• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smackdaddy

"Production Boats" That Bring It

196 posts in this topic

An update from Michael from the Falklands. Apart from the sight-seeing, history, and seriously good food and booze, he assesses the damage...

 

We had arrived in the Falklands through a violent storm with sustained Force 10 and 11 winds and gusts into Force 12.

 

http://www.sailblogs...?xjMsgID=210679

 

Seems the tally was a broken bowl, a chipped candleholder, a foghorn speaker blown off the mast, a couple of small leaks from an overhead hatch during breaking waves, one torn grommet on their cockpit enclosure (which amazes me), and a bent pin on the windvane. Not bad.

 

Stanley-14.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chipped candleholder?

 

Well screw that! I demand more durability than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chipped candleholder?

 

Well screw that! I demand more durability than this.

 

The sad thing is that it was a Hinckley candleholder. Shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chipped candleholder?

 

Well screw that! I demand more durability than this.

 

The sad thing is that it was a Hinckley candleholder. Shameful.

 

Probably one of the many Chinese knockoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chipped candleholder?

 

Well screw that! I demand more durability than this.

 

The sad thing is that it was a Hinckley candleholder. Shameful.

 

I didn't know Hinckley made candles !!

 

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking to the yard this week about the rebuild they are doing on a.7, seems like its going well. Some surprises though. When the set the pan in the hull there were multiple locations where the pan and the hull were not close enough for both (hull and pan) to contact the glue, in essence the pan was floating. They found this with a boriscope. Another surprise was how easily they were able to pull out the glue "pucks, dollops?", they simply hooked them and gave a yank, they popped out buckets of them. Maybe the glue is stronger in tension but it seems to have little strength in shear.

 

Anyway, the took out gobs of furniture. For the gutter held pieces they jacked the deck up to remove them from the troughs. They have been re tabbing and have opened the pan in some areas to build a good bond to the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looking over the many boat comparisons thus far, and having been in these discussions on various forums (usually as a thorn in the side) - the two most defining characteristics of a "good" boat versus a "bad" boat is "heavier" versus "lighter" construction. Obviously, it's hard to argue rationally against "heavier" if it means more safety in a storm - and more "comfort" in that storm. But let's take "comfort" out of it for a second - and just focus on the safety issue.

 

 

dude, seriously - you're trying way too hard, here... (grin)

 

Sorry, but if you think "comfort" and "safety" are somehow distinct and unrelated issues when taking a small boat out on a big ocean, well... you really need to a lot more sailing offshore, preferably in a wider assortment of boats...

 

"Seakindliness", for want of a better term, perhaps, is one of the most important characteristics in attempting to define a boat's suitability for bluewater sailing...Especially, with the sort of short-handed sailing the majority of cruisers do. Some boats simply "take care of their crews" better than others, and if you cannot accept that, or dismiss the value of that, well... then I don't know what else to say...

 

There are so many intangibles to such discussions, but I seriously doubt you have any real appreciation for the sort of Cascade Effect that even the most minor design or construction deficiencies common to so many of today's production boats can produce during the course of an arduous passage... Or how a prolonged and sustained exposure to such relative "discomfort" can so easily lead to fatigue, lassitude, poor morale, and ultimately the sort of frustration and/or exhaustion of the crew that can so easily result in poor decisions, or fatal mistakes being made...

 

 

The problem is that when some people see a cute comfortable cruiser, that you can race until "you retire," rated "safe" for offshore use they think they can go out into bad weather instead of avoiding it and being able to survive it once or twice.

 

Actually, the same logic could be applied to a Hinckswavaltesterly - perhaps even more so. All depends on the skipper...not the boat.

 

Again, that's a naive and overly simplistic point of view, IMHO...

 

Sometimes, it actually IS about the freakin' boat, dammit... (grin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity with this discussion; would any of you trust a one off, or ten off vehicle to drive across Africa over a factory built Land Cruiser? A one off airplane over a Boeing 737?

 

I think its not really arguable that higher volume production facilities can and in practically every field do build with greater precision than one-off vehicles. It is fair to say that there's a reason Land Cruiser is so popular in Africa while Land Rover or Jeep are not. Both come from high volume production lines. One better than the others. However, I don't think anyone would propose that a small volume vehicle mfg. could even attempt to build a vehicle or airplane to compete with even the least reliable of the factor models.

 

Would those of you that are "traditionalists" buy a production high volume blue water boat if there were enough sales volume to actually generate statistical relevant results that the high volume production boat was both half the cost and better built?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking over the many boat comparisons thus far, and having been in these discussions on various forums (usually as a thorn in the side) - the two most defining characteristics of a "good" boat versus a "bad" boat is "heavier" versus "lighter" construction. Obviously, it's hard to argue rationally against "heavier" if it means more safety in a storm - and more "comfort" in that storm. But let's take "comfort" out of it for a second - and just focus on the safety issue.

 

 

dude, seriously - you're trying way too hard, here... (grin)

 

Sorry, but if you think "comfort" and "safety" are somehow distinct and unrelated issues when taking a small boat out on a big ocean, well... you really need to a lot more sailing offshore, preferably in a wider assortment of boats...

 

"Seakindliness", for want of a better term, perhaps, is one of the most important characteristics in attempting to define a boat's suitability for bluewater sailing... Some boats simply "take care of their crews" better than others, and if you cannot accept that, or dismiss the value of that, well... then I don't know what else to say...

 

There are so many intangibles to such discussions, but I seriously doubt you have any real appreciation for the sort of Cascade Effect that even the most minor design or construction deficiencies common to so many of today's production boats can produce during the course of an arduous passage... Or how a prolonged and sustained exposure to such "discomfort" can so easily lead to fatigue, lassitude, poor morale, and ultimately the sort of frustration and/or exhaustion of the crew that can so easily result in poor decisions, or fatal mistakes being made...

 

 

The problem is that when some people see a cute comfortable cruiser, that you can race until "you retire," rated "safe" for offshore use they think they can go out into bad weather instead of avoiding it and being able to survive it once or twice.

 

Actually, the same logic could be applied to a Hinckswavaltesterly - perhaps even more so. All depends on the skipper...not the boat.

 

Again, that's naive and overly simplistic point of view, IMHO...

 

Sometimes, it actually IS about the freakin' boat, dammit... (grin)

 

Jeez - it took you long enough...you crusty bastard! Heh-heh.

 

Okay - so, first, granted - I'm a novice offshorerer. I've only got about 1000 miles via a couple of races in two very bluewater boats - in mellow conditions. And I know you've got about 26X that - in boats of ALL kinds - in conditions of ALL kinds - ALL over the world. You seriously have my respect for that. I mean it. I've got no "right" to question you.

 

But here's the deal...in spite of all that, and in spite of my comparative ignorance, I just don't yet fully believe you. Your perspective on things just doesn't quite add up. It seems limited - and a bit antiquated. Here's what I mean:

 

Comfort: I fully understand that comfort (sea-kindliness) is an invaluable component of safety. I fully understand the cascade effect. I've been involved in plenty of dangerous sports where this is a critical factor. But in this case I wanted to focus purely on the safety factor of the boat in terms of its construction because of the long-standing critique that Benehunterlinas are built too "lightly" to go blue. In other words, will these boats really fall apart in a storm (notice I'm not asking if they will last for 40 years and multiple F10s - different question altogether)? Or will they stay together and keep you, at least, "safe"? I think most would, perhaps grudgingly, admit that yes, they will likely hold together and keep you safe. At least the CE ratings assure us this is the case, though you might think they're naive too.

 

Even so, to your point of comfort, one of the reasons I'm having a hard time taking what you say at face value is the very clear evidence presented by Michael. Not only did this Hunter not disintegrate in F10/11/12 conditions in the Southern Freakin' Ocean, he and his lady sat below under their duvets and "enjoyed the storm" - watching the breaking waves wash over the deck! Yeah. And they had only a broken bowl and chipped candleholder to show for it. Isn't that seakindliness? Sure seems like it to me.

 

If I simply took your word as-is, that Hunter should have never been there in the first place. But it is. And it seems it is kind of a bad-ass. Personally, I think that's kind of cool. It definitely brings up some questions that might be worth asking...hence the thread.

 

Besides, "comfort" despite the algorithms, is definitely a relative term. Some people hate Bene Firsts or even Wallys because they "slam" and spill stuff (see PCP's epic "Interesting Boats" thread on SN) - others are more "comfortable" hauling ass and finishing off the keg at the bar while the non-slammers spend two more days out there in "comfort". Go figure.

 

The freakin' boat dammit: My point on that one is that if a naive, overly simplistic chump like me takes your advice at face value and buys that Hinckswavaltesterly, I figure, "Hey, I'm in a bullet proof boat. I can handle it." That's not the boat being stupid - that's the mook at the wheel. How many times have you seen this happen? I mean if it really is just about the boat - then no wonder the CG is busy. A great example is the guys that put their boat on the rocks while at anchor near the Horn - while Micheal was fluffing his duvet in the F11.

 

So, as I said - busted: I'm naive and simplistic. But I'm also inquisitive as hell. And I'm seeing evidence here and there that makes me question this whole blue-water mythology. I have a hunch that the used boat market is going to look very, very different in 10 years...when I finally graduate high school and save enough to get a boat. I just want to be informed and ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking to the yard this week about the rebuild they are doing on a.7, seems like its going well. Some surprises though. When the set the pan in the hull there were multiple locations where the pan and the hull were not close enough for both (hull and pan) to contact the glue, in essence the pan was floating. They found this with a boriscope. Another surprise was how easily they were able to pull out the glue "pucks, dollops?", they simply hooked them and gave a yank, they popped out buckets of them. Maybe the glue is stronger in tension but it seems to have little strength in shear.

 

Anyway, the took out gobs of furniture. For the gutter held pieces they jacked the deck up to remove them from the troughs. They have been re tabbing and have opened the pan in some areas to build a good bond to the hull.

 

 

" boriscope "?

 

Sounds like some kind of top secret cold war device.

 

 

post-17161-024766800 1329972124_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same sort of thing as a Natashameter?

 

Not to be confused with a Horacescope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity with this discussion; would any of you trust a one off, or ten off vehicle to drive across Africa over a factory built Land Cruiser? A one off airplane over a Boeing 737?

 

I think its not really arguable that higher volume production facilities can and in practically every field do build with greater precision than one-off vehicles. It is fair to say that there's a reason Land Cruiser is so popular in Africa while Land Rover or Jeep are not. Both come from high volume production lines. One better than the others. However, I don't think anyone would propose that a small volume vehicle mfg. could even attempt to build a vehicle or airplane to compete with even the least reliable of the factor models.

 

Would those of you that are "traditionalists" buy a production high volume blue water boat if there were enough sales volume to actually generate statistical relevant results that the high volume production boat was both half the cost and better built?

 

I think this is a misguided perspective. Boats can be be consistently produced in high volume, and if the process is well-controlled they will reliably perform according to their design. This has nothing to do with their suitability for a particular task. One high-volume production Toyota Camry will perform much like another, but this car would not be your first choice for off-roading in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...In most of these cases the design was adequate. It was not intended to be too light. But the build was simply crap. So, the first defining characteristic is process quality control.

 

Good help is hard to find. ;)

 

I have seen boat factories clear out at the end of the day. Wow. Was everything really ready to drop right at that moment?

 

Quality control can be very difficult for big pieces. The best mix depends on temperature and humidity and those things can change a lot during a layup. There are plastic magicians who can juggle all the variables and make things work, and there are less skilled people who screw up. Detecting some of those screw-ups would require destructive testing so it is not done, until it is done on the water by some owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airplanes and boats are very different than cars. I would and HAVE trusted "one-off" airplanes. It is quite possible to do a MUCH better job than the factory building an airplane. Also possible to do much worse of course :rolleyes:

Airplanes and boats are generally made in such small numbers that they never do employ the kind of automated robotic assembly lines that cars do. There are "one-off" boats around that are excellent and some that are not. If you pay a good designer (hmmm - where oh where could you find one around here) and get a good yard to build her as designed, you'll have a great boat that is likely way better than the average factory build - and way more expensive too. I actually have worked building boats and you have no idea what a difference it makes if the workers have sailed offshore and are thinking they might one day be out there on that very boat and someone who is just getting a paycheck and has no idea why they can't use welding cable or romex on a boat.

 

 

Out of curiosity with this discussion; would any of you trust a one off, or ten off vehicle to drive across Africa over a factory built Land Cruiser? A one off airplane over a Boeing 737?

 

I think its not really arguable that higher volume production facilities can and in practically every field do build with greater precision than one-off vehicles. It is fair to say that there's a reason Land Cruiser is so popular in Africa while Land Rover or Jeep are not. Both come from high volume production lines. One better than the others. However, I don't think anyone would propose that a small volume vehicle mfg. could even attempt to build a vehicle or airplane to compete with even the least reliable of the factor models.

 

Would those of you that are "traditionalists" buy a production high volume blue water boat if there were enough sales volume to actually generate statistical relevant results that the high volume production boat was both half the cost and better built?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are getting this WAY backwards:

IMHO voyages end in disaster for these reasons, starting with the most common:

1 - The crew: It is NOT people thinking their boat is indestructible and ramming icebergs. (well OK that did happen once) It is people getting scared and NOT TRUSTING the boat anymore. This fear is VERY debilitating and leads to calling for the nearest ship to come save you. Back in the day, absent modern electronics, people eventually got over it or got into a liferaft never to be seen again. Now with a sat-phone and EPIRB on every boat, not so much. I once read about a disastrous voyage that went something like this:

"Things were bad enough and then solid green water came over the cockpit and we knew we had to abandon ship". WTF! :unsure: One memorable storm my boat spent so much time under solid green water you almost needed scuba gear to work on deck or steer. So what? Keep the hatches closed, pump the bilges, and don't forget to laugh at the helmsman getting half-drowned. We were having fun because we could go fast and we trusted the boat. You have no idea how corrosive it is to have the thought "this boat wasn't made for this, something is going to break any second" come to mind every time you come off a big wave. I would say stories of abandoned boats later found floating outnumber maniacs sailing the boats too hard 500:1.

 

2 - The death of 1,000 cuts: The head clogs up. The stove gimbal bracket comes loose. The running light switch is corroded. Water gets in the fuel tank. The port leaks water on your bunk. The latch for the locker lets loose and things fall out. The tack fitting backs out. On and on and on with enough of this and even if nothing is wrong but trivial annoyances, everyone wants off right now. Kind of leads back to #1.

 

3 - The boat actually suffers a major structural failure. Even for relatively shitty boats, this is rare.

 

NOTE: None of this applies to modern racing with paid crews pushing boats purpose-built to be as light as they can get away with very very hard. Totally different kettle of fish.

 

 

 

The freakin' boat dammit: My point on that one is that if a naive, overly simplistic chump like me takes your advice at face value and buys that Hinckswavaltesterly, I figure, "Hey, I'm in a bullet proof boat. I can handle it." That's not the boat being stupid - that's the mook at the wheel. How many times have you seen this happen? I mean if it really is just about the boat - then no wonder the CG is busy. A great example is the guys that put their boat on the rocks while at anchor near the Horn - while Micheal was fluffing his duvet in the F11.

 

So, as I said - busted: I'm naive and simplistic. But I'm also inquisitive as hell. And I'm seeing evidence here and there that makes me question this whole blue-water mythology. I have a hunch that the used boat market is going to look very, very different in 10 years...when I finally graduate high school and save enough to get a boat. I just want to be informed and ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all Pintos blew up when rear ended... doesn't make 'em safe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are getting this WAY backwards:

IMHO voyages end in disaster for these reasons, starting with the most common:

1 - The crew: It is NOT people thinking their boat is indestructible and ramming icebergs. (well OK that did happen once) It is people getting scared and NOT TRUSTING the boat anymore. This fear is VERY debilitating and leads to calling for the nearest ship to come save you. Back in the day, absent modern electronics, people eventually got over it or got into a liferaft never to be seen again. Now with a sat-phone and EPIRB on every boat, not so much. I once read about a disastrous voyage that went something like this:

"Things were bad enough and then solid green water came over the cockpit and we knew we had to abandon ship". WTF! :unsure: One memorable storm my boat spent so much time under solid green water you almost needed scuba gear to work on deck or steer. So what? Keep the hatches closed, pump the bilges, and don't forget to laugh at the helmsman getting half-drowned. We were having fun because we could go fast and we trusted the boat. You have no idea how corrosive it is to have the thought "this boat wasn't made for this, something is going to break any second" come to mind every time you come off a big wave. I would say stories of abandoned boats later found floating outnumber maniacs sailing the boats too hard 500:1.

 

2 - The death of 1,000 cuts: The head clogs up. The stove gimbal bracket comes loose. The running light switch is corroded. Water gets in the fuel tank. The port leaks water on your bunk. The latch for the locker lets loose and things fall out. The tack fitting backs out. On and on and on with enough of this and even if nothing is wrong but trivial annoyances, everyone wants off right now. Kind of leads back to #1.

 

3 - The boat actually suffers a major structural failure. Even for relatively shitty boats, this is rare.

 

NOTE: None of this applies to modern racing with paid crews pushing boats purpose-built to be as light as they can get away with very very hard. Totally different kettle of fish.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you completely with one exception. In a number of boats, from B-H-Cs to Swans, C&Cs, J's and IIRC Oysters, the spade rudder has failed, either through insufficient design allowables, undiscovered damage or poor repair after a grounding, or physical impact damage causing rudder loss. For many modern boats, loss of the rudder puts a big hole in the boat or leaves the boat difficult to control (or uncontrollable in the mind of the crew)and that leads to the "Mommy get me out of here call." While I love a spade rudder, I would consider replacing the rudder on any older boat I was planning to take offshore and probably consult with a noted designer and engineer to make sure the rudder and installation were as robust as possible.

 

For your number 2, I could not agree more. I witnessed 5 Bene Oceanus series boats from a flotilla abandoned in the Med during a Mistral after one skipper was injured and his crew declared a mayday. Conditions were such that our escort cruiser suffered a (IIRC) 48 degree roll and structural damage while conducting the search. The crew of each boat our helos found asked to be taken off even though there were no injuries or significant damage to the boats. The next day, we passed several of the boats lying ahull undamaged having seen themselves through the storm unhindered by their crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 on the rudder. Mine was just about to go :o For my year C&C, they used a *steel* collar with a grub screw to hold the rudder in the boat. If it lets loose, the rudder just drops right out! I replaced it with a stainless steel split collar that clamps on tight AND added another split collar at the top bearing so now I have a much better and fail safe system. Both would have to let go now.

( C&C engineering is a mix of superb and "hey you hoser go to Ace Hardware and buy some shit will ya)

 

That reminds me: My emergency steering is quite good. Actually better than any boat I can think of offhand. I have used my emergency tiller to steer in the rain so I could stay under the dodger. If I wasn't dragging the wheel around it would be like the boat was designed to use a tiller. IMHO one thing that makes a good offshore boat is emergency steering that actually works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only did this Hunter not disintegrate in F10/11/12 conditions in the Southern Freakin' Ocean, he and his lady sat below under their duvets and "enjoyed the storm" - watching the breaking waves wash over the deck! Yeah. And they had only a broken bowl and chipped candleholder to show for it. Isn't that seakindliness?

 

Smack, just by way of education, and not at all to take anything away from this voyage, but there are two VERY different types of Cape Horn storms - essentially storms to the west of the horn vs storms to the east. The storms to the west have massive and confused breaking waves, because they are open to the full fetch of the pacific and coming onto a shallow continental shelf and in a current forcing thru the Drake, while storms to the east even with very strong winds tend to be in relatively flat water because they are protected by the land mass of the Americas and don't have the same shelf and current situation. This Hunter storm was strongish winds but flattish waves - their tactic was lying ahull which you don't do if there are any significant waves. Essentially any vessel that kept the water out would have survived that particular storm.

 

The skipper was smart and experienced enough to know all this. And he treated it exactly right and did not panic and instead got some rest and some food. A less good or experienced skipper might well have panicked and called to get taken off or done something stupid and driven the boat underwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are getting this WAY backwards:

IMHO voyages end in disaster for these reasons, starting with the most common:

1 - The crew:

2 - The death of 1,000 cuts

3 - The boat actually suffers a major structural failure. Even for relatively shitty boats, this is rare.

 

Actually, kis, I agree with everything you said in your post...especially in light of this...

 

Smack, just by way of education, and not at all to take anything away from this voyage, but there are two VERY different types of Cape Horn storms...

 

The skipper was smart and experienced enough to know all this. And he treated it exactly right and did not panic and instead got some rest and some food. A less good or experienced skipper might well have panicked and called to get taken off or done something stupid and driven the boat underwater.

 

I understand what you're saying Evans about the storm. And I TOTALLY agree with your last sentence. If a Benehunterlina is going to sail in the southern ocean - Michael is showing how it should be done. I have a ton of respect for the guy. The boat is secondary to that.

 

Thanks for the input fellas.

 

(PS - Now, c'mon you guys...aren't you even the slightest bit impressed by this damn Hunter?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(PS - Now, c'mon you guys...aren't you even the slightest bit impressed by this damn Hunter?)

 

Honestly Smack..... pay attention:

 

You f__k one goat..... Therefore, Hunter's suck.

 

Now get with the program and stop bothering us with "facts"....

 

(for the record, I'm impressed by the exploits of both "this" Hunter and "that" Albin Vega and their skippers)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comfort: I fully understand that comfort (sea-kindliness) is an invaluable component of safety. I fully understand the cascade effect. I've been involved in plenty of dangerous sports where this is a critical factor. But in this case I wanted to focus purely on the safety factor of the boat in terms of its construction because of the long-standing critique that Benehunterlinas are built too "lightly" to go blue. In other words, will these boats really fall apart in a storm (notice I'm not asking if they will last for 40 years and multiple F10s - different question altogether)? Or will they stay together and keep you, at least, "safe"? I think most would, perhaps grudgingly, admit that yes, they will likely hold together and keep you safe. At least the CE ratings assure us this is the case, though you might think they're naive too.

I think the issue here is one of priorities. Many have commented that the most important cog in the system is the captain and crew. Keeping them in good working order, if you will, is the highest priority. Focusing on the design and build quality of the boat fails to take this into account, unless one includes in design quality the idea of sea kindliness.

 

This is NOT to say the boat is not important too. It is only an observation that keeping the captain and crew fully functioning is THE highest priority for short-handed voyaging.

 

Once one views keeping the captain and crew in good working order as the highest order of business, then 'comfort' or sea kindliness becomes of paramount importance. To then turn around and attempt to review whether a boat's design and build is suitable for voyaging while pointedly ignoring sea kindliness is a backhanded way of negating the importance of captain and crew, a position at odds with the original premise.

 

 

 

 

Trying to figure out which boats don't fall apart in storms is valuable information, but it's only one data point in determining whether a boat makes for a suitable off-shore voyager, I think.

 

OTOH, I must admit I don't want to go to sea on a boat that has great sea kindliness but falls apart in its first, second, or tenth storm. Build quality is obviously high priority too, but not in a vacuum or to the exclusion of other priorities.

 

That a boat is nearly indestructible does not in itself make the boat suitable for voyaging any more than the isolated fact that a boat has fine sea kindliness make it a suitable boat for voyaging. There are many more pieces to the puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity with this discussion; would any of you trust a one off, or ten off vehicle to drive across Africa over a factory built Land Cruiser? A one off airplane over a Boeing 737?

 

I think its not really arguable that higher volume production facilities can and in practically every field do build with greater precision than one-off vehicles. It is fair to say that there's a reason Land Cruiser is so popular in Africa while Land Rover or Jeep are not. Both come from high volume production lines. One better than the others. However, I don't think anyone would propose that a small volume vehicle mfg. could even attempt to build a vehicle or airplane to compete with even the least reliable of the factor models.

 

Would those of you that are "traditionalists" buy a production high volume blue water boat if there were enough sales volume to actually generate statistical relevant results that the high volume production boat was both half the cost and better built?

 

I think this is a misguided perspective. Boats can be be consistently produced in high volume, and if the process is well-controlled they will reliably perform according to their design. This has nothing to do with their suitability for a particular task. One high-volume production Toyota Camry will perform much like another, but this car would not be your first choice for off-roading in Africa.

 

Would it be fair to say that a high volume production boat could be built better than the one-off boats for a substantially lower price if the product was correct for the task?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity with this discussion; would any of you trust a one off, or ten off vehicle to drive across Africa over a factory built Land Cruiser? A one off airplane over a Boeing 737?

 

I think its not really arguable that higher volume production facilities can and in practically every field do build with greater precision than one-off vehicles. It is fair to say that there's a reason Land Cruiser is so popular in Africa while Land Rover or Jeep are not. Both come from high volume production lines. One better than the others. However, I don't think anyone would propose that a small volume vehicle mfg. could even attempt to build a vehicle or airplane to compete with even the least reliable of the factor models.

 

Would those of you that are "traditionalists" buy a production high volume blue water boat if there were enough sales volume to actually generate statistical relevant results that the high volume production boat was both half the cost and better built?

 

I think this is a misguided perspective. Boats can be be consistently produced in high volume, and if the process is well-controlled they will reliably perform according to their design. This has nothing to do with their suitability for a particular task. One high-volume production Toyota Camry will perform much like another, but this car would not be your first choice for off-roading in Africa.

 

Would it be fair to say that a high volume production boat could be built better than the one-off boats for a substantially lower price if the product was correct for the task?

 

In a well run operation there will always be an economy of scale, so it theoretically would be much cheaper. The issue here is that there is not enough demand to find these economies. The only real scale in the sailboat business is at the price/quality point of the hunter/bene/etc. group. There are not enough buyers who want to spend significantly more for a boat of the same size but higher quality.

 

Consider how expensive the typical luxury car would be if they were only building 10 or 20 per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tre:

Please check your private messages for a mesage from me.

Thank you, Bob! I hadn't seen it. Not so good with always spotting the PM notification. On it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a well run operation there will always be an economy of scale, so it theoretically would be much cheaper. The issue here is that there is not enough demand to find these economies. The only real scale in the sailboat business is at the price/quality point of the hunter/bene/etc. group. There are not enough buyers who want to spend significantly more for a boat of the same size but higher quality.

 

Isn't this why it's nearly the same price to design and build a one-off as it is to buy a high end boat? Neither offer much in the way of economies of scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity with this discussion; would any of you trust a one off, or ten off vehicle to drive across Africa over a factory built Land Cruiser? A one off airplane over a Boeing 737?

 

I think its not really arguable that higher volume production facilities can and in practically every field do build with greater precision than one-off vehicles. It is fair to say that there's a reason Land Cruiser is so popular in Africa while Land Rover or Jeep are not. Both come from high volume production lines. One better than the others. However, I don't think anyone would propose that a small volume vehicle mfg. could even attempt to build a vehicle or airplane to compete with even the least reliable of the factor models.

 

Would those of you that are "traditionalists" buy a production high volume blue water boat if there were enough sales volume to actually generate statistical relevant results that the high volume production boat was both half the cost and better built?

 

I think this is a misguided perspective. Boats can be be consistently produced in high volume, and if the process is well-controlled they will reliably perform according to their design. This has nothing to do with their suitability for a particular task. One high-volume production Toyota Camry will perform much like another, but this car would not be your first choice for off-roading in Africa.

 

Would it be fair to say that a high volume production boat could be built better than the one-off boats for a substantially lower price if the product was correct for the task?

 

In a well run operation there will always be an economy of scale, so it theoretically would be much cheaper. The issue here is that there is not enough demand to find these economies. The only real scale in the sailboat business is at the price/quality point of the hunter/bene/etc. group. There are not enough buyers who want to spend significantly more for a boat of the same size but higher quality.

 

Consider how expensive the typical luxury car would be if they were only building 10 or 20 per year.

 

You make a good point about volume of demand.

 

I always look at the larger boats and think about how much faster and cheaper they could be if you had an order for 1,000 per year. You'd be able to cut a ton of inefficiencies like building from single small foam core sheets. You can already buy some of the cores in 50 foot by 6 foot sizes. If you had enough demand you could upsize the production and just build the hull from a single piece of foam pressed in a form then have a single step to infuse an entire boat hull all at once and build very reliable high quality hulls quickly and cheaply. Even fiberglass and carbon fabrics that could be custom woven to so that the correct fiber placement on the hull etc. I'm sure the savings would be 50% or more on the cost of the boat. Unfortunately a high volume blue water cruiser might be just a dream.

 

As far as the original topic, I'd say a MacGregor 65 kinda fits the bill of a production boat that has been impressive. Especially for the original price tag of ~ $100k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update from Michael from the Falklands. Apart from the sight-seeing, history, and seriously good food and booze, he assesses the damage...

 

We had arrived in the Falklands through a violent storm with sustained Force 10 and 11 winds and gusts into Force 12.

 

http://www.sailblogs...?xjMsgID=210679

Seems the tally was a broken bowl, a chipped candleholder, a foghorn speaker blown off the mast, a couple of small leaks from an overhead hatch during breaking waves, one torn grommet on their cockpit enclosure (which amazes me), and a bent pin on the windvane. Not bad.

 

 

point....counterpoint(s):

 

rudder failure 1

 

#2

 

#3

 

all in fairly moderate conditions

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I simply took your word as-is, that Hunter should have never been there in the first place. But it is. And it seems it is kind of a bad-ass. Personally, I think that's kind of cool. It definitely brings up some questions that might be worth asking...hence the thread.

 

I wish you'd pay a bit closer attention to what I actually say, as opposed to what you might assume I'll say... Back in Post #15, I thought I made it fairly clear that I've been favorably impressed by what the late Mike Harker, and now Michael & Edi, have done with their respective Hunter 49s... On the other hand, what the photo I posted of Michael Calabrese's Hunter 420 Passage reveals about the engineering and construction of the stem on that piece of crap, well... perhaps not so much...

 

 

 

Besides, "comfort" despite the algorithms, is definitely a relative term. Some people hate Bene Firsts or even Wallys because they "slam" and spill stuff (see PCP's epic "Interesting Boats" thread on SN) - others are more "comfortable" hauling ass and finishing off the keg at the bar while the non-slammers spend two more days out there in "comfort". Go figure.

 

In my observation of the migration of East coast snowbirds, I'm not seeing much evidence that a significant percentage of Mom & Pop cruisers have too much stomach for days on end offshore, "slamming" and "hauling ass" in their production coastal cruisers... The overwhelming majority motor down a 1,000 mile ditch between the Chesapeake and Florida, rarely taking the opportunity to venture outside for so much as a daysail, much less an overnight from, say, Beaufort to Charleston... Then, many will wait for however long it takes, for a flat calm day to motor across the Stream to the Bahamas... So, I'm gonna hazard the guess that "comfort" is, indeed, a higher priority than "hauling ass" offshore, at least for the vast majority of East coast kroozers, in their primarily "Modern Production Boats"...

 

 

The freakin' boat dammit: My point on that one is that if a naive, overly simplistic chump like me takes your advice at face value and buys that Hinckswavaltesterly, I figure, "Hey, I'm in a bullet proof boat. I can handle it." That's not the boat being stupid - that's the mook at the wheel. How many times have you seen this happen?

 

I've never considered it my place to tell anyone else what sort of boat to buy, much less specify any particular BRAND... I would have thought by now, you might have noticed I am somewhat of a broken record about people educating themselves, beginning with a careful reading of DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE OFFSHORE YACHT... People need to understand for themselves why such "quaint" or "antiquated" notions of characteristics such as STABILITY still matter offshore...

 

As for you contention that people get in trouble due to the assumption they're on a bulletproof boat, I must say i don't see such examples all that often... Care to share some with us?

 

Rather, I see the opposite, a couple of abandonments between the East coast and Bermuda from last fall immediately come to mind... In particular, the abandonment of the Beneteau 393 SANCTUARY, and the crew's rescue by the cruise ship NORWEGIAN GEM...

 

In that instance, I see the classic example of a crew being battered by the shortcomings of a "typical" production coastal cruiser pressed into some serious conditions offshore... A fuel bladder added for the passage begins leaking, making life extremely difficult below... An apparent inability to make the boat heave-to when conditions warranted such a tactic... No staysail or storm jib, because of course very few "modern production boats" afford the appropriate structure/bulkhead for retro-fitting an inner forestay... The boat begins taking on water, but determining the source of the leak is greatly complicated by the boat's construction and the use of a hull liner... Finally, the skipper punches out, when he fears the hull has begun to suffer delamination... One of the crew came incredibly close to being crushed between the boat and the NORWEGIAN GEM's shore boat during the rescue, and indeed the ship's crew was lucky they were able to return to the ship as the conditions worsened dramatically...

 

 

So, as I said - busted: I'm naive and simplistic. But I'm also inquisitive as hell. And I'm seeing evidence here and there that makes me question this whole blue-water mythology.

 

 

Perhaps, then, you should contact some of the crew from SANCTUARY, or the other abandoned Beneteau ELLE, and see what they have to say about that whole "Blue Water Mythology" thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, what the photo I posted of Michael Calabrese's Hunter 420 Passage reveals about the engineering and construction of the stem on that piece of crap, well... perhaps not so much...

 

 

Perhaps it's a miracle that those stems do not break off all the time.

 

I'm still waiting for another example. One that got thrashed in a hurricane due to owner idiocy does not indicate a design deficiency at all to me. Now if there were more than one, that would be a different story.

 

Is there more than one, or has every single other example of that model been incredibly lucky? Or is there maybe a third possibility, that the design is adequate (unless you're an idiot who does not know to get out of the way of hurricanes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading here with interest since the beginning. Lots of great discussion.

As someone with much less experience than many others that are posting, I come away with the following:

  • It's all about the crew - better to be with a world class crew in a mass-produced boat than in the world's best blue water boat with a questionable crew
  • From a pure safety perspective, modern, mass produced boats are pretty good; not as good as the higher end boats in the extreme, but capable of saving your butt in some pretty bad conditions
  • Mostly, you get what you pay for. After some years of hard sailing, the difference between the boats will be readily apparent. The better boat will be in significantly better condition, will look better, will have a better maintenance history, and will continue to be safe. The lesser boat may be ready for scrap
  • The better boat will likely have better sailing characteristics, be easier to sail, be generally dryer and more comfortable

Is this a fair assessment? Is it oversimplified?

 

It would seem that technology plays a large role in safety as well:

  • the simple availability of good weather information makes staying away from bad conditions much easier for a broader cross-section of the sailing community
  • The Yanmar diesels found in many of the mass-produced boats is likely as reliable as the auxiliary in any high-end boat
  • gps, sat phones, and epirb make rescue much more likely (although possibly as the expense of creating a false sense of security for some that are not really ready for rough conditions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, what the photo I posted of Michael Calabrese's Hunter 420 Passage reveals about the engineering and construction of the stem on that piece of crap, well... perhaps not so much...

 

 

Perhaps it's a miracle that those stems do not break off all the time.

 

I'm still waiting for another example. One that got thrashed in a hurricane due to owner idiocy does not indicate a design deficiency at all to me. Now if there were more than one, that would be a different story.

 

Is there more than one, or has every single other example of that model been incredibly lucky? Or is there maybe a third possibility, that the design is adequate (unless you're an idiot who does not know to get out of the way of hurricanes.)

 

Well, perhaps it is... (grin)

 

Or, perhaps it's due to the well-documented likelihood of the rudders on Hunter 420 Passages breaking off, before the stem fittings/anchor rollers have a chance to?

 

Sorry, we went thru this before on the other thread... No, I cannot offer proof of another example of a stem fitting being torn out...

 

All I know is what I see with own eyes, what is revealed by that photo... No, I'm not a structural engineer, nor a yacht design expert, either... But I still see an example of construction FAR less robust than on my own little POS built 40 years ago, little evidence of any additional laminate or layup at that point in the hull, the complete absence of any supporting bulkhead intended to distribute the loads imparted upon that tiny piece of deck forward of the large anchor locker hatch, nor any protection against the likelihood of the anchor chain jumping the roller, becoming wedged between the roller and that bulbous deck flange, and begin sawing it's way thru the hull... Not to mention, another photo indicates the anchor roller/stem fitting was not even so much as BENT before it was torn out of the boat... Again, I'm not a structural or mechanical engineer, but to me, that seems evidence of a substandard design and construction, I don't think that's the way those sort of failures are designed to occur, are they? Shouldn't the fitting itself be the weaker link, the point of initial failure, instead of the freakin' hull and deck it's attached to?

 

Nope, not the sort of thing I want to see on a boat marketed as an Offshore Passagemaker...

 

BTW, while this boat did eventually wind up having a hurricane pass over the top of it, and was undoubtedly under the "Command" of a complete moron, the NOAA data from the South Island Chesapeake Bridge/Tunnel that morning indicates she had never experienced winds in excess of 35-40 knots prior to the time she was already on the beach, and this damage had already been done...

 

IMG_0148-sm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • It's all about the crew - better to be with a world class crew in a mass-produced boat than in the world's best blue water boat with a questionable crew

Yes definitely.

  • From a pure safety perspective, modern, mass produced boats are pretty good; not as good as the higher end boats in the extreme, but capable of saving your butt in some pretty bad conditions

Sort of, except I would say there are good and bad boats at both the mass produced and 'higher end'. But almost all boats can save your butt in 'pretty bad conditions' if you let them. All you have to do is look at how long almost all the boats stay afloat after being abandoned (most with even the companionway open).

  • Mostly, you get what you pay for. After some years of hard sailing, the difference between the boats will be readily apparent. The better boat will be in significantly better condition, will look better, will have a better maintenance history, and will continue to be safe. The lesser boat may be ready for scrap

Yes, mostly, but there are some expensive boats that have a lot of style but poor engineering, and even some that have neither and just a good brand name.

  • The better boat will likely have better sailing characteristics, be easier to sail, be generally dryer and more comfortable

Hmmm . . . I agree by definition "the better boat will sail better", but its not at all the case that the more expensive boat will sail better. Some of the expensive boats are dogs (intentionally motor sailors) and some cheaper ones (like say a Cal 39) sail really well.

 

It would seem that technology plays a large role in safety as well:

  • the simple availability of good weather information makes staying away from bad conditions much easier for a broader cross-section of the sailing community

Yes, but not a sure thing as Sean showed us this past fall. You do need to have some skill and knowledge to use weather info well. Hiring someone ashore to just tell you what to do is a recipe for disaster, because the weather guy ashore can only see what the weather looks like on the internet - he can't know how your boat feels and what the waves are shaped like and a hundred other important things that only the skipper on the spot can know.

  • The Yanmar diesels found in many of the mass-produced boats is likely as reliable as the auxiliary in any high-end boat

I am not even sure where this comes from. Yanmars are terrific engines. Perhaps the best designed and built piece of marine equipment I know. They have always scored highest of any engine on cruiser satisfaction surveys.

  • gps, sat phones, and epirb make rescue much more likely (although possibly as the expense of creating a false sense of security for some that are not really ready for rough conditions)

Yes, the especially the combination of an epirb and sat phone makes a rescue at sea much much more effective and likely to be successful. But as you point out, also makes it much more likily that people will abandon when they do not really need to.

 

 

Perhaps it's a miracle that those stems do not break off all the time.

 

Well, perhaps it is... (grin)

 

Jon, is there any possibility that particular hull was a 'Friday boat' and some worker forgot to put on an important stiffener or the correct backing plates?

 

You have any plans for this comming summer's cruising?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • The Yanmar diesels found in many of the mass-produced boats is likely as reliable as the auxiliary in any high-end boat

I am not even sure where this comes from. Yanmars are terrific engines. Perhaps the best designed and built piece of marine equipment I know. They have always scored highest of any engine on cruiser satisfaction surveys.

 

I was unclear. I was trying to say that the Yanmars are fantastic, and therefore, the entry level boats have engines that are just as reliable as high-end boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading here with interest since the beginning. Lots of great discussion.

As someone with much less experience than many others that are posting, I come away with the following:

  • It's all about the crew - better to be with a world class crew in a mass-produced boat than in the world's best blue water boat with a questionable crew
  • From a pure safety perspective, modern, mass produced boats are pretty good; not as good as the higher end boats in the extreme, but capable of saving your butt in some pretty bad conditions
  • Mostly, you get what you pay for. After some years of hard sailing, the difference between the boats will be readily apparent. The better boat will be in significantly better condition, will look better, will have a better maintenance history, and will continue to be safe. The lesser boat may be ready for scrap
  • The better boat will likely have better sailing characteristics, be easier to sail, be generally dryer and more comfortable

Is this a fair assessment? Is it oversimplified?

 

It would seem that technology plays a large role in safety as well:

  • the simple availability of good weather information makes staying away from bad conditions much easier for a broader cross-section of the sailing community
  • The Yanmar diesels found in many of the mass-produced boats is likely as reliable as the auxiliary in any high-end boat
  • gps, sat phones, and epirb make rescue much more likely (although possibly as the expense of creating a false sense of security for some that are not really ready for rough conditions)

 

One word of advice - don't take anything I write in this thread as any kind of advice. I'm just posting examples of production boats that are doing some pretty incredible things. I'm always a fan of "underdoggy" stuff like that. And these examples are leading me to ask questions and/or present assumptions regarding things I've heard/read in these "blue water" debates over the last few years. So, though I do think these examples are raising some valid counterpoints to the "Benehunterlinas are crap" mantra, personally I think any actual conclusions are still a ways off. For example, I think what you've laid out above is pretty reasonable - but, in my still-forming opinion, I wouldn't at all say:

 

"It's all about the crew..." (maybe it's mostly about the skipper/crew - but the boat obviously has to do its job); etc. There's more nuance, I think, than what you've laid out. The real offshore dudes here can (and are, I see) help refine it further.

 

But, I think you touch on a couple of things that are critical to this discussion - and the reason I think it's a never ending debate...people are talking about slightly different things. Here's what I mean:

 

1. The "life expectancy" of boats - and how that notion might be changing. (Your third bullet point.)

2. The "technology equals safety" factor - and how that is changing the way people sail...for better and worse.

 

Is a 40-50 year old traditional "blue water" boat inherently "better/safer" than a 1-5 year old production boat for the 99% of off-shore sailing most people will do (crossings, Coconut Milk run, etc.)? And in the, say, 1% event these boats do get caught in that F10 (assuming the same experienced/trained skipper and crew) - is the newer boat going to break more readily than the older boat? Also, isn't this "life expectancy" calculus going to change pretty drastically over the next 10-15 years? Are these modern production boats built to last 40-50 years? Do they need to be?

 

There are a lot of modern production boats (that carry that CE-A off-shore rating) filling up the marinas I visit. So I assume there are a lot more of these being built and sold than the traditional blue-water boats. And if that's the case, as time goes on, the discussion might need to shift from debating old vs. new design/construction techniques - to figuring out the "useful life" of a modern production boat - and what goes in to that calculation. As well as, what to prepare for and watch for in and after a storm. I think we're seeing much of this "first-hand" through Micheal's circ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This stuff is a lot like raising kids. You can tell everyone how to do it, but your own individual experience will be completely unique to you.

 

I remember a story from Cruising World or Lats and Atts about a kid who was buying his first boat. It was small like an O'day 20 something. He asked a guy in the yard if he thought the boat could sail across an ocean. The guy responded, "pretty much any boat can cross an ocean. Usually it's the person and not the boat that fails." Or something along those lines. It was a pretty good article. In the same article, the kid was trying to haggle pretty hard on the price and was concerned about all the costs. The broker replied, "you know, no one actually NEEDS a sailboat."

 

Again, I might be getting some of the details wrong, but that was the gist of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't happen to be a pilot, would you?

I can show you EXACTLY what loads a given airplane is designed for. I can show you exactly how the calculations for Va were done and what gust loads would exceed them. I can show you how many times a given airplane has suffered a structural failure per 100,000 flight hours.

For boats - THERE IS NO SUCH THING. You cannot assume that an X type of storm will apply exactly Y pounds to Z fitting. What we do have is centuries of experience to tell us what works offshore and what doesn't. You can take advantage of that knowledge and buy something like a Pacific Seacraft or a Valiant or you can take your chances in something that really is designed for something else. My own boat was NOT designed to be primarily used as an ocean voyager or they would have done a lot better with tankage and stowage, but they did make her sail well and hold together in the bad stuff. So I guess I got the really important stuff and 99% of the time I'm not out in the ocean anyway.

 

 

I've been reading here with interest since the beginning. Lots of great discussion.

As someone with much less experience than many others that are posting, I come away with the following:

  • It's all about the crew - better to be with a world class crew in a mass-produced boat than in the world's best blue water boat with a questionable crew
  • From a pure safety perspective, modern, mass produced boats are pretty good; not as good as the higher end boats in the extreme, but capable of saving your butt in some pretty bad conditions
  • Mostly, you get what you pay for. After some years of hard sailing, the difference between the boats will be readily apparent. The better boat will be in significantly better condition, will look better, will have a better maintenance history, and will continue to be safe. The lesser boat may be ready for scrap
  • The better boat will likely have better sailing characteristics, be easier to sail, be generally dryer and more comfortable

Is this a fair assessment? Is it oversimplified?

 

It would seem that technology plays a large role in safety as well:

  • the simple availability of good weather information makes staying away from bad conditions much easier for a broader cross-section of the sailing community
  • The Yanmar diesels found in many of the mass-produced boats is likely as reliable as the auxiliary in any high-end boat
  • gps, sat phones, and epirb make rescue much more likely (although possibly as the expense of creating a false sense of security for some that are not really ready for rough conditions)

 

One word of advice - don't take anything I write in this thread as any kind of advice. I'm just posting examples of production boats that are doing some pretty incredible things. I'm always a fan of "underdoggy" stuff like that. And these examples are leading me to ask questions and/or present assumptions regarding things I've heard/read in these "blue water" debates over the last few years. So, though I do think these examples are raising some valid counterpoints to the "Benehunterlinas are crap" mantra, personally I think any actual conclusions are still a ways off. For example, I think what you've laid out above is pretty reasonable - but, in my still-forming opinion, I wouldn't at all say:

 

"It's all about the crew..." (maybe it's mostly about the skipper/crew - but the boat obviously has to do its job); etc. There's more nuance, I think, than what you've laid out. The real offshore dudes here can (and are, I see) help refine it further.

 

But, I think you touch on a couple of things that are critical to this discussion - and the reason I think it's a never ending debate...people are talking about slightly different things. Here's what I mean:

 

1. The "life expectancy" of boats - and how that notion might be changing. (Your third bullet point.)

2. The "technology equals safety" factor - and how that is changing the way people sail...for better and worse.

 

Is a 40-50 year old traditional "blue water" boat inherently "better/safer" than a 1-5 year old production boat for the 99% of off-shore sailing most people will do (crossings, Coconut Milk run, etc.)? And in the, say, 1% event these boats do get caught in that F10 (assuming the same experienced/trained skipper and crew) - is the newer boat going to break more readily than the older boat? Also, isn't this "life expectancy" calculus going to change pretty drastically over the next 10-15 years? Are these modern production boats built to last 40-50 years? Do they need to be?

 

There are a lot of modern production boats (that carry that CE-A off-shore rating) filling up the marinas I visit. So I assume there are a lot more of these being built and sold than the traditional blue-water boats. And if that's the case, as time goes on, the discussion might need to shift from debating old vs. new design/construction techniques - to figuring out the "useful life" of a modern production boat - and what goes in to that calculation. As well as, what to prepare for and watch for in and after a storm. I think we're seeing much of this "first-hand" through Micheal's circ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we do have is centuries of experience to tell us what works offshore and what doesn't. You can take advantage of that knowledge and buy something like a Pacific Seacraft or a Valiant or you can take your chances in something that really is designed for something else.

 

I guess this sentence is the crux of the discussion. Are you saying that those centuries of knowledge and experience somehow culminated in then stopped with the Pacific Seacraft and/or the Valiant? Granted, the Valiant IS pure genius (like everything else Bob designs, of course...pissing in The Boss' pocket now) - and I raced offshore on a PS 37 Crealock last summer and it is a great boat. I certainly don't mean to take anything away from these - as if anything I say possibly could. But, I just don't think any of these boats (or any boat at all) is the "period" at the end of that centuries-long story of nautical technology and design. Honestly, that seems to be the mindset most times.

 

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about taking a production boat that is NOT appropriately "rated" (e.g. - CE-A) off-shore. But for those boats that are rated thus, it seems technology and design have continued to evolve and improve to offer something different...something that has its tradeoffs, yes, but is still suited for the job. It's just the expectations of that job might have to evolve a bit as well. That's what I'm trying to explore here.

 

(PS - I've only flown hang gliders.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing material science and design. One could build a PS 37 or V 40 out of the latest carbon-epoxy with lithium batteries and fuel cells if desired. That isn't the point.

The "advances" you seem to like are almost all "advances" in making MORE ROOM and MORE COMFORT in benign conditions. I can't think of any "advance" that has ANYTHING to do with better seakeeping ability.

For just one example, how many Cat-Ben-Huns have a decent sized chart table near the companionway facing forward? Do you have any idea what a huge PITA it is to have a chart table that faces sideways or backwards not easily accessible from the cockpit? 99% of their buyers couldn't care less because they'll never do that kind of sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing material science and design. One could build a PS 37 or V 40 out of the latest carbon-epoxy with lithium batteries and fuel cells if desired. That isn't the point.

The "advances" you seem to like are almost all "advances" in making MORE ROOM and MORE COMFORT in benign conditions. I can't think of any "advance" that has ANYTHING to do with better seakeeping ability.

For just one example, how many Cat-Ben-Huns have a decent sized chart table near the companionway facing forward? Do you have any idea what a huge PITA it is to have a chart table that faces sideways or backwards not easily accessible from the cockpit? 99% of their buyers couldn't care less because they'll never do that kind of sailing.

 

Yes, I could very well be guilty of that. But, again, those are pretty broad generalities. All I have to go on right now, for this thread, is the first-hand account from Michael regarding his experience in that Hunter 49 which showed pretty damn good seakeeping ability in a serious storm - even with a very shorthanded crew - while also being pretty damn comfortable:

 

Hunter_49_Deep.jpg

 

At least it looks like they got the chart table issue fixed. But really, what kind of bluewater boat has a freakin' potted plant on board? Shameful. Well...unless it's bread fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to go on right now, for this thread, is the first-hand account from Michael . . . .

Seems to me you are willfully ignoring three rudder failures and a questionably engineered and built bow stem which have been pointed out in this thread. It's easy to make a point by turning a blind eye to evidence to the contrary.

 

As a matter of logic, I see problems taking the experience of one boat and one crew and trying to extrapolate that to all similar boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to go on right now, for this thread, is the first-hand account from Michael . . . .

Seems to me you are willfully ignoring three rudder failures and a questionably engineered and built bow stem which have been pointed out in this thread. It's easy to make a point by turning a blind eye to evidence to the contrary.

 

No, I'm not ignoring them, hi. Not at all. But in this same thread there have also been mentions of rudder issues with Swans, C&Cs, J's and Oysters - as well as general quality issues with Hinckleys in the past, etc. Just like I don't take those examples as a blanket statement on those boats, I don't take examples of Benehunterlina rudder failures as a blanket statement either. How do you look at those examples of problems with the traditional bluewater boats?

 

As for the bow stem issue, I can't speak at all to the design stuff. No clue. I did, however, follow that story and know that the skipper of that boat made some horrible decisions. That boat was anchored near enough to the beach to be stuck in large breakers as the weather moved in (e.g. - shallow and unprotected anchorage). And it was parked just in front of a stone jetty. It eventually broke free, was thrown onto and over the jetty - then onto the beach where the wave action continued to use the chain as a saw.

 

So, again, I don't know what percentage of that goes to poor design/construction or massive human error.

 

(PS - My apologies tren. Eye Bleach in aisle 3.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That boat is like "opposite day". They did about everything I do NOT want in an offshore boat. The "island berth" V-berth is freaking retarded for any boat that sails offshore. Whomever or whatever you put up there is going to fall off. The sideways bunk aft is likewise useless. As far as I can tell, that boat has exactly 2 sea berths not counting the dinette, which would give you 3. My boat would fit inside that boat and I have 3 (or 4 if you're willing to sleep forward). The high freeboard makes for bad motion in the cockpit. Speaking of motion, I really really don't like the "cranky tricycle" handling of these fat ass boats when pushed hard. To my eye the boom gallows/elevated sheeting scheme looks horrible as well.

Speaking of horrible, that galley design was done by someone who NEVER cooked a meal in a storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not ignoring them, hi. Not at all. But in this same thread there have also been mentions of rudder issues with Swans, C&Cs, J's and Oysters - as well as general quality issues with Hinckleys in the past, etc. Just like I don't take those examples as a blanket statement on those boats, I don't take examples of Benehunterlina rudder failures as a blanket statement either. How do you look at those examples of problems with the traditional bluewater boats?

 

 

 

 

You make a good point here that is perhaps related to why I have a custom one-off boat. So I will not argue the point. :):):)

 

Which comes full circle to what I said earlier in this thread. It's really a boat specific assessment. Assessing bluewater capability in terms of brand is wide of the mark, IMO. I think we agree here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, 40 odd years ago, a young designer penned a radical boat that was declared too light and unsafe to go to sea.

 

 

valiant40-sailplan.gif

 

I guess that conventional wisdom wasn't very wise.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but he knew what he was doing and that vessel has stood the test of time. Not sure many other boats can or will be able make that claim, especially today. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I see the opposite, a couple of abandonments between the East coast and Bermuda from last fall immediately come to mind... In particular, the abandonment of the Beneteau 393 SANCTUARY, and the crew's rescue by the cruise ship NORWEGIAN GEM...

 

In that instance, I see the classic example of a crew being battered by the shortcomings of a "typical" production coastal cruiser pressed into some serious conditions offshore... A fuel bladder added for the passage begins leaking, making life extremely difficult below... An apparent inability to make the boat heave-to when conditions warranted such a tactic... No staysail or storm jib, because of course very few "modern production boats" afford the appropriate structure/bulkhead for retro-fitting an inner forestay... The boat begins taking on water, but determining the source of the leak is greatly complicated by the boat's construction and the use of a hull liner... Finally, the skipper punches out, when he fears the hull has begun to suffer delamination... One of the crew came incredibly close to being crushed between the boat and the NORWEGIAN GEM's shore boat during the rescue, and indeed the ship's crew was lucky they were able to return to the ship as the conditions worsened dramatically...

What I read into the abandonment is not necessarily a boat issue but a crew issue. You say that the crew suffered from the "shortcomings of a typical production coastal cruiser" then mention 1. a fuel bladder added by the owner started leaking - I fail to see how that is a production boat issue, not sure why the bladder was added, but clearly was not done properly. 2. the crew was not able to make the boat heave to. Again a crew failure - admittedly it is harder to heave to all modern hull shapes, but it can be done, and I am willing to bet that the crew had not practiced it before leaving. 3. No staysail or storm jib, the boat was not set up for a staysail - that is not a failing of the boat unless you believe all offshore boats must carry a staysail. Having sailed more than a few boats with stay sails I don't. As for a storm jib, again a crew decision to either not have one or not fly it if they did - goes on to the forestay, pretty sure it had one of those. 3. Takes on water - really? It stayed afloat after the boat was abandoned. 4. The skippper "fears" that the hull is delaminating. Really, again boat survived the storm.

 

Not defending Beneteau, Hunter or Catalina or any boat, but what I see from your description is not a boat that was overwhelmed, but a crew that was overwhelmed because they were inexperienced, they did not know how to handle the boat, or the weather conditions, and then were able to convince themselves the boat was breaking up and they had to abandon ship. That fits as well with what I have read about the situation. Frankly, if you do not know how to handle the conditions you could have a Morris and still convince yourself the boat was breaking up, sleep deprived sailors who are struggling with the conditions, make bad decisions. And that in conditions which as far as I can see were unpleasant, to say the least, but very survivable, even by a "production" boat.

 

Off shore sailing brings out all sorts of emotions. One of the most poignant is giving up, resignation, which leads to abandoning ship. I have delivered any number of boats under all sorts of conditions, windless to 50 plus knots, (more than a few times, and fortunately never over 60 or more sustained). It requires a cool head, and understanding of your boat, confidence that you know what to do, and doing it as the conditions deteriorate. Whatever kind of boat you have. While I agree a sea kindly boat is a great help, if you know what your doing you will take off with a boat set up to handle the conditions you may experience, and will do what needs to be done to handle the conditions if they arise, which allows the crew to get sufficient rest, and keep things in perspective. As a friend always used to say you have to be ahead of the boat. At least this bad decision did not cost anyone's life. The crew of the captain that convinced himself to go into Little Cut in the Abacos, at night, during rage conditions, was not so lucky.

 

I delivered a Hylas 46 with the owner and his friends a few years ago. Ft Lauderdale to Martha's in May. It was a great sail. We had about 24 hours of 30 plus with the attendant seas north of Hatteras. They had been talking about an new 46 foot Jenneau, one of your dreaded production boats no doubt. It had made the trip the month before experienced similar conditions with an inexperienced crew that tried to motor into the seas and wind, and who were able to convince themselves that the boat was breaking up and to abandon ship. I am sure we can agree that a 46 foot boat in 30 plus knots motoring into it is not an acceptable response, and the fact that the boat did not break up is a testament to the construction of the boat, not the crew work. Again, the fatigue and emotions caused by slamming into those conditions for hours caused the crew to compound the mistakes they were making. We reduced sail to meet the conditions carried on sailing close reaching, and when the wind abated, shook out the reef, and continued on our way. Everyone got to sleep, eat and conduct themselves in regular fashion, consistent with living on the heel of course. The conditions were no big deal, and were treated as such, and everyone and the boat were no worse for the wear.

 

The point is there is no substitute for good crew work, and boat handling, whatever you are sailing, and you cannot blame the boat for poor crew work. Sorry this is so long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more panning the Hunter - I fixed the design so its just like the "rule" boats.

post-59748-008665000 1330206628_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I see the opposite, a couple of abandonments between the East coast and Bermuda from last fall immediately come to mind... In particular, the abandonment of the Beneteau 393 SANCTUARY, and the crew's rescue by the cruise ship NORWEGIAN GEM...

 

In that instance, I see the classic example of a crew being battered by the shortcomings of a "typical" production coastal cruiser pressed into some serious conditions offshore... A fuel bladder added for the passage begins leaking, making life extremely difficult below... An apparent inability to make the boat heave-to when conditions warranted such a tactic... No staysail or storm jib, because of course very few "modern production boats" afford the appropriate structure/bulkhead for retro-fitting an inner forestay... The boat begins taking on water, but determining the source of the leak is greatly complicated by the boat's construction and the use of a hull liner... Finally, the skipper punches out, when he fears the hull has begun to suffer delamination... One of the crew came incredibly close to being crushed between the boat and the NORWEGIAN GEM's shore boat during the rescue, and indeed the ship's crew was lucky they were able to return to the ship as the conditions worsened dramatically...

 

 

What I read into the abandonment is not necessarily a boat issue but a crew issue. You say that the crew suffered from the "shortcomings of a typical production coastal cruiser" then mention 1. a fuel bladder added by the owner started leaking - I fail to see how that is a production boat issue, not sure why the bladder was added, but clearly was not done properly.

 

Presumably, because the skipper felt the standard fuel capacity was inadequate for the trip. Tankage is one of the most basic specifications that separates a boat like the Beneteau 393 from a production boat more suitable for passagemaking, such as a Caliber, to name one. So, to compensate for what is perceived to be marginal fuel capacity, many people undertaking such passages in today’s production boats are carrying additional fuel on deck, which I rate as one of the most dangerous and unseamanlike practices I routinely see out there, today…

 

2. the crew was not able to make the boat heave to. Again a crew failure - admittedly it is harder to heave to all modern hull shapes, but it can be done, and I am willing to bet that the crew had not practiced it before leaving. 3. No staysail or storm jib, the boat was not set up for a staysail - that is not a failing of the boat unless you believe all offshore boats must carry a staysail. Having sailed more than a few boats with stay sails I don't. As for a storm jib, again a crew decision to either not have one or not fly it if they did - goes on to the forestay, pretty sure it had one of those.

 

Sure, successful passages have been made without a staysail, but I still consider the provision for flying an additional smaller/backup sail to be one of the hallmarks of a true bluewater boat… Especially, for a boat like the one in question, with only a roller furling genoa fitted… A staysail would certainly improve the prospects for getting such a design to more easily heave-to, or to simply endure the sort of conditions they faced on that trip… While it might not be absolutely essential equipment, for a passage from NY to Bermuda in November, it would certainly be right at the top of my own “Nice to Have” List…

 

3. Takes on water - really? It stayed afloat after the boat was abandoned. 4. The skippper "fears" that the hull is delaminating. Really, again boat survived the storm.

 

Well, I’ll give the skipper the benefit of the doubt, and assume he might have had good reason to believe the hull had suffered structural damage. The tabbing on one of the aft bulkheads had apparently been compromised, to the extent that it had some sufficiently ajar that the door to one of the staterooms could no longer be opened. Looking at the guy’s resume below, sounds like he may actually know a thing or two about sailboat engineering, design, and construction… (Not to mention, afterwards he described the boat as a “floating condo”, relative to the Beneteau First Series, which he assesses to be a better choice for sailing offshore)

 

As to the taking on of water, do you have any doubt that might have been the case? Or, do you dispute the fact that a boat with a liner would make it far more difficult to assess potential sources of leaks below the waterline?

 

Also, it should be noted that one of the primary reasons the decision to abandon was taken, was the fact that their liferaft had been swept overboard during one of their knockdowns, or by a boarding sea… It had been stowed on top of the coachroof, which by now has become generally accepted to be a rather vulnerable and poor choice for liferaft stowage… A more offshore-capable boat would have had a dedicated locker or some safer provision for the location of the liferaft, perhaps in the cockpit or transom. One of the requirements for an Offshore CE rating is such a dedicated liferaft storage solution, if I’m not mistaken…

 

 

 

Not defending Beneteau, Hunter or Catalina or any boat, but what I see from your description is not a boat that was overwhelmed, but a crew that was overwhelmed because they were inexperienced, they did not know how to handle the boat, or the weather conditions, and then were able to convince themselves the boat was breaking up and they had to abandon ship. That fits as well with what I have read about the situation.

 

 

Well, I read it a bit differently, hardly seems such a simplistic example of Either/Or, to me… No doubt, some of the crew was likely to have lacked offshore experience – they were paying for the privilege of gaining some, after all, by signing onto this delivery of a charter boat to St. Marten…. But I still see this as a classic example of demands being made upon a crew by a boat possessing a number of characteristics that can produce major problems when serious weather is encountered offshore – problems that would have been less likely to arise had the boat been more properly well-found and equipped for such a passage… I see this as the perfect example of a COMBINATION of factors regarding both a boat AND a crew (for the life of me, I am continually perplexed in these discussions by the tendency of many to insist it has to be one OR the other), but starting with the boat, and the crew being asked to perform duties or take actions that they might not have otherwise had to do, had they been aboard a more suitable boat...

 

Delivery skippers don’t always get to choose the hand they’re dealt, and there’s generally a limit to how much modification or upgrading the client or owner will be willing to make for such a trip… So, the skipper often has some tough choices to make in that regard. Personally, I would have passed on such a delivery, or at the very least would have departed from the Chesapeake or Beaufort, instead… No way would I have taken that boat – much less with paying customers of unknown skills or personalities – from the NE to Bermuda, in November…

 

But, perhaps that's just me... (oh, and Don Street, as well (grin))

 

From what I've read of this incident, I, too, have some reservations about some of the tactics chosen, etc... But, the skipper made it absolutely clear that the safety of his crew was his top priority (as it should have been, of course), and with the weather quickly deteriorating, and his belief that the hull had been structurally compromised, the boat having become basically uninhabitable below largely due to the presence of diesel (I would have to assume at least a couple of his crew must have become significantly incapacitated by seasickness, at that point), well... I'm not gonna second-guess the decision to abandon ship when he had that opportunity was the wisest choice, at that point...

 

However, I’m certainly not gonna brand the skipper as “inexperienced”, if one accepts his resume at face value, he sure seems to have a fair amount of experience, to me…

 

 

Captain Thierry Simon

 

QUALIFICATIONS ET EXPÉRIENCE

 

• MCA Master Of Yachts Offshore 200 Tons (copy of the certificate here)

• STCW 95

• 31,500 miles at sea-1390 days at sea

• Studied Yacht Design at YDI, Blue Hill, Maine, USA

• Extensive knowledge of marine electronics onboard yachts

• Outstanding mechanical engineering skills

• Strong capabilities in watchkeeping, navigation, engineering, and electrical maintenance

• Extensive Experience in rebuild’s of smaller sail vessels

• Transformed a 100yr old 93’Gaff Rig from a Fishing Schooner back to its original state as a S/V

• Ability to maintain and repair electrical systems and electrical equipment

• Over 40 years of sailing in both racing and cruising

• Owned and operated 9 boats (Charter and Personal Usage)

• Adapted a wooden boat design by Francis Herreshoff into modern aluminum build

• Specialist in Vessel Deliveries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Perhaps it's a miracle that those stems do not break off all the time.

 

Well, perhaps it is... (grin)

 

Jon, is there any possibility that particular hull was a 'Friday boat' and some worker forgot to put on an important stiffener or the correct backing plates?

 

You have any plans for this comming summer's cruising?

 

 

Hi Evans...

 

Not sure at the moment, but I'm hoping to get back up into the Canadian Maritimes again, maybe Newfoundland or even possibly Labrador... (If I can come up with the money for the freakin' CHARTS, that is (grin))

 

However, such a plan is likely to be compromised by the fact I'll be staying down south this winter longer than I usually do, I probably won't be back home until late May this year, which is about 6 weeks later than I usually do... Given the amount of shit I'll have to catch up on when I get back, I'm afraid I'll get stuck there for awhile, and getting too far north this summer won't be very likely...

 

Didn't I see you mention Greenland for you and Beth this summer? Wow, that's fantastic, I'd love to do that trip someday...

 

But, damn, talk about another place where the price of charts is outta sight, eh? (grin) Good luck, hope you guys can manage it, I'll follow that one with great interest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally think that these voyages say a hell of a lot more about the skipper than they do about the boat.

I am in the Evans camp on this one.

I wish I could design luck into my boats.

 

I think you do, Bob.

 

Luck = preparation + opportunity. A good naval architect contributes pretty substantially to the first part of the equasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smack: I agree, great thread!

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Sabre, I'll take the Sabre.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Hinckley, I'll take the Hinckley.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Valiant, I'll take the Valiant.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Morris, I'll take the Morris.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, and Beneteau, I'll take the Beneteau.

 

Between a Hunter, and Catalina, I'll take the Catalina.

 

Between a Hunter and nothing, I'll take a Hunter.

 

I liked that progression, but come at it from a different pov:

 

1. When I was a teen, between nothing and sailing a Sunfish I sailed a Sunfish.

 

2. In my twenties,I decided to be a keelboat sailor. So between Sunfish and renting various small keel boats, I rented the keel boats.

 

3. After getting married, between renting small keel boats and the thought of ownership, we did two years of fractional membership. (On a brand new and beautiful Hunter 33, for very little financial commitment.)

 

4 When we had kids we decided to commit to more serious coastal cruising. Between fractional membership and purchasing a respectable production coastal cruiser, we chose a respectable production coastal cruiser. (A 5 year old Beneteau 361.)

 

5. Fast forward seven years later, we are gearing up for blue water. So between the Beneteau and going into contract again, we're going into contract again. (One of those b.w. boats mentioned in this thread.)

 

All of those boats were and still are, for me, perfect matches. But I wouldn't take any of them across an Ocean or around Cape Horn. Not even #5 (that is, not yet). But when I do, I'm gonna be comforted by the thought that for where I am, #5 is "the" perfect match. And that is definitely not a knock of choices #1-4! In fact, I could not have "survived" without them!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jon,

 

To start let me agree with you that the boat normally plays a not insignificant part in these incidents, and I agree that it is not all one or the other crew or boat. But the crew is the variable part, and the part that can adjust to the boat. A good crew can make up for the shortcomings of the boat, and all boats have shortcomings. I also believe that we will never know what goes into making the specific incident happen - at best we are speculating to some greater or lesser extent. You tend to second guess the boat at least in this thread, and I generally second guess the crew, unless there is a documented boat failure.

 

As for the skipper, interesting resume, seems like a qualified delivery guy, but who knows what his state of mind was, given the inexperienced crew he was sailing with, or how much rest he had had?? All I know for sure is the boat made it through, so while there may have been water coming into the boat, it clearly was not enough to swamp the boat or which the boat's bilge pumps could not handle; and the structural damage, whatever that may have been, did not result in a hull or deck failure. If you look at the VOR races you see what a crew can do with actual hull de-lamination, not just a bulkhead coming adrift - by the way was it a structural bulk head? Now to your specific comments:

 

1. Bladder - whatever the owner/skipper may have thought, two things are true. 1. The boat carried 39 gallons of fuel. We can certainly agree that this is more than enough fuel for the intended passage - it should give the boat a 3 day, 400 mile range. 2. You do not respond to the point that the bladder was not properly installed. So assume we agree on that point. So the bladder was unnecessary and improperly installed - not a boat problem - bad choices by the owner/crew.

 

2. Staysail. A lot of passages have been made without a staysail. They are unnecessary in my opinion, and I am not a fan. So we have a personal disagreement on this point, but what I am sure we do not disagree on is if you undertake this type of passage you need a full sail compliment - #1 (a 130 in all likelihood, do not need a 150 in the Caribbean or offshore), #3 (will use that in the Caribbean 90% or more of the time), #4 (storm jib for what happened here) and a chute of some kind. The main should have three reef points, and have been recently inspected or new. Again, the fact that they chose to have only a #1 is not the boat's fault, its theirs. Absolutely foolhardy to take off without a #4.

 

3. Liner - In my experience, every boat I have sailed on had accessible thru-hulls, some more accessible than others. :) So you could see it they were leaking. Indeed every hull penetration was observable. Particularly if there was a major breach, allowing in a substantial amount of water. I had thought you were referring to the headliner, not the structural grid. It is not unusual for a boat in those conditions to have some water down below, the primary question is are they minor or major. The former leads to more crew discomfort, and potential fatigue, the latter, to we better find this and fix it. I do not think either you or I know enough to comment more than we have here on this point.

 

4. Liferaft. Sure its nice to have a separate compartment for the raft. If that is a requirement for offshore sailing in your mind, and you have one, you not going to meet many people offshore. Particularly in 39' boats. :) Again this is a poor owner/crew choice. More likely the owner. Mounting liferafts on cradles is just poor judgment IMHO. If it is there "permanently" its hard on the raft, particularly in the Tropics, and it is subject to this very issue. There is, I am sure a spot, in a locker or down below where this raft could have been stored - the owner in all liklihood made a bad decision. Again not a boat problem.

 

I have raced 30' ULDB's offshore. We always carried a raft, a full compliment of sails, etc. (We even carried a outboard and a few gallons of fuel - it was a sail boat race after all). The raft was never stored on deck - can you image the negative effect on righting moment. :) They were stored below - always. Where they were not subject to the weather, and in the center of the boat, helped to keep the boat flat - a little bit at least. If I could do that in a 30' ULDB, hard to believe that these folks could not have found a better place to store it, had they thought about it correctly, which they did not. My current boat, a 46' has the raft stored in a valise in the aft lazzie.

 

I am not second guessing the decision to abandon ship - was not there, just discussing the factors that may have lead up to it, and this thread - whether the boat was suitable for the delivery. We agree on it having been a combination of factors, but the skipper knew what he was getting in the boat and crew. Boats of this type are delivered all the time in these conditions, and worse, and make out fine.

 

Don would have moved the boat in October if I recall his position correctly, and then done the second leg to the Caribbean in November from Bermuda. Always sounded like a good plan to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for this in advance. And I don't mean to hijack the thread.

 

But I do wonder about this question.

 

Prices of ALL petro related products are starting to liftoff like rockets.

If that continues for very long, will there even BE any production boats?

Will the world return to the economic models of the early 1800s?

If you want a boat, you'll have to have it built?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychology:

If you THINK your boat is a POS, and many a delivery skipper thinks what they call a BendyTwo is a POS, irregardless of the ACTUAL abilities of the boat you will act as though your boat won't make it through. To a large extent, your boat is as good as you think she is ;)

 

 

 

 

Jon,

 

To start let me agree with you that the boat normally plays a not insignificant part in these incidents, and I agree that it is not all one or the other crew or boat. But the crew is the variable part, and the part that can adjust to the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychology:

If you THINK your boat is a POS, and many a delivery skipper thinks what they call a BendyTwo is a POS, irregardless of the ACTUAL abilities of the boat you will act as though your boat won't make it through. To a large extent, your boat is as good as you think she is ;)

 

I think that's exactly right. And I also think that's why this topic is so interesting. Has the "prevailing wisdom" regarding modern production boats' inadequacies been a bit over the top?

 

I guess time and examples will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. If I take my family offshore, it isn't going to be in a boat that will probably be fine. It will be in boat that will still be floating barring extraordinarily bad luck.

Don't forget, I have taken hole saws to all these boats and I know what went into them! Also don't forget I *HAVE* pushed a Hunter hard and I know what that was like.

 

 

Psychology:

If you THINK your boat is a POS, and many a delivery skipper thinks what they call a BendyTwo is a POS, irregardless of the ACTUAL abilities of the boat you will act as though your boat won't make it through. To a large extent, your boat is as good as you think she is ;)

 

I think that's exactly right. And I also think that's why this topic is so interesting. Has the "prevailing wisdom" regarding modern production boats' inadequacies been a bit over the top?

 

I guess time and examples will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for this in advance. And I don't mean to hijack the thread.

 

But I do wonder about this question.

 

Prices of ALL petro related products are starting to liftoff like rockets.

If that continues for very long, will there even BE any production boats?

Will the world return to the economic models of the early 1800s?

If you want a boat, you'll have to have it built?

 

.

 

 

Cave,

 

I think this is exactly what's going to happen. Or at least, a large majority of new boats will be one-offs. Which means the number of new boats each year is going to be really low. A shop who can do other stuff besides build boats will be able to survive. There are a number of yards like that now and some of the bigger names seem to have a majority of their bottom line covered by service rather than new boat construction.

 

It is a great time to pursue being a boat designer...HA! The very good ones will have a lot of work. And maybe we'll see some interesting trends in boat construction. Wood is looking pretty damn attractive, ain't it ;)

 

hmmm....a renewable, domestic resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. If I take my family offshore, it isn't going to be in a boat that will probably be fine. It will be in boat that will still be floating barring extraordinarily bad luck...

 

 

Don't forget, I have taken hole saws to all these boats...

 

...or a hole saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prices of ALL petro related products are starting to liftoff like rockets.

If that continues for very long, will there even BE any production boats?.

 

I have my boat so that's not the issue for me. I worry about the cost of replacement sails, paint, lines, etc.

 

World production of oil peaked in May of 2005 and has been statistically flat ever since, a first in over one hundred years of world oil production.

 

I think it was November of 2010 when DOE stop publishing its estimate of world oil production, which is a scary parallel to March 2006 when the Fed stopped publishing its money supply metric (and of course we now know that the money supply started imploding shortly thereafter).

 

Just saying . . . .

 

I always get nervous when the government starts hiding hard-to-get information.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for this in advance. And I don't mean to hijack the thread.

 

But I do wonder about this question.

 

Prices of ALL petro related products are starting to liftoff like rockets.

If that continues for very long, will there even BE any production boats?

Will the world return to the economic models of the early 1800s?

If you want a boat, you'll have to have it built?

 

.

 

 

Cave,

 

I think this is exactly what's going to happen. Or at least, a large majority of new boats will be one-offs. Which means the number of new boats each year is going to be really low. A shop who can do other stuff besides build boats will be able to survive. There are a number of yards like that now and some of the bigger names seem to have a majority of their bottom line covered by service rather than new boat construction.

 

It is a great time to pursue being a boat designer...HA! The very good ones will have a lot of work. And maybe we'll see some interesting trends in boat construction. Wood is looking pretty damn attractive, ain't it ;)

 

hmmm....a renewable, domestic resource.

 

You could be right, Sons.

The guy who owns the boatyard here is making custom bodies for golf carts.

Like that red race car in the movie "Cars"...

Too cute, and a lot more forgiving than boat work...

More demand to, I'm afraid.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..........snip...............

... However, the right 80's vintage Frers-designed Beneteau First series could well be in the running, those were very good boats, IMHO, and many of them have a ton of fairly serious offshore miles to their credit...

 

For what Michael must have spent on a brand new Hunter 49 with all the trimmings, I'm pretty certain I could find something on Yachtworld that I would consider equally - if not considerably more suitable - for the trip he's undertaken, at a fraction of the price...

 

I agree with that Jon. Those were solid performers. After doing the Sydney Hobart and return delivery in 35knots to almost 70 knots on a Beneteau First 47.7, and then on the same boat, being the only survivor to round the first mark in 65knots in the 2010 Southern Straits Race in Vancouver, I am pretty comfortable with the seaworthiness of that production boat. However, the same couldn't be said for their Oceanis production line.

 

post-5483-073155300 1329537756_thumb.jpg A steady 35 before the shit hit the fan

post-5483-099649200 1329537820_thumb.jpg

post-5483-020939100 1329537867_thumb.jpg

The following morning after crossing the Bass Strait, I took this pic of the max boat speed during the night of thundering down some pretty big seas with 3 reefs in the main.

http://gallery.me.com/adamfys#100013

a little snip from the Southern Straits B) from one of the crew.It blew a steady 40 knots off the start, then built during the late afternoon to solid mid 60's

 

 

Great to hear this endorsement of the 47.7, we just bought one. We were looking for a big, tough fast boat. We aren't going to race this boat, just cruise it. Funny thing though, when looking for a boat, no "cruising" boats had any appeal to us. We really place importance on performance when evaluating boats and the only place we found that was with racing boats. Needless to say, we are looking forward to sailing this boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smack: I agree, great thread!

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Sabre, I'll take the Sabre.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Hinckley, I'll take the Hinckley.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Valiant, I'll take the Valiant.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, and Morris, I'll take the Morris.

 

Between a Hunter, Catalina, and Beneteau, I'll take the Beneteau.

 

Between a Hunter, and Catalina, I'll take the Catalina.

 

Between a Hunter and nothing, I'll take a Hunter.

 

I liked that progression, but come at it from a different pov:

 

1. When I was a teen, between nothing and sailing a Sunfish I sailed a Sunfish.

 

2. In my twenties,I decided to be a keelboat sailor. So between Sunfish and renting various small keel boats, I rented the keel boats.

 

3. After getting married, between renting small keel boats and the thought of ownership, we did two years of fractional membership. (On a brand new and beautiful Hunter 33, for very little financial commitment.)

 

4 When we had kids we decided to commit to more serious coastal cruising. Between fractional membership and purchasing a respectable production coastal cruiser, we chose a respectable production coastal cruiser. (A 5 year old Beneteau 361.)

 

5. Fast forward seven years later, we are gearing up for blue water. So between the Beneteau and going into contract again, we're going into contract again. (One of those b.w. boats mentioned in this thread.)

 

All of those boats were and still are, for me, perfect matches. But I wouldn't take any of them across an Ocean or around Cape Horn. Not even #5 (that is, not yet). But when I do, I'm gonna be comforted by the thought that for where I am, #5 is "the" perfect match. And that is definitely not a knock of choices #1-4! In fact, I could not have "survived" without them!

 

 

 

I was speaking with a pretty well known naval architect about a boat recently, a terrific and respected na, and basically, he advised that unless one knows in pretty good detail one's own requirements, it is all duck soup.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..........snip...............

... However, the right 80's vintage Frers-designed Beneteau First series could well be in the running, those were very good boats, IMHO, and many of them have a ton of fairly serious offshore miles to their credit...

 

For what Michael must have spent on a brand new Hunter 49 with all the trimmings, I'm pretty certain I could find something on Yachtworld that I would consider equally - if not considerably more suitable - for the trip he's undertaken, at a fraction of the price...

 

I agree with that Jon. Those were solid performers. After doing the Sydney Hobart and return delivery in 35knots to almost 70 knots on a Beneteau First 47.7, and then on the same boat, being the only survivor to round the first mark in 65knots in the 2010 Southern Straits Race in Vancouver, I am pretty comfortable with the seaworthiness of that production boat. However, the same couldn't be said for their Oceanis production line.

 

post-5483-073155300 1329537756_thumb.jpg A steady 35 before the shit hit the fan

post-5483-099649200 1329537820_thumb.jpg

post-5483-020939100 1329537867_thumb.jpg

The following morning after crossing the Bass Strait, I took this pic of the max boat speed during the night of thundering down some pretty big seas with 3 reefs in the main.

http://gallery.me.com/adamfys#100013

a little snip from the Southern Straits B) from one of the crew.It blew a steady 40 knots off the start, then built during the late afternoon to solid mid 60's

 

 

Great to hear this endorsement of the 47.7, we just bought one. We were looking for a big, tough fast boat. We aren't going to race this boat, just cruise it. Funny thing though, when looking for a boat, no "cruising" boats had any appeal to us. We really place importance on performance when evaluating boats and the only place we found that was with racing boats. Needless to say, we are looking forward to sailing this boat.

 

Pics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help it...I like this guy and his damn Hunter:

 

At 1014 we secured alongside the south float at Saint Augustine Marine. We had come 9375 miles from Puerto Montt, Chile in a little under six months with 47 ports and 111 days at sea. Sequitur, our Hunter 49 had safely and comfortably brought us through one Force 12 storm, three Force 11s and several Force 10s and 9s. We had bucked adverse winds, currents and bureaucracies. We were tired.

 

http://www.sailblogs...?xjMsgID=226545

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were going to do serious offshore sailing in a Hunter, Catalina or Beneteau, that boat would be like the Chevy Impalas that race in NASCAR as opposed to the ones you drive off the showroom floor. I would beef up everything: chainplates, shrouds and backstays, turnbuckles, hull to deck joint, backing plates, high capacity bilge pump, bronze or marelon through hulls, stronger rudder post, removable inner forestay, better tankage, more handholds, padeyes for harnesses.... the list goes on. It's because I'm a coward.

 

I'm in the process of upgrading my Bristol to cruise the Med for a year and I'm doing some of the same things. But at least my starting point is a 19,000 lb boat with a solid fiberglass hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a list of everything Michael did to that 49 (nothing drastic I don't think):

 

http://www.yacht-sequitur.ca/gestation1.htm

Once the decision had been made to order the Hunter 49, the next step was to wade through the long list of standard equipment and options and decide on exactly what I wanted. For ease of handling and for sailing performance, among the things I ordered were:
  • the deep keel;
  • the tall rig;
  • the vertical battened in-mast furling;
  • the self-tacking furling staysail;
  • the asymmetrical cruising spinnaker;
  • one electrical self-tailing winch;
  • and for safety, the spare rudder system;

For interior creature comfort and convenience, among the options I ordered were:

 

  • the three cabin layout with the workshop/office option in the starboard aft;
  • the Splendide washer/dryer;
  • the Quiet Flush heads;
  • the second top-loading freezer and second fridge; and
  • the leather interior upholstery.

When the boat arrived in Vancouver the first week of February 2007, I began adding or upgrading a number of other things, including:

 

  • a Raymarine E-Series chart plotter with an E120 in the cockpit and an E80 at the nav station;
  • a Raymarine 2kW radar dome on a Waltz swivel mast mount;
  • a SeaCAS AIS SafePassage 100 receiver;
  • a Rozendal Luneberg Tri-Lens radar reflector;
  • a Raymarine 7002 autopilot with remote controller;
  • a 40kg Rocna with 100m of 9.5mm hi-test chain as primary anchor;
  • demoting the 20kg Delta with 15m of 9.5mm hi-test chain and 80m of nylon to secondary anchor;
  • a Walker Bay FTD-310 Hypalon dinghy;
  • a Torqeedo Travel 801 rechargeable lithium-ion electric outboard;
  • a set of customized Ocean Marine davits;
  • a custom dodger and bimini with matching pedestal and dinghy/davit covers;
  • a 1225 aH house bank of 6v flooded cell batteries with Water Miser caps;
  • a Fischer-Panda 4kW DC generator with a starting battery and switching to charge all three battery banks;
  • a pair of Racor primary fuel filters with isolation switching to replace the single Racor;
  • an Espar hydronic interior heating system; and
  • forty-two folding nylon/glass-fibre MastSteps to the top of the mast.

I decided to have the canvas work, the generator, davits and the electronics installed in Vancouver, rather than at the factory in Florida, to give me more control over their design and placement. The fit-out took just over five months, and I took possession of Sequitur on 4 July 2007.

 

Then with more than a year-and-a-half cruising the local waters, we had plenty of time to determine what needed to be added or modified. During this time I also kept track of the ongoing technological advancements in such things as watermakers, communications equipment and alternate power, and by early 2009, we were ready to begin Sequitur's final fit-out. On 2 March, among equipment additions, installations and modifications we initiated were:

 

  • a telescoping whisker pole, track-mounted on the mast.
  • a Spectra Newport II watermaker;
  • a stainless steel arch above the after end of the cockpit to help carry the solar and wind systems;
  • a 522 Watt array of Kyocera solar panels and a Blue Sky charge controller;
  • an Eclectic Energy D400 wind generator with any excess power diverted to the hot water heater;
  • a Magnum 2800 Watt pure sine wave inverter, keeping the Xantrex 2500 modified wave as a spare;
  • an HF antenna from the new arch to the masthead;
  • an Icom 802 SSB radio with an AT140 tuner;
  • a Pactor II/III usb modem;
  • an Icom 604 to upgrade the existing VHF;
  • an Iridium satellite telephone;
  • an Ocens Weather Pack with WeatherNet, MetMapper and Grib Explorer;
  • an EchoPilot Platinum forward-looking sonar feeding to the chart plotters;
  • a Raymarine AIS5000 Class B Transceiver;
  • a Hydrovane wind steering unit;
  • a Fortress FX-37 as a third anchor;
  • a 180 metre spool of 19mm nylon line;
  • two rail-mounted 90 metre spools of 13mm polypropylene for stern ties;
  • a Jordan series drogue;
  • a SeaKits Damage Control kit;
  • an OceanMedix Marine 3000 medical kit; and
  • a Revere Offshore Elite 6-person liferaft in a hard container, mounted aft of the mast.

Our next task is to assemble tools and complete the outfitting of the workshop and we need to lay in spare equipment, spare parts and a ditch bag to hedge our bets on all the worst-case scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of that stuff is great-- especially the safety and communications equipment-- but not very much of it makes the boat itself stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were going to do serious offshore sailing in a Hunter, Catalina or Beneteau, that boat would be like the Chevy Impalas that race in NASCAR as opposed to the ones you drive off the showroom floor. I would beef up everything: chainplates, shrouds and backstays, turnbuckles, hull to deck joint, backing plates, high capacity bilge pump, bronze or marelon through hulls, stronger rudder post, removable inner forestay, better tankage, more handholds, padeyes for harnesses.... the list goes on. It's because I'm a coward.

 

I'm in the process of upgrading my Bristol to cruise the Med for a year and I'm doing some of the same things. But at least my starting point is a 19,000 lb boat with a solid fiberglass hull.

 

 

 

See WHL's post about the First 47.7. I whole heartedly agree with his thoughts on the matter. All Beneteau's are NOT created equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />If I were going to do serious offshore sailing in a Hunter, Catalina or Beneteau, that boat would be like the Chevy Impalas that race in NASCAR as opposed to the ones you drive off the showroom floor.  I would beef up everything: chainplates, shrouds and backstays, turnbuckles, hull to deck joint, backing plates, high capacity bilge pump, bronze or marelon through hulls, stronger rudder post, removable inner forestay, better tankage, more handholds, padeyes for harnesses.... the list goes on.   It's because I'm a coward.<br /><br />I'm in the process of upgrading my Bristol to cruise the Med for a year and I'm doing some of the same things.  But at least my starting point is a 19,000 lb boat with a solid fiberglass hull.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

We've almost the same boat - just mine is the uglier sister that is a bit fatter at 22k lbs. Luckily, most of that is in the keel. I've re-built the chainplates, rudder and keel, engine, engine box and next year goes the deck and electricals. The year after is electronics and sailing hardware. My ambition is to do a full circle and at least one cape.

 

Ooops, there. I said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your boat is a 41.1, I don't think they're ugly at all.

 

I've never sailed a Beneteau First. If I could be convinced that it is a strong boat, sure I'd go offshore in it. But I would have to be convinced. If someone offered me a Morris or Hallberg Rassy, there would be considerably less convincing to do.

 

Generally speaking, my experience has been that you get what you pay for, and a boat built to a price point would not be my first choice for ocean voyaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of these designs can handle offshore, some are slow and some are fast. Some have two head and some have none. But with this Mike sailing the Hunter around the horn you have to ask what did he have to do to the boat to make it seaworthy enough for the trip? Even the standard halyards would chafe through in no time on a hunter. So halyard upgrades, chafe protection, he might have even had to add in more structure. This question need to be asked. If you took the same size models and then asked what we need to change to make seaworthy for going around the world then we compair.

..........snip...............

... However, the right 80's vintage Frers-designed Beneteau First series could well be in the running, those were very good boats, IMHO, and many of them have a ton of fairly serious offshore miles to their credit...

 

For what Michael must have spent on a brand new Hunter 49 with all the trimmings, I'm pretty certain I could find something on Yachtworld that I would consider equally - if not considerably more suitable - for the trip he's undertaken, at a fraction of the price...

 

I agree with that Jon. Those were solid performers. After doing the Sydney Hobart and return delivery in 35knots to almost 70 knots on a Beneteau First 47.7, and then on the same boat, being the only survivor to round the first mark in 65knots in the 2010 Southern Straits Race in Vancouver, I am pretty comfortable with the seaworthiness of that production boat. However, the same couldn't be said for their Oceanis production line.

 

post-5483-073155300 1329537756_thumb.jpg A steady 35 before the shit hit the fan

post-5483-099649200 1329537820_thumb.jpg

post-5483-020939100 1329537867_thumb.jpg

The following morning after crossing the Bass Strait, I took this pic of the max boat speed during the night of thundering down some pretty big seas with 3 reefs in the main.

http://gallery.me.com/adamfys#100013

a little snip from the Southern Straits B) from one of the crew.It blew a steady 40 knots off the start, then built during the late afternoon to solid mid 60's

 

Jeez, I'd love to have one-tenth of your sailing experience.

 

Beneteau have, according to rumour, produced some exceptionally good boats, and while I have nowhere near Tim's experience, seeing the Copeland's voyaging on Bagheera said that these were not just coastal cruisers/junk.

I also have to say that every hole I have drilled into my own aging beauty has been met with totally dry core, and I have drilled lots.

I met one man who said that our boat was his dream to sail to Mexico, and he had tried once with one and ended up on the rocks. This was several years ago, and SA had pix. Ick.

His second choice was a C&C 37, which he was sailing down by himself with pickup crew the year we met them. She was (wisely) doing shore support. I hope she had him well insured.

If some outcast can sail a Vega 27 around the Americas, I can surely sail my boat to the ends of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your boat is a 41.1, I don't think they're ugly at all.

 

I've never sailed a Beneteau First. If I could be convinced that it is a strong boat, sure I'd go offshore in it. But I would have to be convinced. If someone offered me a Morris or Hallberg Rassy, there would be considerably less convincing to do.

 

Generally speaking, my experience has been that you get what you pay for, and a boat built to a price point would not be my first choice for ocean voyaging.

 

That's exactly what intrigues me about Sequitur. See the quote above about the storms again. Then look at the modifications.

 

What does it take to convince you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your boat is a 41.1, I don't think they're ugly at all.

 

 

 

 

I have the Wauquiez version of your boat; essentially the same hull with some minro differences in dimensions and 2 tons more ballast. My step father until very recently had a Bristol 38.8 which what was got me onto the design. For such heavy boats they do move along nicely and handle well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm familiar with both versions of the Wauquiez Hood. Nice boats, and some folks prefer the Wauquiez cabintop for working on deck. You also have the double quarter cabin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm familiar with both versions of the Wauquiez Hood. Nice boats, and some folks prefer the Wauquiez cabintop for working on deck. You also have the double quarter cabin.

curm, what do you have for a rig/suit of sails?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some outcast can sail a Vega 27 around the Americas, I can surely sail my boat to the ends of the earth.

Call him an outcast if you choose, but if your definition is the same as most people I think you owe him an apology. To me he was a man with a mission and he well and truly achieved it, and the beneficiary is a very good cause. Yes there may be a book or even a movie, and I will bet proceeds go to a deserving cause be it himself or his non profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Call him an outcast if you choose, but if your definition is the same as most people I think you owe him an apology. To me he was a man with a mission and he well and truly achieved it, and the beneficiary is a very good cause. Yes there may be a book or even a movie, and I will bet proceeds go to a deserving cause be it himself or his non profit.

 

I wasn't using the term pejoratively, probably should have used quote marks. "outcast" was the image that most people had of him. I thought he did a bang-up job all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me he was a man with a mission and he well and truly achieved it,...

 

There been some comments to the effect that the Vega wasn't the fit for the job, too. Well, it's pretty old, and it's pretty light for the southern ocean, but it's hardly the first time anyone has taken one to sea, and they have a good reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm familiar with both versions of the Wauquiez Hood. Nice boats, and some folks prefer the Wauquiez cabintop for working on deck. You also have the double quarter cabin.

curm, what do you have for a rig/suit of sails?

 

Masthead sloop, main with 3 reefs, 120% genoa (new), removable inner forestay for a staysail or storm jib. Runners. Next year I'm looking to add a light air sail--an asymetric or something like a Doyle UPS--maybe on a furler, maybe with a sock.

 

Today, close reaching in 13-15 knots apparent with the board down, we were doing an easy 5.5 to 6 kmots and never had to touch the wheel. Boat sailed itself so long as the sails were trimmed. We relaxed off the beavertail light while we watched the Rolex boats coming back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to start a whole thread for this.

 

I was taking my boat to the yard for bottom paint, and I was overtaken by another boat. (We were both under power.) I glanced over at the other boat and said, "That looks like a Bob Perry boat." And one of my friends said, "That's not a Perry boat. Look at that bow. Perry never designed a bow like that." My other friend said "That's a boat you could sail to Bermuda and be comfortable."

 

Here she is:

 

post-5724-060833600 1340139252_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to start a whole thread for this.

 

I was taking my boat to the yard for bottom paint, and I was overtaken by another boat. (We were both under power.) I glanced over at the other boat and said, "That looks like a Bob Perry boat." And one of my friends said, "That's not a Perry boat. Look at that bow. Perry never designed a bow like that." My other friend said "That's a boat you could sail to Bermuda and be comfortable."

 

Here she is:

 

post-5724-060833600 1340139252_thumb.jpg

 

That can't be a Perry boat. There's not enough CODB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this thread open to other production boats, or is it primarily about Hunters that "bring it"? Are we talking modern production boats, or any production boat in the last 30-40 years?

 

I nominate the Albin Vega. 3450 built, and many have cruised long distances including the most recent example sailing around the Americas. Not very comfy though.

 

I also nominate my own Pearson 30, mostly because I love it to death, and I'm totally biased. She'll be 40 this year, and sailing in 25+ knots in a nasty chop on the Chesapeake gave me more confidence than I ever had in my Coronado. I'm not sure if the build quality was good throughout all of Pearson's models and timespan of production but if it was... Wow.

 

 

I'm with Ajax..... Pearson 30, hull 101, brought me home from every misadventure so far...... ('course it IS my first REAL boat...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi:

Thanks for the pic. In fact I have designed several boats with bows like that.

Here is the 60' version of the Saga 43. This is a very nice boat.

post-2980-006152800 1340387974_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Perry never designed a bow like that." My other friend said "That's a boat you could sail to Bermuda and be comfortable."

 

WTF does that mean? :huh:

 

Time for new friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like boat that started this thread is for sale:

 

 

http://www.yachtworl...L/United-States

 

Wow. I hope it's just case of them tiring out and wanting to do something else - and not sickness, etc.

 

I haven't seen anything on their blog about the change in plans. Well - they definitely "brought it" with that damn Hunter. Great sailing and seamanship - and even better food!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen articles and pictures about boats with wishbones aloft, but I can't remember seeing one in person until today.

 

post-5724-031862200 1340813050_thumb.jpg

 

post-5724-061703700 1340812877_thumb.jpg

 

The boat's name is Vivimus (if I got it right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites