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.