We recently purchase a Hunter 340 which we really like. This boat is intended for a intermediate step before a larger boat for open ocean crossings. Our intentions are to sail down the Pacific coast from Vancouver to Mexico to Sea of Cortez. Then possibly either to the South Pacific or Caribbean/Europe. Even though the salesperson says this is rated for bluewater cruising I am skeptical that it could take the riggers of open ocean work. I am asking the experts for their oppinions, that is you the users. Is this boat capable of open ocean work?
Hunter 340 capable for ocean crossings
- Thread starter Velero23904
- Start date
- Status
Few Hunters are ocean ready
PT, Your imagination is noteworthy. However, Hunter's aren't designed or engineered to be ocean going vessels. Yea, some guys have rowed a canoe across the Atlantic - but they have support folks following them and have immediate recovery access. You don't. Hunter's are built to be coastal cruisers. Their design (capsize stability, roll over, and rigging) are not designed for constant heavy seas. Neither are the companion ways, lazerettes (most don't even have latches), or rudder strength. What are they designed for? Travelling inland waters, coastal and sheltered waters and the like. Also, a Hunter 34 would be hard pressed to live on for those many days unless you like "camping out" with limited necessitites. Having said all this, it is possible to travel the distances you discribed by careful planning your route along the coastline, careful weather watches and not trying to do any marathons. Many 34 footers travel the ICW without problem. The bottom line is it's not so much the boat as the experience and skill of the captain. Here's were judgement and decision-making make all the difference. If you're one of those - go for it.
PT, Your imagination is noteworthy. However, Hunter's aren't designed or engineered to be ocean going vessels. Yea, some guys have rowed a canoe across the Atlantic - but they have support folks following them and have immediate recovery access. You don't. Hunter's are built to be coastal cruisers. Their design (capsize stability, roll over, and rigging) are not designed for constant heavy seas. Neither are the companion ways, lazerettes (most don't even have latches), or rudder strength. What are they designed for? Travelling inland waters, coastal and sheltered waters and the like. Also, a Hunter 34 would be hard pressed to live on for those many days unless you like "camping out" with limited necessitites. Having said all this, it is possible to travel the distances you discribed by careful planning your route along the coastline, careful weather watches and not trying to do any marathons. Many 34 footers travel the ICW without problem. The bottom line is it's not so much the boat as the experience and skill of the captain. Here's were judgement and decision-making make all the difference. If you're one of those - go for it.
Preparation
I agree with many of the points made by Ron, but I have a 1998 Hunter 376 and would be very happy to sail the trade routes around the world. I have already sailed the Atlantic, through the Panama to the Galapagos and on through the Pacific in a Beneteau 44 without any fear the yacht would not make it. However, whatever make of yacht you use it must be prepared well. Such things as poor latches on the Hunter lazerettes must be changed to ensure they remain secure whatever the weather. I have also changed the Lewmar Coastline forward hatches on my 376 for the Ocean version as they were just not heavy enough to be totally secure. Many of the yachts going around the world via the trade winds are well prepared high volume type production units such as Jeanneau and Beneteau which are similar to Hunters. However, there are also many of the classic yachts such as Swan, Halberg Rassey, Island Packet etc. There are many very old yachts, some of which look very tired and neglected. One thing is for certain the larger the yacht the more comfortable and sea kindly it is. Also remember Trade wind sailing is not like sailing in the Southern Ocean or the more extreme weather area's of the world. If you are well prepared and have the necessary sailing ability then I would go for it.
I agree with many of the points made by Ron, but I have a 1998 Hunter 376 and would be very happy to sail the trade routes around the world. I have already sailed the Atlantic, through the Panama to the Galapagos and on through the Pacific in a Beneteau 44 without any fear the yacht would not make it. However, whatever make of yacht you use it must be prepared well. Such things as poor latches on the Hunter lazerettes must be changed to ensure they remain secure whatever the weather. I have also changed the Lewmar Coastline forward hatches on my 376 for the Ocean version as they were just not heavy enough to be totally secure. Many of the yachts going around the world via the trade winds are well prepared high volume type production units such as Jeanneau and Beneteau which are similar to Hunters. However, there are also many of the classic yachts such as Swan, Halberg Rassey, Island Packet etc. There are many very old yachts, some of which look very tired and neglected. One thing is for certain the larger the yacht the more comfortable and sea kindly it is. Also remember Trade wind sailing is not like sailing in the Southern Ocean or the more extreme weather area's of the world. If you are well prepared and have the necessary sailing ability then I would go for it.
Well, I sure disagree about
the "camping out" part. I never before heard someone claim that bluewater boats were superior for living on as distinguished from sailing on - especially in the 34' range. Compare the specs on a Pacific Seacraft 34: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1712363&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=32744&url= with a Hunter 340: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1687647&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=2944&url= I'd prefer to cross the Atlantic in the PS, but once I got to the Med, I'd rather cruise on the 340.
the "camping out" part. I never before heard someone claim that bluewater boats were superior for living on as distinguished from sailing on - especially in the 34' range. Compare the specs on a Pacific Seacraft 34: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1712363&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=32744&url= with a Hunter 340: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1687647&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=2944&url= I'd prefer to cross the Atlantic in the PS, but once I got to the Med, I'd rather cruise on the 340.
Pacific Seacraft or Hunter
Doug, I think we're in agreement. The Hunter's are great cruisers, but not my first choice for a blue water crossing. Yes, I know even some of the traditional "bluewater" vessels leave a lot to be desired when it comes to creature comforts. But they're generally better equiped to go the distance (time at sea and miles). My comment about "camping out" refers to the fact that many Hunter mid-size boats don't have the basics for long duration sailing. I'm refering to gen-sets for power (Hunter hasn't come around to production wind or solar generators for general battery recharging), power for refrigeration, navigation, etc, etc., exposed cockpits to the elements and other single systems (no backups). In a new Hunter, you'll get a basic VHF (not SSB) radio, charger/inverter (if you're lucky), depth and speed equipment. All the other necessary communication and navigation stuff, to include enclosures are after-market add-ons. I don't think I want to do the Atlantic with just the minimum on board.
Doug, I think we're in agreement. The Hunter's are great cruisers, but not my first choice for a blue water crossing. Yes, I know even some of the traditional "bluewater" vessels leave a lot to be desired when it comes to creature comforts. But they're generally better equiped to go the distance (time at sea and miles). My comment about "camping out" refers to the fact that many Hunter mid-size boats don't have the basics for long duration sailing. I'm refering to gen-sets for power (Hunter hasn't come around to production wind or solar generators for general battery recharging), power for refrigeration, navigation, etc, etc., exposed cockpits to the elements and other single systems (no backups). In a new Hunter, you'll get a basic VHF (not SSB) radio, charger/inverter (if you're lucky), depth and speed equipment. All the other necessary communication and navigation stuff, to include enclosures are after-market add-ons. I don't think I want to do the Atlantic with just the minimum on board.
A 340 is not for blue water, at least not for me
We had a '99 340 for 6 years and enjoyed it very much. Most of our sailing was confined to Barnegat Bay, NJ, but every year we sailed up the New England Coast, usually as far as Newport, RI or Martha's Vineyard, but once to Bar Harbor, ME including a leg 40 miles from land. As long as winds were below the 15 knot range as was well. But going to windward, either on sail or on power in higher winds on the ocean, or in even Buzzards Bay was bad news. The shape of the hull is such that the boat pounds severely in moderately steep chop. The 340 is also tender and needs to be reefed early. On our cruises we always paid great attention to the weather forecasts, but we could never be sure that we would not run into unexpected white-knuckle conditions. We now sail a 2005 H44 which has vastly superior sailing characteristics. I would not take a 340 down the Pacific Coast with so few safe harbors along the way. But maybe I am just too cautious.
We had a '99 340 for 6 years and enjoyed it very much. Most of our sailing was confined to Barnegat Bay, NJ, but every year we sailed up the New England Coast, usually as far as Newport, RI or Martha's Vineyard, but once to Bar Harbor, ME including a leg 40 miles from land. As long as winds were below the 15 knot range as was well. But going to windward, either on sail or on power in higher winds on the ocean, or in even Buzzards Bay was bad news. The shape of the hull is such that the boat pounds severely in moderately steep chop. The 340 is also tender and needs to be reefed early. On our cruises we always paid great attention to the weather forecasts, but we could never be sure that we would not run into unexpected white-knuckle conditions. We now sail a 2005 H44 which has vastly superior sailing characteristics. I would not take a 340 down the Pacific Coast with so few safe harbors along the way. But maybe I am just too cautious.
OK, Ron - you have a point
We cruised the Bahamas/Caribbean on an old (16 yrs when we bought her) Hunter 34. We spent almost as much on cruising equipment as we did on the boat - SSB, smart charger/inverter, watermaker, davits, rib dingy, solar panels, wind generator, AGM batteries, etc. It was all aftermarket and custom installed. I notice that the PS in the link doesn't have any of these things except SSB and AGM bateries. Few of these things are standard equipment on any new boat. A used bluewater boat is probably more likely to have extra cruising eqipment. But that's because it's more likely to have been used for cruising not because the manufacturer builds all of them that way. Probably, it's better to have equipment factory installed, but if you buy used ....... Either way it costs extra, and any cruiser class boat can be equipped to be more or less self-sufficient.
We cruised the Bahamas/Caribbean on an old (16 yrs when we bought her) Hunter 34. We spent almost as much on cruising equipment as we did on the boat - SSB, smart charger/inverter, watermaker, davits, rib dingy, solar panels, wind generator, AGM batteries, etc. It was all aftermarket and custom installed. I notice that the PS in the link doesn't have any of these things except SSB and AGM bateries. Few of these things are standard equipment on any new boat. A used bluewater boat is probably more likely to have extra cruising eqipment. But that's because it's more likely to have been used for cruising not because the manufacturer builds all of them that way. Probably, it's better to have equipment factory installed, but if you buy used ....... Either way it costs extra, and any cruiser class boat can be equipped to be more or less self-sufficient.
It's all relevant...
I think we as individuals have much different expectations of what we "think" and what's possible. Unsure why this is other than the old American think of "Bigger is Better". I worked with a Japanese Electrical Engineer for 10 years. Prior to coming to the USA he'd built a 23' boat in Japan, since his stay in the USA was going to be long he sold everything before coming, including the 23' sailboat. He'd spoke of his boat many times during the years. After he returned to Japan for a visit he learned the new owner of the 23' boat had sailed it Around the World (single handed). The trip was documented in a Japanese Sailing magazine. I have a copy of the magazine... but I can read only the numbers and study the pictures. I would only guess that the Japanese Captain would have thought that your 340 would be much better than the tiny 23 footer!
I think we as individuals have much different expectations of what we "think" and what's possible. Unsure why this is other than the old American think of "Bigger is Better". I worked with a Japanese Electrical Engineer for 10 years. Prior to coming to the USA he'd built a 23' boat in Japan, since his stay in the USA was going to be long he sold everything before coming, including the 23' sailboat. He'd spoke of his boat many times during the years. After he returned to Japan for a visit he learned the new owner of the 23' boat had sailed it Around the World (single handed). The trip was documented in a Japanese Sailing magazine. I have a copy of the magazine... but I can read only the numbers and study the pictures. I would only guess that the Japanese Captain would have thought that your 340 would be much better than the tiny 23 footer!
I agree......just wanted to confirm what I thought
Ron,I also think that the H340 is not appropriate for open ocean, I just wanted to get others thoughts on this. We find the boat quite comfortable with lots of below storage, drawers, etc. but topside storage is a premium. As Larry pointed out, we have also found that the flatter hull shape has caused some pounding, although we are still learning the boat. We are thinking that about a 40'er would be right for us and had our eye on the Beneteau 393 before we purchased this one but could not find moorage in our area. I do not want to sink a bunch of money on offshore equipment for a unsuitable boat. I do not want to buy a major project boat and this is why I am looking more at the production boats. Also, my total budget is in about the 200 thousand bracket, which is also a limiting factor. In your minds is the Hunter line of boat, in the 40' range, built for tradewind style offshore use? What would you buy knowing that you have around $150,000 and would probably spend another 50-60 thousand on cruising equipment?
Ron,I also think that the H340 is not appropriate for open ocean, I just wanted to get others thoughts on this. We find the boat quite comfortable with lots of below storage, drawers, etc. but topside storage is a premium. As Larry pointed out, we have also found that the flatter hull shape has caused some pounding, although we are still learning the boat. We are thinking that about a 40'er would be right for us and had our eye on the Beneteau 393 before we purchased this one but could not find moorage in our area. I do not want to sink a bunch of money on offshore equipment for a unsuitable boat. I do not want to buy a major project boat and this is why I am looking more at the production boats. Also, my total budget is in about the 200 thousand bracket, which is also a limiting factor. In your minds is the Hunter line of boat, in the 40' range, built for tradewind style offshore use? What would you buy knowing that you have around $150,000 and would probably spend another 50-60 thousand on cruising equipment?
The short answer is No - but
I think it’s safe to say that no Beneteaus, Catalinas, or Hunters are going to be on anyone’s top ten list for crossing oceans or circumnavigating. Nevertheless, there are more than a few people doing this with them anyway. See: http://www.cruiser.co.za/hostmelon.asp - 15 years cruising all over the world on a Jeanneau Sun Fizz (this boat isn’t on anyone’s top ten list either). You need to refine your cruising plans and spend some time thinking about your cruising life style before you decide what boat you need/want. You say you might sail down to the Sea of Cortez and then go onto sail the South Pacific. Well, from the Sea of Cortez to the Marquesas is about a 4 week sail. You can pick your season and a couple days of weather forecasts when you start, but most of the time you will be 100s or 1000s of miles from land. You and your boat will simply have to weather whatever the sea cares to give you. What are you going to do in the South Pacific? Sailing back to the Pacific Northwest is not a trivial task. Or, you might sail the Caribbean and Europe. Sailing from the US East Coast to the Med. involves about a 2 week Atlantic crossing, possibly with a stop in the middle at Bermuda. What are you going to do in the Med/Europe? Stay forever? There is no good reason to sail the Caribbean unless you are going to do so slowly and leisurely - I imagine the Med. is the same. There is a temptation to think that if you just had a bombproof bluewater boat, you could keep your cruising plans vague because it would safely take you anywhere in the world. The truth is that the biggest single reason that people abandon cruising is that it turned out not to be fun living on the particular boat they chose to do it in. As an example here are two reasonably well equipped, comparably priced, cruising boats: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1620930&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=6064&url= And: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1699466&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1783&url= Most people would consider the Mariner a bluewater boat; few would consider the Hunter to be a bluewater boat. I know nothing about them beyond the ads, but assuming that they are both in good condition - if I were sailing from Mexico to French Polynesia, I would choose the Mariner. If I were cruising the Caribbean, I would definitely choose the Hunter. If I was also determined to cruise the Med., I would still choose the Hunter. Would I carefully choose my season and weather window before crossing the Atlantic in the Hunter? Yes. If I were crossing in the Mariner, would I do the same thing? Yes. My preferences are based on my experience (which does not include crossing oceans - although I have sailed to Bermuda) and knowledge of my personal cruising life-style. Yours may be different, but unless your cruising life-style is very unusual, 90% of the time you will not be sailing anywhere - you will be anchored or tied up in a marina. For whatever it's worth, I have sailed on an old Hunter Legend 40 in very rough weather and it was definitely less uncomfortable than it would have been on our old H34. I don't think that rough weather is comfortable on any boat, but over the course of several days, the degree of discomfort can make a real difference.
I think it’s safe to say that no Beneteaus, Catalinas, or Hunters are going to be on anyone’s top ten list for crossing oceans or circumnavigating. Nevertheless, there are more than a few people doing this with them anyway. See: http://www.cruiser.co.za/hostmelon.asp - 15 years cruising all over the world on a Jeanneau Sun Fizz (this boat isn’t on anyone’s top ten list either). You need to refine your cruising plans and spend some time thinking about your cruising life style before you decide what boat you need/want. You say you might sail down to the Sea of Cortez and then go onto sail the South Pacific. Well, from the Sea of Cortez to the Marquesas is about a 4 week sail. You can pick your season and a couple days of weather forecasts when you start, but most of the time you will be 100s or 1000s of miles from land. You and your boat will simply have to weather whatever the sea cares to give you. What are you going to do in the South Pacific? Sailing back to the Pacific Northwest is not a trivial task. Or, you might sail the Caribbean and Europe. Sailing from the US East Coast to the Med. involves about a 2 week Atlantic crossing, possibly with a stop in the middle at Bermuda. What are you going to do in the Med/Europe? Stay forever? There is no good reason to sail the Caribbean unless you are going to do so slowly and leisurely - I imagine the Med. is the same. There is a temptation to think that if you just had a bombproof bluewater boat, you could keep your cruising plans vague because it would safely take you anywhere in the world. The truth is that the biggest single reason that people abandon cruising is that it turned out not to be fun living on the particular boat they chose to do it in. As an example here are two reasonably well equipped, comparably priced, cruising boats: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1620930&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=6064&url= And: http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1699466&ybw=&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1783&url= Most people would consider the Mariner a bluewater boat; few would consider the Hunter to be a bluewater boat. I know nothing about them beyond the ads, but assuming that they are both in good condition - if I were sailing from Mexico to French Polynesia, I would choose the Mariner. If I were cruising the Caribbean, I would definitely choose the Hunter. If I was also determined to cruise the Med., I would still choose the Hunter. Would I carefully choose my season and weather window before crossing the Atlantic in the Hunter? Yes. If I were crossing in the Mariner, would I do the same thing? Yes. My preferences are based on my experience (which does not include crossing oceans - although I have sailed to Bermuda) and knowledge of my personal cruising life-style. Yours may be different, but unless your cruising life-style is very unusual, 90% of the time you will not be sailing anywhere - you will be anchored or tied up in a marina. For whatever it's worth, I have sailed on an old Hunter Legend 40 in very rough weather and it was definitely less uncomfortable than it would have been on our old H34. I don't think that rough weather is comfortable on any boat, but over the course of several days, the degree of discomfort can make a real difference.
Hard to define exact long term cruising plans
Doug, you are right that we should define our long term cruising plans before we start, but that is very hard. We will be retired. We need to see if we like the lifestyle, therefore the trip down the west coast and cruising the Sea of Cortez for a year should give us a good indication. If we do not like it we can either sell the boat down there, truck it back from San Diago to Vancouver or sail/motor it back up. Maybe we like the lifestyle but in shorter doses, so we leave the boat on the hard and come home for their hurricane season, which is our summer. Then move the boat to the next area and do the same. If we like the lifestyle we could continue down the coast through the Panama to the Caribbean. Then, after a year or so, cross with a group such as the ARC, to the Med. Again, coming back from the Med we could sell the boat or sail it back; at this point Dockwise would be too expensive. OR we could go across to South Pacific, probably with the "Puddle Jumpers" that sails from Puerto Vallarta to the Marquesas. We must stay flexible at this point, thus the trip down the west coast is the only thing in stone right now, we maybe soft stone. Choosing a boat is hard. I am not sure I would want a spade rudder but prefer a skeg hung rudder. I would like to have more performance that a full skeg, heavy displacement hull provides. That said, I believe that they will provide the most seakindly ride. One boat I like is the Valiant 40 but I am sure there is many more out there that are great. Doug, your statement "The truth is that the biggest single reason that people abandon cruising is that it turned out not to be fun living on the particular boat they chose to do it in." means to me that you need to choose wisely and keep the Admiral happy. We are not people who require luxury but we do need simple functional comfort. My luck is that my wife loves sailing as much as I do, if I could pry the helm out of her hands. There is also certain equipment I would want to add to a boat. One is windvane steering, which does not fit on the sugar scoop stern of a lot of production boats easily.
Doug, you are right that we should define our long term cruising plans before we start, but that is very hard. We will be retired. We need to see if we like the lifestyle, therefore the trip down the west coast and cruising the Sea of Cortez for a year should give us a good indication. If we do not like it we can either sell the boat down there, truck it back from San Diago to Vancouver or sail/motor it back up. Maybe we like the lifestyle but in shorter doses, so we leave the boat on the hard and come home for their hurricane season, which is our summer. Then move the boat to the next area and do the same. If we like the lifestyle we could continue down the coast through the Panama to the Caribbean. Then, after a year or so, cross with a group such as the ARC, to the Med. Again, coming back from the Med we could sell the boat or sail it back; at this point Dockwise would be too expensive. OR we could go across to South Pacific, probably with the "Puddle Jumpers" that sails from Puerto Vallarta to the Marquesas. We must stay flexible at this point, thus the trip down the west coast is the only thing in stone right now, we maybe soft stone. Choosing a boat is hard. I am not sure I would want a spade rudder but prefer a skeg hung rudder. I would like to have more performance that a full skeg, heavy displacement hull provides. That said, I believe that they will provide the most seakindly ride. One boat I like is the Valiant 40 but I am sure there is many more out there that are great. Doug, your statement "The truth is that the biggest single reason that people abandon cruising is that it turned out not to be fun living on the particular boat they chose to do it in." means to me that you need to choose wisely and keep the Admiral happy. We are not people who require luxury but we do need simple functional comfort. My luck is that my wife loves sailing as much as I do, if I could pry the helm out of her hands. There is also certain equipment I would want to add to a boat. One is windvane steering, which does not fit on the sugar scoop stern of a lot of production boats easily.
OK - here's something worth considering:
Since you are considering the Caribbean, try a 1 week charter in St. Thomas or St. Lucia. This is not cheap; it won't let you do quite what you would likely do if you were cruising your own boat; and the boat will not be equipped the way you would want for extended cruising. But, you can easily have a 38-40 footer; it will definitely be a light weight mass production boat; it will give you some idea of what this kind of island hopping cruising is like; and unless you are extremely unlucky, you will have a blast. The reason this is worth doing is that more than a few people have set out to sail the world, hit the Caribbean, and then stayed for years - it can be that good; and you do not need a bluewater boat to do it. BTW - the boat you really want was recently sold - asking price was 200K - don't know what it went for: http://www.boatus.com/cruising/ithaka/specs.asp Valiants are definitely considered bluewater boats - they are also notorious for blisters: http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/valian40.htm
Since you are considering the Caribbean, try a 1 week charter in St. Thomas or St. Lucia. This is not cheap; it won't let you do quite what you would likely do if you were cruising your own boat; and the boat will not be equipped the way you would want for extended cruising. But, you can easily have a 38-40 footer; it will definitely be a light weight mass production boat; it will give you some idea of what this kind of island hopping cruising is like; and unless you are extremely unlucky, you will have a blast. The reason this is worth doing is that more than a few people have set out to sail the world, hit the Caribbean, and then stayed for years - it can be that good; and you do not need a bluewater boat to do it. BTW - the boat you really want was recently sold - asking price was 200K - don't know what it went for: http://www.boatus.com/cruising/ithaka/specs.asp Valiants are definitely considered bluewater boats - they are also notorious for blisters: http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/valian40.htm
If I was unsure of the lifestyle and wanted to...
take an extended cruise to prove whether it worked for us, what better place than my own back yard. We've made three extended (two month) cruises in PNW waters. The first year was the Gulf Island group including Desolation Sound, next was Discovery Island group and last year was the Broughton Island group. What a wonderful experience to spend a year gunkholing around these assorted island groups. A place to fall in love with. Terry
take an extended cruise to prove whether it worked for us, what better place than my own back yard. We've made three extended (two month) cruises in PNW waters. The first year was the Gulf Island group including Desolation Sound, next was Discovery Island group and last year was the Broughton Island group. What a wonderful experience to spend a year gunkholing around these assorted island groups. A place to fall in love with. Terry
We met people
in Trinidad who sail the Caribbean 6 mo. per year, have the boat hauled for hurricane season, and then fly back to the PNW - where they have an island home and another sailboat. Must be nice.
in Trinidad who sail the Caribbean 6 mo. per year, have the boat hauled for hurricane season, and then fly back to the PNW - where they have an island home and another sailboat. Must be nice.
folks have been reading too much sales literature
It's always the newbies who ask the "bluewater boat" question on this site. Always. The term "bluewater boat" was coined by some marketing guy to convince us all that a heavy-displacement, canoe-sterned wallower was somehow superior to any boat that can actually point to weather. When the term was originally coined it was used to deprecate such vessels as the Cal 40 and the Morgan OI 41, two vessels that have distinguished themselves as passagemakers. Nowdays, the same sales guys are trying to convince you that their vessels are superior to any production boat that outsells whatever they're trying to hype. (And, of course, they'll almost convince you that Valiants and/or Pacific Seacraft aren't actually "production boats.") Put down the sales literature and pick up a tiller. Once you've got enough sea time under your belt you'll know whether a particular vessel is capable of any passage you're likely to undertake. At that point you'll probably understand that in getting from point A to point B more waterline is generally better than less, but that otherwise every boat's a compromise. What the sales guys aren't telling you is that their so-called bluewater boats are going to take an extra week to get from here to Hawaii as compared to my Hunter. So it goes.
It's always the newbies who ask the "bluewater boat" question on this site. Always. The term "bluewater boat" was coined by some marketing guy to convince us all that a heavy-displacement, canoe-sterned wallower was somehow superior to any boat that can actually point to weather. When the term was originally coined it was used to deprecate such vessels as the Cal 40 and the Morgan OI 41, two vessels that have distinguished themselves as passagemakers. Nowdays, the same sales guys are trying to convince you that their vessels are superior to any production boat that outsells whatever they're trying to hype. (And, of course, they'll almost convince you that Valiants and/or Pacific Seacraft aren't actually "production boats.") Put down the sales literature and pick up a tiller. Once you've got enough sea time under your belt you'll know whether a particular vessel is capable of any passage you're likely to undertake. At that point you'll probably understand that in getting from point A to point B more waterline is generally better than less, but that otherwise every boat's a compromise. What the sales guys aren't telling you is that their so-called bluewater boats are going to take an extra week to get from here to Hawaii as compared to my Hunter. So it goes.
Design vs. Equipment
Very few boats are sold with adequate equipment for blue water cruising, since it will add substantial cost with low value if the owner plans the coastal cruising that makes up 95% of all cruising in sailboats. Equipment includes upgrades to rigging, sails, ground tackle, hull, storage, safety, electric and communications systems. The Transpac Race Manual has a good checklist for many of these systems. Henk Meuzelaar posted a photo essay a while back that shows his mods to a 40+ foot Hunter to prepare it for extended cruising in the South Pacific. Design is another question. Some boats were simply not designed for extended blue water cruises. Performance ratios provide good indicators of the compromises the designer made for any specific design. With a capsize screen of 2.1, and a comfort factor of 21.5, the Hunter 340 is clearly not designed for blue water cruising. But it is a roomy and comfortable coastal cruiser - we really enjoyed the 340 we chartered in the North Channel. Length, by the way does not mean blue water safety. With a capsize screen of 1.85 and a comfort factor of 26.0, the Cherubini Hunter 33 is a good blue water design - although most are not eguipped for it. There are other designs at and below 30 feet that show up well. A review of previous threads on this subject (search the archives for "bluewater" will reveal a number of other ideas beyond this discussion to date. I highly recommend them. David Lady Lillie
Very few boats are sold with adequate equipment for blue water cruising, since it will add substantial cost with low value if the owner plans the coastal cruising that makes up 95% of all cruising in sailboats. Equipment includes upgrades to rigging, sails, ground tackle, hull, storage, safety, electric and communications systems. The Transpac Race Manual has a good checklist for many of these systems. Henk Meuzelaar posted a photo essay a while back that shows his mods to a 40+ foot Hunter to prepare it for extended cruising in the South Pacific. Design is another question. Some boats were simply not designed for extended blue water cruises. Performance ratios provide good indicators of the compromises the designer made for any specific design. With a capsize screen of 2.1, and a comfort factor of 21.5, the Hunter 340 is clearly not designed for blue water cruising. But it is a roomy and comfortable coastal cruiser - we really enjoyed the 340 we chartered in the North Channel. Length, by the way does not mean blue water safety. With a capsize screen of 1.85 and a comfort factor of 26.0, the Cherubini Hunter 33 is a good blue water design - although most are not eguipped for it. There are other designs at and below 30 feet that show up well. A review of previous threads on this subject (search the archives for "bluewater" will reveal a number of other ideas beyond this discussion to date. I highly recommend them. David Lady Lillie
length and safety certainly correspond
Would you rather outrun a gale in a boat with a hull speed of nine knots or seven knots? How much more fatiqued will your crew be making a passage in 15 days than the other crew who makes the same passage in ten? How much more hobby-horsing will a 33 footer do in six-foot wind chop as compared to a 46 footer? How much less spray makes it into the cockpit when your dodger is 40 feet aft of the bow? How much bigger a wave is it going to take to knock down a boat displacing 15 tons than a boat displacing five? get real. you can have your capsize ratio any day. I'll take LWL. (Capsize ratio on my H46LE, by the way, is 1.866.)
Would you rather outrun a gale in a boat with a hull speed of nine knots or seven knots? How much more fatiqued will your crew be making a passage in 15 days than the other crew who makes the same passage in ten? How much more hobby-horsing will a 33 footer do in six-foot wind chop as compared to a 46 footer? How much less spray makes it into the cockpit when your dodger is 40 feet aft of the bow? How much bigger a wave is it going to take to knock down a boat displacing 15 tons than a boat displacing five? get real. you can have your capsize ratio any day. I'll take LWL. (Capsize ratio on my H46LE, by the way, is 1.866.)
It's not really about the boat anyway
People have crossed oceans in everything you can think of, many, many times. Just for example, the Around Alone boats would fit no one's classic blue water boat specs. It's all about the skipper and the preparation. A good skipper can safely cruise pretty much anything. An ill-prepared skipper may well need a rescue from their Pacific Seacraft.
People have crossed oceans in everything you can think of, many, many times. Just for example, the Around Alone boats would fit no one's classic blue water boat specs. It's all about the skipper and the preparation. A good skipper can safely cruise pretty much anything. An ill-prepared skipper may well need a rescue from their Pacific Seacraft.
OK John, I'll bite.
The Hunter 466 actually compares closely to the 70's H 33 according to the specs on this site. "Your comment" - my response "Would you rather outrun a gale in a boat with a hull speed of nine (8.9) knots or seven knots?" - I doubt any cruising boats often outrun gales. The 28% higher hull speed is an advantage, though. "How much more fatiqued will your crew be making a passage in 15 days than the other crew who makes the same passage in ten?" - That's 12.8 days versus 10. And the real answer is what does the crew want to be doing? I thought blue water cruising is about relaxing on passages. Fatigue really relates to comfort, on which the boats are equivalent. "How much more hobby-horsing will a 33 footer do in six-foot wind chop as compared to a 46 footer?" - Longer overhangs and d/l on the 33 (real helps in rough weather) make these boats roughly equivalent for comfort. The comfort factor on the 33 is 26.0, on the 46 26.7. Most blue water cruising involves long swells, anyway. "How much less spray makes it into the cockpit when your dodger is 40 feet aft of the bow?" - Good question. The vertical bow on the 466 is probably allowing _more_ spray over the rails than the 20% overhang on the 33's bow. In 25 knots of wind, most of that spray will arrive at your cockpit. Also, the relatively lower cockpit on the 33 (since there is no kingsize stateroom below it) gives much more protection to the cockpit from the cabin structure. "How much bigger a wave is it going to take to knock down a boat displacing 15 tons than a boat displacing five?" - According to extensive tests after the Fastnet disaster, displacement has no impact on a wave's ability to roll over a boat. Any breaking wave taller than the beam of a boat will roll over a boat it catches broadside. A 15 foot broadside breaking wave will roll both boats over. The key safety question is will the boat recover after being rolled upside down. Here, the capsize ratio tells us that the boats are roughly equivalent, with a slight advantage to the 33! (33:1.85; 466:1.89) "get real. you can have your capsize ratio any day. I'll take LWL. (Capsize ratio on my H46LE, by the way, is 1.866.)" - You just proved my point! If the designer of your 46LE had given it the broad beam of a modern sled, (with a capsize ratio over 2.1) you would be unlikely to roll back to vertical. Boat design _is_ important to boat performance, regardless of the length. In this case, a modern 466 looks a lot like the 33 on the points you raised, with the sole exception of hull speed. In fact there are a number of modern 40 footers that are _not_ designed for blue water, as the 340 is clearly not. There are good books on cruising boat design that explore the real issues. I'd encourage anyone planning blue water cruising to buy a couple, and get comfortable with those issues before choosing a boat. David Lady Lillie
The Hunter 466 actually compares closely to the 70's H 33 according to the specs on this site. "Your comment" - my response "Would you rather outrun a gale in a boat with a hull speed of nine (8.9) knots or seven knots?" - I doubt any cruising boats often outrun gales. The 28% higher hull speed is an advantage, though. "How much more fatiqued will your crew be making a passage in 15 days than the other crew who makes the same passage in ten?" - That's 12.8 days versus 10. And the real answer is what does the crew want to be doing? I thought blue water cruising is about relaxing on passages. Fatigue really relates to comfort, on which the boats are equivalent. "How much more hobby-horsing will a 33 footer do in six-foot wind chop as compared to a 46 footer?" - Longer overhangs and d/l on the 33 (real helps in rough weather) make these boats roughly equivalent for comfort. The comfort factor on the 33 is 26.0, on the 46 26.7. Most blue water cruising involves long swells, anyway. "How much less spray makes it into the cockpit when your dodger is 40 feet aft of the bow?" - Good question. The vertical bow on the 466 is probably allowing _more_ spray over the rails than the 20% overhang on the 33's bow. In 25 knots of wind, most of that spray will arrive at your cockpit. Also, the relatively lower cockpit on the 33 (since there is no kingsize stateroom below it) gives much more protection to the cockpit from the cabin structure. "How much bigger a wave is it going to take to knock down a boat displacing 15 tons than a boat displacing five?" - According to extensive tests after the Fastnet disaster, displacement has no impact on a wave's ability to roll over a boat. Any breaking wave taller than the beam of a boat will roll over a boat it catches broadside. A 15 foot broadside breaking wave will roll both boats over. The key safety question is will the boat recover after being rolled upside down. Here, the capsize ratio tells us that the boats are roughly equivalent, with a slight advantage to the 33! (33:1.85; 466:1.89) "get real. you can have your capsize ratio any day. I'll take LWL. (Capsize ratio on my H46LE, by the way, is 1.866.)" - You just proved my point! If the designer of your 46LE had given it the broad beam of a modern sled, (with a capsize ratio over 2.1) you would be unlikely to roll back to vertical. Boat design _is_ important to boat performance, regardless of the length. In this case, a modern 466 looks a lot like the 33 on the points you raised, with the sole exception of hull speed. In fact there are a number of modern 40 footers that are _not_ designed for blue water, as the 340 is clearly not. There are good books on cruising boat design that explore the real issues. I'd encourage anyone planning blue water cruising to buy a couple, and get comfortable with those issues before choosing a boat. David Lady Lillie
this is a frivilous argument
between a number of folks who never did it. There is a sailor now posting his updates on the Sailnet Hunter forum from Indonesia aboard his H 326. As Phil said, it's the skipper, not the boat.
between a number of folks who never did it. There is a sailor now posting his updates on the Sailnet Hunter forum from Indonesia aboard his H 326. As Phil said, it's the skipper, not the boat.
- Status