A Full Keel Blue Water Cruiser Worthy of Living Aboard

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Your post will never stop the readers of old books that are written about old and out of date designs. To those people you may as well tell them their God is wrong.

i know i know, I try ....:bang head:
I think telling them their God is wrong would be easier
dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Ummmm...OK.

It seems this requirement for 2 helms is a recent fad brought about to work around a design shortcoming that prevents the helmsman from seeing around the cabin on boats with too much beam carried aft.

No not at all, The trend occurred to facilitate easy access to the sugar scoop and to facilitate entry exit as marinas became more the norm.

Then add the increase in beam aft , the size of wheel needed to steer from the comings gets huge, hence twin wheels.

What does it matter, they solve a problem,

dave

[Argyle38]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Your post will never stop the readers of old books that are written about old and out of date designs. To those people you may as well tell them their God is wrong.

And do you think you and your ilk are any different? Just look at this thread, and any other like it. As soon as anyone says anything positive about any aspect of an older designed boat, there are dozens of posts trying to tell everyone why their wrong.

It's as if you and others like you are on a freaking crusade. Meanwhile, many many many, full keeled, long keeled and otherwise heavy displacement boats are successfully cruising all around the world with very happy owners.

To the OP: just like a few others have said. You ask a question like this and many folks will tell you that your're wrong unless you pick THEIR type of boat.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

It's as if you and others like you are on a freaking crusade.

Well you have me completely wrong as it doesn't matter to me at all what boat other people want to sail on. I don't believe I've made any pro or con for any boat on the thread!

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

And do you think you and your ilk are any different? Just look at this thread, and any other like it. As soon as anyone says anything positive about any aspect of an older designed boat, there are dozens of posts trying to tell everyone why their wrong.

It's as if you and others like you are on a freaking crusade. Meanwhile, many many many, full keeled, long keeled and otherwise heavy displacement boats are successfully cruising all around the world with very happy owners.

To the OP: just like a few others have said. You ask a question like this and many folks will tell you that your're wrong unless you pick THEIR type of boat.

Yes, I do see a distinct difference.

None of the "modern design" proponents are telling anyone they are unsafe or not seaworthy but that is the type of rhetoric we hear from those who champion the "classic design". Most of us who take up the "modern design" argument typically point out that the paradigm of what makes a blue water boat is not usually supported with facts and science but simply tradition and wives' tales. Most of us just point out that their is an error in the logic of saying a blue water boat must be this or that and inform the OPs that they should do more research and give them some specific things to start them out.

We don't attack the positive aspects of classic designs. We do however attack the position that only those aspects are acceptable for crossing oceans.

You can cruise what you like. Everyone is welcome to choose what aspects they find most appealing and necessary. I have friends who sail classic, long keel boats and friends that sail modern rocket ships with plaining hulls, carbon fiber sticks and synthetic rigging. The great thing about boats is that you can sail what you like.

Fair winds,

Jesse

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The Allied Boat Company motto was "She'll cross an ocean if you will," and the Allied Seawind (30 foot version) was the first fiberglass boat to circumnavigate.

The Allied Mistress is on several recommended bluewater boat lists, and by most accounts are sturdily built. There's a guy who could have used your recommendation a couple of years ago, as R Lee Winters just sailed his Allied Mistress around the world a couple of years ago. He posted a few videos from different locations on Youtube, and seemed to be having a grand time of it.

Here's a review:
Allied Seabreeze, Mistress, Princess: A Diverse Fleet of Classic Plastics - Cruising World

If you have some supporting detail for your opinion about these boats, please share. Otherwise, we'll just consider it a vote for your own boat. A T37, is it?

No need to get defensive. I looked at a Mistress before I bought my current boat. Allied made some good boats, but I am not a fan of center cockpits for cruising -- that's just me. And I would skip centerboarders as well (I also looked at a Seawind, which was pretty cramped for its LOA, IMHO and I didn't like the centerboard anyway). I've seen too older many centerboarders with all sorts of problems related to the trunk.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by carstenb
...All the parties and social gatherings are on the twin wheel modern boats...
No, Incorrect...
The Parties are on that 50 Ft Cigarrette boat with the triple injected 454 Chevys. He left port a half hour ago with the Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders and anchored near you where it took you a full day to sail to.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Originally Posted by carstenb
...All the parties and social gatherings are on the twin wheel modern boats...
No, Incorrect...
The Parties are on that 50 Ft Cigarrette boat with the triple injected 454 Chevys. He left port a half hour ago with the Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders and anchored near you where it took you a full day to sail to.

True - yet another reason not to buy a full keeled boat.....................

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

And do you think you and your ilk are any different? Just look at this thread, and any other like it. As soon as anyone says anything positive about any aspect of an older designed boat, there are dozens of posts trying to tell everyone why their wrong.

It's as if you and others like you are on a freaking crusade. Meanwhile, many many many, full keeled, long keeled and otherwise heavy displacement boats are successfully cruising all around the world with very happy owners.

To the OP: just like a few others have said. You ask a question like this and many folks will tell you that your're wrong unless you pick THEIR type of boat.

I do think theres a difference, proponents of full keel etc etc, seem to think that they are the only heir to the blue water boat, those that advocate a wide range of boats constantly get slung muck about keel, rudders, handholds, galleys etc. Yet the manufacture of full keel boats is almost nonexistent and you'd think seaworthy boats stopped being built in 1950 according to some.

I advocate modern boats based on my experience and I try and counter the dangerous nonsense put about by some that you need a long keeled , narrow, dark ketch to cross oceans.

Dave

[Zach]

Form follows function, but sometimes Form IS the function.

My advice would be, don't convince yourself that you need to buy something that doesn't light your hair on fire when you see her in the distance.

I bought the boat that I see projected on the back of my eyelids when I think of the perfect sheer line and transom, and bow shape.

If you like the classics like Alberg, Luders, S&S designs... designs with spoon bows and long overhangs, fine ends. Consider that the boat is really only as long as the waterline when comparing to modern boats.

Case in point: My 44 footer has a 30 foot waterline with an 11 foot beam. She's the longest 30 foot boat, ever built.

She has a lot less interior volume than a Catalina 35. Two feet less beam, and a foot shorter waterline. Point being, you can have a wine glass shape but you may have to go a longer boat to get living space you deem necessary out of a narrow boat.

The best side by side comparison I know of, of full keel vs fin keel CCA design, vs early IOR boat:

The Columbia 40 as a full keel boat and as a fin keeler... and Columbia 43 as an ORC/IOR cruiser racer. They were being popped out of the molds within a few years of each other.

I wouldn't put you hot on the trail for any of the three designs due to the steel structure inside them, space age for its time... but probably missing in action by now.

The beam that gets carried aft makes a huge difference in the interior volume of the 43. The deal with ORC/IOR boats with wide transoms and a rudder set almost at the transom, is that they really are "Bigger" in both beam and waterline length that have had the stern cut down to fit a length box for the rule, and reduce weight.

Beam, is everything when it comes to volume inside a boat.

Cheers,

Zach

[goboatingnow]

My advice would be, don't convince yourself that you need to buy something that doesn't light your hair on fire when you see her in the distance.

Does any boat owner NOT suffer that syndrome

The classic IOR yachts of the past, in fact had a wide beam and narrow transom, It produced some very nasty handling characteristics. Today the beam is carried aft and in modern racing often the transom is the beamy-ist part of the boat !

dave

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

True - yet another reason not to buy a full keeled boat.....................

for longer-term cruising, it seems clear that this speed differential is, at best, exaggerated. Take a look at just about any offshore rally involving different types, makes and models of boats and you'll find that once the outliers are knocked off (extreme or very long LOA designs) that the participants come out substantially the same. I daresay, it's even true when you look at catamarans vs. monos.

The reason is the crew, not the boat. After a few days on passage, all but a fully engaged, larger crew intent in "racing mode" are going to dial things back to save themselves and save the boat wear and tear. That brings things down to about the level that mom and pop were sailing their heavier displacement cruiser all along.

So, at the end of things, there really isn't all that much difference in who gets to the pub when.

[IslandHopper]

I've had two fin keelers and two full keelers........my current boat is a full keeler, and that's all I'm saying on the subject.....

[goboatingnow]

for longer-term cruising, it seems clear that this speed differential is, at best, exaggerated. Take a look at just about any offshore rally involving different types, makes and models of boats and you'll find that once the outliers are knocked off (extreme or very long LOA designs) that the participants come out substantially the same. I daresay, it's even true when you look at catamarans vs. monos.

If one looks at long rallies, that is not the case, Take the ARC, There are clearly quick boats and slow boats, the flow ones can come in days behind the quick ones. The quick ones tend to be cruiser racer types, fin keels, hydrodynamic types, etc ( Actually I had seen a long keel type with the exception of one or two IPs)

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

If one looks at long rallies, that is not the case, Take the ARC, There are clearly quick boats and slow boats, the flow ones can come in days behind the quick ones. The quick ones tend to be cruiser racer types, fin keels, hydrodynamic types, etc ( Actually I had seen a long keel type with the exception of one or two IPs)

Look at Carib 1500. I've been watching it for years and sort of perfunctorily crunching the numbers. My theory holds up pretty well.

See this earlier thread (and others similar): http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...a-71211-2.html