Do I Really Need a Bluewater Boat ?

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by MikeinLA

My suggestion would be that you should buy a used Hunter from a desperate seller at a great price and then sail the living cr@p out of it. After you get used to her, take her out in all sorts of conditions. Anchor overnight alot. When others are running for the marina, you go out. By the time you have become a good enough sailor to sail around the world, I think you will know what kind of boat you want. You will also have a better idea of where you want to go, who is going with you and what size boat you want. And if, like many, you decide that you don't REALLY want to sail around the world, trade up for a new Hunter and live a happy life.

Mike

Not only is this excellent advice for this particular OP, but IMHO it should be repeated to all the other folks who come here asking for advice about purchasing a particular boat, or a brand, or a type of boat.

[Liam Wald]

Interesting thread. In my humble opinion I agree with Mark. Current production boats with the CE rating of "A" are capable of "blue water" sailing.
I have been sailing for 35 years. I owned a 1960's CAL and a 1970's MASON. Both thought to be good "blue water" boats... and they are.
I currently own a 2003 Beneteau 331 (CE rated "A").
I have owned this boat for 6 years logged over 8,000 km (mostly single handed) and know every inch of the boat. This is the best boat that I have owned. I would be comfortable taking it anywhere within 40 degrees north and south of the equator. I do not need a boat built for the extreme conditions beyond that as I see little reason to go there.
Would I like to have a bigger boat? No. 33 feet is about the limit of my ability to single hand.
Would I like a heavier boat? Definately not. I am hooked on the performance of a modern fin-keel, spade-rudder, medium displacement sloop.
There are lots of opinions and I respect them all... I always just remember that they are all just opinions and only I can decide what is right for me.
Ciao.

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by jdoe71

NMMA web page on CE certification:
NMMA - CE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Especially read the PDF linked as "PCA General Information".

From what I gather, CE ratings are primarily intended to let people sell their stuff in EU countries. As with many things intended to let companies make more money, compliance is kind of loosey goosey and determined on the spot by the reviewer. Many things in that document are not well defined as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Our boat is CE "A" rated. Despite the fact there are several that have circumnavigated, I don't put much faith in that rating, especially being in the middle of a total refit and seeing all the warts.

Just finished reading a boat blog where a couple in a Hunter 466 heading to New Zealand lost the rudder. They were in 1 -2 meter waves and the boat fell off a sharp one breaking the rudder off. If I read it right it sounds like the rudder stock was composite, not metal. Probably a CE "A" rated boat?

If it makes one feel comfy to believe that CE "A" rating makes their boat safe to sail around the world that's great! But if I was intending to do an ocean crossing I would buy a boat based on what the years of real testing in the real ocean tell us is a real tough boat, not a commerce friendly rating scheme.

The Hunter 466 has a spade rudder. I don't know whether it's "A" rated or not, but IMHO no boat with a rudder that is not attached to a strong skeg should be rated anywhere close to "A".

[Hampus]

Originally Posted by jdoe71

NMMA web page on CE certification:
NMMA - CE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Especially read the PDF linked as "PCA General Information".

From what I gather, CE ratings are primarily intended to let people sell their stuff in EU countries. As with many things intended to let companies make more money, compliance is kind of loosey goosey and determined on the spot by the reviewer. Many things in that document are not well defined as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Our boat is CE "A" rated. Despite the fact there are several that have circumnavigated, I don't put much faith in that rating, especially being in the middle of a total refit and seeing all the warts.

Just finished reading a boat blog where a couple in a Hunter 466 heading to New Zealand lost the rudder. They were in 1 -2 meter waves and the boat fell off a sharp one breaking the rudder off. If I read it right it sounds like the rudder stock was composite, not metal. Probably a CE "A" rated boat?

If it makes one feel comfy to believe that CE "A" rating makes their boat safe to sail around the world that's great! But if I was intending to do an ocean crossing I would buy a boat based on what the years of real testing in the real ocean tell us is a real tough boat, not a commerce friendly rating scheme.

Being a european and having researched CE-certification when a friend was considering buying a boat from the US I'd say that this is spot on. CE-A tells the buyer that the boat fulfills the very basics regarding safety. There are, however lots of boats, both foreign and domestic that are considered to be very safe Water boats">blue water boats and several of them wouldn't, for various reasons, pass a CE certification. There are several old non CE-certified boats that I would choose over most modern CE-certified boats. There are also several modern and CE-certified vessels that I would gladly put my sorry butt in. Just as an example: A boat, no matter how safely built, with hardened glass in skylights and portholes, thick hull, or even double hull, state of the art bilge pump, excellent stability etc. etc. wouldn't pass a CE certification unless the companionway is centered in the cockpit.

CE-certification doesn't really tell anything about build quality or general toughness either. The whole thing is just a way of preventing import and favour domestic manufacturers.

/Hampus

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by Hampus

Being a european and having researched CE-certification when a friend was considering buying a boat from the US I'd say that this is spot on. CE-A tells the buyer that the boat fulfills the very basics regarding safety. There are, however lots of boats, both foreign and domestic that are considered to be very safe blue water boats and several of them wouldn't, for various reasons, pass a CE certification. There are several old non CE-certified boats that I would choose over most modern CE-certified boats. There are also several modern and CE-certified vessels that I would gladly put my sorry butt in. Just as an example: A boat, no matter how safely built, with hardened glass in skylights and portholes, thick hull, or even double hull, state of the art bilge pump, excellent stability etc. etc. wouldn't pass a CE certification unless the companionway is centered in the cockpit.

CE-certification doesn't really tell anything about build quality or general toughness either. The whole thing is just a way of preventing import and favour domestic manufacturers.

/Hampus

I assume there is some logical reason for this centered companionway requirement, but IMHO it's indicative of a poorly designed rating system. The requirement eliminates the Peterson 44 (and I assume the Peterson 46 as well) because the companionway is slightly offset to create a larger galley. Plus, the cockpit has a hefty bridge deck which would seem to minimize any concern about water from the cockpit going below. Obviously, with so many Peterson 44/46's out voyaging, and with a pretty fine track record over 30 years or so, it's lack of certified "A" status seems silly. And I think there are a number of other fine offshore boats with offset companionways.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

Interesting thread. In my humble opinion I agree with Mark. Current production boats with the CE rating of "A" are capable of "blue water" sailing.
I have been sailing for 35 years. I owned a 1960's CAL and a 1970's MASON. Both thought to be good "blue water" boats... and they are.
I currently own a 2003 Beneteau 331 (CE rated "A").
I have owned this boat for 6 years logged over 8,000 km (mostly single handed) and know every inch of the boat. This is the best boat that I have owned. I would be comfortable taking it anywhere within 40 degrees north and south of the equator. I do not need a boat built for the extreme conditions beyond that as I see little reason to go there.
Would I like to have a bigger boat? No. 33 feet is about the limit of my ability to single hand.
Would I like a heavier boat? Definately not. I am hooked on the performance of a modern fin-keel, spade-rudder, medium displacement sloop.
There are lots of opinions and I respect them all... I always just remember that they are all just opinions and only I can decide what is right for me.
Ciao.

Very good advice
Erika

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Hampus

Just as an example: A boat, . . .wouldn't pass a CE certification unless the companionway is centered in the cockpit.

/Hampus

This was actually a lesson learned from the Fastnet disaster. If a boat with an offset companionway gets knocked down the worng way (so the companionway is on the low side) it can potentially down-flood much more easily/quickly. That's true even if there is a bridge deck.

The current special regulations state it this way " companionways . . . so arranged as to be above the water when the hull is heeled 90 degrees"

Otherwise you are spot on about CE.

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

This was actually a lesson learned from the Fastnet disaster. If a boat with an offset companionway gets knocked down the worng way (so the companionway is on the low side) it can potentially down-flood much more easily/quickly. That's true even if there is a bridge deck.

The current special regulations state it this way " companionways . . . so arranged as to be above the water when the hull is heeled 90 degrees"

Otherwise you are spot on about CE.

Yes, that knockdown issue seemed like the logical reason. Which is why it's good to get those washboards in place in heavy weather, right? I assume there was a similar "knockout" issue with super-wide companionways such as on some older Catalinas?

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by MikeinLA

My suggestion would be that you should buy a used Hunter from a desperate seller at a great price and then sail the living cr@p out of it. After you get used to her, take her out in all sorts of conditions. Anchor overnight alot. When others are running for the marina, you go out. By the time you have become a good enough sailor to sail around the world, I think you will know what kind of boat you want.
Mike

Venerable pearls of wisdom right there....and bascilcy what Im doing with my Irwin

[wolfenzee]

for those that think they might be able to get by with a lighter racer/cruiser keep in mine that adding the additional weight for ocean cruising will affect a lighter boat alot more than a heavier boat(think in % as well as weight). An ocean cruiser is designed to take the additional weight necessary for long distance cruising with out being affected while a racer/cruiser is designed for short coastal trips.

[maisis00]

Originally Posted by bangkaboat

Single-hand 46 footer? Yes, you can. it would be a real challenge, especially in docking & handling the bigger everything, but others have done it. Best of luck in making your decision, in the end you'll be sailing & happy on whatever you buy!
Mike

To back that up Mike with some historical info. I just got through reading, A Voyage for Madmen by Peter Nichols which is about the Golden Globes solo non-stop RTW race in 1968-69. Which by the way is an extremely cool book! There was an Italian guy by the name of Alex Carozzo (sp?) who tried to single hand a 66' monohull ketch non-stop around the world. He didn't make it very far in this particular race but he did manage to single hand that behemoth. So yeah with enough experience a 46’ is definitely doable as a single hander. However, like Mike said things do appear to get a bit more tricky for a single hander as you go up in size.

[Roaring Girl]

Having imported boats (made in the Far east) for sale in the EU, the CE system is indeed a 'poorly designed' rating system, and is best used as a rough yardstick rather than a confirmatory certification. However, being 'A' rated is a start.

Note that it only applies to boats offered for sale in the EU built after certain dates - our Maxi 120 has been RTW once, across the Atlantic, Caribbean, Baltci,North Sea, Biscay many times and is quazillion times tougher than we are. She isn't CE rated at all 'cos she was built in 1977 before teh system applies. But - yes, she's not as roomy or as smart as a modern 'production boat' and she's not got some of the Med sailing comfort elements like a permanent bimini and an extended swim platform.

An older boat will need more work, have more existing kit and will generally cost less than the equivalent quality built new. (There are exceptions - eg if you buy a Hallberg Rassy the brand name means they hold their value very well.)

The suggestion to get some experience and buy a boat very very cheap that you could afford to lose. My first boat was a small 23 foot Halcyon in which I did about 2000 miles around the English coasts. Then I sold her, and we bought RG. Could I live on that size boat? No. Did I learn an enormous amount? Of course. And if it all went horribly wrong, I hadn't invested more than I could afford in the learning curve. I suggest you think your desire to avoid an upgrade, and start now with something easy and fun.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by speedoo

The Hunter 466 has a spade rudder. I don't know whether it's "A" rated or not, but IMHO no boat with a rudder that is not attached to a strong skeg should be rated anywhere close to "A".

Just did a quick search for "rudder failure" as I've heard this story (rudder problems on CE boats) before. Found dozens, only one of which was a H466 with a composite rudder post. also found a Peterson 44 which is a very popular cruising boat with many miles under them, a Catalina 42 and many other CE rated boats. About all I can deduce is this proves nothing.

There are too many spade rudder boats traveling the world successfully unless someone wants to denigrate them for some other reason. Maybe they are less likely to be hit by lightning

[maisis00]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Maybe they are less likely to be hit by lightning

That's it, I think you nailed it! They must be less lightning strike prone and the secret is that the mast are really made of wood and are just painted to look metallic in origin.

[wolfenzee]

To be a truly "blue water boat" there is alot involved design, construction, rig, equipment, ....... do you need a blue water boat? what are your cruising plans, do you need to be ready to cross oceans when there is alot of really nice coastal crusing available. As far as what is "nesesary" my boat was designed for bluewater crusiing 60 years ago and was equipped bare bones solo, which is quite different from what is needed to make life comfortable on long passages with two.