small cat liveaboard&slow circumnavigation: PDQ 32 or FP 35 Tobago or Lagoon 35CCC

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by fcftampa

My finders fee for the TRT is an invite to sail if you're ever in my area.

Accepted and Promised

[riki]

As you mentioned a 32ft as an option, i would suggest you to take into consideration the FP Maldives 32. I am biased but it's a fast cat and cheaper that the ones you mentioned so this would give you room for all the upgrades you'll need.
Cheers

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by riki

As you mentioned a 32ft as an option, i would suggest you to take into consideration the FP Maldives 32. I am biased but it's a fast cat and cheaper that the ones you mentioned so this would give you room for all the upgrades you'll need.
Cheers

Thank you but it's too small, to less payload and not blue water capable. Only have the 32 PDQ in because it's a 36 downsized&modernized and is the absolut limit.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

Thank you but it's too small, to less payload and not blue water capable. Only have the 32 PDQ in because it's a 36 downsized&modernized and is the absolut limit.

What is the payload load limit of the Maldives vs the PDQ? Seldom are these details available short of looking at the plaque inside.

[Sos]

So you want to add a large hardtop bimini with lots of solar, wind generator, watermaker, washing machine, 2 fridges, 1 freezer and maybe AC and two diesel engines!
That's hell of a lot of gear for a 35' cat.
I would suggest you look at a longer, older and cheaper Prout since you are not going to be getting any sort of performance from the sort of boat you are looking at

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by Sos

So you want to add a large hardtop bimini with lots of solar, wind generator, watermaker, washing machine, 2 fridges, 1 freezer and maybe AC and two diesel engines!
That's hell of a lot of gear for a 35' cat.
I would suggest you look at a longer, older and cheaper Prout since you are not going to be getting any sort of performance from the sort of boat you are looking at

As long as he is within the spec of the manufacturer then there is no problem.
Most of these boats are designed to be sailed by a crew of 4 or so people. Most guys i see are overweight, so the crew probably comes to as much as that gear. plus this gear would be mounted down lower.

The issue would be that most nowhere lists the payload of these cats, so you are in effect just guessing.

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by Sos

So you want to add a large hardtop bimini with lots of solar, wind generator, watermaker, washing machine, 2 fridges, 1 freezer and maybe AC and two diesel engines!
That's hell of a lot of gear for a 35' cat.
I would suggest you look at a longer, older and cheaper Prout since you are not going to be getting any sort of performance from the sort of boat you are looking at

if you take the right gear that is not so much added weight, +300kg max.see my post on page 1.

Genset only a honda suitcase, 1000W flexible solar panels weight the same then the old framed 200W mostly mounted, add on is only the bigger inverter and controllers plus cable. Lithium 600AH is 50kg more then the 200-300AH AGM ones factory installed, replace to 2 starter batteries with LI and its only +20kg in total....

Inboard Diesel factory spec and so excluded from payload...different on the PDQ32.

On a 35 I would carefully think about the washing machine...also here you can find a small 3kg toploader which weights 12kg or a 8kg household machine thats 80+kg...

[riki]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

Thank you but it's too small, to less payload and not blue water capable. Only have the 32 PDQ in because it's a 36 downsized&modernized and is the absolut limit.

I agree that it might be too small as a liveaboard being a more performance oriented cat; about not being blue water capable i obviously disagree considering that there are Maldives in S.Africa, Caribbean and even Australia and i guess they did it sailing.
Good luck with your research.

[owly]

Originally Posted by riki

I agree that it might be too small as a liveaboard being a more performance oriented cat; about not being blue water capable i obviously disagree considering that there are Maldives in S.Africa, Caribbean and even Australia and i guess they did it sailing.
Good luck with your research.

I too would like to know where the assessment "not blue water capable" came from and what it is based on??


When one considers boats like the Gemini 105 capable blue water boats with their narrow beam and full forward deck, how is the Maldives with it's far better beam length ratio.



Gemini 105: 33.5 LOA / 14' beam solid deck all the way forward
Maldives 32 32' LOA / 17'5' beam Netting about 1/3 of the way back from the bows


Who in their right mind would consider the Gemini blue water capable and the Maldives not?

What sort of criteria resulted in this conclusion I wonder... I can't imagine!!


I know which I would choose!! And it would NOT be the Gemini.


H.W.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by owly

I too would like to know where the assessment "not blue water capable" came from and what it is based on??


When one considers boats like the Gemini 105 capable blue water boats with their narrow beam and full forward deck, how is the Maldives with it's far better beam length ratio.



Gemini 105: 33.5 LOA / 14' beam solid deck all the way forward
Maldives 32 32' LOA / 17'5' beam Netting about 1/3 of the way back from the bows


Who in their right mind would consider the Gemini blue water capable and the Maldives not?

What sort of criteria resulted in this conclusion I wonder... I can't imagine!!


I know which I would choose!! And it would NOT be the Gemini.


H.W.

I don't anyone even the designer claims the Gemini is a blue water boat do they? I thought it is built quite lightly and requires various areas of reinforcement. Now something like the Heavenly Twins 27 is a well proven blue water capable yacht, as are the Prouts. Yet I would agree, the Maldives is a lot more boat. I know which one I would prefer (clue, it's not the one I own in my profile).

[Mr B]

Originally Posted by owly

I too would like to know where the assessment "not blue water capable" came from and what it is based on??


When one considers boats like the Gemini 105 capable blue water boats with their narrow beam and full forward deck, how is the Maldives with it's far better beam length ratio.



Gemini 105: 33.5 LOA / 14' beam solid deck all the way forward
Maldives 32 32' LOA / 17'5' beam Netting about 1/3 of the way back from the bows


Who in their right mind would consider the Gemini blue water capable and the Maldives not?

What sort of criteria resulted in this conclusion I wonder... I can't imagine!!


I know which I would choose!! And it would NOT be the Gemini.


H.W.

Me, I consider the Gemini, 105MC as Blue water capable,
Mines in Australia, After sailing all over the south Pacific, From San Diego, USA,
Hawai, Fiji, Tonga, New Caladonia, Vanuatu, Etc,

After 2002 they were certified CE for Blue water after a bit of design change,
Tony Smith the Builder after crossing the North Atlantic in a Gemini 105MC to deliver it to England,
Ripped out the Cherry Wood Panelling to make it lighter, He also did 24 knots in his one on the way to England,
There is a video of it on Vimeo,

I bought mine in Fiji and single handed it back to Australla with out problems,

Captain Rivet, Get onto Youtube videos and get a walk around on a Gemini 105MC,
They do come in your price range, But only look at ones with all the Bells and Whistles already on it,
The Catamaran Company have a few for sale,

Only the Gemini 105MC Between 2002 and 2010,

Earlier and later models than these dates are not the same boats,

I bought my Gemini 105 MC, to sail in Bass Straight, The Tasman Sea and the Southern Ocean, If I didnt think it was capable, I would not have bought it,

Cheers, Brian,

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Mr B

...He also did 24 knots in his one on the way to England, There is a video of it on Vimeo...

I'm not discounting your other points, but "he did 24kn" - do you mean -sustained boat speed - or did he just have one big surf that the GPS registered as 24kn?

Because it's not really the same thing. To me "doing 24kn" generally
means bursts to 26-28kn, and 18-20kn in the lulls.

Is a 33ft Gemini really capable of those kind of sustained speeds?

[CaptainRivet]

I think the question is more what is blue water capability, as everybody seems to understand something different about it. And I think it highly reflects the purpose what you using it for on oceans. Additional to the pure ocean sailing capabilities and given building standards which are rated, there are a lot of other factors like real sturdy/quality of the built (not meant luxery stuff like nice teak joinery etc.)=boat can withstand forces in heavy sea over a longer periode, payload in combination with hull width and beam plus bridgedeck clearance...etc...
Additionally to that personal risk evaluation and risk acceptance plus individual personal level of "safety" plays a major role what each of us rates as blue water capable. People crossed atlantic in a rowing boat. Well I would not doesn't matter how it was set up and how many experts would certify it blue water capable.


As a costal cruiser on ocean coasts like France, SA or Australia my personal "classification" I would take a FP 32 for a day or weekend or 2-3weeks out there, but not too far off coast so I can get ashore before heavy condition hit you. Also the Geminis and others cats that are rated or prooven able for it and feel safe. People would call it blue water capable, I don't.


A real blue water capable boat for me is

- one that you can do 2000miles passage across the ocean, if you have tough luck nearly all in rough conditions
- helms position covered from elements (can be refitted if not there but essential for blue water)
- have max. 90% of real payload (again here what is real payload, for me a load not to far off the manufacturer specs with an acceptable bridgedeck clearance and average 5kn cruising speed min.) with typical liveaboard gear, a crew of 3, comfortable provisions for 3000miles, 3each=9l per day water for 4000miles (or minimum 4.5l per day as bottle and rest watermaker with triple spares as backup) of and double/triple backup for life necessary spares and things like water, navigation, communication
- real sturdy and well approved plus proofed construction of the boat for rough open water ocean/seas. The ratings give you a good indication but as ratings are expensive there a lot boats out that would highly exceed them but no rating or other that passed but hardly or "the special prepared test boat" hardly met them in critical areas. Also things like missing of escape hatches on small cat prevent from a rating but are actually neglectable in my eyes.
thats just the absolute basics...list is longer and again personal criteria.

[Training Wheels]

I think you better get a bigger boat.....

[riki]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

I think the question is more what is blue water capability, as everybody seems to understand something different about it. And I think it highly reflects the purpose what you using it for on oceans. Additional to the pure ocean sailing capabilities and given building standards which are rated, there are a lot of other factors like real sturdy/quality of the built (not meant luxery stuff like nice teak joinery etc.)=boat can withstand forces in heavy sea over a longer periode, payload in combination with hull width and beam plus bridgedeck clearance...etc...
Additionally to that personal risk evaluation and risk acceptance plus individual personal level of "safety" plays a major role what each of us rates as blue water capable. People crossed atlantic in a rowing boat. Well I would not doesn't matter how it was set up and how many experts would certify it blue water capable.


As a costal cruiser on ocean coasts like France, SA or Australia my personal "classification" I would take a FP 32 for a day or weekend or 2-3weeks out there, but not too far off coast so I can get ashore before heavy condition hit you. Also the Geminis and others cats that are rated or prooven able for it and feel safe. People would call it blue water capable, I don't.


A real blue water capable boat for me is

- one that you can do 2000miles passage across the ocean, if you have tough luck nearly all in rough conditions
- helms position covered from elements (can be refitted if not there but essential for blue water)
- have max. 90% of real payload (again here what is real payload, for me a load not to far off the manufacturer specs with an acceptable bridgedeck clearance and average 5kn cruising speed min.) with typical liveaboard gear, a crew of 3, comfortable provisions for 3000miles, 3each=9l per day water for 4000miles (or minimum 4.5l per day as bottle and rest watermaker with triple spares as backup) of and double/triple backup for life necessary spares and things like water, navigation, communication
- real sturdy and well approved plus proofed construction of the boat for rough open water ocean/seas. The ratings give you a good indication but as ratings are expensive there a lot boats out that would highly exceed them but no rating or other that passed but hardly or "the special prepared test boat" hardly met them in critical areas. Also things like missing of escape hatches on small cat prevent from a rating but are actually neglectable in my eyes.
thats just the absolute basics...list is longer and again personal criteria.

Well, you have your personal idea of "blue water capability", i respect that even if i don't agree. Safety is a matter of "levels", and personally i would put speed as absolute first: I would feel much more comfortable in a light fast vessel that could cover a crossing in much less time than a modern condomaran making the risk of getting nasty weather in the middle of nothing much smaller. And about sturdiness, believe me (didn't believe that till i had real direct experience) many modern condomarans of the most common brands can be defined in many ways but "sturdy" not one of them, specially compared to some older vessels that were absolutelly overbuilt, strong and sturdy indeed.