'Blue Water' - What's Your Boat ?

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Bash

Let's hope that's because it's such a tired subject. "Bluewater Boat" is nothing more than a marketing term, something made up by a boat salesman to convince wannabe cruisers that they should purchase brand x rather than brand y. It's the ultimate attack ad, because the implication is that if you venture into blue water in a Brand Y boat, you will probably die.

I don't see the point in putting up another poll that only serves to upset owners of one type of boat or the other. This leads to a shallow sort of discussion that gets us nowhere as a forum. It's especially tiresome when variants of this shallow topic are proposed over and over.

The last thing we need here is another discussion of why BeneHunterlinas are not bluewater boats because they don't have full keels, or why boats with a certain number of hulls are better or worse than other boats, or why certain rigs are less worthy than others.

I look forward to the day when another of these threads (or pseudo-polls) is started and we all ignore it. We should be focusing on cruising, not on promoting one brand over another.

Sorry but I don't see the point of this post. It seems to me that a lot of people are finding the thread worth while. If someone is upset they can use the "report" button I am told. I don't see what can be accomplished by questioning the motives of the OP, especially when one does not really know them.

There is a current thread on being "rude" and in my way of thinking to suggest someone's posts are shallow and unworthy is an example of rudeness, especially when they come from a CF Adviser.

I look forward to the day when the site staff will learn that the rules apply to them as well.

[JohanB]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Any boat can be a "blue water" boat if you sail it in the right direction. As I said elsewhere, it's all about (1) comfort at sea vs conmfort at the dock, and (2) one's indoividual appetite for risk. Mine happens to be low.

I own a racing sailboat and a trawler för family boating, neither bluewater boats but I intend to buy one at some stage and go cruising.

This is a nice short list. Starting with safety. What are the actual risks that the boat will sink in a storm. Is it like the risk of being bitten by a big shark. The thought of it is very frightening but in reality hardly ever happens.

On the subject of safety, isn't the risk far greater to fall overboard, severe health issues in the middle of an ocean, or breaking a leg/arm.

Which happens more often, people die because their boat sank or because they got an appendix infection in an remote area and could get medical help in time. If the latter, how many remove their appendix as a precaution before going cruising.

My point is that the thought of the boat sinking in the middle of an ocean frightens us, but in reality it hardly ever happens. If we accept other far greater risks why be overly cautious about the saftyness of the boat.

Perhaps the other item, comfort at sea, is more relevant. Perhaps boats consider safe is also more comfortable at sea, but I think there are more parameters here to be expanded on.

[JohanB]

Some more points.

Out of the cruising people suffers a premature death or severe injury, how many is a direct consequence of them being in an unsafe boat (within reason).

Which is in reality the safest boat including severe health issues. A Bavaria with a sat phone or a Pacific Seacraft without. Note, only taking safty issues into consideration.

[Pete7]

Along with do you have a blue water boat? perhaps we should ask what is water sailing">blue water sailing? Crossing an ocean or large sea perhaps? if so how large a sea? a great lake perhaps? they do look rather big on Google Earth.

We have a Moody 31 ft yacht that could go across an ocean with careful planning, but having discussed it with the wifey, we don't plan to as I'm not sure how she would cope with being so far from land, especially if the weather turned nasty.

However we are going cruising Based in Southern England, gives us the North Sea, Baltic, Irish Sea, Biscay and down to North Africa to play in which should give us a decade of of places to explore without needing to be more than a few days offshore. A shallow draft also gives access to a couple of thousand miles of European waterways. Probably similar to those in the SE of the USA who have a huge crusing area to explore both inland and offshore.

There are some financial savings to be made by doing this too. Do we need a insulated double bottom liferaft or will a good quality coastal one surfice. If we are only going to be a few days offshore how about an electric auto pilot which we already have rather than wind vane steering? Sails can be lighter and if one blows out a repair or replacement is required a sail maker is nearby. Watermaker? strike that from the list, just not justified.

So no long keel needed, instead fins and skeg rudder which is faster and more manueverable, always useful in the busy harbours of NW Europe. A smaller yacht paid for sooner with lower maint costs and time will suite us.

I wonder how many blue water cruisers actually spend time blue water cruising or just sit in harbours waiting for there owners pipe dreams.

Pete

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Pete7

I wonder how many blue water cruisers actually spend time blue water cruising or just sit in harbours waiting for there owners pipe dreams.

Pete

We don't want to know or think about that.

I think you have a great plan by the way. We plan a similar thing but our cruising grounds will be SE Asia ... Burma down to PNG. That should keep us busy for a while.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Having said that, I have two boats: an Alden 50 and a Hunter 40.5 and I consider both blue water boats. Both have crossed oceans equally successfully so the boat clearly isn't the issue - it is the captain and crew.

Safety
Ocean crossing expose participants to rare but, serious life threatening risks. Most people want these risks to be very low. To conclude that boat A is safe because one person has done similar trips is unsound logic.

Most ocean crossings could and indeed have, been completed in very unseaworthy boats. Sensible people, however demand added reserve for more severe conditions, or rare events. We need a boat that will be safe even in conditions that may only be encountered every (insert your personal risk factor here) ocean crossings.
During a large number of blue water passages a boat would be likely to be caught in severe weather, hit some underwater object etc. We need to judge the seaworthiness of a vessel by how it would cope with these sort of problems.

I have never sailed a Hunter 40.5, but knowing that someone has completed even several hundred ocean crossings does not lead me to conclude it is therefore, necessarily, a safe boat for this application.

[Mimsy]

Once you get past construction weight,etc. doesn't it really become personal preference? The Open 70s are certainly ocean crossers but those big open decks would scare the beejezus out of me. SOme would hate the small and cozy cockpit on our boat but that is one of the features I looked for as it makes me feel secure.

Horses for courses, YMMV.

[goboatingnow]

Most ocean crossings could and indeed have, been completed in very unseaworthy boats. Sensible people, however demand added reserve for more severe conditions, or rare events. We need a boat that will be safe even in conditions that may only be encountered every (insert your personal risk factor here) ocean crossings.
During a large number of blue water passages a boat would be likely to be caught in severe weather, hit some underwater object etc. We need to judge the seaworthiness of a vessel by how it would cope with these sort of problems.

This is quite nonsense. its a bit like saying that its not a good idea to go flying in a brick. Firstly you cant really tell whats needed out there unless you have a lot of experience. Secondly a good boat is a function of good crew. Bad decisions, inaction, over action etc can disable a "good" boat as easy as a "bad" boat.

Yes obviously there are unsuitable boats , butthe vast majority of modern production boats are in effect "blue water"

Ocean crossing ( and Ive done a few) are probably safer in my view then some coastal or sea passages, The Med has regulary shown me it is worse at times then any Altantic passage I have done. Equally Biscay and part of the Uk and Irish coast. It matter not that rescue or ports are near ( most time in bad weather you cant access them anyway). Arguably this is "blue water" sailing.

Thirdly very very few people , do "large number of blue water passages " even circumnavigations only involve a couple of extended cruises. MOst time is spent at anchor or in effect stopped and the biggest complaints I have heard about boats are (a) Light Airs performance, (b) inadaquate galley and (c) cramped at anchorage.

Lets leave this nonsense debate, there are thoses that try and maintain that somehow you need a boat designed in Slocums time or a Pilot cutter or somthing to do a circumnavigation ( or modern varients of this), this conviently ignores the fact that these designs rarely ever did circumnavigations nor did anyone leave the confines of teh coast in them. Small boat deep sea voyaging is a modern activity and one of the reasons is that "standard" boats can with care and attention go round the world ( certainly via the trade winds routes).

Dave

[Curmudgeon]

Actually you've made a very good case for the importance of a seaworthy boat close to shore as well as for passage making. You will certainly want a keel that can take a grounding and a rudder protected by a skeg in coastal areas where you are more likely to hit something. You also want a tough hull to take the pounding from those short, steep waves in places like the Great Lakes or Long Island Sound. And you want good ground tackle, because if you drag in a crowded anchorage, you can create a real mess.

Lastly, the "light air performance" argument is a red herring. On light air days, the majority of those floating condos are motor sailing anyway.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You will certainly want a keel that can take a grounding and a rudder protected by a skeg in coastal areas where you are more likely to hit something. You also want a tough hull to take the pounding from those short, steep waves in places like the Great Lakes or Long Island Sound.

But the vast majority of new yachts that are sold today are fin and spade rudder and these yachts are used extensively in coastal areas.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

And you want good ground tackle, because if you drag in a crowded anchorage, you can create a real mess.

Agreed, but this applies to any yacht.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Lastly, the "light air performance" argument is a red herring. On light air days, the majority of those floating condos are motor sailing anyway.

True in coastal areas, but surely most folk have a destination in mind and a limited time. Wish I had the time to spend 3 years aimlessly wandering around the south Atlantic for no real purpose.

Pete

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Actually you've made a very good case for the importance of a seaworthy boat close to shore as well as for passage making. You will certainly want a keel that can take a grounding and a rudder protected by a skeg in coastal areas where you are more likely to hit something. You also want a tough hull to take the pounding from those short, steep waves in places like the Great Lakes or Long Island Sound. And you want good ground tackle, because if you drag in a crowded anchorage, you can create a real mess.

Lastly, the "light air performance" argument is a red herring. On light air days, the majority of those floating condos are motor sailing anyway.

This logic, if followed to it's conclusion, indicated the full keel, skeg argument applies to coastal cruisers only and anything could be safely used offshore. This is just another flaw in the whole discussion of what constitutes a blue water boat which is always a silly conjecture when you look around any of a myriad of S Pac island lagoons and see what is really there.

[noelex 77]

[

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

This is quite nonsense. its a bit like saying that its not a good idea to go flying in a brick Dave

I did fly a plane once that was nicknamed” the brick”. It was suggested by some unkind people that the only reason it took off was the curvature of the earth.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Secondly a good boat is a function of good crew. Bad decisions, inaction, over action etc can disable a "good" boat as easy as a "bad" boat Dave

I agree the crew are often more important than the boat, but this discussion is about the boat. The outcome of disasters like hitting a container are influenced strongly by boat design and construction. Its hard for even a good crew to have a successful voyage if the boat rapidly sinks.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Thirdly very very few people , do "large number of blue water passages " even circumnavigations only involve a couple of extended cruises Dave

My point exactly. One person does not do enough ocean passages to conclude anything meaningful simply from the completion of their voyages. A large number of blue water passages are needed to obtain enough data for any reasonable analysis.
It is more helpful to explain how the boat behaved in rough conditions, or the durability of the construction and fittings

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

the biggest complaints I have heard about boats are (a) Light Airs performance, (b) inadaquate galley and (c) cramped at anchorage Dave

I hope so. I would be concerned if the biggest complaint becomes my keel/rudder/rig broke on my last passage.

[captainteacup]

The term bluewater seems to confer a country-jumping traveller far off, but I like to think of bluewater as the water right in front of SF Bay all the way up to B.C.

My poll would be this- I have had a Columbia 43 that I cruised on for five years and now have a Sagitta 29.5 ( yes, under thirty) and if I were to compare the two the Sagitta 29.5 is by far the circumnavigator. Of course, the swell and ocean conditions around the equator make it easier to sail a smaller sloop overall as compared to the cold higher latitudes. But, in my opinion, you want a boat that is self sustainable- doesn't require as much diesel, as much paint, and as much canvas. And .... It makes it more fun to not have insurance or the worries as to whether pirates will just take her.

She's got a new main and new furling headsail, a one year old (NEW) diesel from Spain, and she was built in Denmark to last. I would go with the older boat and the rowing dingy rather than the newer pocketcruiser and the high powered outboard too.

CPT TEACUP

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This logic, if followed to it's conclusion, indicated the full keel, skeg argument applies to coastal cruisers only and anything could be safely used offshore. This is just another flaw in the whole discussion of what constitutes a blue water boat which is always a silly conjecture when you look around any of a myriad of S Pac island lagoons and see what is really there.

You know I never really thought of it like this. But after getting out in the open I always feel safer. Nothing really to hit (rocks, sand bars, other boats for the most part, lobster pots to catch, less worry about tides and the shrot waves). So maybe there is no flaw and the open blue is a really safer place for the boat as it's biggest danger is a frieghter. So as long as the boat systems are setup for the job and the boat is strong enough to survive a breaking wave (and if it can not should it be sailed anywhere to start with) the boat is "blue water".

But to me what the poll says is that most aren't caught up in what others define it as and they feel their boat is "blue water" already. I voted my Cal-39 as a coastal cruiser that can be upgraded, but if I had a reason to do a week long crossing tommorrow, the only thing I would rush to add would be jack lines (a system setup issue not a boat design problem). Everything else of concern lives in the space between my ears.

So when next boat shop I hope I take a look at some of the boats that is the past I have just passed by out of hand due to things I "learned" here when I first got interested in sail cruising.

[captainteacup]

To me, anyone with money can build a bomber boat with all sorts of gear, but from my experience it's really a hastle to receive manufacturers replacement parts in many parts of the world. Go with Bernard M.'s example of making it 'just fixable' using hardware parts to fix a steering vane, or fabricate something with available materials rather than go with "corporate" equipment. Smaller the better, willing to lose it at anchor, willing to leave it in a sketchy harbor for six months, leaving her moored in a hurricane zone, etc. All reasons to go with a cheaper investment and use your "sea skills" and handyman acumen rather than to lie on west marine and a heavy purse. That's bluewater, the ability to sustain yourself indefinitely in cheap countries!