DSK wrote:

Skipper wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/dkjym

To your eye maybe, but not mine. AND I suppose it does depend on what
your definition of is is. While the boat is pleasing to the eye, it is
not the best choice for the stated usage. It's a boat better suited for
inward passage cruising, IMO.

Given reasonable structural integrity, that particular boat
looks quite seaworthy to my eye.

The original spec was for safe and *comfortable* passage. I guarantee
excessive roll would be a problem in offshore seaways with that
hullform. That effects BOTH safe and comfortable passage. Yes,
stabilizers or vanes could mitigate the problem, but not as well as
sail. That low midships freeboard would also insure wet decks. And let's
not forget the starting point for this boat is $200,000+. When you add
safety gear, electronics, and other amenities required for offshore
passagemaking where do you see the costs to splash this boat?

I'll mention just a few of the obvious problems with your choice of the
best boat for the stated usage:

1- Fuel costs for this vessel is about $200+ per day.

Uh huh. And in a ~50' vessel, what would you
expect for fuel consumption?

Considerably higher than for a proper sailboat.

.... Sail might be the more prudent choice.

Yeah, but then you'd have to learn to sail.

Well then, we are always learnin'.

2- I believe roll could well be a problem offshore with that boat's
unstablized rounded bottom.

It might be uncomfortable to a landlubber, but if the boat
is ballasted as stated, there is no question of it's
stability. I'd rather have a boat that rolled & had good
reserve stability that one that jerked & slammed, and might
flip bottom-up from a very shallow angle.

Most prudent and experienced sailors would prefer less roll.

3- Only having one (1) head on long voyages is more of risk than I'd
like to assume.

Yeah many lives are lost at sea that way....

Believe you underestimate the risk here also.

--
Skipper