The Yard Guys

[Neptune's Gear]

Sorry Polux,
I have to agree with Jim on this one! IMO cruising means long periods living aboard and covering long distances - usually internationally. I referred to myself on my other site crew.org.nz - the online home of New Zealand sailing as "back from cruising" the other day - yet we still are on the boat most weekends and a few multi week trips a year. I consider that local sailing. Like you, I probably now do a few thousand miles year at present, when really "cruising" we did closer to 10,000 NM/year. Just my opinion. :-)

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

Well, it depends: on your's it will be several.

When you go from an Island to another or from a continent to an Island that is 60 or 70NM away you are making a passage and are sailing offshore. Not a big passage but a passage anyway.

But I really don't understand, we should not be discussing the rudder problems on that Moody 47?

after all this is a thread about rudder problems.

So this whole time we've been discussing the merits of boats that only have to go <100NM per trip? In that case, a 3 meter rubber boat and a few jerry cans of fuel could be good enough. Thanks for clearing that up as I can unsub from this thread now.

Actually, this is not the thread about rudder problems. That's a different one.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So this whole time we've been discussing the merits of boats that only have to go <100NM per trip? In that case, a 3 meter rubber boat and a few jerry cans of fuel could be good enough. Thanks for clearing that up as I can unsub from this thread now.

Actually, this is not the thread about rudder problems. That's a different one.

Yes That's why Polex considers the Sig 45 a great cruising cat. Ideal to get to the next marina and restaurant as long as the passage is less than 12 hrs preferably 6hrs.

With no obvious solar panels you would need to get to the marina to plug in.

Perhaps the reason no radar is fitted is the shortage of electrical power. Of cource you could always run the motor.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Neptune's Gear

Sorry Polux,
I have to agree with Jim on this one! IMO cruising means long periods living aboard and covering long distances - usually internationally. I referred to myself on my other site crew.org.nz - the online home of New Zealand sailing as "back from cruising" the other day - yet we still are on the boat most weekends and a few multi week trips a year. I consider that local sailing. Like you, I probably now do a few thousand miles year at present, when really "cruising" we did closer to 10,000 NM/year. Just my opinion. :-)

Everybody is entitled to have an opinion and call cruising to what he wants but to understand the others and to be understood the meaning of words is not arbitrary and that's why exist dictionaries, to define the accepted meaning of words and in what regards cruising the definition is:

The free dictionary:
a. To sail or travel about, as for pleasure or reconnaissance.
b. To go or move along, especially in an unhurried or unconcerned fashion.
cruising - definition of cruising by The Free Dictionary

Merriam-Webster:
to travel on a boat or ship to a number of places as a vacation.
to sail about touching at a series of ports.
Examples of CRUISE
We cruised for a week down the Yangtze River.
He dreams of cruising the Mediterranean.
Cruise - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Dictionaire.com
to sail about on a pleasure trip.
Cruising | Define Cruising at Dictionary.com

So as you can see, travelling for 4 months touching many anchorages, many harbors and several countries is certainly cruising as it is cruising to sail and live on the boat for any period of time if the boat is cruising, meaning, sailing about touching different ports and anchorage. It is not yours or ant other person that defines what is cruising but the accepted meaning of the word as it is defined on dictionaries, the place were commonly accepted meaning of words are.

But I still say that on a thread about rudders we should be discussing the problems on the rudder of that Moody 47.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So this whole time we've been discussing the merits of boats that only have to go <100NM per trip? In that case, a 3 meter rubber boat and a few jerry cans of fuel could be good enough. Thanks for clearing that up as I can unsub from this thread now.

Actually, this is not the thread about rudder problems. That's a different one.

Yes, but rudder problems has to do with Yard guys....I think?

As you may remember that's why they have changed the definition of Class A boats, because you can experience the same conditions in the middle of the Ocean or offshore at less than 100NM from land. There is not a difference of seaworthiness or stability required, only a difference in what regards tankage and equipment.

But now you got me confused. This thread is about the merits of any type of boat? I though it was about boat building, particularly regarding the virtues of old boats like the Moody 47 comparing with recent mass production cruisers in what regards reliability. The rudder failure on that Moody is relevant to this discussion, I believe.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by downunder

Yes That's why Polex considers the Sig 45 a great cruising cat. Ideal to get to the next marina and restaurant as long as the passage is less than 12 hrs preferably 6hrs.

With no obvious solar panels you would need to get to the marina to plug in.

Perhaps the reason no radar is fitted is the shortage of electrical power. Of cource you could always run the motor.

I think we all understood by now that you are only capable to judge boats for what you see fit to yourself, in what regards type of boat or type of cruising. It is not necessary to continue. You made clearly your point.

[Zach]

Interesting thread...

I think instead of comparing polar diagrams, this thread might be better served comparing distances between re-provisioning stops.

Moellers Law: The sea keeping ability of a boat is inversely proportionate to the number of jerry cans required for it to reach its destination.

Grin...

Zach

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Zach

Interesting thread...

I think instead of comparing polar diagrams, this thread might be better served comparing distances between re-provisioning stops.

Moellers Law: The sea keeping ability of a boat is inversely proportionate to the number of jerry cans required for it to reach its destination.

Grin...

Zach

+1! Nice to see another "Yard Guy" here.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Zach

Interesting thread...

I think instead of comparing polar diagrams, this thread might be better served comparing distances between re-provisioning stops.

Moellers Law: The sea keeping ability of a boat is inversely proportionate to the number of jerry cans required for it to reach its destination.

Grin...

Zach

That makes some sense to me but I don't understand why do you want to take speed of sailing boats out of the equation, see:

The needed of tankage on a boat (and eventual needs of Jerrry cans) is on the inverse proportion of its sailing potential, so a very good sailing boat one that has not only a good offshore potential but a very good performance with very light winds will dispense not only the aditional jerry cans but almost all tankage and therefore by the so called Moellers law will have an outstanding sea keeping ability.

Look at the ARC, the first performance 40ft cruiser has already arrived while the heavy old boats with huge tankage, like a Mason 44, two Nauticats, an Island Packet and a Maramu are still at midway. Look at how much more food, water, not to mention fuel those boats will need, taking almost 50% more time for a crossing.

We can see what those old slow boats wasted on fuel at the end (they publish that, unless they spent so much that are embarrassed to communicate and have the max penalty for that) and I will bet that the proportion of fuel for total tankage will be much bigger on those slow boats (that have and need big tanks) then on the faster performance cruising boats that are already there, with their small tanks and all.

Those polars matters because they will tell you how much time in average you will need to make a passage, how much food and water you need and depending on the sailing ability, how much fuel you will need.

[Jim Cate]

Cruising is what one does on a cruising boat going from a place to another. You have a a elitist idea of what is cruising and a lonely and inadequate one because there are very few cruisers that correspond to yours rather narrow idea of what is cruising and there are a huge number of cruisers that stay out of what you call a cruiser

Well, as one "lonely and inadequate" cruiser to another, I'd say that you simply adjust your definition of "cruising" to meet your arguments. If you want to say that sailing from LA to Catalina is "cruising" (I am not familiar enough with your environment to use a local analogy), or that a yacht club "cruise" from one marina to another nearby one is cruising, that's fine with me. But it ain't offshore by most folks ideas, and it surely isn't "bluewater" cruising... a subject that seems to have crept into this thread repeatedly. The rigors of such sailing are a bit less than in what I, and apparently others as well, consider to exist in offshore, long range cruising, and failures in such applications were the subject of this thread as I understood it.

I'm a bit disappointed when you start name-calling, Pollux. "Elitist" is, in this context a bit pejorative IMO. You say that very few cruisers meet my narrow idea of the practice, while a "huge number" meet yours. We meet a lot of fellow long range cruisers every year, but sure, there are a lot more who meet your personal definition of cruiser... the bar is set much lower for that view, and that's ok too. A great deal of the material discussed here on CF relates to doing much longer trips than what you describe. I don't know how many of those posters actually accomplish their voyages, but there is a lot of interest expressed. Does the fact that I have actually spent a lot of years cruising (by my definition) mean that I am "elitist"? I dunno... what do you call all those folks who write in saying they are going to circumnavigate? Wanna be elitists?

But, enough of this...

Back to Moody yachts. In 1990 we were crossing from Mexico to French Polynesia in loose company with a Moody 42 called "Sloop Du Jour". Whilst at sea, they received a ham radio message from Moody (a lot of sleuthwork just to accomplish that feat) saying that they had identified a design/execution error in the rudder construction on their boat, and that a fix was urgently required. Moody dispatched two technicians to Papeete, complete with enough material to make the repair. They paid for the haulout and all the expenses involved. At the time, I was far more impressed with Moody's integrity than with the design error. And ya know... I still am! I don't remember the details of the repair, but it involved reinforcing the skeg IIRC. I do wonder if other yachts of their design suffered from the same problem, and if they were not always so forthcoming in tracking them down and fixing them... who knows?

Jim

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Polux

That makes some sense to me but I don't understand why do you want to take speed of sailing boats out of the equation, see:

The needed of tankage on a boat (and eventual needs of Jerrry cans) is on the inverse proportion of its sailing potential, so a very good sailing boat one that has not only a good offshore potential but a very good performance with very light winds will dispense not only the aditional jerry cans but almost all tankage and therefore by the so called Moellers law will have an outstanding sea keeping ability.

Look at the ARC, the first performance 40ft cruiser has already arrived while the heavy old boats with huge tankage, like a Mason 44, two Nauticats, an Island Packet and a Maramu are still at midway. Look at how much more food, water, not to mention fuel those boats will need, taking almost 50% more time for a crossing.

We can see what those old slow boats wasted on fuel at the end (they publish that, unless they spent so much that are embarrassed to communicate and have the max penalty for that) and I will bet that the proportion of fuel for total tankage will be much bigger on those slow boats (that have and need big tanks) then on the faster performance cruising boats that are already there, with their small tanks and all.

Those polars matters because they will tell you how much time in average you will need to make a passage, how much food and water you need and depending on the sailing ability, how much fuel you will need.

You seem to be leaving out the boats ability to spend time comfortably at anchor. What if you are making an offshore passage or just cruising to a destination with no (or very few) marinas or boatyards, with the intent of spending as long as possible with a crew of at least four, requiring fuel for generator, solar (oh no, windage!), at least one proper tender, some water toys such as kayaks or surf boards, fishing gear, frozen food and the power to keep it that way (batteries are heavy!), fresh water and/or the power to make it, and a long list of other stuff that comes before the finer points of "performance" for most cruisers? Understand the need for some compromises yet?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by minaret

You seem to be leaving out the boats ability to spend time comfortably at anchor. What if you are making an offshore passage or just cruising to a destination with no (or very few) marinas or boatyards, with the intent of spending as long as possible with a crew of at least four, requiring fuel for generator, solar (oh no, windage!), at least one proper tender, some water toys such as kayaks or surf boards, fishing gear, frozen food and the power to keep it that way (batteries are heavy!), fresh water and/or the power to make it, and a long list of other stuff that comes before the finer points of "performance" for most cruisers? Understand the need for some compromises yet?

Polux has made it clear that his prejudice is boats that go fast. Everything else is a compromise that apparently is something he does not want to be involved in.

Nothing wrong with someone wanting fast boats. But Polux seems to fail to recognize that the compromises those boats generally need to make are ones most cruisers have no interest in dealing with.

I'm still not sure how one defends cruising as being a series of less than 24 hour hops from marina to marina.

[smj]

Originally Posted by avb3

Polux has made it clear that his prejudice is boats that go fast. Everything else is a compromise that apparently is something he does not want to be involved in.



Nothing wrong with someone wanting fast boats. But Polux seems to fail to recognize that the compromises those boats generally need to make are ones most cruisers have no interest in dealing with.



I'm still not sure how one defends cruising as being a series of less than 24 hour hops from marina to marina.

I would say the majority of cruisers are making less than 24 hour hops, maybe not marina to Marina but at least anchorage to anchorage. This would be the majority of cruising the Bahamas, Caribbean and I'm sure many other places in the world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, as one "lonely and inadequate" cruiser to another, I'd say that you simply adjust your definition of "cruising" to meet your arguments.

A cruiser is one that cruises, the definition of cruising is not mine, but the one the word has in any dictionary. Words have meaning and it is not you or me that establish what words mean.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I'm a bit disappointed when you start name-calling, Pollux. "Elitist" is, in this context a bit pejorative IMO. You say that very few cruisers meet my narrow idea of the practice, while a "huge number" meet yours. We meet a lot of fellow long range cruisers every year, but sure, there are a lot more who meet your personal definition of cruiser...

I didn't call you elitist, I said that your definition of cruising and cruisers was elitist because it excluded many that were obviously included by any definition of cruising that any dictionary presents: Cruisers are just the ones that do cruising.

Now you seem to make sense when you talk about different type of cruisers, there is long range cruisers, liveaboard cruisers (and that does not mean necessarily long range cruisers), cruisers that spend what is called "the cruising season" cruising, cruisers that use charters for one or two weeks cruises, cruisers that take a sabbatical year to cruise and cruisers that spend their vacations cruising on their own boats (and I certainly forget some).

Cruiser is not a profession it is something one does because one likes to do it and when he does it he is cruising.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

the bar is set much lower for that view, and that's ok too. A great deal of the material discussed here on CF relates to doing much longer trips than what you describe. I don't know how many of those posters actually accomplish their voyages, but there is a lot of interest expressed. Does the fact that I have actually spent a lot of years cruising (by my definition) mean that I am "elitist"? I dunno... what do you call all those folks who write in saying they are going to circumnavigate? Wanna be elitists?

As I said, I said your definition was elitist because excluded all others that cruise in a different way. I never said you were elitist. I don't know you and I do not call pejorative names. The fact that you are a long range cruiser makes you more knowledgeable regarding that type of cruising but I think you miss the point that most that want to cross an Ocean want to do that for doing the type of cruising I do, the Americans on the Med and Baltic the Europeans on the Caribbean.

That does not make them by your definition long range cruisers but cruisers that want to cross an ocean to do in another place what you call coastal cruising. Their needs are not the same as yours neither the boat more suited to them will be the boats more suited to long range cruisers, I mean the ones that prefer to do circumnavigations, to navigate in remote places and the lot.

In fact the boat more adequate for them is a boat with ability to cross an Ocean with good weather but besides that a boat specially designed to enjoy life on the cruising grounds, where those cruisers will pass 95% of their cruising time. As they are in much bigger number it is only normal that the market offers a much bigger number of boats adapted to that use as it is normal that in a boat forum those will be the boats more discussed, because they interest to more.

I don't think it is a higher or lower bar, it is a different one and I disagree that the majority of subjects discussed on this forum have to do with long range cruising: you just have to look at the boats that are more talked about, like the Oceanis 38, Jeanneaus, Hunters and Beneteaus. What most people want to know is if they are safe offshore not because they cross Oceans all the time (or want to) but because they feel safe sailing a boat that has the ability to cross Oceans or because they intend to cross an Ocean sometime on the future ( for going cruising on the med or Caribbean). They want to know if a new Beneteau is safer and more reliable than an heavier 40 year old boat and that kind of stuff. Anyway what most do now is not long range cruising (most have to work for a living) but some type of cruising I described.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Back to Moody yachts. In 1990 we were crossing from Mexico to French Polynesia in loose company with a Moody 42 called "Sloop Du Jour". Whilst at sea, they received a ham radio message from Moody (a lot of sleuthwork just to accomplish that feat) saying that they had identified a design/execution error in the rudder construction on their boat, and that a fix was urgently required. Moody dispatched two technicians to Papeete, complete with enough material to make the repair. They paid for the haulout and all the expenses involved. At the time, I was far more impressed with Moody's integrity than with the design error. And ya know... I still am! I don't remember the details of the repair, but it involved reinforcing the skeg IIRC. I do wonder if other yachts of their design suffered from the same problem, and if they were not always so forthcoming in tracking them down and fixing them... who knows?

I am not targeting Moodys in particular. Could have been any other old boat, a Nauticat or at Motiva 39 last year. They all have in common to be old boats, boats well built but that with age need refits and upgrades that most don't do. They need a lot more of that that a boat with very few years. My point all along was that boats need an adequate maintenance and older ones more maintenance.

It seems to me that many think that for buying a 40 year old boat well built from a reputable brand they will have less problems than if they buy a new Bavaria. Well, only if they spend a fortune to put the boat in as new condition. Facts on the ARC regarding rudder problems on the last years seems to corroborate what I say. This Moody is just another case that fits on this scenario.

Not the same picture, if they will buy a new Nauticat or Amel, will be different. Then I would say the opposite, the chances are that those boats are more reliable than Bavarias or Jeanneaus.

Long post, but I hope it makes clear the way I see the cruising panorama and cruising boats in the hope you understand and see it is not only logic as reasonable.

Cheers.

[minaret]

Soon I'll post some pics of a job I'm currently doing. It's a Jeanneau 41. The strut fell off. It also has keel problems. I've spent the last few days crawling around in it taking stuff apart and doing some heavy grinding. The boat is a real piece of crap, much mockery in the yard. I've never seen a strut built or installed like that before, it's madness. Must be those superior euro designers. Those of you who know what you're looking at will be entertained. I'm sure smack and Pollux will explain to us why this method is superior.