Blue water yacht, size versus type

[captmikem]

Originally Posted by Stumble

I agree, but the threshold is far larger than most people think. Up to around 60' there is nothing that really can't be done by just two people easily. At least if you have a reasonable deck layout and sail handeling gear.

I would not limit that to 60' I sailed around the world with my wife on an 80' cutter. Easily handled by two people. She was set up for short handed sailing though, halyards etc all at the base of the mast, slab reefing on the main, roller furling on the headsail and staysail, spinnaker poles were light (carbon fiber) and a sock for the chute.

Michael

[Joyful Noise]

Having read the previous posting abut "newer" and "bigger" boats for blue water crossings,let me add my prejudices to this conversation:

Bigger
In testing blue water conditions, boats over a certain size require more and stronger crew when the pooh hits the fan. In big seas with changing conditions, Pooh happens.

Newer
A 30 or 40 year old boat that was well designed and constructed when manufacturers were overbuilding hulls are highly preferable to the see through hulls of the 1990s and later. A well maintained heavily built older boat like a Hinkley, Nautor, Bristol, Tartan, Shannon etc. provides me with a sense of comfort and security that I do not find in the lighter faster roomier counterparts of more modern sailboats.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by pskudlarski

Hello, I keel following threads about ocean going possibilities of newer production boats and have a slightly different twist on the problem.
I understand that the advantages of "classic" ocean going boats: stronger rigging, full keel etc. On the other hands it is often said that it is size that matters a LOT in the seaworthiness of the boat. It seems to me that the same money, let say 100-150k can buy significantly bigger production boat. Would 50 ft Beneteau be still less seaworthy than 38 Island Packet, Tayana or Tartan?

Whoe!!! Wait a minute. What fool said size was related to seaworthiness? They certainly did not know what they talk about. A little PSC 26 is way more seaworthy than a 40 foot Hunter or even a 52 foot Challenger.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Whoe!!! Wait a minute. What fool said size was related to seaworthiness? They certainly did not know what they talk about. A little PSC 26 is way more seaworthy than a 40 foot Hunter or even a 52 foot Challenger.

That was pretty much my point in my early post. Yes there are other considerations, comfort speed etc. But as far as the "ship" holding up to repeated cycling stresses. It aint about size. There have been many examples in the last decade or more of modern larger boats with lost keels or rudders. I cant think of a Westsail 32 with a lost keel. :>)

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

That was pretty much my point in my early post. Yes there are other considerations, comfort speed etc. But as far as the "ship" holding up to repeated cycling stresses. It aint about size. There have been many examples in the last decade or more of modern larger boats with lost keels or rudders. I cant think of a Westsail 32 with a lost keel. :>)

While Hunters keep loosing their weak keels all over the place, the little PSC and Morrises keep sailing the globe without mishap. Little 24 and 26 footers way safer than most of the modern condo yachts.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Whoe!!! Wait a minute. What fool said size was related to seaworthiness? They certainly did not know what they talk about. A little PSC 26 is way more seaworthy than a 40 foot Hunter or even a 52 foot Challenger.

There is no PSC 26.

[SaltyMonkey]

The PSC Flicka is too small for gear and will take you a year to get to Hawaii.
The PSC Dana cannot heave to.
The PSC 25 has no head room.
The PSC 27 is a nice boat
The PSC 31 is a better boat
The PSC 34 Voyager is a perfect boat

[bjymd]

Consider looking in the BVI for boats in the 40-50 ft range that are post charter and in good shape. They are often well maintained and are a very good value. They may not be perfect but an experienced surveyor can reassure you that this size boat will handle well and survive. The you will need to update thru hulls, stopcocks, standard rigging and electronics and sail away for $250 k after refit.

[sailorboy1]

What a surprising thread. People afraid of "big" boats trying to spread their fear around. Then the owners of small old boats trying to make the same old same old about how their boat is better than the big production boats. Just non reality based feral matter.

[SaltyMonkey]

its not better its $$$$

[robert sailor]

Cruising costs rise exponentially based on overall length. It's true that even poorly built boats that are 50 ft or more have a greater resistance to capsize than a smaller higher quality boat but that doesn't mean that other parts of the structure of the poorly built boat won't fail.
If you just hang around a given area or your cruising is of shorter duration then the costs of a large boat may not kill your bank account but once you start crossing oceans and really giving the boat a workout the costs of maintaining a large boat can really be something that would get your attention. As someone else mentioned almost any sailing couple can handle a 50 or 60 ft sailboat in normal conditions but get into a storm offshore and it's a different game. Personally for an ocean going cruiser I think 42 to 45 feet is getting near the max that a couple can safely handle in any conditions, just my opinion.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

There is no PSC 26.

Was thinking about the Orion 27, but you are correct.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

The PSC Flicka is too small for gear and will take you a year to get to Hawaii.
The PSC Dana cannot heave to.
The PSC 25 has no head room.
The PSC 27 is a nice boat
The PSC 31 is a better boat
The PSC 34 Voyager is a perfect boat

The Dana can heave to and the Flicka can easily sail to Hawaii in two months, not a year. heck a log can float to Hawaii in way less than a year. As long as you can make 3 knots you can make Hawaii in five to six weeks. Its all down hill. Flicka's theoretic hull speed max is 5.8 knots, so even a 30 day passage is doable.

And where do you get your"facts" from?

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by reed1v

The Dana can heave to and the Flicka can easily sail to Hawaii in two months, not a year. heck a log can float to Hawaii in way less than a year. As long as you can make 3 knots you can make Hawaii in five to six weeks. Its all down hill. Flicka's theoretic hull speed max is 5.8 knots, so even a 30 day passage is doable.

And where do you get your"facts" from?

Bullsh

The question si where do YOU get your facts from?

Its well known the Dana is a POS when it comes to heaving to. Thats why people do THIS which is kinda cool. I've seen at least three boats with this idea:

Yawl rig for a Pacific Seacraft Dana 24

The Dana 24 Sailboat : Bluewaterboats.org

And the problem with the Flicka is that it never can reach it's theoretical hull speed. Try carrying 2 months worth of supplies in that POS.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

Bullsh

The question si where do YOU get your facts from?

Its well known the Dana is a POS when it comes to heaving to. Thats why people do THIS which is kinda cool. I've seen at least three boats with this idea:

Yawl rig for a Pacific Seacraft Dana 24

The Dana 24 Sailboat : Bluewaterboats.org

And the problem with the Flicka is that it never can reach it's theoretical hull speed. Try carrying 2 months worth of supplies in that POS.

Yes, if you try to hove to with your sails up. Try riding to a sea anchor, or attach a small triangular sail to the back stay. A lot of boats have hard times hove to, so other methods are employed. Or just drop your anchor over the bow with your sails down. In all three cases, you will find your bow will hold to the wind at about 20-30 degrees with your sails down. Now you are effectively stopped in the water.