The criteria of "blue"

[sandy stone]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Designers are "idea people" they have neither the Builder's skill or liability to be entrusted with defining the standards you seek

Are you really saying that an experienced naval architect (Olin Stevens, Bill Shaw, Bob Perry) is not qualified to have an opinion on the suitability of a design for offshore use? (!)

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Anyone who needs to be told by someone else, or informed by some classification society, whether a particular boat is suitable for "Bluewater", well... perhaps they shouldn't be heading offshore, to begin with :-) There is simply no substitute for educating yourself, sufficient to make your own informed determination...

I'm content with making my OWN decisions re the suitability of particular boats, for particular purposes... Seems that's the way it should be, to me, so I take the approach made famous by US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, re his threshold for determining whether a particular case met the standards of "hard-core pornography"...

I know a Bluewater Boat when I SEE one...

:-)

Well that shows that you know "your" idea of a bluewater boat and all of America knows the the standard for pornography because it has been judged and legislated for. It does not however give us a standard in the same way for bluewater design. Maybe Justice Potter could come to the rescue again.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by sandy stone

Are you really saying that an experienced naval architect (Olin Stevens, Bill Shaw, Bob Perry) is not qualified to have an opinion on the suitability of a design for offshore use? (!)

Everybody is able to give an opinion but it really is time for a common standard/specification.

Nobody really knows what bluewater means. Should the boat pop right back up after a role with any help from a sea? Should it be able to withstand being hit by a floating container? Should it have two engines?

What?

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by colemj

Good thing this boat is white…

Mark

What boat? )

[Jason Flare]

I am always cautious of the word, "should."

What usually follows is more laws and bigger government.

In this case, who are these angels you trust to define, "blue," for you.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

Everybody is able to give an opinion but it really is time for a common standard/specification.

Nobody really knows what bluewater means. Should the boat pop right back up after a role with any help from a sea? Should it be able to withstand being hit by a floating container? Should it have two engines?

What?

It is truly discouraging that some folks still think in terms of somebody else doing their homework and research for them.

The very same folks who ask this question are, most likely, the same libertarians who decry "government intrusion" and "too much regulation."

Look, it's simple, the answers are out there.

If you choose to look.

And if you choose to have an open mind.

There is an interesting and ongoing conversation on this very forum about a relatively new 38 foot cruiser by a reasonably reputable builder. The new owners have been sharing information about their new BIG boats with each other for a few weeks. Many really good things have come of it.

Many really incredibly basic things have also shown up that are, in my opinion, kinda, well basic sh*t from Boating 101.

Like: "Why is my faucet water pump running all the time?" "'Cuz you have two water tanks, one is empty, and you have both valves open."

Are folks who are buying this "prestigious" new BIG cruiser really all owners of only a boat as small and basic as a Catalina 22?!? Have they not realized that they have invested incredible sums of their own $$ and haven't done their homework on BIG BOAT systems? Many of the questions could have been answered by RTFM, which seemed to beyond many of them.

The electronics have baffled many of them. "Can I change the autopilot so it doesn't steer curvy courses?"

Other questions and many of the input posts have been priceless in the quality of the material offered by the owners to share information that is unique to those new boats, and is highly commended.

What they have "missed" is that their posts on this forum (only) will essentially go "nowhere" because they haven't bothered to even start a Yahoo or Google group and that information will be hard to find to other new owners who aren't aware of this forum. They should start a "group" or even their own website, not hard to do.

The "new" (a few years now) Catalina 355, which shares the same layout of our 30 year old boat, was invited to join our then-14 year old website. They declined and started their own Google group and have been reinventing the wheel since they started.

Beyond me.

Point being, that certain issues are IDENTICAL to every boat made since the Phoenicians started cruising around the Med.

The physics of boat design haven't changed. Those folks who think this book eveolved only from wooden boats are missing the point.

The one thing that HAS changed is the SPEED of computing power. The INHERENT stability and layout and boat system issues discussed in the book that is the subject of this topic simply haven't changed.

I personally disagree with those who say they have.

Many of us "grew up" in boating, with the proverbial "water and electrical - nazi" fathers and learned to deal with issues in a marine environment, rather than simply having a hull that's supposed to act just like our house or a cabin in the woods.

They're different, not by much, but different all the same.

And, in this internet age, and to those of us who "grew up" WITHOUT the priceless information available, and had to read (Gasp!) books and learn by trial and error, it is very strange indeed that they can't figure it out.

I know, I know, these kind of forums are to exchange information. And,. they are truly a godsend for learning.

But there's no substitute for:

BUY A BOOK

LEARN A LOT





:bigg rin:

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

You could be right. As more people take up cruising it could be time for an injection of regulation from an external body to give better definition and clarification. However in the meantime the claim by a "designer" as to their blue boat virtues over and above another with the same certification has to be regarded as worthless because there is nothing to judge or measure by.

Have you ever actually sailed?

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

Trying to learn about boats is not an easy task with so much subjective opinion.

Having spent a year or more trying to determine the value/s of this often coined phrase " A true blue yacht" I am still none the wiser as to the implication of this term with respect to the criteria a yacht should have to qualify for this coveted label.

So, with a question designed to filter out as much subjectivity and romanticism as possible I will ask the following ...

What are the three most objective and quantifiable things a blue boat must have to qualify distinctly as a blue boat in order of hierarchical importance to be distinguishable on paper from any other kind of sail boat or is this blue topic simply just subjective opinion soaked in an equal measure of romance and a doff to tradition.

As an example maybe some will say survivability and that's fine but survivability to what? force 10 gale? being rolled? What is the blue boat standard?

I personally have at this point concluded that the phrase "true blue boat/yacht" that I see every where means absolutely nothing and we should stop using it if we can not define it properly. I think it is dangerous to infer subjective characteristics of a boat without proper specification.

My Grandad had supposed blue boat. It was a ship but it still sunk as many of them do. I think it is time for boat designers to lay down what the specification is.

When you can objectively define beauty, tell us all how you figured it out so we can use the same technique to define what a bluewater boat is.

[Cap Erict3]

A picture is worth ...


..





Reading...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray_%28sailing_vessel%29


------------------------------
Looking for another pretty place to work on the boat.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Have you ever actually sailed?

Sure I have sailed but I think you are trying allude to the idea that I should know what a bluewater boat is if this is the case.

I have my definition but when I properly analyse it I find that my notion is also fudged with subjective thinking and given/acquired stereo types that when questioned don't provide justifiable rational and are just based on false prejudice and presumption.

Try.. Tell me - what is a blue water boat? Is the Bene oceanis 55 that was abandoned recently a bluewater boat? You can not say that it is not when you think about it.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Adelie

When you can objectively define beauty, tell us all how you figured it out so we can use the same technique to define what a bluewater boat is.

It is very easy to define beauty objectively.. Philosophically it is a bit harder.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

It is very easy to define beauty objectively.. Philosophically it is a bit harder.

So tell us then.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Adelie

So tell us then.

1.6180 - The human mind is geared to this constant. If the proportions of your face fit close to this ratio then you will be considered beautiful. The more you deviate from it the less beautiful you are.

Basically the above number is the mean average of beauty. People who are not average are less beautiful to look at.

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beauty is not as subjective as you might think.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

1.6180 - The human mind is geared to this constant. If the proportions of your face fit close to this ratio then you will be considered beautiful. The more you deviate from it the less beautiful you are.

Basically the above number is the mean average of beauty. People who are not average are less beautiful to look at.

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beauty is not as subjective as you might think.

So if your face is 1.6... times as tall as it is wide you will be considered beautiful.

How about the rest of your body? That too? Or maybe different proportions work in different cultures?

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Adelie

So if your face is 1.6... times as tall as it is wide you will be considered beautiful.

How about the rest of your body? That too? Or maybe different proportions work in different cultures?

Each component of your body will be considered with the same maths. You may have a strikingly beautiful face but you maybe not proportioned in equal measure elsewhere. However, the mind has evolved to pay particular attention to the face.

This constant has been known about for a very very long time. Even cosmetic and plastic surgeons use it as a baseline for repair.

When people say things like beauty is only skin deep etc it is usually to comfort those that fall far from the average. Unfortunately in nature beauty is important. It is a cruel world.

You see this number in nature everywhere and of course we have learnt to apply it to things we make.