Advice on Circumnavigation Vessel

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

your in a tiny minority

big open cockpits are no issue, the fact is they are open. the water drains away fast. Fast controllable boats are better in heavy weather. good hydrodynamics, low wetted area( within reason) spade rudders etc, all excellent in bad weather. good reliable engine helps enormously too

Cluttered side decks , on a nearly 50 foot Beeny, you don't know a lot really,

slam dunk to the Benny , why sail in the 19th century.

dave

Actually Dave, everything you said was good about the Beneteau is railed against in C.A. Marchaj's book Seaworthiness: The Forgotten Factor.

He points out that more wetted surface, a narrower beam, and smaller cockpit, among other things are much more seaworthy than what you have described as good above.

I certainly hope folks do not actually depend on sailing forums for true advice on a boat that they plan on possibly staking their lives on.

Someone said earlier that it's better to get circumnav advice from a person that's actually circumnavigated, and I think that's accurate. Or from a person that has done extensive long distance sailing. But I don't think that would extend to boat design. Truck drivers know tons about driving, but they may not be the best when it comes to automobile or truck design........

[YoloSF]

Originally Posted by Kevin84

Just make sure to keep in mind that the 20% sailing that you do in the boat may be some very long sails between ports. Make sure the boat you buy can handle the long distance sails in addition to those lazy island days on the hook.

Thinking about it, a boat like this may work for you:

1979 Hardin 45 Ketch w Recent Upgrades Sail Boat For Sale -

It's lovely, and looks extremely comfortable, but I'm not sure that's a fast enough boat in light air...

[goboatingnow]

Actually Dave, everything you said was good about the Beneteau is railed against in C.A. Marchaj's book Seaworthiness: The Forgotten Factor.

He points out that more wetted surface, a narrower beam, and smaller cockpit, among other things are much more seaworthy than what you have described as good above.

As Ive pointed out before its a book I have, its very dated and it really ignores modern developments.

I certainly hope folks do not actually depend on sailing forums for true advice on a boat that they plan on possibly staking their lives on.

well I assume, they look at all advice and weigh it up, The fact is there are many people on this forum who have sailed "ordinary" boats around the world.

Someone said earlier that it's better to get circumnav advice from a person that's actually circumnavigated, and I think that's accurate. Or from a person that has done extensive long distance sailing. But I don't think that would extend to boat design. Truck drivers know tons about driving, but they may not be the best when it comes to automobile or truck design........

The key is to ignore biased views, and simply look out there at what ordinary people are doing in ordinary boats. Then you realise that average Beneteaus, Bavarias , and other AWBs are crossing oceans, cruising island chains etc.

SImply saying you must have a Valient or similar boat to circumnavigate , simply flies in the face of facts and actually what is going on out there, Furthermore such advice tends to come from a statistically very small group who actually own these types of boat.

IN reality , as any skipper with miles under ones belt will tell you ( especially delivery skippers), its not the boat more the sailing that gets you around.

dave

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by thomm225

Someone said earlier that it's better to get circumnav advice from a person that's actually circumnavigated, and I think that's accurate. Or from a person that has done extensive long distance sailing. But I don't think that would extend to boat design. Truck drivers know tons about driving, but they may not be the best when it comes to automobile or truck design........

True very few truck drivers (sailors) can design a truck (sailboat) but one that has put a few miles on a truck (sailboat) can certainly tell you what works and what doesn't.

Designing and building something have very little to do with knowing how to use it. Do you think an engineer that designs an engine for a Formula 1 race car could drive one?

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by thomm225

Actually Dave, everything you said was good about the Beneteau is railed against in C.A. Marchaj's book Seaworthiness: The Forgotten Factor.

Its funny, you keep banging on in almost every thread about Marchaj. You bring out this dusty Tome as the model for boat design.

Marchaj is horrendously out lf date. The book is over 30 years old and his whole design philospohy is older than that. The book was written before CAD and computational 3d fluid modeling.

These new techniques and modeling have completly over turned much of the old belief systems. I am not saying Marchaj was not a pioneer - I am saying that his book is now almost totally irrelevant to modern designers.

If you are looking for a vastly superio and more relevant "bible" of modern design then you need to get:

Aero-Hydrodynamics and the Performance of Sailing Yachts: The Science Behind Sailboats and Their Design by Fabio Fossati.

Here is an amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0071629106

It is biblical in the scope, designed more for professional builders than us common folk, but have mentioned you enjoy the math so you will enjoy this book - almost every page has a dozen or so formulas and charts.

It is an incredible read and will totally break you off of Marchaj. I hope you get it and read it as I cant wait to see your posts change - which after reading this book they will.

...even this book is ten years out of date though as the material science and hull designs are moving incredibly quickly and with so many people out testing designs in racing and circumnavigations many of the old "salty theories" are just not holding up to hard science and data.

Edit: this book would be considered the current "bible" by types who look for an unquestionable tome like Marchaj. However that type of thinking does t realy exist anymore in design since the field now moves so quickly.

[YoloSF]

Wow, the bitching I see on this forum is unbelievable. I specifically mentioned in the initial post that I don't care for pure bluewater boats, it's not what I'm looking for. Now the conversation is so out of hand that this thread is useless to me.

Thanks to those of you who stayed on topic... I'll keep researching on my own now.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by YoloSF

Wow, the bitching I see on this forum is unbelievable. I specifically mentioned in the initial post that I don't care for pure bluewater boats, it's not what I'm looking for. Now the conversation is so out of hand that this thread is useless to me.

Thanks to those of you who stayed on topic... I'll keep researching on my own now.

Unfortunately , this thread type always descends into this type of cul-de-sac. For example I merely advanced the view that ordinary production boats can and do ( obviously) cross oceans. I also supported the view that a bigger boat is better.

I dont barrel in to say that long keels can't . So why is it so important for such long keel Valient types to constantly bash AWBs. Do they continuously need to self justify their own purchase and secretly worry they may have been wrong.

Dave

[Paul L]

[QUOTE=goboatingnow;1326010]Unfortunately , this thread type always descends into this type of cul-de-sac. For example I merely advanced the view that ordinary production boats can and do ( obviously) cross oceans. I also supported the view that a bigger boat is better.

I dont barrel in to say that long keels can't . So why is it so important for such long keel Valient types to constantly bash AWBs. Do they continuously need to self justify their own purchase and secretly worry they may have been wrong.

Dave[/QUOTEDave
I'm with you on modern designs, if you call less than 30 years old modern, for offshore use. The Valient is not a long keel design. It was one of the first performance production cruisers and shouldn't be lumped in with lifeboat designs.

[barnakiel]

"Big open cockpits drain fast"
I like breaking ribs getting tossed across one.

"Fast, light boats are more controllable"
And if not, we will have a bowthruster anyways.

"Long keels track better"
This will help dodging that container!

"Valiants are better than Benes"
Remember that British rock band Osmosis?

Etc. Posters above are about right. We are bashing for bashing's sake.

Oceans have been crossed on windsurfers, in kayaks and ceteras.

No point.

b.

[estarzinger]

hmmmm . . . . .just some thoughts . . . . .

1. Whether you make it and have fun while doing it is almost all about the people (skipper and crew) and very little about the boat. Most people don't want to hear it, because the boat is where the big money is spent, but the boat really does not matter much. Every possible sort of boat has circumnavigated safely. This was not your question - but you should spend at least as much time on learning about weather and diesel engines and refitting and learning some Zen as on picking the make and model.

But of course you do need a boat, so what should you consider:

2. The most important trait by a long shot is reliability. The big difference between circumnavigating and any other sailing is the fatigue cycles. It's hard as hell on the boat. Getting stuff fixed at every stop will ruin the trip. So your number one priority should be reliability - this has some to do with the original manufacturer and some to do with how well the prior owners have fit-out and maintained the boat and some to do with how you refit the boat. Unfortunately reliability is difficult to judge/determine with a lot of experience. But . . . . simple boats are generally (more) reliable, boats with big ass over spec gear are generally (more) reliable, boats designed for passage making are generally (more) reliable, boats that are stiff and don't flex are generally (more) reliable, and boats that have good access to engine, batteries, steering gear, and other equipment are generally (more) reliable..

3. As to sailing . . . . in our two RTW's we have had 30% under 10kts apparent and 2% over force 7. So you want a tall rig and light air sails. Also if you take the 'normal' tropical route you will spend weeks downwind and you want to be able to set a double/twin headsail configuration because its easier on the autopilot, less chafe on the mainsail and easy to handle in squalls (which show up at about 2am in the tropics).

4. The other big difference between RTW and 'coastal sailing' is that you live at anchor - you need the best possible anchor platform and windless and chain stowage. You also need good ventilation.

5. And the final big difference is you are living without regular shore power hook-up. You need to be self-sufficient in electrical power. That's harder than it sounds. You need space, and carrying capability for the batteries - I have seen several light coastal boats way stern down after adding a RTW battery bank. And of course all the related charging gear.

6. Forget about all the interior stateroom details. Your interior priorities are #1 good sea bunks (yes you sleep more nights at anchor but you can sleep in anything at anchor while you will hate passages if you don't have decent births), #2 a good galley (both for at sea and at anchor)

7. It's a buyers market and there are an absolute ton of good cruising boats out there on the market that are not on your short list - consider a Stevens 47, Nordic 44, Norseman 447, Santa Cruz 52, a Chris White Atlantic 55 . . . . and that's just 10 second of thinking, there are way more.

After our first RTW, a half a dozen of our 'class' bought/built new boats - all of us went 10' longer (no matter what length we started from) and in metal - not for 'bulletproofness" but because metal boats (properly built) don't leak or flex.

......


And no the weather forecasting today is not at all accurate enough to avoid bad weather. At sea the weather forecasting does not help you one little bit avoid 40kts squalls. At sea the weather forecasting is crap past 48 hours - of course way batter than it was 20 years ago but still not enough time to get out of the way of a developing bomb (say on the Tonga to NZ leg). You absolutely need to be able to deal with heavy weather if you are going RTW.

[YoloSF]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

hmmmm . . . . .just some thoughts . . . . .

1. Whether you make it and have fun while doing it is almost all about the people (skipper and crew) and very little about the boat. Most people don't want to hear it, because the boat is where the big money is spent, but the boat really does not matter much. Every possible sort of boat has circumnavigated safely. This was not your question - but you should spend at least as much time on learning about weather and diesel engines and refitting and learning some Zen as on picking the make and model.

But of course you do need a boat, so what should you consider:

2. The most important trait by a long shot is reliability. The big difference between circumnavigating and any other sailing is the fatigue cycles. It's hard as hell on the boat. Getting stuff fixed at every stop will ruin the trip. So your number one priority should be reliability - this has some to do with the original manufacturer and some to do with how well the prior owners have fit-out and maintained the boat and some to do with how you refit the boat. Unfortunately reliability is difficult to judge/determine with a lot of experience. But . . . . simple boats are generally (more) reliable, boats with big ass over spec gear are generally (more) reliable, boats designed for passage making are generally (more) reliable, boats that are stiff and don't flex are generally (more) reliable, and boats that have good access to engine, batteries, steering gear, and other equipment are generally (more) reliable..

3. As to sailing . . . . in our two RTW's we have had 30% under 10kts apparent and 2% over force 7. So you want a tall rig and light air sails. Also if you take the 'normal' tropical route you will spend weeks downwind and you want to be able to set a double/twin headsail configuration because its easier on the autopilot, less chafe on the mainsail and easy to handle in squalls (which show up at about 2am in the tropics).

4. The other big difference between RTW and 'coastal sailing' is that you live at anchor - you need the best possible anchor platform and windless and chain stowage. You also need good ventilation.

5. And the final big difference is you are living without regular shore power hook-up. You need to be self-sufficient in electrical power. That's harder than it sounds. You need space, and carrying capability for the batteries - I have seen several light coastal boats way stern down after adding a RTW battery bank. And of course all the related charging gear.

6. Forget about all the interior stateroom details. Your interior priorities are #1 good sea bunks (yes you sleep more nights at anchor but you can sleep in anything at anchor while you will hate passages if you don't have decent births), #2 a good galley (both for at sea and at anchor)

7. It's a buyers market and there are an absolute ton of good cruising boats out there on the market that are not on your short list - consider a Stevens 47, Nordic 44, Norseman 447, Santa Cruz 52, a Chris White Atlantic 55 . . . . and that's just 10 second of thinking, there are way more.

After our first RTW, a half a dozen of our 'class' bought/built new boats - all of us went 10' longer (no matter what length we started from) and in metal - not for 'bulletproofness" but because metal boats (properly built) don't leak or flex.

......


And no the weather forecasting today is not at all accurate enough to avoid bad weather. At sea the weather forecasting does not help you one little bit avoid 40kts squalls. At sea the weather forecasting is crap past 48 hours - of course way batter than it was 20 years ago but still not enough time to get out of the way of a developing bomb (say on the Tonga to NZ leg). You absolutely need to be able to deal with heavy weather if you are going RTW.

Best response I've gotten yet! Thanks!

First impression, I really like both the Nordic 44, Norseman 447. The Santa Cruz 52 is a wonderful boat, but a bit over my price range, and the cat is not something I'm considering at this time. I wonder what you'd come up with in another 10 seconds! I'll be doing much more research on the Nordic and Norseman and see where that leads me... THanks again!

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by YoloSF

Wow, the bitching I see on this forum is unbelievable. I specifically mentioned in the initial post that I don't care for pure bluewater boats, it's not what I'm looking for. Now the conversation is so out of hand that this thread is useless to me.

Thanks to those of you who stayed on topic... I'll keep researching on my own now.

Well, if you walk out of a bar can't be surprised that the conversation then moves in a different direction than you wanted........

....folks on CF have many skills - mind reading not one of them .

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

So why is it so important for such long keel Valient types to constantly bash AWBs. Do they continuously need to self justify their own purchase and secretly worry they may have been wrong.

Dave

For the record, Valiants have fin keels and skeg-hung rudders. :P

My, this thread has turned rather testy. It seems all based on Bash's response to my post in which he compared a Valiant to a Beneteau that is 7' longer...as though I recommended a Valiant to the OP, which I most certainly did not. I simply pointed out that when modern designers design a boat for long distance blue water cruising, they come up with something different than what Beneteau offers (take Outbound for example). Certainly a comfortable motion is paramount, as anyone who has been on a long passage knows, and one way to get there, all other things being equal, is waterline length. But there are other design considerations as well.

My original point was simply that if you're going to circumnavigate, you should consider a boat that is designed for that over one designed for coastal cruising. I think that's probably even more important if your sailing experience is primarily in dinghys. You don't know what you don't know until you're in a situation where it makes it painfully clear. I would certainly not want to be in a boat that I chose because it looked like it would be spacious at anchor.

I know many people who have sailed all over the world in Beneteaus, and almost all of them, in retrospect, would have rather done it in a different boat. But that does not negate the fact that they did it, and it does not mean that they did not have confidence in their vessel. As estarzinger pointed out, the outcome is far more contingent on the sailor. As he also pointed out, there are elements to boat design and build that are germane and should be considered when choosing a vessel.

Of course you can sail long distance in virtually any production boat if it is properly maintained and outfitted. Look at Matt Rutherford's solo trips in his Pearson 32 and his Albin Vega 27, the later through the Northwest Passage.

There has been a lot of good advice given in this thread, even amidst the bickering about displacement, keel types, etc.

[thomm225]

The OP is an FNG. This thread isn't testy as some say, it's normal. Folks just feel strongly one way or another.

As a racer, I've never experienced anything as boring as long distance sailing on a monohull. I have an old Bristol 27. When the wind gets a bit over 20 knots, it's kinda fun, but I can still have lunch and drive......the old boat just lays in there.

I came from this world and when the wind got to 12 or so, it was awesome. Winds at 12 knots: (sorry i can't help it.....Olympic Team Espana!) Check out skipper / crew communication at the start...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Echavarri

Sailing Tornado - YouTube

[SmartMove]

Originally Posted by Suijin

You are buying a boat for the express purpose of circumnavigating. You should buy a boat that is designed for that purpose.

Yes, plenty of people have circumnavigated in Beneteaus...in many cases because it was the boat they already had, or because it was all they could afford. Beneteaus are not designed as blue water passage makers, they are designed as coastal cruisers. That's not a knock on them, it's a fact regarding their design philosophy. As coastal cruisers they have many wonderful attributes. As blue water cruisers, they have some drawbacks; light displacement and shallow hulls, high booms that are difficult to reef, huge cockpits that are a liability in a seaway, etc. Of course you can circle the globe in one, but if you can pick a boat that's designed for that purpose, why not?

I think you are a bit seduced by the volume and cabin layout of modern coastal cruisers. They seem cavernous compared to virtually any blue water boat of comparable length. But that lovely straight galley that is designed for cooking gourmet meals at anchor is going to be downright dangerous when going to weather or even in a big following sea.

You should walk through some of the boats you're looking at with someone who's made a few ocean passages. It will be an educational experience. There are many elements of design that go into a blue water boat other than the simple "quality of construction" metric that you won't notice for the simple fact that you don't know to look.

If this is true, how did my boat a Beneteau 473 make if from France across the Atlantic to the Caribbean? How did MarkJ's make a complete circumnavigation? Just because all you can afford is a Bene does not mean it is not up to the task of being a bluewater boat. One of the reason we specifically looked for the 473 was based on a Sydney to Hobart race where a lot of the fleet was really beat up but all of the 473s came back intact.

You, sir, do not know of which you speak. Explain to me why I can't reef my main easily -- I do it all the time all of our lines lead back to the cockpit. Explain to me why my cockpit is a liability -- do you even know how it is configured? I have no problem staying in place in rough seas -- the center table with folding leaves makes it easy. I agree that the straight galley is not optimum, but there is a 473 design with a U-shaped galley, I think it is called the owners version.

My plan is to boldly follow MackJ's wake and circumnavigate.