You are right that perhaps I should talk more specifically about my experiences. Here''s the deal, I actually know a small sampling of these boats pretty well. I also know what I look for in a boat and understand that obviously there are a lot of people that would look at my idea of a distance cruiser and question the logic of my choices as well.
But in an objective way there are agencies that set safety standards and rate boats on their stability and construction methods. I do not know of an agency that rates 105 degrees of positive stability as acceptable for offshore work. I do know that I personally found the motion of these boats uncomfortably rolly. I know that the small sample that I came in contact with had undersized hardware and key gear poorly fastened to the boat. For example on the OI36 the
cleat for the
jib sheets pulled out of the deck when we used it to belay a spring
line that we were using to slow the boat when the engine failed as she entered the slip. This
cleat went whizzing by me. It was held in place by a couple big self-tapping screws into the fiberglass. That other OI''s may not have been built that way has been said many times on this and other BB''s where I have mentioned this incident, but on the boat that I knew, this was the case.
That you had a IO33 that was solid and seemed to take a beating says that you probably had an IO33 built during a time when they were put together well. But in contrast, I helped analyze the damage and make repairs to a couple IO''s one of which had a failed hull deck joint, that were not that well built.
That an experienced sailor such as Earl Hinz and his wife liked his boat and made extensive passages in the boat has some significance but to me that does not represent evidence that these are "a boat designed for extensive offshore use".
When I was in Miami in the early 1970''s I met a fellow that had sailed from New Zealand or Australia west around the world to the Med and then on across the Atlantic to Miami. In the days before this was common and there was not the kind of high tech electroncs that we take for granted, this was a very big deal. He did this in what was essentially a beamy plywood dory with a cast concrete keel and bad sails that he built for a song and a dance.
I went daysailing with him and the boat would not reliably tack through irons. We took repetative knockdowns on almost every tack because in a breeze and chop you would get stuck in irons, start to fall back, and then come off on the other tack with no steerage. The boat was built with constuction grade plywood and galvanized fastenings. When he hauled out near my Folkboat big delaminated sections of the outer plys were simply pealed off and then a new layer of 1/4" plywood nailed over the original ply. Sections of the hull had delaminated at sea and been patched by simply nailing another piece of plywood over the hull while under way. The boats had not sat on her
lines and so concrete was poured in the bilge under the cockpit. This concrete had actually rotted out the hull in this area. The boat pounded under way terribly and the keel bolts which were galvanised ''all thread'' bent in a ''U'' and cast in the concrete. They noticeably leaked and moved around in the floor timbers as the boat beat into the small head sea we were sailing in.
When you talked to this guy about his boat he waxed poetic about what a great seaboat she was and what a brilliant design he had come up with, and how solid she was built compared to production fiberglass boats. Even as a kid of 23 I knew better.
In reality, I believed then and I believe now this was a good seaman who was also very lucky to have made it that far. To me the lessons learned from boats that have successfully made a far voyage is that the owners were either lucky and/or skilled and they either had a good boat or one that somehow fortunately they were able to keep afloat. It does not prove the suitability of the design for "extensive offshore use".
What ever my opinion I understand that it represents my personal view point and experience. I know that my opinions are not always right and certainly do not always reflect universally held views. I try not to be frivilous in my comments on these boards but that does not always mean that I am as acurate or rigorous as I would wish. In this case I am calling this as acurately as I can based on my point of view and experience. In the long run I think that these boats offer a lot of liveability for the dollar. I know they have covered a lot of sea miles and made significant passages. I know there are a lot of folks who really like the OI''s. I am just not one of them. I offer my opinion for what it is worth and hope that in the end my comments at the very least will help with an informed decision what ever that decision may be.
Respectfully
Jeff
Linear Mode
