The Yard Guys

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I went to places you have never been Smack and will never go, in a boat you will never own. I'm going to be nice to you because someone has told me that you have had more than your share of bad luck and that behind all the I know something persona hides a nice person.

Heh-heh.

A couple of things. You really shouldn't write me off so easily - because you really don't know much about me. I've surprised many, many people who were sure of things like you seem to be. And I will continue to do so, in all kinds of places - even "places you yourself may or may not have been" (I'm not sure the point you were trying to make on that one, but I'm sure it's important to you in some way).

Anyway, as for the boat...based on the debate, you're probably right. I will never own a boat you like.

Finally, I don't ask that anyone "be nice to me" - regardless of circumstances. That's ridiculous. I simply ask that they be honest and somewhat reasonable - like actual sailors typically are (humor is always good too). Of course, you'd also better be right. Because this is the only way people actually earn my respect.

[smj]

Originally Posted by downunder

Quote by Polux
"I am alright with that, excepts in what concerns me, it pissed me not to catch any cruiser of the same size that is outsailing me, not to talking about outsailng me for 10 days, that would really made me exchange my boat, but that is just me, I accept that others don't care.

It is you that don't seem to accept that there are sailors that sail with the same spirit I have. That's why there is a market for very fast cruising boats."
__________________

That is not a good reason to select a vessel and says it all about your choices.

Sure the Philocat is light and fast but offers no weather or sunprotection and a hot sundrenched saloon when it arrives in the carribean.

A fast racer but not a great cruising cat. Your choice.

In due respect I think it depends on what an individual's definition of a great cruiser is. Seems to me that's the whole problem with this thread, different people having different definitions of what a cruising boat is. I prefer somewhat of a performance oriented boat and will give up some of the creature comforts to gain that. Others prefer more creature comforts and are perfectly content sailing at a more sedate pace.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Polux

If you know the problem maybe you can explain it to me because I don't understand. On all the boats I know the end of the tube from where the rudder passes is above water level and then there is some kind of waterproff flexible material (normally a heavy rubber tube that makes the connection from that tube to the other one on the upper part of the system. They are tightened with strong braces and no way any significant water will come in, seals working or not. Is not this the system you have on the Moody?

I don't know about the Moody design, but many boats have a common rubber lip seal in the top bearing to keep water out. While normally above the waterline (depends on where the quadrant is mounted on the shaft), large following seas can either poop the stern below the water, or provide a lot of water force against the seal. A worn seal can let water in.

Some have a standard stuffing box seal with packing seal on the rudder tube.

However, both of these types should only let in a small amount of easily controlled water if they go bad.

Mark

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

If you know the problem maybe you can explain it to me because I don't understand. On all the boats I know the end of the tube from where the rudder passes is above water level and then there is some kind of waterproff flexible material (normally a heavy rubber tube that makes the connection from that tube to the other one on the upper part of the system. They are tightened with strong braces and no way any significant water will come in, seals working or not. Is not this the system you have on the Moody?

There are lip seals on the shaft which when resting is just above the waterline but loaded up and sailing the boat can squat and take on water if the seals are not doing their job.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by smj

In due respect I think it depends on what an individual's definition of a great cruiser is. Seems to me that's the whole problem with this thread, different people having different definitions of what a cruising boat is. I prefer somewhat of a performance oriented boat and will give up some of the creature comforts to gain that. Others prefer more creature comforts and are perfectly content sailing at a more sedate pace.

Exactly. The problem is people continually trying to narrowly limit, on any side of the debate, what a "cruising boat" actually is. With today's technology and techniques, that's why the "blue water" debate is dead.

It's now more about selecting features and price points and numbers of hulls - not brands. They can pretty much ALL take you where ever you want to go in safety...unless you like driving onto the rocks a lot.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Do you see any post from me blaming a fast or slow boat? who is bringing all the time the same isue here or there? no, i get it , thats the diference , you dont. You are always putting speed as the primary concern for a proper cruising boat, speed , spped and more speed.

See...Quote Polux
And in what regards those old heavy boats you would have to exchange that for a lousy sailing performance. I posted yesterday what i think is the last post on the ARC thread. The Mason 44 and the Nauticat 43, with a close performance arrived yesterday, 10 days after the 45ft Philocat. The last boat is still at about 2 days sailing, the Island Packet 380, going at 5K.

I want to see you in the ARC some day bro, then you are going to realice what the hell its a ocean passage...
With your logic, If you set sails from Plymouth to Ny in your hig perfomance Comet and you take 55 days to make the crossing i guess i have the right to post in a sailing fórum about how poor or slow is the Comet 41 s right?

Well, I bring it always that seem relevant to me and that was the case. On that quote I was talking about an exchange and the subject was not brought by me. Someone had talked about the superior resistance of a Mason when grounded over rocks and "bouncing and grinding on the rocks for 12 hours", I was not denying the strength of the Mason, just pointing out at exchange of what.

I don't see the relevance of making or not an Ocean passage in what regards discussing slow boats with fast boats. Even middle weight modern designed boats of the same size of the Mason 44 had made very fast passage, like the two XC45 and the XC42. It has nothing to do with the type of boat but with being a really old outdated design.

Regarding my boat or my sailing skills I don't see why they are relevant. I posted repetitively that the analysis that I was making of the ARC had to do with averages and that if a fast boat can be sailed slowly, a slow boat cannot be sailed over its potential.

Regarding those averages I can tell you that on the ARC the the slower performance cruiser (the worst sailed of them) was about the middle of the fleet and that all old designed heavy sailboats were on the tail of the fleet, meaning really the tail, the last. Averages is what counts.

But since you talk about me and my boat I can tell you will all honesty that having it for 3 years and have sailed about 7500Nm on the part of the world where it is the biggest density of sailboats, particularly relatively new boats, I had never been outsailed by a boat the size of main and take pleasure in outsailing much bigger sailboats. Sure, there are boats about the size of mine that are faster...but not many and I never had the pleasure to have a real challenge with a similar sized boat...but I would like too. It would be fun.

Maybe next year. The French couple that sailed with me this year is going to exchange is little First 30 by a Azuree 40, the fastest 40ft on the ARC. Then I would not have to wait hours for them and I will be able to see on the water what are the advantages and disadvantages of two very different types of hulls, both fast but certainly with strong and weak points.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Heh-heh.

A couple of things. You really shouldn't write me off so easily - because you really don't know much about me. I've surprised many, many people who were sure of things like you seem to be. And I will continue to do so, in all kinds of places - even "places you yourself may or may not have been" (I'm not sure the point you were trying to make on that one, but I'm sure it's important to you in some way).

Anyway, as for the boat...based on the debate, you're probably right. I will never own a boat you like.

Finally, I don't ask that anyone "be nice to me" - regardless of circumstances. That's ridiculous. I simply ask that they be honest and somewhat reasonable - like actual sailors typically are (humor is always good too). Of course, you'd also better be right. Because this is the only way people actually earn my respect.

I'll leave the all important "being right" to you Smack as that is the alter you pray at. When one gets older and wiser you begin to understand that all the black and white that once filled your life turns to grey with little bits of black and white around the edges and the possibilities are endless of course that and the understanding that 50% all the "facts" we once took as truth over the last 50 years have proved to be false. Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Ask this guy, maybe he can lend a hand? Looks like he missed the rocks.

Yeah, I remember this guy. He used your anchoring techniques in a Hurricane didn't he?

Even so, that Hunter held up pretty well don't you think?

(PS - There was a very sad ending to that story. So I won't make light of it anymore.)

[Polux]

Originally Posted by downunder

Quote by Polux
"I am alright with that, excepts in what concerns me, it pissed me not to catch any cruiser of the same size that is outsailing me, not to talking about outsailng me for 10 days, that would really made me exchange my boat, but that is just me, I accept that others don't care.

It is you that don't seem to accept that there are sailors that sail with the same spirit I have. That's why there is a market for very fast cruising boats."
__________________

That is not a good reason to select a vessel and says it all about your choices. ...

I like what I like in what regards sailing while cruising and it is clear that it is you that does not accept my choice of boat when you say "That is not a good reason to select a vessel"

Wake up, there are so many like me that there are builders making performance cruising boats for them, for instance Pogo, and selling a lot...or do you mean that the ones that chose them as cruisers are not choosing them because they like to blow away any boat on the water and enjoy sailing fast? Sailing fast is enjoyable enough but blowing away 50fters with a 40fters is a lot of fun, at least for the ones that are sailing the 40 fter.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Sorry - "on the rocks" can mean many things, including how I like my scotch. So you really need to be a bit more specific for your comparisons.



A Beneteau 40-something (French Kiss) ran straight up on the Galveston rock jetty returning from the Harvest Moon Regatta. 30 knots and steep, short 6' seas and it pounded for several hours while the CG pulled the crew off. It eventually pounded across the jetty then sunk in the channel.

If what you're trying to tell me is that a Morgan would have been fine in that situation - I will have to assume you're joking, because the alternatives aren't good.

No, Smack, I was really responding to those comments that implied that a more modern boat, being built of better engineered materials, would have done better than the old Morgan. The reference to you was because you often seem to seize upon failures in what you call BWC boats and flaunt them for us.

And to be sure, I do not class older Morgan OIs as high quality boats. Rather the contrary, in fact. And please do not place me in the BWC group in your mind. I should think that a cursory look at the boats that I have had and do still have should make that obvious. On the other hand, I don't think that many of the "price-point" designs are wonderful boats; I think they are adequate boats for their general usage, including thoughtful trans-oceanic voyaging.

Jim

[robert sailor]

Blue water cruisers should have adequate tank- age and adequate storage. They should be able to hang around areas for a long time without the need to run to a West Marine or grocery store. You need room for additional sails, a place to make repairs,storage space for spares, additional or spare anchors/chain and rode. Good dink storage and a galley that is set up so that meals can be prepared in a seaway. Proper bunks with lee boards or lee cloths for safety. Floors should be attached to the boat and batteries and the like should be secured. The list goes on....Can you make a good blue water cruiser out of a cheaper production boat, yes you can but it is not cheap and there will be many compromises. To save money builders of the cheaper boats cut back on the cabinetry and proper storage is always at a premium but given enough time and money anything is possible but it will not be cheap. If your desire is to do the ARC from the Med to the Caribbean then almost any boat will do the trick as other than an easy crossing you have all the support you need at both ends of the trail. Actually the boat stores here in St. Maarten are bigger than anything I have seen in Canada or the USA and because the Caribbean is primarily daysailing its pretty easy peasy to cruise this part of the world in almost anything that floats. When your desire to cruise the less traveled areas becomes important to you then the choice you have made in a boat will make a big difference. You will be less interested in wide open spaces and sight lines and more interested in how you are going to carry all the stuff you need to be really self sufficient. I think if I was going to define a Blue Water Cruiser I would use these thoughts. Also as an after thought...most people that are not going to voyage can sail just about anything that will get out of its own way be it in the Med, Mexico or the Caribbean. These 3 areas are where 90% of the sailboats are and where most people are cruising. No need to spend money on a quality boat to sail in these locations.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

No, Smack, I was really responding to those comments that implied that a more modern boat, being built of better engineered materials, would have done better than the old Morgan. The reference to you was because you often seem to seize upon failures in what you call BWC boats and flaunt them for us.

This is probably a good time to recalibrate the discussion. You do understand that my "flaunting" is simply a response to statements like the following that are very common on these "blue water vs. production boat" threads:

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27
I don't really care if you love hunters and think they're great. They're great if you aren't a very good sailor, you're disabled, older, or just don't want to work that hard.

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27
We see a lot of Catalina's and a lot of Hunters, and 9 out of 10 hunters observed under sail will not have their sails trimmed properly.

Disclaimer: I've owned 2 Catalina's, and if you gave me a Hunter I'd sell it and put the money towards a real boat, not a water RV.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

There're so many threads on this subject here on the forum, just type in "Hunter bluewater" and start reading....

...The Hunter is fine for coastal harbor hopping, but that's not what you'll be doing. You may also want to include some of the "Rebel Heart"* trans Pacific threads in your reading list.

(*irony alert)

And I could go on and on and on in this very thread and the other current Hunter thread and the Rudder Failures thread - just to name a few. If you can't see the very active BWC bias, you're not paying attention.

So, yes, I point out problems with BWC boats. Why? Simply because ALL boats have problems. Yet, when it's a BWC boat there are all kinds of extraneous excuses for why the boat failed. Yet when it's a production boat - it's a "see I told you so". Well, that's ridiculous. Worse, it's disingenuous.

The degrees of appreciable difference in how a new high-end blue water boat and an equipped new production boat will serve its owners - IN TERMS OF THE TYPE OF CRUISING 99% OF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE ACTUALLY DO - is MINISCULE...while the difference in price is enormous. And BOTH boats will STILL have problems in normal use - and especially when they hit the rocks.

So - my goal is to keep the conversation as fair as possible. People should know both sides of the story - even if the BWC doesn't like it.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

And to be sure, I do not class older Morgan OIs as high quality boats. Rather the contrary, in fact. And please do not place me in the BWC group in your mind. I should think that a cursory look at the boats that I have had and do still have should make that obvious. On the other hand, I don't think that many of the "price-point" designs are wonderful boats; I think they are adequate boats for their general usage, including thoughtful trans-oceanic voyaging.

I don't place anyone in the BWC. That's completely up to them. I'm just saying it's there.

So I think we're on the same page.

[smj]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Blue water cruisers should have adequate tank- age and adequate storage. They should be able to hang around areas for a long time without the need to run to a West Marine or grocery store. You need room for additional sails, a place to make repairs,storage space for spares, additional or spare anchors/chain and rode. Good dink storage and a galley that is set up so that meals can be prepared in a seaway. Proper bunks with lee boards or lee cloths for safety. Floors should be attached to the boat and batteries and the like should be secured. The list goes on....Can you make a good blue water cruiser out of a cheaper production boat, yes you can but it is not cheap and there will be many compromises. To save money builders of the cheaper boats cut back on the cabinetry and proper storage is always at a premium but given enough time and money anything is possible but it will not be cheap. If your desire is to do the ARC from the Med to the Caribbean then almost any boat will do the trick as other than an easy crossing you have all the support you need at both ends of the trail. Actually the boat stores here in St. Maarten are bigger than anything I have seen in Canada or the USA and because the Caribbean is primarily daysailing its pretty easy peasy to cruise this part of the world in almost anything that floats. When your desire to cruise the less traveled areas becomes important to you then the choice you have made in a boat will make a big difference. You will be less interested in wide open spaces and sight lines and more interested in how you are going to carry all the stuff you need to be really self sufficient. I think if I was going to define a Blue Water Cruiser I would use these thoughts. Also as an after thought...most people that are not going to voyage can sail just about anything that will get out of its own way be it in the Med, Mexico or the Caribbean. These 3 areas are where 90% of the sailboats are and where most people are cruising. No need to spend money on a quality boat to sail in these locations.

Sounds like your definition of a cruising boat could sway between a cruise ship and a PC Flica 20, depending upon your priorities.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Blue water cruisers should have adequate tank- age and adequate storage. They should be able to hang around areas for a long time without the need to run to a West Marine or grocery store. You need room for additional sails, a place to make repairs,storage space for spares, additional or spare anchors/chain and rode. Good dink storage and a galley that is set up so that meals can be prepared in a seaway. Proper bunks with lee boards or lee cloths for safety. Floors should be attached to the boat and batteries and the like should be secured. The list goes on....Can you make a good blue water cruiser out of a cheaper production boat, yes you can but it is not cheap and there will be many compromises. To save money builders of the cheaper boats cut back on the cabinetry and proper storage is always at a premium but given enough time and money anything is possible but it will not be cheap. If your desire is to do the ARC from the Med to the Caribbean then almost any boat will do the trick as other than an easy crossing you have all the support you need at both ends of the trail. Actually the boat stores here in St. Maarten are bigger than anything I have seen in Canada or the USA and because the Caribbean is primarily daysailing its pretty easy peasy to cruise this part of the world in almost anything that floats. When your desire to cruise the less traveled areas becomes important to you then the choice you have made in a boat will make a big difference. You will be less interested in wide open spaces and sight lines and more interested in how you are going to carry all the stuff you need to be really self sufficient. I think if I was going to define a Blue Water Cruiser I would use these thoughts. Also as an after thought...most people that are not going to voyage can sail just about anything that will get out of its own way be it in the Med, Mexico or the Caribbean. These 3 areas are where 90% of the sailboats are and where most people are cruising. No need to spend money on a quality boat to sail in these locations.

I agree except for the last phrase: There are many types of boats and what defines quality in a boat is not only being suited for a given type of sailing or utilization. For any types of uses you have boats with more or less quality...and some times that quality is just superficial, meaning best finish and best materials on the interior.

Anyway only for the fact that a boat is mass produced it will come out at least 30% cheaper and that has nothing to do with quality but with several gains that go from the use of very expensive robotics to scale economies on the purchase of materials. They use also the best designers and Na that money can buy. The price they cost is diluted on on the big production.

So to have a similar quality boat built by a small company it will cost at least 30% more. For a superior quality we are talking about 50% more and is good not to forget that much of that money go for a better quality interior, not for the hull or boat structure.

Even if I agree with what you say regarding a "bluewater boat" I, and in generally Europeans, would not call that a bluewater boat but a long range voyage boat. For bluewater boat I would call a boat that is at ease while offshore sailing and as you pointed out, most production sailboats of a given size are. Regarding Voyage boats there are several European shipyards specialized in making them and on those you will find all that you have mentioned and are in fact the boats more adequate for the kind of sailing you do.

That does not mean that for lack of money (those boats are expensive) there are not many doing that kind of sailing successfully (probably the majority) on mass production boats, including performance boats.

Go to my site and have a look at the boats tested for the boat of the year (movies) and look at the new Boreal 52, the type of boat you are talking about, with a very nice interior. Probably you would like that one.

Personally I would have preferred for that the new Comet Explorer 46 (you have a post about it on my Blog) simply because it does the same but it is faster and sails better

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smj

Sounds like your definition of a cruising boat could sway between a cruise ship and a PC Flica 20, depending upon your priorities.

Thats funny! But you know if you do intend to visit some far away places it will be pretty hard to throw all your junk in a new Benni and scram all the while expecting that you will have made some good decisions. I ran into 2 different boats that had spent 2 years in the Patagonia archipelago and they were very self sufficient in every way. We tend to be on the border line as some areas we intend to sail to we need food for a couple of months minimum and there are no marinas or yacht facilities so we need to be reasonably self sufficient but not up to the same level as those cruising the tip of South America.