Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[boatman61]

While the amount of old steel, plastic and wooden boats that do it goes unrecorded in the main...

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I suppose I could invite you to a early season sail round say Ireland , that'll put hair on your chest and sort out the boat from the boys !!

Its on the same latitudes as about Hudson bay ! 40 kts is described as a fresh breeze and the sea has 3000 miles of fetch, but sure its only coastal , so the " bluewater " boys probably think its like a sail round Tampa bay !

Dave

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

There are scads of coastal areas that are far more challenging to sail and a better "test" of a boat's capabilities than the Columbus route. Going around the horns is coastal, technically speaking

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the ARC is not without risk. When you're 1500 miles from land in the middle of the Atlantic you certainly want to have confidence in your equipment. There's no one out there to pick you up if things go pear shaped. My specific point is that to say such and such model of boat routinely makes the trip really is not any sort of proof of it's overall offshore fitness. There are better measures of it than that.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by boatman61

While the amount of old steel, plastic and wooden boats that do it goes unrecorded in the main...

That is not what this thread is about. This one is about mass production boats fit for bluewater that's why I am only post about them otherwise I would be posting also about the many performance cruisers, the ones that conservative sailors call race boats, that circumnavigated.

I may be wrong but that I can remember on the World ARC on all these years there was no steel or wooden boats but only on the last one there was 3 "race boats". Not bad a proportion of almost 20%, at least for the ones that see these boats unsuitable for bluewater extensive cruising.

Off course plenty steel and wooden boats have circumnavigated, in fact the first one was a wooden one, the second, the third and many more were wooden boats too.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Suijin

.....

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the ARC is not without risk. When you're 1500 miles from land in the middle of the Atlantic you certainly want to have confidence in your equipment. There's no one out there to pick you up if things go pear shaped. My specific point is that to say such and such model of boat routinely makes the trip really is not any sort of proof of it's overall offshore fitness. There are better measures of it than that.

I said this several times but you seem that you did not understood: I am not talking or posting boats that had done the ARC that is an Atlantic crossing. I am posting boats that have made the WORLD ARC. That is not an Atlantic crossing but a CIRCUMNAVIGATION.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Polux

I said this several times but you seem that you did not understood: I am not talking or posting boats that had done the ARC that is an Atlantic crossing. I am posting boats that have made the WORLD ARC. That is not an Atlantic crossing but a CIRCUMNAVIGATION.

I was not responding to your last couple of posts Polux so just relax. If you look you'll see the exchange started before you started talking about THE WORLD ARC.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Suijin

I was not responding to your last couple of posts Polux so just relax. If you look you'll see the exchange started before you started talking about THE WORLD ARC.

On this thread all the boast I posted had circumnavigated or close. Nobody posted here any boat that had just crossed the Atlantic so I don't understand why you keep talking about the ARC and Atlantic Crossings. How about talking about circumnavigations made by mass production boats that is what has been posted on this thread?

[goboatingnow]

I'm now permanently blinded by the large text

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Polux

On this thread all the boast I posted had circumnavigated or close. Nobody posted here any boat that had just crossed the Atlantic so I don't understand why you keep talking about the ARC and Atlantic Crossings. How about talking about circumnavigations made by mass production boats that is what has been posted on this thread?

Why don't you go back and read the sub thread...I was responding to goboatingnow's post about his experience on the ARC, not the world ARC, OK? I wasn't responding to you. Settle down.

You didn't start this thread and you don't own it. It's not about boats that have done the ARC, or world ARC, it's about blue water capable production boats. You want to extrapolate your approach that you applied to the ARC about it being conclusive proof of fitness, that's fine, but I'm also free to disagree with you, ARC or World ARC either way. To be clear it's your methodological logic that I disagree with. The boats themselves may well be fine blue water capable boats, that's entirely irrelevant to my point.

As an architect I would think you know better than to take this approach. Just because buildings in San Francisco were still standing after the last earthquake does not mean that each one can be certified as seismically resistant or that they will fare so well the next time around.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Suijin

Why don't you go back and read the sub thread...I was responding to goboatingnow's post about his experience on the ARC, not the world ARC, OK? I wasn't responding to you. Settle down.

You didn't start this thread and you don't own it. It's not about boats that have done the ARC, or world ARC, it's about blue water capable production boats. You want to extrapolate your approach that you applied to the ARC about it being conclusive proof of fitness, that's fine, but I'm also free to disagree with you, ARC or World ARC either way. To be clear it's your methodological logic that I disagree with. The boats themselves may well be fine blue water capable boats, that's entirely irrelevant to my point.

As an architect I would think you know better than to take this approach. Just because buildings in San Francisco were still standing after the last earthquake does not mean that each one can be certified as seismically resistant or that they will fare so well the next time around.

I think circumnavigation is a nonsense metric. Ive delivered AWBs across oceans , high latitudes , north sea,etc. Some were a doddle, some were vicious on the boat and crew,

I remember being in Las Palmas, on one ARC talking to a US lady and her husband, I think they had a Tarten or a Taswell. They were finishing a 8 year circumnavigation, yet the one place in all of that that beat the hell out of the boat and caused damage was off the Balearics in the Med !!!.

You could circumnavigate and avoid all major storms , or go sailing around say the Uk or Ireland or the North sea and get friggin hammered.

Simply looking at races or circumnavigations or ocean crossings is great but you must realise that it means little.

Someone mentioned say looking at the Fastnet race, nonsense say I , thats a club racing scene, mainly inshore amongst the greatest and densest rescue services on the planet. Half the stuff in it isn't that sea worthy at all.

As for ORC regs, I equipped a Bene 393 for the AZAB, not that difficult at all.

You can't go looking at boats in the abstract

You have to define your needs and priorities, real needs, like 80% needs, then look at fulfilling that. People talk about heavy long keel, fin keeled blah blah. None are any indication that these boast may suit you. None will survive a major survival storm where you don't what you are doing etc.

go sailing


dave

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think circumnavigation is a nonsense metric. Ive delivered AWBs across oceans , high latitudes , north sea,etc. Some were a doddle, some were vicious on the boat and crew,

I remember being in Las Palmas, on one ARC talking to a US lady and her husband, I think they had a Tarten or a Taswell. They were finishing a 8 year circumnavigation, yet the one place in all of that that beat the hell out of the boat and caused damage was off the Balearics in the Med !!!.

You could circumnavigate and avoid all major storms , or go sailing around say the Uk or Ireland or the North sea and get friggin hammered.

Simply looking at races or circumnavigations or ocean crossings is great but you must realise that it means little.

Someone mentioned say looking at the Fastnet race, nonsense say I , thats a club racing scene, mainly inshore amongst the greatest and densest rescue services on the planet. Half the stuff in it isn't that sea worthy at all.

As for ORC regs, I equipped a Bene 393 for the AZAB, not that difficult at all.

You can't go looking at boats in the abstract

You have to define your needs and priorities, real needs, like 80% needs, then look at fulfilling that. People talk about heavy long keel, fin keeled blah blah. None are any indication that these boast may suit you. None will survive a major survival storm where you don't what you are doing etc.

go sailing


dave

......

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by boatman61

......

I hate it when you guys talk common sense!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think circumnavigation is a nonsense metric. Ive delivered AWBs across oceans , high latitudes , north sea,etc. Some were a doddle, some were vicious on the boat and crew,

I remember being in Las Palmas, on one ARC talking to a US lady and her husband, I think they had a Tarten or a Taswell. They were finishing a 8 year circumnavigation, yet the one place in all of that that beat the hell out of the boat and caused damage was off the Balearics in the Med !!!.

You could circumnavigate and avoid all major storms , or go sailing around say the Uk or Ireland or the North sea and get friggin hammered.

Simply looking at races or circumnavigations or ocean crossings is great but you must realise that it means little.

Someone mentioned say looking at the Fastnet race, nonsense say I , thats a club racing scene, mainly inshore amongst the greatest and densest rescue services on the planet. Half the stuff in it isn't that sea worthy at all.

As for ORC regs, I equipped a Bene 393 for the AZAB, not that difficult at all.

You can't go looking at boats in the abstract

You have to define your needs and priorities, real needs, like 80% needs, then look at fulfilling that. People talk about heavy long keel, fin keeled blah blah. None are any indication that these boast may suit you. None will survive a major survival storm where you don't what you are doing etc.

go sailing


dave

Finally a ray of intelligence in this dismal thread

There is a very widespread and completely fallacious methodological approach on here -- "x sailors have circumnavigated on y boat therefore you can sail one of those anywhere" "a number of b boats have had their keels fall off, therefore every boat made by that manufacturer is crap"; "a rudder has also fallen off of c boat, therefore b boat is just as good".

Pure silliness. Too much brochure reading and not enough sailing. Every boat has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some are better than others at somethings (and maybe worse at others), which does not mean that the others are crap. Just like the fact that the others are not crap does not mean that the first ones are no better.

Who would care so much about all of this? What do you have to prove to each other? I don't know any sailors who are thinking day in and day out which boat is better than others, or all the more, worrying about whether their own boats are looked down on by others. For that matter, I don't know (in real life) a single sailor who looks down on other people's boats. It all reminds me of teenagers, who don't have drivers' licenses yet, sitting around the lunchroom table arguing passionately about Fords versus Chevies.

It's up to everyone to choose the right tool for the particular job at hand -- according to his own understanding, taste, values, and budget. And that's only the beginning -- then you have to prepare that boat, and more importantly, yourself, to do the voyage you want to do. These endless "Ford versus Chevy" arguments strike me as fundamentally unseamanlike.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think circumnavigation is a nonsense metric. Ive delivered AWBs across oceans , high latitudes , north sea,etc. Some were a doddle, some were vicious on the boat and crew,

I remember being in Las Palmas, on one ARC talking to a US lady and her husband, I think they had a Tarten or a Taswell. They were finishing a 8 year circumnavigation, yet the one place in all of that that beat the hell out of the boat and caused damage was off the Balearics in the Med !!!.

You could circumnavigate and avoid all major storms , or go sailing around say the Uk or Ireland or the North sea and get friggin hammered.
....
dave

Yes you can circumnavigate and be very lucky and avoid bad weather...but that is not normal regarding those that have circumnavigated. You need only to read the logs of those boats, that are on their blogs, to conclude that most of them got some nasty weather.

You normally don't sail 35000nm, crossing several oceans without getting some severe gales at least.

Regarding the Med, only the ones that don't sail there think that it is always a nice place to sail. Inaccurate weather information due to big masses of land and the type of waves can generate very nasty weather and very difficult sea conditions.

And yes, boats that circumnavigate regularly without problems are bluewater boats on my book and on most books. That does not mean that they are boats suited to sail on high latitudes or out of the season storms, very few are. But who cares, most that want to circumnavigate or cruise extensively have no desire to sail on high latitudes, on cold and harsh climates.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...

Who would care so much about all of this? What do you have to prove to each other? I don't know any sailors who are thinking day in and day out which boat is better than others, or all the more, worrying about whether their own boats are looked down on by others. For that matter, I don't know (in real life) a single sailor who looks down on other people's boats. It all reminds me of teenagers, who don't have drivers' licenses yet, sitting around the lunchroom table arguing passionately about Fords versus Chevies.
...

You have been not much around this thread and the point here that Smack wanted to make was that it is a nonsense to say that all mass production boats are not apt for bluewater and offshore sailing, meaning by that crossing oceans on the right season and right latitude, that is what almost all that cruise extensively do. A circumnavigation is by definition that, long range cruising with long bluewater passages.

It may seem strange to you but some were sustaining that mass production boats, all of them, were not suitable for that.

Personally I find interesting to see what kind of mass production boats is used more commonly by cruisers that circumnavigate, not only regarding brand but regarding size.

The blogs of those boats (that I have been posting) provide interesting information regarding the preparation of a mass production boat for long range cruising, regarding what extra equipment is used, tankage, sails, energy and the lot. All interesting information for someone that wants to buy or has a mass production boat and wants to fit it for long range cruising and they are many.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

You have been not much around this thread and the point here that Smack wanted to make was that it is a nonsense to say that all mass production boats are not apt for bluewater and offshore sailing, meaning by that crossing oceans on the right season and right latitude, that is what almost all that cruise extensively do. A circumnavigation is by definition that, long range cruising with long bluewater passages.

It may seem strange to you but some were sustaining that mass production boats, all of them, were not suitable for that.

Personally I find interesting to see what kind of mass production boats is used more commonly by cruisers that circumnavigate, not only regarding brand but regarding size.

The blogs of those boats (that I have been posting) provide interesting information regarding the preparation of a mass production boat for long range cruising, regarding what extra equipment is used, tankage, sails, energy and the lot. All interesting information for someone that wants to buy or has a mass production boat and wants to fit it for long range cruising and they are many.

I don't know anyone who doubts that you can cross oceans on a mass production boat, especially if the skipper is any good and reasonable preparation has been made. And I haven't read anything on here which takes such a position. In my opinion, that is a non-existent argument with a straw man, or a quarrel in an empty place. In my opinion, the whole concept of a "blue water boat" is silly -- cannot be determined in the abstract, as Dave perceptively wrote.

That doesn't mean that all boats are equal -- if I were crossing an ocean I would vastly prefer something like my own boat, to a Bene or a Bavaria. For a lot of different reasons, including the chain plates and collision bulkheads and much greater strength of the hull and appendages. But I wouldn't hesitate to do a transat on a Bene if that was what I had, and I would prefer it to an older, heavier, slower boat. I am one of those people who would sacrifice a certain amount of strength for speed, if I were forced to choose, which does not mean that other people have no right to different values and choices.

I think it's an entirely artificial argument between people who (correctly) say that you can cross oceans on mass produced boats safely and pleasurably, and other people who (correctly) say that some mass produced boats might not be the best possible tool for the job, if you have a choice.