What EXACTLY is a "blue water boat"?

[Na Mara]

I would just like to point out that Regina are still in production if you are looking for a quality deck saloon/pilothouse blue water cruiser. Not cheap but worth it.

[donradcliffe]

One man's opinion I'd put Jeanneau, some beneteau models, and Hanse on the list. I'm not a Chuck Paine fan, and there are some boats on the list that are dog slow.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

One man's opinion I'd put Jeanneau, some beneteau models, and Hanse on the list. I'm not a Chuck Paine fan, and there are some boats on the list that are dog slow.

Slow but seaworthy.....

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by thomm225

Slow but seaworthy.....

If you call a boat where you have to turn on the engine to tack "seaworthy".

[donradcliffe]

I'd add the Kelly Peterson 44 and 46 to the list.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

If you call a boat where you have to turn on the engine to tack "seaworthy".

Which boats are you referring to? Seems to me this would indicate a serious design flaw in the sailplan. More likely a problem with sail balance, which can happen on any boat.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

One man's opinion I'd put Jeanneau, some beneteau models, and Hanse on the list. I'm not a Chuck Paine fan, and there are some boats on the list that are dog slow.

Absolutely. Several of the range including Bavaria’s are more then capable of so called water sailing">blue water sailing.

In fact several are better at it then done on the list which I’ve actually sailed.

[goboatingnow]

I would argue the modern HR and Najad yachts etc have little in common with their previous models. They are not particularly built better then most other brands. They are fin keel and spade rudders and use all standard production deck , mast and engine systems.

You are paying for a “brand “ and very expensive manual labour techniques. Yes of course they’ll customise it all for you. Buts that not an indication the vessel is any better.


The same is true for many high end brands. I will accept there are some manufacturers specifically targeting expedition style yachts but these are in the minority not to mention eye watering expensive

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I would argue the modern HR and Najad yachts etc have little in common with their previous models. They are not particularly built better then most other brands. They are fin keel and spade rudders and use all standard production deck , mast and engine systems.

You are paying for a “brand “ and very expensive manual labour techniques. Yes of course they’ll customise it all for you. Buts that not an indication the vessel is any better.


The same is true for many high end brands. I will accept there are some manufacturers specifically targeting expedition style yachts but these are in the minority not to mention eye watering expensive

And better hardware. Like the winches might be the same brand on, let's say, X-yacht and Bavaria just look the size of them.. and tell me there's no difference.

[MicHughV]

The boat is only part of the puzzle...

You...the captain or owner needs to "blue water capable" as well. You will need to take care of yourself...and others that might be on the boat.

You will be out there pretty much on your own and should be capable of fixing, repairing or replacing pretty much anything anywhere on your boat. This requires you to be a diesel mechanic, sailmaker, rigger, fiberglass and wood worker, and probably several other qualities.

Besides all that, blue water cruising takes a certain mindset. There will be nice days and some not so nice days. In either case, it's up to you how you deal with them.

I could certainly recommend a few shorter trips to get your feet wet so to speak, before you head out across the pond.

[DeValency]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I would argue the modern HR and Najad yachts etc have little in common with their previous models. They are not particularly built better then most other brands. They are fin keel and spade rudders and use all standard production deck , mast and engine systems.

You are paying for a “brand “ and very expensive manual labour techniques. Yes of course they’ll customise it all for you. Buts that not an indication the vessel is any better.


The same is true for many high end brands. I will accept there are some manufacturers specifically targeting expedition style yachts but these are in the minority not to mention eye watering expensive

Not sure the majority of ocean crossing cruisers would know what your'e talking about, but that's ok - it is almost a free world and we can respect any personal opinion, even if very remote from the actual facts - just to mention very few factors:

To start with, consider the design, design and more design to suit the intended use: You may want to read Bob Perry's 'bible' of yacht design https://www.amazon.com/Yacht-Design-.../dp/007146557X

Easy reading...
43 of the best bluewater sailing yacht designs of all timehttps://www.yachtingworld.com › Blog › Features
Best bluewater sailing yachts for comfort · Amel 55 · Contest 50CS · Hallberg-Rassy 48 Mk II · Discovery 55 · Rustler 42.
Dec 5, 2019 · Uploaded by Yachting World

Here are few hints...:

• Hull shape and building characteristics: Flat bottoms are great for racers planning and are cheap to produce at intended coastal/day-sailers/common charter boats. If you sail for three weeks against high seas, the ongoing pounding is not only a very unpleasant experience but also represent a significant structural risk to the typical coastal/charter boats.
• Ballast ratios...
• Material used, thickness at the bottom and critical areas can easily be 2-3X the thickness of coastal intended designs.
• Keel attachment to hull: Most of the blue water modern boats of the last 40 years have a fin to modified fin keel design. However, the mounting to the hull/structure and ballast size are totally different than the above...
• Number, position and size of shrouds, chainplates and attachment to the structure. Can you compare 6 with shared chainplates to 12 plus two running backstays?
• Rudder designs and quality of production. You cannot compare a single spade rudder to dual spade rudders, nor the entire rudder positioning mechanics, shafts size/material etc.
• Tankage: Number, material and volume. There is a difference between 120 liter single water tank and 750 liter dual stainless water tanks.
• Same for the diesel tanks
• Engines: A typical long range cruiser will have at least 50% higher power
• Deck hardware and mast size/design: Yes, they come from the same manufacturers, but the sizes and ratings are totally different. And their cost is 2-3X the cost of a rigging of a similar LOA daysailer/charter boat.
• Internal cabinetry in numbers and volume

And the list goes on and on. As a matter of fact, what the buyer actually pay for a serious blue water cruiser, hardly cover the extra costs of materials and production. The buyers of the true blue water cruisers are mostly not millionaires nor idiots... - they count every penny, but they know why they pay the higher cost for new or used offshore cruisers.

Yes, many coastal cruising boats are crossing oceans every year, quite few arrive at the destination with serious damages due to unexpected elements working against unintended design. Many arrive in a good shape: Does it prove they are designed and built for serious offshore passages? - Absolutely not.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by DeValency

Hull shape and building characteristics: Flat bottoms are great for racers planning and are cheap to produce at intended coastal/day-sailers/common charter boats. If you sail for three weeks against high seas, the ongoing pounding is not only a very unpleasant experience but also represent a significant structural risk to the typical coastal/charter boats.

Yeah, once you have to sleep in the bow in a boat like that going upwind, you won't need three weeks to convince you a different hull shape would be nice! 3 hours is enough. No, three minutes. Not even that. And I did see the hull flexing too under the sole too... but nothing broke. If a boat is well-built, this will not be a concern.

[wingssail]

Firstly, the list of boats presented above seems entirely arbitrary. There is no consistency of atributes of the boats on that list.

Secondly, Mr DeValency, I disagree with many of the criteria you specify (below).

But, if anyone wants to defend that list of boats they would have to go down the following criteria and objectively score each yacht aginst the criteria. Then you might have a convincing list of blue water boats, according to that criteria (which I don't accept anyhow).

Originally Posted by DeValency

• Hull shape and building characteristics: Flat bottoms are great for racers planning and are cheap to produce at intended coastal/day-sailers/common charter boats. If you sail for three weeks against high seas, the ongoing pounding is not only a very unpleasant experience but also represent a significant structural risk to the typical coastal/charter boats.A. No boats have "flat" bottoms. All are rounded of V'd to some degree. But some of the approved blus water boats above have quite flat bottoms. How did those slip past this criteria?
• Ballast ratios...What "ballast ratio " passes the test?Which bpats have it?
• Material used, thickness at the bottom and critical areas can easily be 2-3X the thickness of coastal intended designs.What thickness is approved? Does it include cored hulls?
• Keel attachment to hull: Most of the blue water modern boats of the last 40 years have a fin to modified fin keel design. However, the mounting to the hull/structure and ballast size are totally different than the above...I think you are blowing smoke here. What exactly is needed in the mounting of the keel to pass the test? Which boats on the list have that?
• Number, position and size of shrouds, chainplates and attachment to the structure. Can you compare 6 with shared chainplates to 12 plus two running backstays?Again, totally BS. What exactly must be specified as a acceptable rig?
• Rudder designs and quality of production. You cannot compare a single spade rudder to dual spade rudders, nor the entire rudder positioning mechanics, shafts size/material etc.Yes, we can all compare them, but what in the heck do you find acceptable?
• Tankage: Number, material and volume. There is a difference between 120 liter single water tank and 750 liter dual stainless water tanks.Sure there is a difference, but what is required for a blue water boat? Does it depend on the number of crew aboard, does it take into account watermakers?
• Same for the diesel tanks
• Engines: A typical long range cruiser will have at least 50% higher powerFor bloody heck, 50% higher than what?
• Deck hardware and mast size/design: Yes, they come from the same manufacturers, but the sizes and ratings are totally different. And their cost is 2-3X the cost of a rigging of a similar LOA daysailer/charter boat.Look, this is just like all your other criteria, you say mast size counts but you don't say what size, or give any way to evaluate mast. How many inches in diameter, what material, does it depend onthe size and weight of the boat?
• Internal cabinetry in numbers and volumeWhat? are more cabinettes better, or less?

The total list is subjective and useless.

[Mike OReilly]

If you want to search for a list of boats based on a few specific specs, you can use "Part 4, Find Your Ideal Boat" of this database: Sail Calculator Pro v3.54 - 3200+ boats

You can zero in on one, or all, of these factors, and you can weight them as you desire: Capsize Ratio, Hull Speed, SA/Disp, Disp/LWL, LWL/Beam, Motion Comfort, Pounds/Inch

Yes, individual stats don't tell the full story about a boat, but it's a useful tool for zeroing in on boats you might be interested in once you know what you really want. Plus, it's hours of fun .

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Yeah, once you have to sleep in the bow in a boat like that going upwind, you won't need three weeks to convince you a different hull shape would be nice! 3 hours is enough. No, three minutes. Not even that. And I did see the hull flexing too under the sole too... but nothing broke. If a boat is well-built, this will not be a concern.

In the first place I'd say sleeping in the bow of any boat going upwind is pretty dumb and likely to be uncomfortable regardless of bottom shape. You need belts holding you down.

Secondly, if you needed to spend three weeks going upwind to get to your destination and found the "flat" bottom boat uncomfortable, how would you feel about three months which is what it would probably take with a full keel deep v'd "blue water" boat, if you ever got there. But I know people who have sailed for three weeks upwind and I can tell you, if you don't have a boat that sails to windward, it is a moot point.

Third, modern performance boats, if cracked off just a little, and slowed down, don't ride any worse than the deep V full keel boat which is plunging it's bows into every wave and coming nearly to a stop, then rising half way to the sky on the next wave before plunging again. Time after time the bowsprit disappears out of view under the blue ocean. I don't consider that comfortable.