Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Nice pic's Polux but remember folks have sailed around the world in a Catalina 27 which requires a lot more skill than a 40 footer. Or how about the Japanese fellow that single handed sailed around the world via the great Capes in a little homemade plywood sailboat or Web Chiles in an open 30 footer. No reason to get too excited about this.

Okay - honestly, you either need to dispense with the recommendations that people sail a Catalina 27 or a homemade plywood sailboat around the world - our you need to trade your boat in and do what you're suggesting.

If I recall, you own one of the "blue water" boat brands. Which is fine. But you'll notice that no one talking about blue water production boats in this thread is advocating what you are.

So - you go first dude. I'll hold your beer.

[goboatingnow]

i agree with smack, this obsession with older hull forms and " traditional " boats is a US obsession, given the very small proportion that US sailors make of the world sailing fleet, and that Europe is by far the planets leaders, you'd have to say so what.

As per CE, several posters have completely missed the point about CE

firstly , it wasn't brought in to control US imports or in anything relating to 1979 fastnet.
The primary original reason, was that the British and Belgium marine federations, complained to the EU that the Italians and others were controlling access to the "power boat" market by having local standards, that required British manufacturers ( remember Brits and Italians dominate the power boat market) to through through national standards to sell their wares,

IN true sense the EU widened the requirements to address all boats in the EU.

The primary thrust of the CE system ( actually the RCD ) is to ensure that the builder runs a documented manufacturing system. It originally had very few specific requirements unlike ABYC. For example a category A manufacturer has far more documented processes to perform then say a category D. yet the boat could be identical.

Note that ISO specifications hardly existed when the RCD was created, hence the RCD still to this day contains many vague construction standards. ISO standards are merely ONE way a builder can justify compliance, not just THE way.

Gradually especially as more and more ISO standards have been adopted, then the RCD has been modified to specify certain ISO standards , particularly around noise, emissions and basic scantlings and stability.

the trust in the next few years will be that the RCD will progress to a legal version of ABYC. Right now its a long way from that

The purpose of the CatA , means that when comparing two manufacturers you can be assured that both have met the MINIMUM standards and that one is not mis-representing its wares.

Is a CAT A boat a blue water boat, Thats purely for you the buyer to determine , You can be assured that the boat is at or exceeds a certain minimum, is that enough for your requirements, the answer is purely in the beholder. Cat A doesnt mean that the boat will handle all conditions found at sea, that would be ridiculous,

So evaluating a boat with Cat A , against another , doesnt mean that both are the "same" under the hood. The dearer boat , MAY or MAY not actually be any better. I would argue that Oysters rant all they are cracked up to be. personably I don't like HRs uses of foam core under the waterline for example. and I prefer beneteaus single skin, But there are other issues that are different.

Treating CAT A, and discussing bras seacocks, is ridiculous, theres nothing to stop builders using bronze and forthcoming revisions of the RCD will probably make the use of brass very very difficult to comply.

The fact is that modern European productions boats are generally well built and can take a competent sailor anywhere he or she wants , WITHIN reason. the evidence is sailing around the world as we speak. ( proof and pudding etc). The US obsession is rather like an argument that says " its all very well if it works in practice, but will it work in theory"

You wil also notice that certainly in this part of the world, insurance companies make no reference to RCD category. Its up to you the owner , as it always was to decide what you regard as a " blue water " boat.

In my view the premier sailors are the french, if its good enough for them, its good enough for me……!!!. after that its the Chinese gooseberries. !

Dave

[smackdaddy]

Bingo.

Thanks Dave.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Polux

And another one passing the Horn non stop on a mass production boat, a new Delphia 40.3. It was to be a non stop solo navigation but he had to stop in Cape Town. The boat hit a container and the steering was not working at 100% so he decided to check it up before continuing. Tomek Cichocki wanted to make it on a speed record time, went rather low on the big ocean desert and was rolled by a huge wave.

Did not lose the mast but damaged communication equipment, electronics and possibly the engine. Lost some food too and had to cut on food (lost 30kg). He arrived at Brest without Engine, autopilot, without communications, without electric energy and without GPS...and pissed because he had not made it non stop.

He is at sea again on another Delphia, this time a 47 to make it without stop.

He's definitely not a "Cruiser." A "Cruiser" would take it easy on a "Green Water Boat" and relax.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

i agree with smack, this obsession with older hull forms and " traditional " boats is a US obsession, given the very small proportion that US sailors make of the world sailing fleet, and that Europe is by far the planets leaders, you'd have to say so what.

As per CE, several posters have completely missed the point about CE

firstly , it wasn't brought in to control US imports or in anything relating to 1979 fastnet.
The primary original reason, was that the British and Belgium marine federations, complained to the EU that the Italians and others were controlling access to the "power boat" market by having local standards, that required British manufacturers ( remember Brits and Italians dominate the power boat market) to through through national standards to sell their wares,

IN true sense the EU widened the requirements to address all boats in the EU.

The primary thrust of the CE system ( actually the RCD ) is to ensure that the builder runs a documented manufacturing system. It originally had very few specific requirements unlike ABYC. For example a category A manufacturer has far more documented processes to perform then say a category D. yet the boat could be identical.

Note that ISO specifications hardly existed when the RCD was created, hence the RCD still to this day contains many vague construction standards. ISO standards are merely ONE way a builder can justify compliance, not just THE way.

Gradually especially as more and more ISO standards have been adopted, then the RCD has been modified to specify certain ISO standards , particularly around noise, emissions and basic scantlings and stability.

the trust in the next few years will be that the RCD will progress to a legal version of ABYC. Right now its a long way from that

The purpose of the CatA , means that when comparing two manufacturers you can be assured that both have met the MINIMUM standards and that one is not mis-representing its wares.

Is a CAT A boat a blue water boat, Thats purely for you the buyer to determine , You can be assured that the boat is at or exceeds a certain minimum, is that enough for your requirements, the answer is purely in the beholder. Cat A doesnt mean that the boat will handle all conditions found at sea, that would be ridiculous,

So evaluating a boat with Cat A , against another , doesnt mean that both are the "same" under the hood. The dearer boat , MAY or MAY not actually be any better. I would argue that Oysters rant all they are cracked up to be. personably I don't like HRs uses of foam core under the waterline for example. and I prefer beneteaus single skin, But there are other issues that are different.

Treating CAT A, and discussing bras seacocks, is ridiculous, theres nothing to stop builders using bronze and forthcoming revisions of the RCD will probably make the use of brass very very difficult to comply.

The fact is that modern European productions boats are generally well built and can take a competent sailor anywhere he or she wants , WITHIN reason. the evidence is sailing around the world as we speak. ( proof and pudding etc). The US obsession is rather like an argument that says " its all very well if it works in practice, but will it work in theory"

You wil also notice that certainly in this part of the world, insurance companies make no reference to RCD category. Its up to you the owner , as it always was to decide what you regard as a " blue water " boat.

In my view the premier sailors are the french, if its good enough for them, its good enough for me……!!!. after that its the Chinese gooseberries. !

Dave

OK, so if it's a minimum standard, then in practical terms a Cat A boat is deemed at least miniminally worthy of long-distance offshore sailing but whether it's really suitable is up to the consumer. But if it does not meet the Cat A std., it can probably be excluded for that particular application.

Does that fairly summarize how it may be applied at the consumer level?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, so if it's a minimum standard, then in practical terms a Cat A boat is deemed at least miniminally worthy of long-distance offshore sailing but whether it's really suitable is up to the consumer. But if it does not meet the Cat A std., it can probably be excluded for that particular application.

Does that fairly summarize how it may be applied at the consumer level?

Yes in simple terms, especially for sail boats, for power boats its a little more complex.

dave

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

He's definitely not a "Cruiser." A "Cruiser" would take it easy on a "Green Water Boat" and relax.

Heh-heh. Sundowners in the Southern Ocean.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

He's definitely not a "Cruiser." A "Cruiser" would take it easy on a "Green Water Boat" and relax.

Off course he was not cruising but that post was a reply to Robert that did not want to hear to talk about cruisers. I posted about a guy that passed the Horn on a 36ft Bavaria and he said that he was coastal cruising and picking the right time to pass the horn (as any cruiser would do). So I posted about two guys that passed the horn, that one and another one on a 34ft mass production boat, not cruising but circumnavigating non stop and not choosing the time of passage.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, so if it's a minimum standard, then in practical terms a Cat A boat is deemed at least miniminally worthy of long-distance offshore sailing but whether it's really suitable is up to the consumer. But if it does not meet the Cat A std., it can probably be excluded for that particular application.

Does that fairly summarize how it may be applied at the consumer level?

About it but not quite. It is not about long distance offshore sailing but about the conditions you can meet there....or in any other place near the coast for that matter. The boat can be a daysailer and be a class A boat. Class A only relates with the sea and wind conditions the boat can sustain.

To do long distance offshore sailing you have to see if the boat, besides behing a Class A boat, has the minimum tankage, storage space and amenities that will suit you for that. Those, as we can see on this forum and on the different sailors that cross oceans and circumnavigate varies wildly with life style and the type of sailing one enjoys.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Polux

About it but not quite. It is not about long distance offshore sailing but about the conditions you can meet there....or in any other place near the coast for that matter. The boat can be a daysailer and be a class A boat. Class A only relates with the sea and wind conditions the boat can sustain.

To do long distance offshore sailing you have to see if the boat, besides behing a Class A boat, has the minimum tankage, storage space and amenities that will suit you for that. Those, as we can see on this forum and on the different sailors that cross oceans and circumnavigate varies wildly with life style and the type of sailing one enjoys.

what Exile said was appropriate, basically a Cat A boat Might be worthy of inclusion, but a CaT B boat is very unlikely to be included . after that its up to the owner to decide what make the boat suitable for their needs

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

what Exile said was appropriate, basically a Cat A boat Might be worthy of inclusion, but a CaT B boat is very unlikely to be included . after that its up to the owner to decide what make the boat suitable for their needs

Actually, Polux is more appropriate/precise with his refinement. But we're splitting hairs.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

About it but not quite. It is not about long distance offshore sailing but about the conditions you can meet there....or in any other place near the coast for that matter. The boat can be a daysailer and be a class A boat. Class A only relates with the sea and wind conditions the boat can sustain.

To do long distance offshore sailing you have to see if the boat, besides behing a Class A boat, has the minimum tankage, storage space and amenities that will suit you for that. Those, as we can see on this forum and on the different sailors that cross oceans and circumnavigate varies wildly with life style and the type of sailing one enjoys.

Yes, I understand that. I probably should have just said "offshore" vs. "long-distance offshore sailing." But as I understand it, "offshore" for rating purposes just means "away from the shore" I suppose. I can also see why this rating has a limited purpose more geared towards mfg. conformity than as a marketing tool to help consumers differentiate b'twn different boats. Seems like there could be a high potential for confusion & misuse.

While I don't think all of your examples of long-distance sailors on production boats add much to the "debate" (such as it is), they certainly reinforce what's not in dispute, and also provide inspiration & entertainment. So thanks.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

what Exile said was appropriate, basically a Cat A boat Might be worthy of inclusion, but a CaT B boat is very unlikely to be included . after that its up to the owner to decide what make the boat suitable for their needs

Yes, but maybe you don't know that some years ago the definition of Class A was modified and no long it is referred to offshore voyages, but to a given wind and sea conditions (that you will find on offshore voyages but not only). As I said a daysailer can be now a class A boat but certainly unfit to offshore long range cruising.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, I understand that. I probably should have just said "offshore" vs. "long-distance offshore sailing." But as I understand it, "offshore" for rating purposes just means "away from the shore" I suppose. I can also see why this rating has a limited purpose more geared towards mfg. conformity than as a marketing tool to help consumers differentiate b'twn different boats. Seems like there could be a high potential for confusion & misuse.

While I don't think all of your examples of long-distance sailors on production boats add much to the "debate" (such as it is), they certainly reinforce what's not in dispute, and also provide inspiration & entertainment. So thanks.

"Away from shore"?

There certainly seems to be quite a bit of confusion and misuse going on in this thread. That's for sure.

As for the "examples of long-distance sailors on production boats" - they go a very long way to clearing up that very confusion and misuse.

Oh, and they are definitely entertaining.

So, I guess we agree.

[goboatingnow]

I wouldn't agree with polix conclusion persay. It's very unlikely a simple day sailor would be cat A for example. It's far more then merely sea state. Etc.

Nor is there any potential for confusion amongst buyers. Certainly in Europe , it's a forgone conclusion, that anything one would be looking at , above an obviously day sailor would be cat A. Hence very few buyers are looking at the RCD rating, other then dismissing anything not cat A.

This is why any manufacturer looking to sell into the " offshore capable" ( let's use that ) is going to be cat A and nothing else

After that it's the buyer evaluating what's important., nobody is confusing a Rustler CaT A yacht ( at 600-800k) with a beneteau 33 cat A yacht for example..

This type of discussion here simply doesn't take place in Europe.

Like I said its a minimum standard., even mass production builders are often ( though not always ) well in advance of the minimums needed under the RCD..

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk