What EXACTLY is a "blue water boat"?

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

OP here. I wasn't prepared for 4 pages of responses in 16 hours! But this highlights the frustration I'm having with the "bluewater boat" conundrum. It's a concept that's hard to nail down, and each sailor has their own idea of what it means. At least that's my take away.

What separates a Cape dory 34 from an Islander 34, both being full keel, similar sail config, etc. It appears to be build quality. This is one reason that I like Allied, Pearson, Whitby, Cape Dory and Bristol. It seems to me that designers of these boat built them to be seaworthy. Perhaps, back in the 60's, people got caught in squalls more often, due to lack of satellite weather forecasting. Perhaps, they still had wooden boat paradigms, and simply overbuilt everything. I don't know.

It seems to me that boat builders, built to meet the needs of the 90%. Those that want to sail on the weekend and perhaps participate in a bit of racing. Some newer boat seem to be built from the ground up, as charter boats! But the 10% (or less) that plan to make multi-day passages, are SOL... OR they need to spend twice as much on an Island Packet or other purpose designed boat.

I don't know if this is a good analogy but, I used to do a fair amount of overland 4-wheeling when I lived in AZ. There are no affordable trucks manufactured for this purpose. You have to spend a fair bit of money upgrading any truck to meet the demands of rocks, river crossings and sand. Even Jeep wranglers are built for the 95%, that will commute in it to work, and perhaps take it on a dirt road, to a campsite, or skiing, a few times a year.

All that said. I still feel comfortable limiting my search to 'proven' Water boats">blue water boats. Even though passages my only be 5% of the total experience, that 5% is also the most nerve-racking! I think I would only feel comfortable on a boat that I KNOW can take a little pounding and survive. I am no thrill seeker, and of course I would avoid bad weather at all cost. But S#!t happens. Even with the sophisticated Nav/Weather aids now available, forecasting is still more art than science.

Okay, I'm rambling... I don't have time to respond to some of the individual posts, that I would like. My 3yo is demanding my undivided attention. I just didn't want you all to think I posted and left. I am reading replies and have a lot of questions to post in a day or so.

Thanks for all the replies!

I wouldn't get 'hung up' by the diversity of opinions here. The bottom line is that it isn't the boat as much as how it is sailed. And by whom. Any decent, well maintained boat can handle any condition if sailed accordingly.

The other certainty is that it is human nature to rationalize one's purchase decisions meaning everyone thinks their expensive boat is necessary to comfortably and safely sail the world. I've seen too many Hunters, Catalinas and Benetoys in remote motus in the South Pacific which got there safely and comfortably by good sailers.

[Northbound44]

Originally Posted by atlantical

I don't know about that, I paid $8500 for a Southern Cross 31 that hadn't been sailed in ten years, or out of the water in that time, bought it in Carolina Beach North Carolina in late July 2013 lifted it out of the water at Hampstead a couple of weeks later, spent about 300 dollars on it, then left the USA in late October 2013 went to Bermuda, then Antigua Montserrat Gaudloup, back to Bermuda, then from there a straight run to Scotland, arrived Scotland in July 2014, had no life raft, had no sails left when I arrived in Scotland, hadn't eaten in eight days, made my first landfall on the island of Barra under own steam, (or what was left of the sails as engine didn't work) my second landfall on Islay was made with the help of the Islay life boat, my final destination Largs was again made under own power (fixed engine in Islay) Put my log book on Amazon, The Troubles of Tribulation, and wrote a book about it, again on Amazon, Loose Cannon on Deck, its not money, its just determination, and a decent hull.

Whether you were really experimented or lucky, frankly, I don’t think it’s fair to give a newbie the impression that he will be able to do such expedition without experience and preparation.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Northbound44

Whether you were really experimented or lucky, frankly, I don’t think it’s fair to give a newbie the impression that he will be able to do such expedition without experience and preparation.

I don't feel anyone said that. I feel it was pretty much expressed that it wouldn't matter how good the boat is if the skipper isn't.

[john61ct]

Yes, both a boat designed for this purpose, well built, maintained and fitted out,

**and** an experienced skipper, is required to ensure reasonable safety at sea.

But even the most experienced skipper will be less safe in a poorly designed or built boat.

There are no hard & fast rules with bright lines, just greyscale judgment calls.

And we all are more or less averse to risking our lives.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

That is just ignorance and comparing apples to oranges. There's initial stability which by the way is greater on modern (wide) boats. Talking about dynamic stability the variables are weight and speed, not much to do with the age of the design or keel type. Not saying there are a lot of good properties in modern boats but BS doesn't help

Teddy

Nobody talked about initial stability but about static stability and dynamic stability.

Nice of you to call ignorant to Tabarly one of the great sailors ever with experience in all types of boats. He also participated actively on the design of his boats giving feedback that allowed great improvements on yacht naval architecture.

That's him that says that the dynamic stability on full keel heavy boats is much worse than on modern fin keel boats with a ballasted bulb and a decent B/D.

Look at the pictures, they are from one of his books, an old one 40 years old. He knew that already. It seems it is news for you.

look here for the pictures:
https://www.sailnet.com/forums/847149-post2117.html

[Don C L]

So, just to be clear, are we talking about the primary danger of full keels lies in the danger of tripping the keel? (and/or the lack of effective ruddering in a, or to prevent a, broach?)
If so, I can understand that criticism, and I am aware of it in my own boat...
But any boat broadside to a wave that is breaking will be in trouble.. I am skeptical about the significance of the added keel area to a measure of hazard in that situation (broadside to a breaker,) but I am no Marchaj or Tabarly.
I have not seen it in the GGR discussion but I would not be surprised if the (long keel) boats that capsized did so because they could not prevent a broach while running and were not employing drogues that could hold the stern up.
Going downwind in my long keel boat in steep seas is its Achilles heel and it can be a work-out to keep her on her feet, but there are ways.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Nobody talked about initial stability but about static stability and dynamic stability.

Nice of you to call ignorant to Tabarly one of the great sailors ever with experience in all types of boats. He also participated actively on the design of his boats giving feedback that allowed great improvements on yacht naval architecture.

That's him that says that the dynamic stability on full keel heavy boats is much worse than on modern fin keel boats with a ballasted bulb and a decent B/D.

Look at the pictures, they are from one of his books, an old one 40 years old. He knew that already. It seems it is news for you.

look here for the pictures:
https://www.sailnet.com/forums/847149-post2117.html

If you wan't to speak about naval architercture please learn the terms. Static stability? It's a concept used with aircrafts, could be used also with submarines and such. Not for surface vessels..
All respect for Tabarly but a Naval architect he wasn't. You can check-up a couple of f***-ups he made ordering new builds as he had some of the self-thought ideas how to
Being an architect doesn't make one naval either

BR Teddy

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Don C L

So, just to be clear, are we talking about the primary danger of full keels lies in the danger of tripping the keel? (and/or the lack of effective ruddering in a, or to prevent a, broach?)
If so, I can understand that criticism, and I am aware of it in my own boat...
But any boat broadside to a wave that is breaking will be in trouble.. I am skeptical about the significance of the added keel area to a measure of hazard in that situation (broadside to a breaker,) but I am no Marchaj or Tabarly.
I have not seen it in the GGR discussion but I would not be surprised if the (long keel) boats that capsized did so because they could not prevent a broach while running and were not employing drogues that could hold the stern up.
Going downwind in my long keel boat in steep seas is its Achilles heel and it can be a work-out to keep her on her feet, but there are ways.

Polux is just a bit out of his comfort zone, again.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Polux is just a bit out of his comfort zone, again.

Oh I have no criticism of Polux. And from what little I know of Tabarly, he seemed to do pretty darn well designing boats that sailed really well without the NA degree. And I actually don't criticize anyone who might say a full keel, or a long keel, has its downsides. But I wouldn't agree that they are inherently more dangerous because of their full keel. I was just trying to pin down if it was the tripping-over-its keel thing that was the reason. I can understand that shortcoming, but its pretty hard to find a boat, or design, with NO shortcomings IMO.
I think the term "static stability" may have been confused with ultimate stability or initial stability, which is "static" since the boat is not moving or being tripped on a wave, but I am not sure.

[Don C L]

Here is just one site with interesting info for those reading through this, and it has some good links to other articles too related to bluewaterness.
Understanding monohull sailboat stability curves | M.B. Marsh Marine Design

and:
https://www.morganscloud.com/2018/09...-torture-test/

[john61ct]

bluewateridity

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

If a boat can do this, it’s “bluewater” in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Pete7

I only see a couple of white sea horses in the distance what's the score with all that spray? Why no protection for the skipper? why is he steering from the leeward side? Needs to get some weight out of the bows. Is this yours?

Pete

Please read my post more carefully next time before you go looking for an argument.

I wrote: “If “a”boat can do this, it’s bluewater in my opinion.” I did not write if MY boat can do this, or any specific boat for that matter, I wrote if “a boat” can do this.

So... with this in mind, I’ve experienced many boats and witnessed many boats which cannot handle the conditions shown in the photo, so those boats IMO would not be considered bluewater boats. I’ve also experienced and witnessed many boats where the conditions were easily handled and placed little strain on the gear such as in our youtube video, which I will not repost due to concern that you’ll simply look to criticize that as well.


Ken

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Please read my post more carefully next time before you go looking for an argument.

Oh, not looking for an argument, just wondering about the conditions which seem at odds to the amount of spray on the deck. Did the wind suddenly rise which explains the lack of white horses but lots of spray and the skipper cowering for protection. Talking of which I thought you Oyster 52 had better protection as shown in your video and whilst the conditions looked worse than the photo, I thought you both were better protected.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I wrote: “If “a”boat can do this, it’s bluewater in my opinion.” I did not write if MY boat can do this, or any specific boat for that matter, I wrote if “a boat” can do this.

The photo shows a boat sailing to windward, so I agree most boats can sail to windward.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So... with this in mind, I’ve experienced many boats and witnessed many boats which cannot handle the conditions shown in the photo, so those boats IMO would not be considered bluewater boats. Ken

That is useful to know, could you name some of these boats that couldn't handle those conditions and therefore in your opinion would not be considered BW boats?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Oh, not looking for an argument, just wondering about the conditions which seem at odds to the amount of spray on the deck. Did the wind suddenly rise which explains the lack of white horses but lots of spray and the skipper cowering for protection. Talking of which I thought you Oyster 52 had better protection as shown in your video and whilst the conditions looked worse than the photo, I thought you both were better protected.



The photo shows a boat sailing to windward, so I agree most boats can sail to windward.



That is useful to know, could you name some of these boats that couldn't handle those conditions and therefore in your opinion would not be considered BW boats?

When I posted the photo, I was simply stating an opinion... which I indicated very clearly by writing these key words... “in my opinion.”

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Like I wrote earlier, I’m not looking for an argument as some like to do on this forum. When I posted the photo, I was simply stating an opinion... which I indicated very clearly by writing these key words... “in my opinion.”

Which is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and on CF they are able express it. Actually am not disagreeing with you. It's your knowledge of those yachts that you believe are are not BW capable I am interested in.

Pete