Bluewater Cruising Capability

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

I currently drive a Camry. You know one of those production cars...

+1, laughed coffee out my nose on this one. Nice!

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

Before I engaged in this forum I would have been of the persuasion that thought only a fool would sail a production boat RTW however things change and I now believe that if you are aware of the vessels limitations as well as your own then what makes a boat bluewater capable is the decision making capability of the organic material that pilots it.

As it stands this statement doen't pass the logic test for the purposes of long ocean passages. For example, if the limitation is a poor hull to deck fastening, it cannot be made BW capable by decision making underway on the voyage which you imply. Rather the limitations must be eliminated prior to leaving the dock. Consequently, you would not be sailing a vessel with limitations.

As has been pointed out successful voyages across oceans have been made in bathtubs. So what!

If you look at the continuum from the storms that could sink even the stoutest craft to an ocean crossing encountering only the mildest breezes where no manner of craft is in danger then somewhere in between these two extremes is a storm that will sink your boat. Also consider that the more severe the storm the less likely you are to encounter it. So what boat do you want to be in half way across the North Atlantic? What is your personal safety margin? How big a risk taker do you want to be?

I have always believed each man should be able to set his own risk level. SCUBA dive to 300 feet, climb Mt. Everest, cross oceans. If you want to cross oceans in marginal craft, I say go for it. Me personally, I was out there and fortunate enough to be positioned to skirt the most severe weather. From a mental perspective I was glad to have a good stout vessel. Had we not been able to avoid some of the weather we saw go north of us I would have been most thankful to have the stout craft that we did.

[carstenb]

I'm not sure what the discussion is all about. As noted, RTW's have been made in all sorts of vessels, some, which most of us here would never dream of trying it with.

And so what?

Lots of production boats have made it RTW, and while I don't have any statistics, I'm willing to bet a beer that there really aren't that many production boats that have gone down while making the attempt. Certainly not enough that you read a lot about it. Certainly not enough that the insurance companies have a "production boat surcharge for RTW" And you can believe me, if it was a big problem the insurance companies would have been there a long time ago.

Naturally, the prudent skipper will do whatever is within his power and financial means to reduce the risks of RTW. The same as in any other endeavor.

Looking at the above, the logic is that Bluewater Capability is rather dependent on the skipper. The skippers skills and prudence will determine if the boat ever tries it. Perhaps the skipper was wrong and the boat goes down (look at Bounty).

But we all face that risk. No ship is "unsinkable" (remember the Titanic?)

[svseachange]

Here's some real data from a guy taking a '76 Catalina 30 across the Pacific. Sustained damage to his unprotected rudder in the middle of the South Pacific a few days ago:
Sail Panache | Blog

[vtcapo]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

As it stands this statement doen't pass the logic test for the purposes of long ocean passages. For example, if the limitation is a poor hull to deck fastening, it cannot be made BW capable by decision making underway on the voyage which you imply. Rather the limitations must be eliminated prior to leaving the dock. Consequently, you would not be sailing a vessel with limitations.

As has been pointed out successful voyages across oceans have been made in bathtubs. So what!

If you look at the continuum from the storms that could sink even the stoutest craft to an ocean crossing encountering only the mildest breezes where no manner of craft is in danger then somewhere in between these two extremes is a storm that will sink your boat. Also consider that the more severe the storm the less likely you are to encounter it. So what boat do you want to be in half way across the North Atlantic? What is your personal safety margin? How big a risk taker do you want to be?

I have always believed each man should be able to set his own risk level. SCUBA dive to 300 feet, climb Mt. Everest, cross oceans. If you want to cross oceans in marginal craft, I say go for it. Me personally, I was out there and fortunate enough to be positioned to skirt the most severe weather. From a mental perspective I was glad to have a good stout vessel. Had we not been able to avoid some of the weather we saw go north of us I would have been most thankful to have the stout craft that we did.

Well put and left brain. Our moderators reasoning is flawed and like so many "seasoned sailors" on this forum missing the point.

As stated, Blue Water capability is defined by the boats ability to safely cross oceans under extreme conditions. It does not suggest that only metal boats are up to the task. It does suggest the following in order of importance:

1. Is your hull design Blue Water capable? (the point of our contention)
2. Is the manufacturer of your boat known for it’s high quality craftsmanship?
3. Knowing the limitations of your boat have you corrected them?

“…what makes a boat bluewater capable is the decision making capability of the organic material that pilots it.” Yes, but only if they have adhered to the above. A floating piece of garbage is still going to be a piece of garbage regardless of who is piloting it.

To believe there isn’t a right answer is to dance around the issue and does a disservice to those seeking advice. There is a right answer and the guidelines have been set by Alan Coles in “Heavy Weather Sailing” and C.A. Marchaj in “Seaworthiness the Forgotten Factor”. These two sources have been used to guide me in my purchase and re-fit of my Slocum.

I suggest anyone considering going on extended offshore passages to read both before taking on the challenge.

RT

[foolishsailor]

What is the definition of a poor hull to deck joint? Are all boats with hull to deck joints (i.e. almost all lower cost production boats) inherently unsafe?

I would love to see some statistics that illustrate the inherent weaknesses in this type of build style when it is done properly. I would also like to see some specs that show that a production boat is structurally unfit for purpose? Are they off the assembly line suitable for RTW, of course not - but then what boat is?

What is being said is that low cost production boats are not suitable for RTW. The statistics dont hold this to be true. There are more production boats completing RTW than any other type. There are more Hunters, Bene, Jeane and Bavaria going RTW than Oysters, Swans, or [insert your vision of bluewater capable boat here].

And in reference to failing the logic test, how so?

If you are truly aware of your boats limitations and she is not fit for a long passage than you dont make the passage. The idea that one only becomes aware of a boats capability in the middle of the ocean passage is absurd.

The issue here is everyones opinion on what is seaworthy or not, the facts and stats about what boats are actually doing does not support what is beinge satated in this thread.

Lets take your Slocum style vessel - what is your average passagemaking speed? 4kts? How about one of those garbage productions boats - I would bet they are at least 25% faster on a given passage length. One could legitamitely argue that the longer you take on a passage of any length the higher statistically you will encounter serious issues. SO is this a stat to be used to consider seaworthyness?

It is apparent that you are less interested in discussing the real merits of any given boat but are instead, like many boat owners, really arguing that the decision you made in purchasing your boat is the best one.

This "seasoned sailor" as you put it, thinks there is a point where, like in many other threads, one can overthink an issue that is really not an issue but a difference in opinion.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

What is the definition of a poor hull to deck joint? Are all boats with hull to deck joints (i.e. almost all lower cost production boats) inherently unsafe?

Only on the internet. In real life for the larger boats they are flanged, bonded with 5200, and though bolted.

But on the internet facts aren't allowed to get in the way.

Production boats aren't poor quality. If they were there wouldn't be a bunch of them out sailing. They benefit from modern production methods and high volume to control costs. Yes they may not have as much wood below, but that has nothing to do with quality.

PS - my crappy Camry production car is better quality than a 70s era "quality" car. Bet the same applies to boats!

[carstenb]

VTcapo,

How much insurance discount did you get for having a 37 ft Slocum versus a 37 foot Jeanneau?

Betcha none. Question answered.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

What is the definition of a poor hull to deck joint? Are all boats with hull to deck joints (i.e. almost all lower cost production boats) inherently unsafe?

There is ambiguity on the internet. What I tried to say is "if the hull deck joint was poor" not that a hull deck joint is inherently a design flaw. This was an issue in the old days on lower cost boats.

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

And in reference to failing the logic test, how so?

Your original statement implied taking a flawed or weak boat to sea and that a good skipper could mitigate the problem. I think you meant to say it differently perhaps.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

And yet once again... It's the sailor, not the boat. Any boat can sail anywhere. People have crossed oceans in open boats less than 15' long. Was it a comfortable and relaxing journey? Probably not.

The question is not, can the boat do it? The answer to that is always, yes. The question is, can YOU do it, and what sort of compromises are you willing to make in terms of cost, comfort, etc?

Nope. In most cases, you'd be right, but not always. Boats make a difference in some scenarios. I have been in circumstances where I am quite sure some boats would not have made it. Mine did.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Nope. In most cases, you'd be right, but not always. Boats make a difference in some scenarios. I have been in circumstances where I am quite sure some boats would not have made it. Mine did.

But then it could be argued that you put yourself in that bad scenario. Lets take a guy with say a Macgregor 26 which most would agree isn't the best bluewater boat to say the least. But let's say he has a top of the line weather receiving system on board and sails super safe. He would probably be okay crossing some open water.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

As it stands this statement doen't pass the logic test for the purposes of long ocean passages. For example, if the limitation is a poor hull to deck fastening, it cannot be made BW capable by decision making underway on the voyage which you imply. Rather the limitations must be eliminated prior to leaving the dock. Consequently, you would not be sailing a vessel with limitations.

As has been pointed out successful voyages across oceans have been made in bathtubs. So what!

If you look at the continuum from the storms that could sink even the stoutest craft to an ocean crossing encountering only the mildest breezes where no manner of craft is in danger then somewhere in between these two extremes is a storm that will sink your boat. Also consider that the more severe the storm the less likely you are to encounter it. So what boat do you want to be in half way across the North Atlantic? What is your personal safety margin? How big a risk taker do you want to be?

I have always believed each man should be able to set his own risk level. SCUBA dive to 300 feet, climb Mt. Everest, cross oceans. If you want to cross oceans in marginal craft, I say go for it. Me personally, I was out there and fortunate enough to be positioned to skirt the most severe weather. From a mental perspective I was glad to have a good stout vessel. Had we not been able to avoid some of the weather we saw go north of us I would have been most thankful to have the stout craft that we did.

I disagree. His statement was completely logical, given the fact that production boats have successfully circumnavigated along with the evidence that it was skipper judgment that allowed this to happen safely.

My bias does not refute someone else's logic. I don't believe you were "fortunate" to avoid severe weather. I think you used good judgment.

Me? I wouldn't do it. I know I don't have the skills. I wouldn't do it if I owned a boat that every single person here stated with confidence was a "blue water" boat, because if I can't handle those 50' waves in the Indian Ocean and have no experience approaching that -- I have no business being out there.

I might sail from Florida to the Bahamas. MIGHT. Then there would be other places in the Bahamas I could go, but knowing the hard way what I know about the configuration of my keel and rudder, probably not.

I can't complain. Were I younger, I could work up to a stouter boat, but is it what I would want for what I do most? I *like* being rooted, unlike many cruisers here. That's no criticism of them -- different strokes for different folks.

[vtcapo]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Only on the internet. In real life for the larger boats they are flanged, bonded with 5200, and though bolted.

But on the internet facts aren't allowed to get in the way.

Production boats aren't poor quality. If they were there wouldn't be a bunch of them out sailing. They benefit from modern production methods and high volume to control costs. Yes they may not have as much wood below, but that has nothing to do with quality.

PS - my crappy Camry production car is better quality than a 70s era "quality" car. Bet the same applies to boats!

Once again Irrelevant. At least you are consistent.

RT
PS How many airbags. I bet drivers side only...

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by thomm225

But then it could be argued that you put yourself in that bad scenario. Lets take a guy with say a Macgregor 26 which most would agree isn't the best bluewater boat to say the least. But let's say he has a top of the line weather receiving system on board and sails super safe. He would probably be okay crossing some open water.

No doubt he would "probably be safe crossing some open water." But there are important qualifiers there that very much limit your argument. I used to live on an island that contained the "largest free-standing bronze Buddha in Asia." That's always been my gold standard for over-qualified phrases.

[vtcapo]

Originally Posted by carstenb

VTcapo,

How much insurance discount did you get for having a 37 ft Slocum versus a 37 foot Jeanneau?

Betcha none. Question answered.

Irrelevant. Please try to keep up...