"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