long distance sailing in small yachts

[goupil]

Re: small french boats

You saw lots of charter boats above 40 feet in the Carribean so you did an amalgam.
Out of the beaten track you meet a lot of blue water cruisers in the 26 to 40 feet range!
IMHO the ARC list of entries demonstrate only the Power of money & people looking for a safety net! (with the compulsory equipment needed + entry fee, one can cruise a few months).
These rallyes are a good opportunity for the less adventurous to cross in the middle of the flock but dozens of boats do the same without the fuss.
As for French legislation: one can sail around the world without any skipper licensing (except for business).
Cat A, 33 feet offshore cruising limit : IMHO, the mistakes made by self-builders (despite some master pieces) brought more regulation than the defaults on production boats. (you may have a derogation as long as your boat sounds safe: Mini Transat... or a good AWB 28ft&+).

<hr width=100% size=1>Brittany Yacht Assistance

 

[halcyon]

Re: small french boats

Our yachts previous owner's did the US, Carribean, Azores, Med and back to the Uk, in 27 foot. Were refitting to go back when they picked up a 42 foot steel Ketch at the right price.
Must prove 27 foot is ok, but 42 foot must have advantages, thus it is down to what you can afford, and which you are happy with.


Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Nahh Mate!

Please don't label me as having "ALL the experience". If this were so my sailing life would be over. There is more to come and more to learn every day and as my late father always said " a wise man can always learn, even from an idiot".

The Bavaria? Well we were buying both for our own use and as a good earner on charter although we have just ended the charter use after two and a half seasons and she is now privately registered with very little damage to show for it.

Our Bavaria was built in 2001 and was one of the last to be certificated by Germanishe Lloyds. Also the 42 was again one of the last Bavarias to be built with lots of real wood down below although another coat of varnish would turn the very good finish into near perfect.

When Gib Seas have flexing cabin doors and plastic fittings we have very solid 25mm thick doors in proper frames with metal handles. We also didn't like the fitting out of the Beneteau of similar length being too open plan for our requirements (two grown up sons + girlfriends ) We liked the Dufour but we couldn't get anyone to take one into management for us.

The Bavaria also has Kevlar in the build up around the bow and a general feeling of toughness. On the 42 the freeboard is at least 20cm higher than the 44 which superceeded it giving the boat a dry ride (although we need to carry a ladder to get off the bow in some places in Greece!).

We would have preferred a Yanmar with a conventional shaft but this would have meant going up to the 50 which was out of budget. We can live with the Volvo and the saildrive.

We had roller reefing for both sails as this was thought better for charter work and I can tell you that in the Med. the main is much better protected from UV and since we don't race, the extra 1/2 knot we might get from a conventional sail isn't missed.

I could go on but you don't want to read and I havn't the time to write a boat report!

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Hi there Steve ...

Nah. My Topper is much faster!

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[AndrewB]

Re: Hi there Steve ...

Oh, OK then. You've all the experience.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

Haarruuummmppphhh!

Wher is this expression "You've all the experience" coming from?

Not I!

See my response to "applepip"

Steve Cronin


btw, just been reminded that we sold the Topper last year so is the Oppie offer still on?

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[applepip]

Re: Nahh Mate!

I feel the need to read at the moment for years I have dreamt of what we are about to do but when I dream I only dream of the good bits. Now I have got the worrying bit over (this helped by studying for yachtmaster and radio licence etc.)
Thank you for writing what you have - believe me You have Helped.
Ta Terry

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Johnboy2004]

small yachts

well as the ole sayin goes


"they went to sea in a sieve they did, in a sieve they went to sea"

the Jumbelies.......................

so if a sieve can do it,,, then id say a SO 32 would be fine!!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[temptress]

Re: No, but, seriously though!

to clarify:

An SO32 will should be capable of 6 knots and would be considered a 'medium' werght/displacment boat by modern standards. A true light displacment modern hightech boat will cruise in the teens.

It's not the boat but the crew you have to worry about. Most boats will stand up to far more than their crews can take.

<hr width=100% size=1>Temptress of Down
Southsea Marina
Hants
UK

 

[charles_reed]

I\'d 2nd that

boats look after themselves - it's the crews that expire.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bbilly]

Johnboy,
What is your perception of "long distance sailing"? How long do plan to be out of site of land, days or weeks? Have you been in "heavy weather", it can be quite an experience if not frightening the first times, but this gives your experience and it is challenging, so get experienced. In the med weather changes quickly and local phenomen (spelt that wrong) prevail. So reef early. Boats I believe are a compromise,some will be more unconfortable than others in a gale for a week and more confortable on a hot summer afternoon at Lavezzi!! If they are shipshape and haven't got holes in them, they float. Get a good crew and good luck. Lucky you.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

Re: I\'d 2nd that

No, its too glib. A weak crew are made that much weaker by an unsuitable design. Caught out in a gale, a lightweight fin-keeler has to be actively sailed, whereas a heavyweight long-keeler will more readily manage itself. I've been out in Atlantic gales in both types of yacht, and know in which I'd be more likely to reach the point of desperation!

Further, in my view far too many light-weight yachts develop structural faults when used for blue-water cruising for which they were not designed. This not necessarily the result of a single heavy-weather event as from the constant use, and particularly by groundings and collisions.

But the strength of a yacht has become less important than it was say 20 years ago, as Tom Cunliffe points out in this month's YM, when long-distance yachtsmen needed to be highly self reliant.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bbilly]

Re: I\'d 2nd that

Last summer I was invited on a long keel, classic from the fifties, 12m. tiller - no autopilot. Crossing from Italy to Corsica. Sails set "gran lasco" (stern quarter wind). It was easy to sail in following seas and very steady once in the groove, it was also quite wet. But, she was a bitch reversing and stern to med berthing in crowded ports could be trying. You could liveaboard in two "fairly" confortably. The posing element was enhanced. So you got pluses and minuses, as I said it's a compromise. The Island Packets look good, long keel and loads of space - cost a bomb!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jeanne]

I am not sure if you are asking the right question. You wouldn't go into a piano saleroom and ask ' can this piano play the Moonlight Sonata?'
All boats can sail to all ports, with the right crew, and if you have any doubts about whether you are the right crew, then get a boat that will look after you instead of the other way about. This will usually mean a heavy displacement yacht from 10 to 12 metres LOA. Any longer and you will have problems in harbour, any shorter and you will feel cramped for space aboard, and worry [perhaps unnecessarily] about bad weather. Please look further than the volume boat builders for your choice, they build boats to sell easily at boat shows, and are best when in harbour. Did you see the article in a recent magazine, about a Bavaria in heavy weather which had berths cracking in the forecabin, due presumably to the hull flexing?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

not too sure about the piano analogy. choice of boat affects (a) your chances of reaching your destination and (b) how you will feel during and after the crossing. i don't think any piano will significantly alter your chances of surviving a sonata or materially affect how tired you feel at the end.

you might make it round cape horn in a laser but your chances would be significantly less than 100% and you would be pretty tired and frightened. in the qm2 things would be very different.

for most 'cruising' boats and most destinations your chances of safe arrival will be over 99%. for an ocean crossing the range might be 99.0 for a 20 ft day sailer and 99.99 for a 60ft oyster.

yes, a 'small' boat will almost certainly get you there, it just depends how much risk and discomfort you're prepared to put up with.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sinbad1]

The most tiring aspect of long distance cruising in a small boat, is the motion. It becomes extremely wearing to have a boat that was both small and light will increase this aspect. To have a small light, fin keeler for long distance cruising would be hard work. Of course you can do it, but you will be much more comfortable with a longer keel and five extra feet of hull. Your auto pilot will also be happier.

When you are constantly tired and worn out you make mistakes. You hold off reefing when you should....etc...

You are not going to out-run storms and hurricanes at 10 plus knots. You will go everywhere at 5 and a bit knots, becos thats what most boats do once you have loaded them up with the essentials to go long distance cruising, and a light boat will slow more, proportionally, for the increase in weight.

Perfect for the Med tho.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Right and wrong

I have to agree about the point about lightweight being more lively - but I think your analysis may be flawed.
The reason for the greater apparent movement is because you're closer to the limit of displacement hull speed. Push a heavyweight long-keeler to the same point on her wave-making graph and you'll find the movement very similar.

What I do disagree with is the repetition of the oft-repeated canard that cruising has to be in a long-keel heavyweight; yes, they do have a relatively greater load carrying capacity but not than a larger (by definition) lightweight of the same weight. But the lack of manouevrability, the (usually) lack of light-air performance.

With regard to the value of passage-making speed, of course whether you cruise at 4 knots or 11 knots is of no importance for avoiding bad weather if you don't keep a watch on the forecasts. If you do .. well your comment lacks logic (if sincere).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[JPGruntfuttock]

Re: Right and wrong

Perhaps it would be a canard, if had been said it in those terms on the thread?

I tread cautiously as befits my very limited experience, but of two similar length boats.
A Sadler 26 sailed off the West Coast of Scotland and a Vancouver 27 sailed from UK to the Adriatic etc.

The light, communicative, Sadler creates a smile a mile. Slams (comparitively) going to windward in a chopy sea, is fast enough in light airs and does well in heavy going, having a reputation as a good little seaboat.

The Vancouver is sobersided, steady and uncommunicative until you learn it, surprisingly quick in light airs, almost never slams and is faster than the Sadler on long distances in heavier weather. Momentum and steady controlability result from its weight and form, the Sadler though behaves like a cork and gets stopped by seas the Vancouver shoulders aside.

The movement of the Vancouver actually sailing faster than the Sadler in similar weather is in practice nowhere near the same.

Realistically, water line length for water line length, if a storm is coming and you are a long way from harbour, I know for certain which is the better boat to be on, though both will survive.







<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sinbad1]

Re: Right and wrong

Hi Charles

Good to see you are about. My response above was rather quickly written and was really only trying to emphasise the importance of length relative to comfort. Having done a single handed transatlantic in a 25 footer I found the motion extremely tiring. Another 5 feet would have been nice. Now, cruising with a waterline length of 40' and a long keel I'm in heaven.

The weather bit was in response to the earlier posting where someone indicated that you could hurtle around the ocean outrunning storms in a light boat......hmmmm...more likely to hurtle yourself and boat right into one I would think.

The owner of the French production boat next to me in the yard this winter found that his bolt on fin keel had dropped away from the hull by approx 10mm when it was lifted out. Now imagine hurtling away from the storms with that! Me, I'll stick to long keels and comfort in my old age.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Especially in the Med

Long keels on a heavy boat allow one to work to windward - small, light easy-driven hulls just get stopped by the chop.

Ironic that all those boats produced for Med cruising are light beamy and have sharp fin keels. But then very few bother to use sail as a means of progress in the Med.

Ther can, in my mind, be no substitute for LWL for comfort in a boat, like volume i suspect in increases geometrically.

<hr width=100% size=1>