Mic wrote:
In the process of researching the differences between a Grampian 26
and a Bayfield 25

They're quite different boats. The Grampian 26 is a fairly typical
racer-cruiser of her era, the Bayfield 25 is crab-crusher.

As for the long winded discussion about "blue water capable," much of it
is hogwash, much of the rest is pablum intended to soothe the people who
want a rational reason to buy a crab-crusher. If you want one, and can
afford it, buy one! Don't prattle about how much yarrer it is.



Date: Jan. 31 2005 8:21 PM
Author: Jeff_H )

"... following the research process that resulted in STIX, it should be
understood that the purpose in developing the CE Directive for
Recreational Watercraft, of which STIX is a component, was never to
extablish an absolute standard for vessels going offshore."

Partly because it is impossible to quantify the destructive power which
the sea might or might not unleash upon a cruising sailboat at any given
time; but the biggest factor is that the skipper's knowledge & skill is
the overwhelmingly biggest factor in the seaworthiness of any vessel.


(more from Jeff) "... Instead it
was intended to develop a minimum and easily quantifiable standard
that all of the CE countries could agree upon. In doing so, key
calculations and measurements were omitted from the standards because
member nations considered them to be onerous."

And also because the builders did not want to be muzzled by strict
engineering standards about how strongly boats must be built. Please
notice that those damned awful racing sailors aren't so squeamish, and
have put some rather demanding math into their required safety standards
for the big offshore races.

In short, if a crab-crusher can't pass a test that a VOC racer can, why
in heck would anybody in their right mind claim the crab-crusher was
more seaworthy or more "blue-water capable"? Yet you see this done all
the time.


I think some of these comments must have been written a long time ago

"When I think of a coastal cruiser vs. a dedicated offshore boat, there
are a number attributes that I look for:

-Cockpit:
A comfortable cockpit for lounging is very important on a coastal
cruiser. It should be larger than an offshore boat to accommodate a
larger number of people, which is OK since pooping is less likely to
occur doing coastal work.

Actually this is doubly false. Waves closer to shore are likely to be
steeper & breaking, weather is likely to change more quickly, and
lastly, the relation of cockpit size to the danger of getting pooped
should be viewed thru the perspective of reserve bouyancy in the aft
hull sections. A boat with a tiny cockpit (such as found in all the
old-timey crab crushers) and very little reserve bouyancy is greater
danger, especially if she has small cockpit drains. An open transom is
the best way to clear the cockpit, it can't clog or sink the boat via a
failed thru-hull. Yet many 'blue-water sailors' condemn open transoms as
unseaworthy. In fact, one once told me that our open transom boat (a
small trailerable which made no pretense of being a passagemaker) was
death trap.



-Deck hardwa
While gear for offshore boats need to be simple and very robust,
coastal cruisers need to be able to quickly adapt to changing
conditions. Greater purchase, lower friction hardware, easy to reach
cockpit-lead control lines, all make for quicker and easier
adjustments

Uh huh. And so a 'blue-water' craft should have high friction hardware
and unreachable control lines? Once again, the racers lead the way here.
Boats have been sailed *hard* all the way around the world, with an
array of low-friction blocks, crew-friendly cockpit layouts, roller
furlers, self-tailing winches, and all the rest intended to make the rig
easy to handle.



"... There is a big difference in the gear needed when
‘we’ll tack tomorrow or the next day vs. auto-tacking or short tacking
up a creek."

I disagree strongly. A boat that is unhandy is stays, has a large slow
turning radius, and a rig that is difficult to handle, is in danger any
time she is close to shore or another vessel.


-Displacement:
Offshore boats need to be heavier.

Not really.

... They carry more stuff, period.

Why can't a light boat with good reserve bouyancy "carry more stuff"? In
fact, the whole issue of added weight is related more to reserve
bouyancy than initial (unloaded) displacement.

Now here's some good advice:

"I suggest that a better way to go is to start with the displacement
that makes sense for your needs and then look for a longer boat with
that displacement. That will generally result in a boat that is more
seaworthy, easier on the crew to sail, have a more comfortable motion,
have a greater carrying capacity, have more room on board, and be
faster as well."

Agreed with the exception of more comfortable motion. The motion may or
may not be noticably less comfortable, but increasing length for a given
disp necessarily lowers the L/D ratio which results in a bouncier ride.

" .... Since purchase, and maintenance costs are generally
proportional to the displacement of the boat the longer boat of the
same displacement will often have similar maintenance costs."

Agreed somewhat. Complexity is really what drives up maintenance costs.
Less gear & simpler gear, and thorough technical knowledge on the part
of the crew, is the way to reduce maintenance time & costs... remember,
cruising is defined as 'fixing your boat in exotic & inconvenient
locations' so the more time you spend on maintenance, the less time
cruising.



"It is important to understand that in and of itself, weight does
nothing good for a boat."

Hear hear.

Uffa Fox once said, "The only vehicle which benefits from added weight
is a steam roller."

... Weight does not add strength. It does not
make for a more comfortable motion.

I disagree on this last. It does, but it's probably not the prime factor
in differing 'motion comfort' between boats of similar D/L.



-Ventilation:
Good ventilation is very critical to both types.

You bet it is, and so are good screens. Lack of *useable* ventilation,
or ventilation that spits water, will result in a swampy dank cabin in
which it is impossible to be comfortable. And swarms of bugs will also
render the cabin very unpleasant.

Frankly, I think the term "blue water cruiser" is a marketing gimmick.
Capable skippers can & have circumnavigated in unlikely vessels such as
a shoal draft oyster sloop ballasted with loose rocks (Slocum's SPRAY,
of course) or Indian war canoes rigged for sail. The way to have a
seaworthy boat is to learn how to sail as thoroughly as you can. Then
you'll have your opinions about what boat is best, and what's more,
you'll know how to get the best out of her.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Well, I was gonna prepare a lengthy reply; but... What Doug said!

Frank wrote:
Well, I was gonna prepare a lengthy reply; but... What Doug said!


Don't hold back, I got my asbestos suit (and tinfoil beanie) on

DSK

Back to the Grampian vs Bayfield beginning.
Having sailed both, one down the ditch, I mailed directly to Mic, the
original poster.
I received two mail watchers replies that his site was not going to be
able to respond to me, because there is "something" wrong there.and my
AV detected it. I went back to the thread and Mic never came back. I am
new to this and neither want to cause a problem or be one.Any comments?

tigerregis wrote:
Back to the Grampian vs Bayfield beginning.
Having sailed both, one down the ditch, I mailed directly to Mic, the
original poster.
I received two mail watchers replies that his site was not going to be
able to respond to me, because there is "something" wrong there.and my
AV detected it. I went back to the thread and Mic never came back. I am
new to this and neither want to cause a problem or be one.Any comments?


I always reply back on the newsgroup unless directed to do differently.
If he's interested, he'll be back.

On 16 Jun 2005 15:23:32 -0700, "tigerregis"
wrote:

Back to the Grampian vs Bayfield beginning.
Having sailed both, one down the ditch, I mailed directly to Mic, the
original poster.
I received two mail watchers replies that his site was not going to be
able to respond to me, because there is "something" wrong there.and my
AV detected it. I went back to the thread and Mic never came back. I am
new to this and neither want to cause a problem or be one.Any comments?

Yep I still participate in the newsgroup, normally that is where you
should post your comments/responses. A sort of "share the knowledge"
puropse and concept of Usenet. Many email address are "munged"
distorted so as to not get farmed and used to spam you with unwanted
email solicitations.

Many contribute to usenet in a positive way. Others just see it as a
place to be nasty. What I havent figured out is if it take more work
to be nasty than nice, why is it that some want to do more
unproductive work? Go figure...

Thats great that you actually sailed a Grampian 26 and been on a
Bayfield 25, both are common and totally different as distinguised by
their rudders and keels, which significantly effect the manner in
which they work best and worst.

I have heard that a B25 circumnavigated, but havent seen any logs or
data as such. The B25 claims to have 3/8 balsa in the vberth, now is
that actually in the hull. The infor that I have is not clear on
that. I know the cabin trunk is balsa cored. But the info. that I
have refers to balsa core somewhere other than in the deck, namely
somewhere else, in particular in the vberth????

TIA

The bayfield lost it's one cyl "vire" 2-stroke on the bay and we sailed
to the Great Wicomico to a marina. Sailed is a misnomer as it would
only tack thru 90 degrees and then head up as trim was applied. I have
sailed on many Gramps as they were built in my home town. They are
tough old birds named after a mtn range in scotlland. They are
comfortable and relatively stiff and will take a lot of hard weather

While we're on this topic, do you (or does anyone) know of cruising
books which are NOT written by and for the Crab Crusher Mafia? It seems
like every book I've ever read, even if recently published, starts with
a lengthy discussion about why you must have a boat with all the
characteristics I find unappealing (and often actually unsafe) in a
boat. In my universe, slow and unweatherly are not desirable qualities.


Why are all these writers still living in the 1930s? At best! The
Pardeys are true Luddites, the sailing equivalent of the Amish,
seemingly rejecting anything invented after the ninetheenth century.
And then, of course, given that kind of starting philosophy, the entire
book is slanted in a direction I don't wanna go.

I need an interesting cruising book for the Third Millennium! Ya know,
one that recognizes cutting-edge stuff, like fiberglass and aluminium.
Help!

TIA,

Frank

P.S. Speaking of keeping current, asbestos suits and tinfoil beanies
have been supplanted by nomex and titanium; so get with the program,
Doug! We're living in "the future," a world which is the realization of
the science-fiction books I read as a kid. it's really kinda cool.

Frank wrote:
While we're on this topic, do you (or does anyone) know of cruising
books which are NOT written by and for the Crab Crusher Mafia? It seems
like every book I've ever read, even if recently published, starts with
a lengthy discussion about why you must have a boat with all the
characteristics I find unappealing (and often actually unsafe) in a
boat. In my universe, slow and unweatherly are not desirable qualities.


Why are all these writers still living in the 1930s? At best! The
Pardeys are true Luddites, the sailing equivalent of the Amish,
seemingly rejecting anything invented after the ninetheenth century.
And then, of course, given that kind of starting philosophy, the entire
book is slanted in a direction I don't wanna go.

I need an interesting cruising book for the Third Millennium! Ya know,
one that recognizes cutting-edge stuff, like fiberglass and aluminium.
Help!

TIA,

Frank

P.S. Speaking of keeping current, asbestos suits and tinfoil beanies
have been supplanted by nomex and titanium; so get with the program,
Doug! We're living in "the future," a world which is the realization of
the science-fiction books I read as a kid. it's really kinda cool.

What's a crab crusher?

krj wrote:
What's a crab crusher?

An ostentatiously heavy & old-fashioned cruising boat. It's a mild
pejorative although perhaps it should be a badge of honor for some.

DSK