Endeavour 42 - why not a "blue water" boat?

[mogulskibum]

So, almost every review I find of the Endeavor 42 has a little statement that says something like "while not a blue water boat," but not a single one says why.

Yes there's apparently potential big expensive problems with the tanks, but set that aside (or assume it's been dealt with), what makes them "not blue water" capable?

There's no obvious reason that I can see, other than maybe a little "too open" in space below. The longer keel is there, as is the skeg hung rudder, and a center cockpit.

I feel like there's something obvious that I'm missing, but the only things I can think of is that maybe the keel is too short, or the aforementioned too much space below decks.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Because it's a Bogus Talking point/phrase.
Blue Water boat is as much a marketing term as SUV or Limited Edition.

[a64pilot]

While it is a bogus, and overused term. There are certain things that make up a boat that is stronger, better capable of handling rough weather.
You sort of need to educate yourself what those things are and understand them before you Boat shop, because people who are selling something will tell you anything you want to hear

[Fiveslide]

It's the nut behind the wheel that makes the difference.

Put me on a Catalina 30 and tell me to make a big passage, I may or may not make it. Put boatman61 on the same boat, same passage, after a quick glance at the clouds he will not only make it, he will have met a cruise ship full of single ladies, had a night of fun, they will offer to tow his meager sailboat and he'll refuse because he's got this.

[emoji1]

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Fiveslide

It's the nut behind the wheel that makes the difference.

Put me on a Catalina 30 and tell me to make a big passage, I may or may not make it. Put boatman61 on the same boat, same passage, after a quick glance at the clouds he will not only make it, he will have met a cruise ship full of single ladies, had a night of fun, they will offer to tow his meager sailboat and he'll refuse because he's got this.

[emoji1]

Yup..!!!

[sailorboy1]

It’s because most of them are white

[Cheechako]

The line between blu water and not isn't black and white. So boat capability to withstand the rigors of the ocean are spread out across the available construction. Any boat could make the passage but many people want something with a lot of of failsafe properties, strength or properties that protect the user even though he may make mistakes.
You can walk across a deep gorge on a tightwire, or on a swinging bridge. The bridge is more forgiving.
IMHO the Endeavor fits many of the desires for offshore, but there may be some things like strength of construction, seacocks, layout etc that don't put them at the high end, but suitable.

[NahanniV]

Well one negative thing is the companionway.
The companionway opening is only a few inches above the cockpit floor.
Luckily the cockpit is high, and fairly well protected, but if a big wave fills that cockpit the water will funnel directly into the boat. Could be mitigated by a stout, locking washboard.

[petegriffiths]

Reading reviews of the Endeavor 42 I think it was designed and built for cruising the areas of the east coast: Florida, The Keys and Bahamas where a shallow draft is the preferred option. Without a deep keel the performance to windward will not be very good. Or rather not as good as a similar boat with a deeper keel. However downwind in the trades shouldn't be a problem.

I believe that there were two variations of the 42 one of which had a short rig intended for the charter market. The other "Owner Design" had a taller rig and more sail.

There is a lot of room inside which would probably mean it would make a good liveaboard. I've only seen photos but a lack of handholds might be something which wants looking at.

The build is supposed to be sturdy. I reckon saying it is not a "Blue Water" boat is nit-picky from the reviewers.

[fatherchronica]

I like a closer to 50% ballast ratio, but that is my preference. Sailboatdata.com calls the Endeavour 42 a bluewater capable boat, which ought to mean it can go offshore. I looked at one when I was hunting for Mana, and liked it, but the one I looked at had some delaminated plywood as I recall, and without further ado I moved on fearing delaminations I could not see.

[ZULU40]

The Endeavour 42 Sailboat : Bluewaterboats.org

Buyers Notes

Endeavour is well known to have poorly thought out access. The molded liners really limit bilge access. To compound this mistake, Endeavour sunk the aluminum water and fuel tanks deep into the bilge on the Endeavour 42. These tanks last 15 years and then will need to be replaced. Replacing them is at least a $50,000 refit project because of the impossible access.
As of 2010 the asking prices are in the approximate range of:
Endeavour 42, 1985-1991, $75k-$125k USD

[akprb]

Originally Posted by Fiveslide

It's the nut behind the wheel that makes the difference.

Put me on a Catalina 30 and tell me to make a big passage, I may or may not make it. Put boatman61 on the same boat, same passage, after a quick glance at the clouds he will not only make it, he will have met a cruise ship full of single ladies, had a night of fun, they will offer to tow his meager sailboat and he'll refuse because he's got this.

[emoji1]

Damn! There’s an endorsement!

[mogulskibum]

Originally Posted by petegriffiths

Reading reviews of the Endeavor 42 I think it was designed and built for cruising the areas of the east coast: Florida, The Keys and Bahamas where a shallow draft is the preferred option. Without a deep keel the performance to windward will not be very good. Or rather not as good as a similar boat with a deeper keel. However downwind in the trades shouldn't be a problem.

I believe that there were two variations of the 42 one of which had a short rig intended for the charter market. The other "Owner Design" had a taller rig and more sail.

There is a lot of room inside which would probably mean it would make a good liveaboard. I've only seen photos but a lack of handholds might be something which wants looking at.

The build is supposed to be sturdy. I reckon saying it is not a "Blue Water" boat is nit-picky from the reviewers.

Thanks, this is pretty much the conclusion I have been coming to as well.

Not as deep of a keel as you might like, but it's actually deeper than say an island packet 40.

The access to the tanks is apparently a nightmare, but the $50,000 cost seems absolutely absurd (and there are a lot of reports that the reality is in the 15-20 range - which seems much more realistic).

A potential lack of handholds (can be dealt with) and too much open space (harder to compensate for) really seem to me to be the only major potential shortcomings for off shore voyaging.

But then I'd see the line "not a blue water boat" in every single review just casually thrown in there like everyone knew that and it's just obvious so it's not worth even mentioning why, and it would make me think "what apparently obvious thing am I missing?"

[Scott Berg]

I have a colleague with one; he'd take it anywhere. As noted, it's usually the sailor and not the ship...

[waterman46]

We have a Morgan 462 many same issues. But fiberglass tanks molded to hull may make a difference. shoal keel not best windward sailing, center cockpit with threshold below just 5 inches above cockpit floor. If I ever encounter conditions where wave could fill cockpit I would keep cabin doors closed using deadbolt I installed, and close sliding hatch cover also.

Most important is strength of hull and rig. As long as the rig and hull are stout, it's a blue water boat in the hands of a capable captain and crew.