The criteria of "blue"

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I see it a bit differently and actually enjoy it.

Something like Philosophy 101.... where everyone is encouraged to work thru their own arguments and make their own conclusions.

Hang on... we have just been told that we have...

'A. Never been offshore.
B. Don't own a boat.
C. ......have never even been on a boat.'

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by sailpower

34+ pages and growing.

To date:

1. No consensus as to what "Bluewater" actually is.

2. Lots of opinion but no agreement as to what kind of boat is necessary to sail in this ambiguous "Bluewater".

3. Most posters left have:

A. Never been offshore.
B. Don't own a boat.
C. Some have never even been on a boat.

Conclusion.....? Like the rest of these threads, those that do it, do it. Those that don't pontificate about what they are not doing.

Entertaining but typical of the thousands of other posts on this topic throughout the internet. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Paul, has any of this persuaded you to buy a "Bluewater" boat any time soon? Any one else? If not, why not?

Well.. I never really expected a consensus. I anticipated lots of varied opinion and that's what I got.

I have learnt a lot. I have determined that in the main the notion of blue water cruising is principally a philosophy with a spectrum of blue but along the way I have managed to add to my knowledge base with a lot of theory and practise with respect to design, construction, suitability, preparation and of course practical sailing.

The iso standards have been discussed and mapped to specific vessels so I have a better understanding of these within the context of stability.

I have discovered new boats I never knew of before. I have learnt about endurance, redundancy, survivability, rigging, performance. range, safety, ergonomics, common mistakes.. Much in fact.

Principally though I have been able to conclude my own blue water standard based on my intended use which is is discussed in another thread as a boat purchase option.

There are as you say 18k plus views but these are people in google I would suggest using long tail keywords to discover answers to the same question that I and others have set. The subject of blue is a forever ongoing subject of discussion because blue is dynamic and not static.

We have a billion porn pictures but people still want more and its is the same for information. People have a thirst.

The thread has been very useful. To me at least. With respect, your A, B, C has no relevance to questions. It has a relevance to answers but not a total one.

Questions require no prerequisite of experience, experience will of course help people appreciate the answers better but no one is required to be an active participant in anything to have a passive interest. Else we would all be F1 drivers, premier league football players and or indeed porn stars.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by sailpower

34+ pages and growing. ...
3. Most posters left have:
A. Never been offshore.
B. Don't own a boat.
C. Some have never even been on a boat.
Conclusion.....?

Conclusion: The people who want to learn from this thread are, surprise, surprise, people who are aiming to purchase a 'blue-water' boat in the near future. They don't already own one, otherwise they would already know all this stuff. Why is that so surprising? People avidly following this thread are mainly newbies? OMG - what a surprise!!!

Sorry to sound so negative but it's really tedious to have to read through such self-important dribble that adds nothing of value. Please, if you can't post useful information - information that adds to the knowledge or asks for advice - don't post! Have another beer, kick the dog, tell all your mates how stupid we all are because we don't already own boats - but don't post! (And in saying that, I've just broken my own self-imposed rule.)

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Conclusion: The people who want to learn from this thread are, surprise, surprise, people who are aiming to purchase a 'blue-water' boat in the near future. They don't already own one, otherwise they would already know all this stuff. Why is that so surprising? People avidly following this thread are mainly newbies? OMG - what a surprise!!!

Sorry to sound so negative but it's really tedious to have to read through such self-important dribble that adds nothing of value. Please, if you can't post useful information - information that adds to the knowledge or asks for advice - don't post! Have another beer, kick the dog, tell all your mates how stupid we all are because we don't already own boats - but don't post! (And in saying that, I've just broken my own self-imposed rule.)

I am inclined to agree with you Nevisdog. Most here have really contributed well and opened avenues of thought not immediately or often considered. Many experienced folk have welcomed the challenge of how and why and given great argument in reply with a respect and inclusiveness for novice enthusiasm and I am thankful to those people for at least my own accumulated knowledge here. But some other people... Well that's another story.

I hope this thread can continue in a positive way with a bit of banter to help it along as usual but ideally without condescension.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I see it a bit differently and actually enjoy it.

Something like Philosophy 101.... where everyone is encouraged to work thru their own arguments and make their own conclusions.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by FastCruiser

So you'll pick a Swan over a beneteau due to its design...... do a search on the Mid 80s, FIRST series of the French Beneteau compared to the Swan of the same era.... . both designed by German Frers.

I'm not sure what you expect me to find. The RYA listing gives stability data on around nineteen Swans (STIX values ranging from 88-42) and about fiftytwo Beneteaus (STIX values from 53-32, ignoring those less than 36ft).

When I eliminate boats above 46 ft (way beyond my price!), I find:
Island Packet 42 tops the list at: Stix 59, AVS 136
Next is a Swan 45: Stix 57, AVS 134
There are four more Island Packets in the top 10.
From around #20 onwards we have some Jeanneau 43s and a couple Bene 39s with Stix of 43-44, but no AVS is recorded so I won't be considering any of those.
At #37 & 38 on the list comes the Bene First 44: Stix 41, AVS 130.
Note that this Stix value is lower than the lowest Swan.

Okay, I take your point, I could live with an AVS of 130 in a 44' yacht, but an old-fashioned Rustler 36 (typical older-style yacht) has an AVS of 147 (Douane: "an AVS of 150 is pretty much the holy grail...") so why would I choose a wide beam yacht?

Everyone will want a different type of blue-water boat. Me, I expect to hit some horrific weather if I go wandering the oceans (I guess I'm just lucky that way) so ultimate stability tops my list of requirements.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I'm not sure what you expect me to find. The RYA listing gives stability data on around nineteen Swans (STIX values ranging from 88-42) and about fiftytwo Beneteaus (STIX values from 53-32, ignoring those less than 36ft).

When I eliminate boats above 46 ft (way beyond my price!), I find:
Island Packet 42 tops the list at: Stix 59, AVS 136
Next is a Swan 45: Stix 57, AVS 134
There are four more Island Packets in the top 10.
From around #20 onwards we have some Jeanneau 43s and a couple Bene 39s with Stix of 43-44, but no AVS is recorded so I won't be considering any of those.
At #37 & 38 on the list comes the Bene First 44: Stix 41, AVS 130.
Note that this Stix value is lower than the lowest Swan.

Okay, I take your point, I could live with an AVS of 130 in a 44' yacht, but an old-fashioned Rustler 36 (typical older-style yacht) has an AVS of 147 (Douane: "an AVS of 150 is pretty much the holy grail...") so why would I choose a wide beam yacht?

Everyone will want a different type of blue-water boat. Me, I expect to hit some horrific weather if I go wandering the oceans (I guess I'm just lucky that way) so ultimate stability tops my list of requirements.

Nauticat 441 is 170 degrees.. It could get a job as a life boat. )

[paulanthony]

GT Yachts

Top notch.... 144 avs, deep cockpit.

[boatman61]

Blue Water = 'How long you can take the heat..'
Posted by fat Nerd in sweat stained vest and 10 day old underwear...
Sorry.. but this thread has me gripped to my seat..

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Posted by fat Nerd in sweat stained vest and 10 day old underwear...
Sorry.. but this thread has me gripped to my seat..

Methinks a change of underwear would solve that problem....

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Blue Water = 'How long you can take the heat..'
Posted by fat Nerd in sweat stained vest and 10 day old underwear...
Sorry.. but this thread has me gripped to my seat..

At 10 days old it could be your underwear that has you gripped to your seat. Better check and make sure boatman61...

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

Nauticat 441 is (AVS) 170 degrees.. It could get a job as a life boat. )

And Nauticat 385 has AVS of 180

Pilothouse yachts tend to have much higher AVS, as do the Fisher range with their large wheelhouses up top - beautiful configurations I'm sure but not all can be relied on to withstand that blasted knockdown - a bit like hitting concrete, sideways. Some don't even reach Cat A (due to early downflooding angle I'm told, if the side access doesn't reach watertightness standards).

[rgscpat]

Well maybe item "B." is true for many -- I don't own a boat; rather, it owns me.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

And Nauticat 385 has AVS of 180

Pilothouse yachts tend to have much higher AVS, as do the Fisher range with their large wheelhouses up top - beautiful configurations I'm sure but not all can be relied on to withstand that blasted knockdown - a bit like hitting concrete, sideways. Some don't even reach Cat A (due to early downflooding angle I'm told, if the side access doesn't reach watertightness standards).

That's kind of awesome. I read also that side doors simply will not qualify for an A rating even if the the craft is a able to maintain water tight integrity in a big knock down. It is simply not tested for and is down graded to B by default.

[paulanthony]

Some one on another thread called Jedi mentioned water tight compartments with NO through holes in the center compartment.

Sounds very logical but never thought of it before.

Is this a iso standard for cat A: Getting into the realms of unsinkable thought.