What EXACTLY is a "blue water boat"?

[Bowdrie]

For that race they limited the boat size to between 32 and 36ft.
A pretty narrow range.
Had the limit been 38ft., and I was competing, my pick of boats would have been an Alajuela 38, they can move right along, and you can't hurt them.

[DeValency]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

It is interesting to note that in the recent golden globe reenactment race which specified boats of similar design (if not construction) to Suhali (sp?), quite a few of the boats failed to finish, and it was most often due to some failure in the boat rather than in the skipper (all of whom were pretty experienced and competent, especially compared to most of us WAFIs).

I think that ALL of those boats would have met the "certified by CF as blue water" designation... The winner and several other chaps sailed absolutely splendid passages, all without the aid of electronics or outside help (at least in theory), so kudos to them all, winners and DFL alike.

Jim

Good case, Jim - outstanding sailors and while I try not to use luck as a variable in our normal cruising life (that’s for a different thread…), indeed, technical/mechanical issues are the common reasons for race abandoning. While the boats designs in the race are not our typical cruisers (yet? &#128526, they definitely check many of our common checks - to name a few:
- exceptional strength and stiffness
- short handed support by all means
- extended tankage and stowage
- crew (of one…) protection from harsh elements
- stability under extreme conditions - well, the foils add a lot… in my Contest it is the extended wings - but as much as I try, can’t get to planning… 🙂

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

I think the very fact of IOR racing cruisers like a Serendipity 43 should put the final stake in the whole notion that there is one set of specifications, on paper anyway,* for what exactly a "blue water boat" is.

Thanks, Fred, for your updates to that Sailboat data page.

*other than that unreal Balance/Displacement figure

I see what you mean, the ballast should not be 10,000lbs, I don't know where that came from. In fact I don't have any documented figure but I thought it should have been a little less than 8,000. I'll see if sailboat data can revise it.

[Superjunkman]

This looks like an older thread and while I hate to wake it back up I had to get my licks in. There were so many posters that painted with the broadest of brushes all the while ignoring reality. Here are a couple of points that I thought needed clarifying. Feel free to disagree but you’ll be wrong.

1. A big wide canoe stern as is popular on some of the well known “Character” boats isn’t the same thing as the finely drawn double Enders like the Freya and Alejuela 38 sport. They shouldn’t be discussed as though they perform the same running before a decent sized sea.

2. Older hand layed thick fiberglass hulls vs. newer cored hulls and the strength thereof . The proliferation of lightweight cored hulls has zero to do with progression and building a stronger hull and everything to do with a less expensive way to build a hull. By the pound resin and woven roving cost way more than Divinycell or whatever other core material you can name. That’s a fact. Further vacuum infusion saves tons of labor and time and add to that a cored hull you end up with a light, stiff, easy to damage, hard/expensive to repair hull. There are many aspects of strength. Putting a hole in your boat gets a lot easier. That’s a fact. There are many other factors to consider in discussing the seaworthiness of a boat but this paragraph stands on its own.

3. Fin keel with bolted on ballast and spade rudder.
It’s more and more likely every year that you’re going to collide with something in the open ocean not to mention you are for a fact going aground at some point . Bolt on ballasted fin keels can and do break off and fail in other ways. Spade rudders are incredible vulnerable. They outright break off on the regular. 100% of the orca damaged boats have been spade ruddered.
An internally ballasted full keel boat with a transom or skeg hung rudder simply is less vulnerable. That’s just that.

4. Comfort. A slack bilged older boat will for a fact be more comfortable in rough seas. Hard flat bilged boats won’t be. This is well known.

5. “Well if those boats are so good why don’t they make them anymore”. That’s easy. Nobody would be able to afford them. Boats cost by the pound. Very few people actually travel to remote locations without support by small vessel. Most sit at the dock and talk about it in a gadgeted up gin palace. The market for these folks is well served.

6. Rigs. Chain plates that are super far inboard that penetrate your deck and bolt through a structural bulkhead that’s shortly going to be wet with three sets of spreaders because of the horrible shroud angle are going to be inherently weaker than large chain plates bolted outboard to hull. That’s just that. I know I’m the fantasy version of reality a retired dentist and his elderly wife are going to feel like this will keep you from bashing to windward as well, but doing so Will smash your old bones into powder.

7. The ability to repair the gear you have onboard. If you’ve got a ton of complicated gear that allows maybe a couple to handle a boat that’s to large for them you’re in for trouble.

BTW I went to maritime school, went to sea as a professional mariner for 15 years and have been sailing since the late 80’s. I build boats and do other composite fabrication for a living.


I’ve got more to add but that’s probably enough to get this argument going again.

[double u]

Originally Posted by Superjunkman

This looks like an older thread and while I hate to wake it back up I had to get my licks in. There were so many posters that painted with the broadest of brushes all the while ignoring reality. Here are a couple of points that I thought needed clarifying. Feel free to disagree but you’ll be wrong.

1. A big wide canoe stern as is popular on some of the well known “Character” boats isn’t the same thing as the finely drawn double Enders like the Freya and Alejuela 38 sport. They shouldn’t be discussed as though they perform the same running before a decent sized sea.

2. Older hand layed thick fiberglass hulls vs. newer cored hulls and the strength thereof . The proliferation of lightweight cored hulls has zero to do with progression and building a stronger hull and everything to do with a less expensive way to build a hull. By the pound resin and woven roving cost way more than Divinycell or whatever other core material you can name. That’s a fact. Further vacuum infusion saves tons of labor and time and add to that a cored hull you end up with a light, stiff, easy to damage, hard/expensive to repair hull. There are many aspects of strength. Putting a hole in your boat gets a lot easier. That’s a fact. There are many other factors to consider in discussing the seaworthiness of a boat but this paragraph stands on its own.

3. Fin keel with bolted on ballast and spade rudder.
It’s more and more likely every year that you’re going to collide with something in the open ocean not to mention you are for a fact going aground at some point . Bolt on ballasted fin keels can and do break off and fail in other ways. Spade rudders are incredible vulnerable. They outright break off on the regular. 100% of the orca damaged boats have been spade ruddered.
An internally ballasted full keel boat with a transom or skeg hung rudder simply is less vulnerable. That’s just that.

4. Comfort. A slack bilged older boat will for a fact be more comfortable in rough seas. Hard flat bilged boats won’t be. This is well known.

5. “Well if those boats are so good why don’t they make them anymore”. That’s easy. Nobody would be able to afford them. Boats cost by the pound. Very few people actually travel to remote locations without support by small vessel. Most sit at the dock and talk about it in a gadgeted up gin palace. The market for these folks is well served.

6. Rigs. Chain plates that are super far inboard that penetrate your deck and bolt through a structural bulkhead that’s shortly going to be wet with three sets of spreaders because of the horrible shroud angle are going to be inherently weaker than large chain plates bolted outboard to hull. That’s just that. I know I’m the fantasy version of reality a retired dentist and his elderly wife are going to feel like this will keep you from bashing to windward as well, but doing so Will smash your old bones into powder.

7. The ability to repair the gear you have onboard. If you’ve got a ton of complicated gear that allows maybe a couple to handle a boat that’s to large for them you’re in for trouble.

BTW I went to maritime school, went to sea as a professional mariner for 15 years and have been sailing since the late 80’s. I build boats and do other composite fabrication for a living.


I’ve got more to add but that’s probably enough to get this argument going again.

Generalisations galore!
"They outright break off on the regular. 100% of the orca damaged boats have been spade ruddered." - sure, 100% of the boats are spade-ruddered, so of the broken off rudders....
(of course much better, if the orcas break off a skeg (& sure, skegs can & have been broken!)
Again: opinion presented as facts ("That’s just that.")-good to have a "know all" here with domatic opinions!
& as to "100%"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-CYjFy_Alg

at 3:26

[Superjunkman]

That’s barely a skeg. Did you see that thinly glassed cores rudder? How about those flat bilges. Making my point for me. The orcas know what doesn’t belong out there!!!

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Superjunkman

snip...

2. Older hand layed thick fiberglass hulls vs. newer cored hulls and the strength thereof . The proliferation of lightweight cored hulls has zero to do with progression and building a stronger hull and everything to do with a less expensive way to build a hull. By the pound resin and woven roving cost way more than Divinycell or whatever other core material you can name. That’s a fact. Further vacuum infusion saves tons of labor and time and add to that a cored hull you end up with a light, stiff, easy to damage, hard/expensive to repair hull. There are many aspects of strength. Putting a hole in your boat gets a lot easier. That’s a fact. There are many other factors to consider in discussing the seaworthiness of a boat but this paragraph stands on its own.

...snip...

I’ve got more to add but that’s probably enough to get this argument going again.

While I concur with most of your points I've got to correct you in your 2. point. The hull strength is not determined which building method is used but with how generous safety factor it has been implemented. After all it's about "blue water" boats, not icebreakers. Colliding on a floating container corner would make a hole to any recreational boat whatever material, anyways I haven't heard hardly anyone come to survive such incidents mostly becouse they've been doomed and lost.

But i did diverge from my original intention to point out tankage. Most production boats don't have the tankage to last for long. Water and fuel must be rationed to make a simple ocean crossings thus such boats are not intended for blue water. Not saying they can't make it but, well, that's not what they were built for.

BR Teddy

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Superjunkman

That’s barely a skeg. Did you see that thinly glassed cores rudder? How about those flat bilges. Making my point for me. The orcas know what doesn’t belong out there!!!

Aww, those Orca's are just having a bit of fun now the food supply has been restored with fishing quota's over the past few years. Grey seals do the same thing by biting divers fins. Been there and had a tug by 6 feet of curious flipper.

The reason no one makes old designs is no one wants them. the market is in charter vessels. Flat wide sterns make great double rear cabins for charter yachts. Galley's sell yacht to the wife. Fin keels go quick and handle like trains in a marina.

What's not to like.

Pete

[Indolent58]

[Superjunkman]

Light collisions, a log, being driven ashore, etc are all possibilities. Lots of older thick, hand layer hulls have survived these things. I’ve been working in boat/ship yards for a long time. The modern light weight cored hulls are an ugly site when they survive.

I agree that strength has lots of components. On paper the newer hulls are stuffer/stringer in some ways but when they fail they fail catastrophically.

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Aww, those Orca's are just having a bit of fun now the food supply has been restored with fishing quota's over the past few years. Grey seals do the same thing by biting divers fins. Been there and had a tug by 6 feet of curious flipper.

The reason no one makes old designs is no one wants them. the market is in charter vessels. Flat wide sterns make great double rear cabins for charter yachts. Galley's sell yacht to the wife. Fin keels go quick and handle like trains in a marina.

What's not to like.

Pete

That’s one reason nobody makes them. The designers are just acknowledging that nobody’s really going anywhere. As to why boats are constructed the way they are (now the designs) its 100% financial (I build boats for a living).

[MJH]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

Hello, I'm back with another silly question. I am now in the process of getting rid of everything I own (except for tools and clothing), in preparation for getting out of my lease by January and looking for a boat.

I have spent the past several months combing over YW, Sailboatlistings, Craigslist, etc... and Using resources such as Bluewaterboats.org, to try and make an informed decision on the size and type of boat that I want... within my budget of course. I am currently looking for a 32-35' bluewater capable boat (Allied 32, 33, 35, Pearson 32, 35, Bristol 34, Westsail 32, etc...). These are at the top of my list, but there are other boats that have caught my eye, that aren't listed as "blue water boats" such as Endeavour 32, Islanders, Catalinas, C&C, etc.

I don't plan on a circumnavigation, but I would like to cross the Atlantic to Europe and the Mediterranean in about 7-10 years, and return a couple of years later.

My question is this: Do you NEED a blue water boat to make an occasional blue water passage? Or are "blue water" boats made to withstand continuous ocean passages. I would like to get the best built boat that I can afford, and I understand that I will probably have to put a LOT of sweat equity into any boat purchase in my initial price range ($10 - $20k).

I have done a fair amount of research, and I really like the old classic plastic boats anyway, but there are many other boats that I like, I just want to make sure that I would feel confident in the boat to brave a crossing, or heavy seas.

I appreciate any insight you can offer. -Harrison.

I will supplement my earlier post (#38).

A "blue water" boat is designed and built for offshore passages. That means considerable thought of the designer has gone into planning for all the forces that may be tested by the boat. Not only do they include sailing ability under all conditions but also being properly equipped for them by the owner. Obviously, tradeoffs have been made for safety and comfort.

Yes, some coastal boats have successfully made passages given favorable conditions and good planning, but they have not been designed for that stress test and have sailed at greater risk...they are outliers.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Superjunkman

Light collisions, a log, being driven ashore, etc are all possibilities. Lots of older thick, hand layer hulls have survived these things. I’ve been working in boat/ship yards for a long time. The modern light weight cored hulls are an ugly site when they survive.

I agree that strength has lots of components. On paper the newer hulls are stuffer/stringer in some ways but when they fail they fail catastrophically.

That's not blue water but coastal hazards..

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by MJH

I will supplement my earlier post (#38).

A "blue water" boat is designed and built for offshore passages. That means considerable thought of the designer has gone into planning for all the forces that may be tested by the boat. Not only do they include sailing ability under all conditions but also being properly equipped for them by the owner. Obviously, tradeoffs have been made for safety and comfort.

Yes, some coastal boats have successfully made passages given favorable conditions and good planning, but they have not been designed for that stress test and have sailed at greater risk...they are outliers.

This thread is a mile wide. Lots of weird logic. There are some who scoff at the idea that there’s even such a thing as a blue water boat. There are some who’ve openly stated that they feel the competence of the skipper aboard is the sole matter in if a boat is a “Blue water” boat. Both of these trains of thought are seriously flawed. I think you’re correct in that a fleet of charter boats sprint from the Med to the Caribbean every year. Also boats that have less seasoned masters survive I’ve things they shouldn’t and look after a the crew because of how watertight, directionally stable, and seakindly they are.

There are certainly degrees to this. A boat that you can most likely get from LA to Hawaii isn’t the same as a boat you can confidently take to Greenland with just a couple on board.

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

That's not blue water but coastal hazards..

I’ve seen logs, containers, flotsam, etc in the middle of emery ocean. You sure about that? The integrity of your hull is most definitely a middle of the ocean issue.