True blue water boat extinction a fait accompli?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Define "quite a few".

It means a few boats that were posted about a lot.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

It means a few boats that were posted about a lot.

That's what I think it means.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by colemj

If you need all that expensive crap to sail then you have no business being on the water.

Or so I have heard…

Mark

In order for me to be able to go, the wife needs to be aboard, she requires the stuff, ergo, I need the stuff.
Plus to be honest I had enough living like I was in the 19 Century when I was in the Army, time to retire and relax, and to my wife, that doesn't include washing dirty underwear in a bucket

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

Before anyone can answer any question regarding bluewater boats, "bluewater boat" needs to be defined, that is if a group ever wants to reach any meaningful conclusion.

...He said his parents logged several hundred-thousands of miles and never saw anything worse than a gale. I've read where others have said similar things. ...
Using gale conditions as a starting point, I would offer up if trying to define what a bluewater boat is, you start the definition as a boat that won't suffer serious structural or mechanical issues when in gale conditions over a period of at least 48 hours.

That means not only does the boat have to be structurally sound (capable of handling those conditions for that period of time) but the owner/crew must ensure the boat is maintained to the standards that will allow it to survive those conditions. Of course, the crew must be capable of sailing in those conditions if you are trying to determine if the boat truly satisfies the definition.

There's a whole list of things that need to be satisfied before it can be determined if a boat can satisfy whatever criteria a group establishes when defining the term "bluewater boat." Some things that immediately come to mind:

....

That would make bluewater boats almost all modern recent mass production boats over 40ft and over 40ft just to be on the safe side.

Many years ago someone knock at my boat, it was a British that just finished to cross the Atlantic (both ways) and wanted to think what I thought about my boat, that was the same as his, a Bavaria 36.

His problem was that everybody on the Caribbean (mostly Americans) said that his boat was not safe doing that and he wanted my opinion. I asked if he had any problem with the boat. He said no, except that on the voyage to the Caribbean he had got a huge gale for several days. He was alone, tried to sail the boat but eventually he become too tired, so he deployed a water anchor and went inside closing the boat. Said it was the best thing he could do. Slept like a baby for almost 24 hours.

I asked again, so what is the problem? Well, everybody keeps saying the boat is not safe (it was a brand new boat) and I get a bit insecure. He was a bit more self assured when I said that a countryman of mine had circumnavigated two times on the same Bavaria 36

[sailorboy1]

I think part of the problem is that people read books on the subject that were written in the 80s. Back then a big boat was 40' and there were a lot of differences in some mid 30' boats (got to figure the books were written to cover boats that were at least 5 years old so that makes them 1980 and older). But now even lots of those "lower" boats if still around have proven themselves as just fine passagemakers (I like the term Passagemakers better that Bluewater Boats).

Maybe we should stop using "Bluewater" and start thinking more "Cruising Passagemakers". There are lots of modern production boats that are great "Cruising Passagemakers", but probably not "Bluewater" because for the most part cruisers rarely experience those conditions to the point people should stop being all paranoid about them.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't believe that. I like a lot of boats and very different types. I like my boat (otherwise I would not have chosen it) but it was just the best I could buy for the money and a compromise with my wife. With more money I would have a different boat (for sure) and I am not even sure if it would be a monohull or a multihull, even if for the type of multihulls I like, It would be really much more money.

Boats for me are like pretty women (they have to be pretty), I can fall in love and if it is the case, logic makes not much sense anymore...but there is something better than to be in love?

Yes, the SailorBoy Thesis definitely doesn't apply to Polux, who is a big exception to this rule.

Polux has strong opinions based not on defending his own choice of boat, but on a huge amount of reading and abstract thinking (which is a dangerous thing ).

His opinions are very interesting and valuable, and not nearly as narrow as the ones SailorBoy was criticizing, even if they are just as flawed, in their own way, as those of any of the rest of us. Polux's thesis is that a certain style of boat which has become popular in certain circles in recent years -- very wide stern, very flat bottom, etc. -- is nothing but progress, with no downsides at all. This is a kind of extremely teleological deterministic view of boat design, almost Marxist in its logical structure . Any other type of boat is old-fashioned and obsolete, in his view, unless of course it's a charming retro gaff-rigger or something.

I disagree with this -- in my opinion, different hull forms on the market reflect different tradeoffs, much more than they reflect any particular type of boat design being simply outdated and inferior.

I do think that full keel boats embody a particular set of tradeoffs that very few sailors want anymore (contrary to the OP's thesis that these are the only true BWB's), but among the boats on the market today, excluding only the Rustlers and Island Packets of the world, the variety of hull forms we see corresponds very well to different tastes of buyers in terms of trading off speed, seakeeping, and other qualities.

JMHO.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I think part of the problem is that people read books on the subject that were written in the 80s. Back then a big boat was 40' and there were a lot of differences in some mid 30' boats (got to figure the books weren't written to over boats that were at least 5 years old so that makes them 1980 and older). But now even lots of those "lower" boats if still around have proven themselves as just fine passagemakers (I like the term Passagemakers better that Bluewater Boats).

Maybe we should stop using "Bluewater" and start thinking more "Cruising Passagemakers". There are lots of modern production boats that are great "Cruising Passagemakers", but probably not "Bluewater" because for the most part cruisers rarely experience those conditions to the point people should stop being all paranoid about them.

Another very sensible post from SailorBoy . Definitely very true.

Some of us -- like those of us who sail in winter in the English Channel, North Sea, and New Zealand and Australian waters -- care a whole lot about some of these qualities. The rest of us -- much less.

Tradewinds circumnavigations are a red herring -- not at all demanding duty.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, the SailorBoy Thesis definitely doesn't apply to Polux, who is a big exception to this rule.

I don't know about that. If I had more money I would have a different "better" boat. It would have only 1.5 more features than I have now and the rest would be more in the "fancy" world of boat stuff.

But the biggest decisions other than those 1.5 features and what color wood for the interior would be in which direction the trade-offs would take.

And I bet my boat choice might surprise a few

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

That would make bluewater boats almost all modern recent mass production boats over 40ft and over 40ft just to be on the safe side.

Many years ago someone knock at my boat, it was a British that just finished to cross the Atlantic (both ways) and wanted to think what I thought about my boat, that was the same as his, a Bavaria 36.

His problem was that everybody on the Caribbean (mostly Americans) said that his boat was not safe doing that and he wanted my opinion. I asked if he had any problem with the boat. He said no, except that on the voyage to the Caribbean he had got a huge gale for several days. He was alone, tried to sail the boat but eventually he become too tired, so he deployed a water anchor and went inside closing the boat. Said it was the best thing he could do. Slept like a baby for almost 24 hours.

I asked again, so what is the problem? Well, everybody keeps saying the boat is not safe (it was a brand new boat) and I get a bit insecure. He was a bit more self assured when I said that a countryman of mine had circumnavigated two times on the same Bavaria 36

I agree. Any boat which can't survive two days in a gale is simply not seaworthy, even for coastal sailing in mild latitudes. I don't think you can even buy a boat which doesn't fit this definition. I've been through gales in a 20' O'Day daysailer, even (not intentionally!), and it was just fine. It demands a bit more seamanship, but the boat is not the limiting factor.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by JulieMac

Will the tiny production numbers of Oyster, Hallberg-Rassy and the like be enough to keep the blue water boat tradition alive?

???

Zaal, Koopmans, Dykstra, Rustler, Contest, Nauticat, IP, Tartan, Hinckley, Morris ...

Alubat, Amel, X-Yachts, Arcona, Boreal, Kanter, Swan ...

Never before have the quality and the choice of quality offshore capable cruising boats been this broad.

So the short answer is NO.

b.

[sailorboy1]

Just to name a few items that for me a true BWB would have:

-it would be metal (steel or aluminum)
-45' plus
-at least 2 watertight bulkheads
-enough buoyancy that it could not sink with the largest compartment flooded
-2 rudders that are independent
-2 autopilots that are also independent of each other and sized to at least twice the boats displacement
-raked bow with 2 oversized anchors each with it's own windlass
-no "stateroom" berths and all berths single sized that are kimballed with no way to roll out
- dual engines, each with it's own fuel supply system including tanks and each capable of motoring the boat at 10 knots
- enough fuel to motor for at least 1000 miles
- hard dodger and pilothouse
- open channel type cockpit that could not be maintained flooded
- crash seats below with 4 point harness system
- DLR of at least 250 calculated based on waterline of no more than 10 degree heel
- ketch rig with a double head sail arrangement and SA/D of no more than 15
- a comfort ratio of at least 40
- 2 independent battery banks of 1000AH each
- full electronics with back-ups for each
- only 1 hull valve for a sea chest except for the engine intakes than would have 1 for each engine and way to cross connect
- oversized masts and booms with rod rigging
- holding tank with no below waterline discharge
- grey water tank with no below waterline discharge
- capsize ratio of no more than 1.5
- solid gun rails on deck, no lifelines

I doubt such a sailboat has been built. But if it has would I want one, no freakin way

[colemj]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

In order for me to be able to go, the wife needs to be aboard, she requires the stuff, ergo, I need the stuff.
Plus to be honest I had enough living like I was in the 19 Century when I was in the Army, time to retire and relax, and to my wife, that doesn't include washing dirty underwear in a bucket

Again, that was a tongue-in-cheek comment based on another poster's opinions.

I don't actually hold that opinion, and think your list was quite good showing how some basic refit items add up to a lot of money.

Mark

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, the SailorBoy Thesis definitely doesn't apply to Polux, who is a big exception to this rule.

Polux has strong opinions based not on defending his own choice of boat, but on a huge amount of reading and abstract thinking (which is a dangerous thing ). His opinions are very interesting and valuable, and not nearly as narrow as the ones SailorBoy was criticizing, even if they are just as flawed, in their own way, as those of any of the rest of us.

At a moment or another anybody can be wrong no matter the level of information one has but you are wrong in assuming that the information I have is an abstract one. Contrary to many I have a very considerable level of information regarding modern design, not only for understanding its principles (and why a boat is designed that way for a given purpose) but also for having experience with many types of modern sailboats and most of all having friends that have them, I mean boats with less then 10 years, boats of different types. Those friends are experienced sailors having previously many different types of sailboats and his information is as valuable as my own, or regarding the comparison between modern designs and older ones.

Off course, reading for many years a lot of good sailing magazines and the opinions of very experienced test sailors is another way to gather information (nothing theoretic about that) as it is gathering information regarding the performance of different types of hulls and sailboats in racing, on transats and circumnavigations like the ARC and the world ARC. The comments of the owners of those boats (normally also experienced sailors) are also full of valuable information.

If you want, I believe that more than my own experience (that is important) the sum of all experiences (of other sailors) that I have recollect is much more important than my own experience.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Polux's thesis is that a certain style of boat which has become popular in certain circles in recent years -- very wide stern, very flat bottom, etc. -- is nothing but progress, with no downsides at all. This is a kind of extremely teleological deterministic view of boat design, almost Marxist in its logical structure .

You cannot be more wrong about that. Those are not the boats I favor personally and that's why I have not one of those boats but a relatively narrow sailboat, an upwind maximized sailboat.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I disagree with this -- in my opinion, different hull forms on the market reflect different tradeoffs, much more than they reflect any particular type of boat design being simply outdated and inferior.

So as you can see there is nothing to disagree, since that is not my opinion. I agree that different types of hulls serve different types of compromises regarding the boat performance and even in what regards sailing motion and comfort.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I do think that full keel boats embody a particular set of tradeoffs that very few sailors want anymore (contrary to the OP's thesis that these are the only true BWB's), but among the boats on the market today, excluding only the Rustlers and Island Packets of the world, the variety of hull forms we see corresponds very well to different tastes of buyers in terms of trading off speed, seakeeping, and other qualities.

Yes I agree that the different contemporary hull forms (meaning to the state of the art) show the spectrum of compromises that are adapted to different type of conditions, different types of sailors and different types of cruising. The difference is that I don't consider that all boats that are still made today, like Rustler, Island Packet or Gozzard, represent the state of the art in what regards that particular type of hull. They are just old designs and in fact the hull design of those boats is very close to what the same brands used 30 or 40 years ago. No evolution there and no significant improvement in performance.

Coming back to the type of boats that you say I prefer (and that is not true), those beamy boats with almost all the beam pulled to the stern (very wide sterns), boats based on the open solo racing hull concept, it is true that they are the biggest influence on the modern cruising boat design. From Oceanis to Hanse, Dufour all use that type of hull that have influenced also voyage boats like Amel, Halberg Rassy, Garcia, Allures, OVNI, RM, Boreal, Oyster, Swan, among others.

The difference is that I know why (and have explained elsewhere) while you think that it is just some kind of fashion. Of course there are trade offs (that's why I prefer other type of sailboats) but they are not only the type of boats that perform better as main market boats (general use) but also the best type of hull for a voyage boat, that spend most of it time sailing on the trade winds.

Regarding the superior quality of that compromise regarding voyaging you have only to listen one of my friends, Steve, that have sailed extensively for many years an old Morgan 44, one of those narrow high quality heavy full keelers and that sails now a Boreal 44, one of those modern Aluminium French centerboarders, light, very beamy, with almost all the beam pulled back, one of those hulls you don't like. He had posted here and in more forums about his Boreal 44, the huge difference it makes regarding the old Mason, in sailing global performance, average speed, sailing easiness and living comfort. An old voyage design versus a new voyage design.

You can also listen to another American experienced sailor that had owned many sailboats and that now owns a Cigale. He speaks of his boat as being in a completely new standing in what regards all the boats he had owned previously (in what concerns a voyage boat).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

At a moment or another anybody can be wrong no matter the level of information one has but you are wrong in assuming that the information I have is an abstract one. Contrary to many I have a very considerable level of information regarding modern design, not only for understanding its principles (and why a boat is designed that way for a given purpose) but also for having experience with many types of modern sailboats and most of all having friends that have them, I mean boats with less then 10 years, boats of different types. Those friends are experienced sailors having previously many different types of sailboats and his information is as valuable as my own, or regarding the comparison between modern designs and older ones.

Off course, reading for many years a lot of good sailing magazines and the opinions of very experienced test sailors is another way to gather information (nothing theoretic about that) as it is gathering information regarding the performance of different types of hulls and sailboats in racing, on transats and circumnavigations like the ARC and the world ARC. The comments of the owners of those boats (normally also experienced sailors) are also full of valuable information.

If you want, I believe that more than my own experience (that is important) the sum of all experiences (of other sailors) that I have recollect is much more important than my own experience.



You cannot be more wrong about that. Those are not the boats I favor personally and that's why I have not one of those boats but a relatively narrow sailboat, an upwind maximized sailboat.



So as you can see there is nothing to disagree, since that is not my opinion. I agree that different types of hulls serve different types of compromises regarding the boat performance and even in what regards sailing motion and comfort.



Yes I agree that the different contemporary hull forms (meaning to the state of the art) show the spectrum of compromises that are adapted to different type of conditions, different types of sailors and different types of cruising. The difference is that I don't consider that all boats that are still made today, like Rustler, Island Packet or Gozzard, represent the state of the art in what regards that particular type of hull. They are just old designs and in fact the hull design of those boats is very close to what the same brands used 30 or 40 years ago. No evolution there and no significant improvement in performance.

Coming back to the type of boats that you say I prefer (and that is not true), those beamy boats with almost all the beam pulled to the stern (very wide sterns), boats based on the open solo racing hull concept, it is true that they are the biggest influence on the modern cruising boat design. From Oceanis to Hanse, Dufour all use that type of hull that have influenced also voyage boats like Amel, Halberg Rassy, Garcia, Allures, OVNI, RM, Boreal, Oyster, Swan, among others.

The difference is that I know why (and have explained elsewhere) while you think that it is just some kind of fashion. Of course there are trade offs (that's why I prefer other type of sailboats) but they are not only the type of boats that perform better as main market boats (general use) but also the best type of hull for a voyage boat, that spend most of it time sailing on the trade winds.

Regarding the superior quality of that compromise regarding voyaging you have only to listen one of my friends, Steve, that have sailed extensively for many years a Morgan 44, one of those narrow high quality heavy full keelers and that sails now a Boreal 44, one of those Aluminium French centerboarders, light, very beamy, with almost all the beam pulled back, one of those hulls you don't like. He had posted here and in more forums about his Boreal 44 and the huge difference it makes regarding the old Mason, in sailing global performance, average speed and sailing and living comfort. An old design versus a new design.

You can also listen to another American experienced sailor that had owned many sailboats and that now owns a Cigale. He speaks of his boat as being in a completely new standing in what regards all the boats he had owned previously (in what concerns a voyage boat).

Concerning Polux's opinions, I forgot to mention how much he likes to argue

Glad to have you back, Pol -- surgery go ok? It's been dull around here without you

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't believe that. I like a lot of boats and very different types. I like my boat (otherwise I would not have chosen it) but it was just the best I could buy for the money and a compromise with my wife. With more money I would have a different boat (for sure) and I am not even sure if it would be a monohull or a multihull, even if for the type of multihulls I like, It would be really much more money.

Boats for me are like pretty women (they have to be pretty), I can fall in love and if it is the case, logic makes not much sense anymore...but there is something better than to be in love?

Ha ha! Polux you are a dreamer and it sounds like you have good dreams. As the old western singer Tom T Hall sang, faster horses, younger women...more whiskey. I think boats are like pretty women too, fortunately I'm married to one and my boat doesn't have to make up for it, LOL but I too love good looking boats both Multi and Mono's, there is just lots less to choose from on the Multi side.