SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Production Boats and the Limits

792K views 5K replies 235 participants last post by  Jeff_H 
#1 · (Edited)
We've seen the age-old debate regarding what's REALLY a blue-water boat. And that's cool and everything - but it seems to me that there is a tangible middle ground between coastal cruising and true blue water sailing. Furthermore, in my blissful ignorance, I'd say that quite a few sailors inhabit this aether plain.

Sure you can buy a Hinckley or a Brewer or a Tayana or Cheoy Lee and take them wherever the hell you wanna. But where exactly can you take a Catalina, a Hunter, an Irwin, a Beneteau, a Jenneau, even.....yes....even.....a MacGregor (dum-dum-duuuuum).

Do you make sure you never leave sight of land in these boats? Do you keep land 50 miles away? 100 miles? Do you run from a 40 knot squall? Do you live in morbid fear of encountering a freak 50 knot storm - where you're cool with it in an S&S design from 1927? Can you "outrun" such storms in these "new fangled keel" boats - where in a full-keel Formasa you just heave to and ride it out with a Dark-n-Stormy and a tiparillo in your hand?

Giu had a good write up comparing Beneteaus/Catalinas/Hunters from a "sailability" standpoint. And CD has had some great input regarding the capabilities of various production boats. And we've seen the exhaustive list of blue water boats with great input from Cam and Jeff_H.

Furthermore, Val and others have pointed out the critical elements in any heavy weather situation is actually the skipper and crew. And this makes a heap of sense too.

So, the question I'd like to pose to the sailing world is this: From the standpoint of dealing with the outer limits of "coastal" cruising - what are the best production boats and why?
 
See less See more
#1,394 ·
This thread has convinced me all boats are terrible. I don't have a BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas. Nor do I have an old classic bluewater boat. This thread has spent 140 pages pointing out the downsides to both approaches. My boat appears to have all the downsides listed for both camps. As a result, now I am terrified to leave the slip. I haven't left the slip in over a month. (Sure, it is winter, but still.)

Could someone please start a "all boats are awesome" thread to put my mind at ease? I am sure my boat has at least some of the qualities that are awesome.
 
#1,396 ·
This thread has convinced me all boats are terrible. I don't have a BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas. Nor do I have an old classic bluewater boat. This thread has spent 140 pages pointing out the downsides to both approaches. My boat appears to have all the downsides listed for both camps. As a result, now I am terrified to leave the slip. I haven't left the slip in over a month. (Sure, it is winter, but still.)

Could someone please start a "all boats are awesome" thread to put my mind at ease? I am sure my boat has at least some of the qualities that are awesome.
Let's turn this thread into that thread. ALL boats are awesome.

They all break, they all need a lot of love and attention, they all have their strengths and weaknesses but at the same time they are all awesome if they see you out there sailing and not on here arguing with armchair knuckleheads about why your boat could or couldn't do something someone else's boat could or couldn't.

Killarney has it right(and his armchair has gone places most armchairs wouldn't go without at least 10 GPS enabled Epirbs strapped either side) - You buy a boat, the best you can at the time with what you have. You sail it, you go places you think are nice, you evolve, you improve yourself and the boat and when the excrement hits the air con - you improvise.
 
#1,398 ·
We were pooped three times coming down the Oregon coast in very sporty conditions. Water covered the companion way hatch, luckily all the bin boards were in place and the hatch closed. The force of the wave ripped off the life sling bag and bent the mount for the horseshoe collar. The four cockpit drains worked as advertised. Stuff does happen out here.
 
#1,400 · (Edited)
Smack
Your scenario is not my only worry. Sh-t happens on pleasant days.
Some years ago was sailing a friends Pearson 424. There was a fresh breeze and it was a sunny pleasant day on Block Island Sound. There was a storm which gone through a few days before with some residual swell but only moderate wind waves ( mares tails) on top. We were reaching when bam a big wave came through and we knocked down. Sprung up like a cork with a small tear in the jib and the LEEWARD port lights blown out.
It's stuff like that that makes me nervous. Hell I don't even like fixed ports in the hull in anything under fifty feet or is not a flush decked monster.
 
#1,401 · (Edited)
Out, look, I know full well crazy stuff happens. But what we are talking about are features that:

a) Someone just prefers or doesn't prefer in a boat.

-or-

b) Obviously jeopardize the seaworthiness/safety of the boat.

If we are going to talk about why various production boats are not really fit for being off-shore, then we need to be very specific about the critique. For example, is Jon saying "A" or "B" above when he critiques that Hunter's portlight? I think he's saying "A" - because the scenario for "B" is very, very unlikely.

Now, to your example, if we stick with the reasoning being used in this thread by some, then you might draw the conclusion that that Pearson 424 is not fit for being off-shore. After all, it sustained major damage on a relatively calm day. OR - you might draw the conclusion that no boat fit for being off-shore should have portlights at all, because they can be blown out (this seems to be your last point in your post).



Now, if you're seriously nervous about these kinds of things, you might fall in either of the camps above. Personally, I wouldn't. The Pearson 424 is definitely fit for off-shore work. And portlights in a boat are a really good idea.

So, that leaves the middle-ground. What is a reasonable expectation of risk? I assume your Outbound has portlights and I'll wager that some of them open - so your very bad first-hand experience with them hasn't convinced you that they are not worth the risk.

Maybe this is because of the placement of them compared to the Pearson, or the materials from which they are made, etc. What is it that makes you trust yours over the Pearson's (I know you said you don't trust any of them - so I'm just asking more for comparison)?


An Outbound 46

Oysters sink after hitting icebergs. Pearsons get knocked down and damaged on pleasant days. Moodys sink in the ICW. Crazy stuff happens. At the same time, Oysters and Pearsons and Moodys and BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are great boats to take cruising off-shore - in spite of crazy stuff that might befall a couple of them.

There's not a boat out there, regardless of money, that is designed to thwart all the possible crazy stuff you can dream up. So, to CHOOSE your boat solely based on this kind of crazy stuff is...well...crazy. You obviously compromised to a large degree.
 
#1,402 ·
To my mind, it is easy for me to split this debate into the sections of design and construction. I know I'm being very general here, but that's the idea.

Production boats, (huntalinatoes) have IMHO certain design compromises that favor comfort over seaworthiness. They also are generally less robustly constructed than their non-huntalinatow brethren.

I decided to err highly on the side of comfort vs seaworthiness in the design realm but chose a boat with a reputation for high build quality. I wanted some of the features of a "production boat" and some of the features of a "bluewater boat." I didn't go 100% in the comfort over seaworthiness direction in the end. Originally I was looking at Nauticat 38s and ended up with a Nauticat 40, which has more design features geared towards seaworthiness than the 38 does.

Clear as mud?

MedSailor
 
#1,404 · (Edited)
To my mind, it is easy for me to split this debate into the sections of design and construction. I know I'm being very general here, but that's the idea.

Production boats, (huntalinatoes) have IMHO certain design compromises that favor comfort over seaworthiness. They also are generally less robustly constructed than their non-huntalinatow brethren.

I decided to err highly on the side of comfort vs seaworthiness in the design realm but chose a boat with a reputation for high build quality. I wanted some of the features of a "production boat" and some of the features of a "bluewater boat." I didn't go 100% in the comfort over seaworthiness direction in the end. Originally I was looking at Nauticat 38s and ended up with a Nauticat 40, which has more design features geared towards seaworthiness than the 38 does.

Clear as mud?

MedSailor
It is - and it isn't. Before I was Modslammed over at CF, we had a really good discussion about this going on in the Yard Guys thread.

To really answer that question you have to look at how the "high-end" builders are doing their building NOW not 20-30 years ago - and compare that with production boats.

For example, IPs are now using grids/liners.



The Hinckley 50 is using a much more modular/production-boat process and lighter build than ever before (e.g. - "IKEA-like" interior furnishing, etc.)



So, if you're going to define "better built" by looking at old, thick, heavy, hand-laid boats - unless they are still being made that way - they don't really exist any more.
 
#1,406 ·
Agreed you can't plan for every contingency or you would never leave. But there is a difference between 316 thick stainless with a stainless plate on the outside and ten massive bolts holding it in place compared with fiber reinforced plastic port lights. There is difference between putting six small ones ( more expense and labor) or a few big ones ( more prone to damage and if damage occurs more ingress from a single failure). There is a difference between port lights recessed in the house and flush with the hull or house. There is a difference between deck/house designed to take a boarding sea and one designed to allow good views of the setting sun. There is a difference in the venders and strength/quality of the liwiring, lines, blocks and myriad fittings between the non big run production boats and the H,B,J,C etc. boats. There is a difference between bulkheads tabbed and glassed in on both sides ,furniture built in place and glassed in place and boats built with a linear. You hear this difference every time you fall off a wave. The deafening sound of silence. No creaks or groans from the vessel. First year out and twentieth year out.
Bye- chasing a small fresh water leak in aft head. Don't have food dye, running out of paper towels.
 
#1,410 ·
BTW- that Pearson travelled a lot of miles. She was a sound vessel. She got fixed up ( also had some movement of a chainplates) and was back out there.
I think IPs aren't a good example of current sound design for blue water. A great boat for live aboard and strongly built but not a good example. I do think some of the non production boats coming out of NEB and like houses are as strong or stronger than any of the old school blue water boats production or otherwise sited in prior posts. These boats also perform better. I agree there is little audience hence fewer and fewer builders aimed at the voyaging market. Saying that builders who use to built to this market have not been influence by this I think ignores reality.
 
#1,417 · (Edited)
Out, as you can see, we have some similarities in the portlight size/configuration of our boats:

My Hunter 40:


An Outbound 46:



Of course, I do have that fixed portlight in the stern quarter. But it does make the aft cabin pretty nice.

BTW - here is the portlight configuration on a 2009 Hunter 49 (very similar to the 50):



And here is the view through one of them (I believe the forward one) when it's underwater while lying-a-hull in an F10-11 in the Southern Ocean:

 
#1,419 ·
Not sure why you like to change tack so often, but I guess it keeps the thread count up.

Would you agree that what happened to that Pearson 424 was pretty "crazy" - as he himself implies?

Furthermore, do you think that designing and building a boat - specifically for such a scenario - would be a bit crazy?

I don't think about all the many risks inherent in going to sea in a small boat in such absolute terms, such as "crazy," for example. I try and become as aware as I can of the many risks, not rely on one source of information or put all my stock in any particular "brand," and buy & prepare a boat with the inevitable trade-offs that I personally think are reasonable. At that point, and as Killairney & others have so well stated, it's time to leave the internet behind and just go sailing.

The concerns aren't crazy - the implied expectation or conclusion that a boat should somehow be designed to deal with all of them - or it's no good...IS crazy. Not even Out has this expectation. He has reached a compromise with his own boat - even though he has first-hand experience with this very problem. Oh, and I like portlights - ones that open even. So I'm perfectly good with them - even the one on this Hunter.

Like you, I wouldn't manage this particular risk by eliminating all my port lights, but I would be a bit wary of any fixed ones on the hull as opposed to the cabin top, and would probably not go for any opening ones on the hull, especially if they were made out of plastic. In striking this balance, I would also look at what benefit, if any, opening ports -- or any at all on the hull -- would offer and whether that outweighs any risk. Others may frown on the 16 aluminum opening ones on my cabin top, but so be it. Maybe my risk/benefit analysis isn't as "simple" as your approach, but it's done me pretty well thus far.;)

So, I think you've just misunderstood what I wrote, which is not unusual based on our history. It's not personal, although you always seem to like to beat that drum.

And, you'd definitely be surprised what can sour readers on boats.

Fortunately, there are plenty of others for buyers to choose from these days.

Where have I said that "all port lights are the same"?

At a minimum, you seem confused by the higher risk an opening port light in a hull may present vs. one on the cabin top. You also don't seem to understand the difference b'twn an opening one that's kept closed vs. one that is fixed. I agree with you that the risks involved are rather low, but the only point Jon was making was that there was in fact an increased risk. Not hard concepts to understand and appreciate, whether you find the risks acceptable or not.

Look, I'm not trying to "bestow wisdom" on anyone. I'm trying to keep facts straight. If you, or Jon, or Out, or whomever, can provide a plausible scenario (and better yet, an example) where this Hunter's portlight gets blown out (not just some "crazy rogue wave out of nowhere" kind of scenario) - then your point is made. If you can't do that - then the critique is something other than factual - and there's nothing really wrong with the Hunter's portlight. It's really that simple.[/QUOTE]

As I've said, I haven't heard anyone say this is a huge risk or that any boat that has one is somehow deficient, but is rather one a person may want to mitigate given the minor concession to comfort an opening port light in the hull can provide. No absolutes Smack, just as Outbound's Pearson story illustrates.
 
#1,420 ·
Smack
Done with work so time to smack around :).
I'll grant you the "it's not necessary " just like a car or truck is not necessary if you have good wind and good legs. I won't grant you that a vessel built and designed for offshore work in mind is not better suited to do this when compared to a vessel not built with that purpose as the leading principle.
I won't grant that a non opening port light is easier to construct in a fashion to have increased strength and water integrity as compared to an opening light. Nor will I grant that a light frequently immersed is less likely to engender difficulties compared to one which is not.
With the addition of multiple occurrences of such small details the risk of voyaging increases. Yes, at present many high end boats doing service in open waters have hull port lights. I am unaware of any that open. If you examine the materials and installations they do not present a significant risk. I believe these installations/designs/post build quality controls are of a different order than seen on value boats.
Smack, maybe in a few years we'll meet on the Maldives and again maybe we we won't.
 
#1,421 · (Edited)
Smack
Done with work so time to smack around :).
Bring it on porkchop! Heh-heh.

I'll grant you the "it's not necessary " just like a car or truck is not necessary if you have good wind and good legs. I won't grant you that a vessel built and designed for offshore work in mind is not better suited to do this when compared to a vessel not built with that purpose as the leading principle.
Agreed.

And that's why I hold that production boats with a CE Cat A designation are fine for offshore work.

I won't grant that a non opening port light is easier to construct in a fashion to have increased strength and water integrity as compared to an opening light. Nor will I grant that a light frequently immersed is less likely to engender difficulties compared to one which is not.
With the addition of multiple occurrences of such small details the risk of voyaging increases.
I agree. The risk increases with every hole cut. We probably just disagree on the amount. After all, even Hinckley is bringing them in:



And the Swan 60 FD:



And Oyster is kind of crazy about 'em - actually working to get them under:



So, I also agree that the opening portlight in the hull increases the risk. This is very evident in that photo of the immersed center portlight on that 49. Imagine that thing being open at that point. And, that brings up the question of whether the opening portlight aft is any less likely to be immersed. Maybe.

In any case, it definitely puts more responsibility on the skipper to make sure they are closed and dogged before getting underway.

Yes, at present many high end boats doing service in open waters have hull port lights. I am unaware of any that open. If you examine the materials and installations they do not present a significant risk. I believe these installations/designs/post build quality controls are of a different order than seen on value boats.
As for opening hull portlights on other boats...Oyster seems confident in them:



And Oyster seems to be a fairly well-regarded "blue water boat".

So that brings us to whether the Oyster's is done WAY better than the Hunter's - and is, therefore, FAR safer. I'm betting that there's not a huge amount of difference. So we're back to asking whether this portlight in this Hunter is really a major liability - and/or whether you or Jon or others would also deem the new Oyster 475 as not being fit for off-shore cruising because of the same issue.

I think they are both fine.

Smack, maybe in a few years we'll meet on the Maldives and again maybe we we won't.
Oh come now. I have no doubt your fine Outbound will still be sailing proudly when we pull into the Maldives in our old Hunter.
 
#1,422 · (Edited)
Just curious as I don't care for the style of recent oysters and particularly don't like the way those three vertical lights look. That plus that the small ones I could hope to own are said to be hard for owners to work on means they were off my list early on. So I know very little about them.
Do you know what size oyster that stateroom in? Is it the aft or forward one? How high above the waterline?
I understand the "glass" used in the non opening ones is the same plastic used in diving bells or special,glass used in space capsules so is probably as strong as the hull. I understand the engineering involved creates a durable bond with loads on the "glass" appropriately spread into the hull on the boats shown. I've been told with ports there maybe more risk of them blowing out not in if not properly done.
I'm not that familiar with Hunters. Are the same materials and techniques employed?


BTW- that oyster uses the same manufacturer for that port as is used on my vessel. In fact looks the same size -SS not plastic.

Of interest some folks ( including those who run or move boats for a living) think in order to to increase market share features are incorporated in recent high end boats such as Swans which may compromise ultimate seaworthiness. Given improvements in materials and execution these boats are stronger then past boats but in the absence of desire to widen market appeal could be stronger still.

If you and I get there the first round on me. Hell you can down your favorite single malt on my dime and I'll throw in a Cuban. We'd have fun big guy.
 
#1,423 ·
If you and I get there the first round on me. Hell you can down your favorite single malt on my dime and I'll throw in a Cuban. We'd have fun big guy.
It's a deal Out. I'm a Macallan man. I'll buy the second bottle.

I have no doubt we'd have a blast. Seriously.

Just curious as I don't care for the style of recent oysters and particularly don't like the way those three vertical lights look. That plus that the small ones I could hope to own are said to be hard for owners to work on means they were off my list early on. So I know very little about them.
Do you know what size oyster that stateroom in? Is it the aft or forward one? How high above the waterline?
That pic is from the new Oyster 475. It's a CC model and the stateroom is aft:

Oyster Yachts | Fleet | 475 | Gallery

The placement of the portlights between the Oyster and the Hunter 50 CC is very similar:





In fact there are a lot of visual similarities between the two boats.

This is, again, why I think arguments like this are typically a bit hollow. Both of them can't be completely wrong.

Anyway, I'm with you - I'm not a big fan of Oysters.

I understand the "glass" used in the non opening ones is the same plastic used in diving bells and space capsules so is probably as strong as the hull. I understand the engineering involved creates a durable bond with loads on the "glass" appropriately spread into the hull on the boats shown.
I'm not that familiar with Hunters. Are the same materials and techniques employed?
I don't know what the material is. Maybe someone else around here does. But I've never seen a review, etc. - that states that Hunter uses any equipment that's inferior. In fact, I've seen the opposite, that they use the good stuff. So I don't think we're talking about "cheap" materials here.

BTW- that oyster uses the same manufacturer for that port as is used on my vessel. In fact looks the same size -SS not plastic.
Where are you and Exile getting the idea that the Hunter portlights are plastic? It sure doesn't look like it in the photos.

Again, not a lot of information, but if you look on the Hunter Owners' site for 50 CC parts - those ports are SS, not plastic:

50cc Hunter 50cc Ports, Parts and Accessories



Maybe someone around here can tell us for sure. But it seems like you and Exile are guessing quite a bit here about "inferior quality". So maybe now you both will be a bit more impressed with Hunter?

Of interest some folks ( including those who run or move boats for a living) think in order to to increase market share features are incorporated in recent high end boats such as Swans which may compromise ultimate seaworthiness. Given improvements in materials and execution these boats are stronger then past boats but in the absence of desire to widen market appeal could be stronger still.
Maybe. I guess time will tell.
 
#1,426 ·
OK, I think this was the pic showing the now ever-so-notorious opening portlight in the hull. Sure looks like a metal frame to me, but maybe plastic dogs?? Not sure that's any sort of problem either. All depends on their quality and how they were installed.



But again, the concern being raised was over an opening port in a hull. Not a fixed port (although we know they are not infallible), and not an opening port in a cabin top, a component not nearly as exposed or subjected to the stresses & strains on the hull. Just so it's now clear, here's one of the comments that accompanied the pic above:

OK, I have no problem with such ports, at least on most of the installations I've seen... Hell, I even have one above the quarter berth on my little deathtrap :) However, I think most folks probably understand the subtle distinction between a portlight that opens into the cockpit, and one that opens the hull to the sea...

So while I always appreciate looking at beautiful sailboats, none of these appear to have portlights installed in the hull:







And of the nice pics of boats with portlights that are actually installed in the hull, we don't know if any of these are actually the opening types (vs. fixed) which raised the initial concerns:









And of course this one, from a Hunter 49 apparently sailing in and around Cape Horn, is obviously fixed:



So it seems the only example thus far of an opening portlight installed in the hull was that first pic of a Hunter 50. No doubt there are others, of course. And assuming quality materials and installation, I'm assuming we know that even if one heeds the warning label and properly closes an opening port, it is still generally not as strong as one that is fixed? This isn't any sort of deal-breaker mind you, just a heads-up so a buyer can properly manage risks.:)
 
#1,427 · (Edited)
Oh goodness. Exile...look a bit more closely before hitting the blue button. Here, I'll strip down your post to the two pics that count:

So while I always appreciate looking at beautiful sailboats, none of these appear to have portlights installed in the hull:

And of the nice pics of boats with portlights that are actually installed in the hull, we don't know if any of these are actually the opening types (vs. fixed) which raised the initial concerns:





So it seems the only example thus far of an opening portlight installed in the hull was that first pic of a Hunter 50. No doubt there are others, of course. And assuming quality materials and installation, I'm assuming we know that even if one heeds the warning label and properly closes an opening port, it is still generally not as strong as one that is fixed? This isn't any sort of deal-breaker mind you, just a heads-up so a buyer can properly manage risks.:)
That first pic is the Oyster 475 interior, aft cabin, with the opening portlight in the hull. And that second pic is the Oyster 475 exterior, with the opening portlight in the hull. Here's another view:



To be clear, this is in addition to the Hunter 50, with the opening portlight in the hull.

Bueno?
 
#1,434 ·
Thank you Jon. You said it well,from the voice of experience. It's all those little details that makes or breaks a boat offshore. Don't care if it's an oyster, Wally or Hunter. Just seems fewer boats are being made with those details in mind. Some are fairly radical like Chris Whites new cat or the boreals with aft daggerboards for running. Some incorporate the best features of recent years like my beloved outbound. Some move the tried and true a few steps further like recent HRs. But they are purpose built and it shows.
To me an example of market forces taking a very desirable offshore boat in a new direction is the most recent Amel.alwYs thought they were strange but you could never deny they worked. Now they seem just strange. I guess time will tell.
Btw smack 15-22k today, beautiful sun and in the low 80s in the islands. Stop being a boss, playing on the Internet and move that Hunter down here. Interesting Mac is my fave as well but the bottle is getting 1/2 empty as I type. Better hurry.
 
#1,461 · (Edited)
Heh-heh. Welcome to the club brother!

We'll cry in our Macallan together in the Maldives. You in your cheap-ass Bavaria and me and my deathtrap Hunter.

Here is a great comparison video that Paulo posted that shows the Bavaria up against a couple of other boats:



Then you've also got this:

Originally Posted by Polux View Post
And changing subject a hot new: For the first time Bavaria won the title of best mass production of the year (family boat) on the European contest with the Cruiser 46 but more important than to have won is why it has won. The comments are from the jury composed by test sailors from many of the best European sailing magazines:

"In a highly competitive class Cruiser 46 won in the end because it is among the many strong candidates the boat with the highest solidity and robustness. She sails very well balanced with lots of space and many different layouts. Like all Bavaria's it offers excellent value for money - and raised respect in what refers workmanship and equipment standards."


(Credit to PCP for this info.)
 
#1,467 ·
Nothing set in stone for me boat wise except preying on someone down on their luck and taking advantage of their desperation..
I love it when greenhorns think like this.... Its always entertaining in a schadenfreude sorta way, because it almost always ends up with somebody in over his head because he thinks he has figured out how to beat the house. Getting into old boats is like going to a casino- take a look around- if you can't spot the sucker... it's you.
 
#1,469 ·
According to their blog, all the problems with electronics etc had been fixed by the Hunter factory. They decided to sell the boat anyways.

Maybe they just had enough. No problem with that. But neither of their stated reasons (that M. turned 68 and that E. received her first social security check) could have come exactly as a surprise.

If they had felt comfortable in crossing an ocean in that boat, they would have. Something told them that was not a good idea. Michael had A LOT of experience at sea.
 
#1,470 · (Edited)
According to their blog, all the problems with electronics etc had been fixed by the Hunter factory. They decided to sell the boat anyways.

Maybe they just had enough. No problem with that. But neither of their stated reasons (that M. turned 68 and that E. received her first social security check) could have come exactly as a surprise.

If they had felt comfortable in crossing an ocean in that boat, they would have. Something told them that was not a good idea. Michael had A LOT of experience at sea.
Again, depending on what you mean by your post, you are potentially putting words in Micheal's mouth regarding the boat. If you actually think that after 20K+ miles and the fact that "Sequitur, our Hunter 49 had safely and comfortably brought us through one Force 12 storm, three Force 11s and several Force 10s and 9s." he was questioning whether the Hunter 49 was up for "crossing an ocean", as you put it, you have a great imagination.

Again, you guys are welcome to insert whatever you want into his narrative to try to fit it to your own. I'll just choose to believe him.
 
#1,471 ·
We just know precious little about the reasons why they decided to abandon the circumnavigation and get rid of the Hunter, when an ocean crossing would have been required next. If you believe that after planning a circumnavigation for decades (reading his early blogs), Michael woke up one morning and said to himself 'oops, I just turned 68 today, time to sell the boat,' you are not taking him very seriously.

Excuse me for believing that he had better reasons than that.
 
#1,472 ·
We just know precious little about the reasons why they decided to abandon the circumnavigation and get rid of the Hunter, when an ocean crossing would have been required next. If you believe that after planning a circumnavigation for decades (reading his early blogs), Michael woke up one morning and said to himself 'oops, I just turned 68 today, time to sell the boat,' you are not taking him very seriously.

Excuse me for believing that he had better reasons than that.
How about the reasons he listed?
 
#1,477 · (Edited)
I find Michael's comments to be somewhat conflicting when trying to figure out his motives for selling Sequitur. On one hand, he says Sequitur (a Hunter:eek:) took them safely and comfortably to where they are. On the other hand, he says they are now tired and ready to give up boating. I find this example a very interesting case study.

I can think of 2 main motives for buying an Erick Hiscock type traditional "bluewater boat". 1. Safety at sea in extreme conditions. 2. Comfort at sea in moderate and extreme conditions.

The arguments for the production boats are 1. Cheaper (read: attainable for many) 2. Comfort at anchor and in costal/inland conditions.

I've always favored the comfort at anchor over a Hiscock-type tomb with few creature comforts, but I fear what I appear to see over and over, which is that people give up cruising when the going gets tough. Perhaps if they were on a Pardey or Hiscock boat when things got rough, they wouldn't be so tired as to give up boating all together.


The facts are that the Hunter 50 survived major storms in one of the worst spots on Earth with little/no damage to the boat or crew. The couple also gave up their planned circumnavigation shortly after this event. It's not clear that there is a causal relationship here to their choice of boat, but there may be.

We're all trying to read Michael's mind through his posts. I don't think it's unfairly accusatory to assume there is some editing on his part of what he chooses to publicly share. All blogs, even the "honest ones" editorialize. There is also the very likely scenario of changing the personal narrative on his part. We all do it, and it helps us justify our decisions to ourselves, especially the hard ones.

Would they have not been so tired, and felt too old (all of a sudden) to continue if they had weathered their storms on a boat built comfort during the extremes in mind? Or would the Southern Ocean have talked them out of cruising even if they were on a SwOysterMel? We'll never know....

MedSailor
 
#1,481 · (Edited)
I find Michael's comments to be somewhat conflicting when trying to figure out his motives for selling Sequitur. On one hand, he says Sequitur (a Hunter:eek:) took them safely and comfortably to where they are. On the other hand, he says they are now tired and ready to give up boating. I find this example a very interesting case study.

I can think of 2 main motives for buying an Erick Hiscock type traditional "bluewater boat". 1. Safety at sea in extreme conditions. 2. Comfort at sea in moderate and extreme conditions.

The arguments for the production boats are 1. Cheaper (read: attainable for many) 2. Comfort at anchor and in costal/inland conditions.

I've always favored the comfort at anchor over a Hiscock-type tomb with few creature comforts, but I fear what I appear to see over and over, which is that people give up cruising when the going gets tough. Perhaps if they were on a Pardey or Hiscock boat when things got rough, they wouldn't be so tired as to give up boating all together.

The facts are that the Hunter 50 survived major storms in one of the worst spots on Earth with little/no damage to the boat or crew. The couple also gave up their planned circumnavigation shortly after this event. It's not clear that there is a causal relationship here to their choice of boat, but there may be.

We're all trying to read Michael's mind through his posts. I don't think it's unfairly accusatory to assume there is some editing on his part of what he chooses to publicly share. All blogs, even the "honest ones" editorialize. There is also the very likely scenario of changing the personal narrative on his part. We all do it, and it helps us justify our decisions to ourselves, especially the hard ones.

Would they have not been so tired, and felt too old (all of a sudden) to continue if they had weathered their storms on a boat built comfort during the extremes in mind? Or would the Southern Ocean have talked them out of cruising even if they were on a SwOysterMel? We'll never know....

MedSailor
I think this is a reasonable post. But I think you have to look at the broader context of his blog.

If Hiscock-type "comfort/security" at sea was an issue with the boat itself, you'd see that throughout the blog. You don't. In fact, you continually see the opposite. This is why I think people blaming the Hunter is seriously reaching.

That brings up the 2nd point. Anyone who has been off-shore for several days or weeks knows it can be very exhausting. Just the work of 24-hour watches wears you down.

Add to this the kind of anchoring they were doing down there, the fact that Michael was doing most of the work of sailing, the cold, the damp, the grey - and all of this over years...and why is it surprising to anyone that they got tired?

And then the next step was the freakin' Cape of Good Hope? Remember, these guys were not "cruising" - they were "expeditioning". It's different.

That's my point about all this. You have to overlook a lot of perfectly reasonable explanations that he's given to arrive at some hidden agenda to "hide a problematic Hunter" (exactly the opposite of what he actually said). Why is that necessary?

Mastund said it's an insult to Micheal's intelligence to accept what Micheal has written at face value because of his maritime experience. I think it's an insult to his intelligence and integrity to imply that:

1. He's being dishonest about the boat.

2. With his experience and all the research he did before buying the Hunter - that he was a sucker and chose the wrong boat...then stuck with it for so many years when it was obviously uncomfortable and unsafe.

So - I guess these guys can keep trying to put their own words in between Micheal's. I don't feel the need to.

In any case, they didn't give up boats. They couldn't. They said they wanted boating that was more sedate. And that's what they've done. I find that perfectly understandable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top