The criteria of "blue"

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, figure out a budget, go with a reputable mfg. who has a reputation for keeping keels & rudders on the boat, listen to the yard guys & the long-distance delivery skippers, get your choice(s) thoroughly surveyed, and go sailing. What people seem to be trying to tell you is that recreational boats are not subject to the same sort of regulatory scheme & "standards" that occasion the automotive & aviation worlds.

Maybe then I'll take you off my "Ignore" list.

Mate... what you on about? This is a forum. A place for words and perpetual discussion often for its own sake. Its not a wiki. Don't be so serious.

[noelex 77]

I don't have a great deal of faith in the standards. In many ways they do more harm than good. Beginners assume a "Cat A" boat by virtue of meeting the highest standard must be a good blue water boat. This is wrong. Cat A is a very low standard.

I think it would be far more beneficial if boat manufacturers would supply more details of their hull layup and other significant structural components such as ruder stock construction, chainplates etc.

Unfortunately, salesmen don't usually know the answers. Obviously consumers don't ask these questions. This is a major reason why we end up with the production boats that manufacturers currently offer. Of some concern is that construction standards seem to be trending down.

Having said that I have met happy cruisers in all sorts of unsuitable boats. Get out there and enjoy yourself. You can cruise in (almost) anything.

If you are considering various boat options understand you will smack into rocks in out of the way places. The thermal cameras, X-ray an ultrasound facilities or even a competent surveyor who speaks English may not be so readily available. A strong structure adds a lot of peace of mind.

Even suggested "routine inspections" such as keel bolts need competent personnel. Dropping a keel is a major undertaking.

"High end" boat manufacturers don't escape criticism either. Why if we pay twice as much for a "premium" cruising boat such as a HR or Amel don't we get an upgrade from 316 keel bolts to over specified duplex SS, or titanium? These are much more resistant to problems such as crevice corrosion. Or perhaps an encapsulated keel? These small changes would add little to the overall cost but they would significantly reduce the long term cost and trouble of ownership. More importantly they would reduce the need for repair in out of the way places.

A good strong simple boat with features such as easy access and maintenance (as has been suggested by Boatman) is not fundamentally expensive to produce but to achieve these goals in a new boat requires a custom or semi custom construction which is a great shame.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I don't have a great deal of faith in the standards. In many ways they do more harm than good. Beginners assume a "Cat A" boat by virtue of meeting the highest standard must be a good blue water boat. This is wrong. Cat A is a very low standard.

I think it would be far more beneficial if boat manufacturers would supply more details of their hull layup and other significant structural components such as ruder stock construction, chainplates etc.

Unfortunately, salesmen don't usually know the answers. Obviously consumers don't ask these questions. This is a major reason why we end up with the production boats that manufacturers currently offer. Of some concern is that construction standards seem to be trending down.

Having said that I have met happy cruisers in all sorts of unsuitable boats. Get out there and enjoy yourself. You can cruise in (almost) anything.

If you are considering various boat options understand you will smack into rocks in out of the way places. The thermal cameras, X-ray an ultrasound facilities or even a competent surveyor who speaks English may not be so readily available. A strong structure adds a lot of peace of mind.

Even suggested "routine inspections" such as keel bolts need competent personnel.

"High end" boat manufacturers don't escape criticism either. Why if we pay twice as much for a "premium" cruising boat such as a HR or Amel don't we get an upgrade from 316 keel bolts to duplex SS, or titanium? Or perhaps an encapsulated keel? These small changes would add little to the overall cost but they would significantly reduce the long term cost and more importantly trouble of ownership.

A good strong simple boat with features such as easy access and maintenance (as has been suggested by Boatman) is not fundamentally expensive to produce but to achieve these goals in a new boat requires a custom or semi custom construction which is a great shame.

Your comments are spot-on, imho. Considering most boat buyers would understandably not be aware of these types of design/construction issues, I find unpersuasive comments from those who defend many of the newer boats by claiming it's what the "market" wants. That can only be true if the "market" has better knowledge of what they are being offered.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

... Beginners assume a "Cat A" boat by virtue of meeting the highest standard must be a good blue water boat. This is wrong. Cat A is a very low standard...

Sure, but the real value of the EU standard is that it does more than specify Cat A - it tells me that an IP42 scores a whopping 59, a Swan45 scores 57, compared to a Bene46 on 37. So I can look at a list of boats and bypass any with a STability IndeX less than 40, or 45, never mind that Cat A requires only 38 or whatever.

Most aspects of a yacht may be self-evident but it's hard to assess stability by eye - sure most traditional yachts are brilliant and most beamy modern designs are shonky, but then those Southerly yachts turn up with their modern looks, wide beam, lift keel and blow-me-down they rate right up there with the Nautors - you'd never guess it to look at them.

No one likes standards but this one gives comparison data on about 400 yacht designs - information that most builders would prefer to keep secret. I've spent my life sailing in the most unsuitable yachts - all I could afford - but now I can afford to choose, I intend to make that choice based on reliable data.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

It could seem that way but for me it is about pulling the layers back and trying to determine the common denominator of a blue water boat.

It's not so important for me that it be heavy or long keeled or roll at 120 or painted black. I am interested in its mission statement.

A blue water cruiser must be able to..... (Fill in the missing specification) but no one knows.

It will probably be easier to prove that God does or does not exist.

Comfortable, safe, maintainable, easily sailed, manouverable, has lots of storage, suitably equipped, reliable, not ugly and as tough as sh%#.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

I am guessing you inspect your bilge quite a lot then.

No I don't. Rarely drink....don't need 100 pair of shoes either. Just thinking logically.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Sure, but the real value of the EU standard is that it does more than specify Cat A - it tells me that an IP42 scores a whopping 59, a Swan45 scores 57, compared to a Bene46 on 37. So I can look at a list of boats and bypass any with a STability IndeX less than 40, or 45, never mind that Cat A requires only 38 or whatever.

Most aspects of a yacht may be self-evident but it's hard to assess stability by eye - sure most traditional yachts are brilliant and most beamy modern designs are shonky, but then those Southerly yachts turn up with their modern looks, wide beam, lift keel and blow-me-down they rate right up there with the Nautors - you'd never guess it to look at them.

No one likes standards but this one gives comparison data on about 400 yacht designs - information that most builders would prefer to keep secret. I've spent my life sailing in the most unsuitable yachts - all I could afford - but now I can afford to choose, I intend to make that choice based on reliable data.

Yes fair point but the STIXis one of the few specifications that is required to be calculated.

Stability is a small, but important aspect of blue water capability and one that I look at closely. However, STIX is limited information compared to the the full stability curve. Given the detailed and expensive design of production boats the full stability curve must be generated by the designer, but this information is (generally) unavailable to consumers.

The IP 42 for example has an exceptionally good STIX of 59 as you noted. The AVS is creditable 136°, but I wonder if the slightly larger IP 445 with a better AVS of 141° is not superior in terms of stability, despite the lower STIX of 53. Larger boats are less vulnerable to capsize. The full stability curve, would provide the correct answer.

In practice the difference would be small, but the danger of very simplified information (comparing 59 with 53 which implies a large difference in favour of the IP 42) results in the consumer reaching the wrong conclusion.

One of the inherent dangers of the CE requirments is manufacturers designing products that "rate well" in terms of the standard. If AVS was published rather than STIX the 445 with an AVS of 141° would look much better than the IP 42 with an AVS of 136°.

A larger danger is that even small yachts with a much lower AVS of 100° have been awarded a CAT A certificate. Unfortunately I suspect In the minds of some consumers all yachts which meet the Cat A requirement match a similar standard of blue water capability. At least that is marketing push, and perhaps some posters in this thread seem to have fallen for this ploy.

I would suggest largely ignoring the CAT A specifications, or at least regard in it it as a very minimum standard. Make up your own mind if a particular yacht is suitable for your requirements.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

Yours? Sounds interesting... What have you got?

Interested to ask you lots of questions if you have plus 60 foot yacht.

The ABS Classed 66ft was built for a client and I came in after the build specifications were signed.
It was a frustrating experience because of the poor quality control and execution of the builder.

It did however influence me greatly on the philosophy of developing very detailed specifications and makers list for other new builds I became responsible for.

My own yacht Stargazer is a 65ft , 35 year old Corten Steel and has been well tested for wind and weather.

Nolex 77's comments are far more on point re the practical value of Class Certification...

While recognizing it has good Marketing and Resale value, proper research and execution control of contract specifications will provide the Owner with a far better boat.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The ABS Classed 66ft was built for a client and I came in after the build specifications were signed.
It was a frustrating experience because of the poor quality control and execution of the builder.

It did however influence me greatly on the philosophy of developing very detailed specifications and makers list for other new builds I became responsible for.

My own yacht Stargazer is a 65ft , 35 year old Corten Steel and has been well tested for wind and weather.

Nolex 77's comments are far more on point re the practical value of Class Certification...

While recognizing it has good Marketing and Resale value, proper research and execution control of contract specifications will provide the Owner with a far better boat.

That's such a good looking boat you got there. Looks in great nick for 35 years. Love e the clipper curve on the bow.

I am jealous now ))

I wanted to ask about costs beyond 45 foot.. Do they become exponential. maintenance, mooring etc ?

The bowsprit is super cool. Duran Duran.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

...The IP 42 for example has an exceptionally good STIX of 59 as you noted. The AVS is creditable 136°, but I wonder if the slightly larger IP 445 with a better AVS of 141° is not superior in terms of stability, despite the lower STIX of 53. ...

Unfortunately I suspect in the minds of some consumers all yachts which meet the Cat A requirement match a similar standard...

Couldn't agree more - AVS is now the first thing I look at (and >=140 is what I want, in a yacht under 40'), STIX comes a distant second - I'd rather be dunked seven times in a minimalist Contessa 32 (AVS=155) than stay inverted in a larger yacht - but yes I can see marketers will try to convince us that any Cat A will do. I don't buy it.

Course there are a whole list of other considerations before I'll hand over any of my life savings, but this data limits choices to what I consider seaworthy. Any well-maintained IP yacht falls into my category of 'seaworthy'.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Couldn't agree more - AVS is now the first thing I look at (and >=140 is what I want, in a yacht under 40'), STIX comes a distant second - I'd rather be dunked seven times in a minimalist Contessa 32 (AVS=155) than stay inverted in a larger yacht - but yes I can see marketers will try to convince us that any Cat A will do. I don't buy it.

Course there are a whole list of other considerations before I'll hand over any of my life savings, but this data limits choices to what I consider seaworthy. Any well-maintained IP yacht falls into my category of 'seaworthy'.

I think it easy to be caught up in the maximum of individual constants and variables but that contessa 32 mentioned previously had a a very high AVS but it was being knocked down a lot. It's maximum righting resistance was set at 80 degrees (probably to achieve that high avs value you covet) but because the max resistance was not at the normal 55 - 65 degrees of heel it is able to build up a lot of momentum by the time it gets to 80 and then easily pass beyond and get wet. Earlier resistance inhibits the ability for roll momentum to build up. From what I see high avs gives weird stability distribution plots. There are exceptions but in the main from what I see those boats with super avs numbers get to those angles very easily so it seems you have a disadvantage of having to run less sail to give something back. IMHO - I think that the stix value has considered all - The best compromise and therefore trumps AVS values.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

...IMHO - I think that the stix value has considered all - The best compromise and therefore trumps AVS values.

Had a look at another site (yachtdesignforum or something) - hundreds of pages of argument on this very subject, arguments that the traditional measures in place before the ISO standard provide superior data, arguments from some very knowledgable designers and folks who helped develop the ISO standards, years of work before each country could agree. Far too much for me to take in. We could write hundreds of pages here on this subject too but better I think to read the expert opinions if you are interested. Of course none of them agree. In brief, most countries rejected STIX and it was only when AVS was included alongside that they were finally persuaded to accept it had value. The two together seem important - either figure alone has too much room for error (my summary, could be wrong).

Some folks are happy with traditional designs, some prefer wide beam - both have advantages and disadvantages (too many to cover here). Those numbers though help identify what is relatively safe in an offshore storm and what carries slightly greater risk. But of course crew actions are always far more important than any slight design advantage, as many here have pointed out.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Had a look at another site (yachtdesignforum or something) - hundreds of pages of argument on this very subject, arguments that the traditional measures in place before the ISO standard provide superior data, arguments from some very knowledgable designers and folks who helped develop the ISO standards, years of work before each country could agree.

It's boatdesign.net

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

It's boatdesign.net

There are massive arguments in there. I keep out of it. The big guns there can shoot me down too easily.

I had an account for a while some time back but the most innocent suggestion or idea gets ridiculed very fast. Great place if you are a masochist.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Had a look at another site (yachtdesignforum or something) - hundreds of pages of argument on this very subject, arguments that the traditional measures in place before the ISO standard provide superior data, arguments from some very knowledgable designers and folks who helped develop the ISO standards, years of work before each country could agree. Far too much for me to take in. We could write hundreds of pages here on this subject too but better I think to read the expert opinions if you are interested. Of course none of them agree. In brief, most countries rejected STIX and it was only when AVS was included alongside that they were finally persuaded to accept it had value. The two together seem important - either figure alone has too much room for error (my summary, could be wrong).

Some folks are happy with traditional designs, some prefer wide beam - both have advantages and disadvantages (too many to cover here). Those numbers though help identify what is relatively safe in an offshore storm and what carries slightly greater risk. But of course crew actions are always far more important than any slight design advantage, as many here have pointed out.

Would you get a center cockpit or aft ?