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
#233 ·
Production as I see it is a boat that was built in a non-custom way in reasonably large numbers. Home built really shouldn't apply.
As far as Cal 40 and 46, the 46 is definitely a cruiser designed for offshore, but I don't believe the Cal 40 was designed for offshore cruising. In it's day (old shoe times) it was quite radical and has gone on travel far and wide but was really a racer/cruiser at first.
Gulfstar and Endeavour probably should be coastal, at least depending on model for Gulfstar.
I question the "lake" designation for most boats 30' or over. (Macgregors are under this length). O'day 30+ should be coastal, Lancer and Yorktown as well. I really don't know of any boats mentioned over 30' not designed for coastal cruising watching the weather.
Westsail was designed for offshore and marketed as such much like the Bristol Channel Cutter was more recently.
Brian
 
#234 ·
Smack,

I appreciate you are wanting to focus on the 1-3 categories as that has been less focused on in general on SN.

I think you will find a gravitation to the BW side as that seems to capture the imagination of the arm chair sailors more than buying a boat to cross a small lake. Not to say that isn't what 99% of people end up doing! (although we are making it off the couch as it were and have a BW boat and we are taking to the Marquesas ... we also sail on a lake but on the lake I like boats that go fast for the Regattas....so that is my focus...) all that said

Production boats can be broken in style Cruise or Race
age older or newer
older can further be broken into cca or ior

the lake boats and models vary from area to area

In the plus 20 year old boats In the PNW there are a tonne of San Juans which are a great production boat mostly in the IOR style.

In the west there are many Santanas to...a little less 'pinched' but a great light fast boat

Other general (older) production boats Catalina, US boats, Ericson, Bayfield, J, Mac, PS, O Day, Tanzer

Newer (some of these have been around a while) C&C Bene, Catalina, Jenneau, Dufour ...
 
#235 · (Edited)
GreatWhite
What design is shown in your profile? Quite often when I am in a thread I will look up a profile to see what boat a poster has and I wish all were listed.
I agree about the San Juans etc in the PNW. As well there are Canadian boats like Fraser 36 and 41 I think, Spencer 35,42,44,1330,and 46, Cooper built Seabird 37 and Maple Leaf 42, and the Sceptre 36.
Brian
 
#237 · (Edited)
Does grouping boat brands and models by seaworthiness really make any sense?

I could imagine a Macgregor 21 handling a light ocean storm just fine with everything in perfect shape, proper storm sails and a drogue, some rigging upgrades, and well sealed hatches. An old Westsail 32 with the original standing rigging and some crevice corrosion on the chainplates could easily become demasted, while the Macgregor is undamaged, right? Or it could loose a shoddy through-hull and sink.

Is the design and construction of the boat itself really that relevant compared to the variables of equipment condition, and skipper experience? I doubt it!

I suspect that most boat sinking in rough weather isn't due to the overall quality of the boat, but due to overlooking some minor maintenance issue like a corroded hose clamp, or a low grade bolt fitted where a high grade was needed. Even the lightest lake cruiser is built with huge margins of safety in design and construction, assuming everything is maintained in tip top shape.

Which boat will be more comfortable and sail-able in a storm seems pretty clear cut, but which will be more likely to survive probably can't be predicted from generalizations about entire brands or models.
 
#239 · (Edited)
Does it make any sense? Heck no! But it's fun!

Seriously, all I know as an average schmo that has done a lot of reading about these boats - here and elsewhere - is that you always run into comments like "I would never take an XX out of sight of land. The build quality is too spotty and the equipment too light." etc.

So in that regard, people DO put these "production boats" into these categories and as a potential buyer it gets overwhelmingly confusing. I guess I'm just trying to find some very general consensus on what's what.

Yes, these kinds of lists are pretty arbitrary. But that's better than nothing. Think of it as the little brother to "Twenty Small Sailboats to Take You Anywhere" - maybe like "Twenty Production Boats To Take You Just Far Enough Out To Get You Killed Because You Didn't Buy a Swan".

PS - Where do Sabre's fit? #3?
 
#238 · (Edited)
casioqv
While I agree that more boats probably sink from maintenance/handling than from original quality I don't believe the measure of an offshore capable boat is strictly whether it sinks or not. Design features like companionway openings that are severely tapered and go to the cockpit sole would tell me immediately that the boat wasn't designed with offshore use in mind. A lot of boats need additional handholds for example this is an easy owner addition. Some features really have to be there from original design and manufacture as they're too hard/expensive to do later. While it's not too hard to install additional tankage for example, when all the cabinetry is only held in with a few screws and the bulkheads aren't glassed to the hull it's too much to change in my opinion.
Brian
 
#240 ·
Smack, things a little bit boring out there on the prairie lately? I thought this was all talked out months ago. There is no absolute ranking of boat builders - it is all too subjective. You are going to have to get a little experience to know what YOU want in a boat and go from there. To clear up some of the (minor) misconceptions: Tumblehome is a hull design where the max beam is greater than the beam at the deck. It was popularized during the IOR days where that formula had restrictions on certain dimensions. By going to a tumblehome shape, designers could lengthen the effective water line (and greater hull speed) for a given beam width. The venerable Cal 40 was designed by Lapworth to race the Transpac wherein it dominated that race for years after that. The Cal 40 went on to be selected as the boat used in the Congressional Cup. (Incidentally, it was later replaced by the Catalina 38.) The Cal 40 is a blue water boat. So how strong, stiff, heavily built is it? Starting at 2,000 lbs of backstay tension, you are no longer tightening the rigging, you are warping the hull. You can bend the hull by pulling the backstay tensioner on the Islander 36 too. Measured in square inches, the companionway opening on the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<ST1:pNewport </ST1:p</st1:City>30 is greater than the Catalina 30. So what is the difference between "premium coastal" and "regular coastal"? Does the one come with the upgraded radio, A/C, leather seats and wheel covers? Some day, if you ever come out to SF, I will take you to some broker friends of mine (J, Sabre, Beneteau and Catalina) who would be more than happy to discuss boat design with you. Oh, and one more thing, you are in serious need of some saltwater, dude! You need to spend less time keyboarding and more time trimming!
 
#242 ·
I'm probably a bit jaded, having either raced on or raced against a large number of the boats on the list so my judgment is a bit clouded by my experience. There is so much overlap in the two coastal groups as to make the differential to be more subjective than empirical. I know a couple who had a terrible time on their Swan during this year's Ha Ha and in fact, are now reconsidering their plans for further cruising. Yet, another guy I know, said he had a wonderful time sailing his Cat 34 through the same storm and gale. Go figure. One of your problems is you make this a beauty contest based on builders and you are not cataloging your target boats. List your criteria and go from there. Any boat in the middle two groups will fulfill your reasonable expectations. Besides, how do you know you will like sailing in the ocean. You could be one of those guys prone to seasickness (or worse - your wife!). One of the more common boats all my broker friends sell is one where the former owner, new to sailing, over buys (either size or brand)a boat, finds out it isn't his cup of tea, then sells. It is amazing the number of owners a particular boat can run through.
 
#243 ·
Production Boats Offshore

Hi Smack,
Sorry but I just discovered and read (took quite some time) this thread. I agree with the basic premise of your thread, and that is that a lot of people are successfully taking "basic production" boats on trips that in the past might have been considered "blue water boats only. I own a 37 foot Bavaria (2005 vintage) that I am quite happy with for what I ask her to do, and that is basically coastal cruising, although some trips have been over 100 miles one way (but always able to find a safe harbour/anchorage within a few hours if needed).
I went to a talk at the Maritime Museum by a Bavaria owner (same size as mine but a few years older) who took his boat from Dubai to the Philipines. During this trip, he encountered the same Cyclone (hurricane) twice, and the boat was knocked down twice. Wind speeds were in the range of 80 knots or more (if I remember his talk correctly). He and his wife (the only 2 on board) both faired OK, and the boat suffered no real damage. He was originally planning on sailing the boat all the way back to Vancouver, but his wife suffered a heart attack just before reaching the Philipines and they ended up having to sell the boat there due to her health. They bought the boat new, took delivery of it in Dubai, and only did minor modifications (like better latches and seals on the lazerettes, installing anchor points in the cockpit for tethers, etc.) prior to the trip. Based on his experience, and the fact that many people cross the Atlantic in the ARC every year in a Bavaria, these boats appear to be "offshore capable". By the way, Bavaria is the 2nd largest sailboat manufacturer in Europe producing about 3000 boats annually.
Now, with that said, if I was planning a longer blue water trip such as crossing an ocean, and I was starting from scratch as far as a boat was concerned, I would not likely have Bavaria as my first pick (for that purpose, although the Bavaria Ocean series 40 or 44 which are heavier centre cockpit models (no longer in production) might be a better choice for that use than some other production boats). I think a person would do better with a Hallberg Rassy or some other semi production boat that is not "old style blue water" but more suited for that purpose than most "regular" production boats. In my opinion, Bavaria are every bit as well built (or better) as Beneteau, Jeanneau, Catalina, or Dufour, and definitely better built than (most) Hunter. They are more than capable (with some modification) of the shorter offshore trips that you are contemplating (5 days or less) in this thread.
Anyway, interesting discussion Smack (and everyone else), and I added this as no one had yet discussed Bavaria except one person who gave them a (small) slam that I don't feel is deserved (and wonder on what experience or knowledge it was based) but each to their own opinion. :)
Regards,
Tom
 
#246 ·
firehoser75
Earlier this year there was a Bavaria 36 moored in my home marina in Victoria. I know the owner bought it and chartered it for a few years so it was probably the same year as yours or close. I'd take it offshore. I think it is a good example of a well made modern quite quick cruiser. Better made than many as far as I know. I read a profile in Britain's Yachting Monthly a while ago showing how they are produced - quite a factory and very mechanised. But what I saw and read didn't describe or lead me to believe Bavaria took shortcuts, but rather through mechanisation were able to, for example computer cut all bulkheads and varnish them in what amounted to 1/2 an hour or less (special dryers so multiple coats could be put on almost one right after the other). The heading for the article was "Why is a Bavaria the least expensive in her class?" (in the UK anyway) and the conclusion was efficiency, not cheap building. I would however happily do without the in-mast main furling. The heavier Bavarias you describe are no doubt good ocean cruisers but I think the 36 is a good choice as well.
Have we yet established exactly what makes a good ocean cruiser - besides ultimate stability, good construction, and things like tankage which can be added to anyway? While not everyone would pick a J boat, they're doing it and from what I've heard quite well. I've often thought it would be cool to take a Santa Cruz 40 offshore and as long as it wasn't loaded too much I think it would do well. When you tjhink about it Westsail 32s, Tayanas, and many others are considered "old shoes" currently by many. Maybe the next wave of "old shoes" will include many of the current "best offshore choices" as lighter, faster, more efficient (if that is the right word) boats come along.
After all why should a 40' boat have to weigh more than 10,500 lbs?
Brian
 

Attachments

#247 ·
Smack,

If you are going to go with more coastal crusing, short BW hops.....ANY boat with a current "A" rating per the european rules will do what you want. This is built to specs to handle IIRC a force 8 or 10 winds and 10M or about 33' waves. A place to store a life raft at aft end of cockpit. There area few other specs that I do not recall off the top of my head.

Meanwhile a "B" rated boat is something like 6-8M waves, and winds force 6-8, usually 1-2 more people on board, I'm recalling this being bays semi protected waters etc.

A "C" raitng is lakes. You C27 IIRC has a B rating. Most of the Current Jeanneaus have B and A ratings. Altho the Sun 2100 may have a C, I would have to look it up, the Sun2500 and SO 30 have B ratings, and the SO33i on up ALL have A raings. IE "open water".

So again, now comes the price point, design etc that you like, suits you etc. for coastal cruising. How much water/fuel do you need etc.

If need be, I can find the link to the European ratings, I pretty sure I have it saved in bookmarks somewhere. That will give you a good start.

Marty
 
#248 ·
Caribbean 1500

Not sure how much this plays into this discussion, but check out the fleet for this year's Caribbean 1500 (wwww.carib1500.com). Of the 54 boat fleet (congrats to Steve Black for having that success by the way), there were 15 production boats of the type being discussed in this thread -- Beneteau, Catalina, Jeanneau, J, Gulfstar and Dufour.

A 7 to 10 day, 1300 mile run from the U.S. east coast to the BVI, in November. That's a serious trip no matter how you slice it.
 
#249 · (Edited)
Thanks DG. I took a look at the list and it is a nice cross section. I especially love that the Gulfstar took first in its class. That's some good sailing.

Did any of the aforementioned boats run into problems that would shape this dicussion? How were the conditions?

Judging by this pic - things weren't exactly tame...

 
#250 ·
Smack, Where was that photo taken? Those conditions are pretty typical for here in NorCal. The following is from the start of the Windjammer race to Santa Cruz.
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<ST1
</st1:City>

<st1:City w:st="on"></ST1:p</st1:City>

 
#251 ·
IIRC, that pic was taken near the start of the rally, which would be near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. They supposedly had very good conditions this year almost a record low (if not record) number of engine hours in the cruising class, wind speeds mostly 20-30 kts. Most if not all boats did the run completely on port tack. :cool:
 
#252 · (Edited)
Wow - this debate has been going on a LONG time. Here's a post from 9 years ago that has some interesting points that still might apply today:

Paul,

I just do not understand why you and a few others on this message board continue to bash/bad mouth hunters and other production boats as not viable bluewater cruisers.

To answer one of your questions; Hunter marine, according to Greg Emerson at Hunter, has stated "My background before customer service was actually building the boats as I was the lamination manager for over 10 years after having started working for Hunter Marine in 1978. I am very familiar with lamination schedules and the extensive research that we put into deciding how a boat will be built. I am very familiar with the effort that is put in to have proper overlaps in place as well as extra reinforcing for specific areas of the hull and deck.
Over the years we have continued to build boats using the same building techniques with the only changes being in materials that technology and testing prove to be the best. When recently required to have our boats meet CE Certification to sell in the European market, which by the way is the only rating system to date that screens ocean sailing capabilities, we were pleased to find that our boats rated very well. The certification encompasses the boats stability and construction. Although the boats we built in previous years did not have to be CE certified we found that we had to make no changes to our laminates to meet their requirements therefore showing that previous boats would have been certified as well since we made no changes. The only changes we had to make was in equipment. All our boats from 34 foot and above received the highest rating which was "class A" which indicates ocean sailing ability."

Have you seen Hunter boats upside down because of a wave? I imagine any wave large enough to do that (and I have seen waves in the north Atlantic big enough to roll ANY 50 foot or less sailboat easily)

Have you roll a sailboat while crossing the ocean? and continued on? I''d be happy to survive but would expect possibly a broken mast.

I expect any 20,000 Lb boat to right itself if 50% of the mass is buried 6 feet or more below the waterline, cause any seas mean and rough enough to capsize it would not be calm enough to allow it to stay balanced in such an unstable position, EVEN if the beam were 20 or even 25 feet wide she would self-right herself. The problem with what you imply, to get caught in the kind of sea state needed to roll a 10 ton displacement boat, is one would NOT roll just once, BUT again and again, unless it was a rare tsunami wave or some other rare sea condition. The situation altogether must be avoided. I have been on 1000 foot carriers in the north Atlantic in the winter, and people died. The carrier lost aircraft off its flight deck to the sea, planes crashed on landings, some spilling fuel but not igniting simply because the air temp was cold enough not to support enough JP-5 vapors to catch.

Now Paul, I would give you some credibility in my eyes if you could provide some factual data, historical data on why the hunter''s or other modern production boats are not contenders for ocean crossings?

According to Hunter there have been many ocean crossings and I''m told I will hear from some of their customers who have made ocean crossings.

I am not bashing you if you have some useful data on modern production boats but I have not read anything from you or Jeff on these message boards other than well known boat design considerations used as speculation to try to discredit modern production sailboats.

Try using facts and not speculation mixed with well known design priniples. you begin to sound like someone who thinks they know what they are saying, but really has not a clue.

I am aware that companies like Hunter have professional sailors in their employ as well as many engineers, who are also avid sailors, so either put up or ---- --.

I am still not convinced one way or another about hunters or other production boats, but I plan to continue to research the facts, historical facts, proven facts to find out.

Thanks,
Gene
And Jeff_H's response...(see bolded text)

With regard to the certification process, as the European Union has been coming together they have tried to develop uniform standards that would apply to inter-country commerce. These standards have been applied to everything from butter to boats. The process of developing acceptable standards for boats has been ongoing for the better part of a decade that I know of.

The original standard dealt solely with stability and downflooding at sea. The process was very interesting in that yacht designers from all over the world were consulted as well as research teams. Data was collected from a wide variety of events (knockdowns and roll overs) as well as from actual disasters. The events were plotted against the known information on the vessels that had been through dramatic occurances. Certain patterns were noted and a set of formulas were written that attempted to create an empirical rating regarding a boats safety at sea only as pertained to knockdowns and roll overs. The grade that resulted would have placed vessels in one of four categories, with the most stringent being ''Open Ocean''.

These formulas were submitted to member nations for review, comment and approval. As a result of this multi-European nation over view the formulas were changed so that they required simplier information to obtain essentually developing surogate approximations (For example instead of requiring manufacturers to calculate the vertical center of gravity of the boat, a computation of draft, ballast, mast length and displacement was used roughly estimate the vertical center of gravity- a poor substitute but easier to obtain.) The requirements were also reduced in severity as well.

Shortly after the stability standards came a set of equipmentand systems standards. These do have some minor scantling requirements.

Hunters larger boats were some of the first to be certified for an "Open Ocean" rating. You can argue with the stringency of the rating (which I do) but you can''t argue with that they did not obtain it. Hunter''s current crop of larger boats have CE Open Ocean certifications.

Now to correct one point above, these certified designs have been altered to obtain the necessary certifications. One reason that Hunter went to cored topsides was to reduce weight to allow them to have additional ballast and thereby do better. They also raised to cabins to reduce inverted stability (a major category in the standards) albeit hurting real usable stability by raising the center of gravity and adding windage.

In any event, the standards do not really cover the characteristics that determine whether a boat''s capability really is as a blue water boat. It does not look at seaberths, handholds, size of portlights and thickness of large plexiglass elements. It does look at hold downs and system installations. It does not consider comfort of motion.

In conversations with Hunter owners who have weather storms at sea you get all kinds of mixed messages. The boats, by and large have survived but they have flexed terribly. I have read accounts of dislodged bulkheads and casework. I have experienced failed fitting attachments. I have experienced blown up or damaged undersized hardware. (We have had two Hunters in my family.) Hunters are a mixed bag but in my mind most of the newer boats are not a boat that I would choose to cross an ocean on.
Respectfully,
Jeff
Jeff
And a good reply with some additional info...

Thank you both Paul and Jeff for updating your opinions about hunters and other modern production boats. I apologize for the vigorousness of my assault upon your opinions, I do dislike when people use concepts combined with speulation, to me that is more a recipe for hypothesis and not a valid convincing arguement, yet many novices can influenced all the same with this technique all the same.

I recieved the letters from Hunter from other Hunter owners from various sources. And several accounts of ocean crossings and one complete circumnavigation in a Hunter 43.

Some common threads I noticed, all were very pleased with Hunters light air performance, no surprise here. It appears none were stock boats, meaning nearly all were modified somehow, be it additionl fuel reserves, to mfg installed smaller stays enabling it to be rigged with two head sails, but primarily to use a storm jib on the aft smaller stay to move the CE (Center of Effort) aft to bring balance to a fully reefed main close hauled in 20 foot seas and 25+ 35+ knots of wind and one account of greater than 20 foot seas with gusts exceeding 65 knots ! wow, I''m even a bit skeptical about this account, but I take it with a grain of salt. One had a pair of adjustable backstays added "For insurance" they wrote. Most had some minor gripe usually to do with something like the halyard line holder drained onto the cockpit seats, or the anchor had to be replaced because they thought it too small. No major damages reported, yet they all acknowledged that the light air performance comes at a cost, I use my own words to summarize the observation, tall mast, large area maximum sail plan, requires proper sail plan set for any given conditions.

I also realize this is Hunter filtering what Hunter wants me to read. And still remain a bit of a skeptic. However, I am attracted to Hunter boats for several reasons, not all sounds ones either: Strong light air performance, by far and large my own sailing experience has consisted of more light air sailing than gale force winds, so I assume, maybe incorrectly that more sailing is done in light wind than strong, even though inshore this is largely determined by the choice of when to slip the dock lines, during an ocean crossing, one only choose their first few days, maybe. Also I like the roomy interiors of the hunter boats, if lee cloths are used, then their are readily available sea berths on every hunter(another common modification). I like the looks, hunters are just plain sexy to me. I''m a skeptic, I like things to be proven, and I think more often than not, as Jeff acknowledges, there have been many ocean crossings. This tends to be proof for me. There are many other very capable passage makers out there, some better in some ways, worse in others, but it is my opinion to date(not written in stone) that some hunters make great Bluewater boats. Thus I give Jeff credit again in stating hunters being a "Mixed Bag" I think the real challenge with Hunter is determining which boat you wish to bet your life on.

That said I think I will look into their new HC50 as this boat appears to make the most of hunters lessons learned. Many ppl thumb down a Mac 26x as a small weekend inshore cruiser, myself included until I used one. Now for what I use it for, I think it is perfect. I was even taught that sailboats do not plane under motor power, I guess I am simply saying things change. There will always be trade offs, and the more versatile a boat is, the more her configuration will need to change with the continuously changing current conditions and the desired effect from her master....hmmm, I wonder what a 2001-2003 model HC50 would sell for in 2006-2009 timeframe? (I think this will require speculation and patience! :)

Good Luck All!
Gene
Cheers to old threads! Keep diggin' them up!
 
#253 ·
Nice thread. One quick post about Nauticats. One was lost two years ago off the OR coast when a rogue wave caved in and shattered the cabin side ports, tearing the fiberglass dividers up when it did so. This caused down flooding shortly thereafter. The couple was rescued but the boat lost. Boats with BIG ports make me nervous and would instantly be disqualified from MY list. I like the heavy bronze ports on my boat. The cabin sides would fail before a port would. I also like a real bridgedeck between the cockpit and cabin. It keeps a pooping wave out as well as provides somewhere for passengers to sit under the dodger. After being tossed around in a sea way, I'll keep my boat with handholds to Port and Starboard close enough that I can switch sides without losing contact. You'd be amazed how fast and hard you can get thrown in the crap.
 
#254 ·
Charlie,

Is the Nauticat you are refering to, was this in an article in 48North? As I recall that was more of the coast of Ca in the SF area IIRC. As I know one of the two onboard and whom wrote the article. Then again, there could be two NC's that have gone down off the west coast here too!

With that in mind, I would agree that bigger "windows" for a general term, would not be my first choice for off shore, as they will let a lot more water in if they break somehow vs smaller one.

Marty
 
#256 · (Edited)
I think one of the problems with production boats being "offshore ready" has a lot to do with the market and pricing. If 99% of the market will not go offshore, and the boat is not sold as an "offshore ready ocean crossing boat" why would the builder, whether Hunter, Catalina, or any other company spend the money to make it so. It would price the boat out of its intended market. Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions. Things like handholds added, minor rig changes, extra tankage and other changes/additions as required for the individual boat. On the other hand if the bulkheads are not tabbed, furniture is only held in with a few screws, and the companionway opens to the cockpit floor and is a lot wider at the top than the bottom I'd suggest another boat be chosen. A boat like this would require way too much in both dollars and time to make it "offshore ready". Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I can't think of any mainstream boat in the mid price range that is specifically advertised as an ocean crosser. The basic design has to be compatible with the idea of offshore use, the small non structural things can be modified.
 
#261 · (Edited)
I think one of the problems with production boats being "offshore ready" has a lot to do with the market and pricing. If 99% of the market will not go offshore, and the boat is not sold as an "offshore ready ocean crossing boat" why would the builder... spend the money to make it so. It would price the boat out of its intended market.

Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions.
Let me be a little more specific:

Yes, I agree but one thing is a boat having an offshore capability, another is a boat designed primarily for it.

As you have said, 99% of the boats are never used offshore and even the ones that are used sometimes for that, are used most of the time onshore. Between the optimization for the two uses, there are some design criteria that are contradictory (sailing and living aboard in bad weather or sailing with weak winds and living aboard anchored or in a marina). That means that a production boat will be always a sort of compromise because simply there is not a market big enough for sailing boats designed with the sole purpose of offshore work.

Of course you can have one made; it will be probably a steel one, cutter rigged, heavy (with almost half of its weight in ballast), slow, with few openings, with a relatively small and dark interior, and of course, the bigger the better.

Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions.

Things like handholds added, minor rig changes, extra tankage and other changes/additions as required for the individual boat. On the other hand if the bulkheads are not tabbed, furniture is only held in with a few screws, and the companionway opens to the cockpit floor and is a lot wider at the top than the bottom I'd suggest another boat be chosen. A boat like this would require way too much in both dollars and time to make it "offshore ready". Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I can't think of any mainstream boat in the mid price range that is specifically advertised as an ocean crosser. The basic design has to be compatible with the idea of offshore use, the small non structural things can be modified.
Yes, I agree, but even in what regards compromises on the boats available on the market there is a big difference between several categories of sailboats, regarding seaworthiness and stability. Unfortunately those categories have a close correspondence in price levels.

Seaworthy boats, the ones that are generally called oceangoing boats are more expensive for a number of reasons: They have a Weight/ballast ratio bigger (more final stability) than the ones normally considered as coastal, they are stronger and heavy (they have to be because the extra weight on the ballast generates bigger forces to be distributed on the hull that has to be stronger). Because they are heavier they need to carry more sail and therefore they need bigger winches. They also have hatches and portlights stronger and more expensive.

Because these boats are more expensive and most of the people don't need what they offer, the demand is limited and they are built in small numbers. Those numbers don't justify expensive robots on the production line. Most of the work is manual and that contributes heavily to the final cost. As the boats are expensive anyway and only wealthy people can buy them, these manufacturers finish the boats with the level of interior sophistication that appeal to their buyers and, of course, all this costs even more money.

That's why Najads, Malos, Halberg-Rassys, Moody's, Southerlies and the like are more expensive. Much more, sometimes more than 2x a similar size mass production boat.

They are 2x more seaworthy? I don´t think so. If you pick a less expensive bigger good mass production boat, properly equipped for the job and compare it with a smaller "called" oceangoing boat, you can end up with a more seaworthy boat.

What's that difference in size? I would say that the stability of a Malo 37 roughly corresponds to the one of a mass production modern 42ft, as for instance, a Dufour 425. The 42ft will cost about 1/3 less than the 37ft. We are talking about 60 or 70 000 euros and that's a lot of money, at least for me and the Dufour will be a lot faster.

Sorry about the long post but I would like to say one more thing about what Jeff calls the"performance way" to have an offshore boat.

Most cruiser-racers have better overall stability, better final stability a better weight/Ballast ratio and are stronger than the correspondent cruiser boats from the same brand. I mean, a First against an Oceanis, a Performance line Dufour against a Grand Large Dufour.

As modern boats are very easy to reef (and anyway, if you want you don't need to carry all the sail) the cruiser-racers are generally more seaworthy than the correspondent boats from the cruiser line. They offer also a much better control of the mainsail (nearer the wheel) and that is important for a solo sailor. If you are a relatively experienced sailor, they are a better choice to go offshore, comparing with the sibling cruisers ( even considering that if you sail them on the limit, they tend to be a lot more nervous than a cruising boat).

]Unfortunately and for the reasons I had explained these boats are more expensive than the cruisers even if the interiors are poorer.

That is ridiculous? Yes, as the name of the lines "Oceanis" and "Grand Large". Those names imply boats designed primarily for offshore work and certainly that is misguiding, to say the least. Of course, by definition a purely cruising boat should be safer than a cruiser-racer that supposedly is meant to be sailed with a full crew.

That's a distortion of the market that has to do with all that has been said and has to do with the use the vast majority of buyers give to their boats, and with PRICE, not to mention marketing.

But not all the boat manufacturers misguide their clients. If you have a look at the line of x-yachts you are going to see that their cruisers, compared with their cruiser-racers have a bigger Weight/Ballast ratio, a better overall and final stability. In a word they are more seaworthy, but also a lot more expensive than their cruiser-racers (that are already among the more seaworthy).

I have seen last weekend at the Dussoldorf Messe the new Xc-42. What a boat!!! If I had the money I would not hesitate. But I don't and I believe not many would have the 450 or 500 000 euros that are needed to have that boat. But if you dream higher than me, you can pic the Xc-45. That one is more seaworthy:D

[URL="http://www.x-yachts.com/seeems/40086.asp[/URL]

X-yachts is a Danish medium production boat builder, the boats are very well made but not with the luxury touch you find on the Najads or Rassys. I believe that price is the price that you have to pay for an almost perfect fast bluewater cruiser and that´s why there are so few on the market and that's why me and the other less fortunate sailors have to look to mass production boats and to their compromises to afford a boat with offshore capability.

Regards

Paulo
 
#258 ·
Old but good thread. Many boats will withstand more than the crew. Any boat with an offshore rating should be seaworthy, which doesn't have to mean it's sea-kindly. And "offshore" doesn't mean a coastal run 50 miles out. It means a transit longer than a known weather forecast, with fetch of +200 miles, and no option of safe-harbour. The storm/calm percentage in the Pilot Charts doesn't mean chance of an occurance, it means percentage of the transit that will be in a storm or calm. Prepare for part of every offshore transit as being in a storm.

A narrow-blade type keeled boat has a flatter bottom and lands hard after jumping off a wave. A full keel usually dives in deeper, decelerating as it lands. Full keels will usually be more stable when hove-to.

It may take over a day and a half for a large Low to pass, then another day for the sea to lay down. That's two to three days in very stormy seas, with another +4 metre wave every 15 seconds. For three-days my calc says 17,000 waves... Yup, seaworthy is important but sea-kindly counts. If the boat is not sea-kindly the crew will be reaching for the EPIRB after only 5,000 big waves.
 
#259 ·
Charlie Cobra comes up with a point that is a favorite of mine....you never want to be further away than you can reach from a handhold.

otoh when it comes to PH windows I'm of the opinion that modern materials could in fact make the windows in a PH stronger than the timber/glass whatever surrounding them.

I'm not suggesting that windows as fitted are of adequate strength, more that they can be adequately beefed up. Mind you if I was taking a PH offshore I'd want to have storm boards.

Now further to the question of overall strength I'd point you to doing a Google of "Queen's Birthday Storm" or

Storm Tactics Handbooks: Modern ... - Google Books

In that event , and it was a particularly nasty one, on par with the '79 Fastnet and the '98 Sydney-Hobart a Bob Perry designed Norseman 447 (surely something of a brick outhouse) went down without a trace.

There are some events you simply cannot hide from but its interesting to note that while the Norseman was beaten other lighter boats (including a number of multihulls) survived.

I reckon we keep coming back to the crew and how they prepared for the worst.

Jeff_H's remarks re flexing (quoted by Smack) are worth re reading, as are most things the old curmudgeon writes.
 
#260 ·
TDW—

I'd point out that the scantlings for multihull construction are different than that for monohull construction. One reason is that multihulls do not have to support the loads generated by the large mass of a keel or ballast system that monohulls have to deal with.

Also, the forces a storm can apply to a monohull are often higher than they could with a multihull, since a multihull can rise with the waves and follows the surface, rather than being in held in place by the keel and getting pounded as a result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top