What EXACTLY is a "blue water boat"?

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by wholybee

All the talk about displacement, hull shape, strength of build etc., while there are some exceptions with boats that are really not ok to cross an ocean with, mostly that is just personal preference.

There is some validity to that, but I would guess that "personal preference" might include a measure of "comfort/ease of motion".
Having had the opportunities to sail on a myriad of boats, I might cite three examples.
1, A BCC 28 vs. a Cascade 29.
2, My own boat, (35',) vs. a Cascade 36.
3, A Westsail 43 vs. a Cascade 42.
Why did I use Cascade? Because here in the PNW they are all over the place and it was easy to "get a ride" on them.
Another reason is that none of them are in any way an extreme design, rather they are fairly conservative, (and a bit old fashioned,) as fin-keelers go.
In smoother water and in wind strengths where full sail could be carried, they were faster to respond, they accelerated out of the tacks faster and were more "fun" to just be-out-on-the-water with.
But when the wind/wave picked-up to "reefing stage" they just didn't have the level of "easiness" to them, they were more "high strung", as it were, you need to be "on top of things" to a greater degree than you do on a heavier/longer keel boat, (they're not "Easy Riders",) if you will.
Perhaps the best of both worlds might be the earlier Swans that were designed by S&S.
They have a "fin keel" and bolted on ballast, but still have a deep hull with softer bilges, they don't bob around like a cork, but conduct themselves with a measure of grace.

[MicHughV]

I think Don hits the nail on the head in that it is not so much the boat as it is the skipper.

A more appropriate thread title should be..." what exactly is a blue water skipper "..

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

I've not "decided" anything. Just wondering why you think there would be MORE hazards floating in the middle of an ocean than costal while it's the opposite. Besides that, I have no desire to sail throw Sargasso sea or the great Pacific garbage patch which are obvious and easy areas to avoid while only an idiot or scientist would.

I didn’t say there were more things to hit in the middle of the ocean. I said it was more hazardous to hit something in the middle of the ocean. It’s a bigger deal to be rapidly taking on water 1500 miles from land than it is to do so 50 miles from land.

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

I think Don hits the nail on the head in that it is not so much the boat as it is the skipper.

A more appropriate thread title should be..." what exactly is a blue water skipper "..

Is flawed logic. All things being equal boats matter.

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by Wandering1

A cored hull using the same thickness of glass as a solid glass hull will be 37 times stiffer.
The cost of labour to build a cored hull is way higher than a solid glass hull. The skills to do it correctly are far higher than just laying up layer after layer of glass. In the scale of boat building, the cost of glass and resin doesn't factor. It's a tiny percentage of the whole project cost. You have little understanding of boat building. If you want cheap you make it out of solid glass. That what all the crappy European production boats are built from. Cheap solid glass

I acknowledged in the above quote that a cored hull is going to be stiffer. To reduce to the ridiculous a crystal champagne glass is going to be pound for pound much stiffer than a cored hull and fail even more catastrophically. Further you can’t compare a chopper gun cheap layup to for instance what Sam Morse, Alajuellla, or any of the reputable heavily displacement boats of the golden era that were skillfully laid up of primarily woven roving. Impact resistance and ease of repair is what you’re buying. The modern cored hulls are super easily damaged and incredible expensive to repair.

As to the skill required to infuse a hull it is too be sure a higher level of skill and far fewer bodies involved. The lack of people and the material savings more than pay for the extra consumables. It’s also super fast. You can layup a virtually unlimited thickness of cloth, carbon, foam coring, or neater else you’ve got in the bag in one whack. This is how I make my living. Not the older hand laid hulls were talking about. So me being ignorant on matters of boat building isn’t a part of the disagreement.

[MicHughV]

hardly.....a blue water skipper is likely to think more clearly and be better prepared in a sinking situation as would be a neophyte sailor......regardless of distance offshore...

and another point...sailing during the day, one has the advantage of seeing what is around you, at night, no such luxury befalls you....and it becomes a throw of the dice...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Superjunkman

Is flawed logic. All things being equal boats matter.

Boats matter of course, a necessity for a sailor but.. what matters more is the man prepared to take the boat out there and survive.. like Rory Mcdougall who sailed his Tiki 21 "Cooking Fat' around the world via New Zealand.
Surely a Bluewater boat..
How many here could face that.. not me for starters.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by boatman61

what matters more is the man prepared to take the boat out there and survive..

Yes, and stories of such men and their boats could make a list a mile long.
I would recommend that a book worthy of a Cecil B. DeMille movie would be "Count Luckner, the Sea Devil" circa 1927 by Lowell Thomas.
Taking a square-rigged ship to war in the age of steam, he became a hero far beyond the usual accolades afforded to mere "Captains".
His abilities, resourcefulness and gentlemanly conduct being praised by even his adversaries.

[Fore and Aft]

Boatman I am hearing you. I am just about to start reading Tinkerbelle. Single handed across the Atlantic from Falmouth Massachusetts to Falmouth Cornwall in a 13-foot sailboat. 78 days it took to sail across.
What makes me laugh is all these YouTubers who act like they are reinventing the wheel, when there have been countless small boat voyages that were done before social media was invented.
Cheers

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

Hello, I'm back with another silly question. I am now in the process of getting rid of everything I own (except for tools and clothing), in preparation for getting out of my lease by January and looking for a boat.

I have spent the past several months combing over YW, Sailboatlistings, Craigslist, etc... and Using resources such as Bluewaterboats.org, to try and make an informed decision on the size and type of boat that I want... within my budget of course. I am currently looking for a 32-35' bluewater capable boat (Allied 32, 33, 35, Pearson 32, 35, Bristol 34, Westsail 32, etc...). These are at the top of my list, but there are other boats that have caught my eye, that aren't listed as "blue water boats" such as Endeavour 32, Islanders, Catalinas, C&C, etc.

I don't plan on a circumnavigation, but I would like to cross the Atlantic to Europe and the Mediterranean in about 7-10 years, and return a couple of years later.

My question is this: Do you NEED a blue water boat to make an occasional blue water passage? Or are "blue water" boats made to withstand continuous ocean passages. I would like to get the best built boat that I can afford, and I understand that I will probably have to put a LOT of sweat equity into any boat purchase in my initial price range ($10 - $20k).

I have done a fair amount of research, and I really like the old classic plastic boats anyway, but there are many other boats that I like, I just want to make sure that I would feel confident in the boat to brave a crossing, or heavy seas.

I appreciate any insight you can offer.

-Harrison.

Aloha 33-36

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

There is some validity to that, but I would guess that "personal preference" might include a measure of "comfort/ease of motion".
Having had the opportunities to sail on a myriad of boats, I might cite three examples.
1, A BCC 28 vs. a Cascade 29.
2, My own boat, (35',) vs. a Cascade 36.
3, A Westsail 43 vs. a Cascade 42.
Why did I use Cascade? Because here in the PNW they are all over the place and it was easy to "get a ride" on them.
Another reason is that none of them are in any way an extreme design, rather they are fairly conservative, (and a bit old fashioned,) as fin-keelers go.
In smoother water and in wind strengths where full sail could be carried, they were faster to respond, they accelerated out of the tacks faster and were more "fun" to just be-out-on-the-water with.
But when the wind/wave picked-up to "reefing stage" they just didn't have the level of "easiness" to them, they were more "high strung", as it were, you need to be "on top of things" to a greater degree than you do on a heavier/longer keel boat, (they're not "Easy Riders",) if you will.
Perhaps the best of both worlds might be the earlier Swans that were designed by S&S.
They have a "fin keel" and bolted on ballast, but still have a deep hull with softer bilges, they don't bob around like a cork, but conduct themselves with a measure of grace.

If you finda sailboat that already has LEE CLOTHS-- it might be a bluewayer boat. maybe

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

hardly.....a blue water skipper is likely to think more clearly and be better prepared in a sinking situation as would be a neophyte sailor......regardless of distance offshore...

and another point...sailing during the day, one has the advantage of seeing what is around you, at night, no such luxury befalls you....and it becomes a throw of the dice...

I went to maritime school. The idea of a “Bluewater skipper” is laughable. Most are a retired dentist and his wife in a semi suitable boat. Unless you’ve taken a survival at sea course where you’ve inflated a life raft, righted it, gotten into it, and helped someone into it you’re at best just a little calmer than the next guy.

The suitability or lack thereof of a certain vessel stands alone.

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by geoleo

If you finda sailboat that already has LEE CLOTHS-- it might be a bluewayer boat. maybe

My first boat (Hughes 38)!was designed by Sparkman and Stephens and had 4 sea bearths mid ships that all had Lee cloths fitted right from the yard. They were nice.

[Superjunkman]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Boats matter of course, a necessity for a sailor but.. what matters more is the man prepared to take the boat out there and survive.. like Rory Mcdougall who sailed his Tiki 21 "Cooking Fat' around the world via New Zealand.
Surely a Bluewater boat..
How many here could face that.. not me for starters.

With a little luck a skilled/determined sailor can get across in a less than optimal vessel. That doesn’t make it a blue water boat. I think that a well thought out, well built, and well fit out blue water boat makes it much easier for the less skilled sailor. To safely get across

What makes a good blue water vessel stands alone. Who embarks/disembarks has no bearing on what you’ve got .

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Superjunkman

Is flawed logic. All things being equal boats matter.

I didn't mean to say boats don't matter. I am asking what everyone would agree are criteria, the must-haves, for a bluewater boat?

And regardless of any definition, there are people sailing around successfully and safely, presumably, in boats that don't meet the criteria. I suppose they are either foolish, highly skilled or incredibly lucky.