Bluewater Cruising Capability

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Niagara Falls in a barrel?? lollllll

My favorite blue water whatever can be ,,,, a super strong material if im planing to sail in hig latitudes, lets say steel or alu with a smooth curve hull, easy sea motion and not the bang bang of flat bottom hulls, robust rigging with all the hardware related , lets say chainplates to, able to beat to windward for hundred of miles in rough weather, cutter sailplan, a galley made for cooking , confy bunks for crew, tanks big enough for at least 1000 miles under engine , a safe cockpit, well the list is endless....

Now the dude saying that a exotic plastic hull can be stronger than a metal one dont know what is talking about,,,, in terms of weight , maintenance , yes, in terms of a hipotetic collision or grounding ,No.

Cape Horn in a Hunter 33 ,,, wait for weather.... mega window???
Southern Ocean in a coronado, yeahh im going to die...

So saying this everything is a compromise, dont expect to see a bad build it production boat dealing with conditions made for the big dogs....

Luck is everywhere, size is important to...

What's high latitudes for you

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Re the Titanic sinking:

another problem was the poor metallurgy of the steel:

the composition was not under proper control, meaning that (even by the standards of the day) the transition temperature at which failure became brittle rather than ductile was unnecessarily high.
This is why the hull skin ruptured across so many compartments, rather than deforming.

Thread drift, absolute myth , completely disproven H & M was one of the finest yards around white star paid them on a cost plus basis.

It ruptured because they ran into an iceberg at 22knts.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Mr B

The Titanic and her sister ship the Eastern star were both unsinkable,

Till they cheated and removed 10,000 pounds worth of iron from the Titanic, Thats money not weight,
They removed 18 inches of iron from the full length of her, from the top of the bulkheads and the floor above, allowing any water ingress to flow the full length of the Titanic, any hole in her bottom would have sunk her,
the Eastern star sailed into New York Harbour under full power with a hole 3 times the size of the Titanics,
But they didnt cheat with the Eastern Stars Hull, so it stayed afloat, it was unsinkable, As the Titanic should have been,

as the water could not go past any bulkhead that had a hole in it, it was contained in the holds with holes only.

I am an Engineering Blacksmith, When I was doing my trade the theory teacher hated me,

Not only did I say the book he was teaching me from was wrong, I could back it up with hard Facts and Proof,
Engineering Blacksmith was the master craft of all the Black trades, FWIW, I was also the last year that they taught that Curiculum.

They took the Practising Engineer out of it, and shortened the apprenticeship to four years,

What , firstly Titanic had a double hulled bottom, but not sides. She did not have full height bulkheads because of cost and intrusion , yes the great eastern was superior but a very costly ship to build

White Star never claimed she was unsinkable, what I was referring to though was the thinking at the time. A reliance on product caused a foolish decision to be made.

Dave

[neilpride]

Hig Latitudes can be the Antartica, the horn, falklands, southern hemisphere, Georgia, any place where is blowing 40 to 50 and temperatures are freezing...
Ice, whales, big waves .... a sanctuarium for strong metal boats, not saying that a plastic production boat can be there , is just a matter of crew and luck......

[rsneek928]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It has everything to do with her sinking , it was a classic 4x4 stuck in a drift problem. A search to build an unsinkable boat, a reliance on the product to get them out of trouble and the over confidence in that design that caused foolish decisions to be made.

Dave

I agree with the overconfidence part. But continuing to steam full ahead, at night, into an area where iceburgs had been reported. Full blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Captain and deck officers. Goes to the whole argument of whether it's the ship or the crew that makes a boat "bluewater capable". I think ultimately the boat, no mater how good or bad will only let you get away with so many mistakes, and failure to practice good seamanship will catch up to you eventually no matter what your experience level.

Rob

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rsneek928

I disagree with you here. The good professors not only welcome the debate but encourage it. The exceptional ones then take the time to prove their points(aka teach), by using facts or opinions gained through their experience and greater knowledge, can use specific examples instead of generalizations and hearsay, and would never answer a question with "that's just the way it's always been done" or everybody's favorite "because I said so".

I've seen both approaches in this and other threads.

I certainly agree with this, and I've spent some time teaching in university classrooms, so it's not a hypothetical situation for me.

I guess my metaphor is not so good for our case - in the classroom, there is inherent authority, which good profs never, ever misuse, but at the end of the day, there's never any question who gives the grades and who receives them. Obviously not our case here.

I guess any Internet forum is inherently a place for jawboning from our armchairs, and there is no getting around that. It's a great leveler, because it's just talk, and everybody has the same chance to blather as much as anyone else. No one can see us, and there are no consequences. There are no exams and no grades. Still, I think a lot of opportunity for worthwhile learning is lost, when people are not able to objectively weigh up their own real knowledge and experience, distinguish that from speculation and opinion, and recognize when there is a big imbalance in real knowledge and experience when we talk about something like open ocean sailing with someone like Dave. Doesn't mean we're not allowed to disagree. But it might really be profitable to listen more.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Thread drift, absolute myth , completely disproven H & M was one of the finest yards around white star paid them on a cost plus basis.
It ruptured because they ran into an iceberg at 22knts.

"Thread drift": undoubtedly, but you're casting stones from a glasshouse on this point

"Absolute myth": says who?

"Completely disproven": please show your evidence

"H&M": ???? Titanic was built by Harland and Wolff

"One of the finest yards around .... white star paid them on a cost plus basis":
irrelevant: the problem of brittle vs ductile transition was not recognised until relatively recently, let alone the solution.

It wasn't a question of buying cheap steel; the steel was very high quality.
However if they'd used steel from a basic open hearth process rather than an acidic open hearth furnace, the chances might have been better.

Put simply, metallurgy was not a science at that time, or for many years thereafter: it was a very skilled art, but they had not predictive abilities. They could only make improvements by trial and error.

"It ruptured because they ran into an iceberg at 22knts":
well, actually, no.
It buckled because they ran into an iceberg.
It ruptured as a result of the buckling.
Steel does not necessarily rupture due to buckling, but below a certain temperature it is inevitable that it will.
And that temperature varies greatly with small variations in composition.

The precise mechanisms, which require detailed understanding of the topology of bonds between atoms, have really only been discovered in the last twenty years, mainly through the efforts of Mark Eberhart.
　
Here's some supporting detail, excerpted from a typical technical analysis:

"Originally, historians thought the iceberg had cut a gash into Titanic's hull. Since the part of the ship the iceberg damaged was buried, scientists used sonar to examine the area and discovered the iceberg had caused the hull to buckle, allowing water to enter Titanic between its steel plates....

During subsequent dives, scientists retrieved small pieces of Titanic's hull. A detailed analysis of the pieces revealed the ship's steel plating was of a variety that loses its elasticity and becomes brittle in cold or icy water, leaving it vulnerable to dent-induced ruptures. .....

The samples of steel rescued from the wrecked hull were found to have very high content of phosphorus and sulphur .....
The recovered samples were found to be undergoing ductile-brittle transition in temperatures of 32 °C (for longitudinal samples) and 56 °C (for transversal samples—compare with transition temperature of -27 °C common for modern steels—modern steel would become as brittle (as the Titanic steel) between -60 and -70 °C). .....

The steel was probably produced in the acid-lined, open-hearth furnaces in Glasgow, which would explain the high content of phosphorus and sulphur, even for the times.[9]"

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

There are some boats that I would be quite comfortable stating that a particular offshore passage would be ill-advised, regardless of the skipper. This would be based on my subjective evaluation of some very objective criteria. I wouldn't say this about many boats, but there have been a few.

Niagara Falls in a barrel? Ill-advised.
Cape Horn in a 1980 Catalina 27? Ill-advised.
[...]
Long Beach to Catalina in a (just about any modern boat)? Advised.

At some point in this continuum we may reasonably disagree, but to say there are no inappropriate boats/voyages is just silly.

You said that and quoted my post, but i did not say that, nor did i imply as such. At least you agree in your first paragraph that ill advised is on YOUR subjective evaluation, nobody else's. It is technically ill advised to jump out of an aeroplane for fun, race motorcycles, and many other things, but not to the folks that do it, so why should they listen to you or me or anyone else?

Coops.

[highseas]

Remember the guy who just sailed around North & South America ,nonstop...in a Vega 27.An old tired one at that.It's not the boat.

[Paul Elliott]

OK, I give up. All you people who say "It's not the boat" are of course free to circumnavigate in a bathtub using the shower curtain as a sail if you like. I will continue to believe that both the skipper, and the boat are factors in the likely success of a voyage. But I'm done arguing the point. Have fun!

[downunder]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

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..

This apears to be a common issue/problem with smaller vessels. Seeing jerrycans of fuel and water lashed to the rails strikes me as not particually good seamanship but often they have few options.

Dashew with his Sundeers makes a big issue with speed to avoid bad weather in his passages. Most cruising vessels do not have their speed however.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

OK, I give up. All you people who say "It's not the boat" are of course free to circumnavigate in a bathtub using the shower curtain as a sail if you like. I will continue to believe that both the skipper, and the boat are factors in the likely success of a voyage. But I'm done arguing the point. Have fun!

I'm not sure if anyone actually disagreed with you!

Surely no one would say that all boats are equal, or that the boat is irrelevant.

I think the point which was made was not to exaggerate the role of the boat, to the exclusion of everything else. And not to imagine that this or that boat, by itself, will provide a safe passage, any more than just buying a Range Range will keep you from getting stuck in the snow.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'm not sure if anyone actually disagreed with you!

Surely no one would say that all boats are equal, or that the boat is irrelevant.

I think the point which was made was not to exaggerate the role of the boat, to the exclusion of everything else. And not to imagine that this or that boat, by itself, will provide a safe passage, any more than just buying a Range Range will keep you from getting stuck in the snow.

+1 Dockhead. An eloquent summation

Dave

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Surely no one would say that all boats are equal, or that the boat is .

But why we are not allowed to point the strengths and weaknesses of different boats without being %%&**/¥￦ by 'principal'

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

But why we are not allowed to point the strengths and weaknesses of different boats without being %%&**/¥￦ by 'principal'

I don't quite understand what "without being %%&**/¥￦ by 'principal' "
means, but in any case, of course anyone can point out the strengths and weaknesses of anything, to their heart's content . . . it's a favorite armchair activity, without which Internet forums would simply not exist . . .