[smackdaddy]

Yeah Jody - the whole "can of worms" thing? Kind of my schtick. But I do think it's a good discussion. Great perspective by the way...oh, and you nailed me on the motivation BTW!

Wes - you got the point...it's really riffing off the "purist" ideal. We've talked a ton about that. But, seriously, who's a purist? I'll wager most sailors are not. They're in the middle trying to figure out where that edge is. And I'm sure there's a wealth of experience on this forum of those that have been there in a production boat.

Dog, I get your point...but rate boats, dude. That's the game.

 

[smackdaddy]

Okay - so we've seemingly settled back into the "blue water" debate...hull design, hand holds, spade rudders, hoping for a "freak" wave to "throw" you onto a nice looking crew wench, having to throw down $7.5M for a 100' yacht at a boat show because you broke the table pretending to be in a storm....that kind of thing.

But the focus here is the question of how far would you guys push a production boat - and which of those will handle it well. For example, Daniel mentions that scads of sailors take production boats down to Bermuda/Bahamas/etc.

So maybe another way to frame this question is...where does "blue water" start? Is it 10 miles off shore? 100 miles? Is it being farther than a half-day sail from land? What if your route requires a 4+ day passage in open water? And which production boats start falling out of favor as these numbers go up?

Daniel - how far would you push your Bene? What's the edge for you? Os?

(PS - Os, what do you sail? I can't tell from the pic. BTW - sweet avatar dude. Looks like Kermit has just spotted a waterfall.)

 

[smackdaddy]

Now THAT'S a good summation! Thanks Daniel! And I totally agree on the whole "apologizing for your boat" thing. It's a crock. This is one of the main reasons I'm exploring this question. Personally, I like the production boats. And I think they've been maligned beyond what really makes sense. Sure, there's a level of truth in the criticism - but it's not an all-or-nothing debate.

Me? There's no way in hell I'd follow Childress' lead and take my C27 around the world. No freakin' way. I don't think I'd feel too comfortable taking it beyond a day's sail out to be honest (it's age notwithstanding, but just its size and configuration). But I'm not too interested either in buying a full-keel tank and continually putting up with slow, cumbersome sailing for that very small chance of getting caught in a nasty storm*. All that for being able to simply say I have a "blue water boat"? No thanks.

I appreciate you taking the time to expound a bit. It's definitely helpful.

So - with the feedback from Daniel and Giu - the Benes seem to be the leading contender in the production boat smackdown. Fast and tough and reliable enough for hops across the pond. That's sayin' something.

Any Irwin/Hunter/Catalina/O'Day/etc. owners out there with similar viewpoints?

(*Disclaimer - this is the opinion of a loud-mouthed newbie that has only sailed 3 boats in his celebrated 10 month sailing career on a lake, Catalina, Hunter and O'day. So this is all purely based on what said sailor has read and heard from other sailors. At the same time, said sailor is fully confident in his capabilities as a sailor to sink ANY boat out there - blue water or no.)

 

[smackdaddy]

Smack, I saw this and wondered if "apologise" was a misinterpretation of my "embarassed to say" - so just in case: after arguing how well almost any boat could do, I wasn't going to fezz up and admit that mine is "blue water", only three years old and hardly inexpensive. That was what I was shy about, in case someone thought rambling about handholds was snobbery

So OK, mine is an Ovni 395, with a lot of go-anywhere gear. Also, I go anywhere, have lived in it for a year traveling around (not just now), will cross north past the Polar Circle this summer, then straight south through Europe, and hopefully around New Year my address should be the Americas. The longest/furthest I have been without dropping anchor so far is 10 days at sea. It is not a snobbish boat, but much thought went into safety, self-sufficiency and such. There is a distant photo in my profile.
And, to be sure, it wouldn't worry me to try in a much less dedicated boat. In any case, Smackdaddy, I am as capable as you at sinking any boat, anywhere - guaranteed.

Os - you are the MAN! No I wasn't referring to your post about the "boat apologizing" - Daniel mentioned it in his post regarding people that have production boats perhaps being apologists that they are not "blue water". And I don't think that needs to be the case.

Actually, I now appreciate the fact that even though you have an SFB (Sweet Freakin' Boat) - you're still cool with the production boats. You're hardly snobbish, dude.

And MAN you sound like you are having a blast and seeing some beautiful places! BTW, I'll buy you the first beer when hit the Americas - and even epoxy some handholds on the pint glass if you need 'em.

Cheers!

 

[smackdaddy]

The bene is no better than a Catalina - the Catalina no better than the Bene. I think there are some models of both that are distasteful. I like the older Catalinas and Benes better than some of the new ones - but that is just my personal opinion. But for anyone that has not seen some pics of Dan's boat... you cannot tell me that is not a sweet ride (even without the BBQ's). Why wouldn't you take that boat anywhere within reason?? Same can be said of many/most production boats over 38 feet or so. I would feel comfortable taking my boat to most distant locations... but again I have been making and have made many modifications. From solar panels and arch to revamped electricl system, and many other changes, this ain't your typical out of the box C400!

That being said, you can take most production boats anywhere. I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, but it would take more seamanship and more luck than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills, you can start making changes to the boat like better portholes, handholds, lifelines, tankage, cabinets, tankage, cabinets for storage, positive latching floorboards, tankage, tabbed bulkheads or reinforced bulkheads, cabinets, etc (and not to forget to add tankage). By the time you have made all these changes, it might have been cheaper to just buy a traditional bluewater boat! Maybe not. But there are also many positives of production boats... cost not necessarily one of them.

However, if I was certain of making far destinations beyond a 5 day weather window, I really would start looking at boats outside of the typical production line. I personally draw the line at 5 days because beyond that, it is very difficult (if not alltogether impossible) to guess the weather. At 5 days, you also start really pushing into the tankage limit on most production boats without modification (again, my personal limit WITHOUT modification). But I stress that unless you are certain to make those jumps, I probably would not do it. I would buy the boat that is comfortable on the hook (as a live aboard) first and foremost. That is where 99% of your time is spent.

I believe that most production boats of a reasonable size will, with some amount of luck and good seamanship, go to distant ports. The questin typically is not whether the boat can get you there, it is whether the captain can. It is hard to appreciate this statement until you have weathered your first good blow beyond the reach of a VHF and you really are on your own.

- CD

CD - awesome post. This is good stuff. Here are some of the interesting take-aways:

1. Though I know you didn't mean it as such - I think a feeder of the production/blue debate is this statement/perception:

"I guess you could take one straight out of the box and circle the world, but it would take more seamanship and more luck than you might need for a Valiant of similar size. In order to reduce the need for luck and/or seamanship skills, you can start making changes to the boat..."

This is really an interesting paradox, one that possibly drives a lot of people to buy a blu - then perhaps be too relaxed about the weather and seamanship - i.e. - "the boat can handle it". It makes you wonder. Does perceived fragility increase skill/attention? Does perceived strength decrease them?

2. The 5 day window is a great rule of thumb as far as I'm concerned. I'd not thought about it in those terms. I was thinking more distance - which is wrong. It's about the weather...always.

3. The realistic limitations of tankage is another important consideration - and one I'm just beginning to understand since I mostly pee off the stern into the lake.

4. Finally, I've always agreed with your 99% on-the-hook maxim, although you might get some blowback on that one due to your notorious (and I'm sure errant) reputation as a dock-dweller.

So - the Benes and Catalinas seem well-suited to pushing the blue edge a bit with what we'll call "minor" modification. Yes?

Other productions that have hammered away successfully?

 

[smackdaddy]

Seaworthiness is defined by understanding the worst qualities of what you sail and adjusting thereof.

There is no one all answer...

Yeah - I know there's not a single answer. But, hey, what else do we have to do other than debate this until the second coming?

Anyway, I think your statement above really nails it. And most of the debates I've seen center around the "what do I need to go blue" question. But when you think about it, that question typically comes from newbies like me that don't have a clue what "blue" means.

CD's (and others) point that almost ALL sailing is coastal and island hopping puts that very starting point into question. It's really the wrong question to ask for the vast majority of sailors.

Maybe I'm trying to vein a line that's not there - but it does seem to have a distinction from the debates I've seen. The question should be what are the best production boats (fast, comfortable, strong) for cruising sailors that can stand up to stink when you get caught 2 days out?

 

[smackdaddy]

I'll not hijack the thread, but I note your arch. I'm starting to wonder if we made a mistake not going with one. Too soon to tell, and we'll see I guess.

That's definitely not a hijack - Dan. I'd be interested in your thoughts. It helps a lot hearing these kinds of objective discussions between actual owners than your typical hype.

Thanks for the input guys.

 

[smackdaddy]

Hey Adam, I see your point. And it is indeed somewhat ambassadorial - but I definitely prefer the snot fight of "my boat is bluer than yours". Waayyyyy more fun.

BTW - your C27 is bluer than mine. But mine's uglier and meaner!

And good lord, the freeboard on those Norse boats????? Shameful. No one would EVER take something like that into the open ocean. The dinghy though - sweet.

 

[smackdaddy]

I LOVE those Berserk guys. Serious BFSers - and criminally insane to boot.

 

[smackdaddy]

Sequitur - great angle on the Hunter! A paraplegic doing the circle????? Man, that's ballsy! Respect.

The perception I had prior to your post was that the Hunters were kind of at the low end of the spectrum on toughed-out production boats. So now it seems that Benes and Hunters have it going on...with Catalinas needing a serious nose job and some 34D silicone implants before going to the prom.

What about Irwins? From what I've seen - they are comparatively "spartan" in terms of features....but are they eggshells?

 

[smackdaddy]

CD - what do you mean by "older"? What's the sweet spot?

As for build quality - I was joking. Your list of fix-ups was pretty long. So naturally I assumed Catalinas are crap. Heh-heh.

 

[smackdaddy]

...it is not the wind velocity it is the wave action.

That line scored me more hook-ups in college than you'd ever believe.

 

[smackdaddy]

Green - whatever you do - don't...turn...to your left. And I've always like the "So there" technique....that age-old debate ender. Welcome to SN dude!

Chall - I actually feel more confident about production boats because of this conversation. And it's fun comparing the relative toughness of them - as well as defining a bit better the boundaries of coastal vs. blue.

Personally, I would still like to hear from any Irwin/O'Day/etc. owners on how their boats perform - and where the limit is for them.

 

[smackdaddy]

Damn... I guess I have to cancel the beating I was going to give you... :laugher:laugher:laugher

That wasn't going to be with a baseball bat was it? My goodness - all these threats of bodily harm! You boys should take it to FC.

 

[smackdaddy]

Okay - so maybe there really isn't a distinct vein here. It appears that, as always, it comes down more to the sailor and his/her seamanship than it does the boat. And - if this is really the case, it would hold that (as said above) virtually any reputable production boat can (with logical care and preparation) indeed be sailed virtually anywhere in the world if one does not feel the need to drive it through repeated Force 9+ storms.

The Bene's still seem to have the best reputations - with Catalinas and newer Hunters right in the mix. And no one has mentioned a specific production boat that DEFINITELY WOULDN'T make the cut to prudent off-shore sailing (Irwin, O'Day, etc.). So maybe we take that angle.

Which boat(s) would you NOT trust - and why?

 

[smackdaddy]

Smack,

Now you are into the what and how you want somethng built. Example, i probably would not take a tartan offshore, altho the older fiberglass ones are held in high regard. One of the things I do not like about them, is the door way into the cabin, goes all the way down to the cockpit floor, vs some designs have the door stopping at the seat top. Yes you have to climb up and over, BUT, if the doors break, you have less water getting into the cabin per wave that poops over you. Now, in a really bad storm, you're probably screwed either way. But with a smaller opening, I have a slightly better chance at stopping the inflow when the time comes. Hense why this is on some folks prefered design want for a blue water boat.

I am not saying a Tartan is a bad boat either, it is a good fast design, just this part of the design does not thrill me if I was going off shore etc.

marty

Now THAT'S a good comparison, Bluto. Makes perfect sense - and gives some perspective on the kind of thing to look for in a BAPB.

PS - Get over to the Sacrilege thread in Racing and let's figure out how to make sailing cool again, dude.

 

[smackdaddy]

Sequitur - dude, I like your style. I took a look at your website. Nice work. It'll be great to follow your voyages.

 

[smackdaddy]

Well, here's one I would feel very comfortable putting on my FAIL list.

FAIL

 

[smackdaddy]

Okay - so a quick summary of the wildly varying sentiment of the past pages, which is now close to becoming the definitive gospel on BAPDs for all time...

General Rules:
1. "Blue water" and/or "offshore" can be defined for our purposes as a 5 day passage from anchorage to anchorage (due to the modern weather window). It's beyond what most think of as "coastal" cruising, but it's not a pull across the Pacific either. (That said - these boats CAN also do a longer hop without major issues. See Givens below).
2. The unforeseen weather limit we seem to have set is a strong gale/"weak" storm (e.g. Force 9-10). This means that if you were unlucky enough to get caught in one, you'd still feel relatively safe in your production boat with appropriate heavy weather precautions (e.g. - storm sails, drogues, etc.). In other words, it's not going to fall apart around you.

General Givens:
1. It is understood that the vast majority of modern production boats can and have indeed circumnavigated - some with major modifications and strengthening, others without. Virtually any boat can indeed be sailed virtually anywhere in the right conditions. But this particular conversation is centered around the rules above as this is where most sailors will play.
2. It is understood that the boat typically outlasts the sailor's will/ability even in the worst of conditions.
3. It is understood that there are a million variables in all these estimations from tankage, to crew size, to boat size, to gear, etc. But this discussion is a wildly irresponsible rule of thumb exercise - so there you go.
4. When it comes to separating the first and second tiers - it probably comes down more to comfort than toughness. But, few will argue that comfort ain't a good thing in the long run. So there you go.

The True Contenders:
1. Beneteau: seems to get high marks all-round as a boat that is well-built, fast, serviceable, comfortable, and sturdy. All-round winner.
2. Catalina: seems to be the next in line in the above areas - though CD will protest wildly that "Bene's got nothin'. Jeff likes my boat best."
3. Jenneau: Right in the hunt - but arguable as to where it finally falls. Serviceability? Better than newer Hunters?
4. Hunter: seems to still be suffering from "poor design" during previous runs - yet has seemingly improved in the last few years. It seems the jury is still out on this one.

The Second Tier:
1. Tartan: older ones at least (say pre '90?). problems with hatch design, etc. discussed, but still liked.
2. Sabre: tough boats - but some problems listed.
3. Hallberg Rassy: starts to move out of typical "production boat" world and into high-priced "elite" boats (same with OVNI, etc.) that are more "blue" than "production".
4. From here we probably pass into the realm of "lesser" blue water boats. So I'll stop here.

Fugedaboudit?:
1. Irwin: still personally not convinced of that this one fails the test. built lighter and for a lower cost point - but does that completely move it out of the contender category?
2. O'Day: a lot of them around, but no one willing to go to bat for it.
3. McGregor: the big ones rock - but anything less than 45'+ gets a nose thumb and a good heckling.
4. Any multi-hull. Those things are just abominations to sailing. Heh-heh.

What have we left out?