jspeer wrote:

Me, I'd have a custom, one-off boat built strip planked with glass
(West-like) over according to proven design. She's be small, but all
the mistakes would be yours, not someone else's.

That's an appealing idea. I saw some interesting stuff (in the Gudgeon Bros.
book?) on fatigue for WEST-type boats, and it looks really good -- better than
just about anything but steel. Also, a strip planked inner layer makes for some
really nice interior trim!

But now that people are talking Morrises, if I had that kind of money I'd
probably just order up one of those...

My preference would
be Jack Giles Virtue, or his slightly larger similar boat.

I just Googled it -- never heard of it, and it looks interesting -- at least as
interesting as a Bristol Channel Cutter. BTW, the Canadian built BCC is
practically the same boat as the Sam Morse one, for a lot less money. I just
saw one on boats.com for under $70k.

However, I'm more in the "speed is safety" school -- I'd hate to be slopping
around in the Gulf Stream in a 5 knot boat. So within the realm of proven
seaworthy designs, I'd go as big as budget allows. I think the budget mentioned
allows a pretty nice 35-40'+. But maybe that's my lack of real bluewater
experience showing. :-)

Matt O.

However, I'm more in the "speed is safety" school -- I'd hate to be slopping
around in the Gulf Stream in a 5 knot boat. So within the realm of proven
seaworthy designs, I'd go as big as budget allows. I think the budget
mentioned
allows a pretty nice 35-40'+. But maybe that's my lack of real bluewater
experience showing. :-)

Matt O.

Fair enough, Matt, but consider:

If you're sailing a displacement boat, as most people would recommend for
blue water cruising, your 40-footer might have a waterline length of 30'; my
Giles Virtie will have a waterline length of about 19'. Roughly, hull speed
equals 1.3 times the the square root of waterline length of the displacement
vessel, so my hull speed is 5.7 knots, whereas yours is 7.1. Is that extra
1.4 knots really going to add all that much to your safety?

Of course you could go with a catamaran, but I've never been comfortable
offshore in a boat that is as stable upside-down as right-side up:-)

Jim

On Friday 22 October 2004 1:58 am in uk.rec.sailing jspeer wrote:


Of course you could go with a catamaran, but I've never been comfortable
offshore in a boat that is as stable upside-down as right-side up:-)


Oh dear - that old chestnut again.

Cruising cats do not get blown down.
Racing multihulls use the inherent stability of multihulls
to crowd on more sail, so they can have problems, but
cruising cats are more sensibly designed.

Several Prouts and several Wharrams have circumnavigated.

James Wharram has written an excellent paper on this, you
need to keep the centre of effort low and use sensible
amounts of sail. He also advocates sails with calibrated
strenth which will shred before tipping the boat in the
case of the sudden storm that tends to blow up out of
nowhere in the southern ocean while people are asleep B-).

Taking something like a Hobie offshore is, of course, a
rather bad idea - but you knew that already.


--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Chris Newport wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2004 1:58 am in uk.rec.sailing jspeer wrote:


Of course you could go with a catamaran, but I've never been
comfortable offshore in a boat that is as stable upside-down as
right-side up:-)


Oh dear - that old chestnut again.

Cruising cats do not get blown down.
Racing multihulls use the inherent stability of multihulls
to crowd on more sail, so they can have problems, but
cruising cats are more sensibly designed.

Several Prouts and several Wharrams have circumnavigated.

James Wharram has written an excellent paper on this, you
need to keep the centre of effort low and use sensible
amounts of sail. He also advocates sails with calibrated
strenth which will shred before tipping the boat in the
case of the sudden storm that tends to blow up out of
nowhere in the southern ocean while people are asleep B-).

Taking something like a Hobie offshore is, of course, a
rather bad idea - but you knew that already.

While a catamaran has a better chance than a monohull of out-running extreme
weather, it's not the wind you have to worry about - it's the waves!

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gue_waves.html

It looks like rogue waves are a lot more common than most of us have
believed.

While I'd be happy to sail a cat on coastal routes, I'd prefer a monohull
for ocean passages. Rolling a monohull is not uncommon (I know someone who's
done it). Successfully rolling a catamaran would, I imagine, be far less
common!

Pleasant dreams.

"Jason Keats" wrote in message
...

While a catamaran has a better chance than a monohull of out-running
extreme
weather, it's not the wind you have to worry about - it's the waves!

agree - one can always let some sheet out, reef the sails + other options
to allow for the wind, but what o you do for a 30 mt wave - i remember on my
second sydney to hobart (monohull) the wave height was incredibly scary -
surfing is no problem and a lot of fun, but race boats were and still are
constructed very lightly, coming down the other side with a huge thump
hoping the rigging and the boat would stay together thats scary

enjoyed ur links

david

"jspeer" wrote in message
...
Of course you could go with a catamaran, but I've never been comfortable
offshore in a boat that is as stable upside-down as right-side up:-)

Jim

less chance of it sinking ? - unless you hole both hulls

david