Bluewater Boats

[S&S]

I'll play too

I wouldn't cross an ocean in:
anything under 35' or so- might have once, but I'm older now.
A Hunter, Catalina and probably not a Beneteau
Any boat with an AVS of less than 150 degrees
( that takes care of a lot of Jedi's and Barnie's categories)
A high aspect ratio fin keeler
A boat with a blade rudder

I would cross an ocean in:
A double planked wood boat regardless of age if
1) The fastenings are good
2) The planking is a marine hardwood and in good shape
3) no broken or rotted frames
( but then again I'm familiar and comfortable with the material)

A Morris, Swan etc would be fine if they don't fall afoul of the above negatives. As would a Sundeer

Al or steel is an either/or for me if the hull shape is good.

Truth be told, I like the boats built under the old Intenational Rule (overhangs should be on the short side for IR boats) or CCA rule for long distances (which is why I picked mine).

I believe previous experience drives our opinions on this
I had a glass boat fall apart underneath me so I'm not so trusting of glass- others may think the same of wood. Both work, it's just what you're comfortable with.

[s/v Jedi]

See, I get this thread more interesting ;-)

Zeehag, about 30+ year old boats; as you volunteer looking at your Formosa, I'll be happy to oblige and list the points why I wouldn't take her across an ocean. But don't get mad at me, I think they are great boats and may be even in the top 3 for living on one; this is just about the crossing oceans with possible storms etc. side of it. Well, here we go:

• When did you replace her deck? Is it back to original strength now, without any rot?
• When did you replace the engine, how many hours are on it now?
• When did you replace the structural bolts and other fasteners?
• When did you replace the masts and booms (is it still the old wooden ones?)
• When did you replace the chain plates?
• What is the condition of the hull?
• How about the rudder?

So, it's basically all age related questions. I see these boats selling for 40-50k$ and for a 41' boat, yo can only get it for that price because it's so old. To get it up to the like-new state, you would need to spend a lot of money on her and more time and effort.

Barnakiel: The Amels I would consider are 50+ feet I think (Super Muramu?) and I actually like them... somewhat. The Amel and Ovni are, afaik, the only French cruising boats built in series; the rest is all designed for chartering primarily. Well, may be the First series not but it would still need to be the 47' before I consider it.

I know the French have great sailors (besides the Parisian charterers who never sailed before) and I have only praise for them... but they wisely don't take a Jeanneau 32.2 across the ocean. The boat is not built for that. I know it can be done, I sailed the boat myself, but I also sailed it through some nasty weather on Dutch in-shore waters and man I was beat after only an hour or so. And you just feel that it won't stand much worse or much more of that.

About the other countries that build boats: I would add South Africa, Australia, Scandinavian, and Kiwi built boats to the good to go list. I would add Bavaria to the list of no go.

So, let's add this to the discussion: a blue water cruiser must be forgiving.

cheers,
Nick.

[GeoPowers]

Dang, break out your wallets if you wanna go blue-water cruising with the last 5-10 or so posters! Good luck for all you non-wealthy cruisers- you are all apparently risking life and limb out there!

I recommend adding to the discussion what boats exactly folks are dismissing that they've sailed in "blue-water" conditions themselves....

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

So, what would you prefer for ocean crossings . . . Now, say again that the boat doesn't matter and I give up ;-)


I would not cross an ocean in . . Any French built boat under 50' except an Ovni or some one-off's.

• A Hunter, Catalina, Irwin
• Anything older than 30 years (very little exceptions)
• Anything less that 40' long (very little exceptions)
• Anything old built from wood
• Anything ferro-cement

Oh, so this thread is about 'preferences'. I thought it was about 'blue water' capability. Well, fine, I prefer a Porsche ashore and a 112' Royal Huisman with crew of 4 at sea

That's not does mean that I think a honda civic is not a perfectly acceptable car to drive across country, or a 30 year old 36' Alberg is not perfectly acceptable to cross an ocean in.

To another post, my examples were NOT exceptions. There are tons of small old boats out doing very safe long distance passage making. All these boats Jedi would apparently not go to sea in. That's fine for him to say, but rather dismissive of the possibilities for other less well off people, or those who simply want to use something smaller or simpler. Does he really think L&L Pardey's boat is not a 'bluewater' boat (too small and wooden according to him)?

So, I say again, the boat does not matter (very much). It's YOU that matters.

[s/v Jedi]

Geopowers,

Come on, a Tayana 37 is affordable!

I see you have a Bene 393. I think that's a very good choice for coastal sailing, Caribbean and off shore passages to get to these places. And with the right equipment added, yes it'll be okay to cross the North Atlantic, but it isn't designed to sail Atlantic circles all the time. So, if one interprets water sailing">blue water sailing as crossing oceans: no, I don't think this is what the Bene 393 designers had at the top of their list (I am sure of it actually).

A lot of blue water cruisers/circumnavigators sell everything they have ashore, incl. house(s), car(s) etc. This creates much more budget for the boat compared to one to be used during weekends and holidays while also owning a house, cars etc. If you have a job (still work, I mean) a blue water cruiser doesn't make much sense unless you have heaps of money, I agree. But in that situation, not many (only the ones with heaps of money) cross oceans every year.

Here in Panama I see Beneteau's transiting the canal on a regular basis, but they are all 47' or up.

cheers,
Nick.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I see Beneteau's transiting the canal on a regular basis, but they are all 47' or up.

Down in Chile right now there is a Beneteau (dutch flagged) First 40.7 "Giebateau", that's crossed several oceans, cruised Patagonia, more than a month in antarctica and planning on South Georgia next year. They love the boat and it is holding up very well.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Oh, so this thread is about 'preferences'. I thought it was about 'blue water' capability. Well, fine, I prefer a Porsche ashore and a 112' Royal Huisman with crew of 4 at sea

No, that wasn't my intention with starting the lists. I think that when we name specific designs, we will arrive at a general definition of a blue water cruiser. It isn't much use to list a 112' Huisman (another great Dutch yard BTW) because it's far from the line which separates blue water cruisers from the rest.

or a 30 year old 36' Alberg is not perfectly acceptable to cross an ocean in.

I think the design is definitely for blue water, but I also think that after 30 years sailing that blue water, the boat needs an overhaul which costs so much money that it doesn't make financial sense to do so. If one is in really good condition, I agree, and it's a good example for these lists. It would fit into the few exceptions I left open in my examples.

There are tons of small old boats out doing very safe long distance passage making. All these boats Jedi would apparently not go to sea in.

Correction: not cross oceans with. Also, how do you know "they do that very safe"? Just because they arrive safely, doesn't mean they had challenging conditions that they went through without trouble.

That's fine for him to say, but rather dismissive of the possibilities for other less well off people, or those who simply want to use something smaller or simpler. Does he really think L&L Pardey's boat is not a 'bluewater' boat (too small and wooden according to him)?

Well, may be I agree with you. If you can't afford a blue water cruiser like a Tayana 37 or similar, may be it wiser to choose for cruising along coasts, the Caribbean etc. I have seen a whole bunch of cruisers, ones I know, wreck their boat in conditions that just overpowered them, a couple even drowned. And not all of that was because they made mistakes, other than leaving port into bad conditions.

Sorry, but I don't know the Pardey's. I just saw a photo of their boat and I am not so sure it's really that old. I coupled "wood" with "old" for reasons I listed in earlier posts and I just can't believe you or anyone else don't agree with these reasons.
I think the design is that of a Falmouth 30? That is a typical design as described in the Adlard Coles book on heavy weather sailing and they always end up breaking ribs and taking on water. If you put a Jeanneau 32 with the same crew through the same conditions it will have a better chance. Boats are better and stronger today and in these stories the boats are not 30 years old! Old salts don't want to hear that and they arrive safely every time, but that's because they have the knowledge and experience to steer their boat through all that happens, not because the boat is so safe.

So, I say again, the boat does not matter (very much). It's YOU that matters.

Yes, the knowledge and experience of the crew is key and more important if the boat is not a blue water cruiser. But let's be honest, the people on this forum who ask which is a blue water boat and which is not; they are not very experienced or they wouldn't have to ask. I will not advise them to take off from New England to the Azores in a Catalina 32, no matter how many years they sailed the Chesapeake with it. I sailed all my life but the things I learned in the first couple years of taking off permanently is much more than everything I knew before. And I am happy that I had a boat that allowed me to make some mistakes without consequences and I know that I wouldn't have gotten away with it so easy with many production boats.

I see you have a vd Stad 47, which is a pretty serious blue water cruiser, costing even a bunch more than Jedi. So, why did you invest so much? Why not a Bavaria 36? You preach cheap and old is fine but do the opposite. Surely you must believe your boat's design is better suited to do what you do with her than the boats in my "not" list!!?? Don't be shy and name some you wouldn't take out and the ones that will just do.

ciao!
Nick.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Down in Chile right now there is a Beneteau (dutch flagged) First 40.7 "Giebateau", that's crossed several oceans, cruised Patagonia, more than a month in antarctica and planning on South Georgia next year. They love the boat and it is holding up very well.

Yes, I think the First's are fine boats so I'll move them to the exceptions with Ovni and the one-offs. I you want Beneteau and cross oceans under 50', a First 40.7 would be my lower-end choice and the First 47.7 much higher, probably above the Amel Super Maramu which is 53'.

But you say it's Dutch flagged.... the Dutch are such great sailors, we can get away with almost anything! ;-)

cheers,
Nick.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I see you have a vd Stad 47, costing even a bunch more than Jedi.

We built it ourselves, so it was way less than your boat.

As I have explained twice above, our boat reflects our own quirks. I like a simple boat, so it is very simple systems wise. I love to sail, so we put a custom bulbed keel and spade rudder and 3dl sails on, so it sails extremely well. I hate a boat that leaks into my bunk, so it is aluminum with no holes thru the deck. We were not rich so we built it ourselves, etc etc. It suits our preferences and situation in life. But I don't think it's the ideal boat for everyone else. I also don't think because we have this boat that other quite different boats (like our first 37' centerboard ketch) are not 'bluewater' capable.

The pardey boat is in fact about 30 years old - construction started in 1977, launched in 1983.

Let's just say a very good friend called me up and said he had a serious medical problem and had to fly home and probably could not do passages anymore and could I please sail his boat home (across an ocean) - I honestly and seriously would not absolutely rule out any design. I would want time and money to look at the boat and make sure I could bring the maintenance up to snuff and prevent or be prepared for any structural problems (I might drop and inspect the rudder for instance if I thought it was potentially flaky). There are of course some boats that I personally would enjoy more (I would love to try a minitransat boat on a passage) and which would be more comfortable or more fun than others. But I do not have any list in my mind of boats (or boat characteristics) I would say to my friend absolutely not, that's not a 'bluewater' boat.

OK, I think I have communicated my point and there is no point in beating it to death.

[Hud3]

The Joshua Slocum Society's list of boats that have been solo-circumnavigated, seems to me to support Evans' point. There's even an Ericson and a C&C on the list. Most of the counter-arguments here seem to me to be reflecting personal bias one way or another, rather than a rational argument as to what defines a bluewater capable boat.

Does anyone know of a listing of boats that were circumnavigated with a crew of two or more? I'm sure you'd see many of the boats that have been dismissed as "coastal only" on that list.

[sneuman]

We're missing an important element here, I believe.

At what point does lack of comfort become a safety factor? We all know that there are some boats that have a nice gentle motion in a seaway, at least under normal conditions and there are others that are a gut-wrenching joyride from Hell. Fatigue is a well-documented contributing factor when it comes to accidents at sea.

I'm not suggesting, btw, that the "motion comfort" formula tells the whole story -- certainly it's overly simplistic, and any given person's perception of how the boat moves in a chop is subjective.

What I am suggesting is that if a boat is uncomfortable to make a passage in, it increases the fatique to crew as well as boat. Bouncing around like a banshee is not good for man or materiel. This is one of the prime reasons why lightweight, low-ballast boats should be evaluated carefully.

I sailed an Ericson 38 recently and she is a fast boat, responsive boat that I would not hesitate to go offshore in, but I can tell you that my wife got seasick on her in 4' of Chesapeake chop that would have rolled under my Tayana with considerably less fanfare (and mal de mer). That was one day on a 2-day trip. Now, I absolutely realize that the wave dynamics on the open ocean are different and in many ways easier -- at least in general. But the Pogo 40 mentioned earlier is worth mentioning again. If the crew found it impossible to rest when the boat was performing at or close to her potential, it is probably, at best, too much boat and/or a poor cruising design. In other words, not a bluewater (cruising) boat, at least to my mind.

[Curmudgeon]

A beefed up Catalina 27 has circumnavigated. So what? That doesn't make it a blue water boat.

Hunter, Beneteau and Catalina sell huge numbers of boats. Certainly some of these have circumnavigated, but the number is small relative to the total number out there. And if you would rather take one of these offshore instead of an Island Packet or a Valiant, then you are either a fool or simply being contentious.

If I go to a boat show and stand on a boat, and the deck flexes (as with the Hunters and some of the Beneteaus), I'm not going offshore in it. End of discussion. I don't care if it sails like a dream. If you want to argue that it is blue water boat with the right captain, then fine, you go sail it across an ocean. But don't ask me to go along.

[cburger]

[QUOTE]
but the boat has to be a movable one, not a heavy displacement, long keel clunker (which is the most beautiful boat to have, in the harbour).


I laughed so hard it hurt with this one. I thought I would post this excerpt from "Good Old Boat:

David King of Portland, Oregon, has owned two
Westsail 32s in a period of 23 years. He is a professional
delivery skipper who also works on boats. He has had
his present boat,

Saraband, for 11 years.
In 1988, in Saraband, he won the prestigious Pacific Cup
race from San Francisco to Oahu, Hawaii. Saraband, a
stock Westsail 32, came first in class and won first place
overall on handicap.
Naturally, there was an uproar, especially among the
owners of larger racing boats commissioned at huge
expense and carrying trained racing crews. There was not
a single racer in Saraband's crew of five, although all
were experienced cruisers.
In 1990 King decided it was his duty to show the racing
world that the Westsail 32's success had not been a
one-time fluke. He entered Saraband for the Pacific Cup
again, and this time she was first in her class to finish
and first in her class on handicap. She came third overall
on handicap.
Three protests were handed in, and all three failed. One
protest charged that Saraband's spinnaker was too large.
When it was measured it was found to be a 168 percent
spinnaker, rather than the 180 percent spinnaker the rules
allowed.
What was the secret of Saraband's success?
"Most Westsails suffer from having to drag a big
three-bladed propeller through the water," King said.
"We have a Max-Prop automatic feathering propeller,
and it makes a big difference. Saraband gets up to 7
knots pretty quickly."
She sustains her speed well, too. She has sailed more
than 180 miles in 24 hours on three occasions, two while
racing and one during a singlehanded passage. "I did 184
miles all by myself one day," he said.

Saraband

experiences a little weather helm as she heels
over, "but it's never excessive," he added. "She's always
under control."
If the wind rises while his cutter's on a beat, the first
action King takes is to reduce the size of the genoa jib. "I
reef it down to the size of a working jib," he explained.
"The next step, if the wind continues to rise, is to tuck a
reef into the mainsail. Next in order is a second reef in the
main, after which I'd drop the jib completely. Now, under

double-reefed main and working staysail, she's good for
40-knots-plus."
Westsails are often criticized for not being able to beat.
"That's a huge exaggeration," King said. "It's just not so.
She goes to windward at the speed of a 29-foot or 30-foot
boat. OK, that's not so good because she's a 32-footer,
but it's not terribly bad either because most 30-footers
are half her displacement and don't have her comfort or
seaworthiness."
King and his wife once sailed

Saraband from Palmyra to
Hawaii, a passage of about 1,000 miles, in "reinforced
trades" and averaged 110 miles a day on a hard beat.
"Compared with other boats, she goes best on a close
reach," he said. "In fact, it's very interesting that she
goes from her comparative worst (the beat) to her
comparative best (the close reach) in a matter of a few

degrees."

[s/v Jedi]

Most of the recent posts make sense to me, but I am afraid we're talking about different things here.

The topic is blue water boats. When an experienced crew can take boat X across an ocean, that doesn't mean that boat X is a blue water boat. This has been the red thread through most of the posts. We're not talking about the qualities of the crew, we're talking about the boat. The crew is a factor for the passage, but it doesn't make the boat itself better or worse.

We all have our own boat, and it's our pride and joy. Of course we defend her in any way we can, but when we're alone with her on that blue water, we all better know what she can and what not. When you take a friend (who can sail) out for a ride and hand the wheel over, most of us will say "watch this or that" or "she doesn't like this or that, keep an eye on it" etc. We are, in fact, addressing her weaker points with those statements. Which points that are, and how many of them there are, is what ultimately define her suitability for blue water sailing.

Many of us do boat projects. I sometimes feel King of that myself, until I meet others who do projects I don't even dream about. But we must realize that we do change the boat, improve it, that way. For example, I sailed for 17 years on a 30' steel vd Stad design, a Dutch built Wibo 930. Yes, it was a great boat and we even took it out to sea. But it wasn't a blue water boat. But we liked taking it out anyway, so we started improving things, like fastening the nice wooden seats in the cockpit so they don't float off anymore when the cockpit flooded. We changed the rudder, genoa tracks, forestay, reefing system etc. etc. and in the end it was quite capable of blue water sailing and we saw Wibo 930's in many places we go now. But they aren't the same boat anymore! When we want to define a blue water boat, we must look at the boat as it is delivered by the yard who built it, with all the offered extra's/packages installed.

I think Evans is a very brave man, because there are many boats that I wouldn't take across an ocean, even many ones I meet that are crossing oceans. I'll give a good and clear example, look at this Hunter 22 that sold for $900 in 2006: Hunter 22 sailboat for sale
I would not take that across the Atlantic, no matter how many times brave crews takes it across succesfully. In my opinion, if you cross oceans with a boat like this, you take a risk that is much higher than my wish to live. This is not a blue water boat.

But there will be many arguing that, saying that they know of a couple that circumnavigated the world with one and even that they are the perfect blue water boat. So I guess I have to give up ;-)

ciao!
Nick.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Most of the recent posts make sense to me, but I am afraid we're talking about different things here.

The topic is blue water boats. When an experienced crew can take boat X across an ocean, that doesn't mean that boat X is a blue water boat. This has been the red thread through most of the posts. We're not talking about the qualities of the crew, we're talking about the boat. The crew is a factor for the passage, but it doesn't make the boat itself better or worse.

We all have our own boat, and it's our pride and joy. Of course we defend her in any way we can, but when we're alone with her on that blue water, we all better know what she can and what not. When you take a friend (who can sail) out for a ride and hand the wheel over, most of us will say "watch this or that" or "she doesn't like this or that, keep an eye on it" etc. We are, in fact, addressing her weaker points with those statements. Which points that are, and how many of them there are, is what ultimately define her suitability for blue water sailing.

Many of us do boat projects. I sometimes feel King of that myself, until I meet others who do projects I don't even dream about. But we must realize that we do change the boat, improve it, that way. For example, I sailed for 17 years on a 30' steel vd Stad design, a Dutch built Wibo 930. Yes, it was a great boat and we even took it out to sea. But it wasn't a blue water boat. But we liked taking it out anyway, so we started improving things, like fastening the nice wooden seats in the cockpit so they don't float off anymore when the cockpit flooded. We changed the rudder, genoa tracks, forestay, reefing system etc. etc. and in the end it was quite capable of blue water sailing and we saw Wibo 930's in many places we go now. But they aren't the same boat anymore! When we want to define a blue water boat, we must look at the boat as it is delivered by the yard who built it, with all the offered extra's/packages installed.

I think Evans is a very brave man, because there are many boats that I wouldn't take across an ocean, even many ones I meet that are crossing oceans. I'll give a good and clear example, look at this Hunter 22 that sold for $900 in 2006: Hunter 22 sailboat for sale
I would not take that across the Atlantic, no matter how many times brave crews takes it across succesfully. In my opinion, if you cross oceans with a boat like this, you take a risk that is much higher than my wish to live. This is not a blue water boat.

But there will be many arguing that, saying that they know of a couple that circumnavigated the world with one and even that they are the perfect blue water boat. So I guess I have to give up ;-)

ciao!
Nick.

This is what I'm trying to say!