True blue water boat extinction a fait accompli?

[lifeofreilly57]

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be......
I hear the same complaints about music and motorcycles from my baby boomer friends, they seem to forget all the really bad pop crap from the 60's and 70's and only comment on the "classic" bands, you know, the ones they still listen to, and refuse to listen to anything made after 1972. THey also seem to wax romantic about old cars and motorcycles, I don't, I had cars and bikes with Lucas electrics, I don't miss them. Gee you could repair them on the side of the road, sure, the reality is you often HAD to repair them by the side of the road just to get somewhere.
Boats are boats, they made plenty of stinkers "back in the old days" too, most of those have been relegated to the scrap heap and now the ones left from that era are mostly the better quality boats that were well loved by their owners. I think boat design is better than it's ever been, it just depends on what you can afford.
Just like "back then" most people can't afford the better quality boats being built and will have to wait for those to be 20-30 years old to afford them, just like me. It doesn't mean I need a heavy, slow boat to be safe. Many of the production builders build boats suited to cruising, they also make many more boats that are better suited to bay sailing and coastal cruising, guess which ones the sell more of?
I recently went to a talk by a gentleman who took his family cruising, he has raced single handed and on crewed round the world racers as well as done some single handed cruising himself. When he decided to take his now growing family cruising he bought a well built production performance cruiser, not a new one but a used older one, it was what he could afford. He felt the boat was definitely strong enough and seaworthy, his reasoning for buying a performance cruiser instead of a lead sled? He stated that you can slow a fast boat down, but can't speed up a slow boat.
Citing failures on some of the less well built production boats is a red herring, the majority don't fail, doing this tars the entire industry with a broad brush and paints a very biased portrait. Like all used boats it's buyer beware.
There are many good boats from all the eras since fiberglass was first used and boats became affordable to the masses, you just have to do your homework.
Better or worse? No, just different.

[Stumble]

The Boreal 44 was €300,000 plus options in 2010. While the Beneteau Oceanis 45 was $300,000 in 2011 plus options.

Exchange rates are tricky particularly over time, but figure the Boreal runs about 50% more than the Beneteau for the base boat, with each of them needing an additional $50-$75,000 in outfitting to get ready to go. So an all up price of say $500,000 vs 350,000.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by Stumble

The Boreal 44 was €300,000 plus options in 2010. While the Beneteau Oceanis 45 was $300,000 in 2011 plus options.

Exchange rates are tricky particularly over time, but figure the Boreal runs about 50% more than the Beneteau for the base boat, with each of them needing an additional $50-$75,000 in outfitting to get ready to go. So an all up price of say $500,000 vs 350,000.

Thank you for adding the info above.

Given that the Boreal is in Aluminum, small scale production from a small yard, and built for "high latitude" sailing, the $150K cost difference seems reasonable to me. I wish more people would buy them new, so the number of them in the used market would increase.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by colemj

There are many reasons designers and builders have moved away from these designs (and build methods). Many of those reasons have nothing to do with cutting corners, providing pop-up TV's, pandering to the charter crowd, etc. They have to do with building a better, safer, stronger and more comfortable off-shore boat.

Maybe, but I think we should be honest that some of the reasons do have to do with both the economics of boat building and the current marketplace, where consumers value flatscreens and attractive, spacious interiors greater than robustness. Boatshows do have their appeal.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Maybe, but I think we should be honest that some of the reasons do have to do with both the economics of boat building and the current marketplace, where consumers value flatscreens and attractive, spacious interiors greater than robustness. Boatshows do have their appeal.

Again, we need to stop confusing/conflating "entry level production boats" with "all boats being built now", let alone "proper blue water boats".

Many true "BWB's", by almost anyone's measure, have moved far away from the old designs and build methods for reasons of strength, safety, comfort and speed. Not for reasons of flatscreens and spacious interiors - none of which, BTW, take anything at all away from robustness.

This last point is strange to me. Lots of people here keep telling us that the mere presence of a TV, or attractiveness or spaciousness of an interior, etc is antithesis to a strongly built boat. In fact, it seems like one can judge build strength and quality simply by looking for the presence of a TV.

What confuses me greatly is that I have been on many, many heavy displacement, full-keeled, real "BWB's" that have TV's on them. Some even have spacious interiors. I guess those are the individual "dock queens" of the models?

Mark

[downunder]

Originally Posted by colemj

Again, we need to stop confusing/conflating "entry level production boats" with "all boats being built now", let alone "proper blue water boats".

Many true "BWB's", by almost anyone's measure, have moved far away from the old designs and build methods for reasons of strength, safety, comfort and speed. Not for reasons of flatscreens and spacious interiors - none of which, BTW, take anything at all away from robustness.

This last point is strange to me. Lots of people here keep telling us that the mere presence of a TV, or attractiveness or spaciousness of an interior, etc is antithesis to a strongly built boat. In fact, it seems like one can judge build strength and quality simply by looking for the presence of a TV.

What confuses me greatly is that I have been on many, many heavy displacement, full-keeled, real "BWB's" that have TV's on them. Some even have spacious interiors. I guess those are the individual "dock queens" of the models?

Mark

Most of the expedition type vessels would be reqularly reviewing their photos/film with the crews on board and need the larger screen than their computer.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by colemj

Some even have spacious interiors. I guess those are the individual "dock queens" of the models?

Mark

Most people wouldn't admit it, but I bet they would die to have a nice sailing "dock queen". But since they can not afford one they instead look for ways to tell you why their "real" boat is better.

I know if I had to choose for my next boat I would go more toward a "dock queen" than in the opposite direction for my boat. I want a cruiser passagemaker that I can live on comfortably once I get somewhere.


BTW - I've never stayed at a dock for longer than it takes to get fuel/water/supplies, what's it like?

[Don C L]

What a thread.
Is it not safe to say every boat, new or old, will need reinforcement or rebuild before being ready for the full range of sea conditions you will find cruising? And if you are sure you will always be going downhill, a flat bottom boat is great. If you are thinking you may be going uphill once in a while you will appreciate the virtues of a narrower displacement hull so you can sleep once in a while. If you'd rather not worry about keels and rudders, look to the old school... They actually did know a few things back in the stone age of modern sailing. One boat that also will never sell in a boatshow now, but seems to me a great example of at least a "very good" "bluewater" boat by the measure of those actually doing it, is the Pearson Rhodes 41. By modern standards, and by some mentioned here, it is not much boat for its length, but don't we want our bluewater boats to be capable in a wide variety of conditions and be sea-kindly? Oh well maybe that's just me showing my age. 30 years ago I would have preferred a NACRA for bluewater cruising. Back then wearing a wetsuit and eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for a week didn't sound so bad compared to the fun factor. But that is what is interesting in this thread to me because what was once considered fast and what was considered sea-worthy were very similar designs. Now, 60 years on, much less so. I guess it was the Cal 40 that snapped us out of the long/full keel mindset and took the rudder off the keel... for both cruising and racing. But still there are a few of us who cut our teeth on really fun boats that now kinda miss the discredited traits of the old boats, once you are out of sight of land for a while... Wow, how old am I? I am going to go out and get myself that NACRA and a new wetsuit!

[downunder]

Is a 28ft Pearson Triton a BWB??

Voice of Experience: Staring into Oblivion | Sail Magazine

A near thing.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by downunder

Is a 28ft Pearson Triton a BWB??

Voice of Experience: Staring into Oblivion | Sail Magazine

A near thing.

Well, on the positive side, it did make it! And how many of us are really ready to have our boats turned upside down?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by downunder

Is a 28ft Pearson Triton a BWB??

Voice of Experience: Staring into Oblivion | Sail Magazine

A near thing.

A Pearson Triton is stronger than a lot of boats on the market today. Which are strong enough, until that one moment when you really, really need it.

This is why it can be reasonable to spend more on a boat which is built stronger, than a boat which is strong enough for most purposes.

But this is yet another tradeoff, that everyone has to work out for himself.

[Cruiser2B]

Originally Posted by downunder

Is a 28ft Pearson Triton a BWB??

Voice of Experience: Staring into Oblivion | Sail Magazine

A near thing.

Not sold as BWB, but as built the design has safely carried many round the world and across oceans many many times over. Some modified some fairly stock.

[NoShoes]

Originally Posted by JulieMac

I'm posing the question based on production trends of the last 20+ years.

Hulls are getting flatter, beamier and lighter. Fewer handholds are to be found, while fin keels and spade rudders have replaced full keels and skegs.

Cockpits are designed for entertainment in port, rather than to protect the crew while offshore. Storage and tankage have been replaced by pop up TV's and wide living spaces.

Have most boat builders acknowledged that to survive in today's marketplace means designing their boats for 7 day charters in fair weather conditions? That fewer people today choose to cross oceans, but are permanent members of the 'jet set'?

Will the tiny production numbers of Oyster, Hallberg-Rassy and the like be enough to keep the blue water boat tradition alive?

Will boats of this caliber be seen as charming reminders of days gone by, like the era of the schooner?

Sitting here in Utila enjoying a dark and stormy and reading this thread, I must admit I agree with MsJulie. Funny, how sailboats have moved back to the deep pocket crowd.

Where are the Clinton and Everett Pearson of this era? Pearson Yachts did what they could way back then to get the general public out there sailing. Pearson built some very stout capable cruisers, and made them affordable to the blue collar crowd too.

Give me a solid tight heavy boat to cross an ocean, keep your dock daisy within sight of land.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by NoShoes

. . . Pearson Yachts did what they could way back then to get the general public out there sailing. Pearson built some very stout capable cruisers, and made them affordable to the blue collar crowd too.

Give me a solid tight heavy boat to cross an ocean, keep your dock daisy within sight of land.

I cut my teeth on a Pearson 365, the first real cruising boat in my life after a lot of racing dinghies and daysailers of various types. Many thousands of miles and years of cruising in that one.

In many ways, a very beautiful boat with many fine features, very strong and seaworthy, with a lovely seakindly motion, and gorgeous lines. Bill Shaw put a lot of thought and love into her design.

But I would sooner give up sailing than go back to that! God love her, but she sailed like a pig! Anytime the wind was much ahead of the beam -- forget it; put the motor on. You worried about getting through a tack without losing all way and getting caught in irons. For sailing, this "true blue water boat" was a huge disappointment, after the high strung racing dinghies (420's) and other small boats I learned to sail in.

But nowadays, I can get through a tack in my present boat without losing more than a knot of speed, in most cases. The difference is incredible. It's like being back in a racing dinghy.

Far from being "dock daisies", boats with more modern hull forms put the sailing back into cruising. Of course, there is a wide range in the tradeoff between strength, cost, and sailing performance, and no easy answers which are valid for everyone. But boats like those Pearsons are not made any more, and that is not an accident.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by NoShoes

Sitting here in Utila enjoying a dark and stormy and reading this thread, I must admit I agree with MsJulie. Funny, how sailboats have moved back to the deep pocket crowd.

Where are the Clinton and Everett Pearson of this era? Pearson Yachts did what they could way back then to get the general public out there sailing. Pearson built some very stout capable cruisers, and made them affordable to the blue collar crowd too.

Give me a solid tight heavy boat to cross an ocean, keep your dock daisy within sight of land.

I think you are wearing your rose-colored glasses?

The general public never were ocean-crossing in large numbers back then, and those who were were not doing it in Pearsons by-the-large. Pearson built a lot of coastal cruisers that were more affordable, but hardly budget boats - and mom and pop were not buying them in droves. The sum number of all of their boats sold in that era is probably much lower than a single year's worth of Beneteau now.

They were never built as bullet-proof bombs, and had their corner-cutting too. Over time, as they got more affordable as used boats, people started using them for longer-distance cruising. Most have found they need significant reinforcing and heavier equipment to do this type of cruising.

So to answer your question, the Clint and Everette Pearsons of today are called Beneteau, etc.

In fact, these builders have done far more than the Pearsons in getting people out on boats - both in numbers and price. And I'll bet more people have gone RTW and done extensive cruising in them than anyone has in Pearsons.

Mark