures the reality. ANy 35 footer + has adaqaute storage, adaquate water to cope, yes you might only have 2 litres a day, but now youre into a "comfort" debate. Thats different.

Of course there are maginal deisgns and sizes that can be considered boarding on the unsafe. But the solution isnt the things you mentioned, becuase in real life I can show you AVS of 110 to 140 successfully circumnavigating and going through storms. SO what does that prove. ( nor have your addressed the obvious nonsense of AVS calculations anyway)

Just dont put down a list, show us why your list is important to you

For me in extremem storms , I want a fast , hydrodynamically stable boat that is resistant to broaching , can handle being pushed occasionally in planing/surfing, with a rig that can be handled from the cockpit by a single /two tired crew, where the hatches dont leak and has a damm good diesel and diesel tankage. Barn door rudders, long keels etc are a marginal debate in this case. Talk of ultimate strenght of course is also nonsense , you dont hit things on a regular basis at sea and in my experience if you are unfortunate enough to do so , the circumstances are usually very unexpected and no boat can survive some of them.

The Range Rover of the seas doesn't exist, and as a former 5 x Range Rover owner I know why that is.

Dave

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

......I live at 54 North , let me tell you a F10 on the continental EUropean shelf is far worse that a F10-F11 in the deep atlantic, Ive been in a F9-F10 in Biscay ( an accompanying boat foundered) and while I was only 50 miles from land , it was the worst beating ever. Ive sailed through storms in the Med, that were far worse then deep ocean storms.......
Bluewater has nothing to do with storms in oceans.
......

Yes, you can certainly get horrific weather close to land, but what do you think then defines "blue water suitability" as opposed to "coastal cruising suitabilty" if it is not the ability to safely handle extreme conditions?

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The fact is the under experienced , constantly seek to find the "ultimate driving machine" , that there is a combination of feature that protects them from foulups or inexperience in the crew. Its a fools gold.

Sure, experience and skill contributes to safety, but a safe boat is definitely not "fools' gold". A combination of good features helps to protect all of us, inexperienced or otherwise.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Since humans arnt "level", you are making a purely hypothetical point.

I am not making a hypothetical point, I am trying to determine if the crews skills levels are xxx, what boat characteristics will enable it and them to best withstand extreme conditions.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

But the solution isnt the things you mentioned, becuase in real life I can show you AVS of 110 to 140 successfully circumnavigating and going through storms.

Sure, meeting one criteria in my list means little. And I am really interested in not of examples of what has been done without mishap, but what characteristics makes boats most suitable if extreme weather conditions occur (blue water or coastal if you feel blue water conditions are not the worst).

[Greenhand]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Yes, you can certainly get horrific weather close to land, but what do you think then defines "blue water suitability" as opposed to "coastal cruising suitabilty" if it is not the ability to safely handle extreme conditions?

Storage!

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I spoke extrensively with Amel and others ( Passport, Tayana) of this issue, firstly many anchor lockers are now seperate, but often in a small boat the first practical point for a water tight bulkhead is at the forward cabin bulkhead and the aft cabin bulkhead, and in a lot of designs this does not encompass the engine room.

Its also clear from their feedback that the boat is not really capable of sailing if these compartments are flooded, and they provide a dubious level of additonal security. ( especially aft area flooding). The sub divisions are too large in relation to the boat size. In larger boats and in 60+ up it starts to make more sense.

Dave

Incorrect . You are generalizing. The Amel Super Maramu 53 is capable of making way with compartments flooded:
"At a recent Annapolis Sailboat show, Amel had a demonstration where they flooded the forward compartment and then went for a sail on Chesapeake Bay. With her nose 10 degrees point down, she still sailed safely to port. At the very least, the submarine bulkheads do illustrate a positive and under appreciated mentality."

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Can we agree that there *some* boats, perhaps a tiny minority, that as designed are not suitable for prudent passagemaking?

No argument there, Paul. I doubt that most prudent mariners would want to take most trailerboats on passages. At the same time, I would like to see us move away from the type of simple-mindedness that these bluewater threads so often generate, like suggesting that an entire brand of production boat is unsuitable simply because they have fin keels and spade rudders, et cetera. A prudent mariner will understand that within any line of boats offered by the larger manufacturers, the smaller boats will tend to be less suitable for passagemaking, and the larger boats will tend to be more suitable.

Some of the correspondents on this thread fail to understand items about boat production that should be fairly commonplace. For example, someone with a bit of boating sense ought to understand that stock boats generally require modification to prepare for extended offshore work. This includes everything from appropriate electronics to safety equipment such as jacklines and life rafts. The argument that a given boat is not bluewater capable because it doesn't come ready equipped for passages is ludicrous. Do these correspondents actually fail to understand the difference between a boat that is bluewater capable and bluewater ready?

Probably not. I fear that some on this thread merely want to argue for argument's sake, especially among correspondents who haunt these bluewater threads exclusively. The shame is that such arguments so often embrace logical fallacies, such as the straw man argument previously pointed out. Or the red herring argument that I recently objected to, where a post was intentionally misrepresented in order to make it more easy to refute. Unfortunately, this has become a pattern within certain arguments.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Wellll, that depends on where they are and what spaces they enclose.

Just dividing the main cabin area with water tight bulkheads and doors does little for the reasons you say, but sealing off the ends of the boat with water tight bulkheads is excellent, especially if you manage to get all the throughhulls out of the main cabin space into the sealed off compartments, as Amel and Sundeer have.

I think you definitely want a watertight bulkhead in the bow, and this is not at all uncommon -- my boat has it, for example. The bow is the most likely part of the hull to get holed in some kind of collision, and I think it is a severe disadvantage not to have at least the anchor locker sealed off from the main cabin volume.

The Sundeers devote the aft section of the hull volume to a large sealed off, walk-in engine/mechanical room, where most of the boat's through hulls are (and all the rest are in the forward sealed off compartment, sail locker and anchor locker). Even if the boat wouldn't float very well with the aft compartment completely flooded, you still have a terrific leg up fighting a flooding situation if you can isolate the flooding in one compartment. Batteries are in the center section and will stay on line so you can keep pumping. I think this is terrifically good design; wish my boat were like that; wish more boats were designed like that.

At the very least, on a boat like mine, the designers could seal off the lazarette and steering gear. This would solve a number of problems, and I don't see why it would be so terrible to have a separate bilge for the last bit of the boat. As it is, the bilge is common, so any flooding through the transom or from a rudder seal failing or whatever ends up in the main bilge.

You make some excellent points. Watertight compartments? Another thing to look for.
-Bruce

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Greenhand

Storage!

Yes, I did consider adding that, but it didn't seem to be the main thrust of this discussion. I agree it is an important factor (for food, water, fuel, spares) and lack of this is a common gripe of cruising folks we meet.

We are currently anchored close to a great winery here in Greece at the moment and today I bought seven dozen bottles of red to help us through the winter. They have all melted away not even filling two of our 8 under settee lockers. This will certainly improve our blue water cruising capablity this winter .

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

So, apart from me, does anyone else here feel certain characteristics help increase blue water suitability of cruising yachts and if so what are they? What order of importance roughly (eg I think size makes a difference, but it is certainly not near the top of priorities). Over to you .

What's not mentioned, not many times anyway, is how capable the boat is taking care of itself. How many cruisers are crewed with three blue water qualified watch? Most have barely one and how well the boat can hold it's course and hove to so that the crew can take care of themselves too without jumping around and trying to steer with one foot sametime taking a leak is quite fundamental question.

Agree what others said about the storage and tankage.. not many of modern 'cruiser' have enough. Can I stow and brace everything properly while provisioning for few weeks or must I fill, stuff and cram and still have half of things all over..

[Sailor_Hutch]

This is such an interesting thread. It dwarfs all of the others, since it's so close to the fears and expectations of the members (Go to see Davey Jones, or not).

For the newbie, it's a little confusing. What I seem to get from the thread, as I try to coalesce all the different thoughts, is that just about everybody is in the "marginally safe" category. Their arguments are put out there in order to allay their fears. I think it's a matter of adventure versus perfect safety at one level. How many battleships have sunk in bad weather? So, the smaller the boat, the more the adventure. Adventure can kill. A battleship is safe, but enlisting is a hassle. You may not like the skipper.

So - we make do with our own funds, which are typically of a nature so as to enhance "adventure" more than safety. I've taken a few pointers from this thread, in an attempt to figure my adventure/safety ratio. In one thread it was stated that a boat is more likely to be knocked down if the beam is less than half the wave height. In another it was stated that a pitchpole is more likely if the LOA is less than half the wave height. So - size counts.

How much adventure do I want?!

Help me decide.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

As an American concerned with metrics, how did you decide to buy seven (7) dozen? Buy 6, get one free? Seems you have a plethora of storage, why not a dozen dozen? or 9? or 17? Inquisitive mind wants to know.

Bingo, your first guess was correct - I bought six and unexpectedly got one free. Who am I to refuse?

The issue was more what I could fit in the dinghy with all the other shopping. I am lucky I don't take up much space as I was perched very precariously on top and it was a long ride back.

I may drop in again though before we leave to do a little more sampling .