Bluewater Cruising Capability

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Dave,

The way I see this is contrary: I think the difference is where it counts most: the structure is better designed and better produced on the more expensive boats while the cosmetics tend to be converging with each passing year.

I am yet to see one of the upper shelf boats where the rudder snapped off or where the keel fell off. So I believe they may make better sea going boats than their cosmetically nearly identical, slightly less expensive competition.

barnakiel

Barnakiel, lets
Lets leave the two or three cases, most with extenuating circumstances where such things happened , given the 0000s made , there's always a few issues, they are statistically irrelevant. An examination of modern " high value" boats will show the main costs are going not expensive interior fit outs rather then basic hull and gear ( since interiors are what sell boats )

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by vtcapo

I don’t know what you have been reading but a number of so called “seasoned sailors” on this forum seem to have dismissed the idea of preparing their boat for any eventuality by basically saying experience trumps preparation, Read Barnakiel’s post. This is the kind of hubris that gets people killed, even though he seems to have changed his thinking by saying a heavier displacement well found boat will increase your chances for survival in a later post.

We have “seasoned sailors” saying that ANY stock boat will do for a circumnavigation. We have others who believe in the foolish notion that if you pay attention to every miniscule detail you will never leave the dock. If you are planning on crossing an ocean the responsible sailor will be circumspect and cross every t and dot every i. If not, he or she is negligent.

I have said before, you don’t need a heavy displacement double ender to cross over to the Bahamas or for that matter circumnavigate. That is a matter of personal preference. Those clips by Thomm225 should be a wake up call to those who think along the lines of the above two paragraphs. Your boat better be up to snuff if you get caught out in the ****. Frankly I don’t give a rats ass about the level of anyone’s experience or how prudent you are concerning the weather windows. Whether you are a Bernard Moitessier, the Pardey’s or f*cking Popeye, if you plan to make extensive off shore passages and your boat is not up for the challenge either make sure your insurance policies are up to date or don’t leave the dock.

RT
PS Knowing how the weather patterns are becoming more unpredictable and what the weight of water is capable of doing, I’ll take my sledgehammer over a tack hammer on any given day….
PPS Almost forgot….Getting back to the OP’s original question concerning whether or not the Catalina 315 is a capable Blue Water boat? An empathic NO! Can it be altered to do that? To begin with you have a light displacement fin keeled boat with an unprotected rudder. As far a Blue Water is concerned that would cross her off my list. She is at best a pocket cruiser and I would watch the weather and not venture too far off shore.

You are taking words out of people months and twisting them. No matter what the boat all prudent skippers prepare them properly and sail them conservatively.

But to suggest that merely because a boat is light displacement , with a spade rudder and fin keel is not fully capable of handling " blue water" and very rough weather flies in the face of real life. It's utter utter nonsense that full keel valiant types are needed to crops oceans and handle weather. You are flying in the face of every modern naval architect and fails to acknowledge the 000s of production boats handling such conditions every year.

Northern European coastal storms rival or beat anything your likely to get sailing prudently between 40n and 40s , yet these people who disparage production boats as coastal, actually are paying them a complement. The have to be stronger to sail on the continental shelf in those areas. In my experience ocean crossing is a doddle in comparison.

Get real my friend, open your eyes and smell the coffee

Dave

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

OK. Now I understand what you are saying. Below my response to your doubts:

"Marginally safe and seaworthy enough" please read "as safe and seaworthy as 24' of LWL can buy". Meaning: unsafe and unseaworthy when the job at hand is sailing round the world. (However, it was not our plan ever to rtw in the first place, it just happened. Hence I believe we cannot be blamed for choosing the wrong boat).

As far as addressing all possible contingencies goes then it has never been part of my lifestyle. Neither has it been part of the lifestyle of my partner. We believe life is full of choice, opportunity and accident. I know other people have other lifestyles and other philosophies. If everybody were the same this would be a very boring place.

Some people will try to meticulously plan all contingencies while others will just get into their boats and go sailing. I have failed to notice any regularity as to which group makes more successful sailors.

Cheers,
b.

I would suggest the answer might be "both," since each will be doing what is right for them.

Some people are left-brained and carefully plan everything out. Others are right-brained and trust to their intuition. However, if that intuition is grounded in solid experience it will serve them well. I'm right brained, so I know that I'm not ready to go sailing out into the Indian Ocean during storm season. I challenge myself with each sail, but try NOT to do that to the point of "irresponsibility" or "hubris." But I know that I am building the skills, layer by layer, that I can feel honing my instincts with each sail.

Neither left-brained or right-brained is "wrong" or "right." But I can tell you from recent experience that when a left-brained skipper on one ship and a right-brained skipper on the other ship (neither of them me) try to plan a trip together, frustration can be the result. Each may expect the other to do it "their way."

I'm crew. I just sit back and watch.

[David_Old_Jersey]

I don't think we have had a "What's the best spoon for going RTW" thread. Well, not yet......

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by vtcapo

(...) You are one lucky MF. (...)

;-)

Hugs,
barnakiel

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Barnakiel, lets
Lets leave the two or three cases, most with extenuating circumstances where such things happened , given the 0000s made , there's always a few issues, they are statistically irrelevant. An examination of modern " high value" boats will show the main costs are going not expensive interior fit outs rather then basic hull and gear ( since interiors are what sell boats )

Dave

Yep. One thing is to make guesses, another to dig into data (if available) and see what actually is going on.

b.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I don't think we have had a "What's the best spoon for going RTW" thread. Well, not yet......

I think the international bucketeers should be ashamed of themselves from not including spoons.
Spoons are just small buckets with a different handle. Discrimination based on size or physical differences is not acceptable.
Come on bucketeers include your smaller brethren, they have feelings too.

[micah719]

A long handled yoghurt spoon would be an ideal candidate for cruiser's bluewater multipurpose spoon. If it's made of a metal that doesn't work-harden, the angle of handle/head can be adjusted to suit requirements.

[carstenb]

I agree with dave, i sail here in the baltic and i sail a production boat, a jeanneau sunfast. I regularly sail in force 8 even 9 and have on ocassion been caught out in 10.

And that is in the summer. Yet y production boat, any bavarias, hansa etc, all seem to survive that pounding.

Anyone who thinks sailing in northern europe is a cakewalk should try sailing the bay of biscay in a gale

Good luck

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I don't think we have had a "What's the best spoon for going RTW" thread. Well, not yet......

a plastic one with a wooden handle that is reinforced with a steel shank that is all connected together with titanium rivets

[carstenb]

Well as long as it isnot a production item. Ideally it will need a long keel and a protected rudder.

What kind of anchor should the spoon carry?

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

My boat has portholes that open. Before I took this boat bluewater I would replace them with fixed. Just as an example.

A less expensive option might be to close the portholes before getting underway.

[vtcapo]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You are taking words out of people months and twisting them. No matter what the boat all prudent skippers prepare them properly and sail them conservatively.

But to suggest that merely because a boat is light displacement , with a spade rudder and fin keel is not fully capable of handling " blue water" and very rough weather flies in the face of real life. It's utter utter nonsense that full keel valiant types are needed to crops oceans and handle weather. You are flying in the face of every modern naval architect and fails to acknowledge the 000s of production boats handling such conditions every year.

Northern European coastal storms rival or beat anything your likely to get sailing prudently between 40n and 40s , yet these people who disparage production boats as coastal, actually are paying them a complement. The have to be stronger to sail on the continental shelf in those areas. In my experience ocean crossing is a doddle in comparison.

Get real my friend, open your eyes and smell the coffee

Dave

Once again let me explain why I think the Catalina 315 is a POOR choice for water sailing">Blue Water sailing. First let me define what I mean by a Blue Water boat. Blue Water boats are those that have the ability to safely sail across oceans under extreme conditions. You are basically telling the OP that the 315 is a valid choice based on current yacht design and statically analysis of what boats have made successful voyages. That should ALL be taken with a grain of salt. We all know that every manner of questionable vessels have made crossings. That doesn’t qualify them as Blue Water. It qualifies them as LUCKY.

My criteria for a Blue Water boat starts with the hull design. I would rank full keeled heavy displacement double enders and full keeled transom stern (minimal over hang) boats as 1 and 2. I admit I am old school but there are a few good reasons to choose a full keel or one with cut out forefoot and protected rudder as opposed to a fin keel with spade or skeg rudder.

1. Far better chance to survive hitting a container.

2. Far better chance to survive hitting a reef or hard grounding.

Even though the 315 has a forward watertight “StrikeZone” in the bow filled with foam, a fin keel hitting a container or reef at hull speed will in all likelihood loose it, where as a full keeled boat with lead encapsulated ballast will most likely slide up and off the container. Likewise a full keeled boat if it hits a reef should survive unless it is a catastrophic hit.

These reasons alone dismiss in my opinion the 315 as Blue Water.

Let’s assume Catalina has it right as far as hull integrity, hardware and the scantlings for mast and rig. What above the water line defeats her as a Blue Water boat?

1. Over sized cabin side windows that allow a lot of light in and also the potential for huge amounts of water to enter if compromised.

2. The huge cockpit and sugar scoop stern.

I know a lot of boats are designed with the sugar scoop sterns thinking water in, water out. Well….hopefully your companionway boards are in when you get pooped and you WILL get pooped. I personally would sacrifice cockpit space for a more “seagoing” cockpit with adequate drains.

No, I will stick with my analysis and continue to say to the OP that as far as Blue Water is concerned, "choose wisely", your life may depend on it.

RT
PS BTW, my coffee this morning is French Pressed and smells great…..

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by vtcapo

Once again let me explain why I think the Catalina 315 is a POOR choice for Blue Water sailing.

1. Far better chance to survive hitting a container.

2. Far better chance to survive hitting a reef or hard grounding.

Even though the 315 has a forward watertight “StrikeZone” in the bow filled with foam, a fin keel hitting a container or reef at hull speed will in all likelihood loose it, where as a full keeled boat with lead encapsulated ballast will most likely slide up

Given your criteria I wonder why you did not choose a steel boat? Steel has a much better puncture resistance and will survive these extreme problems far better than a long keeled fiberglass boat.
Don't get me wrong, it's not my choice, but could not a steel boat owner claim your boat is not satisfactory because a steel boat would manage in these circumstances much better than your boat?

Boats are compromises. Personally I think erring on the side of seaworthiness is sensible, but there are no absolutes, or moral high ground.

[sailorboy1]

I wonder if all the arguments a certain person keeps making works to win over others to his viewpoint, or to just put him down as someone to ignore.

Choosing a boat based on the end of world storm, hitting reefs, hitting containers etc. Just seems to be living in misplaced fear. Sure they could happen but come on.I wonder what type of car he choses to take out in the much more dangerous world of the highway.