The Yard Guys

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by carstenb

. Certainly my concept of a "bluewater boat" is one to be used for passage-making (longer ocean crossings), and extended voyaging in nteresting places. Meaning a boat someone is living on for a longish period of time and will use to cross oceans.

I mostly agree, but kind of consider that type of boat a "cruiser" because of the extended live aboard requirements.

The problem is that so many will continue to argue points that really would only matter if a boat was only to cross oceans in bad weather and then turn around and cross back.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

to tab a joint you must first fillet it. Usually with fiber filler so you can glass wet on wet, which is much stronger than Plexus. Does anyone really believe that just because a plexus fillet might have a superior bond (though probably not because production poly always has a chemical bond just like plexus), it will actually be superior in any department to a joint which has both a fillet and a glass tape?

You either do not understand a fillet, or have intentionally worded the above to lead someone in the wrong direction.

Yes, tabbing needs fillets. However, even a fiber fillet does not provide a lot of strength. The primary purpose of that fillet is transitioning, not gluing. The fiberglass taping is the strength component. The fillet itself is resin rich and could never have the slightest chance by itself like Plexus.

And fillets are not generally primary chemical bonds because they are almost always done on cured material. Done in poly, they are not considered a great physical bond either (although I seem to be in the minority thinking they are good physically). It is possible to get some chemical bonding by glassing bulkheads before full cure, or leaving a layer air-inhibited, but this is generally not the way boats are made.

A Plexus bonded component can be stronger than a tabbed component, while providing stress load distribution. However, the parts must be designed and engineered for this. Personally, I don't think the boats in the pictures that have been shown are designed this way - I think even tabbing a varnished surface is silly - but I also don't think they are problematic to a large extent.

I know of naval architects and boat builders who are currently exploring new designs and manufacturing techniques where structural components will be glued, not tabbed. And be much stronger than tabbed structures. The purpose, of course, is time and cost savings, along with some automation. However, they are putting the work up front in making the designs amenable to this type of build.

Mark

[minaret]

Originally Posted by colemj

You either do not understand a fillet, or have intentionally worded the above to lead someone in the wrong direction.

Yes, tabbing needs fillets. However, even a fiber fillet does not provide a lot of strength. The primary purpose of that fillet is transitioning, not gluing. The fiberglass taping is the strength component. The fillet itself is resin rich and could never have the slightest chance by itself like Plexus.

And fillets are not generally primary chemical bonds because they are almost always done on cured material. Done in poly, they are not considered a great physical bond either (although I seem to be in the minority thinking they are good physically). It is possible to get some chemical bonding by glassing bulkheads before full cure, or leaving a layer air-inhibited, but this is generally not the way boats are made.

A Plexus bonded component can be stronger than a tabbed component, while providing stress load distribution. However, the parts must be designed and engineered for this. Personally, I don't think the boats in the pictures that have been shown are designed this way - I think even tabbing a varnished surface is silly - but I also don't think they are problematic to a large extent.

I know of naval architects and boat builders who are currently exploring new designs and manufacturing techniques where structural components will be glued, not tabbed. And be much stronger than tabbed structures. The purpose, of course, is time and cost savings, along with some automation. However, they are putting the work up front in making the designs amenable to this type of build.

Mark

Lol! Leaving a layer air inhibited generally not done?! What do you think ortho resin is for? Everyone does it that way. And fiber filler is much stronger than Plexus. What is it about plexus that makes the magic fillet that is so superior to filler fillet which "wouldn't stand a chance on its own"? I've done plenty of destructive testing, and thixotropic resin (fiber filler) can most certainly have as good a bond as plexus, and is stronger. Why would you think plexus stands a chance on its own? Filleting with just plexus is just as bad as filleting with just fiber filler.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

And fiber filler is much stronger than Plexus.

Can you back this up with any reference? Why is Plexus used at all if all one needs is to dump some filler in polyester resin and be done with it?

I'm not arguing which is the better fillet material, or should either be used alone - just that secondary Plexus bonding is far stronger than secondary polyester. They are completely different chemistries is the reason.

If you think a boat with an ortho layer has good primary chemical bonding abilities after a couple of weeks, I disagree. If the layup is within a couple of days of bulkhead installation, then maybe - and only with a very clean workplace at that. Many hulls sit weeks before bulkheads are installed. Many are done with infusion or vacuum bagging or peel-ply, where there is no air-inhibition. Maybe not high number production boats, though.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

Replace the term "blue water boat" with "voyaging boat" and this whole silly argument goes away. Semantics. There's an obvious disconnect between those for whom "cruising" means extended offshore voyage making with a family, potentially lasting decades, and those for whom "cruising" means a season in the Caribbean or two.

Though I think you're getting closer, that definition leaves a hell of a lot in the middle.

A boat built for extended, offshore voyaging with a family...including high latitudes, is a very specialized boat. This activity is, compared to how virtually everyone out there perceives "cruising" (including rounding the world), extremely rare. So, you're absolutely right. If anyone is using standards for this type of boat to apply to any kind of "cruising" - they are completely off-base.

However, saying that everything else "means a season in the Caribbean or two" isn't what we've been talking about either. We've been using the standard of "blue water cruising" that includes crossing oceans and even circs - and what kind of boat is suitable for that.

In this middle ground - there are LOTS of boats that are suitable, including the production boats.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

Lol! Leaving a layer air inhibited generally not done?! What do you think ortho resin is for? Everyone does it that way. And fiber filler is much stronger than Plexus. What is it about plexus that makes the magic fillet that is so superior to filler fillet which "wouldn't stand a chance on its own"? I've done plenty of destructive testing, and thixotropic resin (fiber filler) can most certainly have as good a bond as plexus, and is stronger. Why would you think plexus stands a chance on its own? Filleting with just plexus is just as bad as filleting with just fiber filler.

The reason you're being questioned is that what you're saying is exactly the opposite of a lot of information out there (whitepapers, industry descriptions, the thesis, etc.) that seems pretty damn credible. This is on top of actual methodology that's already been adopted in the building of a lot of boats.

Now, I certainly have an open mind if you've got good evidence or references to the contrary (the reason for this thread). But just saying it doesn't make it true.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by minaret

Replace the term "blue water boat" with "voyaging boat" and this whole silly argument goes away. Semantics. There's an obvious disconnect between those for whom "cruising" means extended offshore voyage making with a family, potentially lasting decades, and those for whom "cruising" means a season in the Caribbean or two.

The RCD classA was never about a definition of a bluewater boat, meaning as bluewater boat one that is specifically designed for voyage on bluewater. Very few boats are designed for that as main design criteria simply because the ones that use the boats primarily for that effect are a very small percentage, certainly less than 1%. Even the ones that cross frequently the Atlantic, like some in the RCD that are on their 3th ARC (6 crossings) pass much more time doing coastal cruising and small passages than bluewater sailing. The right boats for them are not a boat designed specifically for Bluewater sailing but a compromise between that and what is best on coastal cruising and on an anchorage.

The RCD class A regards the minimum a cruiser boat should have in what regards seaworthiness and stability to sail offshore and eventually to cross Oceans with a minimum adequate safety margin. The wind and sea definitions exclude any crossing out of the right weather window or any sailing on extreme latitudes, I mean regarding the boats that are close to that minimum. The Oceanis 38 that have been vastly referred here is not near that minimum, even if others are certainly more far away. Size is not the only factor but in what regards modern well designed boats is a main factor.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

The RCD classA was never about a definition of a bluewater boat, meaning as bluewater boat one that is specifically designed for voyage on bluewater. Very few boats are designed for that as main design criteria simply because the ones that use the boats primarily for that effect are a very small percentage, certainly less than 1%. Even the ones that cross frequently the Atlantic, like some in the RCD that are on their 3th ARC (6 crossings) pass much more time doing coastal cruising and small passages than bluewater sailing. The right boats for them are not a boat designed specifically for Bluewater sailing but a compromise between that and what is best on coastal cruising and on an anchorage.

I think this is a great definition. Buying a boat specifically for extended voyaging is SERIOUS overkill in relation to the kind of cruising you typically do...even when you cross oceans.

It's like buying an armored Humvee for your daily commute. Sure, there's a slight possibility you could someday take small arms fire at that quiet intersection of Main St. and Bollocks - but in the mean time the entirety of your driving experience will certainly suck.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I think this is a great definition. Buying a boat specifically for extended voyaging is SERIOUS overkill in relation to the kind of cruising you typically do...even when you cross oceans.

It's like buying an armored Humvee for your daily commute. Sure, there's a slight possibility you could someday take small arms fire at that quiet intersection of Main St. and Bollocks - but in the mean time the entirety of your driving experience will certainly suck.

Evans Starzinger once used the term "expedition boat" as a descriptor, and I like that. It seems very clear to me what that should entail.

Mark

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I think this is a great definition. Buying a boat specifically for extended voyaging is SERIOUS overkill in relation to the kind of cruising you typically do...even when you cross oceans.

It's like buying an armored Humvee for your daily commute. Sure, there's a slight possibility you could someday take small arms fire at that quiet intersection of Main St. and Bollocks - but in the mean time the entirety of your driving experience will certainly suck.

How can you talk about extended voyaging when you never before cross a ocean?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by colemj

Evans Starzinger once used the term "expedition boat" as a descriptor, and I like that. It seems very clear to me what that should entail.

Mark

Agreed. That kind of nails it. The twist that Minaret put on it above is having an expedition boat that is also essentially a "moving home" for a family. That ups the ante even more.

BJPorter (over at SA and SN) has been kind of doing that for the last few years with his family...though I can't remember off the top of my head what boat he has. His son, Will, did an internship with Bob P. last summer (lucky git). Cool family.

[neilpride]

This is funy,mixing the term expedition yacht with a long range cruising boat or like minaret say extended voyage boat, really far from reality, think about this boats are fitted with separate track for a storm trysail, inner forestay sometimes to fly a storm jib, watertight collision bulkheads, Amels sport that, they are expedition boats? doublé bow anchor rollers, good tankage and good range under power, enough space to load lots of gear, food, wáter, tools, even scuba diving gear, strong hull construction, strong and sturdy rigging, wide unclutered decks, good hull forms to beat to weather, sometimes for days and days, the list is is really wide, and they still doing what the Bavaria 38 is doing, docked, doing the ARC, anchored, sailing in weekends, and if you want to sail a 4000 miles passage at once without modifications or problems, they do, and even more , sail for 3 or 4 months in some remotes áreas of the world.

Its like compare a Horse with a donkey...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

This is funy,mixing the term expedition yacht with a long range cruising boat or like minaret say extended voyage boat, really far from reality, think about this boats are fitted with separate track for a storm trysail, inner forestay sometimes to fly a storm jib, watertight collision bulkheads, Amels sport that, they are expedition boats? doublé bow anchor rollers, good tankage and good range under power, enough space to load lots of gear, food, wáter, tools, even scuba diving gear, strong hull construction, strong and sturdy rigging, wide unclutered decks, good hull forms to beat to weather, sometimes for days and days, the list is is really wide, and they still doing what the Bavaria 38 is doing, docked, doing the ARC, anchored, sailing in weekends, and if you want to sail a 4000 miles passage at once without modifications or problems, they do, and even more , sail for 3 or 4 months in some remotes áreas of the world.

Its like compare a Horse with a donkey...

I think that's what we've been saying all along.

[neilpride]

What i mean is the proper boat can do that, sail 4000 miles in one jump and stay in isolated remotes áreas for a long time, or sail in bad weather often. and even do what the Bavaria is doing, in the other hand the Bavaria have limitations ...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

Evans Starzinger once used the term "expedition boat" as a descriptor, and I like that. It seems very clear to me what that should entail.

Mark

This sounds like a label that's serious overkill as well, unless you're doing the kind of sailing Beth & Evans have done, or the folks on Morgan's Cloud who enjoy extreme high latitude sailing. Then again, you don't have to be crossing the N. Atlantic every year to desire a solidly built boat from a mfg. with a good reputation. Sailing to the Caribbean from the US e. coast in early Nov. -- a common passage for many -- is around 10 days of open ocean sailing, the first part of which can entail running the gauntlet of unpredictable & often poorly forecasted N. Atlantic gales as well as crossing the gulf stream. Under these conditions, I'd welcome being on a voyaging boat, expedition boat, or any other well-built boat, just so long as it doesn't come apart on me.

Just like there may be a misperception about whether modern, mass-produced boats are able to cross oceans, I think there's also a misperception that heavier-built, traditional boats are slow, cumbersome, and don't perform well. Certainly true for some that we used to call the "2 kts. fwd., 4 kts. sideways boats", but this is another one of those stereotypes for the uninformed & inexperienced. My 47' Bristol, for example, weighs 20 tons, has a thick, heavy, non-cored hull, a 42% B/D ratio, but a PHRF of 115 (I found it on the internet so it must be true). It was originally designed & built for the Newport-Bermuda races, in an era where seakindliness was almost as favored as seaworthiness. There are many other examples of traditional boats on both ends of the performance spectrum and everywhere in-between.

My only point is, just like Smack cautions against automatically removing from consideration a Hunter/Bene/Catalina, etc. because they are all incapable of crossing oceans, let's not lump all the more traditional boats into the slow & ponderous category. At the same time, there are some of us who would prefer to have ourselves & families in something more solid & reputable in any part of the ocean and in any conditions, both for safety and enjoyment.