What EXACTLY is a "blue water boat"?

[Steve 3]

Regarding full keels there is a lot of very good technical information out there although, it can be difficult to understand when simply viewing a keel in static.
Skipping past drag along the keels length or siding off a wave all very important; but the effort is in most cases far aft of C/B. That in and of its self states enough of what was yesterdays thinking. (my opinion)
Not to mistaken full keels with long fin keels which is completely different; a long keel can meet or address many of the concerns that full keel sailors look for, allowing for a more balance target LCF... Just a different way of expressing why time and modeling have changed some thinking regarding full keels.
Remember the Winston Churchill in the 98 Sydney to Hobart...

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

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.

I think it was that back in the 60's folks didn't know you could go fast and still be safe
Then along came Bill Lapworth and his Cal 40... and then Bill Lee who gave us (HORRORS!) the ULDB! (Well he wasn't the only one, but maybe the most famous)
The Cape Dory 33 vs. Islander 34 (and I think I may have seen most of those ever made 'cause they are still around here) is an interesting comparison. Yes the CD has I would say better fit and finish, but it also was designed more to a bluewater expectation being considerably heavier in hull and ballast. In terms of speed they will be about the same on a 15 kt day depending on who's driving the boat. The CD probably won't need to reef as early as the Islander. Now for around HERE, the Islander (named for going to Catalina Island) is a good choice: it is strongly built per its vintage, they are inexpensive and being lighter should have a bit of an advantage in lighter airs which we get a lot of around here. Going upwind to San Francsisco I'd prefer the CD. So, point being, what kind of sailing, not just the color of the water, do you foresee? Upwind, downwind or an equal mix? Downwind to Hawaii I'd choose a flat sled, upwind on the CA cost, something with a nice hard dodger, a deep heavy keel and deep V bow that punches waves and doesn't slam!

[geozeck]

Tinkerbelle in the Crawford Auto Aviation Museum, Cleveland, Ohio.

Above is a photo of the greatest water.html" target="_blank">blue-IRJDSUNE9932123321222xxeww-water boat in modern history. Tinkerbelle. In 1965 Robert Manry of Cleveland, Ohio splashed his 13.5 foot sail boat in Falmouth, Mass and 78 days later made land fall in Falmouth, England. He had a used sexton to guide him. Actually, there are no blue water boats, only blue water sailors.

[WingRyder]

Originally Posted by thomm225

I actually bought my Good Old Boat as an experiment to see if I could deal with slow boat sailing after racing Beach Cats so long which hit speeds of 25 knots. We raced buoy races and distance to 100 miles as far as 15 - 20 miles off shore

As far as the old full keel boats, you can get one for $2,000 (as I did) or so but you will definitely end up putting say another $6,000 - $8,000 in them over a few years to make them right

I have maybe $8,000 - $9,000 in mine now after (7) seven years and I still haven't replaced electronics, the rigging, chain plates, thru hulls, painted the decks, or completed any structural repairs

I have replaced the diesel with as new outboard and bracket, replaced the old mainsail with a new one, replaced the topping lift and mainsheet, added solar, replaced the autopilot 2X, painted the bottom 2X and topside Hull 1X plus painted the interior somewhat.

I'm still using the PO's main anchor (and old worn CQR), his dockline, and all the old electronics except fr one of the GPS Units that failed.

I'm about to pull the boat again for another bottom job (after 4 years on this one)and while it's out will probably paint the deck, add a new dodger and SS Frame, and maybe repaint the Topside hull. I'm also going to replace the outboard Bracket as my old one is totally worn out

This will cost around $4,000.

Thanks Thomm225, I see from your tagline, that you are on a Bristol 27. Bristol is on my shortlist, but I am looking for at the 32 and 34. This is a very useful post, and is exactly what I'm planning on doing: Buying the boat, spending some time on the hard, making sure she is seaworthy, then gradually upgrading and adding useful equipment over the next several years.

[geozeck]

[QUOTE=geozeck;2738436] Tinkerbelle in the Crawford Auto Aviation Museum, Cleveland, Ohio.

Above is a photo of the greatest blue water boat in modern history. Tinkerbelle. In 1965 Robert Manry of Cleveland, Ohio splashed his 13.5 foot sail boat in Falmouth, Mass and 78 days later made land fall in Falmouth, England. He had a used sexton to guide him. Actually, there are no blue water boats, only blue water sailors.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Polux

Reasonably most sailboats over 27ft can sail bluewater

Would **not** say most

And many smaller ones are more seaworthy than many larger ones


Pacific Seacraft 25

Allegra 24

Flicka 20

Falmouth*Cutter*22

Cornish Crabber 24

Vancouver 25

Dolphin 24

Nordica 20

Bristol 24

Islander (Bahama) 24

Rhodes Meridian 25

Westerly Pageant, Nomad

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by thomm225

Many dropped out due to equipment failure such as broken wind vanes etc and not problems with the boat's design as you know.

You also know that the two boats that got rolled were in one hell of a storm.

So what exactly is your point?

Are you saying a boat like Ken's above could have handled the storm that the two boats in the race got rolled in?

Well, lets see...

The equipment failures may have been related to the design in some cases. Eg, steering loads are very high in many such designs, with very large unbalanced rudders. The high loads may well have caused the windvane breakage.

IIrC, some of the dropouts were due to discomfort and overwhelming duties as singlehanded racers. Boats with different designs may well have been enough easier to handle that the skippers would have kept on. (This is obviously conjecture, but worth thinking about).

The two boats that got rolled were indeed in bad weather, but that's what one expects on this route, isn't it? I wouldn't use this example to prove that the genre was superior.

And I don't know if Ken's Oyster would have done better. I suspect so, mostly because it is considerably bigger, and yes, size does matter in terms of storm survivability.

So, my point was that the GGR and its participants isn't much of a support for the idea that such designs are better or more seaworthy.

Does that help?

Jim

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Would **not** say most

And many smaller ones are more seaworthy than many larger ones


Pacific Seacraft 25

Allegra 24

Flicka 20

Falmouth*Cutter*22

Cornish Crabber 24

Vancouver 25

Dolphin 24

Nordica 20

Bristol 24

Islander (Bahama) 24

Rhodes Meridian 25

Westerly Pageant, Nomad

Well, I'd certainly throw in my old Columbia 24 in that list and would prefer it to some there. But I wouldn't get into a battle over whether those are bluewater boats. My boat did a lot of things well, but I wouldn't consider it bluewater now, though I did fancy that notion when I was young. Some people DO sail them all around, but I am just not that adventurous now. So... "bluewater" is a function of the age of the one you ask too perhaps??

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Steve 3

Hard to believe I have finally joined the forum, after reading here for more years than I care to admit!
Teddy's comment below simply put caused my anchor to drag and so here I am!

WingRyder, here are a couple of thoughts around your complete post question: 7-10 years is a long time lots can and will change. I assume you plan to live at dock side while you continue to follow a career? With this in mind I expect you are thinking to grow the lifestyle slowly, gain experience and venture out a little further till ready for that first sighting of no sighting of land.
Next issue you face in this OP is "confidence" which of course is not an item you can purchase with the purchase of a boat, in fact we know it is a trait that must be earned one wave, one mile and one foul weather experience at a time.
So the question as I see it is what has a proven platform for all the potentials as you see them now and over the next 10 years? And if possible choose the cards that can stack the odds in your favor.
Because you will likely live on the boat for some time (things change) you want volume below, not modern volume mind you we are likely talking before 1998.
So I think your odds will be found in the canoe body which may or may not be, what represents cheaper dock fees. I would go for the LWL and I would prefer lead ballast to other combinations. I would not go for a full keel, to difficult for these early harbor/marina years. I would certainly budget for surveys, without exception. I would add Cal to your list but most SS designs will offer good compromises to what your ideal boat needs are, for now.
Just an opinion.



Teddy your post really took me by surprise. It seems to suggest that perhaps some potential kinetic force may result in a bounce off or back off a submerged something? Or that a wooden structure might just gouge not tare or burst from a submerged something? Or that a wooden hull structure might be easily and temperately repaired at sea with something as minimal as a 6mm pre epoxied sheet of ply, sealant and a few screws?
Or possibly suggesting that a wood hull can be scheduled to surpass steel and aluminium sailboat hull plating strength for less cost and weight?
Certainly not a popular truth these days

All boats are vulnerable to submerged somethings
Ok, no none of that. It's true the new boats are merely other materials than wood, but that has not much to do with popularity as new wooden boats are somewhat too expensive for most. But there's a lot of them sailing still. One of the benefits of wood in cold climate lies in the natural isolation properties. It's warmer and less prone to condension compared to steel and alloys. A wooden boat is better to live on board, less noise, less rust and less dripping water

Teddy

[Sailorbob8599]

This question has been hashed over a few times on this forum & it has been answered well by saying "blue-water" means different things to different people.
I have not read these many pages of opinions in this particular post so please forgive me if my comment sounds similar to any previous response.
I personally believe just about anything that will float can be called "blue-water" providing the skipper is capable of transiting an ocean, which means it is the SKIPPER & CREW who must be "blue-water" capable . . . forget the boat, focus instead on skipper & crew … are they mechanically competent, knowledgeable of sail & rigging, weather-wise, mentally & physically capable of taking their boat across an ocean? If so, go for it.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by thomm225

Many dropped out due to equipment failure such as broken wind vanes etc and not problems with the boat's design as you know.

You also know that the two boats that got rolled were in one hell of a storm.

So what exactly is your point?

Are you saying a boat like Ken's above could have handled the storm that the two boats in the race got rolled in?

Ken’s boat has no trouble averaging 9 knots producing 200+ mile days, so it’s very unlikely to get caught up in a severe storm with good weather forecasts. Plus 30-40 knot winds are no problem, we just push a couple of buttons to furl in the sails a bit and enjoy the ride.

[alctel]

It's notable that neither of the two boats that got smashed were using series drogues - I'm not even sure if they were hove to or not or were just trying to run before it

[Pizzazz]

You may benefit from putting the responses on this forum in context. A large number of posters here think of cruising as retirement, getting to the destination vs. sailing. Also, we prefer to do it on a limited budget because we have other uses for the cash. Look at the ARC fleet to get an idea what people actually cross oceans with. Any recent boat can do the occasional crossing with some minimal care and preparation. 97% of the time winds will be less than 15-20 knots and you would be flying a downwind sail. If you plan on spending many months at sea per near, in heavy weather, beating against the wind then get a blue water boat such HR, Amel or a catamaran. Otherwise get a boat that you like and relax. I have a Hunter 31 and I would take it anywhere.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Pizzazz

You may benefit from putting the responses on this forum in context. A large number of posters here think of cruising as retirement, getting to the destination vs. sailing. Also, we prefer to do it on a limited budget because we have other uses for the cash. Look at the ARC fleet to get an idea what people actually cross oceans with. Any recent boat can do the occasional crossing with some minimal care and preparation. 97% of the time winds will be less than 15-20 knots and you would be flying a downwind sail. If you plan on spending many months at sea per near, in heavy weather, beating against the wind then get a blue water boat such HR, Amel or a catamaran. Otherwise get a boat that you like and relax. I have a Hunter 31 and I would take it anywhere.

But.... when discussing blue water capabilities, the “what if?” Factor comes into play. It’s doubtful that a Hunter 31 would be able to weather a storm with 7-10 meter choppy, steep seas and 50 knot winds without the occupants being bashed around quite a bit; and it’s just as unlikely that the 31ft boat would have enough speed to get out of the way of danger.

Your point is valid for most common circumstances, BUT the weather experienced by most casual/weekend sailors and their perceptions of weather, most of the time being “less than 15-20 knots” is not valid, nor does it apply to trans-ocean crossings where things can change and there’s no safe marina to take shelter.

[markpierce]

I've experienced two hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean on 900-foot-long vessels which were fun (like 50-foot waves), but would think the opposite on a small boat. ... A "bluewater boat" has an experienced skipper (who knows how to choose a weather-window), a sound boat, and repair parts the crew knows how to use.