James W
Well-Known Member
That's it, I'm selling the house..... :love-struck:
If you were going to sail around the world on a sub 40ft yacht, what would you pick?
- Thread starter Halcyon Yachts
- Start date
That's it, I'm selling the house..... :love-struck:
westhinder
Well-Known Member
Yes, I could live with that, provided my bank manager could. Or, ignoring the OP’s limit, the Xc 42 or 45.
And if money were no object, I would have a long hard look at a deck saloon such as the Nordship 40. Or an Allures or Boreal if you like aluminium. Or one of the bigger RM woodcore boats, a totally different style of boat, but a serious cruiser.
alant
Well-Known Member
I notice it has that essential piece of ocean going equipment - a bow thruster.
Lovely boat though.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Brent Swain
N/A
I'd do it in one of my 36 ft steel boats, which contain the changes I wish I had on previous boats, and input from 4 couples who have already circumnavigated in them, all of whom were extremely happy with them, for the job.
Brent Swain
N/A
Judge things on their own merit, not on how long they have been around. Some new ways are a great improvement, some are passing fads. Keels never used to fall of ever ,certainly not as often as they do now.
Some old ways are great and always will be, some were bad ideas from the outset . The best cruising boats have a well thought out blend of old and new, without becoming hide bound to either, but judging each by its merits, and not by passing fad trendiness and snobbery.
Brent Swain
N/A
I don't think it was built as a 'world-girdler'. They had settled in NZ to some extent. Also, he was quite old by then. As you said, reading his books, he wasn't very enamoured with the steel boat. I stayed in Ray Roberts yard for a few months and was able to look at their visitor's book. Quite thrilling to see Hiscock's entry/comments. However, I got the feeling that not everybody were 'Eric Hiscockophiles' in Whangerei. I'm fairly sure that one of the mags - YM probably - did an article about the building of the boat way back when.
I saw his steel boat on the grid in Auckland .The very few zincs were tiny. She had been built with every major steel boat screw up they could come up with , from drilling her steel decks full of holes to bolt one inch plywood all over her decks, to bolting teak overlay on that, to excessive wood trim, a big maintenance time bomb on any steel boat. Hiscock specified "no filler" and found out later, she had lots of it, to cover major distortion, for the boat show.
Had she been properly built ,with proper steel boat priorities, he would have been extremely happy with her . That abortion is no basis for judging steel as a boat building material. No material is immune to stupidity.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
I have no idea why you keep on banging on about this - other than displaying your ignorance.
In the "good old days" when keels were bolted through wood keelsons they used to fall off relatively frequently - but of course that was just accepted and nobody made a fuss of it.
Nowadays there are keel failures BUT if you bother to read the causes you find that just "falling off" is extremely rare and failure is almost always the consequence of damage that is caused by grounding.
In relation to the number of boats in use around the world the number that fail is statistically insignificant and very focused on a tiny subset of boats.
dragonvc
Well-Known Member
The OP original thread raises more questions than answers such as how many crew,really important the routes to be taken as a plan or the ability to go everywhere such as high south or north.Robustness of construction is probably important on the balance of probabilities there is more stuff to hit out there now than 30 to 50 yrs ago such as containers ,increase in whale population ,ice always present in appropriate latitudes.
While the Pogo 12 metre would be huge fun to cross one ocean are you taking a bigger risk doing 15-20 knots in the dark over several oceans.The swans ,x boats ,dehlers ,starlight 39would have comfort and decent turn of foot but look after you when going got rough.The older boats mostly had modest rigs in comparison to modern and a case could be made for a ketch or even schooner rig.With the expectation of gales at some point a comfortable motion and ability to safely heave to or deal with the heavy weather techniques.The Pacific Islands may require steel or aluminium hulls to fully explore ,the areas potential and the charting anomalies that are apparently a problem.So choice would be a aluminium 40 ft with a modest keel shape and a sweet fast hull shape sadly price would be the stumbling block but to cross the Atlantic I would take the Pogo and high tech weather routing .
While the Pogo 12 metre would be huge fun to cross one ocean are you taking a bigger risk doing 15-20 knots in the dark over several oceans.The swans ,x boats ,dehlers ,starlight 39would have comfort and decent turn of foot but look after you when going got rough.The older boats mostly had modest rigs in comparison to modern and a case could be made for a ketch or even schooner rig.With the expectation of gales at some point a comfortable motion and ability to safely heave to or deal with the heavy weather techniques.The Pacific Islands may require steel or aluminium hulls to fully explore ,the areas potential and the charting anomalies that are apparently a problem.So choice would be a aluminium 40 ft with a modest keel shape and a sweet fast hull shape sadly price would be the stumbling block but to cross the Atlantic I would take the Pogo and high tech weather routing .
doug748
Well-Known Member
Quite.
I think his stock answer is a Bavaria thirty summut; but he has had his cap nailed on, in this thread:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?505014-Boats-shopping
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Good friend of mine circumnavigated quite happily in his Moody 376. I would go further in mine than simply the Atlantic circuit, 33.
Anyone in doubt as to what boats can achieve try a visit to French Polynesia and look around the anchorages and harbours. You will be surprised.
Anyone in doubt as to what boats can achieve try a visit to French Polynesia and look around the anchorages and harbours. You will be surprised.
[3889]
...
Me too. Plus drip feed heater.
Jimmy Cornell said he would replace his with another OVNI.
He didn't, but what does he know?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You should read what I wrote. Nowhere have I made any suggestion or recommendation of any boats in either of these threads.
The comments I made in the other thread were in response to specific points raised by others and quoted facts about what others have achieved.
So you can "think" all you like but this seems to be only in your imagination.
AndrewB
Well-Known Member
Well why not? That's what the OP asked for. You have criticised the rest of us without suggesting anything yourself - don't get surprised if other posters become irritated.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
I am not really in a position to make a sensible suggestion with any rational justification. In many ways it is not a reasonable question because it is too simplistic and particularly because there is no idea of budget.
So my answer would start with "It all depends...." and would consider whether the aim was to just sail round the world or be a waterborne tourist for example, on my own, with a partner of with a group etc. Do I want to stick to a route that is the easiest on weather or poke my nose into some of the scary parts of the world.
I expect you get the picture. Circumnavigation or long distance cruising means different things to different people which explains the huge variety of boats that are chosen.
My observation was about how many people on this thread chose boats that followed the (for want of a better expression) the "Hiscock" way which still seems to dominate - at least in the UK. Therefore boats chosen could date from the 1950s. This ignores reality and (again particularly for UK boaters) the real explosion in this type of activity using boats (like your current one) designed and built in the period 1980-2000 approx.
Boats are rarely designed and built solely for this activity if series production is envisaged. It is therefore just one of the markets builders aim at so inevitably production type boats need either modifications or extra features to meet this requirement. So choice is influenced by what is available that has potential in the eyes of the individual.
Anyway going back to the original question I would use budget limits as the main criteria which means that the range of choices opens up as the budget increases.
So my choices based on budget to buy and equip are
£20k Golden Hind 31
£40k Tradewind 35 or Westerly Conway
£60 k Moody 376 or Westerly Corsair
£100k HR 36
£100-200k - so much choice but would be tempted by an Ovni
Above that with a 40' limit the choice actually falls unless you get into the small number of new or newish boats still made, but a Rustler 37 or for even more money! the latest Najad 395 - which is bit cheaty as like many boats it is bigger than the name suggests - would both be at the top of the list to consider.
You note no Bavarias (although the Najad is a very similar design to the Bavarias that Farr also designed). However, I would have no qualms about using my current 33 suitably prepared and equipped - just would not be my first choice as for the same amount of money I could have an HR 36 or many other much more suitable or desirable boats.
You might well then ask why I bought it in the first place. The answer is simple. I don't intend going offshore and I chose the boat specifically because it does what I want, and after 3 seasons has proved to me that it was the right decision.
Hope you (and others) don't find all that too irritating.
dunedin
Well-Known Member
Tranoma - sensible and wise post as always :encouragement:
Brent Swain
N/A
Given how easy it is to spray foam insulate a boat, and how much more comfort it gives ,both in the tropics and high latitudes , as well as making plastic and aluminium boats unsinkable, I don't know o why one wouldn't spayfoam insulate, for a circumnavigation.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You claim to be a naval architect or at least claim to know something about designing boats. Do the sums yourself to calculate how much foam is needed to ensure boats are unsinkable. Then you will understand why almost nobody does it. 30 years ago two European builders did build boats that were unsinkable but they had significant negative features as a result. Neither of these builders is still in business.
You can't seem to get it into your head that sinking - or rather having a boat that claims to reduce the almost negligible chance of it occurring is not high on the priority list of most buyers.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
I think I am right in saying that for a “commercial” / charter yacht to be coded “O” (unlimited) under MGN 280 she must have watertight compartments and be able to float upright with any one compartment flooded. Code 1 is up to 150 miles offshore and Code 2 is 60 miles offshore, therefore the British Government expects any boat crossing an ocean with paying passengers and/or crew to be able to remain afloat with one compartment flooded, which is the same standard as a cargo carrying merchant ship ( passenger ships are different).
Code 0 is quite rare: most boats in the adventure training business are Code 1 or Code 2.
Code 0 is quite rare: most boats in the adventure training business are Code 1 or Code 2.
Last edited:
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
If only it were that simple. If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.
You haven’t done the sums (or tested your theory in practice). On very small light displacement boats it’s just about possible, but you lose a huge proportion of the available accommodation and storage space. Even you don’t claim it makes a steel boat unsinkable.
Whatever the size of boat, there are potential problems over stability when in the flooded state.
You are very fond of belittling professional naval architects and yacht designers, but (to put it bluntly) you don’t appear to know what you are talking about.
Last edited:
