|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|11-01-2009 09:12 AM|
To respond to David Dennis, on a pound for pound basis, nothing (except the high tech composites like kevlar and Carbon) are stronger then wood. If you were building a purpose built, one off, small cruiser, colded molded wood construction with a protective barrier of epoxy/kevlar laminate would be a tough, low maintenance and inexpensive way to go.
On the other hand, with regards to Johno's point of three years ago, while wood itself is buoyant, by the time that you add a ballast keel (even without the weight of an engine) to a wooden sailboat, a wooden boat would not float without additional buoynacy chambers. A good design might include some buoyancy chambers, and they would buy you some time to self rescue.
But even with fiberglass construction, there are few production boats that are optimized for offshore use, and many of those rely on out dated construction modes that result in unecessarily heavy hull weights, compromising the ability to carry ballast, which in turn compromises stability, which in turn compromises the ability to carry sail, which in turn compromises the overall sailing ability of the boat other than for offshore distance cruising.
This topic of an appropropriate Fiberglass structure and construction details for offshore work came up in an earlier discussion with Stede and here is the response that I had written on that topic....
No matter what you do you just about can't put enough conventional fiberglass in the hull of a boat to prevent it from being pierced in a collision with a floating container or other heavy, solid, small contact area object. For that matter, if you are going to end up with a reasonable weight boat, you typically don't end up with enough steel either. For a serious 'go anywhere cruiser', the key to building a safe go anywhere structure consists of a variety of factors. Small panel areas, by that I mean that the boat should have a series of longitudinal frames and athwartship frames. Forward of the main bulkhead these should be quite closely spaced. [I will use my boat as an example (which was after all built for offshore work despite her light weight) the biggest unsupported hull sections below the waterline forward of the main bulkhead are about 4" by about 16" in area.] There should a ‘crush block’ at the stem at the waterline. [On my boat the crush block extends 6" above the waterline and extends back 16" to the first transverse frame.]
The area forward of the main bulkhead should be compartmentalized with watertight bulkheads that extend vertically above the waterline that would result if the boat had at least two of the compartments flooded. [On my boat these bulkheads appear to extend over a foot above the flooded waterline.] Ideally the tops of the longitudinal frames and the athwartship frames are on the same plane so that you can screw plywood into the tops of the frames to slow or stop the flooding. Ideally one of these bulkheads are on the centerline of the boat because should the boat ride up on something the sharp ridge at the centerline of the vee’d sections at the forward end of an offshore boat would really have to stand up to a lot of abuse. That whole bulkhead system should be heavily glassed into place. [That pretty much describes the construction of my boat.)
In the area of the keel there should be massive and closely athwartship ‘floor frames’ (this applies on fin keel or full keel, encapsulated or bolted on). [On my boat the ‘floor frames’ are over 8” deep and 4” wide and taper out to 4” deep above the waterline terminating at the waterline longitudinal except on the areas near the two main bulkheads where they extend to the rail.] On a boat with an encapsulated keel, the membrane across the top of the ballast needs to be as heavy as it would be on a boat with a bolt-on keel.
There should be no liners blocking access to the skin of the boat (at least forward of the main bulkhead and on the leading edges of the keel) up to the height of the flooded waterline mentioned above. All decks and flats in this area should be quickly removable so that access to make repairs can occur. [Here my boat gets a ‘B’ I can get to everything under the berths and forepeak quite quickly but the deck of the forward cabin is not removable. That is something I plan to change if I ever take the old girl offshore.]
Seacocks should not rely on backing blocks. Instead the hull should be built up to a thickness that locally reinforces the area under the seacock and distributes this localized stiffness out into the hull.
Once you have done all of that, coring or non-coring becomes less important. But coring above the waterline tends to produce a better offshore hull. For example, to quote from the Shannon website,” The most important feature of
In a composite boat, I believe that a couple layers of Kevlar, ideally in a vinylester or epoxy resin, and located in the outer plies, is critical to approaching the kind of abrasion resistance exemplified by steel but at a tiny fraction of the weight.
Then there is the main bulkhead. I don't care how a boat is constructed, at the mast and shroud area there needs to be either a massive ring frame or bulkhead to address the kind of loads that come from the rigging and keel loads. Without some kind of athwardships rigidity the boat will flex in a way that will ultimately weaken it through fatigue.
Similarly, there is the rudder area. Again, I don't care what kind of rudder you have, the area around the rudder post should have sturdy knees or bulkheads extending transversely and fore and aft. In my opinion, the rudder tube should extend well above the waterline and should have support at or near the deck level. In my opinion the rudder tube (and perhaps the shaft log), should be in their own watertight compartments or at least a compartment that is tight against the hull but extends above a partially flooded waterline. (This may require two shaft seals for the prop shaft or a flooded engine compartment neither of which is too easy to achieve.)
There should be substantial knees or bulkheads at shrouds attachment points and these should be tied into substantial longitudinal framing.
|11-01-2009 12:37 AM|
|JimHawkins||Well, Johhno hasn't posted in 3 1/2 years. Maybe his boat sank?|
|10-31-2009 08:39 PM|
Originally Posted by DavidHDennis View Post
A well found yacht is well found!!
|10-31-2009 08:26 PM|
Johnno, you raise an interesting point in favor of wooden boats that I had not seen before. But aren't wood boats more fragile and thus more likely to break up in rough seas?
I would think a broken up boat would not be safe even if individual planks floated.
No offense intended to you and your views, it just seems curious.
|12-22-2004 11:07 PM|
Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat
What you put on this board is quite interesting and judging by the responses it has raised quite a bit of comment too.
Hmmmmm.....so what is the ideal cruising yacht? After reading all that and considering my years of sailing in a variety of boats mainly coastal but with the odd passage thrown in, I am not sure that I would necessarily agree with the observations quoted.
For what it is worth I want to throw in some food for thought too. Understand that my sailing is primarily in Australia so that has quite a bearing on what I have to say.
The one thing that I have noticed over the years is how the size of boats has increased dramatically. It is like our homes and our cars - everything seems to be getting bigger and so are our expectations. Call it what you like - I see it as the "peter principle" - and charateristic of the rest of our lifestyle that is based on want rather than need. Most of which is artificially created in any event.
I noticed from the posts that not too many people are enamoured of the "Pardy Principle" of minimalist sailing but the truth is if you are a real cruiser and not just a wannabe or a part timer it is apparent that minimalist sailing is really what it is all about. The more stuff you surround yourself with for whatever reason the more complicated life becomes and the corollary of that is that you become more dependant on others too. The very thing you don''t want.
Having the biggest boat with all the best gear can in fact be a hindrance. That''s why most of us drive modest cars and not Ferraris even if we can afford them.
Some of the posts on this site have rightfully acknowledged that bigger and more complicated boats are harder to manouver, restricted to deeper water and certainly more expensive not only to purchase but also to maintain. We all know those things.
There is therefore good reason for a real cruising sailor to have a modest and simple boat. And yes if you are ever at an anchorage you can be sure that the fellow in the little boat is having just as much fun as the fellow in the fifty footer - possibly even more - because the truth is he doesn''t have half the worries that the skipper of the larger boat has.
There is a lot of stuff being peddled on the Net which unfortunately is influencing people to buy bigger and more complicated boats and equipment. Not the least the fact that if you want to have a female partner on board you have plenty of room and all the necessary "mod cons". I can think of a number of analogies but I won''t go there. Hi girls!
I guess I am of the old school and more interested in sailing for its own sake. A good comparison is the difference between those who camp (in tents) as opposed to those who take everything including the kitchen sink in a camper or caravan. It''s a personal thing. Maybe Australians are just content to keep it simpler too.
There are plenty of sites on the Net which extol the virtues of smaller boats so I can avoid going over all that here. Also how important it is to buy the boat that best suits the sailing that you intend to do. The bottom line is that most sailing is coastal and that boats sit in port for significantly more time than they are sailed. On that analysis you really don''t need a fifty footer. Yes the boat should be comfortable but you can get that in a properly designed 25 footer when you realise that in a cruising yacht the most serious sailing is only with a couple of people. A cruising yacht is not a floating dormitory or an entertainers showpiece. It is another case of where size does not always count.
Think about this - if you want to design a yacht that only has a couple of berths and a decent galley then with the added room in the cockpit there is no way that the boat has to be any where near what was proposed by the people you quoted.
Then comes the real issue - seaworthiness. We have all heard the stories of people who have sailed enormous distances in smaller vessels and the reason they succeeded in most cases is that they made sure that their boats were just that - seaworthy. Clearly we cannot account for the idiot factor - those people will always be there - but we can if we are smart make sure that whatever the size of our boat it is as safe as we can make it for the sailing that we intend.
Interestingly enough I am aware of only one manufacturer, namely Etap, which manufactures an "unsinkable" boat. While there is an agent for them in this country they are not sold in big numbers and I note that is the same in the USA. On their own admission Etap concede that it costs about a third more to build their boats that way and sadly it has not really been much of a selling point if the lack of interest from other manufacturers is anything to go by. Maybe the auto makers have known the answer for years - safety does not sell. Although interestingly enough when I spoke to one eminent yacht designer in the USA recently he did concede that there is much more interest in things like bouyancy today than ever before.
The truth is though that in cruising yachts safety should sell and to get back to small craft it is far easier to make a small boat unsinkable than a larger one unless you adopt the Etap manufacturing technique or have sealing bulkheads.
Again there is not much on the Net about that and what is there is misleading. It is not just simply a matter of determining a boat''s displacement and then adding the equivalent amount of bouyancy (assuming you have enough room) as some people (who should know better) have suggested. It all has to do with the density of the material that the boat is built of and the weight of the stuff (like the motor and other gear) in and on the boat. It is simpe enough to calculate too.
Those people (primitive or otherwise) who have sailed epic voyages in wooden boats have proved the principle that if you have a boat that will float even when flooded regardless of its weight you are far safer than in a modern steel or fibreglass boat that will sink in the same circumstances.
Fibreglass, aluminium and steel are all heavier than water as we know. While fibreglass may be less than twice the specific gravity of water, aluminium is about three times and steel is about seven times. Without some consideration to bouancy all those boats will sink like stones. Not a nice thought when you are a long way from port.
So apart from manufacturers like Etap there is still even a place for wooden boats despite what some "modern" cruising sailors would have us believe. And when you take into account all the advantages of a small boats even a small wooden boat is not such a bad option. So much for all the "tupperware" boats that we see these days.
Another thing that most people seem to get wrong is their ability to stem the flow of water in the event of a flooding. Few pumps manual or otherwise can do that even with a relatively small hole at least not over an extended period of time. It is often a case of knowing whether to pump or jump and even if you decide to pump just when to jump. It is far better to know that your craft won''t sink and that you will have time to find and fix the problem. Having or adding the necessary bouancy to your boat will give you just that. It is easier to do that on a smaller boat too.
The truth is you are safer staying in the boat not only because of the obvious possibility of being shark bait but also because all your water, food and equipment is there so there is a real chance that you will endure the ordeal and also be seen and get home after fixing the problem.
So my thought is that more modest and simpler boats are still the go for long term cruisers. Since serious cruisers only make up a small proportion of sailors the rest are likely to continue to buy boats and gear more for reasons associated with their ego than the reality of cruising. That''s all good for boat builders and chandlers and if that is what the majority of sailors want then that is fine. To suggest that we need all those things as opposed to just wanting them is another thing. That is so whether you base that on surveys or otherwise. And that is my point.
My advice is if you really want to keep the dream alive "go small, go now" as is often said and give some thought to seaworthiness which covers a lot more territory than the issues that I have raised.
I personally believe (if you are so minded) you''ll have more fun whether you cruise occasionally or long term - coastal or otherwise in a smaller boat. You will also learn a lot on the way. That''s what cruising is really all about.
Me - I am back to a small wooden boat. It does everything I want and gives me more flexibility than a larger boat. With the added advantage of the bouyancy that I have installed I know that I can weather most of what the briney can throw at me. Being wood the boat is easily fixed too. It requires more maintenance than a glass boat but the end result is better. Consider how hard it is to match a patch on a moulded glass boat.
All things that make for better and certainly cheaper cruising. Notice I said cruising and not posing or racing.
Like I said it is a personal thing but I certainly would not be putting too much credence in the small survey that you quoted.
|11-11-2004 06:09 AM|
Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat
It would be safe to say that if you own it and you can cruise it your boat is the best and even if it has short comeings it will still be the best because you will tell yourself it is. You will wish for many other boats a Swan or Hinkley whatever but your old Pearson Catalina or what have you will be the best when you drop the hook in a crystal clear ancorage and after a cold beer and lunch after you have snorkeled around the boat and looked at the bottom from a fish eye view you will say she is the best.Love your boat no matter if she is a bit rough and has some bad habbits so do people yet somehow we manage to love some of them.
|10-08-2004 08:03 AM|
Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat
It''s actually funny you listen to insurance adjusters and their surveyors. Maybe you don''t have the experience dealing with them as we Floridians do...hurricanes and such here make it that way. As with all data, it has to be put into perspective. Insurance companies want to repair newer core boats instead of paying out a total. It''s cheaper for them than replacement of newer boats due to high values. It''s near impossible (or cost effective) to get wet core 100% evacuated or removed for major repair and the problem will/can/may return yrs later. The insurance agents aren''t concerned and aren''t going to authorize repair items that "may" be impacted years later.
Older single skin boats carry way lower values than modern boats and repair cost easily exceed insured value. Insurance companies total instead of repair. "Damage" in this respect reflects little on which survives castrophic situations better. It reflects on which is cheaper to pay out.
The above is why I think insurance studies are biased and may embrace distorting of the facts. Please post your source of reference for the "insurance institute study of older boats" so others can read and make their own judgement on it. However, what you say is somewhat true but not so practical in terms of boat survival and rebuilding costs.
Core boat interiors stayed intact while the hull and decks absorbed the damage. The only problem is the exterior skins were easily surface punchured, crushed or sanded away from rubbing on pilings...and cores were so damaged in large sections it didn''t matter how well the internals did. Virtually all the cores I saw were composite. Damage didn''t stay local with cores. Where core skins were intact there was delamination and massive compression of the core. Sure, they survived the deflection test but the hulls/decks were ruined.
Single skin boats were the opposite. Hulls flexed, portlights popped out and the internals were damaged...if rubbed through or punchured by a piling the damage was generally local and easy to repair. Some hulls defected inward between structure and didn''t do any immediate or visible damage. I looked at a dozen or more standard production sailboats blown up on a sandy beach...cores penetrated and damaged while single skins beat up and still floatable.
Another common denominator seen with multiple boats...fin keels that just fell off their stands on the ground had bent keels at the hull joint and/or bent rudders/skegs. A much bigger problem than I thought would be with fins. Full keels/rudders didn''t suffer major. No contest which takes hard grounding better.
It''s very easy to visit the yards and see how both types of construction were impacted under identical circumstances. Side by side...it takes theory and speculation out of the equation.
Have a nice day.
|10-07-2004 06:06 PM|
Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat
Its funny I had a chance to talk to an insurance adjuster/surveyor today who said he was buried dealing with the damage from the huricanes. It was his opinion that the newer boats really seemed to have come through better than many of the older boats citing internal framing as being a major factor in preventing total losses. That seems to jibe with an earlier insurance institute study of older boats which suggested that the losses on older boats sustaining similar impacts was much greater and that actual testing of panels out of older boats suggested a great diminision in strength on these older laminates. I am really surprised by your observations, which seem so much at odds with the comments of the surveyor.
|10-07-2004 01:51 PM|
Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat
Fred makes some good points. The cruisers sailing small inexpensive boats are happy as larks.
You mentioned cores as a concern. After the lastest hurricanes blew through Florida I had a chance to see construction that survives extreme conditions. Cored boat skins fractured easier and the boats took more/larger structural damage than single skin hulls. Single skins flexed/bounced off or had very localized damage compared to cored hulls. Check out the yards in Ft.Pierce
for a look/see verification. Old boats survived better...it isn''t brand specific.
|10-06-2004 06:29 AM|
Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat
A loaded topic? No doubt.
Go small? An 11,000 lb, 24'' sailboat is only small in its usable interior space.
Go simple? If one thinks building from scratch an 11,000 lb, 24'' carvel planked wooden boat results in a simple boat one should attempt to duplicate the process.
Go now? Do you have any idea how long it takes to build such a boat. Or the 30'', 18,000 lb one that followed.
When I was in the SoPac in the early 90''s the average boat size for a couple seemed to be around 40'' ~ 42''. Refrigeration, water makers and RIBbies, were the must haves. GPS was just starting to become resonable in price and well worth the ~$1,000. The owners were successful in life and could now afford these vessels.
However I also met many solos and couples in smaller and larger boats.
Some were happy, some miserable. The boat size had little to do with the atitude of the owners.
So Stede are you a couple? Do you plan to become one? Or are you a dedicated solo? That may go a long way in helping you determine your boat type. Because even if you are or you become a couple you are still in essence a solo.
Another question would be, "How much blue water experience do you have?"
This question is not about your ability to sail, it is about your level of experience. If your amount of blue water experience is very limited or nonexistent then your ideas for your ideal boat will change, sometimes dramatically once you are out for 2 years or so.
You said your budget is $65k. I would suggest that you think about putting $25k away in a safe investment and use the other money to get the least boat that will serve your intended purpose. Today''s used f/g boat market is filled with boats in the 30'' -35'' range that are suitable(usually with some modifications) for getting you out sailing now. Many are available for less than $25k.
Think of it this way. If you put your boat on the rocks or reef and it goes down with everthing you own, how much more upset are you going to be if the boat represents every nickle you have? Vs. knowing you have a sizable nest egg stashed away.
In the early 80''s I was in Hilo repairing a dismasted 45'' slug(not mine). A young man about 23yo came sailing into the harbor one day in a 20'' Flicka. He built in the back yard of his parents house. He sailed the boat from Dana Point, Ca. in 23 days. He was having the time of his life.
Years later when I was in a small atoll in western French Polynesia I met a couple(40ish) aboard a large Mason(53'') designed boat. The owner had made a small fortune in real estate. He cashed out and went sailing.
The thing is I could not tell you whether he was having more or less fun than the 23yo in the Flicka. The big boat guy was certainly more comfortable.
I built a boat(not a thing to do for the inexperienced or faint of heart). Sailed and lived aboard for 5 years including 2 years in the SoPac. 30'', simple and easy to solo, which I did most of the time.
Now I am like you in some ways. Considering another boat. My budget is quite a bit less than yours. However I think I can still manage a 36'' boat. Will probably start in the spring 2005.
Take care and good fortune in your decision,
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|