Offshore Hunters, Beneteaus and Catalinas? (long)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 5, 1997
659
Coleman scanoe Irwin (ID)
In a series of previous posts I started to discuss how to prep medium/light production cruisers for offshore use. Although I have yet to finish that series, reports of poor chainplate design/construction in some newer Hunters have killed my appetite to do so until it is clear which models and years may be affected. Possibly because of such revelations and the ensuing hullaballoo, discussions on this board have taken a decidedly anti-offshore trend with most owners apparently resigned to designate their vessels as "coastal cruisers" and those dreaming of extended offshore passages planning to eventually switch to a more traditionally built "bluewater boat". Unfortunately, the time and cost involved in buying and equipping such a new vessel may well end up killing "the dream" altogether. This prompts me to review the basic considerations underlying my own positive attitude towards the use of larger Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus and Jeanneaus (plus a host of similar medium-light production cruiser brands) for extended coastal and offshore cruising, provided a few sensible limitations are observed. In order to stimulate good discussion, permit me to make three black-and-white statements: (1) there is no such thing as a generic "bluewater boat"; (2) medium-light designs make better allround tradewind cruisers than heavy vessels; and (3) coastal cruising is more demanding of boat and crew than offshore passagemaking. (1 - "bluewater boats"?) After more than 30,000 NM of extended passaging on our Hunter Legend 43 "Rivendel II" over the past decade, I have come to the conclusion that there are no real "bluewater boats" (as a meaningful generic designation) but only "blue water cruising grounds". The famously blue waters of the Caribbean, the Bahamas, the Sea of Cortez, the South Pacific, The Whitsundays or The Mediterranean, i.e. the stuff of which most cruising dreams are made off, is not really to be found in higher latitude destinations such as the North Sea, the Baltics, the Sea of Japan, the Tasman Sea or the Southern Ocean where the water tends to be more of a greenish gray, if not decidedly black, appearance. Fortunately, nearly all popular blue water cruising grounds lie inside the Tradewind belts and can be safely explored with seaworthy, medium-light production boats, built and equipped for extended coastal and offshore cruising. Naturally, we should also recognize two important categories of special purpose oceangoing vessels, namely strong "green water" cruisers and fast ocean racers. Green water cruisers, often erroneously referred to as "bluewater boats", really shine in the higher latitudes. Although with the advent of newer composite materials, superstrong boats do not necessarily need to be very heavy, the vast majority of green water boats is nonetheless heavily built, mostly to inspire confidence and improve seakindliness. Unfortunately, as all of us who have collected too much "stuff" on board over the years know from personal experience, nothing kills upwind performance faster than excess weight. With regard to ocean racers: although we gradually appear to see more fast, lightweight cruisers (whether converted sleds or newly built J-boats, HC50s, etc.) in typical bluewater cruising grounds I don't have any personal experience to contribute with regard to cruising performance and limitations. (2 - tradewind sailing performance) Although many heavy green water cruisers frequently venture into the tradewind belts and are often a joy to to sail downwind their generally poor upwind performance almost invariably forces them into the higher latitudes in order to make their easting for the return legs. There their weight and seakindliness become a major advantage (especially if you are immune to circular arguments.....). By contrast, many Hunters, Catalinas and Beneteaus sail equally well upwind as downwind in the Trades and therefore are not only very much at home in these waters but often have little need to venture into higher latitudes, thus avoiding one of the most common causes for running into heavy weather and seas. The big question is, of course, can these vessels also safely carry you to these cruising grounds? As discussed in my earlier posts on offshore prepping of medium-light production cruisers the primary requirements for offshore passagemaking are proper hull/keel/rudder/mast construction, redundant systems, careful maintenance, a mentally/physically prepared crew and recognition of structural limitations (no hurricanes, no higher latitudes). (3 - coastal cruising versus offshore passagemaking) More often than not, the offshore passage between the mainland and our bluewater cruising ground (or vice versa) needs to be combined with a demanding coastal leg, starting or ending at relatively high latitudes. In fact, a frequently heard comment from circumnavigators is that the worst conditions of their entire voyage were encountered near the American coast.... Hunters, Beneteaus, Catelinas, etc. are often said to be primarily built for coastal cruising rather than to be up to the demands of offshore passagemaking. In line with the abovementioned experiences of circumnavigators and other long-range passagemakers, I fail to see the logic of such statements. Not only is the worst weather often encountered near the American coast but both coasts do have a nasty habit of turning into dangerous lee shores that require excellent upwind ability to keep clawing off while making many potential ports of refuge next to impossible to enter. Moreover, coastal cruising puts a premium on readiness of navigational systems and crew. A single equipment failure (unless backed up by proper system redundance) or a short moment of crew inattentiveness can send ship and crew to the bottom. Not surprisingly, many offshore sailors -- present company included -- profess to getting a bad case of the jitters when approaching an unknown coast at the end of a long passage. In short, if you have your vessel and crew well enough prepared to confidently cruise the higher latitudes of the US coast you are certainly ready to make offshore passages in the lower latitudes (give or take a few remaining technical preparations). Have fun! Flying Dutchman
 

Rick D

.
Jun 14, 2008
7,201
Hunter Legend 40.5 Shoreline Marina Long Beach CA
Well Said Henk...

.. I know a couple that had worked five years on a 32 Westsail only to abandon the 30K passage after 2K because it wallowed, they were sick, too slow, etc. Conversely, we have a club member who has taken his Erickson 35 to Figi and back, and to Puerto Vararta, and all that in the last two years. Rick D.
 
J

Jim A

I no doubt believe

I no doubt believe that Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus and Jeanneaus can safely complete ocean crossing with an experienced caption and crew. Well the larger boats of these manufactures could. The problem is, what happens if there is a severe storm or even a hurricane. These boat are just not built to take. Your own article states “(no hurricanes, no higher latitudes).” The Sea is very unforgiving places were anything can happen. When out coastal cruising you can simple sail into a safe harbor and wait out the storm. Out at sea you’ll have to ride it out. Classic blue water boat cost over twice the price of production boat, but there is a old saying, “You get what you pay for”! Can you put a price on safety or even your live. Saying that I would feel safe sailing a 40 foot Hunter (or other production boat) across the pond with the right caption, crew and safety equipment, but I rather be on an Island Packet. Jim A, DownTime H28
 
T

ted jensen

blue water boats

having been in a hurricane, i think that if i were on a sailboat in a hurricane the type of boat would be the least of my worries (i dont think any sailboat made was designed to with stand a hurricane) you would be at the mercy of your storm equipement, training, luck and the sea gods. maintain and out fit the boat right, know and practice valid storm tactics. a poorly maintained and outfitted bluewater sailboat with an inexpierenced crew will sink faster in a storm then anything else.
 
J

Jeff Bacon

Coastal equals worse conditions ?

Henk: Given that your statements are accurate, I don't believe that we relegate ourselves to coastal cruising because it is less arduous, rather, because it carries with it some classic safety considerations. Coastal cruisers are usually close (very close ? ) to land most of the time, they can pick a wheather window, they can stay put and wait if need be, they can outrun a predicted storm, and they can be tucked away in an anchorage, marina, or mooring if bad wheather is predicted or immediate. Furthur, if a chainplate failure, or the rig failure that we have read about recently does occur, we are close enough to civilization to virtually insure rescue. For me, the coastal alternative is geared toward higher levels of safety if something actually does happen, rather than a better built boat that may prevent something from happening, because I cannot afford the latter, (as you indicate in your post) My Hunter is a great Chevy, I know it is not a Rolls, and I won't ask it to do something a Chevy shouldn't do (at least not on purppose). Jeff
 
D

David Foster

Ready for really bad weather

I just finished the recent edition of a classic book on how boats responds to bad weather. (I'll edit this note to provide the title/author.) The conclusions were clear: Really bad weather is possible (even if less likely) at _any_ time, _anywhere_ at sea. Coastal sailing means close enough to a port to get there before the crew is completely worn out, and unable to man the helm in extreme conditions. Blue (or green) water sailing means being so far from a port that you have to gut it out no matter what. Breaking waves with a greater height than the beam of a boat are the real danger. Once a boat is hit broadside by such a wave along greater than 55% of its length, it will capsize regardless of design. In these exteme conditions, design is critial to getting the boat back upright. This is indicated by a capsize screen less than 2, and more importantly a point of vanishing (upright) stabiilty of 140 degrees or greater. The boat and rig must also be strong, and waterproof enough to survive extreme conditions, including a rollover. Tactics and equipment in extreme conditions focus on preventing being struck broadside, even if the cruising crew is all exhausted, and sheltering in the cabin. This probably means a parachute or drogue, although some (heavier, fuller keel) designs may be able to heave to in even the heaviest weather. Very good, experienced crews have been lost in boats with inadequate design (vanishing stability at 120 degrees for instance) despite excellent tactics. There are already a number of threads on the preparations to ready a capable design (modern Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, and Juneaus over around 40 feet, and the Cherubini Hunters for instance) for blue water cruising by strengthening and waterproofing the hull and rig, and taking other actions to secure stowage, and ensure reasonable comfort. Going offshore in a modern 30 footer with a capsize screen over 2, and without strengthening/waterproofing enhancements involves a real risk of the loss of boat and life, even if many have done so. The referenced book tells the story of a cruising couple caught in the unexpected, extreme "Queens Day storm" while migrating from New Zealand to Polynesia with over 80 other cruisers. They had cruised over 20,000 miles without ever being caught in such a storm. But their survival depended on their preparations, and design of their boat anyway. Henk, your boat meets the design criteria as far as the specs on this site tell the story. I I know from previous posts that you have prepared it for your blue water life. But it is relevant to express a note of caution about taking coastal designs that emphasize speed in light air, and interior space offshore where their design is not ready for possible conditions. David Lady Lillie
 
D

David Foster

Adlard Coles' Heavy Weather Sailing

by Peter Bruce is the reference I read. Somehow I can't get back to edit the original response. David
 
J

Jim Noisiv

Ok, read your post and it was very intriguing

But what would one do when they want to go to sea and the standing rigging apparently is only attached to the deck, and the hull to deck joint appears to be attached via glue alone with no mechanical means of attachment? See link http://users3.ev1.net/~sailord/H376.jpg So how do you plan for taking a boat offshore that really doesn't belong there? Just keep hoping for 2-3 foot seas?
 
Dec 2, 1999
15,184
Hunter Vision-36 Rio Vista, CA.
mfg screw up.

Jim: This is not how the Hunters are built. The chain plates are attached thru to the hull. There is NO evidence that this ever happened before! This is a one off manufacturing screw up.
 
Jun 5, 1997
659
Coleman scanoe Irwin (ID)
Managing One's Risks & Fears

Clearly, quite a few posters believe the risk of making an offshore passage (even at lower latitudes and outside the hurricane season) to be unacceptably high, particularly in a medium-light production cruiser. From insurance premium data as well as anecdotal cruising vessel loss reports, my personal estimate is that at most 1 in 10,000 cruising sailors making a typical 10-day passage loses his or her life for reasons directly due to being offshore. If the average sailor makes 10 such passages in his or her lifetime this becomes a 1 in 1000 risk of losing one's life. Furthermore, if the average age at which one's life is lost is 50 years (i.e. some 10,000 days are lost), then the average reduction in life expectancy for all low latitude passagemaking sailors (i.e. above and beyond the risk associated with daysailing) would be approximately 10 days...... Therefore, If one spends 100,000 dollars on a more heavily built vessel one probably would not be able add more than 5 days to one's life expectancy (if that much). By comparison, if you are a heavy smoker, eater or drinker your life expectancy may easily be reduced by 1,000 - 2,000 days for each of these risk factors. If you live in an area with heavy air pollution you and your loved ones may on average expect to loose 300 - 600 days. If you drive 2-3 hours per day in heavy traffic your life expectancy might be reduced by some 100 days, or so through accident risk alone (disregarding the environmental factors and cardiovascular strain). Wearing or not wearing your seatbelt could perhaps make a difference of 50 days. So could driving a light and fragile vehicle versus a heavy and collision-proofed one. So, if you wanted to use your 100,000 dollars more wisely, you might decide to move to a more healthy environment, buy a Humvee, install a dynamic swimming pool or hire a personal fitness trainer, etc,. All these numbers are roughly calculated from known or estimated health risks and accident fatality rates (but without any attempt at personal quality-of-life weighting). If you happen to have better numbers, let's hear them! However, for your own personal consumption, don't forget to multiply them with your subjective quality-of-life loss or gain factors. Perhaps the argument might be that one "doesn't want to die at sea, especially not after seeing The Perfect Storm", and so on and so forth. That then becomes a matter of recognizing one's fears and phobias and learning to deal with them in such a way as to minimize quality-of-life loss, preferably by gradually expanding one's comfort zone. This should not be confused, however, with risk management. Fair winds and following seas! Flying Dutchman
 
J

Jim A

Henk , what if your

the one in 10,000 that losses his life. What if you are in the higher static’s, the boat that losses a mast. Why take the chance? If you going to sail in blue water buy a blue water boat! Is a couple of hundred grand worth your life? I for one can't afford a blue water boat so at this point in my life I'll coastal cruse. DownTime H28
 
Jun 5, 1997
659
Coleman scanoe Irwin (ID)
Jim, you're not getting the point....

Besides the fact that losing your mast and losing your life are two loosely coupled issues (not nearly everyone who loses a mast also loses their life, some even prepare a jury rig and sail on), let's assume you indeed want to manage your risks at that same vanishingly low level. Unless your appreciation of the risk associated with offshore sailing is somehow in a category all of its own (in which case I would call it a phobia or fear) your life will become living hell if you want to manage all your other affairs at the same low level. You will probably never get your driving risk that low so you might as well join an Amish community. However, then you need to make sure that this community is far enough away from the industrialized world not to be exposed to high PM levels in the atmosphere, and so on and so forth....... "Days spent sailing will never be subtracted from your lifespan" (this was the slogan posted in Bob Buchanan's Legend 33.5 "Windtryst", if I remember well). Flying Dutchman
 
T

Tom

I agree with Henk to some extent

I love this quote " Living is about making mistakes………Dieing is about wishing you made more." But I still would try and mitigate the risk by double and triple checking the construction of my vessel and then going out. Henk, one thing I did not see in your post was taking the boat you'd like to take Blue (green?) Water sailing in on a test sail. Also Know As a "shake-down" sail. I think it would be prudent to take the boat out on a nasty "NorEaster" (You pacific boys would have to find an equivalent). I believe that a good NorEaster would mimic most nasty conditions you'd get on the high seas. This would help in 3 ways. 1) It stresses the boat in question to extreem degree's (If its going to break, its gonna break out there..;-) 2) It tests your seamanship skills on the said boat 3) If after spending sometime out in that nasty weather for a day or two and you *still* want to go cruising then most anything you'd see out blue water cruising would be tame in comparison. Reason for doing this in a NorEaster is that you can still be relatively close to home when doing it. If something happens or you hate it, you can still turn around and be home (rescue?) within a day .
 
J

Jeff D.

Great Lakes

Interesting thread. I have made 2 Trans Atlantic crossings, although on a larger ship, and the North Atlantic when angry is no picnic. However most of my experience has been on the Great Lakes which I found to a totally different ball game. It feels like you are constatly runing into a wall. All waters are not the same.
 
D

David Foster

Joy of Managing Risks

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy facing the risks of our wonderful sport. It's fun to think about the odds of different events, and the contingency plans to be ready for them. Boats _are_ designed for different conditions. The performance ratios in the boat model section of this site tells a lot about the designer's ideas in laying down the boat's lines. I really enjoyed our week on a Hunter 340 in the North Channel last summer. It's a super boat for coastal waters. But I would pick another boat with a design that is ready for the open sea if that was where I was going to cruise. Because I don't drink and drive, wear seat belts, stay near the speed limit, and drive defensively, I can expect to beat the odds on the risk of driving our freeways. In the same way, we can beat the odds on the risks we face on the water - that is probably a reasonable definition of good seamanship. The Admiral is a bit of a worrier. I used to dismiss her worries because they are mostly quite unlikely. But now we enjoy them together with a conversation that starts, "Thats really unlikely, but what would we do if that happened?" It gives her a lot more confidence in our safety on the water, and makes us both better sailors. In the same way, I enjoy thinking about boat design. Although we have raced Lady Lillie in fun club outings, I know she is simply not a racer. We are working with little upgrades each year to make her a fine cruiser for the Great Lakes for which her shoal draft, fast reaching, and solid ride are all pluses. But I would certainly pick another boat if I was intent on winning races - and the upgrades would be more expensive, and mostly very different. Henk's point is that a faster, lighter design that can work to weather is a good match for the tradewind regions. And I am just adding that I would pick a design (like his Hunter 43) that can be prepared to survive heavy weather that can and does come there. Finally, there are manufacturing quality risks in buying a new boat. The answer we have discussed in this forum is to arrange for a thorough survey of a new boat to list any defects in its construction to be handled by the warranty. David Lady Lillie
 
J

Jim A

Henk, you have sold me

on my next boat being and Island Packet or a Tartan. I want to really feel safe on the water. They really don't cost that much more. Thanks for the advice, Jim
 
R

R.W.Landau

Coastal vs blue water

I am very concerned that many people think that a coastal cruiser is designed for bad weather. I believe that a coastal cruiser is designed with the thought that the owner will chose good windows to transit from port to port. Remember I have no blue water experience here, but I think that bad Blue water is easier to transit than a bad coastal situations. Coastal waters are more likely to be steeper and closer wavelenghts. I think this is a misnomer like " I am afraid of water is more than 10" deep". You can drowned in 1'. What is the difference? I think the hazards of coastal sailing are far greater than Blue water. Ledges that blow a wave to twice what it was in blue water, lee shores, shoals, boat traffic, fog, misreading a coastline,........ Just a thought r.w.landau
 
D

Del Wiese

my experience

My 25+ years of sailing experience are limited to Florida/Bahamas cruising, on boats from 25-37 feet. I think safety is driven by experience, watching the weather, being conservative in setting sail, and having backup/contingency plans. The other variable is luck. The two times I have had rig failures were (1) right after re-rigging, and the forestay broke at the turnbuckle, not at a swaged fitting, and (2) after a survey with my current boat when the backstay broke, again at a fitting, not the swaged part. I think my 89 Legend 37 is rigged strong enough to encounter most anything I can expect. The odds of something she can't handle are probably less than being wiped out by a drunk driver on the way home from work (in my car).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.