Morgan 41 OI stability

Just to clarify my point about the Plywood Dory. I was not intending in any way to equate the Plywood dory to a Morgan at all. With regard to your quote ("However, I might suggest that you not attempt to be an amatuer psychologist since the average duck is brighter than that") There was and is no psychology or trickery at play here. My point is telling that story was to talk about a phenomina I have been running into a lot lately, especially on the internet, where there will be a discussion of some boat and its offshore capability. As the conversation proceeds inevitably, no matter what the boat (be it a Folkboat, Flicka,Gemini Catamaran, Hunter, Island Packet, Laser 28, Macgregor, Morgan OI, steel frameless boat, Rhodes Swiftsure, or what ever) some one cites the example of one of these boats that has successfully made a safe offshore voyage, or some owner tells us how seaworthy and well built his particular example of that breed seems to him. And because of that, we are expected to automatically think that the boats are designed for extended offshore use.

I just plain don''t buy that arguement. While these boats may or may not be truely offshore capable the fact that some have gone offshore does not prove their capabilities. That was the point of my citing of the Plywood boat story.

Today we know a whole lot more about safety and comfort at sea than we did even a couple decades ago. Its not that hard to quantify many of the factors that suggest that a boat is indeed offshore capable. The original question asked if a Morgan 41 with angle of positive stability less than 105 degrees (less than a J-24 for example) is considered safe for offshore work. By any objective standard by the agencies that rate these things, it is not. That was and still is my basic point in my original quote.

I think that the point and counter point in this is a healthy discussion and should help the original poster sort out his decision or at least understand the implications of his decision.

Respectfully
Jeff

[Eaugallie]

I have to chime in here and let you know that the point/counter point conversation here may not solve the original question, but it certainly is helping in my knowledge base. One thing I have found consistant with most potential buyers, as least the ones I know and have spoken with, are that they all want something different from their boats. Really though, all boats are a compromise as I am finding out through my search for my first sailboat.

Although I would really like a bluewater boat with all the capabilities and features to keep me safe on long passages, I will probably never use that...or will I? 90% of the time I will use the boat inshore in the ICW or on day sails along the coast, so a coastal cruiser would be good, shallow water....a shoal draft for centerboard.But Bimini is only an inch away on my map, But what if I get in a storm? I need a Big heavy offshore boat. I will pretty much sail myself or with minimal experienced crew so I need a simple rig capable of that. I also need a big interior to sleep 3 couples, because....I don''t really know why, but I want it!

You know what they call a camel don''t you? it''s a horse designed by a committee!

Anyway, my point is this. We all make compromises. I am certainly going to. I just hope I make the right ones. Your conversations in this discussion as well as others has been valuable towards educating me and helping me make the right choice. For that I thank you.

Eau

[JohnDrake]

Eau

I think the gentleman above have been most helpful and generous in their advice.

My own meeger advice is that if you are concerned with storms vs bluewater, the things to look at are: a strong hull to deck joint, small strong portlights as opposed to large windows, companionway entrance raised well off the cockpit sole, higher ballast to displ ratio, thicker hull, beefy rigging and chainplates. Some of the above are independent of the design and can be modified.

Righting moment is important if you are concerned with being offshore and in big waves. And of course there are factors affecting righting moment like the weight of anything stowed below the waterline, the amount of canvas you are carrying and more importantly the weight of anything fitted above the center of gravity (lets say the waterline) (radar, rigging etc etc) (remember lessons from fishing boats that were modified added weight to their superstructures). Thus if you are looking at a boat that already has a low RM, with a lot of mods above the WL, perhaps you may think twice about it.

There is much more, but I hope this helps focus your thinking. In addition, a good survey that tells you the boat is solid is of course needed. An OI in perfect condition will likely be safer than a Hinckley with problems.

And there are A LOT of boats out there. If you like, use the OI as your baseline and proceed further in your thinking. The logic being that that makes it easier to compare a boat you are looking at and see if it does or does not beat your baseline in attributes, quality etc. Then either proceed further or return to your baseline (whichever you have the will and the $ for).

All the best

John

[rbh1515]

Jeff,
Before you make analogies make sure they are pertinent to the discusion. In one of your previous comments you make an analogy of an offshore voyage in a plywood boat to Earl Hinz''s offshore voyages on his Morgan OI 41. I guess you have not read the Cruising World article from 4/01. Earl and his wife sailed their Morgan OI41 offshore for 20 years (30,000 miles) in the Pacific Ocean. This is not a fluke. Its not a one time voyage that was lucky. They did it for 20 years!!! Again this is not a fluke. The OI 41 is a boat that can be confidently sailed offshore!! Read the article and then make the analogies!! Please!! Do your research before making definitive statements. You make not like the design and sailing characteristics (it would also not be the boat for me), but try to make better informed decisons.
Respectively,
Rob
~~~~_/)~~~~

I think that you have missed my point. I don''t doubt that the Earl and his wife spent 20 years cruising the Pacific and I don''t doubt that they like their boat. Again, I am not equating the Morgan OI series to the plywood boat in my example. The plywood boat example says to me that any individual testimony about a design does not prove anything to {B}me **/B}. So my point is that their experience does not prove to me that Morgan OI''s were ever intended as offshore sailing craft nor that they are my idea of a proper offshore yacht.

As to doing my research, I had the chance to do some this weekend. This weekend I was in a raft up that included two marine surveyors, three current or prior yacht brokers, one yacht repair yard owner, several active and former) yacht delivery skippers and a former IO-36 owner. I was surprised by how many sea miles these folks had spent on IO''s as owners, in charter or in deliveries.

In a number of conversations I asked what was the general ''take'' on the boats. Universally there was not one of these people who classified these as ''offshore boats''. The Surveyors both said that the "fleet of OI''s had not held up well and if they were originally OK for limited offshore work, most of the OI''s that see lately are no longer in a condition to go offshore." They said that these boats have typically been sold cheaply to comparatively inexperienced people trying to save a buck and that as a result deferred basic maintenance have resulted in more serious problems. They descibed the same phenomina that I have speculated that there seemed to be a wide range of build quality over the life of the boat.

I heard the description of a hull/deck joint that had ''unzipped'' in a storm similar to the example that I knew of and a near random and wide spaced bolting pattern similar to the one I knew of.

There was near agreement that the IO41 was pretty much a ''motor sailer'' in terms of sailing ability. There was a general agreement that the boats were miserable in any kind of rough weather. (This from a group that had literally spent 1000''s of miles on these boats.) The prior owner said that he sold his OI and bought a trawler because he "was motoring such a large percent of the time that although he now covers more ground he spends less time motoring than he did in his OI."

But all of that aside, I still come back to the original point of this question, no matter what this august group or the Hinz''s say about the boat, if the boat only has a 105 degrees of positive stability then I know of no classifying agency that would consider this to be and an adequate range of positive stability to be considered a proper offshore boat. Research that! I am open to suggestions here.

Jeff

[rbh1515]

Jeff,
I also did my research. I wrote to the Morgan email group to find out what the opinion of actual OI owners was. Here is one of the responses:

"I worked for Morgan Yachts from 1972-79. This was before the choppergun. I now own an O/I 30. I would take this vessel to hell and back. The O/I 41 was what made the charter business in the 70''s and 80''s. If you understand that the tumblehome deck which many consider unattractive is derived from Dutch and Scandavian work boats and provides a cruiser friendly interior you will discount the ignorant who have no experience with this true classic cruising vessel. Be of good cheer. The Morgan O/I''s, 28 , 30, 33, 38 are, considering the large number produced, not that readily avialable. This is why Catalina, after buying out Morgan continued to produce the O/I as the "Morgan Classic." I have crusied worldwide and encounter more O/I 41''s than any other single vessel. I have never heard an owner not extoll the seaworthyness of the O/I. The 30, 33 and 36 are excellent for ocean passage of 1,000 miles or less. It''s not the vessel, but the length which limits the time at sea. A shorter vessel is tougher on the crew."

Pretty impressive. Sounds like OI41''s are cruising offshore in great numbers. Fancy that.
Rob
~~~~_/)~~~~

[RobHoman]

You know, I have sat here reading all of this about the righting moment of 105 degrees that the Morgan OI-41....and I am ever amazed at the absolute reliance some people have at hanging on to "numbers". While often times numbers can be highly reliable, I cannot help but reflect on the number of times in my life when I have seen numbers and facts manipulated either by the vindictive or jealous for their own means.

I am not trying to imply that Jeff is doing that....I don''t necessarily think he is doing that...I think he is relying probably too heavily on those numbers though.

At any rate, I by my nature am sleptical of any set of numbers generated by engineers or any "group"....because more often than not studies and such have results far more affected by personal preferences and politics. Not that the sailing organizations, manufacturers or venders would stoop so low......(!?!?)

Any, all of that being regurgitated, I was sitting here on my boat during a windy rain storm...and my boat was moving in the slip alittle....and I looked over at my neighbors
boat... a Tai Shing that is about 42'' long with a fair beam...and what was interestng about it was this: This larger much more expensive and fancy boat was bouncing around in the slip and its mast was rocking back and
forth far more than mine. Hmmmmm, looks like this "rich boys toy" would be a seasickness machine on open water....

I have two points here.... Engineers are not always right... otherwise we wouldn''t have the product problems that we have, ie, SUV''s with crappy tires killing people, and I cannot help but wonder if when the omnipotent self appointed authorities came up with their "official" righting moment scales.... did they also actually take the boats in question and measure the amount of force or energy that it would take to push each vessel over to that point? I would venture to bet NOT!
Failing to do that, in my minds eye, does somewhat negate the validity of said data to a point.

So, the bottom line is this....each to his own....and as long as a buyer does "due dilligence" prior to the purchase they should be happy campers, right?

[rbh1515]

The previous comment makes a good point and ties in with another comment from the Morgan email group:
"Everything is relative. If you read Marchaj and others yes they refer to 120d as the accepted minimum these days. But that is also dealing mainly with IOR type boats, and he notes the deep fin keel on this type of hull may be inherently usafe, in that it leads to the type of motion that can roll the boat into a broach off the top of a wave.
Since you have a full keel, not an IOR fin, the same situation doesn''t apply to you--you are inherently safer against the roll being *started* than a fin keel boat.
Ideally you would have the traditional full keel *and* a higher stability angle, but in life we compromise. I would suggest that "due diligence" accounts for a lot of the safety factor. If you take the boat across the Pacific and out of range of weathercasts, you have more risk. In the Atlantic and Caribbean, it is easier to monitor and avoid extreme weather.
I don''t think anyone would call the OI41 a dangerous boat."
Its always helpful to know the details and assumptions behind mathematical formulas!!! Without the knowledge of these background parameters its just a bunch of meaningless numbers!! My research is finished.
Respectively
Rob
~~~~_/)~~~~

[rbh1515]

I''m glad we''re thru with this discusion!!!
Rob
~~~~_/)~~~~

[thecapnken]

Look if you are doing coastal and occasional passages. Go ahead. Don't be stupid and try to challenge God. Look and pay attention to the weather. If it doesn't look good CHANGE YOUR Plans. Have fun It is a boat It belongs in the water.
Capn Ken