The Yard Guys

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by colemj

Many people are buying old boats to cruise because: A) they are affordable, B) some of them are led to believe this is the "proper" type of boat.

Mark

Yeah... not so sure myself.... will people be buying 30 year old Bene's Hunters and Catalinas for blue water 30 years from now?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Zach

I had the pleasure of walking through Hawk - Beth and Evans Van Destadt Samoa at the boat show">Annapolis boat show this year. If I had to point someone toward a blue water boat, that would be it. My take away was a lot of great ideas, that I don't have room to carry.

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

I really don't think they are mutually exclusive... so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Modern Cruising design boats DO incorporate some of these things, just not enough of them!
Bob Perry and others are not designing cruising boats with long overhangs, narrow sterns etc etc

I don't think this is really a matter of opinion…

Did you go look at Mr. Perry's recent designs? Not a skeg on them. And the keel on many of them were constrained by draft, so he put bulbs on them and a bit more low-aspect foil, but they are canoe hull shapes with no slack in the bilges. And they are designed for very light scantlings, since they are all high-end custom build jobs. Some of them have deep, high-aspect foil keels.

As for his older production designs - well, I will let you study those with regard to narrow sterns, overhangs, slack bilges and long keels. And the turn of speed they have compared to more modern designs.

If you want to look only at custom designs, then you will find designs that custom fit a customer's specific expectations - not a design that is in general the best type of design. Or even one that is palatable to anyone else. It isn't the purpose of custom design.

But yes, if someone did want a boat designed like you mention, then they certainly could pay for one to be designed and built. However, I suspect the result would be just as I described in my earlier post.

Maybe I am mistaken. Can you point me to modern designs that are not taking advantage of higher aspect foils, contain slack bilges and long keels, narrow sterns and overhangs? Go look at Beth and Evan's Hawk - a relatively old design (1997) that many here worship as an ultimate bluewater boat. Tell me what you see?

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oddly enough, at least to me, I recently heard some long-time sailors complain how their first long passage on their newly purchased Lagoon 440 cat was so uncomfortable and had made them seasick. They had previously been long-time monohull owners, and the passage in question was their annual trek to the Caribbean from Norfolk in early Nov. As I recall, I think the worst portion for them was after they had completed their easting and were heading south in the trades on more or less of a beam reach. They attributed it to the fact that all of the energy that is dissipated via heeling on a mono is absorbed by the cat and its occupants. They said the motion was extremely abrupt & uncomfortable. This surprised me based on the little I know (but haven't experienced) about cats as being quite comfortable on any point of sail. Dunno, maybe it was more about the boat or the particular sea-state vs. cats in general. Btw, why don't cats have good MC numbers?

People not liking catamaran motion and people preferring catamaran motion is just another nail in the coffin of motion comfort formulas.

A short beam sea waves are the worse on a cat because of what you describe - it is a violent sideways up/down/up/down - two hulls, you know (but not enough to spill your drink). We hate them - but it is because they are annoying like a crying kid or the hiccups, not because they make you toss your cookies. On the other hand, beam swells are hardly noticeable at all.

And we have many friends on good, double-ender, heavy, slack-bilge full-keeled boats that detest short beam seas for the reason that their boats respond too slowly and they roll on their beam ends constantly.

There must be that perfect short beam sea wave boat out there…

Catamarans do not have good MC formula numbers because those formulas were designed for very specific boat types in mind. They certainly didn't expect LWL/HB ratios of 12:1 and overall beams of 25' on a boat displacing 10T!

Mark

[neilpride]

Certain Multis are a pain in the ass regarding confort, i do my second Biscay with ear plugs after all, lovely sailing DW, in a beam reach , but when seas are huge and short the fun is over... i admit they are far way better in confort motion compared with monohulls, but in certain conditions i miss to be in a good monohull.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by downunder

...
Whilst I agree totally with your view on jerry cans on deck I simply can't agree about tankage. ... I know of several Crowther cats built to cruise the Pacific and Patagonia with up to 1400 liters capacity. With such tankage it does not always have to be full. There are many areas unfortunately that do require some motoring.
...

1400 liters of diesel on a cat? You really like to go slow

The tankage neede has to do with the sailing ability and the size of the needed engine. A cat like this one:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1697372

Will be able to go over wind speed till 6K (at least) and with only 5000kg of height (7000kg charged) it will be able to motor at an economic cruising speed with only one of the two 27hp engines. A 27hp engine waists about 2/3L hour. With 300L of diesel you will be able to run the engine for 100 hours and that on a sleek boat with a big waterline means about 700Nm.

Taking in consideration that a boat like this will be able to sail 4/5 of the time that will give it an autonomy of about 3000nm. Does not seem enough for you? Off course the boat has to be equipped with autonomous ways of producing energy. it has already integrated solar panels, a hydrogenerator and a wind generator will be enough for the energy needs.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by neilpride

but in certain conditions i miss to be in a good monohull.

Me too. Likewise, in certain conditions in a mono, I miss being in a catamaran.

But more than anything, in certain conditions I miss being on a 150' boat...

Mark

[neilpride]

Then we agree, because i miss the multi in certain conditions to...

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by colemj

I don't think this is really a matter of opinion…

Did you go look at Mr. Perry's recent designs? Not a skeg on them. And the keel on many of them were constrained by draft, so he put bulbs on them and a bit more low-aspect foil, but they are canoe hull shapes with no slack in the bilges. And they are designed for very light scantlings, since they are all high-end custom build jobs. Some of them have deep, high-aspect foil keels.

As for his older production designs - well, I will let you study those with regard to narrow sterns, overhangs, slack bilges and long keels. And the turn of speed they have compared to more modern designs.

If you want to look only at custom designs, then you will find designs that custom fit a customer's specific expectations - not a design that is in general the best type of design. Or even one that is palatable to anyone else. It isn't the purpose of custom design.

But yes, if someone did want a boat designed like you mention, then they certainly could pay for one to be designed and built. However, I suspect the result would be just as I described in my earlier post.

Maybe I am mistaken. Can you point me to modern designs that are not taking advantage of higher aspect foils, contain slack bilges and long keels, narrow sterns and overhangs? Go look at Beth and Evan's Hawk - a relatively old design (1997) that many here worship as an ultimate bluewater boat. Tell me what you see?

Mark

One boat that comes to mind that is like I mentioned is the Island Packet line.... Long waterlines, beam carried well aft, long keel and protected rudder. Seem to be selling pretty well too....

"Maybe I am mistaken. Can you point me to modern designs that are not taking advantage of higher aspect foils, contain slack bilges and long keels, narrow sterns and overhangs? "
I'm not sure this sentence means....what this is in regard to... but most modern designs are not using long keels, narrow sterns and overhangs

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

One boat that comes to mind that is like I mentioned is the Island Packet line....

OK, I see where our disconnect lies.

Mark

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

People not liking catamaran motion and people preferring catamaran motion is just another nail in the coffin of motion comfort formulas.

A short beam sea waves are the worse on a cat because of what you describe - it is a violent sideways up/down/up/down - two hulls, you know (but not enough to spill your drink). We hate them - but it is because they are annoying like a crying kid or the hiccups, not because they make you toss your cookies. On the other hand, beam swells are hardly noticeable at all.

And we have many friends on good, double-ender, heavy, slack-bilge full-keeled boats that detest short beam seas for the reason that their boats respond too slowly and they roll on their beam ends constantly.

There must be that perfect short beam sea wave boat out there…

Catamarans do not have good MC formula numbers because those formulas were designed for very specific boat types in mind. They certainly didn't expect LWL/HB ratios of 12:1 and overall beams of 25' on a boat displacing 10T!

Mark

OK, that's helpful. People have their opinions about multi's vs. mono's, of course, but this recent incident was the first time I had heard complaints about multi's being overall less comfortable than mono's.

Sounds like maybe someone should develop a MC formula just for multi's!

[Exile]

New replies in blue:

Re: The Yard Guys

Originally Posted by Exile
1. Whether modern, mass-produced boats which cost less for a mfg. to produce and thus less for a consumer to buy, are as structurally sound as more expensively produced boats (old & new).

SmackDaddy
No. The question has always been are production boats suitable for bluewater cruising? Period. The comparison between builds is completely secondary to that question.

OK, I think it's just semantics, but how about "whether modern, mass-produced boats which cost less for a mfg. to produce and thus less for a consumer to buy, are structurally sound enough for bluewater cruising just like more expensive, purpose-built "bluewater" boats undisputedly are?" Your entire premise is based on not steering newbs towards bluewater boats because the modern boats are "just as good" for bluewater cruising. So there has to be some sort of standard to compare to.

SmackDaddy
As you well know, the long-standing line from the BWC is that BeneHunterLinas are just coastal boats that don't really belong off-shore, despite the Category A rating.

No, I don't know this, except from your complaining about it again & again in this & other threads. I've certainly heard individual opinions to this effect, but many more so along the lines of what both Kenomac & Dockhead recently stated in the Hunter 356 thread, namely that you can do bluewater cruising in these boats, but you would likely be more comfortable, would probably assume less risk, and therefore might be safer doing it in a more purpose-built boat.

Originally Posted by Exile
2. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the construction of the cheaper boats may not be as "robust," an offshoot of the above debate seems to be whether it really matters. The clearest example of this might be Mark's (ColemJ) interesting point (for me, anyway) that the thick, often non-cored hulls on traditionally constructed boats (mostly old like mine but some new) are no longer necessary given modern composite materials & lay-up techniques.

SmackDaddy
Yes and no. Your example is a very good one regarding what "robust" really means. But, the other side of this that I think is even more interesting is the "long-term durability" of production boats versus old heavy boats. I think we all have the strong hunch that the more modern production boats are, in fact, built more lightly and, therefore, won't "last as long" as a Hinckley or whatever. The question is, does THAT really matter? And does the assumption that the older bluewater boats are "stronger" actually stand up (the cycles issue)?

Built "more lightly" is different than being built "more inexpensively" which, in turn, may be (but usually isn't, imho) different from "low-quality." I think it's helpful & important to distinguish these concepts, and the yard guys can weigh in on all of them.

As for longevity, I think this is yet another red herring. I have no idea from an engineering standpoint, but just like old cars or anything else, they'll all probably last as long as there are enthusiastic owners who want to continue to maintain them. The highly-regarded boats will likely have the edge here because of their heritage, all the hand work that went into their construction, and because obviously they were more expensive to buy and thus keep their value better. In short, I agree with you that the boats in question probably won't be around as long, but I also don't think this factor is neither here nor there in discussing which boats are more robust for bluewater cruising, except as it may apply to the minority of boats which may get the equivalent of decades of average usage in a very short period of time. We've already seen the results of some of this sort of treatment from the yard guys.

Originally Posted by Exile
3. Then there's the "performance debate", thanks mainly to Polux's instigation. Is it compatible with the type of long-distance bluewater cruising that many do or would like to do. This discussion seems to focus on the trade-offs, whether speed matters, and whether slow & heavy can be offset by buying larger boats (Dockhead's approach, for e.g.).

SmackDaddy
I think Polux pretty much has this one nailed. As long as everyone understands the trade-offs, which I think he and others are doing a very good job nailing down - there's no doubt there are many great benefits in better performance. As he said, the performance between older and newer Oysters, for example, is huge. So he's not saying anything that the industry itself is not backing up in reality.

Except that this thread isn't really about buying a new or used Oyster, but rather on whether a newb on a more modest budget is better off buying an older bluewater boat or a somewhat newer, "faster" modern boat for presumably similar money. Among other trade-offs, when you load up each type of boat for long-distance cruising, the performance of the lighter boat will necessarily diminish more significantly than on the heavier boat. Boat speed can be nice for a lot of practical as well as emotional reasons, but many sailors view bluewater cruising as more of an individual challenge with the natural elements, not as a competition against some other boat which also happens to be competing in the ARC or some other club-type event.[/QUOTE]

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Exile

......
Except that this thread isn't really about buying a new or used Oyster, but rather on whether a newb on a more modest budget is better off buying an older bluewater boat or a somewhat newer, "faster" modern boat for presumably similar money. Among other trade-offs, when you load up each type of boat for long-distance cruising, the performance of the lighter boat will necessarily diminish more significantly than on the heavier boat. Boat speed can be nice for a lot of practical as well as emotional reasons, but many sailors view bluewater cruising as more of an individual challenge with the natural elements, not as a competition against some other boat which also happens to be competing in the ARC or some other club-type event.

I think the bolded nails it. Cruising is not a competition. For many, it is getting back to a time when man's interaction with nature was much more intuitive than now, even if we do love our chartplotters and GPS's.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

I think the bolded nails it. Cruising is not a competition. For many, it is getting back to a time when man's interaction with nature was much more intuitive than now, even if we do love our chartplotters and GPS's.

Ah, here is the difference between the traditional BWC crowd and the newer design crowd.

The traditional folk have some cultish necessity to wallow, roll and "interact" with the sea. Maybe to even hope for a big storm so that they can run around setting trisails and sea anchors, trying to keep a slick off to windward - or setting preventers to stop slatting sails when rolling around in light air, etc.

After all, it is what you read in the books that real bluewater is about, isn't it?

The other half enjoy interacting with nature by sailing a boat over and through it - having options for how to handle both heavy and light weather that aren't limited to "taking it like a (sea)man". And just enjoy a boat sailing well and fast.

It isn't about competition for anyone (other than those actually racing). However, when I talk to cruisers in "bluewater" boats, they always get excited about those passages where their boat performed well and they had a quick passage (relatively). Their worse stories are about those passages where they wallowed and rolled because of seas and winds.

Didn't sound like they were not about performance and all about interacting intuitively with nature.

How would you rate Hawk, Deerfoot, etc? They were specifically designed for performance, and some even with an eye toward competition. I don't think any of them had their design eye on "getting back to a time when man's interaction with nature was more intuitive than now" (I don't even know what that sentence could possibly mean, or how it is applied here).

Mark

[Polux]

Originally Posted by colemj

Ah, here is the difference between the traditional BWC crowd and the newer design crowd.

The traditional folk have some cultish necessity to wallow, roll and "interact" with the sea. Maybe to even hope for a big storm so that they can run around setting trisails and sea anchors, trying to keep a slick off to windward - or setting preventers to stop slatting sails when rolling around in light air, etc.
...
The other half enjoy interacting with nature by sailing a boat over and through it - having options for how to handle both heavy and light weather that aren't limited to "taking it like a (sea)man". And just enjoy a boat sailing well and fast.
....
Didn't sound like they were not about performance and all about interacting intuitively with nature.
..

I like your sense of humor

Regarding interacting with the nature I used to do that when I went fast with my rally racer motorcycle over small tracks. The best description I could give about that sensation was to be dancing with the motorcycle, me and the motorcycle as a single body.

I feel that too in what regards the boat, hand-steering fast on demanding conditions with two fingers on the wheel and dancing with the waves. I am not as good with the boat as I was with the motorcycle (I raced for 12 years) and sometimes I miss it and I almost hear the boat talking to me: Idiot what are you doing?!!!

Not that I cannot sail the boat slower (but still very fast if compared with an heavy boat) on autopilot safely on those conditions, but where is the fun and interaction with the nature in that?

That's not about racing (I don't race) It is about having pleasure and fun while sailing.