Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Marc wrote:
There are ,anecdotally, a large percentage of Freedom owners who's
choice of future boats lies only within the Freedom family. I don't
have any idea how this degree of brand loyalty compares with other
makes and owners, but it is vociferous, myself included, and
noteworthy due to the radically different rig and construction
methods.

I understand this comment and agree that it's likely, if somewhat
unprovable. Unfortunately, as I said in another comment, I find the
newest (Pedrick) designs, the 35 and 40/40, less attractive (less
"Freedomish"?)than the earlier ones. So, I wonder what the future
holds for the Freedom line/concept.

I chartered a F35 for two weeks a coupla years ago just to see how I
liked it compared to previous types, like the Mull 36/38. It was
certainly fun, and still more attractive to me than most "standard"
sloops; but I much prefer the Mull 36/38. And, because the 36/38s are
older, they're cheaper. Cool!

Maybe Freedom just needs a new motto: Once you've sailed a Freedom,
you'll never go back!

I pretty much agree with that.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.

Why mention it? Because the guy who got me into sailing lived aboard a
Ranger 33 and claimed that my boat was very similar in handling and
sea-keeping. Certainly the stats of the two boats are not far removed.

So, maybe my answers will help. I would add the Viking 33 to your
list, but it's got low freeboard and not a lot of beam compared to
modern boats...the qualities that make them fast Great Lakes and
coastal cruisers mean they would be a little fatiguing and short of
stowage on the big briny. Or so I think. I know a lot of 'em went from
Lake Ontario down south as far as Trinidad, so maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway:

Will they go bow to wind?

Because of the small main and the long J, I find lashing the storm jib
down and fiddling with the tiller can allow me to crab when the wind's
too grim to safely proceed.


stern to wind? If I'm running, I run, in broad reaches if possible.
Dead downwind is tricky and not particularly fast and can get wet.


or lay abeam?

With 4500 lbs of keel on a 10,000 lb. boat, she stays on her feet
pretty well. But boats like mine and I would think the Ranger 33 do
exhibit an unpleasant "whip" in beam seas. So I tend to avoid them
where possible. It won't hurt the boat, but it's hard on the crew,
something that could be said of a lot of C&C designs.

I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

I have been out under reefs in sustained 40 knots in the square waves
of Lake Ontario (9-10 feet and breaking). I have never thought it
politic to stay still in such weather, and find that my boat sails
well and safely under reduced sail, although I have been quite glad
for the buoyancy in the bow surfing off some of those waves.

Boat characteristics are to a point of far less importance than the
ability of the skipper to sail effectively and with proper seamanship.
These days, it's not necessary in most cases to "get caught" by the
weather, and very few situations are "survival". There's a big
knowledge gap, however, in that a lot of recreational sailors come in
around the 20-25 knot mark, because of comfort or fear issues. Between
25-40 knots is in my mind where the best sailing and passagemaking is
found. If you can learn how to keep the boat going without busting
things in that, the make and model becomes less important. Modern
boats are made to provide "fun times" in relatively benign conditions.
I've found that older styled boats lose on this score because
potential buyers see them poking along in 10 knots, instead of the 30
knots of the open ocean with which they leap to life. Figure out the
type of sailing and the area in which you think you are going, and go
from there. Under 35 feet there are real "blue-water" bargains,
because that's too small for a lot of modern tastes, too cramped, too
free of amenities. It's a very manageable size for a single-hander or
couple, however, and is easier to manage in terms of sail wrangling.
But nice seakeeping designs at 30-35 feet tend to look pokey or low or
pudgy and not like the fridge-shaped Hunters and so on that look great
at dock and give me the willies when I think of them in a proper blow.

Good luck and hope this helps.

R.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 12 Mar 2004 14:19:34 -0800, (Frank Maier) wrote:

Heard great things of Cal
34's.

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

I owned a Cal-34 for many years. We cruised and raced it for
thousands of miles and had a great time.. It's very roomy for its
size and genre and is very fast off the wind, especially on a breezy
spinnaker reach. With an inexpensive tiller autopilot it can be
easily sailed by one or two people. Those are the major good points
other than being relatively easy to work on.

On the down side, the boats are getting old and need to be carefully
surveyed for structural issues. Weak points are the deck stepped
mast, the wood supporting column below decks, the chainplates, mast,
spreaders, and the fibreglass keel shell. Many older boats have
addressed some of these issues out of necessity, others have been
lucky, and more still have lurking issues as do most 30+ year old
boats. Most have either been repowered already or are badly in need
of it. Diesel is the way to go for serious cruising.

People have crossed oceans in Cal-34s but it's real strength is as a
coastal cruiser, preferably down wind. There are very few sailboats
under 45 feet on which I'd want to spend more than a day or two in
offshore conditions.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

"rhys" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.

I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.

The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
keelers of differing aspect ratios). I haven't done much
cruising in bad weather (that's what heaters, blankets, books, and
anchors are for as far as I'm concerned), and my blue water work has
all been with bigger crews (4 minimum), so we always actively sailed
through the tough stuff.

Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
the
wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
Way too much windage too far forward.

I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Wayne B. wrote

I owned a Cal-34 for many years.


Hello from a fellow Cal owner. I have a Cal 25, but even though Dave
and Jaja Martin sailed theirs (heavily modified) around the world, I
don't think I'll be attempting the same feat :) I belong to a list of
Cal owners, and when asked which Cal they would consider for extended
offshore cruising, most votes came in for the Cal 34 (medium size) and
the Cal 40 or 46 (larger size).

Weak points are the deck stepped mast, the wood supporting
column below decks, the chainplates, mast, spreaders, and
the fibreglass keel shell.

I actually prefer a deck stepped mast, but I think you are referring
to the wood below, right? Yes, my ideal boat would be a fiberglass
shell and I would re-build the interior completely. I'm not quite
ready to build my own hull, but there's this guy Glenn Ashmore who is
building his own from scratch (www.rutuonline.com). He is something of
a hero to me.

There are very few sailboats under 45 feet on which I'd want
to spend more than a day or two in offshore conditions.

Just out of curiosity, which "small" boats make your short list, and
why? :)

Thanks,

Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"


Wayne.B wrote in message . ..
On 12 Mar 2004 14:19:34 -0800, (Frank Maier) wrote:

Heard great things of Cal
34's.

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

I owned a Cal-34 for many years. We cruised and raced it for
thousands of miles and had a great time.. It's very roomy for its
size and genre and is very fast off the wind, especially on a breezy
spinnaker reach. With an inexpensive tiller autopilot it can be
easily sailed by one or two people. Those are the major good points
other than being relatively easy to work on.

On the down side, the boats are getting old and need to be carefully
surveyed for structural issues. Weak points are the deck stepped
mast, the wood supporting column below decks, the chainplates, mast,
spreaders, and the fibreglass keel shell. Many older boats have
addressed some of these issues out of necessity, others have been
lucky, and more still have lurking issues as do most 30+ year old
boats. Most have either been repowered already or are badly in need
of it. Diesel is the way to go for serious cruising.

People have crossed oceans in Cal-34s but it's real strength is as a
coastal cruiser, preferably down wind. There are very few sailboats
under 45 feet on which I'd want to spend more than a day or two in
offshore conditions.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Doug King wrote:

Dear Bob-
You take [...] me [...] far too seriously.

Thanks for pointing that out... I'll try not to make the same mistake
in the future :)

As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an
advertising phrase.

And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right? How is that _ANY_ different
from the other rude behavior which we see in this newsgroup? Or is it
OK for _SOME_ members to be rude but not others? Maybe it takes an
outsider to tell it like it is, Doug, but once in a while you tend to
behave in the same manner as the creatures you despise. My Mom told me
once that: "--Only your mother will tell you if you have bad breath."
and Doug, sometimes you have bad breath. Everybody is entitled to make
mistakes and you made a mistake. Whether you recognize it or not is a
different matter and remains to be seen. I will assume that deep down
inside you truly regret your snotty comment which opened this entire
thread and that you would take it back if you could (even if you are
loath to admit it). Please advise if my assumption is correct or
mistaken.

Bob Whitaker
"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time."

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob Whitaker wrote:
And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right?

Oh grow up.

Fresh Breezes
Doug King

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 19 Mar 2004 01:31:02 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, which "small" boats make your short list, and
why? :)

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

There's no substitute for length and displacement if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore. If you like the old Cal's, I'd
probably pick the 40.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

There's no substitute for length ... if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore.

unless, of course, you have to change out a 600 square foot mainsail or 800
foot genoa in building sea and wind conditions.

unless, of course, your back is wrenched from hauling up the 45# anchor and
300# of chain by hand because the windlass battery crapped out.

unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
on a BIG boat.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob, you are learning who/what dougies is.

Doug King wrote:

Dear Bob-
You take [...] me [...] far too seriously.

Thanks for pointing that out... I'll try not to make the same mistake
in the future :)

As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an
advertising phrase.

And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right? How is that _ANY_ different
from the other rude behavior which we see in this newsgroup? Or is it
OK for _SOME_ members to be rude but not others? Maybe it takes an
outsider to tell it like it is, Doug, but once in a while you tend to
behave in the same manner as the creatures you despise. My Mom told me
once that: "--Only your mother will tell you if you have bad breath."
and Doug, sometimes you have bad breath. Everybody is entitled to make
mistakes and you made a mistake. Whether you recognize it or not is a
different matter and remains to be seen. I will assume that deep down
inside you truly regret your snotty comment which opened this entire
thread and that you would take it back if you could (even if you are
loath to admit it). Please advise if my assumption is correct or
mistaken.

Bob Whitaker
"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time."

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" wrote:

Oh grow up.


There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
his own words. All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude." That's all he needed
to say Ladies and Gentlemen. But, instead, when coming face to face
with his rude behavior his response is: "--Grow up." I wonder who's
the one that needs to do some growing up around here? That's too bad,
Doug, as we were really rooting for you on the sidelines. We were
really hoping you were truly different from the riff-raff you are so
fond of pontificating against. I guess you have shown your true mettle
(or lack thereof).

Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker

"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time... but I guess there's
some outhouses that are just festering cesspools and should be filled
in rather than disinfected."


DSK wrote in message ...
Bob Whitaker wrote:
And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right?

Oh grow up.

Fresh Breezes
Doug King

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob Whitaker wrote:
There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
his own words.

In your own words, you seem to be obsessed with toilets.


... All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude."

But I have no need or desire to apologize. If I was rude, it was rather
mild. Your reaction has been on a scale with BittyBill and Jax... both
of whom are buffoons. Do I care about their opinions? Should I care
about yours?

In your first post, you displayed a number of prejudices regarding
offshore sailing, and that you weren't really interested in advice
unless it was either agreed with your prejudices or was offered ever so
humbley.

I *did* offer some good advice, although without any apology whatever
for disagreeing with your prejudices. You got all ****y because I popped
your balloon. Life is tough sometimes.

DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

There's no substitute for length ... if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore.


JAXAshby wrote:
unless, of course, you have to change out a 600 square foot mainsail or 800
foot genoa in building sea and wind conditions.

That's when skill & forethought, and having the proper equipment in the
first place, come into play.

unless, of course, your back is wrenched from hauling up the 45# anchor and
300# of chain by hand because the windlass battery crapped out.

That's when proper design, installation, and preventative maintenanc
come into play.


unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
on a BIG boat.

Whatsamatta Jax, you hate everybody that can afford a bigger & nicer
boat than you?

Clearly you don't think ahead enough to realize that many of these types
of problems can be avoided by thinking ahead. But that doesn't mean it
applies to everybody.

DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob, keep in mind that dougies got to be too old to sail his Nimrod 19.

Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" wrote:

Oh grow up.


There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
his own words. All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude." That's all he needed
to say Ladies and Gentlemen. But, instead, when coming face to face
with his rude behavior his response is: "--Grow up." I wonder who's
the one that needs to do some growing up around here? That's too bad,
Doug, as we were really rooting for you on the sidelines. We were
really hoping you were truly different from the riff-raff you are so
fond of pontificating against. I guess you have shown your true mettle
(or lack thereof).

Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker

"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time... but I guess there's
some outhouses that are just festering cesspools and should be filled
in rather than disinfected."


DSK wrote in message
t...
Bob Whitaker wrote:
And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right?

Oh grow up.

Fresh Breezes
Doug King

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

dougies tells one and all:

I have no need or desire to apologize

and explains thusly:

I was rude, it was rather
mild.

and continues:

Should I care
about yours (opinion)?


DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

dougies, who found himself too old and weak to continue to sail his Nimrod 19
on the bay gives advice on offshore sailing thusly:

There's no substitute for length ... if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore.


JAXAshby wrote:
unless, of course, you have to change out a 600 square foot mainsail or 800
foot genoa in building sea and wind conditions.

That's when skill & forethought, and having the proper equipment in the
first place, come into play.

unless, of course, your back is wrenched from hauling up the 45# anchor and
300# of chain by hand because the windlass battery crapped out.

That's when proper design, installation, and preventative maintenanc
come into play.


unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the
wad
on a BIG boat.

Whatsamatta Jax, you hate everybody that can afford a bigger & nicer
boat than you?

Clearly you don't think ahead enough to realize that many of these types
of problems can be avoided by thinking ahead. But that doesn't mean it
applies to everybody.

DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

JAXAshby wrote:
dougies, who found himself too old and weak to continue to sail his Nimrod 19
on the bay gives advice on offshore sailing thusly:

That's odd, if I were too old and weak to sail a small cruising boat I
probably wouldn't be doing this

http://www.johnson18.org/

Jax, meet fact. Fact, meet Jax. Now try and stay acquainted, y'hear?

DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" wrote:

But I have no need or desire to apologize.

Need, my dear friend, yes. Desire? It has been well established you
don't.

In your first post, you displayed [...] that you
weren't really interested in advice

Is that so? Then why would I post a question in the first place? Maybe
you've forgotten my first post. Why don't you re-read it. Why on earth
would I say: "--What other boats do folks recommend?" if I wasn't
really interested in their advice? I'm sorry but it's just too easy to
pick your arguments apart Doug :)

I *did* offer some good advice,

Yes, you did offer _SOME_ advice. I'll grant you that. For those who
may not have seen the first post, I show Doug's "good" advice below:

On a message dated: 2004-03-12 08:31:43 PST Doug "The Fresh Toilet
King" wrote:

My first advice is to drop the phrase "blue water cruiser."
It makes you sound like you want to be the Tidy Bowl man.


By his own account Doug King is a bit confused and thinks that people
who use the term "blue water" are talking about toilet disinfectants.
As stated earlier he probably thinks that the term "green water"
refers to the competing brand. Who knows what he thinks when he hears
the term getting "pooped".

I'm sorry Doug, but you are just too easy a target. You were rude.
Admit it. In your own words you said: "--If I was rude, it was rather
mild." And I will grant you that as well. It was rather mild and it
was rather entertaining at that. But rude nonetheless.

You got all ****y because I popped
your balloon.

Wrong, again! I'm rather entertained by the whole brouhaha. Soundly
defeating you at your own game is rather entertaining if not very
challenging. It seems like you are the one getting all ****y because
somebody has called your bluff.

Since we are offering each other advice, here's some advice for you:
My advice is for you to stick to sailing in your posts. You are smart,
knowledgeable and experienced. People could benefit from what you have
to say, instead of just dismissing posts signed by "DSK". Try to let
people come to respect your opinion by the quality of your posts and
don't try to get snotty with strangers. The world would be a better
place for it.

Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker



DSK wrote in message ...
Bob Whitaker wrote:
There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
his own words.

In your own words, you seem to be obsessed with toilets.


... All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude."

But I have no need or desire to apologize. If I was rude, it was rather
mild. Your reaction has been on a scale with BittyBill and Jax... both
of whom are buffoons. Do I care about their opinions? Should I care
about yours?

In your first post, you displayed a number of prejudices regarding
offshore sailing, and that you weren't really interested in advice
unless it was either agreed with your prejudices or was offered ever so
humbley.

I *did* offer some good advice, although without any apology whatever
for disagreeing with your prejudices. You got all ****y because I popped
your balloon. Life is tough sometimes.

DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Cripes Bob, give it a rest all ready. You sound like a big baby.

Jax

(Bob Whitaker) wrote in message . com...
Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" wrote:

Oh grow up.


There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
his own words. All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude." That's all he needed
to say Ladies and Gentlemen. But, instead, when coming face to face
with his rude behavior his response is: "--Grow up." I wonder who's
the one that needs to do some growing up around here? That's too bad,
Doug, as we were really rooting for you on the sidelines. We were
really hoping you were truly different from the riff-raff you are so
fond of pontificating against. I guess you have shown your true mettle
(or lack thereof).

Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

I tried to install a fake smokestack on my sailboat but the fibreglass
melted from the welding.

BB


DSK wrote in message ...
Gould 0738 wrote:

The smokestack motif looks a little better on the cabin top than a big FRP box
might, expecially with "PROPANE" emblazoned on the side.

What I really like about the smokestack is the way it attracts the attention of
all the envious cretins who will never be able to afford a boat with one.

Fair Skies
Doug King

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Why don't you follow it?

BB

(JAXAshby) wrote


and, so it goes.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 19 Mar 2004 15:38:47 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
on a BIG boat.

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

I have no problem with small boats but no one should ever be misled
into believing that they are adequate offshore cruisers. There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:50:50 GMT, "Matt/Meribeth Pedersen"
wrote:


I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.

I stumbled on a bit of a deal, despite the extensive restoration and
refitting I am gradually doing. I only found out after I learned to
sail it that it's a bit of a hot rod, and yet built "old school"
enough to take pretty brutal conditions. Or, at least, the blessedly
brief, but still significant seas Lake Ontario can generate. A line
squall here is as bad as anywhere, and you want a tough boat if you
decide to stay out for the filling-in wind that follows.

The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
keelers of differing aspect ratios).

It's appropriate for the kind of boats that are pretty rare these
days. I would lie abeam in a Contessa 26 if I thought it would help,
because it's got a hull like a fortune cookie. Fin keelers get slapped
around too much and if they are carrying sail, they can tip brutally.

Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
the
wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
Way too much windage too far forward.

I agree. I prefer active sailing with a reefed staysail (ideally) or a
storm jib tacked low or on a short (3-5 foot) pendant. For my boat's
design, this is a good tactic. For others, it would be wrong. I find
reading old cruising narratives (Hiscocks, Roth, Moitessier, etc.) and
even racing stuff from the '60s (Chichester, Rose, Knox-Johnson,
Taberly) has helped to shape my heavy-weather ideas. I carry enough
line for warps off the stern, but have never had to slow the boat down
that much. Which I count as a Good Thing.

I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com

Thanks. Even in theory, this stuff gets filed for future reference,
and I do intend to world cruise one day. Odds are, if I recall, only
circa 5-10% that I'll encounter 40 knots plus sustained in any given
passage (I forget where I heard this), and some people cruise for
years and years without ever getting seriously whacked by weather, but
I remember the Scout motto when I am at the tiller...G

R.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob Whitaker wrote:
... Soundly
defeating you at your own game is rather entertaining if not very
challenging.

If you're repeating yourself, you're defeating yourself.

And it looks as though you are entertained by toilets.

Tell us again why you're interested in sailing? It seems to take a back
seat to kindergarten squabbling.

DSK

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.


Depends on the boat. Our Orion 27 (made by Pacific Seacraft) is pretty
comfortable in rough conditions. It can keep up with bigger boats (about 35 to
40 feet) both into and downwind in those rough conditions too.

I am defining rough conditions as over 25 knots.


Dick

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Wayne, a Bristol 27 will be far more comfortable at sea than a Nimrod 36.

unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the
wad
on a BIG boat.

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

I have no problem with small boats but no one should ever be misled
into believing that they are adequate offshore cruisers. There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

and compare that boat to some litewait 36 foot thing made in by Great White
Hunters in Florida.

the Orion is much better.

There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.


Depends on the boat. Our Orion 27 (made by Pacific Seacraft) is pretty
comfortable in rough conditions. It can keep up with bigger boats (about 35
to
40 feet) both into and downwind in those rough conditions too.

I am defining rough conditions as over 25 knots.


Dick

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

In article ,
ake (Dick) wrote:

There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.


Depends on the boat. Our Orion 27 (made by Pacific Seacraft) is pretty
comfortable in rough conditions. It can keep up with bigger boats (about 35 to
40 feet) both into and downwind in those rough conditions too.

I am defining rough conditions as over 25 knots.


Dick



I had a friend who owned a Hans Christian 43 footer. She was at home in rough
seas and 25+ knots.

Hans also made a 33 footer, I believe.

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:41:49 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 19 Mar 2004 15:38:47 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
on a BIG boat.

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

I have no problem with small boats but no one should ever be misled
into believing that they are adequate offshore cruisers. There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.

Very good point. There's a lot of quite small boats that can take
horrendous storms, can go around Cape Horn, visit the Antarctic and so
on. All that's been proved by competent, if masochistic, sailors for
several decades. But "able to" and "desirable" are two different
things. If all you can afford is a small boat, and it will be 20 years
before you can get a 40 footer, by all means emulate the Pardeys and
bugger off in something safe and tiny. Don't expect to be always dry
and comfortable, and do expect to be slow if cheaper to fix and
maintain. Your nautical miles may vary.

Actually, when I think about it, a 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. A larger
boat has a slower roll and time to grab stuff. It's the mid-range
boats that have the worst of both worlds. I was in a Tartan 3700
recently and I thought "wow, nice boat, but in a blow iI would be like
a dried seed in an empty gourd in he perfect arm-breaking
conditions. But then, most modern saloons seem too much like living
rooms to me.

R.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

'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 cants. 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!


"rhys" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:41:49 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 19 Mar 2004 15:38:47 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent
the wad
on a BIG boat.

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

I have no problem with small boats but no one should ever be misled
into believing that they are adequate offshore cruisers. There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.

Very good point. There's a lot of quite small boats that can take
horrendous storms, can go around Cape Horn, visit the Antarctic and so
on. All that's been proved by competent, if masochistic, sailors for
several decades. But "able to" and "desirable" are two different
things. If all you can afford is a small boat, and it will be 20 years
before you can get a 40 footer, by all means emulate the Pardeys and
bugger off in something safe and tiny. Don't expect to be always dry
and comfortable, and do expect to be slow if cheaper to fix and
maintain. Your nautical miles may vary.

Actually, when I think about it, a
boat has a slower roll and time to grab stuff. It's the mid-range
boats that have the worst of both worlds. I was in a Tartan 3700
recently and I thought "wow, nice boat, but in a blow iI would be like
a dried seed in an empty gourd in he perfect arm-breaking
conditions. But then, most modern saloons seem too much like living
rooms to me.

R.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 21 Mar 2004 01:07:32 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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
...
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.

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.

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.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 22 Mar 2004 12:29:10 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

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.

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

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.