Offshore Crusing Boat....Hunter?

[rtbates]

I recommend you read John Vigor's excellent book on preparing an off shore boat.
http://www.amazon.com/Seaworthy-Offs.../dp/007137616X

Besides all the good stuff about the vessel and preparing her, he tells you straight out, the skipper is the MOST important aspect that needs preparing.

randy cape dory 25d seraph#161

[Sailormann]

Another option to consider is buying a really old boat (1960's) with a strong hull, and having it refit. You should be able to find a decent hull for about 30 to 50K and if you plan on spending another 75 to 100K you will end up with something that looks new, but won't cost as much, and will probably be stronger than a lot of the current production boats are. If you are able to be onsite while the refit is going on, you will be able to watch, take pictures and ask questions. That way you will really know where everything is on your boat, what is attached to where, and be further ahead when the inevitable repairs have to be done. As an added bonus, a lot of the boats from that era are more comfortable in a seaway, as they were not so much built to take advantage of a specific rating ruke as more modern boats are/were. If you are going to stay fairly close to land - then just about any boat will do, but if you plan to cross oceans one day, it really helps to have a storng boat underneath you. I believe that Jensen Aero-Marine built some very strong boats, as well as Whitby Boatworks, and there are many, many others as well.

[Valiente]

Hunters are very comfortable at dock and at a mooring, no doubt. But the knock I have heard against them hasn't to do with the rig, but with the soundness of the hull and the enormous freeboard some models have which *can* make them sail like a shoebox with a wing stuck in the lid. The Hunter 50 aside (which I liked from a design point of view), I find Hunter serves an essentially "light duty, coastal" market, and for that I guess they are as good as anything else.

But I won't even take one into Lake Ontario with 20 knots of wind and a four-foot sea. There's a few Hunter 33s at my club and I can tell just from sailing beside them in even a minor blow that they are too lightly built and have an "unkindly motion" for some conditions...conditions that are to be expected even in the Caribbean.

The newer models might be different: I can't say, because Hunters as sailing boats have never interested me. As pleasant places on which to be served wine and crackers, they are fine.

I have been on Catalina 400s and 42s, and they seem much better made and thought out. But I would consider a Catalina to be in the top tier of coastal boats, rather than in the bottom tier of offshore boats. In that tier I would put some of the Tartans, the Hanse line, the Sagas and the J-Boats, but not all of the Beneteaus and the Dufours, despite their Lloyd's "Ocean" ratings. I've poked around in some of these boats, and I just see too many instances of design and "convenience" trumping the sort of tested layouts that keep people safe in heavy weather.

You have to decide what you value: all the modern conveniences for the 90% of the time you'll be on the hook, scratching yourself in the well-earned tropical warmth, or the slightly less spacious, slightly more Spartan layouts found in offshore boats. The two ideas have a lot of cross-over, and I support the idea of remaking an older boat into something more modern and comfortable (Morgans and Gulfstars and Cal 2-46s seem to be amenable to extensive renovations), but it's really up to you, your wallet and your own sailing abilities. The weather WILL find you, and a stationary target in the form of a boat where the crew can't put to sea (and the boat is a whippy, windcatching cube) is going to be more dangerous in my view than something that's supposed to stay moored in a hurricane or heavy gale.

But all of this is just my opinion. I own a steel cutter-rigged motorsailer now, which is no one's idea of a great sailing boat, but is the choice of quite a few people as an offshore passagemaker.

[Mkfcdl]

I probably would agree that the Catalinas are top-end coastal boats rather than low-end true bluewater boats. Having said that, I don't want or need a true bluewater boat--I need a good cruising boat that can point well, single-hand well, be comfortable when I'm ready to sleep but can handle a blow.

I recently singled-handed my Catalina 400 across the Gulf of Mexico from Galveston to Key West--which I think qualifies as an offshore passage. During this trip I was caught in two cold fronts (the first on purpose because it was supposed to be a "weak" front and would give me a downwind ride towards the Keys) both of which produced 35-40 knot winds and 15-20 ft seas. The second front gave me 20-25 ft breaking seas during the 24 hours prior to the front from strong southerly flow coming up from the Yucatan channel. So, while I planned for easier conditions, the weather had other ideas. Fortunately, the 400 performed like a champ in steep seas; the first was in following seas and the second in a close beat which turned into confused seas. I never had water in the cockpit, never felt overpowered, just got tired from not having a crewmate. When I had to sleep during the worst conditions I would set the autopilot and sleep in the cockpit with a timer alarm. The autopilot never let go which tells me the boat was balanced. The rest of the trip was uneventful except for fouling the prop on some fishing line/rope/tangle during a period of no wind--hove to and swam under to cut it away. The only damage sustained the whole trip was a tear in my headsail which I repaired in the cockpit.

So, while I don't think of my boat as a "bluewater" boat, I certainly have a lot of respect for its handling during a blow in sloppy conditions. My vote is to keep my Catalina.

Hope this helps,
Mark

[k1vsk]

To summarize this discussion:
1.Everybody likes the boat they have.
2.Most people are critical of their previous boats which they sold.
3.Everyone thinks their boat is better than the competitors'

We've proven the obvious!
The real answer is that virtually any boat (as demonstrated by history) can and has done offshore passages under adverse conditions and done so successfully and comfortably if both the boat and crew are properly prepared. Only a small fraction of boats are intended for this use because only a small portion of the market is interested in such use - another obvious fact.

[Valiente]

Originally Posted by Mkfcdl

So, while I don't think of my boat as a "bluewater" boat, I certainly have a lot of respect for its handling during a blow in sloppy conditions. My vote is to keep my Catalina.

I think your post is an example of the most important part of the boat: the skipper. The fact that you were single-handing a 40 footer argues in favour of your experience and your ability to cope with "dirty weather".

I would keep your Catalina, too, in the Gulf or the Caribbean. It's a nice mix of the boat's design meeting the intended cruising ground.

Maybe being experienced, though, you have installed "after-market" handholds and jackline hard points and places to clip so that those big, entertainment-friendly cockpits are safer for 20 foot seas and the sort of motion they can inflict on a relatively light boat. That's sort of what I'm getting at in the "coastal vs. bluewater" argument. There are very few production boats today being made that can't be sailed well enough so that they can't survive horrendous conditions, but not everyone can sail well enough, and not everyone can safely move about such boats or can keep their dinner down and their bones unbroken in those currently popular, cavernous saloons.

So the boat itself is only part of the equation: a "bluewater" boat will give you an easier ride, and will come equipped with the sort of foresight that means you can't fall far in many directions, and you have ample places to stay attached to the boat.

Maybe the question should be: are you an offshore sailor?

[Valiente]

Originally Posted by k1vsk

To summarize this discussion:
1.Everybody likes the boat they have.
2.Most people are critical of their previous boats which they sold.
3.Everyone thinks their boat is better than the competitors'

Not true for me. I know that the virtues of my boat for passagemaking come nowhere near the "flaws" of being relatively undercanvassed and possessing a fullish keel and a transom-rudder, neither of which can ever be as "slippy" as a fin keeler with flat sections.

But a rare application demands a rare boat. Having an ocean-style, old-school tub doesn't preclude gunkholing or Caribbean island hopping (and I dare say at five foot eight in draft, we are going to get in some places the J-boats aren't), but it does mean I'll never set speed records.

I can live with that. I've had a hot rod racer and I'll have one again. If I had a few million to throw around, I could have a Moody or a Swan or some other "performance cruiser" that can produce...at a price...the sort of fast but tough ideal we all might choose.

But I thought that it's better to go safely and a bit more slowly in a boat that can take a coral grounding and can be careened on a beach and can be run in extreme weather and that has the room to carry a lot of robust systems (fuel, batteries, ground tackle) than to go in the wrong boat today or the right boat when I'm too old.

I found it informative to my plans when I bought my custom steel ocean boat to learn that neither the original owner, who commissioned the design and hired the builder, nor the second owner, whose wife got a pensioned job they couldn't refuse, ever took the boat out of the Great Lakes. When I was shopping for bluewater cruisers, time and time again I encountered the dedicated and skilled builder or rebuilder who finally brought the boat to a state approaching perfection, only to realize that he was too old or sick to do his dream trip.

This showed me that time and not money is the bigger factor in one's cruising ambitions. The point is to go before you can't, if going is what you want to do.

[Mkfcdl]

Valiente:

OK, I admit to adding things to the boat to make it easier to sail--mainly because I make all the long slogs and my wife meets me there by some other means. And, I actually like single-handing--clears the mind and focuses the senses on something other than politics and the stock market. Yeah, a few strategic handholds, jacklines, harness tether attachment points in the cockpit, etc. However, the hull shape is still the same...

[Valiente]

Originally Posted by Mkfcdl

Yeah, a few strategic handholds, jacklines, harness tether attachment points in the cockpit, etc. However, the hull shape is still the same...

And there's nothing wrong with the hull shapes these days. 40 years of taking the best ideas from racing designs has made for a good range of production cruiser hulls that are very forgiving on most points of sail. But they really shine in lighter airs, because the vast majority of customers for production cruisers *irrespective of their other qualities* are daysailers and coastal gunkholers with a fair chunk of Caribbean island hoppers in there. Single-handing a Catalina 400 across open water prone to squally weather is relatively rare...but I can certainly understand why you do it.

When you think of it, single-handing for 24 hours is akin to passagemaking with a short-handed crew: when the off-watch is sleeping and you are clipped in with binoculars and your toes on the wheel, you are in effect alone: if something goes seriously wrong, you won't have time to wake people up, short of "abandon ship!".

[Brezzin]

Originally Posted by Valiente

This showed me that time and not money is the bigger factor in one's cruising ambitions. The point is to go before you can't, if going is what you want to do.

Ain't that the truth!