Some musings worth checking out...

Some needful reading concerning Iceland, an interesting weather source, and the stupidity, it burns...

Dave Z, square boat aficionado, TRILO Boat designer, and all around bon vivant, has been light on posting of late. So, it's good to see a new post from him that's very much worth reading in my RSS feed today.

You're still here?

Listening to some real 50's music

So it goes...

Something everyone should actually read...

Interesting, complicity is such an apt but ugly word, and some information you might find helpful if you're needing lead for a keel/ballast...

Here's a blog post you should really read and think about.

Really.

Not that I agree with it at all but it really is something you need to consider before you spend any money on the cruising dream or sail away into the sunset.

Listening to The Sam Chase and the Untraditional

So it goes...

a matter of seaworthiness...

In the "hardly surprising" department, this really says a lot, and some needful reading...

I was recently looking at the study plans for one of Reuel Parker's boats, a scow as it happens, and there was a comment by Reuel that got me thinking...

"Scows are not considered seaworthy types, although they can make coastal trips and island passages." 

The thing about seaworthiness is it's a pretty fluid concept at best and, in most cases, something of a gray area being dependant on many factors. Which means that one person's seaworthy vessel may seem like a floating death trap to another. Having crossed seas with an internally ballasted shoal draft sharpie that drew eighteen inches, I used to have this pointed out to me on a regular basis...

That said, scows of the traditional sort are not seaworthy in the same sense as a keel boat with external ballast. For starters internal ballast is not very good at righting a fully capsized hull and if that's going to be your main criteria of seaworthiness a scow may actually seem somewhat lacking...

Just like a modern catamaran. 

Seriously, if you applied the same thought process that makes a scow unseaworthy to just about any production cat currently being built today you'd have to come to the same conclusion... Catamarans are unseaworthy.

You might want to think about that for a moment or two...

Which does not mean that I think all modern production catamarans are unseaworthy (just some) or that a traditional scow is either. Just that they are both different in ways you should be aware of.

Like I said before, seaworthiness is a pretty slippery notion and depends much more on the person sailing a boat rather than the actual design. Sailing a traditional scow has a lot more in common with sailing a catamaran than it does with an externally ballasted monohull...

So, would I consider sailing Reuel Parker's scow across an ocean?

Sure I would. Then again, before I did I'd sail it a lot, practice deploying a parachute sea anchor/heavy weather tactics, and sort out the best way to hove to with the board up because I'm not real keen on surprises further offshore than I care to swim towards land. Of course, anybody considering a trans-oceanic passage would do the same no matter what sort of boat they intended to cross with.. 

Right?

Listening to She & Him

So it goes...

The stupidity, it burns...

Bought and paid for, a great lecture, and Dependable Renegade with an apt observation...

I mostly try and be one of those guys who does not point fingers and say rude things about people doing stupid stuff...

Part of the reason is because I've done a lot of really stupid things in my life that seemed to be pretty reasonable in theory. Another factor is that not being the brightest guy around I don't really enjoy it when folks point out how dumb I am in public/private so I'm pretty loath to do it to other folks. Which is why most of my "How-can-anyone-be-so-bloody-stupid" rants are done in the privacy of my thoughts and are not shared with the public at large.

Well, most of the time...

So, we have a couple on a Catalina 36 and they have rudder issues extensive enough to involve the need to be rescued twice in the space of four months or so... You can read about it here.

Now, I find this bit of awesome seamanship problematic on a bunch of levels because it seems I've read this story again and again the only difference is that the names of the boats and their crews change, but the basics kinda go like this...

1. The boat has a failure of a system that any prudent sailor would have some sort of back up for.
2. They call for help which costs other folks money and puts lives at risk.
3. They leave the boat as a derelict which becomes a hazard to navigation which puts other boats/crews at risk.
4. They get home and wait for the insurance...
5. Articles get written that actually lionize the crew surviving their "ordeal".

Sounds more than a little familiar, does it not?

Right here and now on "So It Goes" I'm waiting for Tad Roberts to finish the new CAL 34 rudder design because I'm pretty sure that our rudder is a bit past its shelf life and it's prudent to replace it. That said, I've always had plans in place, an emergency rudder, and the materials/tools to carry them out just in case I happen to run into a container or some such with my name on it. Nothing special, just pretty much what any sensible person planning to cross an ocean or making passages out of the sight of land would do...

It's only common sense to be prepared for stuff like having rudder issues if you're sailing further than than you care to swim to shore and if you can't handle that sort of self-sufficiency maybe you really should consider taking up another pastime.

Rant over...

Listening to Emmylou Harris & Rodney Crowell

So it goes...

What you really want is a SAFE boat...

Makes you kind of wonder how fucked up things are when guys like this are protecting you, some notes on Greece to keep in mind, and something worth reading...

There seems to be a lot of talk of late about a distinction I've never really been comfortable with... the whole Blue Water Cruiser thang seriously gets up my nose.

You see, I'm all for seaworthy boats, capable boats, and, most importantly, safe boats but I find the distinction between a "Blue Water" and a "Coastal" cruiser somewhat problematic because it somehow says that it's OK to go to sea (as long as you're not going "Blue water") in a boat that is less than safe or as seaworthy than it should/could be.

Let me put it like this... How far can you swim?

I don't know about you but sailing from Los Angeles to Hawaii (Blue Water) is just like sailing from Los Angeles to Catalina (Coastal) as soon as you're further off the beach than you can comfortably swim back, I don't see a lot of difference between drowning ten miles offshore or a thousand. The whole being dead thing is a state-of-affairs I'm making a point to avoid (so far so good).

By the way, I'm reliably informed that being dead sucks...

Anyway, the whole point of all this is whatever you plan to do with a boat, your choice should really reflect seaworthiness and safety. Truth is, making most so called "coastal" cruisers safer and more seaworthy is pretty easy and I can't think of a better guide to doing it than Dan Spurr's "Spurr's Guide to Upgrading Your Cruising Sailboat" which I find is still a very helpful and much used resource on my bookshelf.

Of course, whatever boat you have, the weak spot is always the crew. Not a bad idea to improve your own personal skills set "seamanship-wise" while you're upgrading the boat...

Listening to Dolapdere Big Gang

So it goes...

You might want to redefine your definition of safety...

Being that I just had two donuts and am only mid-caffeinated, I really am not ready to get too much into bloggish wonkdom...

So what better time to point out a pet peeve of mine which is where people define a given boat or design as blue water or something less capable.

Now I get that some boats are better for cruising or living aboard than others, some are faster or slower, some carry a load better and some don't... But what I don't get is that some folks think a boat is safe to coastal cruise or island hop but not to cross an ocean. In my basic boat thinking it's a whole lot more simple: a boat is either safe or unsafe.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I have no desire at all to go off for a daysail on a boat that is not safe and able to keep me afloat and sailing in whatever conditions I might find myself in. Imagine if folks gave advice regarding cars like they do with cruising boats.

The Chevy is an OK car but I wouldn't drive cross country in it. Best to keep to just going to the store and suchlike but on the highway you'd die... Now, on the other hand, that Lexus is a real highway machine...

Fact is, I tend to cringe whenever someone even brings up the phrase "Blue water" in a boat description these days where it concerns safe cruising. I'll be the first to admit that there are many boats I would prefer not to sail a blue water passage on, and yes it is true that not all boats are built as well as they should be, but the bottom line is that if a boat is not safe enough to do a blue water passage it is also not safe enough to do coastal cruising either.

Need more coffee now!

Listening to Son borinqueno

So it goes...

Not your normal charter opportunity...

One of our favorite charter boats Anahita (a Dynamique 62) is going to be crossing the Atlantic this April toward their summer cruising grounds in the Med and environs.

The first leg will depart from St Thomas, St Martin or Antigua and end in Gibraltar with a three day stop in the Azores on the way.

The trip duration is thirty days (give or take) and costs $5000 all inclusive (except bar) per person and there are spaces for two available...

The second leg departs Gibraltar  towards Budva, Montenegro and is an 11 day (or so) blue water no-stop cruise for $3000...

For someone who wants to experience blue-water sailing this is an excellent opportunity to gain some serious sea miles with an excellent boat and captain.

For more information contact Paradise Connections...