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
#1,309 ·
There is silliness and extreme gesturing on both sides in the threads on CF and previously on here, but amongst it all Smack has raised an interesting question.

To elimate the silliness, let me state first that I believe and would like to think there is some general agreement that:

- All boats are compromises, there is no perfect boat.
-Hunters, Bavaria's, Beneteau's etc (the so called production boats) can and do cross oceans regularly without issue.
-Hallberg Rassy, Hylas, Morris, Oyster, Najad etc (so called 'bluewater' boats) are built at a higher price point and so are arguably 'better' and stronger built. The design choices on these boats are also generally more geared toward the Bluewater set( more tankage, passage friendly layouts, accessibility of systems. They may sail better or be easier to sail in the range of conditions in a circumnavigation, they would probably be more sea kindly.

So then my real world hypothetical question is that I want to purchase a 40-45ft monohull boat for a circumnavigation. Let's say my budget is about 225k with say 50-60k to update.( US $ is fine).

At this price I could buy a near new Bene/Hunter/Bavaria or Catalina or I could also buy a 1996 Hallberg Rassy 42f or a 1989 Stevens 47 or similar.

What is the 'safer' boat?

The newer lighter built boat would be 'ready to go' with some( decent) blue water and safety equipment and some change leftover but it would only ever be as strong as it is. Or the 20- 25 year old 'bluewater' boat with 25 year old chainplates, keel bolts, rudder etc.

Now with the Bluewater boats you could pretend that you get all this inspected and fixed before you go, but in the real world who does all of this? Can it be done satisfactorily in this budget, how do you know you haven't missed something?

As we have gone through the fun of a part refit with our current boat, I can say it sucks. It stops you sailing and makes you want to take up golf.

Having said that I would still for us lean towards buying a 1990's Hallberg Rassy. However I am starting to examine more closely why this is..........
 
#1,315 ·
There is silliness and extreme gesturing on both sides in the threads on CF and previously on here, but amongst it all Smack has raised an interesting question.

To elimate the silliness, let me state first that I believe and would like to think there is some general agreement that:

- All boats are compromises, there is no perfect boat.
-Hunters, Bavaria's, Beneteau's etc (the so called production boats) can and do cross oceans regularly without issue.
-Hallberg Rassy, Hylas, Morris, Oyster, Najad etc (so called 'bluewater' boats) are built at a higher price point and so are arguably 'better' and stronger built. The design choices on these boats are also generally more geared toward the Bluewater set( more tankage, passage friendly layouts, accessibility of systems. They may sail better or be easier to sail in the range of conditions in a circumnavigation, they would probably be more sea kindly.

So then my real world hypothetical question is that I want to purchase a 40-45ft monohull boat for a circumnavigation. Let's say my budget is about 225k with say 50-60k to update.( US $ is fine).

At this price I could buy a near new Bene/Hunter/Bavaria or Catalina or I could also buy a 1996 Hallberg Rassy 42f or a 1989 Stevens 47 or similar.

What is the 'safer' boat?

The newer lighter built boat would be 'ready to go' with some( decent) blue water and safety equipment and some change leftover but it would only ever be as strong as it is. Or the 20- 25 year old 'bluewater' boat with 25 year old chainplates, keel bolts, rudder etc.

Now with the Bluewater boats you could pretend that you get all this inspected and fixed before you go, but in the real world who does all of this? Can it be done satisfactorily in this budget, how do you know you haven't missed something?

As we have gone through the fun of a part refit with our current boat, I can say it sucks. It stops you sailing and makes you want to take up golf.

Having said that I would still for us lean towards buying a 1990's Hallberg Rassy. However I am starting to examine more closely why this is..........
I think you've nailed it. And outbound has hit on another aspect of this discussion that's even more pertinent...longevity.

I'll address his next...
 
#1,311 ·
Been out cruising so just catching up. Would note.
Hunter now in next slip. It's having chainplates redone. Underlying bulkhead bad so that being redone and layers of glass added. Ports leaked bad and taken out to be rebedding They found house bad so more glass work. Laminate in galley lifted in spots and therefore removed. New laminate cut and being restored. Owner says next haul will replace all thru hulls.
Other side of me Bristol 54. Other that re caulking decks in Bristol condition. Both boats same age -mid 1990s. Bristol has circumnavigated twice. Hunter did thorny path other wise coastal out of Florida.
Just saying smack.
On next pier is bene 55 with pro captain. Owner at work back in the states. Captain is hot for my daughter so we have buddy boated some. Boat came here from SF by way of canal. Brand new as of 2014. Pro captain says already falling apart. They had a beat down the west coast but nothing extreme (30-40 squalls at times). Captain has nothing nice to say about bene other than its pretty and fast in the right conditions. Boat being hauled. He won't discuss other than saying not being done for bottom paint or zincs.
Yes there is a price point difference. Yes it's reflected in basic construction. Yes they age differently and this seems more apparent with more recent boats. Yes given tooling expense per boat is less and automated construction of large runs saves money you do get a lot boat with bhj. Still for beating the crap out of a boat year after year it's like a 20 year old Rolls compared to a twenty year old Chevy. The Cubans keep the Chevy going but the Brits past the Roller down generation to generation.
 
#1,318 · (Edited)
To me - this gets to the REAL heart of the matter...that is, longevity.

Let's start with the Hunter to Bristol comparison. Both are 20-year-old boats. The 20-year-old Hunter seems to be having real issues, the Bristol is apparently not.
Now, discounting the fact that this kind of anecdotal comparison really doesn't mean much, let's stick with it as a straight-across comparison.

The takeaway would be that IF YOU WANT A BOAT THAT YOU WANT TO OWN AND SAIL HARD FOR 20 YEARS - Hunter is not a great choice. Bristol, or Hinckley, or Morris, or IP, or whatever would be a much better choice.

Now, I honestly don't think anyone around here would argue that point. I wouldn't.

BUT, if owning and sailing a single boat for 20 years is NOT what you're after, things start to change pretty drastically when you begin to look at shorter-term value (as Chall is talking about above).

IF you want a boat that you're going to sail for maybe 5-7 years before moving to something "better" (like most people seem to do) - then the calculus is very different. Why pay a "20-year premium" for something you're not going to derive that value from?

In this case, buying a much, much newer production boat for roughly the same amount as a 20-year-old "bluewater boat" can start to make a lot more sense.

Now, this brings us to the Beneteau example - a new boat gone bad. I see these kinds of anecdotal stories all the time. New boats "falling apart in benign conditions". I'm not saying this guy's Bene isn't falling apart - but I AM saying that that doesn't seem to be a common scenario in the thousands of Benes that are out there plying blue water. They are not all "falling apart".

So, as usual, it just depends on what you want, and what you can afford, when you buy a boat.

If I have the choice between this 27-year-old Bristol 53 at $350K and this 1 year old Jeanneau SO 50 at $399K...I'll take the Jeanneau without hesitation.

So, at the end of the day, maybe the actual lesson here is that modern production boats have a "best-by" date of maybe 10 years or so before they start having problems that outweigh their value. In other words, maybe they are "disposable" to some degree?

I think that is an interesting conversation.
 
#1,316 ·
Smack
If it makes you feel better from the boat running captains don't hear nice stuff about Wally's - big day sailors- not meant for long term ocean sailing away from home. Or Oysters below mid seventies - they know the owners will never work on them and the owners want space so working on them is a bear apparently.
I love Valiants but one of the things that scared me off was how hard it would be to work on stuff inside that canoe stern. Access, quality of electrical panels , clean wire runs, engine install and access are also an issue. Good seaboats are thought out with the knowledge you may need to fix stuff at sea and things should be put together in such a manner that fixing stuff should be an infrequent event.
Ever look at the wiring etc. in a recent production boat Smack. Every think about life of the tanks and what would be needed to replace them. Ever look at that fancy bene interior after a few years. An really diligent owner can keep those boats up but from going over for drinks many look like they have been ridden hard and put away wet.
 
#1,321 ·
Easy Dono - it's a question - not a proclamation.

Again, I definitely DO think a BeneJeneHunterLina - all things being equal - will not have the longevity of a more heavily built Hinckley.

I just don't think that's as big a deal as most BWCs make it out to be.
 
#1,322 · (Edited by Moderator)
Again, I definitely DO think a BeneJeneHunterLina - all things being equal - will not have the longevity of a more heavily built Hinckley.
I have seen no evidence of that in my 8 years of sailing. By that I don't notice a bunch of 1970s Hinckleys etc. out on the water (and I'm in the Northeast).

I had a 1988 Cal-39 as my first boat. It was considered a well built boat in its' day. I was it's second owner and my purchase survey said it had been taken better care of than average (it was owned by a doctor). After years of working on the Cal and on my 2001 Hunter 410, my opinion is that the construction and assembly of that Cal was pretty crappy compared to my Hunter.

I bet the same could probably be said of comparing a 1988 Mercedes Benz to a 2001 Toyota Camry. Now if you compare a 1988 Mercedes to a 1988 Toyota the story is different.

Now I didn't really expect that and got the Hunter for other reasons, but that's my opinion.
 
#1,325 ·
Smack has been talking about blue water in his original post. I think some posts are clearly not directed in that line of thinking. In prior was trying to point out that if that Bene was used the way the overwhelming way most sail it probably would do just fine. Put going a couple of thousand miles to windward caused issues.
If that Hunter wasn't used as a live aboard in the tropics, didn't deal with Xmas winds and constant humidity it would probably have done just fine.
But a blue water boat is a blue water boat. That immediately implies:
It will be forced to go to weather for days on end, it will be in humid or cold or rough weather for prolonged periods. It is some ones traveling house for months and years. Often in places with little or no support systems such as the electronic guy or the yard monkeys or even a travel lift.
A quality boat will,endure this type of abuse. It was made with that in mind. You can't get around recent production boats are not aimed at the one or two percent of sailors doing this kind of stuff. They are well designed and well executed for their target audience.

BTW- I've done several Marion to Bermuda races in 20+ year old hinckley B40s and have ocean sailed a hank hinckley ocean 38 older than my 30+ year old kids. They did just fine.
Hell wooden Wm. Fife boats older then all of us put together are still crossing oceans. Quality wins out over time.
 
#1,328 ·
C'mon, out - that's only there for the Boat Shows, you don't think that's actually for sleeping, do you?

Looks more like a space to be dedicated to FENDER STOWAGE, to me... :)

Anyone going out for more than a weekend away from a marina on one of those, you're gonna have to convert one of those aft playpens into a garage...



Hmmm, an OPENING PORTLIGHT in the hull??? Yeah, what could POSSIBLY go wrong... :)

 
#1,331 ·
"Where do you come up with this stuff????? I have a 14 year old Hunter and the biggest hardest to do age problem I've had to do was replace the head hoses?"

I understand Hunters age well at the dock. How much sailing have you actually done on your boat. It is going to be a different story once you get offshore. If the the hardest thing you've had to do is replace a head hose then a whole new world of hurt is coming your way.
 
#1,345 ·
Hola Smack Daddy, como esta? As I said, years ago, much of survival depends on the crew. We've been through more storms in the Gulf than most people - the last was the Force 10 storm that I posted about sometime back - we ran before the storm and were carried about 200 miles down and 20 miles off of the Mexican coast.
Best advice is check the national weather before you go on a long trip.
...John
s/v Paloma, '79 Bristol 29.9
 
#1,358 ·
Hope its not too late to chime in on this.

This thread is particularly applicable to my situation as I am in the middle of outfitting a boat which is considered to be on the fringe of the vessels normally considered to be true "bluewater" boats. (my boat is a Grampian G26). I say it is on the fringe because it has some definite shortcomings as delivered, but several have undertaken long bluewater voyages without mishap.

As a pilot, this discussion comes up a lot, and it always boils down to a few common points;

1. Preparation of the pilot (captain)
2. Prep of the plane (boat)
3. Route management
4. Having set limits that you wont break. (don't commence a trip in bad conditions, for instance)

I know these seem simplistic, but you would be AMAZED at how often these are overlooked or outright ignored.

Having said that, I think it is important to know the limitations of the craft, and to be realistic concerning what you are willing to invest time and money-wise to shore up some of the shortcomings. I wouldn't be comfortable taking my boat on Gulf passages to Mexico or the Keys without performing the mods I am currently undertaking.

Also, I personally want my skills to match the vessel. For example, in aviation, you aren't allowed to jump from your Cessna trainer right into a jet or turboprop aircraft. I think this applies to boats too. In all areas of operation, things get less forgiving as boat size and complexity increases. And this is relevant to the bluewater discussion, because I always hear that you shouldn't be considering anything other than coastal (in sight of land) cruising in a boat of less than 40 feet or so. So there are probably a LOT of neophyte cruisers out there that really have no business behind the helm of that 40'+ vessel.

Bottom line, comes down to the prep of the captain and the boat, in my opinion :)
 
#1,361 ·
To Smackdaddy

You may be one of the neophytes, but you strike me as someone who has a grip on the realities of the requirements of that bigger vessel. I personally believe that experience is ALWAYS the best teacher, but that experience should be gained in controller, measured steps. I actually am looking at making the same sort of transition you did, I am currently in the initial search stages for my next boat, and I am looking in the 40-45' range.

I don't think the size of the boat is the issue (until you try to dock it the first few times;)) as much a the situations we put ourselves in. I would be perfectly comfortable taking a 40' boat out on Galveston bay in 12-20 kt winds with less than 3' swells. But taking it cross Gulf? No way....not yet. But I'll take my little boat right now, because I know I can handle her if I make a mistake.

For example, If the crew were to accidentally dump the mainsail (because I would NEVER do something like this...;))I know I can manhandle it in and get sorted. Not so easy with a much bigger sail. There are tons of examples, but the point is clear.

However...I want a bigger boat too, and will get it when the opportunity presents itself. I am sure I'll be timid in it at first though...
 
#1,362 ·
As I have been looking at bigger boats, the wife REALLY likes the designs that are a little more open. On a longer cruise of say a year or more, isn't the majority of time spent at anchor in port vs. on passage? I could have that totally backwards.

If that is the case, I could see sacrificing some of the dedicated stowage space to a more comfortable cabin at anchor. Especially if the boat IS your living room and bedroom.....
 
#1,364 ·
This is a belief I've held for a LONG time, that too much is sacrificed for the 1% of the time that you're offshore. If you read Eric Hiscock, for example, everything about the boat design (and I mean EVERYTHING) is designed around what life is like offshore.

As someone who's lived aboard 10 years I have a hard time swallowing the idea of giving up so many comforts (in design compromises) just for the small period of time that you're offshore. In fact my signature used to say that my boat would loose against yours sailing to windward but would "outperform" yours at anchor.

However....

You've no doubt heard lots of stories of people hitting Epirbs in non-life threatening situations and heard the tales of people who sold it all and they (or the crew/family) bailed on the voyage and now the boat sits for sale in Mexico.

If the boat is a total floating gin palace with NO regard paid to the Hiscock-type offshore design characteristics then you risk your offshore passages and foul weather being SO miserable that they might make the crew hate the whole experience and give up on it entirely.

It's also hard for me to ignore the advice of so many that HAVE a lot of sea miles under their belt. Most of them aren't screaming for bigger bunks, but rather are advocating better offshore characteristics. They're living aboard too, and have to live with their compromises, but this is consistently what I hear.

So pick your poison, but as in most things, the answer for most people usually lies somewhere in the realm of moderation rather than at any of the extremes.

MedSailor
 
#1,365 ·
Med Sailor,

As someone who's lived aboard 10 years I have a hard time swallowing the idea of giving up so many comforts (in design compromises) just for the small period of time that you're offshore. In fact my signature used to say that my boat would loose against yours sailing to windward but would "outperform" yours at anchor.
That is TOO funny,
I am afraid I am going to have to steal your old signature line:)

I am trying to find a balance between the two extremes, which seems to be a bit of a challenge. My approach will ultimately boil down to one of two paths;

1. Buy a boat with the offshore qualifications and rebuild the cabin as required
2. Buy a boat with the cabin layout and keel configuration, and upgrade the offshore
equipment and systems.
 
#1,369 ·
And yes, even when full-time cruising you will generally spend more days at anchor or tied to a dock than out sailing, but that only makes the case for me to have a tidier, more organized interior space
Totally agree with this. Actually, I consider it a safety issue.

I certainly wouldn't even to WANT to try and duplicate lubber life when cruising. I actually have more of a minimalist approach. This is why it's good we are starting on a smaller boat. It forces us to adapt to less and to be smarter concerning storage. Also, we are cruising in an area where spares are easy to come by, so I don't need to get too crazy with those. (Because I will...it's in my nature :cool:) Now if I were cruising in remoter areas, or on longer passages, I would have to rethink this somewhat.

I will use the V berth for overflow storage underway for now, but I am in a little boat :) She has a LOT of storage space for her size though.
 
#1,371 ·
We cruised and lived on our Catalina 400 for 2 years.

While the C400 does not have the storage space of a Valiant, Passport or Tayana, we felt it had plenty for 2 people. We carried a lot of tools and spare parts. We even managed to have a decent amount of good wine on board...

So, as long as you do not do RTW or high latitude sailing, I feel that a most 40' boats, even the production variety, has enough space for two people.
 
#1,372 · (Edited)
I can only speak from my limited experience.
I have 7 berthes.
The forward centerline quen is never used underway. Even when it's just me and the bride. Hard to sleep when airborne.
I have five berths aft of the stick. Never use the double made by lowering the saloon table rather saloon rigged for two berths with leeclothes.
I clear two lockers for each crew. Nothing and I mean nothing Is left out to fly around. No one hot bunks. The top of the forward queen has nothing on it so we can get to stuff under it if necessary. ( bunk on hydraulic cylinders)
The boat will survive a knock down. No one will be hurt by missiles.

Boat has done passages, seen 60kts, beat to windward for 5 d in 30-45. Nothing is broken and after 1y living on it other than a few dings in the sole looks boat show new.

New boats designed and executed for offshore sailing perform better and are easier to sail. Off shore boats have real storage and accessibility to systems. We stand single watches.

Compared to the same size older boat VMG is better so day's work is longer. With improved materials and execution voyage is safer. The NAs and builders haven't been sitting on their hands.

Boat is not an investment. It is a money pit. To think otherwise is foolish unless you are going to only stay in one locale. Boat unit is $1k for a reason. If your dream is to sail to distant ports and live( that mean a lot of junk to store)safely and comfortably often the best decision is to leave less for your kids to frit away and buy a new quality boat design for offshore sailing and customized to your liking or do a one off. Yes either choice makes no sense economically just like marriage. Although fewer people get married now a days folks still do it.
Economically best decision is to buy an used one off done to your liking.
If buying production and funds limited a good used PSC, Valiant, hinckley etc. makes more sense. If go small go now a BCC or like boat makes sense. Something where you're not concerned about oilcaning or structural failure because something is glued not glued and bolted or has inadequate safety margin. You only have one life. How much is that worth?
 
#1,373 ·
I can only speak from my limited experience.
I have 7 berthes.
The forward centerline quen is never used underway. Even when it's just me and the bride. Hard to sleep when airborne.
I have five berths aft of the stick. Never use the double made by lowering the saloon table rather saloon rigged for two berths with leeclothes.
I clear two lockers for each crew. Nothing and I mean nothing Is left out to fly around. No one hot bunks. The top of the forward queen has nothing on it so we can get to stuff under it if necessary. ( bunk on hydraulic cylinders)
The boat will survive a knock down. No one will be hurt by missiles.

Boat has done passages, seen 60kts, beat to windward for 5 d in 30-45. Nothing is broken and after 1y living on it other than a few dings in the sole looks boat show new.

New boats designed and executed for offshore sailing perform better and are easier to sail. Off shore boats have real storage and accessibility to systems. We stand single watches.

Compared to the same size older boat VMG is better so day's work is longer. With improved materials and execution voyage is safer. The NAs and builders haven't been sitting on their hands.

Boat is not an investment. It is a money pit. To think otherwise is foolish unless you are going to only stay in one locale. Boat unit is $1k for a reason. If your dream is to sail to distant ports and live( that mean a lot of junk to store)safely and comfortably often the best decision is to leave less for your kids to frit away and buy a new quality boat design for offshore sailing and customized to your liking or do a one off. Yes either choice makes no sense economically just like marriage. Although fewer people get married now a days folks still do it.
Economically best decision is to buy an used one off done to your liking.
If buying production and funds limited a good used PSC, Valiant, hinckley etc. makes more sense. If go small go now a BCC or like boat makes sense. Something where you're not concerned about oilcaning or structural failure because something is glued not glued and bolted or has inadequate safety margin. You only have one life. How much is that worth?
Have you read "Sea Trials" by Peter Bourke? Great sea story about sailing the singlehanded OSTAR from Plymouth, England to Newport, RI on an Outbound yacht. :)
 
#1,379 ·
Nah, in fairness, I think he's "probably" right... I doubt a Hunter 50 will ever be lost as a direct result of one those portlights being punched out... :)

However, having something like that compromised offshore is PRECISELY the sort of thing that is so often one of the first of a cascading series of failures that build into something more substantial... It might serve as a distraction, contributing to a navigational error or failure of an adequate watch being kept... Or, it could lead to something more serious, perhaps the shorting out of batteries or another critical system that might just happen to be located under that berth...

Bottom line is, You Never Know... Even on something considerably more substantial than a 50' sailboat, the loss of a single portlight can start a chain of events that can ultimately prove to be disastrous:



Ocean Ranger was a semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit that sank in Canadian waters on 15 February 1982. It was drilling an exploration well on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, 267 kilometres (166 mi) east of St. John's, Newfoundland, for Mobil Oil of Canada, Ltd. (MOCAN) with 84 crew members on board when it sank. There were no survivors.

...

The United States Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation report on the disaster summarised the chain of events as follows:

A large wave appeared to cause a broken portlight;

The broken portlight allowed the ingress of sea water into the ballast control room;

The ballast control panel malfunctioned or appeared to malfunction to the crew;

As a result of this malfunction or perceived malfunction, several valves in the rig's ballast control system opened due to a short-circuit, or were manually opened by the crew;

Ocean Ranger assumed a forward list;

As a result of the forward list, boarding seas began flooding the forward chain lockers located in the forward corner support columns;

The forward list worsened;

The pumping of the forward tanks was not possible using the usual ballast control method as the magnitude of the forward list created a vertical distance between the forward tanks and the ballast pumps located astern that exceeded the suction available on the ballast system's pumps;

Detailed instructions and personnel trained in the use of the ballast control panel were not available;

At some point, the crew blindly attempted to manually operate the ballast control panel using brass control rods;

At some point, the manually operated sea valves in both pontoons were closed;

Progressive flooding of the chain lockers and subsequent flooding of the upper deck resulted in a loss of buoyancy great enough to cause the rig to capsize.
 
#1,380 ·
I think your "typical cruising conditions" test is rather misguided, Smack, and this goes well beyond this particular example of opening portlights. You've applied it in a myriad number of ways on various threads to try and explain away concerns people have raised about certain features of production boats. Some of your reasoning makes sense, but much of it frankly seems derived from a combo of inexperience & bravado, not really the best duo for undertaking seagoing voyages, no matter how benign you seem to think they may actually be.

I'm not suggesting a "worse-case" test, or that you need an aluminum expedition boat for sailing the Caribbean. But I think more of perhaps a "reasonably forseeable" standard or the "prudent mariner" saying we often hear might serve you better. Just like there are usually some valid reasons why certain boat brands have certain reputations, there are usually good reasons why experienced sailors express opinions. If you haven't put the miles under your keel yourself, then the best way to learn is from guys like Jon who have. ;)
 
#1,385 ·
This thread has been a bit of lost cause for the last 139 pages because there was never any agreement about what was meant by 'production' since Amels and Oysters by any sensible discussion are production boats, even if the production numbers do not reach the thousands (or likely the hundreds).

I have a solution to the problem. A boat is now anchored behind we that a couple is cruising on. It is close to 60' with the bowsprit and was built in 1904. From the outside it looks to be in great shape with need skylight and deck houses all over. If we use this boat as our comparator, then everything else under about 50' is a johnny-come-lately production boat. And the answer is you will find just about everything in this harbour from about 25 feet to 60' and age from a couple of years to over a hundred. I think you just pick a boat you are comfortable with and go cruising. Either it will be up to it or it won't. You will find out as you go and chances are quite good you will not kill yourself in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chall03
#1,386 ·
This thread has been a bit of lost cause for the last 139 pages because there was never any agreement about what was meant by 'production' since Amels and Oysters by any sensible discussion are production boats, even if the production numbers do not reach the thousands (or likely the hundreds).
That's not the reason it was a lost cause!
 
#1,388 ·
I agree with you K
You could call Boreals,Garcias, Hylas, HRs, Outbounds, Oysters, even gunboats all production boats as they are made in series to the same toolings/design for hulls.
As stated by me and others- there are boats where the target is extended world cruising and boats where that is not the audience. Smack seems to have trouble with the concept - you don't take a chevy Malibu down the baja peninsula . It could be done. In prudent hands perhaps without ruining the machine but -why would you- The Malibu is a great bang for the buck car. New ones are stylish and run well. But they are not tricked out power wagons.
 
#1,389 · (Edited)
No. I just think you guys have it wrong. BeneJeneHunterBavarLinas are not "Chevy Malibus" - and cruising is not exactly the "Baja Peninsula" - unless you're hitting the high lats. The Class A rated boats from these brands are very nice cruising sailboats you can take virtually anywhere safely and comfortably - and are a very good value. That has been proven over and over and over again.

There's absolutely no reason to put them down. And there's really no reason to spend WAY more for a similar cruising sailboat from a "high-end" brand - unless that kind of "affinity" is important to you.

There's nothing wrong with high-end boats. They just aren't necessary.
 
#1,390 ·
Well, I know this thread has gone into many directions. I can't comment on much, I only know my experiences. I just returned from doing the Inside Passage - Seattle to Alaska and back. I did this in my 1976 Newport 30, with a tiller and no auto-helm.
I would not trade this adventure for anything.
But, it will be my last major journey with this smaller set-up.
The journey was not open seas at all, but the storms I did endure - almost put breaking waves in the cockpit and - the weather helm on the tiller was exhausting. Anyway, I've got my eye on a full keeled Westsail with a wheel in the cockpit.
 
#1,392 · (Edited)
Smack you need to get out more. Yes a friend of mine circumnavigated seeing nothing more than 30 knots. But another friend ( on an outbound) did the SDR last year and got hammered. This year left a day early. Had a fast passage but saw repetitive squalls in 40s and one briefly in 50 s. We had an easy passage but got hammered getting to Hampton. That's hard on a boat . They did fine and headed off to st.martin. We had nothing break either. The stronger boats take a licking and keep on ticking. You are definitely right that expense doesn't translate to better long distance cruising boats. The newer swans seem more aimed at a different market than in the past when many racer/cruisers were built to be heirloom boats. The older swans are said to have been better sea boats.
That's what I'm saying. There are production boats aimed at long distance cruising ( not just long term) and production boats that are not. Unfortunately the boats designed for long term open water work tend to be more expensive. There's more labor involved and the production runs are a minute fraction of big builders.
The b,h,c,j boats can do it I don't disagree but given they not designed with that purpose in mind it will show.
+1!for the Pats.
 
#1,393 ·
The b,h,c,j boats can do it I don't disagree but given they not designed with that purpose in mind it will show.
I guess I'm still not following you. Isn't MarkJ doing some very, very "long distance cruising" in his Bene? How exactly are you defining this term of yours? And why can't these boats do it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top