production boats vs blue water cruisiers

[BC Mike]

I have always allowed the hull to dry, and painted it with a barrier coat, but then my boat brand has not had blistering problems on their early boats. Mine is a 1979 purchased new. To move on to a larger boat, I am looking at a Cascade 36. wwwcascadeyachts.com check brokerage and go down to 36 Cascade 1978 for ocean cruising. The boats name is Tranquility. At the bottom of the page is a link to pictures. I would be interested in comments about this type of boat. I think 36 feet is a good place to start. My current boat is 29 feet LOA 28 feet on deck. My other choices for a bigger boat would a couple of NZ models either a Farr or Birdsell design in wood, although there are some fibreglass Farrs. But first can we discuss the Cascade 36. Unlike some other posters I have sailed and owned boats for quite a while. I have been too long away from the ocean but plans are in the works to change that. We are listing the farm for sale this week. The farm boss is going to be a tourist in Europe and I am going sailing.
Michael

[Euro Cruiser]

Mike, the nature of your post and that boat (TRANQUILITY) both deserve some thoughtful comments; I hope you get them and I hope mine are helpful to you. My only regrets (with your post and the pics on that Cascade web site, which is very nicely done) are a) you don't tell us how you plan to use the boat, leaving us to comment in a vacuum; b) we aren't shown the rudder, an important variable depending on your plans; and c) these BB's don't lend themselves terribly well to iterative discussion. Maybe we can overcome that in this case...

This C36 illustrates well how diverse the 'production boat' field can be, and how much has changed in design during the past two decades, not all of it for the better depending on the boat's intended use. The first boat I thought of when looking at those pics is Hal & Margaret Roth's WHISPER. Different keel, more waterline than their older design, but in many respects what they decided they wanted after their Pacific Circle and when taking a saw to much of WHISPER'S cabin trunk & half her cockpit. The other boat that popped to mind is the first boat the Hallberg-Rassy yard built from scratch, a 35' sloop or ketch. Some will see that narrow beam (but might miss the lower displacement as a result) and think she is tender and crowded down below...but the pics show a comfy, functional layout and the boat will be faster in low & moderate winds due to that limited beam. (I had one of those H-R 35's and no one understood how we could be quite as fast as we were).

As you no doubt know, Cascade boats have a general rep for being strongly built, a bit rough in the finish, relatively narrow, a conservative sail plan and affordable. They aren't great Chesapeake Bay, Gulf Coast or SoCal boats, as a rule, but their small numbers certainly get around. Your comments imply you hope to cruise her; I surely hope so. Another basic issue with her is her age, and you'll need to give some thorough thought to the boat's many components, especially if you plan long-distance sailing. Metal fuel tanks suffer eventual pinhole leaks, plastic water tanks wear & crack, that rudder is no spring chicken, etc. I would pour a lot of self-survey work into trying to gauge the significance of these issues.

Since you've been attracted to her and no doubt have ID'd many positives, I'm going to zero in on what some might see as negatives - but more for the sake of perspective than criticism. They are offered with an assumption you plan long-distance cruising, so they may be wide of the mark. (Do tell us what your plans are...). Consider them just food for thought...
-- is the bulb lead? Moderate draft, iron ballast and a narrow beam, in combination, suggest she'll be tender
-- what about the rudder? The C29 had a full-length skeg, as I recall; I'd hope that would be true in this case, or even better a partial skeg with a lower bearing; if a spade, then we're back to your plans with her...
-- iron keel = maintenance as effectively sealing a steel keel, long term, is harder to accomplish than one would think
-- that chart table, for all it's wonderful drawer space, troubles me. We don't use chart tables like we used to (nor like that one was designed) and with a fold-up cabin table, having an alternative place to sit, read a guide, work the laptop and so forth seems especially important to me. Also, a forward facing chart table you can sit at will present the instruments to the cockpit. It would be a shame to pull that thing apart...but I would be tempted to do so on Day #1
-- one of the best Euro design trends to emerge in the 80's was the quarter head; finally, a place relatively easy to use at sea. Alas, it's forward you go...to 'go'.
-- I can't imagine the wheel steering arrangement (some H-R 35's had offset wheels, but also a helm seat) and I wonder about its ergonomics; I would hold out hope that the tiller really is usable in stiffer going, as that would surely be a great asset
-- a friend of ours is more than half way thru a Circle on his little Tartan 27 right now and his Famet furler is 20 yrs old and works without compalint; I just thought you were due for a nice comment.<g>
-- those hull-mounted vents are going to injest seawater in rougher conditions; best move them inside
-- whale-eye nav lights need to be upgraded
-- vane? hard to tell there is one, let alone what it is - are spare parts available? is it a commercial model or owner-built?
-- settle in & try out those settes; the seats look too narrow and the backs to vertical to be comfortable. The seatbacks look like the swing up to expose storage, so they should be capable of a more inclined angle...but can you make it possible to slide out the seat platforms?

I think TRANQUILITY is good proof of at least two facts often disputed: there are still affordable yet also desirable, capable cruising sailboats in the North American market, and not all production boats are alike. (Our Pearson has given us 14,000 comfy, worry-free miles so far, and she likes that thought, too...).

Jack

[BC Mike]

The C36 has a cast iron keel. I should know the answer about the rudder but I don't. The C29 has both a skeg ( early models ) and a spade rudder. I think the C36 is a spade rudder underneath on a shaft. I would only use a tiller for steering. I do not know about the wind vane other than the fact it has one, most boats do not seem to have one. Also I think there is a radar. What I am getting at is a well equipped boat is available for a reasonable price. Many others are more exspensive with little gear. I would inspect every piece of the boat myself and then get a surveyor. I would coastal cruise to get used to the boat and make changes where required, brush up on my navigation then head for Hawaii. If that goes okay and I have the time I will go further. As part of this discussion I do not mind if other boats are mentioned, but $50,000- is my price. I do not want to pay for a new fancy interior. I want a solid boat. I expect to spend up to $20,000- to make a boat sailable offshore. If the cushions or rigging or table are not right I will change them. I am in the middle of fairing and painting the iron keel on my current boat. Lead gets more weight down low but iron is solid when hitting things. I want a solidly mounted fin keel. Of to work, probably more later.
Michael

[GordMay]

Michael says: “... Lead gets more weight down low, but iron is solid when hitting things. I want a solidly mounted fin keel ...”

I think I’d prefer the ‘SOFTER’ hit of lead to a harder one.

Look carefully at the equipment list.
Old electronics?
1 Anchor
etc.

Gord

[delmarrey]

I'd rather get a large gouge in my keel rather than rip my keel bolts out.

I nailed a sunk barge once (I found out later) going down a river. It hit half way up the keel leaving a 1" deep gouge, then drug down to the bottom and then took the last 6" front corner off. This is a 5' long keel. The boat nose-dived and spin around. If that had been cast iron the keel bolts would have absorbed all that shock.

Take a steel hammer with a steel handle and hit a thick plate of steel. How's your hand going to feel? That's why hammers have wooden/plastic handles.

Now do the same with a lead hammer. Major difference!

The lead absorbs the shock. Lead is often used in machine shops as a vibration damper or for hammers, setting parts without the kinetic spring back.

I’m glad I had a lead keel!!!!!

[ssullivan]

Wow! What a story. By some miracle, I've never "nailed" any submerged object. I can't imagine how frightening the sound of hitting that submerged barge must have been.... and then the few seconds to check if you were taking on water.

But back to the thread... I'd agree with the crowd. You want to have a nice, soft impact rather than a jarring, keel bolt-loosening one.

delmarrey once whispered in the wind:
I'd rather get a large gouge in my keel rather than rip my keel bolts out.

I nailed a sunk barge once (I found out later) going down a river. It hit half way up the keel leaving a 1" deep gouge, then drug down to the bottom and then took the last 6" front corner off. This is a 5' long keel. The boat nose-dived and spin around. If that had been cast iron the keel bolts would have absorbed all that shock.

Take a steel hammer with a steel handle and hit a thick plate of steel. How's your hand going to feel? That's why hammers have wooden/plastic handles.

Now do the same with a lead hammer. Major difference!

The lead absorbs the shock. Lead is often used in machine shops as a vibration damper or for hammers, setting parts without the kinetic spring back.

I’m glad I had a lead keel!!!!!

[BC Mike]

The theory sounds good. How about some more collision stories. How many lead keels come loose. Quite a few, but that is also a design issue and the manner in which they are held in place. There are other issues for the keel, such as jacking the boat up from under the keel, beaching and the angle of the leading edge. About the electronics. If you are looking at two boats, same condition, same reasonable price, one has a wind vane, radar, anchor winch, depth sounder etc. are you telling me we need to get picky about all the gear. Even if it is all new, heck in 10 years, well it is going to be 10 years old. If it is part of the boat and it all works ?? Anyone have photos of dented keels and cracked hulls and jambed rudders?? Is everyone saying they would not buy a boat with an iron keel, but would buy a lead keel that may have the mounting bolts come loose? Just asking. Feed back was suggested.
Michael

[delmarrey]

Here's where it was nailed first. This is a 8000 lb. chunk of lead. When we hit the boat took a nose dive like it had fallen off of it's stands. Then spun around over on a stdb. list. That's when it caught the bottom of the keel and tore out about 6" of lead. It threw us right off of out seats. I was standing, holding the tiller and it about threw me out of the cockpit. The first thing I did was go below and checked the bilges. She was dry as a bone. WHEW!!! :kissy: I kept an eye on it all day and did a survey myself when she was hauled out a couple days later.

We were doing about 4 knots going with the flow of the river with the motor idleing for control. The next day I ask the locals about what was out there in the river, and they said everybody knows about it. Ha! not me! I asked why there wasn't a marker there and they said that it's only dangerous at low tide and only to sail boats. Besides when the river is really moving with the tide a bouy just gets sucked under.




There was a slight crack where the keel meets the hull up forward, but it was just the far'ing filler. With a little epoxy/filler and some elbow grease it's all better now.

IMO the stongest parts of a sail boat should be where the keel and the rigging attaches. As well, the rigging should be the heavest it can handle. And second is a strong rudder. This vessel could probably be picked up my it's mast or it's keel . And I wouldn't have it any other way. When I go to sea I don't want any failures in the vessel.

And every sailboat should have the ability to careen.


.................................................. ........................................_/)

[Euro Cruiser]

Del, that was a nice post. Quite interesting.

Mike, I for one would not wave you away from the C36 because she has a steel keel. But there are liabilities with that choice and I think that's the point of the feedback you are getting. Not 'unacceptable' but just not 'optimum'. Personally, the shock loading & maintenance issues aside, I still think the main disadvantage that you will live with, day in/day out, is the higher CG and lower B/D ratio given the modest beam...but you won't have a feel for that until you sail her, and her low aspect sail plan will help offset this.

Your 'gear' question is a good one. I see no reason that dated electronics should spoil a sale, as replacements are inexpensive these days, can be purchased incrementally as they are needed...and anyway, a SL72 radar is hardly 'dated' in either design or age. OTOH I would consider replacing any basic, old electronics simply because I think it's a better long-term choice. I'd put the depthsounder and VHF in that category: the former because waiting for an old depthsounder to fail - and then find you're without - doesn't seem prudent to me; the latter because I think a VHF is a basic safety tool and needs to be both belowdecks and at the helm (or near it) which means a RAM-type or Icom's counterpart model has become the defacto standard these days. In your planned waters, with shipping traffic and some reduced viz likely, I'd seriously consider adding an AIS repeater...but they are not quite yet on the recreational boat market. They make collision avoidance very easy, something always of value to short-handed crews in congested waters.

As for non-electronics, it gets much easier. You plan to cross an ocean so the rig needs to be relatively recent (5-6 yrs old or less for starters). The vane can be 20-25 years old but, if it's well made, can be visually inspected and serviced as needed (e.g. fresh steering lines, blocks inspected and smooth in operation, spare breakable links purchased, etc.) it can be used without a worry. The chainplates are probably original and uninspected since new, and I'd have a look at those...but that would be true of any older boat I was taking offshore. I have little confidence in that windlass when its used in heavy conditions. But in general, I just don't see the non-electronic gear being a major issue beyond accepting than an older boat places these kinds of requirements on you when going offshore. (But there is that rudder to look at with care...).

Have you seen this boat in the flesh? I definitely think it's worth the time & expense to do so, given your plans, age, location, etc. All those nits I was picking in the earlier post were to serve as counterpoint since I think its a sound choice for you.

Jack

[BC Mike]

Good stuff guys. Thank you. I have seen a C36 in Vancouver BC. I will drive down to Portland to have a very close look at Tranquility and others. Cascade have been very user friendly with my questions to date. I also have a letter on file from an owner who has been all the way around. He describes how the boat sails and the soundness of the hull. I agree with the points about replacing the electronics if they are suspect. I would always install my own depthsounder as I have found many buy on price alone. Ditto the VHF. The beam does not concern me as it is not on the very narrow scale, the waterline beam is nut tucked in much from the gunnell beam. There are shapes and things that I prefer, such as a transom hung rudder, a fractional rig, a wider transom, but I have to be prepared to compromise when looking for a proven boat at a specific price. If I spend a large amount of money then I am stuck to the shore working to pay for it as I will have spent the cruising budget. Better I think to have a proven boat paid for and have a budget intact and the freedom to sail anywhere. I will be checking all the rigging and every fitting before going far. I have done this with my current boat.
Michael

[Jentine]

I hate to break the news to you, but force of 17,000 pounds stiking an unseen object will not be ameliorated by lead over steel or cast iron. A friend and I were sailing peacably at about six knots in his Erickson when we struck an uncharted rock. The floor was compressed, the sub-sole grid was seperated from the hull, the keel bolts bent and the hull cracked. The damage was sufficient that the boat had to be hauled immediately to prevent sinking. Would a cast iron or steel keel have increased the damage. I don't think so. It is not like lead keels have some cushioning factor other than minor material removal upon impact.

[BC Mike]

Thank you. I knew this subject required more input and I agree that lead will not cushion the blow to make an appreciable difference. It may dent and grab the object rather than hitting and sliding over the object. I have a photo of a lead keel that did the dent and grab and crack the hull plan, and I have hit a rock with my iron keel and gone over the top. The lead keel hit about 8 inches from the bottom for maximum leverage and I hit at about the same spot. The iron keel on my current boat is mushroom shaped at the top and that gives it a much greater area to bolt to the hull. The bottom is wider than the top and that gets the needed weight down low. I am not against lead keels, I am concerned about how they are attached to the hull and the shape needs to be impact friendly for a cruising boat. I do not like reading reports of a new 40 foot J boat having a loose keel in mid Atlantic. Soon I will be asking about another choice of boat.
Michael

[ssullivan]

Del,

Great post... and nice looking vessel too.

[myblueheaven]

I bought my Jeanneau sun odyssey 51 1991 for the purpose of living aboard and eventually sailing to far-off ports of interest and adventure. The mast is a rolling furler, and massive. The winches are ST 66's and ST44's etc., as are the blocks big and worthy. There is alot of contraversy about whether production Beneteaus or Sun Odysseys and even the modern Hunters can handle Bluewater sailing. OK, fair question for any boat. Ask yourself this, "When was the last time you heard of one being lost in the middle of a circumnavigation?" YES, WE HERE OF BOATS BEING LOST TO THE SEA all the time, but they are all makes and models and for many differing reasons , not which the least of may be sailor experience or a lack there of.

This question is a bit like asking "car" guys who makes the most worthy 4x4 truck. You even suggest a Nissan or "other" traditionally unacceptable "man's" truck and you get an ear full.

For a better opinion(s) You need to always go back to the statistics you can find through the costguard records and all the online stats and owners groups as well as company reputations. Also important, the guys who actually own and have to live on them or deal with the law suits if something fails or has a habit of failing.

There are alot of "old-timers" out there two who will never buy a Toyota over a Chevy or Ford! Or a Range Rover over a Cadillac Esalade.

Here are some facts and some ideas to keep in mind while being bombarted with both traditional views and staunchy ..."don't rock the boat" kind of guys. And , of course, the ..." Leave well enough alone" guys who subscribe to the.. . "Change is bad! We don't like change"!!!

Most of the bigger Beneteaus and Jeanneaus( just as an example of a reasonablly priced mass produced sailboat) are sailed across the Atlantic every year by factory- paid delivery crews to be sold here in the USA or chartered etc. That is "Blue water sailing" Not a day sail near a coast When was the last time you heard of one being lost??? . Just recently a 203 or 4 ??? Hunter completed a circumnavigation of the world and was well documented by Latitude 38 magazine. The owner had the time of his life! And saild in comfort, I might add. One issue with a broken rudder that he fixed when hauled out, but nothing else and it didn't stop him from completing. Todays liability issues make manufactures try harder to produce safer boats. Latest technology allows for better designs and at cheaper manufacturing cost by mass producing the design over and over again. Most production boat use name brand, tried and tested hardware and mast makers.

Laminations are better and modern yacht designs allow for better comfort and even , dare I suggest...luxery aboard? If you plan well and watch the weather, the truth is that being out-there in the middle of the ocean is only as scary as you let it be. Most circumnavigaters will never run into a huricane and the silly fact is most cruisers spend 90% of their time either on the hook, in a marina or day sailing from one island to the next once you get across the ocean to the area you intended to get to. let's see, thats three weeks across a lot of nothingness then months of isalnd hopping and sitting on a hook, until you have to cross again.

I love my boat and it is a compromise, sure. But I am not racing, want my comfort, not afreid of the ocean and I know the dangers of a lowering ones standard of comfort and living, and what effect it can have over time.

Are there stronger boats more suitable for scary seas? Sure. But I could choose to buy and drive an armoured car to and from work every day just so I couldn't get shot at, crashed into or die if run off the road. But it would SUCK 90% of the time! Hey, how many cruisers are out there right now, and then calcualte how many have died or will be lost due to JUST their boat design?

chris

[Euro Cruiser]

(I apologize for the double post but it looks like we're talking about this topic in two concurrent threads...so I thought I'd toss my comments in to both of them)

MBH and the group, I don't think we're going to get very far in this 'production boat for blue water cruising' topic at this rate. Stereotyping and hyperbole, in either direction, just doesn't get at the facts. And Coast Guard 'reports' identify neither failures in most of the world (since they aren't involved) nor would they know about failures like the lost rudder that MBH mentions. Even a single brand is extremely difficult to generalize about: e.g. I don't know much about Jeanneau 51's. I do know I was very impressed with both the build quality and demonstrated passage making strength of a Jeanneau 41 I viewed in Germany and that is now about 15 years old...and I know I'd never consider taking a Jeanneau 35 or 37 on extended blue water voyaging (for multiple reasons, not just build quality)...so how can one decide generically that ALL 'bubble boat' brands are suitable (or unsuitable) for offshore voyaging?

Here are a few things I do know:
1. This topic needs to be addressed thoughtfully, thoroughly, offline tho' the results provided on-line, by folks who are willing to spend some time on it, draw on first-hand experience and a technical knowledge base, and have no particular vested interest. (Finding this kind of analysis in sound-bite magazine articles, bracketed by color ads from the boat builders is not likely to happen). And anecdotal reports of boats which do a Circle are not, by themselves much proof to me about anything (since almost every kind/size/hull material boat has done so) altho' they make interesting reading.
2. Even the term 'Blue Water cruising' is a highly general term and I wouldn't know what kind of standard to set when selecting a boat if that was the only descriptor for its intended use. But usually what's meant in these discussions, as MBH illustrates, is long-term blue water cruising...as in the boat being used as a home as well as passagemaker while traversing a lot of distance over an extended period of time. And there is very little in that sentence I just wrote that has to do with a delivery trip being a good indicator of a given delivered boat being suitable for such cruising. (One - of many - illustrations of this is the experience the folks are having aboard Bumfuzzle, which was delivered from So Africa to N America. There are many such examples).
3. Even within the confines of a single set of requirements - let's stick with "designed-in build quality" for a moment - what standard one applies when judging 'suitability' can vary. I notice MBH dismisses a lost rudder fairly casually; on our boat, I worry more about the consequences of a lost rudder than I do about the mast coming down...because the former is harder to deal with, at sea in mixed weather over a long period of time by a short-handed crew, than the latter. And catastrophic failures are not usually the measure of "unsuitable" build quality; rather IME its component structures incrementally failing because of the relentless working/racking/torquing of the hull/deck monocoque structure at sea and the stress points seen by rudder, steering system and rig. Here's a short example of what I mean - you folks decide if this means the boat is unsuitable or suitable:

"Here in Hawaii we sail in rough conditions (F5 - 8/12 seas typically). My 1990 C34 was used as a coastal cruiser for six years and had structural problems with the offshore conditions here, The forward quarter panels needed reinforcing (oil-canning), the floors had shear cracks at the turn of the bilge , and the bulkheads were either screwed in (worked) or had inadequate tabbing (popped). The keel connection failed in a moderate grounding (insufficient matt to spread load into the bilges , no backer plates on the keel bolts ). The hull to deck joint is very strong and holds up very well. The rig (tall) and her unusual chain plates ( Alum angles ) are probably over designed.There are a lot of Catalinas here that have sailed long distances but most of the owners I've talked to acknowledge the Catalinas limitations. I put a lot of sea miles on mine and enjoyed her immensely. The boat for the price has value. But modification for extended offshore work is probably not worth it and would spook me (Hal Hallonquist, Hence, # 1106)."

I pulled this off a Catalina owners group website. The coastal cruising the owner mentions, over 6 years, probably equates to 1-2 years of full-time cruising in similar waters. Did the boat sink? Nope. Would we describe the structural build quality as "suitable" for blue water voyaging? Nope. Are other Catalinas sailed on long blue water voyages without mishap? Sure. Do some also lose their rudder or suffer steering attachment point failures, bulkhead disassembly and other fun stuff. You bet, as a friend who's been in the South Pacific the last 2 years was just telling me. And this is looking at just one issue - build quality - for one brand/size boat, built at one point in time.

This is a topic that is not simply addressed and is not black & white.

Jack