What EXACTLY is a "blue water boat"?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Ken’s boat has no trouble averaging 9 knots producing 200+ mile days, so it’s very unlikely to get caught up in a severe storm with good weather forecasts. Plus 30-40 knot winds are no problem, we just push a couple of buttons to furl in the sails a bit and enjoy the ride.

On Southern Ocean or North Atlantic not so likely. Perhaps on shorter passages but the weather is much more unpredictable than in warmer climates. Even the next day is sometimes quite the opposite of the forecast. Same with the constant flow of lows, just can't duck them all and their strength is often way of the forecasted. 30 to 40 knots is daily bread wait till it's 50 to 60 or more.. Just saying

Teddy

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

On Southern Ocean or North Atlantic not so likely. Perhaps on shorter passages but the weather is much more unpredictable than in warmer climates. Even the next day is sometimes quite the opposite of the forecast. Same with the constant flow of lows, just can't duck them all and their strength is often way of the forecasted. 30 to 40 knots is daily bread wait till it's 50 to 60 or more.. Just saying

Teddy

Then we’ll push a few button and enjoy the ride,

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, lets see...

The equipment failures may have been related to the design in some cases. Eg, steering loads are very high in many such designs, with very large unbalanced rudders. The high loads may well have caused the windvane breakage.

IIrC, some of the dropouts were due to discomfort and overwhelming duties as singlehanded racers. Boats with different designs may well have been enough easier to handle that the skippers would have kept on. (This is obviously conjecture, but worth thinking about).

The two boats that got rolled were indeed in bad weather, but that's what one expects on this route, isn't it? I wouldn't use this example to prove that the genre was superior.

And I don't know if Ken's Oyster would have done better. I suspect so, mostly because it is considerably bigger, and yes, size does matter in terms of storm survivability.

So, my point was that the GGR and its participants isn't much of a support for the idea that such designs are better or more seaworthy.

Does that help?

Jim

I never said the full keel boats were better than the newer designs, I'm saying they are still good offshore boats.

Someone mentioned the day of the full keel boat had come and gone and I simply disagreed with that

I think it's a bit of a challenge getting them to perform. They won't point, they roll constantly on the downwind, but they are tough, track well, and heave too easily.

I hate it they won't point when I was used to boats that could point 30 degree or so off the wind instead of 60-70 degrees, but we that own these old boats begin to respect them especially when they bail us out of bad situations

Mine is very small below, but I'm not down there that much so if I ever cruise long distance I'll mainly be on the move not trying to use the boat as a condo anchored some place that some would call paradise (I lived in paradise for 12 years and it's really hot there)

[atlantical]

Its not often I see so much rubbish posted on a thread on cruiser forums, to me the guy asking the question seems to have more knowledge than the people trying to answer the question. He is right on the money with boats like a Bristol, people here saying that you can take any boat across an ocean, are just so wrong, and I was told that when I first got into sailing, and I was told it by people who were all talk, but had never done it, I found out the hard way, that a boat that is cheaply built, and great for a weekend in a marina, is not any good in the middle of the ocean, you wouldn't take a canal across the Atlantic, so why try it in a boat that is designed for protected waters.

Boats today are designed by accountants, to design a 35 foot boat suitable for ocean crossing, would be a very expensive boat, and since 99% of people buying such a boat, will never cross an ocean in it, why bother, you can make it a nice boat that people will buy, make it beamy, (which makes it less stable) with a lot of room inside, put in three cabins, (makes it really hard to get access to the engine) make the hull a lot thinner 6mm saves a lot of expense, make the rig lighter saves money, just hook all the stays to one chain plate, saves a lot of expense, don't bolt the hull and deck together, that takes two men, a lot of drilling and bolts are a lot more expensive than self taping screws, just screw it on, it will be just as good as bolting for the first few years, and bold a big piece of steel onto the bottom for stability. Cheap and cheerful, and they are just going to use it for weekends in a marina anyway.

For the ocean, a small boat has to be a tough one, don't try to cross an ocean in a boat that no one else has crossed in, get a boat that is proven as an ocean crosser, and for a small boat, you need a full keel, and a strong hull, I would sooner cross an ocean in a folk boat than many other production boats that are much bigger.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

Thanks Thomm225, I see from your tagline, that you are on a Bristol 27. Bristol is on my shortlist, but I am looking for at the 32 and 34. This is a very useful post, and is exactly what I'm planning on doing: Buying the boat, spending some time on the hard, making sure she is seaworthy, then gradually upgrading and adding useful equipment over the next several years.

I think 32'-34' is a good size and if I buy another boat that will probably be the size I would go after, but while I'm still working the Bristol 27 is perfect for what I can do with the time off I have.

The Bristol 27 is a good boat and very tough, but I've only sailed mine in the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean coastal.....less than 15 miles offshore which I have done on beach cats. I've been out in much stronger weather though than I ever was on a beach cat on my Bristol 27

CF Member Sean'D though has crossed oceans with his. He also developed the pypilot software while living on his Bristol 27 it appears which is quite amazing I think

About

pypilot - open source marine autopilot

[sailorboy1]

"blue water" boats are mostly a collection of old 1970-180 boats that internet forums like to argue about over and over in response to a novice dreamer asking the question. The question most likely originates out of the askers fear of the ocean, but not enough to kill their dream and fantasy to go cruising. Various old lists and books will be used to support the responders expertize to answer the question, but it will do little more than to confuse the person that asked the question, as there is no answer.

Occasionally the question asker will get one of the the "blue water" boats and start their cruising life. With time they will start to question the choice due to low space and storage, leaks due to the old construction, and poor living comfort. They will note that they don't go out in the conditions they were thinking abut when they "needed: a "blue water" boat. They also note that they spend much more living at anchor, on the hook, or in amarina "living" than "blue water" sailing and the boat they got isn't very good for that. This will make them question why they got a "blue water" boat and that question will grow each time they go over for sundowners on another non "blue water" and see the difference in living on it and that that boat has gone to all the places they want to go and that the owners tell them the boat was just fine.

This boat doubt will continue till the asker finally replaces the "blue water" boat, losing a lot of money in the process, and gets a "cruiser" boat. Or just as often goes to the "dark side" and get a trawler or RV.

Yes, every once in a way the above doesn't happen, but it is more likely than not.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

"blue water" boats are mostly a collection of old 1970-180 boats that internet forums like to argue about over and over in response to a novice dreamer asking the question. The question most likely originates out of the askers fear of the ocean, but not enough to kill their dream and fantasy to go cruising. Various old lists and books will be used to support the responders expertize to answer the question, but it will do little more than to confuse the person that asked the question, as there is no answer.

Occasionally the question asker will get one of the the "blue water" boats and start their cruising life. With time they will start to question the choice due to low space and storage, leaks due to the old construction, and poor living comfort. They will note that they don't go out in the conditions they were thinking abut when they "needed: a "blue water" boat. They also note that they spend much more living at anchor, on the hook, or in amarina "living" than "blue water" sailing and the boat they got isn't very good for that. This will make them question why they got a "blue water" boat and that question will grow each time they go over for sundowners on another non "blue water" and see the difference in living on it and that that boat has gone to all the places they want to go and that the owners tell them the boat was just fine.

This boat doubt will continue till the asker finally replaces the "blue water" boat, losing a lot of money in the process, and gets a "cruiser" boat. Or just as often goes to the "dark side" and get a trawler or RV.

Yes, every once in a way the above doesn't happen, but it is more likely than not.

I will agree with sailorboy’s excellent assessment. Most people don’t end up venturing very far or prefer to do coastal cruising, so why waste money on something not needed.

[thomm225]

If you do plan to cruise in an older, narrow, full keel boat, it's best I believe to do lots of testing locally so you can prepare for the problems mentioned above.

Many of us that buy these old boats are not looking for a vacation style condo cruising boat to live on at anchor instead of a house. Anchoring would be more to sleep, fish, rest, hike then keep sailing

It's more about having a sailing adventure in rather tough living conditions.

Sailing hard which will work your body, baths in the cockpit, hiking, kayaking, fishing for fresh food, handling the mainsail at the mast, moving solar panels as necessary for power.

This for a few days to a few weeks until you can adjust to a few months. Even then you may decide to take a few months off back at home where you can recharge and complete any repairs necessary on the boat

It's also a good way to see if you like the sailing/cruising life for without spending a lot of money

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by thomm225

It's more about having a sailing adventure in rather tough living conditions.

Sailing hard which will work your body, baths in the cockpit, hiking, kayaking, fishing for fresh food, handling the mainsail at the mast, moving solar panels as necessary for power.

This for a few days to a few weeks until you can adjust to a few months. Even then you may decide to take a few months off back at home where you can recharge and complete any repairs necessary on the boat

It's also a good way to see if you like the sailing/cruising life for without spending a lot of money

What you’ve described is not exactly “La dolce vita.”

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Well, I'd certainly throw in my old Columbia 24 in that list and would prefer it to some there. But I wouldn't get into a battle over whether those are bluewater boats. My boat did a lot of things well, but I wouldn't consider it bluewater now, though I did fancy that notion when I was young.

Of course nor complete, just as counters to the idea that neither 27' nor some other arbitrary # is part of the definition.

For those who **want** a bigger boat and of course can afford it, size will offer greater comfort and in some cases some added survivability.

But LOA is just another factor, all of which with grey-scale variability, for each prospective passage-maker to weigh against the others in arriving at their list of BW candidates.

> Some people DO sail them all around, but I am just not that adventurous now. So... "bluewater" is a function of the age of the one you ask too perhaps.

Well not calendar age, but yes being more or less risk averse will change your definition of "safe enough".

I personally am getting much less risk averse as I get older, less to lose I guess, I've had a good life and when my number comes up, so be it.

At the "more" end of the scale, those folk are simply not going offshore at all.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

What you’ve described is not exactly “La dolce vita.”

Yes some like to have all possible modern comforts while climbing Mt Everest or visiting Antarctica, but no one can claim ease and comfort are essential to those experiences.

Many traditionalists express the opposite.

And those desiring relative ease and comfort **as well as** bluewater capabilities need to pay a lot more for that combination.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by atlantical

Boats today are designed by accountants, to design a 35 foot boat suitable for ocean crossing, would be a very expensive boat, and since 99% of people buying such a boat, will never cross an ocean in it,

Could you name some of these 35ft (approx) yachts?

Pete

[Kenomac]

If a boat can do this, it’s “bluewater” in my opinion.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

What you’ve described is not exactly “La dolce vita.”

It not suppose to be which is my point.

In my opinion, you don't want to just shut down when you retire unless of course you have to. I believe the more you can push yourself the better, but I will admit that when I return from one of my 3-4 day 70-100 mile sails having lived on the boat etc I am tired

I don't steer much but I'm usually standing in the cockpit much of the time especially if it's rough

Part of that is not sleeping well on the boat due to motion, temperature and just that it's different, plus over using my body and getting sometimes too much sun

Just living on a boat mainly at anchor isn't in my plans. It's sailing the boat and trying to adjust to living on it for a few months at a time

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by thomm225

It not suppose to be which is my point.

In my opinion, you don't want to just shut down when you retire unless of course you have to. I believe the more you can push yourself the better, but I will admit that when I return from one of my 3-4 day 70-100 mile sails having lived on the boat etc I am tired

I don't steer much but I'm usually standing in the cockpit much of the time especially if it's rough

Part of that is not sleeping well on the boat due to motion, temperature and just that it's different, plus over using my body and getting sometimes too much sun

Just living on a boat mainly at anchor isn't in my plans. It's sailing the boat and trying to adjust to living on it for a few months at a time

When we finish one of our 100 mile days, we’re not tired. After a warm indoor shower, we’re ready to do it again.