A Good Safe Passage Maker

[Kettlewell]

You have to compare 50 footers though. It is true that a lot of heavy older boats are not comfortable downwind, but some are, even though they move slower than the more modern boats. Is a Santa Cruz 50 considered an IMS design?

[Kettlewell]

@Daddle, "Fast is Fun

True, but we're talking about "good safe passagemakers." Hit something out there, which is very likely, going 12 knots in a light boat with a deep fin and bulb keel, and that might do you in, while a heavy cruiser doing 7 knots with a sloping and heavy keel will shrug it off and keep going. Also, fast depends on keeping it light, and most cruisers can't do that.

[CeesH]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

True, but we're talking about "good safe passagemakers." Hit something out there, which is very likely, going 12 knots in a light boat with a deep fin and bulb keel, and that might do you in, while a heavy cruiser doing 7 knots with a sloping and heavy keel will shrug it off and keep going. Also, fast depends on keeping it light, and most cruisers can't do that.

Kettlewell, "Fast is Fun" is the Slogan from the Santa Cruz 50.

[Kettlewell]

Kettlewell, "Fast is Fun" is the Slogan from the Santa Cruz 50.

I think more generically it is Bill Lee's slogan. Like his boats, but I doubt many use them for cruising.

[stevewrye]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Interesting, though I don't think racing rules relate to passage making prowess. All else being equal, the boat going slower will be more comfortable, and therefore IMS boats are often moving too fast for comfort offshore. I don't care what the hull shape, the boat still has to follow the contours of the sea surface--it is like skiing over moguls--very easy and comfortable if you go slow, very rough if you go fast, no matter what skis you are using. Also, the comfort factor has to come when the vessel is carrying a big load. Not sure how IMS hulls do on that factor. Having said that, I would be very curious to hear from folks who have owned both a traditional shaped boat and an IMS shape and taken them offshore for long periods.

If an IMS type of boat is being used as a cruiser and it gets uncomfortable because of speed and bad weather you can still slow these boats down.

We have owned both, Mason 44 and sailed it across oceans, now we own a new modern designed hull but I can't tell you till next year when we cross the pond how comfortable it will be. But we are in contact with owners of our type of boat that are sailing them every where, places I won't go and they have only good words about how comfortable they are in rough weather.

The times are changing and so are boats especially in Europe. I hope one of these years we start seeing some new ideas being built in N. America.

[daddle]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

s a Santa Cruz 50 considered an IMS design?

No. Said to be designed to get the owner to the YC bar first rather than any rule. Pre-IMS and definitely not IOR.

There are many boats that qualify for fast, that don't wallow, that are not as radical as this one. Even steel or aluminium boats that might survive a collision while being comfortable.

Yes, one must stay light. But I lack nothing in the way of comfortable cruising gear. E.g. The cook makes do without a garlic press.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Is a Santa Cruz 50 considered an IMS design?

Nope. The SC 50 came out in 1980. The IMS was adopted in 1985.

[Kettlewell]

The most comfortable boat I have owned was a wooden Aage Nielsen 37-foot double ender, very similar to the Holger Danske which won the Bermuda Race in 1980 and made all the hot shot racers mad. She was super heavy for her length, with a cutaway forefoot, but a long keel. She wasn't what I would call fast, but she averaged very good speeds hour after hour, day after day. We one time left Maine with a stiff sou'wester coming right from the Cape Cod Canal, which was our destination, so we had to tack every hour for about 150 miles as the crow flies and well over 200 over the ground. Probably had 20-25 on the nose the whole way. She slugged her way to windward under autopilot while we read books, cooked meals, slept, everything ordinary onboard, and we never thought anything of it. Perfectly comfortable. The one slight problem is that she was so comfortable and quiet down below that you didn't realize how bad it was up above. More than once I would come up from checking the chart or something and realize that, holy smokes, we needed a reef! Took her from New Brunswick to Florida and back and forth a few times.

[Kettlewell]

We have owned both, Mason 44 and sailed it across oceans, now we own a new modern designed hull but I can't tell you till next year when we cross the pond how comfortable it will be.

That will be an interesting comparison. I look forward to reading more about it.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

I think more generically it is Bill Lee's slogan. Like his boats, but I doubt many use them for cruising.

Hal Roth cruised his for several years. Some of it on the Chesapeake Bay even though it has a 8' draft. He claims he never ran aground!

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Get a book for starters.. like this Bookstore

Looks like a "Good place to start." Thank you.
-Bruce

[capta]

Well, there sure are a lot of different thoughts on this one.
Learning sailing before fiberglass boats were common, I'd have lost the bet that those soulless, foul smelling plastic bottles would catch on.
Fifty years later, I'm sailing one and loving every day I don't have to maintain a steely or a woody.
A fin keel/spade rudder boat still doesn't seem a prudent offshore design for several reasons. An unprotected rudder just seems to be asking for trouble. Not withstanding the long, interesting bit on the IMS type of boat, which seemed more apropos to racing than cruising, can a boat with almost no forefoot, a fin keel, shallow cockpit and an open stern really be a better choice for passage making than an older, heavier design with a deeper forefoot, longer keel and protected rudder?
The Westsail 32 was THE cruising boat for many years, slow, comfortable and safe, like her older sister the Tahiti ketch.
I have not done an ocean passage on a fin keel boat, but I would guess that they would not track as well as a longer keeled boat, though from some of the posts, they have better response with the spade rudder. Still, wouldn't that be more tiring if you were steering?
Inter-island down here in the Caribbean, I see a lot of the IMS type of boats sailing. They take a beating in the channels and many are reefed to the point they are dogging out and sailing poorly or over on their ear, going like a bat out of hell.
I'd like to hear more thoughts on this from you all, but please, can we keep this is about passage making boat design, not those sailing them. Thanks.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

Oh for fecks sake, are we going for the record of how many "bluewater" threads we can simultaneously not lead us anywhere closer to resolution?

The troglodytes all seem to have emerged from their caves at once.

Either that or someone's sock puppet is attempting to overtake the forum.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Since we are having duplicate threads , I will repost what I just wrote in the other one:

Firstly, blue water capability and suitability are not necessarily the same thing (as proven over and over, lots of boats including near bath sized ones are "capable" in the right conditions and in the right hands).

I noticed no one has mentioned the AVS (and characteristics of the stability graph) as a factor in determining a boat's suitability for blue water. Its a vital consideration in determining seaworthiness.

Our thought process in selection a "blue water suitable" boat was searching for the following (listed roughly in order of importance, but all vital for us):
- Monohull
- Aluminium
- high AVS and the region of positive stability by far outweighing the region of negative stability
- Over specified strength (mast, rigging, watertight bulkheads etc)
- Not a slow boat
- Excellent condition (we did not want to be spending months/years refurbishing before setting off, listed last simply because it is the only thing on the list that is modifiable)

Before I get crucified, let me say that BW suitability is not an absolute, but a sliding scale. But who can deny that in extreme conditions a monohull is preferable? Or despite the fact that building material has barely been touched on in this thread, that metal is not the best choice when it comes to strength (both in bad conditions and with collisions)? Or that good righting capability is not preferable? Or that speed will not help you avoid bad weather? Or that a boat in good condition is going to fare better than one poorly maintained?

The skill and experience and conservative attitude (all different things) of those handling the boat is of course vital as well, but whether the importance compared to boat suitability is 50/50 or 30/70 or 70/30 is all a bit immaterial, so lets not argue about that. I am sure we all agree it us not 99/1 or 1/99.