Researching boats: Question about "bluewater" moniker

[GARRYOWEN]

Please read the whole question which will be below my preamble before shooting from the hip with an answer.

This is NOT a thread about monohull vs. multihull.
This is NOT a thread about saildrives good/bad.
This is NOT a thread about pitchpolling or going upside down.
This is NOT a thread about haulout or docking expenses.
This is NOT a thread about additional equipment/gear needed for circumnavigation.
This is NOT a thread about my sailing experience.
This is NOT a thread about any of the usual things people who love or hate multihulls get triggered about.

I have been reading forums and watching videos and reading books, etc and I've found, for a lack of a better description, a discrepancy in what people put on the internet about bluewater boats.

In a nutshell here is my current view of what the vocal sailing community thinks:
---bluewater Mono hulls exclude the so called production boats (Benateau, Jeanneau, Hanse, Bavaria, etc etc.)with bolt on keels, sail drives, unprotected rudders and rigging-gear-sails-hardware are just not sturdy enough for extended circumnavigation but are fine for a crossing or some cruising.
---bluewater Multi hulls can be any boat above 40 feet, this does not exclude any new "production boat" (Leopard, FP, Lagoon, etc, etc, etc) so any boat above the "right size" is a bluewater circumnavigating boat.

Also, an ocean can be crossed on some logs tied together so let's not go there.


Whole Question: Am I missing something? There seems to be no great stigma attached to so called "production boat" in the multihull cruising universe compared to the monohull cruising universe when it comes to living aboard and sailing around the world. Is it just that the great majority of people posting on the internet about multihulls just do "coastal cruising" and the majority of people posting on the internet about monohulls are "circumnavigators"?

[surf_sail]

I would argue that multihull are so expensive most people can only afford one from a production builder. There simply aren't many viable options other than a "production" boat to receive the "blue water" moniker.

[44'cruisingcat]

Possibly because most modern production monohulls tend towards the performance end of the equation, with many of the one off and home builds being heavier, often steel etc.

While the opposite seems to be the case with multihulls, the production boats being heavy and the one offs being more performance oriented.

Or it could simply be that there are more " traditionalists" among monohull sailors, people who say that only heavy displacement long keelers can sail the oceans, whereas multihull sailors are perhaps a bit more open minded.

[Factor]

"40 foot" is a piece of drivel, with little or no connection to reality

[MartinR]

I think this is because there are many more traditional, heavy boats available as monohulls. A heavy catamaran does not make much sense, while a heavy monohull does. So for catamarans the market is more uniform.

"Disclosure: I bought a ULDB fin-keeled, spade rudder, sail-drive, blue water cruising ketch last summer to replace my long-keeled heavy traditional boat. Both have their advantages and their draw-backs"

[GARRYOWEN]

Some very good responses...logical.

[mark_morwood]

To answer your last question, I suspect both opinions are theoretical with a lot of it coming from arm-chair or if you are lucky, coastal sailors. In 3 1/2 years of sailing the Atlantic, Med and Pacific I saw lots and lots of boats out there successfully cruising that broke these broad generalisations. Lots of relatively light production mono-hulls being safely and successfully cruised by families, and lots of custom multi-hulls, particularly as you got into the Pacific and closer to Australia.

Of course, there is no question that some boats are more suitable for long distance cruising, the problem is none of us can agree on which ones. :-) The reality is that fortunately not everyone is exactly the same, so make very rational different trade-offs on all sorts of factors such as price, availability, speed, comfort, space, sailing ability, motoring range, looks, load carrying capacity, living space, resale value, ...

The first boat we went cruising on for 2 years was a slow heavy traditional mono-hull, and for our level of experience and desires was a good choice. The second time we went cruising for 3 1/2 years it was on a Catana 48, which was a performance oriented production catamaran, and for our level of experience and desires was a good choice. In between I did some single-handed offshore racing in a very light coastal mono-hull. In all cases we could afford to buy reasonably strongly built boats, as long as they were old! But in neither case did we ever come close to conditions that really required that level of strength.

So bottom line for me is I don't buy in to the original assertion for either mono-hulls or multi-hulls (not yours I understand).

[boom23]

Same with me... While I was cruising the S. Pacific, I saw all kinds of boats, monohulls and catamarans in every size imaginable. Many of them are not considered blue water capable in this forum.

No boat is perfect. It all depends on your budget and your desire to go cruising.

[daletournier]

Something cruisers forum has taught me is people argue their position, the need to justify their choice often interferes with rational or open minded thinking. This perpetuates myths or at least distorted realities.

Few have crawled around a variety of boats let alone sailed them, rote learned dogma based on little first hand experience is passed from person to person.

Often the condition of the boat and the person sailing it has more to do with the likely hood of it arriving safely than the design itself, IMHO.

The world of cruising has opened up to anyone with money and that can use an iPad, this IMO effects a boats Bluewater ability more than the boat itself.

When I first got into cruising I had all sorts of ideas that now no longer are valid, to me. My ideas back then were based on what I was told, "hand me down facts", my opinions now are based on owning five boats and 40k+ miles.

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Often the condition of the boat and the person sailing it has more to do with the likely hood of it arriving safely than the design itself, IMHO.

I can only agree

[noelex 77]

I think the notion that some boats are "bluewater" is not particularly helpful.

Cruising long distance in our sized boats does carry a reasonable amount of risk. It is much safer than many sports and activities I have done, and for me the risks are worthwhile, but it is important to recognise the risk involved.

Crew experience and attitude probably play the biggest role, but this is closely followed by the type of boat chosen. There is no "safe" bluewater boat, just boats that are safer and those where the risk is greater.

A finer division might be of some use. We could assign a bluewater scale out of say 10. One cruiser may decide he would look at boats with a high score for his family's safety, another may be quite prepared to make the the same journey on a boat with a much lower rating.

Of course there would be much lively discussion about where on the scale a particular design may fall, but I think it would be helpful to get away from the dichotomy that some boats are "safe" and others are "not suitable".

[ausaviator]

As much as people may think that the 40ft rule isn't true, I've honestly lost count of how many 36-38 footers I've seen that have been extended to a minimum of 40ft, with the exception of Lagoons, FP & many other prod cats. I guess owners don't want to modify their production boats *generally*.

Is there method in their madness? You'd have to be on them to tell for yourself.

and lots of custom multi-hulls, particularly as you got into the Pacific and closer to Australia.

That's simply because production cats in Australia are so damn expensive by the time the agents add their take and the exorbitant transportation costs kick-in... oh and GST and import duties.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Or it could simply be that there are more " traditionalists" among monohull sailors, people who say that only heavy displacement long keelers can sail the oceans, whereas multihull sailors are perhaps a bit more open minded.

I think this is the heart of the issue.

The traditionalists dominate the monohull discussion and rule out anything except a heavy full keel boat (which in a great many cases is flat out wrong but it's the prevailing thoughts). Since no production builders are putting out heavy full keel boats, by definition production boats are not blue water (which isn't even a defined term anyway).

The traditionalist say ANY multihull boat is unsafe so if you want to consider a multihull, you tune them out and the result is there isn't the clear cut difference between types like there is with monohulls.

The 40' rule is like many rules of thumb, a quick and dirty idea that usually works but if used blindly can lead you to an incorrect conclusion. A lot of the older british 30-35' cats are considered Water boats">blue water boats. At the same time some of the high strung performance cats above 40' might make me nervous. Most production 40' boats are conservative enough that you have to do something stupid or have an extreme situation to get in trouble.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by ausaviator

As much as people may think that the 40ft rule isn't true,

Who knew that neptune used imperial measurements?

[goat]

Originally Posted by Factor

Who knew that neptune used imperial measurements? [emoji2]

Must be from Myanmar.