The criteria of "blue"

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

Jon,

Good photo to illustrate the point.

The photo was taken with an extremely wide angle lens which distorts the dimensions. If you look closely, Oyster builds in handholds through the the interior in a seamless ergonomic manner. All the moldings through the the area in the photo are handholds. The table edge, the base of the windows countertops. The handholds are everywhere... Yet invisible and incorporated into the design.

On our boat, one can move from the stern master cabin seat all the way to the forward berth always with one or both hands continuously grabbing onto an integrated hand hold. It's what you pay extra for in a boat designed for heading out to sea and possible rough weather.

Next time at the boat show, tour a Beneteau or any of the coastal cruising, weekend entertaining boats, and you'll usually find a complete absence of handholds, then tour a Tayana, Discovery or Hallberg Rassy and you'll find the handholds and foot brace points throughout the the interior and exterior spaces. You'll also notice a complete absence of sharp or pointed edges on the bluewater boats.

These are features not so easily seen or experienced via the computer screen.

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

It is kind of my point really Stu. It's a book of opinion and not a specification. It does not objectify a blue water boat with a defined "measurable" criteria.

And that is exactly what you are going to get here....a lot of opinions. Because there are people out there sailing blue water on boats of pretty much every design, vintage, size, and construction material you can imagine. And since we have had this discussion/debate/argument ad nauseum a hundred times just over the few years I have been on the forum, I doubt that this thread will be any different and you will find that by the time it is all said and done you will be no closer to having any objective information about what constitutes a blue water boat.

I have come to believe that a bluewater boat is a boat that YOU as a skipper can get safely across a body of blue water. You may do so with varying degrees of speed, comfort, and livability depending on the type of boat, but that again is subjective. What seems comfortable and liveable to one person may not seem so to another.

I think you need to consider these factors when determining if a boat could be a bluewater boat for you, and beyond that pretty much everything else is subjective and will be personal to your particular needs, desires, and skill level:

• The boats condition (Is it sound? Will the rig stand up? Will the rudder and keel stay on? Does it have any holes that will allow water to end up on the inside of the boat?)
• Is is properly equipped for the task? (That doesn't necessarily mean the latest toy electronics or air conditioning, but do you have the basic tools necessary to find your way from point A to point B, do you have safety equipment should you need it? If water does end up on the inside of the boat do you have a way to get it out again? If the rudder does fall off will you be able to rig a replacement? You get the idea....)
• Can it carry enough food, water, gear, spare parts, tools etc. to last you for the period of time you plan to be out on the blue water and away from places to reprovision and to handle any repairs or emergencies you may have come up.
• Do you have the knowledge, time, and inclination to choose a route and timing that will avoid bad weather, at least weather that may be beyond the extremes of what you and your particular boat can handle?
• How lucky are you?

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Rohan

I have zero blue water experience, but I remember someone else on these forums once said that if you took everyone's blue water advice and put it together, you would end up in a custom aluminum yacht with no windows at all, and few amenities, if any. Who is going to enjoy spending time at sea in that?

Personally, I would guess that you would need two things at a minimum: watermaker or very large water tanks, and a spare rudder.

If you want a 100% blue water boat, get a submarine. No worries about the weather in that.

Funny But some truth in what you say. I still see no reason for not having a referencing standard though. Even if that standard does turn out to be a submarine.)

[oldragbaggers]

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?

So you say we need a standard specification for a bluewater boat. In an earlier post you mentioned a "regulating body." (Just what we need, another regulating body....) What naturally follows in time would be that regulating body telling us that only people having boats which meet their standard specification can go out into blue water. Do we really want to go down that road?

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

So you say we need a standard specification for a bluewater boat. In an earlier post you mentioned a "regulating body." (Just what we need, another regulating body....) What naturally follows in time would be that regulating body telling us that only people having boats which meet their standard specification can go out into blue water. Do we really want to go down that road?

Your point is understood but it is not about restricting boat design or enforcement.

It is simply a method to enable a consumer to measure what they are being sold against a hypothetical specification.

Example. I would suggest that the self righting ability of a boat without the need from a sea to get back up be a mark of a blue water capability. On a particular graph column depicting 1 - 10 we should see 5 as the minimum standard for bluewater qualification which has a time expectation associated for inverted recovery. Then we world have similar columns for initial stability #2 then #3 #4 and so on.. not sure but maybe 5 key areas but to be regarded as true blue it should hit at least all the midway marks. Plots can be either side of this "water mark" depending on the intended task of the boat but we would all be able to recognise a blue water boat.

This regulating body that you refer to is a bit harsh and it was not really what I meant. It would be a standard created by sailors for sailors and not one for boat manufacturers to be bound by. They clearly can design as they wish but it is up to the consumer to define what a blue yacht is and not the manufacturers.

As it stands designers and builders can hide behind the CE rating which is kind of meaningless when a bene 37 and a MMm, lets say a rustler can have the same A rating.

[jwcolby54]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

FWIW ... lots of assorted production boats pass through Tierra del Fuego , I've even come across an engineless H28 . There are also a good number of 'expedition boats' working out of Williams.

All sorts of boats are lost down there.... a CF member in a 'Blue Water' boat about a year ago, a solo yachtsman on a Mini Transat in about 2006, a Polish charter aka 'expedition' aka 'blue water' boat abandoned by her skipper ( who was single handed at the time ) east of Puerto Toro in , I think, 2008 or 9.
Another Polish charter aka 'expedition' aka 'blue water' boat driven ashore in an anchorage near the eastern end of TdF with the loss of her skipper and mate in 2010/11. A steel NZ boat abandoned by her skipper just north of Estrecho de la Maire when he was too exhausted to continue ( 2009). In the same period I can only think , apart from the mini transat, of two other 'production boats' that were lost...one in the same blow as the mini transat.
This doesn't include yachts lost or badly damaged offshore NW of the Horn.

Its not just the boat that matters.... but best your keel isn't just glued on

When did I ever say "it is just the boat that matters"? This comes up over and over and over and over and over and over. And over and over.

Repeat the "and over" about a thousand more times.

THEN PLEASE knock it off. I never said it was "just the boat that matters".

Next, a huge part of this thread has been discussing how "production boats" and "charter boats" tend to be aimed at the marina liveaboard crowd. Big, coimfortable, pretty. So to equate "charter" with "blue water" seems questionable to me. To tell me that a bunch of those boats sank doesn't surprise me at all.

So listen up everyone reading this thread. Neither I nor anyone else EVER SAID IT IS JUST THE BOAT THAT MATTERS.

Please, if you have nothing more to add to the thread than "The skipper is all that matters" please move on. What you are about to say has already been said about a bajillion times, and flat out isn't true.

And if I sound annoyed... well I have had to read through about a bajillion "the skipper matters" posts to a thread about what makes a blue water boat, and have read about 5 (TOTAL) posts actually discussing the boat itself. Your "it's the skipper" opinion has been WELL COVERED already.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Next time at the boat show, tour a Beneteau or any of the coastal cruising, weekend entertaining boats, and you'll usually find a complete absence of handholds, then tour a Tayana, Discovery or Hallberg Rassy and you'll find the handholds and foot brace points throughout the the interior and exterior spaces. You'll also notice a complete absence of sharp or pointed edges on the bluewater boats.

You must be touring boat shows in an alternate universe. I've never encountered a Beneteau with a complete absence of handholds. Which model do you have in mind?




Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

You must be touring boat shows in an alternate universe. I've never encountered a Beneteau with a complete absence of handholds. Which model do you have in mind?




Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

On the production boats they add the hand holds where you want them as part of the commissioning process. That's what they told me anyway.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

When did I ever say "it is just the boat that matters"? This comes up over and over and over and over and over and over. And over and over.

Repeat the "and over" about a thousand more times.

THEN PLEASE knock it off. I never said it was "just the boat that matters".

Next, a huge part of this thread has been discussing how "production boats" and "charter boats" tend to be aimed at the marina liveaboard crowd. Big, coimfortable, pretty. So to equate "charter" with "blue water" seems questionable to me. To tell me that a bunch of those boats sank doesn't surprise me at all.

So listen up everyone reading this thread. Neither I nor anyone else EVER SAID IT IS JUST THE BOAT THAT MATTERS.

Please, if you have nothing more to add to the thread than "The skipper is all that matters" please move on. What you are about to say has already been said about a bajillion times, and flat out isn't true.

And if I sound annoyed... well I have had to read through about a bajillion "the skipper matters" posts to a thread about what makes a blue water boat, and have read about 5 (TOTAL) posts actually discussing the boat itself. Your "it's the skipper" opinion has been WELL COVERED already.

Oh.... and another thing!! Don't worry we hear you jwcolby54

[Exile]

Given the large number of lighter weight, modern "production boats" that are or have already sailed across many miles of "blue water," perhaps the OP might have an easier time if he analyzes what DIS-qualifies a boat vs. what may or may not qualify it for the "standard" he seeks.

For example, why are some boats deemed "coastal" by their mfgs. or by widely held consensus? Is it merely a question of tankage, or does it imply a weaker build?

Then consider some of the high quality, very expensive, modern boats built by Alerion, Morris, etc. which are marketed as "day sailors." Again, leaving aside tankage issues, would they really be unfit for a blue water passage? If so, then why?

Which leads to the question I've been curious about since starting to read these voluminous threads, namely why almost all of the less expensive modern production boats seem to have lightweight construction in common. Does this equate with "cheap" construction or lower quality? Some argue it's to save mfg. costs while others claim modern composites & techniques have made heavier boats unnecessary if not obsolete. Tough resolving that debate, but why do those who prefer heavier builds only have the higher end mfgs. to look to? What if someone wants heavy & seakindly, but could care less about luxury? As mentioned above, John Harries at AAC has presented the only new design I've seen for those who desire a heavier build, minimal luxury/convenience, and lower cost. The only other alternative seems to be the used market which, fortunately for buyers so inclined, is experiencing a glut of highly touted "bluewater" boats these days.

So maybe the answer is ALL about personal preference and, yes, aesthetics. Many of the features already mentioned that make the more traditionally-built boats arguably more comfortable at sea are obviously not important for the droves of people opting to buy the more modern mass-produced boats. So very little of this analysis seems amenable to any sort of objective standard, which is probably why we're left with the bare minimum CE-A established by the mfgs. & implemented by the relevant EU regulatory body.

So it's caveat emptor as they say, and the OP is largely on his own to educate himself on the many variables, deciding for himself as we all do which of the infinite trade-offs he's ultimately comfortable with. This is why, personally, I tend to listen carefully to those with lots of sea miles, particularly experienced delivery captains who have sailed all manner & types of boats in all sorts of varied conditions. Not being an NA or otherwise qualified myself, I'm also inclined towards the reasoned opinions of experienced "yard guys" who have seen how various & sundry builds have held up in real world conditions. Finally, I look to mfg.'s reputation. Although often misplaced due to unfair "branding" of certain problematic models and other biases, reputations do tend to reflect real facts over time.

[s/v Beth]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

You are quite right. They can not agree which is why there is no such thing a blue water boat. There is only a CE A boat.

I know that the C stands for cover and I know what the A stands for but what does the E stand for?

Define sailing.
Define sailor.

I'm sitting in a ovid vehicle that is sometimes my home that has survived hurricanes on the open water. Oh and it has this big metal thingy that shoots up in the middle. I painted it blue, it once was white.

Works for me.

Signed,
Undefined

[s/v Beth]

[QUOTE=jwcolby54;1812046

So listen up everyone reading this thread. Neither I nor anyone else EVER SAID IT IS JUST THE BOAT THAT MATTERS.

Please, if you have nothing more to add to the thread than "The skipper is all that matters" please move on. What you are about to say has already been said about a bajillion times, and flat out isn't true.[/QUOTE]

You know, after deeply considering the message of this post I think he is on to something. Looking out my port today it is not the boat or the skipper that matters. It's the weather... or maybe the sea state, I can't figure out which.

Can someone show me a place that's not raining and galey all the time?

[cpa]

I have become tired of the blue water boat designation. It once meant one thing and then it turned into something else (many times), then the marketing companies started using it. To be honest, I don't really know if it ever really meant anything worthwhile, but it does seem that the definition has definitely evolved over the years. It does sound nice.


In my opinion, the blue water boat designation should describe boats that are built with the intention of sailing offshore and in areas far from assistance, designs that allow for safe operation in even the worst conditions. While most any boat can make a blue water passage, the designation should go to boats that are built with that intended purpose. But, since I can not designate a definition for everyone to use based on my own opinion, I keep is simple. To me there are boats of varying build quality, difference of design, and levels of comfort. It is up to the individual buyer to determine what configuration best suits their intended purpose.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

You must be touring boat shows in an alternate universe. I've never encountered a Beneteau with a complete absence of handholds. Which model do you have in mind?




Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Don't recall a Beneteau but at the last show I attended all of the Hanses were like that - not only lacking handholds but many sharp edges all around. Some were even beginning to delaminate here and there. And this is on a boat show floor model. The prices were right though - $150K-$250K for 37'-40'+, way cheaper than any next level competitior.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by cpa

In my opinion, the blue water boat designation should describe boats that are built with the intention of sailing offshore and in areas far from assistance, designs that allow for safe operation in even the worst conditions. While most any boat can make a blue water passage, the designation should go to boats that are built with that intended purpose.

Your definition works well for me, CPA.

And when it comes to design, I'd add that the quality of how that design is built is usually more important than the merits of any particular design in the abstract.