older really strong boat or newer not-so-strong

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by ThaidUp

So if you're going from Mexico to Australia you'd recommend a 1968 Hinckley over a 2010 Beneteau? I know it depends on how she's outfitted but I can upgrade/refit/replace everything but the hull, so that's why I'm asking.

Yes, that's the answer for me anyway. But it's not just a sturdy hull. The whole system, deck and hull etc must be correct and good. Some sturdy hulls have poor deck joints etc. Search "Rebel Heart".

[Chris777]

I would suggest 1990's Hallberg Rassy. You should be able to find one in good shape on your budget. I bought mine in Sweden, sailed and shipped to the US.

Good Luck

[Anduril]

Check out the boats approved for the golden globe... all old and very well built. If you want to cruise the Maine Coast … get a full keel\attached rubber and put a cage around the prop.. millions of lobster pots up there.

Westsail 32 • Tradewind 35 • Saga 34 • Saltram 36 • Vancouver 32 & 34 • OE 32 • Eric (sister ship to Suhaili) • Aries 32 • Baba 35 • Biscay 36 • Bowman 36 • Cape Dory 36 • Nicholson 32 MKX-XI • Rustler 36, Endurance 35, Gaia 36, Hans Christian 33T, Tashiba 36, Cabo Rico 34, Hinckley Pilot 35, Lello 34, Gale Force 34.

I'll always vote for really strong.

[ThaidUp]

Never sailed a multihull other than a Hobie 16. Wouldn't rule it out. Right now I like the 90-something Pacific Seacrafts. 37-44 range. I'm getting the sense from some of the posts that people confuse fresh water sailor with amateur who can't fix anything. I can do whatever a boat needs. I just haven't sailed much on salt water so I haven't had to consider whether the boat will hold up or not.

[Dooglas]

This question about an older "over-built" boat versus a newer "under-built" boat is somewhat misleading. If you are talking about an older hull that is truly "over-built", that means the hull is far heavier than it needs to be to do its job. That also means it is likely slower and doesn't point well to windward. Certainly some older boats are good designs that have stood the test of time and are excellent choices for long passages. There is a reason that older boats are much less expensive, however. That reason is that the bargains typically need substantial refitting. Maybe you can save some money by doing that yourself, but maybe you'd rather be a sailor than a boat builder. When it comes to newer boats, over 40' designs are generally built to handle longer passages with the exception of those built for racing and some other specialty purposes. I wouldn't call any of them underbuilt. Modern marine architects are much better at designing and engineering a boat so the components are strong enough for what is expected of them. Hull failures are a very rare event.

[daletournier]

The last post mentioned Hull failures are rare and modern boats are built strong enough, I think this is very true yet some seem to focus on "my hull is this thick". Another point is what Paul brought up, a thick chopper gun hull with blisters built in isn't necessarily stronger.

At the risk of repeating myself a yacht is so much more than a hull, there's thousands of bits, age and fatigue weaken things. An eg is on my last boat, a 35 year old freedom I was having stainless steel bolts break under little stress, such as the ones that hold the grab rails to the cabin top. Of course there's many old boats that get good refits BUT they never replace everything, they can't, just to expensive, how long do tanks etc last, how many masts are 30-40 years old?

I'm not arguing don't get an older boat, I'm arguing that an older boat isn't always more seaworthy than a more modern boat although this is a regular assumption. There's many many things that contribute to seaworthiness, it's not as simple as "older boats are stronger".

[colinalleck]

I have a 1979 S&S 34 which had circumnavigated before I brought her .

It is a great sea boat, easy to single hand but does not have the volume = storage space of a more modern design.

As others have suggested where you going, sort that out and the other pieces will follow.

[Maka]

Originally Posted by wrwakefield

ThaidUp, Welcome to the forum. [Most of us don't bite...]

We went through the same considerations just a few years ago as we prepared to retire and get our 5th [and final?] cruising sailboat.

My experience is, with your stated budget, you might find far better value in a somewhat older, well found and proven boat that has been well outfitted and maintained by previous owners who could afford to do so— and did on a continuing basis...

This is precisely what we found, but it took time, diligence, and concerted effort...

It sounds like you have enough experience to know what you like and don't like about the boats you have been on.

Therefore, my suggestion is forget the older vs. newer litmus test and instead work out a requirements [wishlist initially] 'balance sheet' [spreadsheet with colums, or?] of specifics you:

• Must have [Necessities]
• Would like to have ['Niceities']
• Are undesirable [Would rather not have]
• And things absolutely do not want [Showstoppers]

Just do a brain dump, and don't worry about prioritizing until much later— after you refine and solidify your requirements...

Don't forget to include considerations that may be unique to various regions you may plan to visit on your boat. [e.g., heat, air conditioning, watermaker, etc.]

As you work through it, I suspect you will find 'not so strong' landing in the showstopper column.

Using us as an example, and having owned several well found blue water cruising sailboats in the past, we were pretty focused with our list for our [hopefully last] boat: [Note, we prefer higher latitudes]

Must have:

• 40-52 ft monohull [40' is our lower limit of full time livability, and 52' is max comfortable single-handing]
• Indoor and outdoor steering stations [e.g., pilothouse]
• Well found, great sailing— and motoring— blue water proven [we ended up with an S&S designed hull]
• Aluminum or FRP
• Skeg hung rudder
• Fin or Modified fin keel [and if FRP- with external lead ballast]
• Pilot house must be main living quarters with direct view of outdoors from seating positions [We want to see where we are, not the inside of our boat...]
• Well maintained, with everything documented
• Central heat
• Generator
• Watermaker
• Low hour naturally aspirated diesel engine
• Etc.

Nice to have:

• Washer/dryer [score]
• Air conditioning [scored again]
• Etc.

Won't buy:

• Teak deck [a beautiful but ultimately expensive liability as a boat ages]
• Major repairs [e.g., hull damage, etc.]
• Project boat
• Cored deck or hull [of FRP boat]
• Etc.

As you can see, even our superficial example list really narrows our focus to a selection of not too many choices. This led us to specific manufacturers and models [that matched both our budget and all requirements].

We spent over two years only looking at a handful of specific models. [3]

We found exactly what we wanted, but only because we never deviated from our requirements. [No compromises once your requirements are finalized. None...]

Best wishes figuring out— and finding— exactly what you are in search of...

Cheers! Bill

This is Excellent advice. Works if you are looking for a dingy or a Mega Yacht.
My list was a work in progress...constantly evolving.
Had a line item for "Safety " in the "Must have" category.
The list, for me, carried on after I bought the boat as it was a "Dont leave the dock with out it" list. Added everything the boat did not come with after I bought her, which wasn't much in my case.
In fact my boat has things not on my lists, like forward looking sonar.

Still have the list,,,but since I bought my boat no longer add to or modify it..

[SteveSadler]

Boat construction methods and materials now, are light years ahead of last centuries. Bulkhead delamination, blistering, engine access, tanks, plumbing, electrical, rigs, anchor systems, EVERYTHING has greatly improved over decades of R+D. Designs are much better, more room stability, safety, sailing performance all greatly influenced by the charter boat industry have reinvented the cruising sailboat.
Then after 5-8 years, the charter companies are done with them, and sell them for a song. The Med is the cheapest, easiest place to buy a boat, huge inventories are taken out of service in October and have to be sold by April to make room for the new ones. Usually everything works, and comes complete with all the charter equipment. Aesthetics have suffered, but can be repaired or replaced. Yacht services are reasonable, and available everywhere.
The Med is also a great place to start cruising, and its downwind all the way to the south Pacific as your confidence grows.
But there are tradeoffs. New boats deep fin keels aren't a strong as the old molded in keels, and a skeg hung rudder is also stronger.
But if you insist on running aground, either buy insurance or buy a steel boat.
A volkswagon bug was a fine old car, but a new Civic is 10x better!

[captmikem]

Bear in mind boats are built for the market.

Designers build to what sells.

In the 70’s and 80’s three markets appeared to drive boat builders and designers; long range cruising, builders were building boats in the 35 to 50 foot range that were strong and seaworthy (or at least looked like they were), had stowage and sea berths, good access to the engine room.
Second was the charter trade, ie. Two couples for a week, large bunks, large heads, and large cockpits. And the third was built to race.

The next 20 years the market changed, people wanted boats that looked kind of like cruising boats but were mostly used to motor around and occasionally coastal cruise, had lots of room, big engines, room walk around on deck and sail plans that were easy to hoist and stow. Also boats were taking on things that made them look like race boats, (dual wheels, winged keels etc.) This matched pretty much with the charter market. High freeboard, smaller rigs, not a lot of stowage, large open spaces below. Also had the ‘racer cruiser’ market.

This trend has continued now to where boats no longer need to be strong and seaworthy, a few still are but they are terribly expensive. Ninety percent or more of boats do not venture offshore, they are either coastal cruising, intracoastal cruising, or are based in prime charter areas and never leave. Many just sit in marinas. Boats are not driven hard to windward to “claw off a lee shore” anymore, they just motor off. Now if you are in trouble or even just frightened you can call on your sat phone or activate your epirb and if way offshore a ship will deviate and take you off or if close to shore a helicopter pick you right off. Designers and builders know this, they build light and roomy, they may look like condominiums but windward performance is not a consideration anymore. Large tables, queen size beds, large engines, never have to leave the cockpit, large screen displays, etc are what people want.

[roland stockham]

Originally Posted by captmikem

Bear in mind boats are built for the market.

Designers build to what sells.

In the 70’s and 80’s three markets appeared to drive boat builders and designers; long range cruising, builders were building boats in the 35 to 50 foot range that were strong and seaworthy (or at least looked like they were), had stowage and sea berths, good access to the engine room.
Second was the charter trade, ie. Two couples for a week, large bunks, large heads, and large cockpits. And the third was built to race.

The next 20 years the market changed, people wanted boats that looked kind of like cruising boats but were mostly used to motor around and occasionally coastal cruise, had lots of room, big engines, room walk around on deck and sail plans that were easy to hoist and stow. Also boats were taking on things that made them look like race boats, (dual wheels, winged keels etc.) This matched pretty much with the charter market. High freeboard, smaller rigs, not a lot of stowage, large open spaces below. Also had the ‘racer cruiser’ market.

This trend has continued now to where boats no longer need to be strong and seaworthy, a few still are but they are terribly expensive. Ninety percent or more of boats do not venture offshore, they are either coastal cruising, intracoastal cruising, or are based in prime charter areas and never leave. Many just sit in marinas. Boats are not driven hard to windward to “claw off a lee shore” anymore, they just motor off. Now if you are in trouble or even just frightened you can call on your sat phone or activate your epirb and if way offshore a ship will deviate and take you off or if close to shore a helicopter pick you right off. Designers and builders know this, they build light and roomy, they may look like condominiums but windward performance is not a consideration anymore. Large tables, queen size beds, large engines, never have to leave the cockpit, large screen displays, etc are what people want.

I totally agree with this except... I don't think manufacturers build 'what people want' I think they build what makes them the most money and people have no choice but to pick from what is on offer. So if builders can volume produce charter/coastal boats at high profit margins that will be the focus. The traditional offshore cruiser is a small specialist market where each boat is almost a custom job and lack of volume production makes it less efficient. That means higher cost so drives down volume further and you get a vicious circle. It is not just a problem for boats but applies to everything from care to TV channels. Globalization is resulting in far lower prices but everything available is built for the mass market and down to the lowest common denominator.

[john61ct]

If truly hoping to live aboard, cross oceans, go anywhere wandering the globe,

then you need robust design **for that purpose** and "strength" of build quality.

You may never actually need it, hopefully will never scrape a rocky bottom, get hung up on a reef or tossed around in a huge storm that would be fatal to other boats.

But I'd sure want those qualities to be there, just in case the worst case scenario manifests, with our survival at stake.

Buying with **that** as the foremost priority completely changes the shopping equation.

And if that **is** your focus, I think it's fair to say you better have very deep pockets looking for it in a "newer" boat.

The key question being, is that factor really as important to you compared to other values, as you currently imagine?

There are no black-and-white lines here, it's greyscale balancing the various factors and judgment calls all the way down.

[waterman46]

Look at Morgans built before Catalina took over, early 80s is good. Solidly built in USA. No need to pay more than about 120K then spend 50K on upgrades. If you like the work of course.

[daletournier]

This year I've cruised with a variety of boats, it's been very social year.

These boats have varied in hull strength, steel, wood, old & new fiberglass. Not once have I come across a hull, rudder integrity issue with any of these boats. All of us have similar issues, there's always someone repairing a windlass, autopilot, sails etc, it's never a hull or hull deck join, it's always other stuff.

It's also fair to say that all these boats saw some reletively rough weather at times while crossing the Indian ocean, especially in the second half heading towards Madagascar or Mauritius.

My point again is the overall condition of the boat and all "stuff" on it is more important than how thick my hull is.

I remember approx 5 years ago asking a guy on a Barvaria 47 while Indonesia what problems he'd had with the boat (he'd crossed to oceans) his answer was, just the same stuff everyone else has.

I truly believe most people sprouting the old is better than newer haven't been out there much, if they had they would see that many modern designs are successfully and comfortably doing what we want them to do.

[Bob Morane]

Originally Posted by daletournier

This year I've cruised with a variety of boats, it's been very social year.

These boats have varied in hull strength, steel, wood, old & new fiberglass. Not once have I come across a hull, rudder integrity issue with any of these boats. All of us have similar issues, there's always someone repairing a windlass, autopilot, sails etc, it's never a hull or hull deck join, it's always other stuff.

It's also fair to say that all these boats saw some reletively rough weather at times while crossing the Indian ocean, especially in the second half heading towards Madagascar or Mauritius.

My point again is the overall condition of the boat and all "stuff" on it is more important than how thick my hull is.

I remember approx 5 years ago asking a guy on a Barvaria 47 while Indonesia what problems he'd had with the boat (he'd crossed to oceans) his answer was, just the same stuff everyone else has.

I truly believe most people sprouting the old is better than newer haven't been out there much, if they had they would see that many modern designs are successfully and comfortably doing what we want them to do.

France is really close to the opposite of the world of Tasmania. (it falls a couple thousands of kilometers west in the Atlantic)
I regularly see Jeanneaus' and Beneteaus' here in Hobart harbor and down south.
Surely, they aren't that lightly and cheaply designed if people sail hundred of thousands of miles in them, no ?