Bluewater Cruising Capability

[vtcapo]

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?

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.

I think I have made my argument as clear as possible and the sources I reference support everything I have said. You have to remember we have a Newbie asking if the 315 is Blue Water capable. Based on my definition, NO! The fact that any and all manner of craft have made successful voyages is irrelevant to this discussion. Boats are of seaworthy design or not. No manner of skill or years of experience by any biological entity will make them so.

As far as my Slocum is concerned or for that matter any boat, speed is a production of waterline length. You would be quite surprised by the number of logged daily miles by such boats as the Wet Snail you refer to. The fact is modern boat as compared to my Slocum are only marginally faster. What you should be asking is, what price am I paying for increased speed as opposed to seaworthiness.

It is a known fact that run of the mill production boats characteristically do not behave as well as the tried and true older designs at sea. From the viewpoint of seaworthiness (and I am quoting Marchaj) “they have in fact undergone a regressive evolution.” Why, because of the “need for speed”. As Marchaj states, “Designs of proven performance are a product of a common ancestor (the double ender which EVERY boat is below the waterline) before speed-fever descended upon sailing people so that speed for the sake of speed became the only desired feature of boats built according to rules made by man and not by the sea.”

Your assumption that I am less interested in discussing the real merits of any given boat but instead arguing that my boat is the best one is way off the mark. I have told you why the 315 in not a Blue Water capable cruiser. You and others on this forum have offered the Newbie nothing but milk toast. I and some left brainers have offered steak and eggs.

Now what do you think a Newbie would prefer for breakfast?

RT
I think you need to catch up on your reading….

[carstenb]

Kindly spell out your reasonsfor saying "irrelevant". Actually it is highly relevant since insurance companies factor in virtually everything when deciding premiums..please try to stay in the real world

[vtcapo]

Because insurance premiums are based on:

Age of Boat
Length
Value
Speed
Condition (Does it meet US Coast Guard Standards)
Primary residence (If the boat is used as a primary residence)
Type (Amphibious boats)
Homemade (Boats without a serial number, many kits are okay)
Houseboats with no motor
Ownership (more than 2 owners)

My Progressive policy had more to do with my surveyed value and where I intended to sail than whether the boat was seaworthy or not. And that is why it wasn't even inspected by an agent.

Therefore with regard to seaworthiness, irrelevant.

RT

[foolishsailor]

I think I have made my argument as clear as possible and the sources I reference support everything I have said.

So you’ve read Marchaj? Who hasn’t? I prefer Sail Performance – it is more relevant than much of his work on hulls. Especially since almost all of his work was done prior to computer aided hydro modelling came out – much of which throws questions into many of his assumptions and conclusions…


That source prooves nothing. Look at the professionals and authors out there pilling on the miles in their boats. What designs are they using like Jimmy Cornell or Beth and Evans Starzinger?


If you want more relevant design undersanding read Fossati’s book on hull performance.

You have to remember we have a Newbie asking if the 315 is Blue Water capable. Based on my definition, NO!

IN this I will agree with you to the extent that a noob should not take a boat like this across an ocean, doesnt make the boat not blue water capable but I wouldnt want a brand new driver driving a ferrari either - not saying the 315 is a ferrari


In many cases full keel boat is more forgiving of skipper error in bad weather - I will fully grant that. However there are trade offs for this that make it less capable an offshore boat than a more modern design for a competent and experienced skipper.

The fact that any and all manner of craft have made successful voyages is irrelevant to this discussion. Boats are of seaworthy design or not. No manner of skill or years of experience by any biological entity will make them so.

This is patently untrue. Many a seaworthy boat has been abandoned, turtled or dismasted due to user error and not any issue inherent in the design of the boat.

As far as my Slocum is concerned or for that matter any boat, speed is a production of waterline length. You would be quite surprised by the number of logged daily miles by such boats as the Wet Snail you refer to. The fact is modern boat as compared to my Slocum are only marginally faster.

I actually wouldnt be surprised as I owned a predeccesor to the West Sail. My last boat was a 1932 32' Thistle Double Ended Gaffer. Carvel planked Alden/Atkin design build and the sister ship to Eric. I am well familiar with full keel boats and the passage times and handling of them.
The idea that a modern boat is only marginally faster than a traditional boat illustrates what you are missing about the key developments of the last 50 years in boat and sail design.

We all know that hull speed is: SQRT(Length at Waterline) * 1.34 = ~Max Hull Speed. This is not what has fundamentally changed in the last half century. What has changed is the amount of energy it requires to get a boat up to hull speed in addition to a boats upwind pointing angle and speed.

Your 37' boat will travel at the same speed as a light displacement boat of the same length in 30kt conditions - but there will be a stark difference in the two boat's speed in 10kt wind conditions.

It is a known fact that run of the mill production boats characteristically do not behave as well as the tried and true older designs at sea.

Again this is only a half truth. WIth the proper uses of drag devices and seamanship in many cases where you are sitting hove, a production boat may still be able to make way towards its given destination. This is where I had to rewind and agree with you on the fact that a noob would be better off on a boat that requires less experience to sail safely in heavy weather.

From the viewpoint of seaworthiness (and I am quoting Marchaj) “they have in fact undergone a regressive evolution.” Why, because of the “need for speed”. As Marchaj states, “Designs of proven performance are a product of a common ancestor (the double ender which EVERY boat is below the waterline) before speed-fever descended upon sailing people so that speed for the sake of speed became the only desired feature of boats built according to rules made by man and not by the sea.”

I refer what I said above. With the exception of race boats, the modern cruiser is not designed to have a faster max speed but is designed to be able to reach its hull speed with less effort and therefore make passages more quickly. This is not a regression - this is the result of better knowledge and design. Marchaj is a god when it comes to what he prouced when he produced it, but science and computer technology has moved on and there are some aspects of his assumptions that dont entirely prove out as well as the real world statistics of the boats successfully making RTW trips, being sold to another owner and doing it again, and repeat...

I have told you why the 315 in not a Blue Water capable cruiser. You and others on this forum have offered the Newbie nothing but milk toast. I and some left brainers have offered steak and eggs.

You have told me your opinion, it is not a fact. We can leave it to the noob to educate himself with all the information available to them. They will hopefully do so, buy a boat and then come back here and vigorously defend the decision process that led them to buy thier boat...


...and like you VT, they wont be wrong. It will be right for them.


Bluewater Capability is a polynomial equation with more than one solution.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by sneuman

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.

It's 2012. It's not hard to get good weather data. If the only criteria for whether we should sail blue water is whether there will be a storm, everyone has to stop even coastal cruising. My God -- there might be a storm!!!!

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by vtcapo

I think I have made my argument as clear as possible and the sources I reference support everything I have said. You have to remember we have a Newbie asking if the 315 is Blue Water capable. Based on my definition, NO! The fact that any and all manner of craft have made successful voyages is irrelevant to this discussion. Boats are of seaworthy design or not. No manner of skill or years of experience by any biological entity will make them so.

As far as my Slocum is concerned or for that matter any boat, speed is a production of waterline length. You would be quite surprised by the number of logged daily miles by such boats as the Wet Snail you refer to. The fact is modern boat as compared to my Slocum are only marginally faster. What you should be asking is, what price am I paying for increased speed as opposed to seaworthiness.

It is a known fact that run of the mill production boats characteristically do not behave as well as the tried and true older designs at sea. From the viewpoint of seaworthiness (and I am quoting Marchaj) “they have in fact undergone a regressive evolution.” Why, because of the “need for speed”. As Marchaj states, “Designs of proven performance are a product of a common ancestor (the double ender which EVERY boat is below the waterline) before speed-fever descended upon sailing people so that speed for the sake of speed became the only desired feature of boats built according to rules made by man and not by the sea.”

Your assumption that I am less interested in discussing the real merits of any given boat but instead arguing that my boat is the best one is way off the mark. I have told you why the 315 in not a Blue Water capable cruiser. You and others on this forum have offered the Newbie nothing but milk toast. I and some left brainers have offered steak and eggs.

Now what do you think a Newbie would prefer for breakfast?

RT
I think you need to catch up on your reading….

I do wish you would stop being insulting. You can make your points without it.

Why are you looking at the BOAT when the SAILOR is also the issue? A newbie should not be sailing blue waters. Doesn't matter what the boat is.

A top notch sailor could probably sail that McGregor anywhere safely.

I agree. You're arguing your opinion and cherry-picking your "facts." My toerail is really stout, a 1983 boat with NO leaks. None. One of the reasons I like this boat. I lost my old Irwin to a failed hull-to-deck joining.

Some production boats ARE better than others, and discounting the skills of the sailor makes no sense. You can't claim logic but cherry-pick your facts, and as soon as insults start to fly, no one will take you seriously.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by vtcapo

Because insurance premiums are based on:

Age of Boat
Length
Value
Speed
Condition (Does it meet US Coast Guard Standards)
Primary residence (If the boat is used as a primary residence)
Type (Amphibious boats)
Homemade (Boats without a serial number, many kits are okay)
Houseboats with no motor
Ownership (more than 2 owners)

My Progressive policy had more to do with my surveyed value and where I intended to sail than whether the boat was seaworthy or not. And that is why it wasn't even inspected by an agent.

Therefore with regard to seaworthiness, irrelevant.

RT

Progressive isn't the only insurance company out there. The only reason I know for an insurance company not wanting a survey is that the boat isn't worth much. That's certainly been my experience.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I *like* being rooted, unlike many cruisers here.

Hmm, I'm not aware that cruisers like being "rooted" any less than anyone else . . .

The problem, of course, can be finding an appealing partner, especially at sea . . . unless one prefers to engage in self-rooting, that old sailor's standby . . .

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by vtcapo

“Designs of proven performance are a product of a common ancestor (the double ender which EVERY boat is below the waterline) before speed-fever descended upon sailing people so that speed for the sake of speed became the only desired feature of boats built according to rules made by man and not by the sea.”
.

I am constantly amazed by the various boats that are used by long distance cruisers.
Even the designers cannot agree on what constitutes the best design


Bob Perry who designed many double Enders including the Valiant 40, 32 and 47, Esprit 37, Tayana 37, Hans Christian, Polaris 43, the Baba 30, 35and 40, the Tashiba 31, and 36
Famously said

” If any boat is going to spend it’s life moving forward the best way to end the boat is with a transom. The bow and the stern do very different jobs. The stern should not look like the bow. I don’t think there really is a cogent argument for why double enders are the best sea boats. But if you insist on sailing around in reverse I think a double ender makes the most sense.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Hmm, I'm not aware that cruisers like being "rooted" any less than anyone else . . .

The problem, of course, can be finding an appealing partner, especially at sea . . . unless one prefers to engage in self-rooting, that old sailor's standby . . .

ROFL! Dockhead, you are shameless . I wasn't going to say anything, but now that the subject has been broached, it was even funnier that the post finished "different strokes for different folks."

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

It's 2012. It's not hard to get good weather data. If the only criteria for whether we should sail blue water is whether there will be a storm, everyone has to stop even coastal cruising. My God -- there might be a storm!!!!

There are parts of the world still and stretches of water where weather information is spotty. Besides, as we all know, on a longer passage, the weather info when you leave will be helpful for a maximum 10 days (and in reality, quite possibly not that long). There are plenty of passages in which you can leave on a good outlook only to later have to deal with what you have.

I would not go on a boat that wasn't fit for the task with the vague hope that the weather would never prevent a challenge. That's just foolhardy, in my opinion.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by sneuman

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.

That's nice but let's not lose site of what the guy said..... "it's not the boat, it's the sailor." For example, Stephen Callahan " sailed" 3/4 of the way across the Atlantic in a 6 man liferaft made by Avon. It took him 76 days. Based on that, I'd say that Avon 6 is bluewater capable!

Without any equipment, he knew his speed, appoximate position, and direction of drift which allowed him to figure his ETA to the nearest continent!

Btw, it's an awesome story about his journey described in his boat " Adrift."

See link below:

Image Detail for - Adrift by Steven Callahan:: Reader Store

[carstenb]

VT

I don't know about your insurance company but most others keep records of damages paid out and they do differentiate premiums depending on use and type of boat.

Be happy yours doesn't

But in general your series of post are irrelevant since you are not wanting to hear anything else but an echo of your own opinion. That's fine, but it does not constitute a learning experience

[Seaworthy Lass]

Comment made to vtcapo:

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I do wish you would stop being insulting. You can make your points without it.
......

+1

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by sneuman

There are parts of the world still and stretches of water where weather information is spotty. Besides, as we all know, on a longer passage, the weather info when you leave will be helpful for a maximum 10 days (and in reality, quite possibly not that long). There are plenty of passages in which you can leave on a good outlook only to later have to deal with what you have.

I would not go on a boat that wasn't fit for the task with the vague hope that the weather would never prevent a challenge. That's just foolhardy, in my opinion.

I'm sure you wouldn't. But we clearly do have people here who are, apparently, willing to sail blue waters in spite of the fact that others think their boat is a poor choice for the fact. If those people pay attention to the weather, they stand a much better chance that they, and their boat, will survive.

Presumably that would include noticing that some expanses of water are larger than others and that some forecasts will cover the amount of time needed to transverse that water while some would not.

I did not say that weather forecasting is universally excellent or available in all parts of the world. We are back to the perils of a new sailor choosing to do this in a boat that many people think is very poorly suited for such a sail. Myself, I think that's a troubling combination, but a big factor is where he chooses to sail -- hopefully, not off the coast of Antarctica or around the Cape of Good Hope.