The Yard Guys

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Exile

This sounds like a label that's serious overkill as well, unless you're doing the kind of sailing Beth & Evans have done, or the folks on Morgan's Cloud who enjoy extreme high latitude sailing. Then again, you don't have to be crossing the N. Atlantic every year to desire a solidly built boat from a mfg. with a good reputation. Sailing to the Caribbean from the US e. coast in early Nov. -- a common passage for many -- is around 10 days of open ocean sailing, the first part of which can entail running the gauntlet of unpredictable & often poorly forecasted N. Atlantic gales as well as crossing the gulf stream. Under these conditions, I'd welcome being on a voyaging boat, expedition boat, or any other well-built boat, just so long as it doesn't come apart on me.

Just like there may be a misperception about whether modern, mass-produced boats are able to cross oceans, I think there's also a misperception that heavier-built, traditional boats are slow, cumbersome, and don't perform well. Certainly true for some that we used to call the "2 kts. fwd., 4 kts. sideways boats", but this is another one of those stereotypes for the uninformed & inexperienced. My 47' Bristol, for example, weighs 20 tons, has a thick, heavy, non-cored hull, a 42% B/D ratio, but a PHRF of 115 (I found it on the internet so it must be true). It was originally designed & built for the Newport-Bermuda races, in an era where seakindliness was almost as favored as seaworthiness. There are many other examples of traditional boats on both ends of the performance spectrum and everywhere in-between.

My only point is, just like Smack cautions against automatically removing from consideration a Hunter/Bene/Catalina, etc. because they are all incapable of crossing oceans, let's not lump all the more traditional boats into the slow & ponderous category. At the same time, there are some of us who would prefer to have ourselves & families in something more solid & reputable in any part of the ocean and in any conditions, both for safety and enjoyment.

Well said. I think it boils down to this: You could drive the Pan American hiway fom Panama to the southern tip of South America in a Kia Rio... but would you be better off in a Land Cruiser or F150?

[neilpride]

The car analogy dont work in this case, i probably do that trip with the kia rio without problems , after all cars are not subject to weather, i mean who care if you got a breaking wave in the front window in the kia!!!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

So it seems you have understood that the clarification of each of the same categories would not have any negative effect on the existing boat standards as you previously suppose. Good!

Regarding the rest obviously if the definitions were modified it was to take any confusion out of them.

The boats continue to be certified in each class for the conditions of wind and sea that were before, it was clarified the meaning of "abnormal conditions".

It seems however that you did not understood why in what regards class A the extended voyages has taken out of the defenition even if they explain:

"The way design categories are defined in the current Directive makes people think that the farthest they are from shore, the more severe conditions they will meet. This is a nonsense, which is potentially dangerous for the consumer (especially beginners)....
To be self sufficient (as required for instance under category A), a boat requires a minimum volume, cargo capacity, energy storage or production and technical systems to operate them. To offer sufficient comfort and protection for the crew for its intended use, it requires being sufficiently habitable, fitted with berths for the total crew, kitchen, chart house, etc.
To be able to face wind and waves, it requires stability capacities, flooding protection and scantling strength."

The problem on class A previous definition was that there was boats that in what regard seaworthiness were clearly designed as class A but in what regards galley, storage or interior arrangement were not clearly intended for extended voyage. This regards mostly the increasing number of big daysailers/weekend cruisers that have come to the market responding to an increasing demand. Boats like this one:

To eliminate the problem it was decided to take out of the definition "extended voyage" to allow that boats like this one, that has the seaworthiness needed for the described wind and sea conditions (that are not only encountered on extended voyages) could be included on class A. This type of boats includes for instance the Oceanis 38 on the daysailing version, with a reduced galley and a reduced water tankage.

The vast majority of mass market boats will not fall on this category of day-sailors and are suited, with the options that are available, for extended voyages as you can see if you have a look at the boats that are doing the ARC, that include a small Delphia 33, that has more storage and interior space than old "bluewater" boats of that size.

On the proposal the subscriber talks about the possible need of creating another class to separate the boats that are suited for extended voyage from boats with the same seaworthiness but without the required storage and equipment. I don't know if that is useful since as we have seen here what is considered the minimum for that type of boat varies wildly. Some even think that all those boats need a generator.

So we agree, I think, that the definition of Class A was deficient, which was my point all along. The new definition coming into force in 2016 will define the boats ability to deal with certain sea states, as opposed to suggesting that they are suitable for longer (blue water) off shore passages.

It will be 'caveat emptor' to ensure that a boat is suitable for such passages in all other regards. A conscientious sailor would do that anyways, but at least any perceived endorsement from official sources is removed.

I hope that manufacturers, when developing their promotional and marketing material, draw that distinction. You can colour me skeptical that it will happen though. There will be a continued emphasis of the "A" category, without clarifying its real meaning. I hope I am wrong.

As far as the Delphi is concerned, I looked at their website. They have some interesting looking boats, ones that are not well known in the NA market. Looks like Ikea type interiors are ubiquitous in most newer boats, unfortunately. I like their 'truth in advertising', as example, their Delphi 29 is rated 'A6". Their marketing says though:

• This compact cruiser, Delphia 29 is designed specifically to provide maximum performance for inshore voyages and cruising inland waterways whilst combining superlative nautical properties with roominess and safety.

Wouldn't it be nice if all manufacturers did this? It emphasizes the point I was trying make that the rating does not equal what it should be used for.

It looks like Delphia, as most builders now, does use a liner. Can you comment on their construction details at all if you are aware of them? What about the interiors; are they real wood (their website suggests it may be as they talk about their joinery department), or are they laminates?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

This sounds like a label that's serious overkill as well

Really? I was using it to nail down one end of the spectrum. Just like you have been using other boats (ahem) to nail down the other end. I agree that there are lots of designs and builds in between, but wasn't addressing those.

I also have never made any aspersions toward your boat, or have any misconceptions about speed when it comes to boats. I think even you would admit that some of the boats with cult "bluewater" followings do have relatively poor performance. Westsail, Formosa, Southern Cross - I can go on, but I think I have offended enough already .

You may even admit that there are certain design and build characteristics that go hand in hand with performance. Your 115 PHRF on a 48' boat is nice, but have you looked at similar sized boats with different designs and builds?

As for gales, I think the recent years troubles in the Atlantic have shown that your preference of boat type is not doing much better than those you do not prefer.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sailing to the Caribbean from the US e. coast in early Nov. -- a common passage for many -- is around 10 days of open ocean sailing, the first part of which can entail running the gauntlet of unpredictable & often poorly forecasted N. Atlantic gales as well as crossing the gulf stream. Under these conditions, I'd welcome being on a voyaging boat, expedition boat, or any other well-built boat, just so long as it doesn't come apart on me....

Isn't that timing largely dictated by insurance companies? Heh-heh.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Isn't that timing largely dictated by insurance companies? Heh-heh.

Correct! And your point??

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

The car analogy dont work in this case, i probably do that trip with the kia rio without problems , after all cars are not subject to weather, i mean who care if you got a breaking wave in the front window in the kia!!!

Dude, everyone knows that Kia are Cat B cars, precisely because of their big lousy windows.

And if that Land Cruiser doesn't have in intake snorkel, it's also Cat B.

The F150? Please.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by neilpride

This is funy,mixing the term expedition yacht with a long range cruising boat .......

Yup, the expedition boats that I know are definitely not what your average family would be wanting to do a circumnavigation in...
That said I had an expedition boat when I was 12 years old.... 10 foot dinghy... did lots of expeditions in her.

I guess the vast majority of boats that pass through Patagonia could be described as long range cruising boats cos thats what they are doing....they come in all shapes and sizes.
European boats such as Benes and Bavarias are rare and I know of one Hunter that passed through.... I've already linked to their blog ... I've even seen a Minitransat...although she was lost with her skipper north of Le Maire soon after leaving PW.

In recent years the most common boats by class are the Ovnis, centreboarders , cat A ( the builder's website sensibly refrains from using that nonsense number thingo in their advertising ). Ranges OVNI | Alubat voiliers hauturiers, bateaux de voyage alu, voilier dériveur aluminium, maintenance facilité | Alubat

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

So we agree, I think, that the definition of Class A was deficient, which was my point all along. The new definition coming into force in 2016 will define the boats ability to deal with certain sea states, as opposed to suggesting that they are suitable for longer (blue water) off shore passages.

It will be 'caveat emptor' to ensure that a boat is suitable for such passages in all other regards. A conscientious sailor would do that anyways, but at least any perceived endorsement from official sources is removed.

I hope that manufacturers, when developing their promotional and marketing material, draw that distinction. You can colour me skeptical that it will happen though. There will be a continued emphasis of the "A" category, without clarifying its real meaning. I hope I am wrong.

This is why your interpretation of these ratings didn't make sense to me. There is very clearly a difference between the design/construction of the boat - and the fit-out of the boat. In other words, by adding tankage, genset, watermaker, radar, additional handholds, lee-cloths, etc. to a boat, you're not changing the rated design or construction of the boat...you're simply changing the configuration of that boat to suit your specific need. I think this has been Polux's point all along.

Why on earth would any non-"poser" (as you like to call them) sailor need an industry standard to tell them that?

That's why I thought your snipping off of Jim B.'s quote in your 97% post was so suspect. This is EXACTLY the point he was making in that part you cut out. So, judging by that single post from 1999 that you edited, you are wrong in your skepticism.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Yup, the expedition boats that I know are definitely not what your average family would be wanting to do a circumnavigation in...
That said I had an expedition boat when I was 12 years old.... 10 foot dinghy... did lots of expeditions in her.

I guess the vast majority of boats that pass through Patagonia could be described as long range cruising boats cos thats what they are doing....they come in all shapes and sizes.
European boats such as Benes and Bavarias are rare and I know of one Hunter that passed through.... I've already linked to their blog ... I've even seen a Minitransat...although she was lost with her skipper north of Le Maire soon after leaving PW.

In recent years the most common boats by class are the Ovnis, centreboarders , cat A ( the builder's website sensibly refrains from using that nonsense number thingo in their advertising ). Ranges OVNI | Alubat voiliers hauturiers, bateaux de voyage alu, voilier dériveur aluminium, maintenance facilité | Alubat

Did you meet Michael and Edi when they went through?

BTW - your photos are awesome.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Amel..good hull forms to beat to weather, sometimes for days and days, ....

If you look to the Amel hull form evolution you will see that is about the same of modern mass production cruisers: Bigger transoms beam pulled back, beamier boats, finer entries. That's because they never stop making better boats and have them well designed, following the NA development and evolution towards better hulls and better sailing boats. Regarding hull design they are however as up to date as other boats of the same type, like for instance the new Oysters.

[Exile]

Apparently I need 5 characters to respond. More quote function dysfunction that Smack is not helping me with.

Originally Posted by colemj

Really? I was using it to nail down one end of the spectrum. Just like you have been using other boats (ahem) to nail down the other end. I agree that there are lots of designs and builds in between, but wasn't addressing those.

OK, fair enough. I was trying to forestall going off on another round of misleading statements from Smack that attempts to make points by stereotyping "bluewater" boats, conservative owners of traditional boats, etc., etc. I find these arguments useless, which is why I included a comment about not also lumping all the Hunters/Benes/Catalinas together as well.

I also have never made any aspersions toward your boat, or have any misconceptions about speed when it comes to boats. I think even you would admit that some of the boats with cult "bluewater" followings do have relatively poor performance. Westsail, Formosa, Southern Cross - I can go on, but I think I have offended enough already .

I guess you missed my quip about traditional boats that go 2 kts. fwd & 4 kts. sideways. Actually, I don't think the owners of the boats you mention above would take offense. I'm sure most know exactly what the pros & cons of their boats are, and have accepted the trade-offs. Have never heard you or anyone else cast aspersions on my particular boat, nor would I care. Did I miss an aspersion that was cast somewhere along the way?

You may even admit that there are certain design and build characteristics that go hand in hand with performance. Your 115 PHRF on a 48' boat is nice, but have you looked at similar sized boats with different designs and builds?

Yes, of course I would admit that. I looked at many different boats before I purchased mine, but had very specific criteria that were somewhat unique to mine & my family's needs. The Bristol I wound up with was the only one that fit the largest number of those needs. Performance was not the highest priority, but the Bristol also exceeded my expectations on that one too which was a bonus.

As for gales, I think the recent years troubles in the Atlantic have shown that your preference of boat type is not doing much better than those you do not prefer.

Wouldn't argue this point with you either, but I would prefer a traditionally-built boat which may have a failure as a result of age and inadequate maintenance vs. a modern boat which was poorly designed or cheaply constructed from the start. IMHO, I can control the former, but not so much the latter (especially if it's made with a poorly engineered liner!).

Mark

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Did you meet Michael and Edi when they went through?

No, my boat was in PW when they passed through but I was elswhere... they described her ( and a very serious old french boat 'expedition boat' astern of mine ) as 'semi-derelict' in their blog.

Dropping the 'extended voyaging ' from the Cat A definition makes a lot of sense... I can't think of a single boat ready for that 'as sold' from the works.
Ta re the pics,
Cheers,
El Ping

[Exile]

Originally Posted by neilpride

The car analogy dont work in this case, i probably do that trip with the kia rio without problems , after all cars are not subject to weather, i mean who care if you got a breaking wave in the front window in the kia!!!

LOL! I like Cheech's car analogy, and would respect your taking the trip in the Kia. Provided you appreciated the trade-offs, however. I can't understand what's so hard about the concept that when you buy cheap you get cheap. The cheap Kia can work, of course, especially if you're a good driver and know how to fix it on the side of the road. But so long as you don't convince yourself it's a Mercedes G-Wagon!

Isn't this analogous to what this thread is really about?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Have never heard you or anyone else cast aspersions on my particular boat, nor would I care. Did I miss an aspersion that was cast somewhere along the way?

Toward your boat? No. Toward my boat? Hell yes.

That's why this debate exists. Apart from pointing out obvious speed/performance issues, very few of us "posers" (I think that means people who like double-helms according to AVB3) cast aspersions on older blue-water boats like yours for blue-water cruising.

The problem is, as has been shown in thread-after-thread, and forum-after-forum, it's completely different for production boats...especially Hunters in most forums, and Beneteaus in these recent threads here.

If someone claims that "production boats don't belong in blue water" and/or that "ONLY these older, heavy boats are truly suitable for blue water" - that's just clearly wrong. So, it deserves to be refuted. It provides newbs bad, even dangerous, information.

All it takes for a reasoned debate is a somewhat open mind. Those just seem to be rare.