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.

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.

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.

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.


not true. what IS true is that in expensive international cruising centers of
the world you WILL find more expensive boats. Generally, longer seaworthy
boats are more expensive than shorter seaworthy boats.

Go to the back waters away from large "cruising centers" and you will find lots
of smaller boats that have some great distances.

Keep in mind that *most* people on the water are scared to death of the water.
Therefore, they want bigger boats because they "heard" that bigger boats are
somehow "safer". Most people who cruiser want as many comforts of home as they
can find. Most women who consider going offshore with their man believe they
need to store a complete wardrobe of clothing and a couple dozen pairs of
shoes.

Yes, a quality 45 foot of excellent seaworthiness is perhaps a better sailing
boat than a same quality 27 foot boat of excellent seaworthiness, but you are
then talking about maybe 4 times the price.

Hold price constant and a smaller boat will give greater quality and greater
seaworthiness than the longer boat (remember, same dollars spent).

There is, however, the issue of crew. A seaworthy 45 footer needs more crew
onboard to safely sail long distances than a smaller seaworthy boat. I have
never seen a woman who could take down an 800 square foot mainsail by herself,
and damned few men who could either.

And few women, or men for that matter, who can raise a 65# anchor by hand when
the windlass breaks.

If safety is defined as space to knock around inside both at anchor and at sea,
then the larger boat is where it's at. If, on the other hand, safety is
defined as arriving at your destination with the crew you have available, then
the safest boat is the one you can handle under any foreseeable conditions.

As in airplanes where a good landing is one you can walk away from, in boats a
good landing is one you can take your dinghy to shore.

Can you spell?

E
P
I
R
B


ANYone who thinks that way is a moral cretin.

You are going to endanger the life of a young coastie with wife and kids at
home just to rescue your scummy butt because you wanted to take your boat where
you were not qualified to take it.

kriste almighty. You should be forcefully sterilized, and your children as
well should you already have childred.

what a putz.

This is from someone who called in a MayDay on a clear, light air day, on Long
Island Sound, because the engine was running a little hot. And then jaxie
complained because the coasties didn't come to the rescue!

Jaxie's exact quote:
"I was on a boat (in the middle of the Sound several miles from
either shore) with a disabled engine and neither the CG nor any towboat service
answered on 16 or 9."

Later he insisted they weren't disabled, just running hot. I'm guessing they
recognized his voice.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

ANYone who thinks that way is a moral cretin.

You are going to endanger the life of a young coastie with wife and kids at
home just to rescue your scummy butt because you wanted to take your boat
where
you were not qualified to take it.

kriste almighty. You should be forcefully sterilized, and your children as
well should you already have childred.

what a putz.

jeffies, the discussion you quoted had to do with the likelihood that the CG
would respond to a voice page.

Also, as I have explained to you before, *I* did not the declare an emergency,
the hired captain of the boat did along with the owner of the boat. It was the
third "emergency" in five days, a time period in which we made just 110 miles.
I left the boat when I was finally towed to shore, suddenly remembering a
"business meeting" I had to prepare for.

Again, I did not declare an emergency. I did try to raise the CG when the
hired captain and boat owner couldn't figure out how to use the handheld or
fixed mount radio.

btw, the engine *may* have been running hot, but I did not check. the hired
captain stated it as a fact and the owner accepted it as a fact. I mentioned I
did not see any steam and did not feel the extra warmth in the cabin an
overheated engine would normally bring, but the hired captain told me the
engine overheated.

btw-2: the CG contacted me later to ask if I had seen a copy of the hired
captain's Masters License. I said I had not and would not have asked to see
one and didn't care if he had one. the planned trip was short (300 miles), the
weather looked good, and I was familar with the waters. CG indicated the
reason they were asking is that the hired captain did not have, and never did
have, any Masters License, and it had been reported elsewhere that he had
produced such to boat owners.


This is from someone who called in a MayDay on a clear, light air day, on
Long
Island Sound, because the engine was running a little hot. And then jaxie
complained because the coasties didn't come to the rescue!

Jaxie's exact quote:
"I was on a boat (in the middle of the Sound several miles from
either shore) with a disabled engine and neither the CG nor any towboat
service
answered on 16 or 9."

Later he insisted they weren't disabled, just running hot. I'm guessing they
recognized his voice.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

ANYone who thinks that way is a moral cretin.

You are going to endanger the life of a young coastie with wife and kids at
home just to rescue your scummy butt because you wanted to take your boat
where
you were not qualified to take it.

kriste almighty. You should be forcefully sterilized, and your children as
well should you already have childred.

what a putz.

Hi folks

I have little experience at sea. I have raced SJ28's in Puget Sound for about
eight years, and have island hopped in Palau and Micronesia.

My direct knowledge is, therefore, limited.

I enjoy lurking here, as it is quite educational, and contributes, in many
ways, to my fantasies and "someday's".

I cant, understand, however, what you all have against the person signing in as
JAXAshby. Maybe I wasn't here when he raped someone's wife, but I have
considered his contributions as useful as most of the others I have read here.

Of course, I haven't the broad experience you all have and may be taken in.

In any case, I intend to lurk and learn.

cheers

oz

Two thoughts:
1. oz, you haven't been lurking all that long.
2. "You can fool some of the people, all of the time; all of the people,
some of the time........"

Major oz wrote:
Hi folks

I have little experience at sea. I have raced SJ28's in Puget Sound for about
eight years, and have island hopped in Palau and Micronesia.

My direct knowledge is, therefore, limited.

I enjoy lurking here, as it is quite educational, and contributes, in many
ways, to my fantasies and "someday's".

I cant, understand, however, what you all have against the person signing in as
JAXAshby. Maybe I wasn't here when he raped someone's wife, but I have
considered his contributions as useful as most of the others I have read here.

Of course, I haven't the broad experience you all have and may be taken in.

In any case, I intend to lurk and learn.

cheers

oz

Of course, I haven't the broad experience you all have

actually, you have more experience than they do. You have been on a boat.