My friend has a First 285 boat for sale, I'm hot for his boat as I love the look and feel. She sails very well but I don't want to buy and sell again for many years. I love the Caribbean and want to sail blue water places like Cancun or Puerto Rico. Would this boat be too small and light to dampen the Gulf of Mexico seas in moderate to heavy weather ? Would a crew of 3-4 would be overcrowded on a week long passage, or out for months on end? Thank you for your feedback as we search for the right boat. Sincerely, Forest
I'm considering the purchase of a first 285, would this boat be safe for blue water passages?
- Thread starter forest gras
- Start date
I don't know this specific boat but 3-4 people on a 28' boat is tight by my standards. You have to remember people have belongings and a lot more of them than you would think. Even when we go for an afternoon sail I can't believe how much crap people bring along. A weekend living like that would be about my limit.
The First 285 is a great little boat. Super for couples and weekend cruising. Tight but doable for 4. It HAS two private cabins. But at the end of the day; its 28 feet long. No magic can work around that.
Now to your question. You say you want to go Blue Water cruising someday.
A First 285 cost what now; $23k?? Sorry but nobody Blue Water cruises in a $20K boat. If you DO go cruising someday, it will be in a bigger, faster, more comfortable boat. And for sure cost more. AND you'll know what you want. Because right now you don't.
I suggest you buy that sweet 285 and sail it now. Learn. THEN pick your Blue Water boat.
Now to your question. You say you want to go Blue Water cruising someday.
A First 285 cost what now; $23k?? Sorry but nobody Blue Water cruises in a $20K boat. If you DO go cruising someday, it will be in a bigger, faster, more comfortable boat. And for sure cost more. AND you'll know what you want. Because right now you don't.
I suggest you buy that sweet 285 and sail it now. Learn. THEN pick your Blue Water boat.
Offshore racing regattas are usually limited to boats 30' and larger for safety considerations. In productions boats there is no substitute for size. The space is relative as we have comfortably spent 10 days in a 22' boat with 4 adults aboard. Overnighting at marinas I believe made it possible. On the other hand if you keep your passages short and diligently seek favorable weather windows the boat could be sailed in the Caribbean as well as the Gulf.
As luck might have it, 15 minutes ago I find out my friend is selling HIS First 285.
It's a great boat. He is as fastidious about his boats as I am.
http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/53431
It's a great boat. He is as fastidious about his boats as I am.
http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/53431
The capsize ratio of 2.13 says the the 285 First was not designed for offshore work.
There is little if any evidence that length beyond 27 feet contributes to boat safety. A longer waterline does mean more speed, but outrunning weather is seldom a realistic option for any cruising monohull.
Likewise with boat cost. But thorough inspection, and upgrading all boat systems for offshore cruising is a requirement that can be expensive.
There is little if any evidence that length beyond 27 feet contributes to boat safety. A longer waterline does mean more speed, but outrunning weather is seldom a realistic option for any cruising monohull.
Likewise with boat cost. But thorough inspection, and upgrading all boat systems for offshore cruising is a requirement that can be expensive.
I would not like for people to get the wrong idea that if their boat ratios are good that they are safe to head offshore. Boat ratios by themselves are usually meaningless. They are only good to compare boats in the same class and size and can be highly misleading when comparing small boats to larger ones. Speaking of production boats I think there is plenty evidence that larger boats fare better than smaller ones in storms. Not only do they have a longer waterline but are also beamier, with higher freeboard and greater displacement. There is just no contest between a 27' and a 40' boat which may sport the same ratios as to which is really safer in storm conditions. They could have similar ratios but the larger boat will have the ability in the real world of handling larger seas. Of course there are small boats specially built and capable of outperforming larger ones and there are proficient skippers that could safely sail a small vessel through a storm but that is beyond the scope in giving consideration to the production boat class. I would say the F 285 can be a good coastal cruiser but not the ideal boat to take offshore. If you intend to sail the "trade winds" of Puerto Rico or do long passages in the Gulf of Mexico, get a bigger boat.
Last edited:
Simply not true.
Length is by FAR the greatest contributor to ultimate stability in a boat; which is its ability to resist capsize.
That why for every 40-footer you see capsize you will see 10 30-footers roll, and 100 20-footers.
I think we may all be in agreement that when we talk about boat length we are really talking about a classification of size. It is understood that a numerically larger indication of boat length pertains not only to length, but to beam size, freeboard height, displacement and other considerations that combine to make a boat what it is in term of stability. The problem with ratios is that as you reduce the size/length of the boat you are also reducing the other components as well while the size of the sea does remain constant. If we define "stability" not as a numerical factor but in the real ability of a boat to resist capsize you may visualize in actual terms that a smaller boat will generally have diminished "stability" when compared to a larger one. Some are impressed by ratios and can come to believe that their boats can favorably compete with larger boats that may show lesser or similar ratios but that is a fallacy which could result in serious harm to the uninformed. When dealing with stormy seas boat size does matter.
Benny, do you have any data or research to back up your assertions?
After the famous Fastnet disaster, extensive tank tests were performed to discover what boat designs were more likely to capsize, and which designs are more likely to recover. In storms the real danger to the crew is not capsizing, but capsizing and being unable to recover. The clear conclusions were:
1. When struck on the beam by a breaking wave higher than its beam, all designs will capsize.
2. Once capsized, light boats with a wide beam (a catamaran is the extreme case) will not be able to recover, while heavier boats with narrower beams will recover, giving the crew a good chance to survive.
3. Stability curves for a boat give the best measure of the likelihood of recovery. But the capsize ratio was developed to very closely correlate to the results of stability calculations.
That means that if a boat with a capsize ratio over 2.00 does capsize, it is likely to stay capsized, and eventually sink.
In any case, if boat has a capsize ratio of 2.15, like the First 285, you can be sure that the designer, who knows all this stuff never intended it for offshore work, where an unexpected storm can force it into survival mode with no nearby refuge. Boats like the Cherubini designed Hunter 33 were clearly designed to succeed offshore.
Finally, a boat that is a good design for offshore work must still have good offshore systems. The Pacific Cup Handbook provides a good starting point for defining good standards for the hull and structure, masts and rigging, electrical, navigation, communications, steering, safety, stowage, and sleeping systems. There are a number of good articles and threads on this site about these preparations for going offshore.
Jackdaw, a 40 footer and a 30 footer are equally likely to capsize in a storm with 15 foot breaking waves. I doubt you have any actual statistics to back up your assertion that a 30 footer is 10 times more likely to capsize than a 40 footer. Any study of the storms on the Hobart race or of other heavy weather experience backs up my assertions above.
After the famous Fastnet disaster, extensive tank tests were performed to discover what boat designs were more likely to capsize, and which designs are more likely to recover. In storms the real danger to the crew is not capsizing, but capsizing and being unable to recover. The clear conclusions were:
1. When struck on the beam by a breaking wave higher than its beam, all designs will capsize.
2. Once capsized, light boats with a wide beam (a catamaran is the extreme case) will not be able to recover, while heavier boats with narrower beams will recover, giving the crew a good chance to survive.
3. Stability curves for a boat give the best measure of the likelihood of recovery. But the capsize ratio was developed to very closely correlate to the results of stability calculations.
That means that if a boat with a capsize ratio over 2.00 does capsize, it is likely to stay capsized, and eventually sink.
In any case, if boat has a capsize ratio of 2.15, like the First 285, you can be sure that the designer, who knows all this stuff never intended it for offshore work, where an unexpected storm can force it into survival mode with no nearby refuge. Boats like the Cherubini designed Hunter 33 were clearly designed to succeed offshore.
Finally, a boat that is a good design for offshore work must still have good offshore systems. The Pacific Cup Handbook provides a good starting point for defining good standards for the hull and structure, masts and rigging, electrical, navigation, communications, steering, safety, stowage, and sleeping systems. There are a number of good articles and threads on this site about these preparations for going offshore.
Jackdaw, a 40 footer and a 30 footer are equally likely to capsize in a storm with 15 foot breaking waves. I doubt you have any actual statistics to back up your assertion that a 30 footer is 10 times more likely to capsize than a 40 footer. Any study of the storms on the Hobart race or of other heavy weather experience backs up my assertions above.
You can find STIX (stability index) ratings at the IRC website for boat designs that have been rated. The First 285 is not listed there. However, the First 27.7 rates at 28 (Category B) and the First 31.7 rates at 31 (Category "A"). [The beakpoint between A & B is 30-32 depending on the source.] The Oceanis 28.1 rates at 25 (Category B). Most likely, the 285 is a Category B design. With a displacement of less than 3,000 kg (2,794 kg) it cannot rate Category A.
"Design Category B ~ 'OFFSHORE' Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including winds of wind force 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including 4m may be experienced."
A range of boat lengths are present in Categories A and B; however, boats under 30 ft have more B or C ratings than boats over 30 ft.
http://www.ircrating.org/technical-a-certification/sssn-a-stix
"Design Category B ~ 'OFFSHORE' Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including winds of wind force 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including 4m may be experienced."
A range of boat lengths are present in Categories A and B; however, boats under 30 ft have more B or C ratings than boats over 30 ft.
http://www.ircrating.org/technical-a-certification/sssn-a-stix
Last edited:
You're are trying to complicate or confuse the issue.David in Sandusky said:
You said in an earlier post:
That is simply and categorically untrue. I said so as did others. Ask any Naval Architect or expert in marine safety. For many reason that ultimately lead back to LOA, longer boats are safer in both theory and practice.David in Sandusky said:
Just like boat length is a continuum, so are the sizes of faces of breaking waves. And bigger breaking faces are less common, so by simple logic, the bigger (longer) you boat is, the less likely you are to encounter a wave face that could capsize you.
Any make no mistake, capsize is the REAL danger... almost everything else you can avoid or mitigate with good seamanship.
Storms like the one the wrecked the Sidney-Hobart race had 90 foot waves with breaking faces of 5-30 feet. Nobody was safe in that, including commercial shipping. But longer boats WERE safer, as they have (all else being equal) a wider margin of safety.
I do agree that simple length is not the whole story; LOA drives other measurements needed to make a workable boat; and these measurements also factor. So do design choices that are made by the architect based on design goals. Its what makes some 27 footers safer than others.
But if you have managed to convince yourself that your 27 coastal cruiser is somehow generally safer (or as safe) from capsize than a longer boat, I think you are deluding yourself. At the very least you should keep your option close and not express it as fact.
Good info to share.
The First 27.7 does not make CatA because in delivered form the boat's lifting keel box is not permanently sealed from the sea as required for CatA; it only is when the keel is locked down. I have a friend that converted his to CatA (for racing purposes) by permanently fixing and sealing the keel down.
The 28.5 for sure is Cat B and I'd never want anyone to think otherwise.
KG and jackdaw have provided reasonable and realistic answers.
And for those who keep going back to the Fastnet Race, please be aware that while some if not many of those old style boats are still sailing, the issue of narrow vs wide beam boats has largely been superseded by more recent design improvements. Meaning OLD wide body boats were just being introduced back then and the quarter of a century of design improvements, as a result of that race's conclusions, have been introduced.
"Narrow is better" is no longer a necessity or reality.
"The Pacific Cup Handbook provides a good starting point..." is correct.
And for those who keep going back to the Fastnet Race, please be aware that while some if not many of those old style boats are still sailing, the issue of narrow vs wide beam boats has largely been superseded by more recent design improvements. Meaning OLD wide body boats were just being introduced back then and the quarter of a century of design improvements, as a result of that race's conclusions, have been introduced.
"Narrow is better" is no longer a necessity or reality.
"The Pacific Cup Handbook provides a good starting point..." is correct.
Based on what I know, I would rather be in an offshore storm in a Contessa 32, or an Island Packet 30 than any modern production 40 footer from the popular brands. I would certainly want a boat with an angle of vanishing stability greater than 150 degrees and a capsize screen well below 2.00 for off shore cruising.
Stu, popular modern designs have tended toward broad beam carried well aft, lighter weight, and plumb bows, all of which make them less safe and comfortable for offshore cruising. Once inverted, many of these boats are less likely to recover than our '77 Hunter 27.
Jackdaw, I just re-examined the report on the Fastnet race. Waves averaged 25 to 30 feet with individual waves up to 45 feet. The data show no correlation between boat length and the probability of knockdown, capsize, abandonment, or sinking. I have read the opinions of a number of designers. I am largely basing my comments on theirs.
There is, of course, a correlation of comfort and length/displacement for two boats of the same design. And comfort is also a safety factor in a storm. I'm a coastal cruiser, and I have chartered and cruised over a dozen boats from 30 to 45 feet from Hunter, Beneteau, Catalina, Freedom, Fantasy, Ericsson, and C&C. I can say that all (but one poorly maintained boat) provided excellent coastal cruising experiences. I'd choose the Fantasy hands down if I were headed offshore. But a lot of our thinking about design is heavily influenced by manufacturers' desire to sell the more profitable longer boats in their line-up. For those who want to learn more about design issues, I recommend Roger Marshall's "Choosing a Cruising Sailboat," which I obtained from this website.
Stu, popular modern designs have tended toward broad beam carried well aft, lighter weight, and plumb bows, all of which make them less safe and comfortable for offshore cruising. Once inverted, many of these boats are less likely to recover than our '77 Hunter 27.
Jackdaw, I just re-examined the report on the Fastnet race. Waves averaged 25 to 30 feet with individual waves up to 45 feet. The data show no correlation between boat length and the probability of knockdown, capsize, abandonment, or sinking. I have read the opinions of a number of designers. I am largely basing my comments on theirs.
There is, of course, a correlation of comfort and length/displacement for two boats of the same design. And comfort is also a safety factor in a storm. I'm a coastal cruiser, and I have chartered and cruised over a dozen boats from 30 to 45 feet from Hunter, Beneteau, Catalina, Freedom, Fantasy, Ericsson, and C&C. I can say that all (but one poorly maintained boat) provided excellent coastal cruising experiences. I'd choose the Fantasy hands down if I were headed offshore. But a lot of our thinking about design is heavily influenced by manufacturers' desire to sell the more profitable longer boats in their line-up. For those who want to learn more about design issues, I recommend Roger Marshall's "Choosing a Cruising Sailboat," which I obtained from this website.
More thoughts about length:
In the modern product lines of Hunter, Catalina, and Beneteau, it is true that all three design their boats to recover from a capsize at around 40 feet. This is because they want to offer high initial stability, and roomy aft berths, so their shorter designs are very beamy right through the stern. Giving up capsize recovery for boats that are aimed at coastal cruising is perfectly acceptable. Their longer boat designs can carry the desired wider beam without the low beam to length ratios of the shorter boats, so their capsize recovery characteristics improve with length, but this is a function of design, not length. Our '77 h27 design has capsize recovery characteristics like the current Hunter 40 offering!
In the modern product lines of Hunter, Catalina, and Beneteau, it is true that all three design their boats to recover from a capsize at around 40 feet. This is because they want to offer high initial stability, and roomy aft berths, so their shorter designs are very beamy right through the stern. Giving up capsize recovery for boats that are aimed at coastal cruising is perfectly acceptable. Their longer boat designs can carry the desired wider beam without the low beam to length ratios of the shorter boats, so their capsize recovery characteristics improve with length, but this is a function of design, not length. Our '77 h27 design has capsize recovery characteristics like the current Hunter 40 offering!
David,
I agree. My earlier comment, not clarified though, was that in comparison to the Fastnet era boats the newer ones were wider. Since the 80s and 90s, things have gotten wider even more. While i don't consider my boat an offshore cruiser, the Catalina 42, for example, certainly is and has the same wider than Fastnet era, but not YUCK wide, aft sections.
I agree. My earlier comment, not clarified though, was that in comparison to the Fastnet era boats the newer ones were wider. Since the 80s and 90s, things have gotten wider even more. While i don't consider my boat an offshore cruiser, the Catalina 42, for example, certainly is and has the same wider than Fastnet era, but not YUCK wide, aft sections.
Yes and thanks, Im seeing that this boat is okay for Bahamas travel in good weather but far from ideal for long passages especially in fowl weather. This boat will help to provide me tools to learn and handle longer journeys. Probably perfect for now considering I won't be moving south any time soon and can sail and race her here and take some nice vaca off the coast of Florida ect. Thanks again for a good reality check.
Forest
Forest