Fake Boats?

[ontherocks83]

So after reading lots of threads and seeing various comments on the issue I'm curious what makes a real boat in some peoples eyes. Obviously I'm being slightly inflammatory about the "real" part, and I'm not doing it to start a war, I am generally curious.

The way I see it (and through this whole piece i will be referring to NEW boats)Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, are all the equivalent to ford chevy honda toyota etc....I say this based on price point and amenities. Where things like hylas and oyster are mercedes or bentley. (I know there's a lot of boats in between just using those for illustration purposes)

So what makes a new hunter or catalina in the 45 or 50 foot range not a great blue water boat in so many peoples eyes? Is it a structual thing? A rigging thing? A the keel is going to fall off if you go out of site of shore thing? Obviously electronics and water makers can be added to any boat so that shouldn't play in.

I guess since most of my experience has always been on the fords and chevys I might not know any better but I tend to think they are great boats. I've seen them beaten, raced, cap sized, and so on no worse for the wear. Is there a factor I am unfamiliar with that plays in to not wanting to take a new catalina 445 trans atlantic, or is it just a pigeon holed name brand thing?

Like I said I'm not trying to be snarky or start trouble I really just can't figure out what I'm missing. I mean people row across the atlantic (I think they're f'ing crazy but that's just my opinion) but they do it.

Why are those few boats revered as un-blue water worthy? And if I'm way off the mark and mis interpreting what I've read then I apologize in advance.

[Mycroft]

I'm a complete newbie at this having just bought my first sailboat, an '84 Slocum 43, but my understanding is that there are many items that factor in a bluewater cruiser:

- relatively large tankage
- sturdier rigging/spars
- relatively heavy
- interior layout conducive to rough seas (i.e. lots of handholds vs. really roomy)
- sturdy port lights vs. large windows

That said, lots of folks have sailed around the world in non "bluewater" vessels.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Why are those few boats revered as un-blue water worthy? And if I'm way off the mark and mis interpreting what I've read then I apologize in advance.

Remember when Cats were not real boats and anyone who tried to cross an ocean in one was crazy or asking to die? I've found a good deal of cruising snobbery out there in the fleet when it comes to what a "Real Boat" is and isn't. Half of the boats I shared an anchorage with in Mexico, according to the "experts" could or should not be there. But there they were having a blast on their "not real floating apartment boat".
Who is the largest sailboat manufacturer in the world? hint...it ain't Island Packet.

[cheoah]

Ya I think this is what more seasoned internet forum people call "trolling"

From my perspective, the sailor is more important than the boat. Consider an acidental gybe on a production boat with lighter construction, as opposed to an accidental gybe on a heavily constructed cruiser with substantial backing.

A seasoned sailor may set a preventer, or generally just have a more instinctive reponse to conditions, like feeling the wind on the back of your ears or neck, and not having to even think about which way to correct. They will avoid putting the boat through unecessary abuse, testing its construction.

I don't think there is any debate about materials and construction when comparing a Halberg Rassy with one of the boats you mentioned. Doesn't make one real and the other not, and doesn't guarantee what the outcome will be. But no one can dispute facts, when comparing one type of constructions to another.

I'm not making any claims to which one and where, but put two boats of any make next to each other in the boatyard, or beating to windward in Force 2-3, and I'll give you my opinion. The generalization may be true regarding construction on any given make, but Mercedes and Ford's can get in high speed collisions jsut the same. Which one would you rather be strapped into?

Which one would you rather have to make evasive maneuvers with: a 15 year old german car or a ford taurus of like vintage? If you have never driven a car with really good steering and braking, then a car is a car. But if you have, then you know the performance is markedly different.

In the end, the driver is what matters most. Cars and boats pretty much do what we make them do. Maintenance is a huge mitigating factor. And previous posters are right, it mostly isn't relevant to the way people actually use their boats, making it more of a conceptual difference. However, some people do push their boats, sail high latitudes, etc, and only a fool would dispute that a coastal cruiser is the right tool for the job, even though one can get by with one.

[Vasco]

Actually I don't find any snobbery among cruisers. Once you start cruising there's no BS regarding which boat is better. We're all in boats and that's what brings us together. I think those stuck in marinas or armchairs are the ones who argue the merits of different boats.

[ontherocks83]

Ok so let me see if I have this right. My 04'mustang I had handled and drove great but it was no Audi S4 with awd. They could both get the job done reliably one just had a little more finesse and ease when doing so.

Basically I wanted to make sure that there wasn't a deadly Hughes tail spin that i was unaware of.(sorry old vietnam era aviation reference referring to a catastrophic spin you could get In to if you flared back with the wind on your 6 on a hughes 500, my father was a pilot with the 101st)......

From what it looks like its more snap on tools versus craftsman tools, they both get the job done one just gets it done more comfortably.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

So after reading lots of threads and seeing various comments on the issue I'm curious what makes a real boat in some peoples eyes. Obviously I'm being slightly inflammatory about the "real" part, and I'm not doing it to start a war, I am generally curious.

The way I see it (and through this whole piece i will be referring to NEW boats)Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, are all the equivalent to ford chevy honda toyota etc....I say this based on price point and amenities. Where things like hylas and oyster are mercedes or bentley. (I know there's a lot of boats in between just using those for illustration purposes)

So what makes a new hunter or catalina in the 45 or 50 foot range not a great blue water boat in so many peoples eyes? Is it a structual thing? A rigging thing? A the keel is going to fall off if you go out of site of shore thing? Obviously electronics and water makers can be added to any boat so that shouldn't play in.

I guess since most of my experience has always been on the fords and chevys I might not know any better but I tend to think they are great boats. I've seen them beaten, raced, cap sized, and so on no worse for the wear. Is there a factor I am unfamiliar with that plays in to not wanting to take
a new catalina 445 trans atlantic, or is it just a pigeon holed name brand thing?

Like I said I'm not trying to be snarky or start trouble I really just can't figure out what I'm missing. I mean people row across the atlantic (I think they're f'ing crazy but that's just my opinion) but they do it.

Why are those few boats revered as un-blue water worthy? And if I'm way off the mark and mis interpreting what I've read then I apologize in advance.

I think the "bluewater" boats are more akin to Jeeps and SUVs than luxury autos. Going offshore is like driving in northern Canada or Alaska. A lot of the time a regular car will get you where you need to go but every once in a while you really need the of road capability.

[cheoah]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Ok so let me see if I have this right. My 04'mustang I had handled and drove great but it was no Audi S4 with awd. They could both get the job done reliably one just had a little more finesse and ease when doing so.

Basically I wanted to make sure that there wasn't a deadly Hughes tail spin that i was unaware of.(sorry old vietnam era aviation reference referring to a catastrophic spin you could get In to if you flared back with the wind on your 6 on a hughes 500, my father was a pilot with the 101st)......

From what it looks like its more snap on tools versus craftsman tools, they both get the job done one just gets it done more comfortably.

I was with you until you said your '04 Mustang handled and drove great. No doubt it got you there

And I missed the aviation one, but hats off to your airborne pilot dad. That's cool. I have a ton of respect for those Vietnam Helo pilots. I have two older friends that were, and went down. Did a pretty good number on their knees,etc.

But ya, you get the idea, and others have said it here. There is a difference, it usually doesn't matter, and most of us couldn't care less.

happy, merry, joy

[pistarckle]

The difference between cars and boats will not hold up ! If your car breaks down because of shoddy construction you can walk home . In a boat that is several hundred miles offshore most sailors would like the stronger construction .

[gamayun]

I was in this same boat not too long ago -- trying to find something that would be safe to race offshore the West Coast with nice lines, easy to sail, that's not too piggish. I supplied a list of boats I was going to look at to a sailing forum to get input and got a bit chastised for not comparing apples to apples, yet no one could really tell me how an apple differed from an orange. So, I don't think you're going to get a satisfactory "final" answer, but as Mycroft mentioned, the things that I've been able to discern are type of keel, the shape of the hull, heavier rigging. higher quality build, and heavier displacement. I think tankage is important for long passages, but less of a comparison factor because so many nearshore cruisers are being built with huge tanks. Even keel type is debatable with the different ocean racing designs out there, so perhaps keel weight is a more important consideration. Anyway, I'm also interested in hearing from others about this, especially those who have knowledge in boat design and experience offshore. I've only been sailing a few years with the same few years doing research on the different types of boats. I'd love to become more knowledgeable in this area. Of course now that I've chosen my own boat, racing in the open ocean now requires different equipment (such as a wind vane, an emergency rudder, a more secure companionway hatch, sturdier sails, etc.). And though it's not a true blue bluewater boat, people have been known to sail it around the world.

[a64pilot]

The OH-6, or LOSH as it was often called had a stabilizer on the tail that was at a 45 deg angle, if you had a port quartering tailwind it would have a dutch roll when trying to hover, more annoying than unsafe. The TH-55, affectionally known as the LOB that we all trained in had exactly the same configuration and same handling qualities. The AH-64 Apache being a Hughes design flies almost exactly like the TH-55 and OH-6, no Dutch roll though. Hughes designs are quite probably the best flying helicopters ever built, bar none, they are a Pilots Helicopter.
Both the OH-6 and the OH-58 suffered for LTE "loss of tailrotor effectiveness" especially if flown over gross, and agressively, essentially it was possible to get into a vortex ring state where the tailrotor would ingest it's own vortices and lose lift. It's not cavitation, but act just like a prop does when it cavitates, makes the helicopter spin rapidly to the right. It's usually controllable IF you know what going on, but a tailrotor failure acts exactly the same way, making it real hard to make the right decision

[pistarckle]

I have been well offshore in boats that should not have been where we were at , hulls hourglassing , rigs shaking like they wanted to come out of the boat and water coming over the teak flooring . Scary stuff !
What has really changed is the minimum size of boats that beginners buy . In the mid-70s we bought a 34 foot boat and we were the second largest boat in the Daytona Marina .Today most beginning cruisers think that it takes a fifty foot boat and they believe it is safer . When you only have a certain amount of money to spend , do you buy a quality 40 foot or a cheaper 50 footer ?

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by cheoah

I was with you until you said your '04 Mustang handled and drove great. No doubt it got you there

And I missed the aviation one, but hats off to your airborne pilot dad. That's cool. I have a ton of respect for those Vietnam Helo pilots. I have two older friends that were, and went down. Did a pretty good number on their knees,etc.

But ya, you get the idea, and others have said it here. There is a difference, it usually doesn't matter, and most of us couldn't care less.

happy, merry, joy

Hey that mustang handled great right up until I totaled it against a guard rail head on , but that was driver error so the point still stands. If I had respected its limitations I wouldn't have totaled it.

And thank you for the vietnam comment. He's very proud of his service as am I.

I hope you have a merry christmas!!! or normal day in december if christmas isn't your thing.

Best
-Adam

[Dulcesuenos]

Just because it crosses.oceans doesnt mean its a good bluewater boat. When the hull is flexing and the noise is so loud of.the wood and interior.shifting and moving that you.cant talk. That is not an ideal bluewater boat. They may handle ok but a tru bluewater cruiser has more.solid deck to hull joints, stronger bulkheads and bulkhead tabbing. Stronger rig, windows or ports that wont blow.out when taking a serious hit.from.a.wave. i could go on but you get the point. Cats are the same in my opinion, stronger construction, better designed bridgedecks. We have had a coastal cat an endeavour30, our current cat while only 2 feet wider and 2 feet longer is a completely different animal and handles.much better offshore.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The OH-6, or LOSH as it was often called had a stabilizer on the tail that was at a 45 deg angle, if you had a port quartering tailwind it would have a dutch roll when trying to hover, more annoying than unsafe. The TH-55, affectionally known as the LOB that we all trained in had exactly the same configuration and same handling qualities. The AH-64 Apache being a Hughes design flies almost exactly like the TH-55 and OH-6, no Dutch roll though. Hughes designs are quite probably the best flying helicopters ever built, bar none, they are a Pilots Helicopter.
Both the OH-6 and the OH-58 suffered for LTE "loss of tailrotor effectiveness" especially if flown over gross, and agressively, essentially it was possible to get into a vortex ring state where the tailrotor would ingest it's own vortices and lose lift. It's not cavitation, but act just like a prop does when it cavitates, makes the helicopter spin rapidly to the right. It's usually controllable IF you know what going on, but a tailrotor failure acts exactly the same way, making it real hard to make the right decision

Thank you for your service!

The only reson I know anything about it is because on one of his last missions he encountered one just above tree top level while scouting for grunts and recovered 3 feet before they hit the ground. I however in my time was just a grunt so I only know how to shoot straight. Not fly one of those crazy whirly bird contraptions