This thread has spawned a coupla sub-threads; so I'm gonna just make a
few
general comments here. As always, this is my opinion from my
experiences, YMMV.

Centerboards:

Like most things in life, it's often the execution that's more
important
than the concept. Well designed and well built centerboards are a
great boon
for shallow-water sailing; but a bad centerboard is a nightmare. Well,
a
pain in the ass, at least.

Heavy weather sailing (bare poles, lying ahull, etc.):

What an imtimidatingly broad topic! There are a lotta full-length
books
about this and reducing it to a few paragraphs here will probably lead
to
acrimony because of misunderstandings; but I'll throw out a few
comments
from my personal perspective.

I've raced and cruised on a variety of boats in a variety of weather:
a
full-keel Alden 42 ketch, a "cutaway" keel Challenger 40 ketch, a
folkboat,
and several different fin-keel racer-cruiser sloops, from light air to
a_whole_lotta_wind. [Brief aside: It's been my experience (not to be
confused with objective reality) that really heavy weather experiences
can
be counted on the fingers; but light air happens all the time. My boat
must
be able to survive heavy weather; but I want one which can also sail
in
light air.]

So, I've never gone to bare poles. I think lying a-hull is a passe
tactic
which probably wasn't even "good" for heavy full-keel boats back when
that's
all there was. My opinion is that experience has shown us that
maintaining
speed and, more significantly, control is a better survival tactic.
But no
one has ever done a rigorous, "scientific," double-blind type
comparison
test. Typically all we have to go on are anecdotes; and boats have
survivied, and failed to survive, using every variety of tactic. So,
you're
still kinda left in a position where ya gotta choose your own poison.

I've come to my position after reading most of the works on this
topic,
talking to other sailors since the late 50s, and my own experiences.
My best
recommendation is that, rather than take anyone's advice here, go do
the
same yourself. Heavy weather in mid-ocean while cruising on a heavy
displacement boat is not the same as heavy weather in mid-ocean racing
a
go-fast design. I've done both and come to my conculsions to my own
satisfaction. I'd say you're generally better off following your own
heart,
rather than blindly going through someone else's heavy-weather
checklist.

Beating off a lee sho

Well, here's where you definitely want a fin keel sloop in preference
to a
full-keel ketch. There have been discussions here on Usenet about what
"weatherly" means. If a boat can point high, but makes terrible
leeway, is
it truly weatherly?

Pooping (including surfing, double-enders, and small cockpits):

Except for the fact that he really liked sailing the Ranger, from
reading
his other comments, I'd hafta say that Matt and I are from opposite
ends of
the spectrum. SC31, Tayana, Baba, etc. are boats which I consider
unseaworthy. IMO, modern double-enders and small cockpits are a style
decision, not a functional one. Well, I kinda take that back. If you
have a
typical double-ender, you actually do need a small cockpit because you
(probably) lack reserve buoyancy. And most of the double-enders
mentioned in
this thread are heavy displacement. That means that they resisist
surfing.
That means that they get pooped constantly. Not what I consider fun.
Or a
sensible design decision. But, Man!, they *look* nautical.

Conclusion:

In a sense, Usenet is like real life, maybe just a bit less polite. At
the
end of the day, you still just wind up with opinions. Allow me to
bring up
my favorite demons, the Pardeys. The have about a bazillion sea miles
and as
broad a range of experiences as you'd ever want. Pretty much every
decision
and every recommendation they make is the opposite of what I prefer.
Do I
defer to their superior experience? Absolutely not. I have enough
experience of my own to trust my judgment for me. Besides, I like
having refrigeration and a
radio; and, with my own engine, I don't hafta constantly ask others
for
tows.

YMMV but that's what works for me,

Frank

smallest boat I have been out in rough seas and 40+ winds was a 22 foot
Westerly, which was built tough enough to take on the North Sea. I have also
been on a Nimrod 54 (Hunter 54) and most certainly would NOT take thing to sea.

I personally know a guy who crossed the North Atlantic twice (once in November)
and then sailed to Nova Scotia (starting in a snow storm in December) on a
Bristol 27. I know for a fact you would NOT take a Nimrod offshore, even for
money.

yes, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a longer boat will have a more comfortable ride in
the rough stuff (and "steady 20 knot winds" as was claimed earlier in this
thread are NOT rough stuff) than a shorter boat. **HOWEVER** a good small boat
can be fine offshore while a price point, large coastal cruiser taken offshore
can make your wife a widow.

Horses for courses.

Also consider that a 45 footer taken offshore should have at least three _good_
crew onboard, and a 55 footer should have five _good_ crew onboard. While a 27
footer (worthy of offshore travel) needs only one good person onboard and maybe
one so-so crew.

The mainsail on a 55 footer weighs four or five or six times what the mainsail
on a 27 footer weighs (important when raising or lowering or repairing or
storing the mainsail) AND takes the same more effort to **trim in** one foot,
AND requires trimming in of maybe 2 or 3 feet for a total effort on the large
boat mainsail of roughly 10x total effort.

This is not the greatest of problems when the winds are under 10 knots, but do
come into play in 15 knot winds, are are hell to pay in 20 knots, and are
impossible by hand in the occasional 40+ knots of wind (meaning you are screwed
unless every last electric winch works and stays working)

I would not take a Nimrod 36 to sea.

==========================================

OK, I eagerly await your report on the Bristol 27 experience.

==========================================

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.

Also typically, they would plan their route to be exclusively downwind

that is still true today for most cruisers.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:44:53 -0500, rhys wrote:

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.

============================

Of course the boat manufacturers are quite aware of the fact that less
than one percent of boat owners will actually go on an offshore
passage of any significance. It costs quite a bit more to build a
boat for that market and the vast majority of folks don't really need
it, and are not willing to pay for it. If you go to some of the
international cruising centers of the world where people have actually
made offshore passages just to get there, you will find very few boats
under 40 feet, and most are bigger.

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.

what good are survival suits 300 miles offshore?

I'm not sure that the type of boat matters

dougies, don't be foolish. *you* are advocating taking a Nimrod offshore with
your statement. yacht brokers, most of them, won't list a Nimrod they know has
been taken offshore, for the boat doesn't usually pass survey upon sale.

Ask some of the transPac guys how the Westsail 32s
get back from Hawaii... or from Cabo...

about the same speed as most other boats making the trip. other than race
boats, most boats on passage will get "around" a hundred miles a day, give or
take some. The myth of 200 mile days as typical is just a myth.

What's more, the idea that the sea is so unsafe that one wants to spend as
little time away from shore as possible speaks only to the individual sailor
making the statement and mabye the guy trying to sell as big a boat to you as
he can help you get financed.

what's wrong with complex mechanical aids?

it breaks. it is mechanical, so therefore it breaks.

btw, equipment ONLY breaks when you are using it.

Frank Maier wrote:
... Tayana, Baba, etc. are boats which I consider
unseaworthy

Now them's fightn' words! I am admitadly biased here, but forgive me if
I and numerous others disagree with you. My boat may not have the
advantage of what has been learned in the last couple of decades, but to
describe her and her sisters as "unseaworthy" is beyond rational, it's
unkind and insulting to a lady whao shows her years more gracefully than
anyone has a right to.

--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

Subject: Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
From: (JAXAshby)


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.

what good are survival suits 300 miles offshore?


If you have to ask that question, you should continue to stay on the beach.

Shen