True blue water boat extinction a fait accompli?

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by JulieMac

That's my point. My margin of error for going 500 miles offshore (outside the reach of a CG helicopter) requires the likes of a boat built for the North Atlantic in bad weather.

Hmmm, seems a rather odd means of determining such a benchmark... Sorry, but that's spoken like someone who's likely never ventured 50 NM offshore, much less 500...

;-)

A thoroughly 'modern' way of determining one's personal Limit/Point of No Return, however... As long as the EPIRB is fresh, and the SatPhone fully charged, it's all good, right?

I think it makes a bit more sense evaluating the reliability of a given forecast/weather window - and how 'far out' it is likely to apply in each instance - in attempting to assess the sort of 'tipping point' beyond which you are truly on your own out there, but that could just be me...

BTW, you might want to double-check the operational range of the CG Jayhawk, before heading out... ;-)

However, with its twin T700 GE 401C engines, the Jayhawk can fly 300 miles offshore, remain on scene 45 minutes, hoist six people on board, and return to its point of origin with a safe fuel reserve.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by colemj

I'm suspecting now that this is more about labeling certain types of people and damning certain types of boats.

Mark

Mark, on this thread you seem to have done a good job at damning the heavy displacement vessels you so seem to loathe.

I agree that blue water cruising itself has evolved and the vessels have changed to suit it but I still see some advantages to older vesselss

My Cabo Rico isn't any worse for cruising than any of the "modern designs". I cruise at 7 knots, I believe you manta is just about the same. I have 150 gallons of water and 53 gallons of fuel...which is sometimes double modern vessels. So I only have to fill water about 12 times a year.

I have a decent size head with separate shower, a berth big about the same size as modern cruisers, but we have really good sea berths... something most production cruisers you are talking about lack.

I can hold 300 feet of chain and two 80 pounds anchors on my bow without issue... lets see you do that in a modern vessel my same size.

I have a mast, sails, an engine, water pumps, standing rigging, etc... all the same as modern vessels.

But... when I hit a 3 foot piece of timber floating in the water I'm not going to poke a hole in my hull.

Originally Posted by dohenyboy

I have a Toyota Land Cruiser. Its unofficial name is Land Rover Rescue Vehicle

You can say that again... when we were on Safari all the Land Cruisers had bald tires and the still went off road all day through ravines that were steep and just mud, up big hills, over rocks, ruts and so on and so on. I was impressed and wanted one immediately!

[Benz]

It all boils down to personal standards. By my own standards, Oysters, HRs, and Swans have never been well-designed, even if some of them may have been well-built. In fact, there's very few production boats I would ever want to own, and no production boat that I wouldn't want to seriously modify if I were to turn her into a serious "Go anywhere" boat. What I consider the best, most seaworthy designs were usually built of wood, which is the wrong material for boats. And though properly gaff-rigged, their spars and sails were usually wood and canvas, or flax, with metal shrouds and natural-fiber halyards and sheets--again all the right design with all the wrong materials (to their credit, it was all they had). So the OPs question can be answered by: the true BW boat designs were gone long before Swan and Oyster were in business. I was unable to find a boat to buy that would meet my standards of design and construction, so I did the next best thing: bought a solid fiberglass bare hull and built the rest myself. Is it the best possible design and construction? for me it is--it's just what I wanted. There are many for whom it would not suit at all--they have different cruising goals, different skills, and different lifestyle demands, and the good thing is, there's a boat out there to suit almost every taste. The question of whether a given boat is adequate for it's owner's intended purpose is one the owner ought to carefully educate himself about before signing the check. But once he's comfortable with his boat, why bristle when others hint that it may not be up to their personal standards? The catamaran crowd seem to have as big a chip on their shoulders as the Hunter/Catalina/Beneteau group. Is your boat good for you? Rejoice! I have no use for a catamaran or a fin-keeler, but why should that bother you?
I have rambled. Apologies.
Ben
Ben

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by colemj

Come on Robert - keep up. I swear that without Smackdaddy around anymore, you are losing your focus.

Nobody is comparing Dashew boats and Hawk with entry level production boats.

We are bashing entry level production boats while simultaneously lamenting that they don't make blue water boat designs anymore. It is all about jet-setting between pop-up TV's now.

This time next year, nobody will be able to cross an ocean for lack of a suitable boat.

Good thing you made it across this year - hope you like it here...

Mark

I'm not sure if I miss Smack or not but your right at times I do lose my focus, comes with age I guess. I have to say Mark that we do like it here although here is St. Maartin as we have been nowhere else since arriving but we have dropped the required money into our boat and we are finally ready to move on. The social life here sure beats the Med, that's a fact. I'm sure we will meet somewhere along the way!

[JulieMac]

Did I miss something? What happened to Smacks?

[gilgsn]

I believe they are just about extinct. And yes, I am referring to full keel heavy displacement, blah blah blah... Things have changed. I am sure modern boats are getting better. Would I take one to cross an ocean? No. You don't have to be a naval architect to understand the advantages of the older seaworthy designs. They are very obvious, to me anyway. Nobody coached me in believing so. Actually, the first boat I was interested in was a Beneteau. Now I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole. No offense intended, just my personal standards. I am not saying you can't go blue water cruising with those boats. They are very comfortable for sure, in a marina, maybe at sea, I don't know. Many people drive tiny smart cars, and I am sure they are comfortable, and they take them everywhere, most never having an accident. Not me. I am thinking of the day a big SUV is gonna hit me... It might never happen, but why take the risk? Nobody is going to make me believe that a light plastic boat has better odds of surviving a hurricane than a heavy steel double-ender. The difference might not be enormous, but I'll take 99% chance of survival over 97% any day. I've never heard of a full keel falling off.. It all depends on what you want to do. If I was only island hopping, I'd get a Wharram catamaran.. So, I'm not inflexible. I would not call it a blue water boat though, except maybe in the bigger sizes. The fact that people cross oceans with certain boats doesn't make them "blue-water" boats in my book. Again, my opinion, my definition. If I was racing a WestSail 32, it would not make it a racing boat.

Fortunately there are a flurry of plans floating around describing "blue-water" boats the old fashion way. I have a set of plans for a Tahitiana 32 steel ketch that I bought from Weston Farmer's son. You don't get much more blue-water than that.. I might never build it, but I'm keeping the drawings for later... If I had lots of money, I would build it with copper-nickel! I would not buy a big new plastic monster for $500k, even if I could easily afford one.. I like peace-of-mind above all. I couldn't care less if my boat looked antiquated, small, or didn't have a washer and dryer! It's a boat, not a luxury appartment. I'd rather spend the money in hiring a professional welder.

I believe the future of old style seaworthy boats, which seems to clash with economics of mass production, is in home-building or private yards building one-offs. They aren't cheaper of course, after all you still get a new-old boat, but also something you can rely on almost unconditionally.

One reason for the current trend might be the reliance on EPIRBs, radio and helicopters. Not the correct way to look at seaworthiness IMHO.

Almost extinct, yes, but never entirely...

Gil.

[carstenb]

The terminology "blue water boat" can get everybody out of their chairs.

Let's first get a definition of "Blue water". Do you mean

1- A boat that can go anywhere on the planet at any time of year? inclusing the northwest passage in winter or around the horn on any given day during the year or north of Iceland anytime you so desire? or circumnavigate via the 5 great capes?

2- A boat that can cross oceans safely, meaning the trade wind routes, perhaps with a shot down to New Zealand or around Australia? Circumnavigate via the "coconut milk run"

I'd submit at any boat capable of option 1 (I know of none) would have to be custom built and let's face it none of us are going to do that kind of saiing (ok Beth & Evans and a very few others). So let's disregard that option. It is not serious.

So "Blue water" begins to look more and more like option 2.

With todays increasingly reliable weather forecasting and increasing ease of getting grib files, the prudent skipper has to be very unlucky to get caught in a hurricaine or similar. Virtually any production boat, rigged for RTWs will survive heavy weather, if properly sailed and managed (note the if properly sailed, meaning good seamen are on board)

So now we are left eith hitting whales/floating refrigerators and so forth. Granted fin keels and spade rudders are more susceptable to damage that a long keeled barn door type here.

But in the interests of honesty - just how often does this happen

This is an argument(discussion) that no one will win.

[hoppy]

The current "bluewater" design definition currently favoured by some posters (long keel, blah blah blah) will pass into folk law when the old farts pushing this line die or are no longer capable of desk sailing. The newer definition will also be out of date but will be more modern.

I think that what people see as modern and cutting edge when they are growing up will always remain the pinnacle of design in their mind.

When I grew up the Porsche 930 Turbo and Lamborghini Countach were kings of the roads and even though I've had a modern Porsche, I still lust for the 930.

I also have a fondness for IOR racers and as a result have great respect for the few posters here who have taken an old IOR racer and made it into a cruiser. My drool boat "Police Car". With it's history of coming 4th in the infamous 1979 Fastnet race, her design is what I'll be posting when I'm a old fart and my generation is pushing the bluewater threads

[K_V_B]

Seeing how well yards like RM, Allures, Ovni ad Boreal are doing I wouldn't say that purpose build long distance cruisers are dead...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by zboss

But... when I hit a 3 foot piece of timber floating in the water I'm not going to poke a hole in my hull.

A 3 foot piece of timber isn't going to poke a hole in a Bavaria either...

[arsenelupiga]

Main advantage of todays boats over yesterdays is statistisc, finite analysis.

what this does is goes thru large number of boat destinies and basically determines where boat is most likely to be damaged. That is where reinforcement were applied. Where there was very little damage done, lesser build strength was used. This made on AVERAGE lighter, more reliable boats.

it is that simple.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

A 3 foot piece of timber isn't going to poke a hole in a Bavaria either...

While not a Bavaria - this is a Dehler 31. The video is in german, but you don't need the audio to understand. This boat did a pretty good job of crashing into most everything without any real damage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvxhQO4pw2E

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by JulieMac

Did I miss something? What happened to Smacks?

Hehe, the poor dude is doing well in SA,,, i think they are still debating the same big pile of dogshit aka production boats and the limits, or something like that....

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

Main advantage of todays boats over yesterdays is statistisc, finite analysis.

what this does is goes thru large number of boat destinies and basically determines where boat is most likely to be damaged. That is where reinforcement were applied. Where there was very little damage done, lesser build strength was used. This made on AVERAGE lighter, more reliable boats.

it is that simple.

Its very seldom that simple. I remember the same BS logic when it was applied to aircraft design. After years in the field cracks were reported in the new thinner firewalls that had been redesigned to save weight and money. You will only know if this logic makes sense 20 years from now. My surveyor buddy is telling me that in some cases we don't even have to wait.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Its very seldom that simple. I remember the same BS logic when it was applied to aircraft design. After years in the field cracks were reported in the new thinner firewalls that had been redesigned to save weight and money. You will only know if this logic makes sense 20 years from now. My surveyor buddy is telling me that in some cases we don't even have to wait.

I duno. you can always find a case that supports your theory. But on average, boat building is better. Less material & boats with less damages.

finite analysis is new stuff and makes sense. there is no way to determine what kind of stress is experienced in 50 kn & 15 feet breaking waves storm. Unless boat goes thru it and pressures are measured and analysed by computer in real time.

Old builders, although sympathetic, cannot match results of that test.