What makes a "Blue Water Boat"?

Frosty is 98% water.

So who has the most substance. Frosty or the beer ?

 

What you just described was a seaworthy vessel, but can it carry enough water to live with?

A life boat is a seaworthy vessel but believe me the accomodation was last on the list when they built it, so its not a blue water boat.

Beer is 95% water if it has 5% alcahol--hic

 

Funny fanie, I as substituting beer four water in the rations. However, blowing smoke is a different equation.

 

It is worthwhile to note two good books:

"Seaworthiness, The Forgotten Factor" by C.A. Marchaj. It discusses capsizing primarily, and what constitutes good design for resistance to capsize.

The other is "Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts" by the Technical Committee of the Cruising Club of America and edited by renowned offshore sailor John Rousmaniere. This was published in 1987, and while it has lots of good advice, I think it is a little dated towards the boats of the CCA rule era. Nevertheless, it has some good points about boat design, equipment, and handling.

Also, any of the books by Steve Dashew are recommended. He has shown that a well equipped (and by that I mean air conditioning, refrigeration, and all the niceties of life) in a narrow hull is very fast, seaworthy and comfortable. Whereas the two other books listed above speak about weathering storms when going slow, Dashew advocates that you should be able to go fast to stay out of and ahead of bad weather.

And that really is the crux of the matter--all boats can handle good weather, but only some boats (those that are better built, equipped, and crewed by experienced and prepared crew) can handle bad weather well.

Eric

 

I blow the same horn Eric, just like to point out two things.
1. The sailing boat (with cloth) usually cannot escape bad weather, whereas the motorboat can. What leads to Dashews philosophy again.
2. I widely agree with Dashews point of view and came to almost the same conclusions, but... it can be done for half the price to the same level of seaworthiness and comfort. The FPB is by far too playful, too fondly in sophisticated and exotic gimmicks.
and the link:
http://www.setsail.com/dashew/dashew228.html

my 0,02€
Regards
Richard

 

My twin keels do a great job of damping. Even under bare poles in a left over chop, the boat rolls far less and the motion is far gentler than any single keeler I've sailed on.
Blue water is offshore water, a far deeper blue than many coastal dwellers can ever imagine. . It turns from green to intense blue about 100 miles off the Oregon coast. The blue comes inshore on the northern BC coast in winter, then moves a offshore in june ,as the water warms and algy blooms begin.
Brent

 

Brent, we are just saying "blue water", we mean turqoise.................!
And, never build a twin keel boat (except for tidal waters).

Regards
Richard

 

apex1..

In another thread you used the nutshell analogy in regards to small boat strength. This was in response to my mention of the 10 foot yankee girl and 14 foot tinkerbelle.

I'm curious as to what point a boat ceases to be a "nutshell" and becomes a proper boat that is likely to not survive storm conditions in the Atlantic or Pacific due to being "too small"?

Is it the construction method that makes a boat (10' - 50' size range) a "nutshell", or just the overall length?

Or am I missing other considerations?

 

So proper boats bust in storms
Seriously it's a point of engineering not any length or building method thing..
Speaking of a bit larger boats (like some Colin Archers) considered as nutshells are in many ways "overengineered".. Rescue boats.. subs..

 

A Blue Water Boat is able to handle equippment losses with ease.

Engine dies , so the auto pilot is dead , self steering gear does the watch.

Trickier is when the Self Steering dies and the helm is given over to a lashing , and the boats actual ability to hold course with minimum assistance.

This leaves mostly the older full keel boats as the only realistic option, as the modern "cruiser" seems to need constant attention.

"I'm curious as to what point a boat ceases to be a "nutshell" and becomes a proper boat that is likely to not survive storm conditions in the Atlantic or Pacific due to being "too small"?"

AS the boat construction/scantlings is never to scale , a smaller boat should survive much more than the weaker larger boats.

Think of a soda bottle , small and hard to break, tho it may have a wild ride.

FF

 

What prompted my question are the often made assertions that boats are "too small" for safe ocean sailing. However, Tinkerbelle made it across the Atlantic, and Yankee Girl sailed across the Atlantic and from the west coast of the U.S. to Hawaii.

I appreciate how strength does not scale upward well compared to the forces that act upon a boat/ship, and I can see how something like a supertanker can be subjected to incredible twisting and bending forces due to its size. But considering the normal sailboat size ranges of 20' to 50', are those forces that great with regards to the strength of the materials used in building these boats?

So I guess what I'm looking for is the typical reason why proper boats (or boats that allow at least sitting headroom, comfortable sleeping arrangements, and plenty of provisions) of a smaller size (say 20' - 30') can not or are not built to the "nutshell" standard. Or are smaller boats actually safer than most posters would have one believe? Still not sure I'm asking the right question but I'm trying.

And by the term "proper boat", I'm using Yankee Girl and Tinkerbelle as examples of what I do not consider "proper boats", as they were physically cramped and uncomfortable. Yankee Girl in particular was often wet, causing Gerry to develop a bad skin rash/infection. I feel a boat should provide for the physical comfort and well-being of the crew to be considered a good or "proper" boat.

 

No, I do´nt think you´re missing anything, because in the latter post you are on track:
I appreciate how strength does not scale upward well compared to the forces that act upon a boat/ship, and I can see how something like a supertanker can be subjected to incredible twisting and bending forces due to its size. But considering the normal sailboat size ranges of 20' to 50', are those forces that great with regards to the strength of the materials used in building these boats?


And, yes the forces are tremendous, and the boats usually designed to be as light as possible (senseful), for performance reason. That is alright, if we have a look who actually is the average buyer / sailor. Read 999 of 1000 boats are not designed to survive in heaviest wheather.
Surprisingly (or not so, if you understand the reason), the very experienced Dashews (I mentioned several times), went for a light ship at the lower end of the scantling rules, which will not survive a breaking rogue wave (IMHO). But it has the advantage to escape the weather due to its (lightweight related) performance. So, again we have not the "one rule gives the answer" solution.
If you scale up the "Tinker Belle" to say 80ft keeping the scantlings "rigidity to lenght" ratio, you end up with a hull / deck about twice the weight of the customary and contemporary designs. If we translate weight to strength (wich is not really exact but makes it easy) than we have about 8 times the strength of the average boat! In real life it´s closer to 6 times. But it is "the nutshell".
Example: Aluminium plating of 5mm to 10mm = 5x5x5 = 125 or 10x10x10 = 1000.
Now we have moved our boat from say 50 tonnes to 75 tonnes completed dry weight. That means we need much more power, larger tanks, etc. We pay a penalty every single hour we are sailing / motoring for just "in case". But exactly this way I go with my next passagemaking motorboat.

Regards
Richard

 

I can travel from Miami to Brazil in 26' sailboat. I can cross the Atlantic, travel around Africa, cross to India island hopping and cross the Pacific... But would I want to do it. A 50' catamaran would be nicer, but would it be safer. NO. A 70' Monohull would be a safer if properly equip.

See they have the range because of wind power. Put a wind generator get a watermaker.

Personally, I like efficient trawler designs. Your fuel limits your range. But now a days with little money, water, navigation and weather forecasting are easy.
So it is question of what you and your crew can endure and the preparation of the boat.

 

Right, apart from the Trawler, its a contradiction between efficient and trawler. It´s either, or. Moreover, a trawler is not a heavy weather boat! The fishermen would like to have narrower boats if they had a choice. If you go through serious weather, a trawler is slamming awfully and sometimes making no headway! Too beefy on the nose. Trawlers are not very famous for their ability to go fast downwinds (following sea). A long, narrow hull with a fine entrance, fine exit, minimized superstructure, is by far the better, faster and more economical choice. And can be the cheaper to build too.
Just to show another approach for a motorboat. If you look at the picture below, you´ll see the very first sketch of what I´m going to build for me. It´s not a motorsailer, the rig is a "coming home rig" only. The design is derived from a Buehler Troller, but round bilge, larger wider etc, etc. Do´nt value the appearence, I like the old workboats. They do´nt attract burglers, pirates and the like,to much.

Regards
Richard

 

As always, you are mostly right. I said, "I like efficient trawler designs". Not that trawlers are efficient but within the design limitations the most efficient for these. A narrow boat is best, but sometimes uncomfortable. A efficient design is something that works for you not just fuel. Everything is a compromised. After many boats , I have a 72 foot monohull Aluminum, 15 foot beam, 3 foot draft, with twin engines. Some people would say it is too big, others too small. Some would like it wider, others narrower, others single vs dual engines. There is no perfect boat.

Whatever works but if I ever cross the ocean it will be on a transport