Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:38:16 GMT, "Denis Marier"
wrote: This statement makes sense. I got involved with my 27' sailboat in 40 foot waves. ========================================= I don't think there's a boat of ANY size that will be comfortable in those conditions. My original statement was made in regard to the routine 6 to 8 foot waves that are found all of the time in offshore conditions. It doesn't take a storm, just steady 20 knot winds. Most small boats turn into a rain forest on a pogo stick after a few days of beating into that. I have been on a well made 48 footer that wasn't much better, and on a 50 footer that was taking green water over the deck every 7 or 8 waves. Not storm conditions, just normal waves in average windy weather, the kind that you get with every frontal passage. Most coastal cruisers have no idea what it's like to do that for 2 or 3 days in a row, sailing around the clock. It's tough on the equipment and tough on the people. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:38:16 GMT, "Denis Marier"
wrote: 'smaller boat can be safer in the sense that a compact cabin doesn't have a lot of room to fall in the case of a knockdown, and usually has handholds everywhere.' This statement makes sense. I got involved with my 27' sailboat in 40 foot waves. My wife and I were unable to remain inside the cabin. First thing, the boat has to be steered up and down the crests. The boat was not the problem. It's me that was the problem. I was throwing up most of the time and could not hold any food or liquid. I was tied to the cockpit with a plastic bucket between my legs. Most sailboats will survive a severe storm it's the human that can't. This is basically my point: the crew, not the boat, is the weak link. That's been proven for years, is case-studied in books like "Heavy Weather Sailing", and is found in the old saying: "don't leave the boat until you have to step up into the life raft". Recall the Westsail 32 of the "Perfect Storm"...the real story is interesting in that the skipper who wanted to stay with the boat fared worse in the rescue than the boat...which safely grounded itself! See http://world.std.com/~kent/satori/ if you haven't heard this. It's a perfect example of how the right boat and the right sailor can weather (potentially) even the most hellish storms. Of course, if you get killed by a rogue wave, it's your time to go, but a well-sailed smaller boat of certain qualities will give you that much more of a fighting chance than a different (NOT better or worse, note) type that will tend to exhaust and sicken its crew in a lumpy seaway. Westsail 32s, Contessas and the like are great seagoing boats that few current sailors would find comfortable, but I would gladly cross an ocean in them because of their great track record as "survival boats" that "take care" of their skippers in a way a lot of newer designs can't do, because they are faster, bigger, have a Jacuzzi and a garage for the Zodiac, etc.... I like steel cutters and ketches made for the North Sea for the same reason...not fast, but easier sailing in waves and can sustain a lot of punishment. Read the post-war early cruising stories. Not only were most of those boats wooden, they were 30 feet or less (Wanderer II and III and the Roths, Pardeys and so on come to mind), had oil lamps, canvas sails, hank-ons, wooden masts and a compass and sextant. Maybe the best-equipped would have a battery radio (receive only!), and three, instead of two, small one-speed winches. Typically, they would self-steer, and rigged twin headsails for downwind work. All pumping was manual, and if they had inboards, they were one-cylinder gas or paraffin engines or heavy diesels that might give four knots in a flat sea. They would be narrow, deep and dark below, because lots of light meant lots of places for water to get in, and that meant more pumping. On the up side, they might feature carpets, bookshelves and small fireplaces to make everything snug. I have the impression that if my boat would have been larger I would not have been able to go up and down the 40 foot waves. That does not mean that I do not want a larger boat! As do we all, but like anything else, there's a tradeoff. I have decided personally to restrict my "dream boat for world cruising" search to the 38 to 45 foot range, because less is too small for stores and one wife and one kid plus me and a workbench G and 45 feet is about the limit for sail handling without complex mechanical aids. Even then, I would prefer a split yawl or ketch rig so I wouldn't need a monster main or genoa.,,and I believe (currently) 45 feet is my limit. If my wife was six feet tall instead of five feet, I might go 50 feet, but she's unlikely to grow now! R. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
"don't leave the boat until you have to step up into the life raft".
If my memory if correct when I read the book about the Fastnet Race. Some crewmen were left for dead on board sailboats while others stepped in life rafts. When the abandon boats were checked after the storm. Un-conscientious crewmen were found badly wounded but still alive. The other thing is when more than 1-2 people start to vomit in a life raft its no joke. Taking see sickness pills before the going gets too bad or stepping up into a life raft is not a bad idea. Now days, where the water is cool, the use of survival suits is getting more popular. "rhys" wrote in message news On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:38:16 GMT, "Denis Marier" wrote: 'smaller boat can be safer in the sense that a compact cabin doesn't have a lot of room to fall in the case of a knockdown, and usually has handholds everywhere.' This statement makes sense. I got involved with my 27' sailboat in 40 foot waves. My wife and I were unable to remain inside the cabin. First thing, the boat has to be steered up and down the crests. The boat was not the problem. It's me that was the problem. I was throwing up most of the time and could not hold any food or liquid. I was tied to the cockpit with a plastic bucket between my legs. Most sailboats will survive a severe storm it's the human that can't. This is basically my point: the crew, not the boat, is the weak link. That's been proven for years, is case-studied in books like "Heavy Weather Sailing", and is found in the old saying: "don't leave the boat until you have to step up into the life raft". Recall the Westsail 32 of the "Perfect Storm"...the real story is interesting in that the skipper who wanted to stay with the boat fared worse in the rescue than the boat...which safely grounded itself! See http://world.std.com/~kent/satori/ if you haven't heard this. It's a perfect example of how the right boat and the right sailor can weather (potentially) even the most hellish storms. Of course, if you get killed by a rogue wave, it's your time to go, but a well-sailed smaller boat of certain qualities will give you that much more of a fighting chance than a different (NOT better or worse, note) type that will tend to exhaust and sicken its crew in a lumpy seaway. Westsail 32s, Contessas and the like are great seagoing boats that few current sailors would find comfortable, but I would gladly cross an ocean in them because of their great track record as "survival boats" that "take care" of their skippers in a way a lot of newer designs can't do, because they are faster, bigger, have a Jacuzzi and a garage for the Zodiac, etc.... I like steel cutters and ketches made for the North Sea for the same reason...not fast, but easier sailing in waves and can sustain a lot of punishment. Read the post-war early cruising stories. Not only were most of those boats wooden, they were 30 feet or less (Wanderer II and III and the Roths, Pardeys and so on come to mind), had oil lamps, canvas sails, hank-ons, wooden masts and a compass and sextant. Maybe the best-equipped would have a battery radio (receive only!), and three, instead of two, small one-speed winches. Typically, they would self-steer, and rigged twin headsails for downwind work. All pumping was manual, and if they had inboards, they were one-cylinder gas or paraffin engines or heavy diesels that might give four knots in a flat sea. They would be narrow, deep and dark below, because lots of light meant lots of places for water to get in, and that meant more pumping. On the up side, they might feature carpets, bookshelves and small fireplaces to make everything snug. I have the impression that if my boat would have been larger I would not have been able to go up and down the 40 foot waves. That does not mean that I do not want a larger boat! As do we all, but like anything else, there's a tradeoff. I have decided personally to restrict my "dream boat for world cruising" search to the 38 to 45 foot range, because less is too small for stores and one wife and one kid plus me and a workbench G and 45 feet is about the limit for sail handling without complex mechanical aids. Even then, I would prefer a split yawl or ketch rig so I wouldn't need a monster main or genoa.,,and I believe (currently) 45 feet is my limit. If my wife was six feet tall instead of five feet, I might go 50 feet, but she's unlikely to grow now! R. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
I would not take a Nimrod 36 to sea.
Wayne, a Bristol 27 will be far more comfortable at sea than a Nimrod 36. ================================================= ========== You may be right Jax because I have no experience wiith either. I'd suggest you spend a week on each one beating to weather in the open ocean and then give us a full report on your findings. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
if you are getting beat up in 20 knot winds at sea you have picked the wrong
boat to go to sea on. This statement makes sense. I got involved with my 27' sailboat in 40 foot waves. ========================================= I don't think there's a boat of ANY size that will be comfortable in those conditions. My original statement was made in regard to the routine 6 to 8 foot waves that are found all of the time in offshore conditions. It doesn't take a storm, just steady 20 knot winds. Most small boats turn into a rain forest on a pogo stick after a few days of beating into that. I have been on a well made 48 footer that wasn't much better, and on a 50 footer that was taking green water over the deck every 7 or 8 waves. Not storm conditions, just normal waves in average windy weather, the kind that you get with every frontal passage. Most coastal cruisers have no idea what it's like to do that for 2 or 3 days in a row, sailing around the clock. It's tough on the equipment and tough on the people. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:33:20 -0500, rhys wrote:
Typically, they would self-steer, and rigged twin headsails for downwind work. All pumping was manual, and if they had inboards, they were one-cylinder gas or paraffin engines or heavy diesels that might give four knots in a flat sea. ================================================= Also typically, they would plan their route to be exclusively downwind because the boats they were on were almost incapable of meaningful work to weather, and even if they could have, conditions would have been hell on board. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
"Denis Marier" wrote:
'smaller boat can be safer in the sense that a compact cabin doesn't have a lot of room to fall in the case of a knockdown, and usually has handholds everywhere.' This statement makes sense. I got involved with my 27' sailboat in 40 foot waves. My wife and I were unable to remain inside the cabin. First thing, the boat has to be steered up and down the crests. The boat was not the problem. It's me that was the problem. I was throwing up most of the time and could not hold any food or liquid. I was tied to the cockpit with a plastic bucket between my legs. Most sailboats will survive a severe storm it's the human that can't. That's a good point, but it may be gilding the lily to say that most sailboats will survive a severe storm. Motion sickness is certainly no joke, and fatigue is one of the biggest factors in riding out really bad weather. BTW the point somebody made about survival suits is also very important... keeping warm is key to being able to take an active role in your own survival. rhys wrote: This is basically my point: the crew, not the boat, is the weak link. That's been proven for years, is case-studied in books like "Heavy Weather Sailing", and is found in the old saying: "don't leave the boat until you have to step up into the life raft". Recall the Westsail 32 of the "Perfect Storm"...the real story is interesting in that the skipper who wanted to stay with the boat fared worse in the rescue than the boat...which safely grounded itself! See http://world.std.com/~kent/satori/ if you haven't heard this. It's a perfect example of how the right boat and the right sailor can weather (potentially) even the most hellish storms. Of course, if you get killed by a rogue wave, it's your time to go, but a well-sailed smaller boat of certain qualities will give you that much more of a fighting chance than a different (NOT better or worse, note) type that will tend to exhaust and sicken its crew in a lumpy seaway. I'm not sure that the type of boat matters as much as how it is equipped and what tactics the crew has practiced and what decisions the skipper takes. A lot of cases I've heard pointed to as saying "well this is a bad boat to take offshore" were the result of poor equipment, poor judgement, or a combination. The boat itself did not seem at fault other than bad luck in ownership... Westsail 32s, Contessas and the like are great seagoing boats that few current sailors would find comfortable, but I would gladly cross an ocean in them because of their great track record as "survival boats" that "take care" of their skippers in a way a lot of newer designs can't do, because they are faster, bigger, have a Jacuzzi and a garage for the Zodiac, etc.... I like steel cutters and ketches made for the North Sea for the same reason...not fast, but easier sailing in waves and can sustain a lot of punishment. And it's important, in a boat like that, to be able to take a severe tossing, because you'll be in mid-ocean long enough to guarantee that you'll get one. Except for consistent downwind routes, they have a hard time making passages. Ask some of the transPac guys how the Westsail 32s get back from Hawaii... or from Cabo... Read the post-war early cruising stories. Not only were most of those boats wooden, they were 30 feet or less (Wanderer II and III and the Roths, Pardeys and so on come to mind), had oil lamps, canvas sails, hank-ons, wooden masts and a compass and sextant. Maybe the best-equipped would have a battery radio (receive only!), and three, instead of two, small one-speed winches. Typically, they would self-steer, and rigged twin headsails for downwind work. All pumping was manual, and if they had inboards, they were one-cylinder gas or paraffin engines or heavy diesels that might give four knots in a flat sea. They would be narrow, deep and dark below, because lots of light meant lots of places for water to get in, and that meant more pumping. On the up side, they might feature carpets, bookshelves and small fireplaces to make everything snug. So, you're advocating going back to the horse and buggy? Seriously, I've read all that and also sailed some of those boats. If you want an escape from modern life, it's great... you always have Motel 6 to fall back on (which those guys did not). I think that some of the characteristics of these boats are very good at sea... a kindly motion, for example, a *secure* cabin, inviolable structural integrity (which actually those boats didn't have, but failures tended to be in small bits that were easily repairable with on-board parts & tools). They also broke out the champagne any time they had a 100-mile 24 hr run. .... I have the impression that if my boat would have been larger I would not have been able to go up and down the 40 foot waves. That does not mean that I do not want a larger boat! As do we all, but like anything else, there's a tradeoff. I have decided personally to restrict my "dream boat for world cruising" search to the 38 to 45 foot range, because less is too small for stores and one wife and one kid plus me and a workbench G and 45 feet is about the limit for sail handling without complex mechanical aids. Even then, I would prefer a split yawl or ketch rig so I wouldn't need a monster main or genoa.,,and I believe (currently) 45 feet is my limit. If my wife was six feet tall instead of five feet, I might go 50 feet, but she's unlikely to grow now! We were looking more for a given range of cubic & displacement, rather than an LOA range. And what's wrong with complex mechanical aids? A windlass and a self-tailing winch are both *great* ways to handle strains than muscle alone will not.... faster and with more control than a handy-billy. Neither are prohibitively expensive (especially if they come with the boat 2nd-hand) and neither take prohibitive mainenance IMHO. I don't want to accuse you of being a Luddite but it seems you're leaning that way... certainly simpler is better, the question is to make a good choice of systems to include and recognizing their true cost. FWIW I'd agree with the split rig... it is a maintenance hit but it offers redundancy and it keeps the main truck lower for getting under fixed bridges. On the East Coast there are a lot of places you can't go if your 'air draft' is more than 55 feet (16.9m). Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:44:17 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:33:20 -0500, rhys wrote: Typically, they would self-steer, and rigged twin headsails for downwind work. All pumping was manual, and if they had inboards, they were one-cylinder gas or paraffin engines or heavy diesels that might give four knots in a flat sea. =============================================== == Also typically, they would plan their route to be exclusively downwind because the boats they were on were almost incapable of meaningful work to weather, and even if they could have, conditions would have been hell on board. That is largely true as well, although some boats in the "crossover" period of the '60s were cold-molded composite hulls with race-influenced rigs that featured enough foredeck to work upwind. But yes, many of the older "cruisers" did not work well to weather, for a number of reasons. They typically took a lot of water over the decks in a way unacceptable to current thought. On the other hand, they were also designed to bob free of that same water and didn't ship tons of it in huge cockpits. But in other ways, they had highly desirable sea-keeping characteristics. That why I like 25 year old Ted Brewer/Bob Wallstrom/Roger Marshall/Bob Perry designs, for instance, that in my limited experience of looking at plans and sailing on a few examples in heavy weather, seem to combine a lot of the old with the new and more efficient hull shapes developed since, say, 1960. We have better boats today than 50 years ago, in nearly every respect. That's categorically true, in my opinion. However, marketing to a generally coastal cruising/entertainment-oriented pool of potential boat buyers has meant that some aspects of sea-kindliness have been sacrificed, again in my opinion. There are vastly greater numbers of recreational sailors today, but the number of truly skilled sailors, able to get the best out of their 35-45 foot boats in all weathers, is probably a smaller proportion today than 40 years ago, if only for the simple fact that then, if you couldn't sail yourself to safety, you were very likely dead. Today, you trigger the EPIRB and get into the liferaft and two hours later, the helicopter lands and someone hands you a nice cup of chicken soup. While this is not a bad thing in any sense, we have made some compromises in boat design and general skill level that would have seemed questionable to the Don Streets and the Pardeys still sailing among us. R. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Water systems on my boat - need suggestions, please. | Boat Building | |||
Harry's lobster boat? | General | |||
Where to find ramp stories? | General | |||
Fresh Water Tank | Cruising | |||
Hot Water Dispenser | Cruising |