ScotDomergue

boat suggestion? light, small, blue water potential

Recommended Posts

Thanks for all recent posts. I'm back home after weeks of travel.

 

I'm leaning toward either Cal 20 or Santana 20. I've never been aboard either, so don't have a good feel for the space, let alone how they sail. One of each is currently for sale reasonably near where I live, and I expect to look at both within a week.

 

I like the lighter weight of the Santana. With a lower phrf, one might assume it would be faster. I imagine it would row a bit faster.

 

I assume the Cal is bigger inside.

 

Anything more anyone would like to add about these two boats and their performance would be of great interest.

 

I've found a LOT more to read about things to watch out for and about preparing a Cal 20 for offshore than I have for the Santana 20 (essentially nothing). Anything more anyone might add on these subjects would be great.

 

I've been reading Webb Chiles logs and find them very interesting. I've ordered Black Feathers.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all recent posts. I'm back home after weeks of travel.

 

I'm leaning toward either Cal 20 or Santana 20. I've never been aboard either, so don't have a good feel for the space, let alone how they sail. One of each is currently for sale reasonably near where I live, and I expect to look at both within a week.

 

I like the lighter weight of the Santana. With a lower phrf, one might assume it would be faster. I imagine it would row a bit faster.

 

I assume the Cal is bigger inside.

 

Anything more anyone would like to add about these two boats and their performance would be of great interest.

 

I've found a LOT more to read about things to watch out for and about preparing a Cal 20 for offshore than I have for the Santana 20 (essentially nothing). Anything more anyone might add on these subjects would be great.

 

I've been reading Webb Chiles logs and find them very interesting. I've ordered Black Feathers.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one and use oars for auxillary power - it rows quite nicely. I have coastal cruised in mine and the "cabin" is mighty small and uncomfortable.

 

GeorgeJacksonFerryIV, What speeds and distances do you row your Santana 20? Thanks, Scot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a word of caution is that the santana 20 is a much lighter built boat than the santana 22. the cal 20 and the santana 22 are more equals than is the santana 20. much depends on what kinds of crossings you want to make, but "blue water" doesn't really apply to the santana 20 IMO. the cal 20 is something of a legend, but keep in mind that all these boats are getting long in the tooth and will need significant refitting for passage making. rebedding chainplates, new standing rigging, new running rigging, redoing whatever god-awful boom-vang / traveler / preventer setup exists from prior owners, lowering the mast and doing a full inspection on it and the spreaders (aluminum repairs can be quite tricky), new thru-hulls and stuffing box (if applicable), an extensive bottom job down to the fiberglass if necessary, and potentially rebuilding the rudder or having a hot-rodded rudder built should be considered minimum amount of work on an older boat, no matter the size, to accomplish what you want to do.

best of luck - and for sure crawl around all the boats you can, keep a stash of (good!) sixxers of beer around to offer up as a crew member on prospective boats. you'll learn all you need to know with the boat under your feet, sheets in hand, and a good chop on the bow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the definition of " open water potential"? For me if you give up comfort, it has an open water potential, right???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were several posts a while back suggesting the Santana 20 (#'s 36, 37, 45, etc.). Yes, she's very light. Is that necessarily bad - assuming a very minimalist approach to stuff and beefing up rigging and addressing other potential problems (including hatches, chainplates, etc.). Most of my time will be spent island and coastal cruising - with the occasional ocean crossing . . . I will need to be careful about choosing routes and times, will need to go very "light", and I'm willing to sacrifice comfort . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were several posts a while back suggesting the Santana 20 (#'s 36, 37, 45, etc.). Yes, she's very light. Is that necessarily bad - assuming a very minimalist approach to stuff and beefing up rigging and addressing other potential problems (including hatches, chainplates, etc.). Most of my time will be spent island and coastal cruising - with the occasional ocean crossing . . . I will need to be careful about choosing routes and times, will need to go very "light", and I'm willing to sacrifice comfort . . .

Go sail a Santana in 20 knots and even a modest three foot chop and then tell me you want to out of sight of land on one. Lightly constructed, pinched ends, low stability.

 

It's your funeral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my time will be spent island and coastal cruising - with the occasional ocean crossing . . . I will need to be careful about choosing routes and times, will need to go very "light", and I'm willing to sacrifice comfort . . .

 

This kind of mentality will kill you.

 

When you're planning to go offshore along with some inshore cruising, you don't buy a boat for inshore use and "occasionally take it offshore"- you buy a boat for offshore cruising and occasionally use it inshore. Imagine if a racecar driver bought a minivan for mostly doing errands around town and "occasionally doing a NASCAR race."

 

I'm not sure why displacement is such a hang-up for you. You're not going to be beach-launching this boat, and few marinas- if any- charge for their services by the ton. If speed in a small cruiser is your concern then there's been plenty of quick little boats (Mini Transpac, Moore 24, etc.) that fit the minimalist bill. Else, a Nordica 20 is a pretty little cruiser that would reasonably take you anywhere and commends itself to the minimalist lifestyle.

 

I know it's an attractive trope to be the bold adventurer who shrugs off naysayers at every turn but that's a cliche, not a functional or reasonable mode of planning big life decisions/ voyages.

 

Below is the tit requirement for my first SA post. Enjoy, you dogs.

 

fe5c843eb483df6550fd76f12cf61f51.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the First 210 is what I think I remember, don't.

 

Get a small boat built by a small boat company, not a small boat built by a big boat company. Like a Santana 22

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am as green as anybody here but the math still bothers me. I keep thinking.............why? Why be so light...for one thing? Light and blue water takes as much luck as anything.

I also want to circumnavigate...on the other end of the spectrum. With the biggest sound boat that I can properly outfit. Why? Well....I have done a lot of white water rafting. Size = Stability to a large degree.

About the most exciting thing I ever did was the Arkansas River white water in a tiny three man raft. The waves were ten times bigger than our little raft. Exciting...yes....but my next raft was 18'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many ways that smaller can be preferable (many mentioned in previous posts).  And there are also advantages to some size, particularly for comfort.  I would suggest reading Lin and Larry Pardee, as well as some others.  If one wants to try cruising as a way of life, small (in the sense of 24 to 32 feet) seems the best way to go (unless you're so rich that money has no relevance.

For me there are some specific desires that suggest very small - including viability of rowing as a significant option, potential for beaching, ease and cost of maintenance, etc.  As size and weight increase, these desires tend to become non-viable.

At this particular moment I'm leaning toward creating a very small boat of my own design that I would probably never want to use for crossing an ocean, but could work wonderfully for the kind of island and coastal cruising I enjoy and that I could ship for a reasonable cost if I want to get across an ocean.

AND, I'm not yet certain . . .  I continue to look at mono-hulls in the 24-26 foot range (many are available at quite reasonable cost), and just now there is a Wharram Tiki 21 for sale in my area (for $3200).  One of those circumnavigated and competed successfully in a single-handed transat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2017 at 2:25 PM, ScotDomergue said:

Thoughts on Coronado 25?

For your intended purpose, the Coronado 25 is totally inappropriate.

Negligible tankage and no real place to even store jerry jugs.  Limited stowage. Very inefficient use of interior volume would require extensive reconstruction for bluewater sailing. They do not go to windward very well because the keel is practically a shapeless lump instead of anything remotely resembling a foil shape. It is painfully slow. It has 4 large cabin windows that are not wise to have, nor installed well enough for blue water sailing.

"Comfort" wasn't really a problem. I slept in the V-berth, I ate at the dinnette, I cooked at the galley with no problems. The cabin liner and the layout just wastes a lot of space that you would need in a long range boat. Did I mention that it's slow and doesn't point very high?  They're also getting kind of long in the tooth by now. 

The Coronado 25 is a great day sailor, weekender and a simple, forgiving learner boat with a stout hull but it is absolutely not wise for "the occasional ocean crossing."

Find a small Cape Dory or something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can glean from reading this entire thread (for which I want my 45 minutes back), the reason he wants a light boat is so that he can row. My question is, aside from exercise, why the fuck would you want to row a displacement vessel? I know it's not uncommon, but Sisyphus even thinks that's tedious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2017 at 8:13 PM, Sandpipper said:

From what I can glean from reading this entire thread (for which I want my 45 minutes back), the reason he wants a light boat is so that he can row. My question is, aside from exercise, why the fuck would you want to row a displacement vessel? I know it's not uncommon, but Sisyphus even thinks that's tedious....

Consider it an concrete lesson that those who are cocksure they know more than everybody else, really don't.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/05/2017 at 2:13 AM, Sandpipper said:

From what I can glean from reading this entire thread (for which I want my 45 minutes back), the reason he wants a light boat is so that he can row. My question is, aside from exercise, why the fuck would you want to row a displacement vessel? I know it's not uncommon, but Sisyphus even thinks that's tedious....

Marine engines are unreliable and force you to carry fuel. Being engineless is certainly not for everybody and not for me but it can make sense as much as owning something as pointless as a boat can make sense. It is probably quite hard to find what he wants, tbh if I wanted to own such a boat I would build a chined plywood boat with a water ballast and make it as long as possible while within the target weight. Better keep the roof high to make it unstable upside down as these boats can get rolled easily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Marine engines are unreliable and force you to carry fuel. Being engineless is certainly not for everybody and not for me but it can make sense as much as owning something as pointless as a boat can make sense. It is probably quite hard to find what he wants, tbh if I wanted to own such a boat I would build a chined plywood boat with a water ballast and make it as long as possible while within the target weight. Better keep the roof high to make it unstable upside down as these boats can get rolled easily. 

 

EC 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EC 22 is an interesting boat.  I doubt the designer (or probably anyone else) would recommend her for blue water.  At the very least, a smaller cockpit would be in order.  But the concept (light, chined, plywood, water ballast [or gear and supplies, and perhaps even one's body, located to served as ballast] shaped to self-right [as are ocean rowing boats]) is worth considering . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 8:14 PM, ScotDomergue said:

I'd like to find a small, production, light weight boat with single handed blue water potential. Perhaps something like a smaller Moore 24. Perhaps 20 feet long and 1000 lbs., though even smaller might be OK. Ideas and suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

 

What about this one, according to him, best boat in the world......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, unShirley said:

 

EC 22

Good starting point. I would add a rear cabin like those on ocean rowing boats and make sure that the cockpit can drain really fast. Roofs shapes would be optimised for upside down instability and watertight masts would be nice to have.  A windvane, a few solar panels for the navigation lights and Bob is your uncle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2017 at 11:13 AM, Panoramix said:

Despite all the naysayers and "internet expert" opinions, every 2 years, there are 80 people racing singlehanded across the atlantic on 6.5m boats. Although not all of them get to the other side, the accident rate is very low. It is probably safer than riding a motorbike in a busy city.

and lots more doing fair-weather the beam-reach / downhill runs to hawaii from california in small boats.  but crossing the pacific and atlantic with best known seafaring routes to western minds is not a tour of the great capes and all her seas.  I think transat and transpac crossings, while not to be taken lightly, can maybe give some a sense of overconfidence. To date I still have crossed neither, and not sure when or if I ever will.  I really like small boats but I don't have a death wish.  I've talked to guys who had their asses handed to them in the indian ocean on 39 ft cruisers, having dealt with cracks in the keel from rigging strain, multiple knockdowns, broken steering etc  - all the fun stuff.  or there's stories like the crew who got knocked into davey jones locker from a 100ft rogue wave off the e. coast of africa.  2 lost at sea, 2 hobbled into port. bad shit happens to great sailors and the best of boats.  again - I don't think the ability to handle the transat means much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would take extreme minimalism but JS9000 if set up for single handling?  Seems tough?  There was a Scandinavian who did some sort ofoffshore passage I think.  

Uffa did some blue water sailing in a 30 sq m.

Bruce Schwab did a transpacific in a modified 30 sq m.

I'd go with a folk boat or that other Reimers sq meterish ocean racer.  I'll have to look it up..

Tumlaren! :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also a larger version around 32', called a super tumlare or something like that.  Was always tempting.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skol said:

and lots more doing fair-weather the beam-reach / downhill runs to hawaii from california in small boats.  but crossing the pacific and atlantic with best known seafaring routes to western minds is not a tour of the great capes and all her seas.  I think transat and transpac crossings, while not to be taken lightly, can maybe give some a sense of overconfidence. To date I still have crossed neither, and not sure when or if I ever will.  I really like small boats but I don't have a death wish.  I've talked to guys who had their asses handed to them in the indian ocean on 39 ft cruisers, having dealt with cracks in the keel from rigging strain, multiple knockdowns, broken steering etc  - all the fun stuff.  or there's stories like the crew who got knocked into davey jones locker from a 100ft rogue wave off the e. coast of africa.  2 lost at sea, 2 hobbled into port. bad shit happens to great sailors and the best of boats.  again - I don't think the ability to handle the transat means much. 

6.50 regularly cross the bay of Biscay or the Celtic sea racing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

6.50 regularly cross the bay of Biscay or the Celtic sea racing. 

so do 26' westerly centaurs, but I don't think you could accuse them of racing :P 

I have never seen the EC22 until this thread. what a cool boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same site: 

http://bandbyachtdesigns.com/20mk3/

checks off all the OP's boxes including oars. How blue is blue water? If a guy can paddle a standup dinghy across the Atlantic surely this thing can make it, too.  Add up the cost of a complete cal 20 refit including acquisition, then price the build kit on this thing. No contest, and this looks like a much better designed boat for short handed sailing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, quite interesting.  I hadn't seen it before.  For me the 17mk3 sounds even better - http://bandbyachtdesigns.com/cs17mk3/.  I wonder how it would do self-righting . . .Very good information and interesting video.  Along with many interesting details, the video shows a wind-vane self-steering system.

Of course I can design a boat to meet my unusual desires even better and build it for much less.  I'm beginning to think that this type boat/concept could be viable.  I'm playing with a 16-foot LOA, 4-foot beam design that might weigh as little as 200 lbs, that I could row for extended periods at almost 4 knots, that would be a fun and reasonably fast sailing boat (for its size/type), and would easily self-right (with sail rig stowed and weight distributed properly) - significantly smaller than the Core Sound 17, plenty of space and storage capacity for my minimalist solo cruising needs (lots more space, carrying capacity and stability than my Marsh Duck).  I'll share the design here if/when I get it adequately developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS, a note on costs:  The CS17mk3 kits (including spars, sails, etc.) add up to $5385 plus things that are not included, plus another $850 if you want the mizzen staysail and spinnaker; and then there is the time and energy required to build it.  A few months ago there was a Cal 20 in quite good shape with a very full set of sails in good shape available near Seattle for $2500.  It would take some time, energy and $ to make such a boat ready for blue water, but that would probably be true for a new CS17mk3  (for example, a wind-vane self-steering system would need to be added for either).

Because I already have most of the hardware, spars, etc. that I would use for the new boat, I'd guess that I could create it for about $1500, though might easily add another $1000 for new sails . . .  So ultimate cost similar to a Cal 20 but probably much less than a  CS17Mk3.  And because mine is a much simpler design, it wouldn't take nearly as much time to build as CS17mk3.

I was seriously considering a Pearson Ariel 26 available in our area with asking price of $5000 that perhaps could be bought for $4000.  These are good blue-water cruisers, and this one appears to be in good shape - though I would expect to spend several thousand $ to get her ready for blue water.  And they weigh 5700 lbs.  This one comes with a good outboard.  NOT great for rowing . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking at an Ariel, maybe a Bristol 24? Neither light nor fast but you might come back. They come with inboard diesels or a well for an outboard. A Torqueedo with solar charging is an interesting option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, vjm said:

If you are looking at an Ariel, maybe a Bristol 24? Neither light nor fast but you might come back. They come with inboard diesels or a well for an outboard. A Torqueedo with solar charging is an interesting option. 

I think the OP is more interested in engineless to keep it simple and avoid the hassle of auxiliary power. I could be wrong there, but I like the concept.

Speaking of - a buddy of mine fabricated some beefy oarlocks into the cockpit of his engineless Pearson Triton(!). Each oar is about 3 meters long IIRC.  For getting in and out of marina slips (he's on the outside dock of a very wide channel, so not much interference - get the bow pointed at the slip, row like hell and let momentum do the rest), dodging rocks on low wind/high current days, or rowing maybe 200 yards down a channel it's great.  Echo'ing someone else's comment above about rowing a displacement boat, any more than that is an unsustainable effort.

I highly recommend looking at a yuloh to scull the boat from the stern instead of oars. You can scull the boat pretty well while standing up and be facing forward, and it's more practical for powering in and around marinas since the oars aren't interfering with anything abeam of the boat. There's a great race during one of the maritime festivals here in Brittany where people race ~20ft workboats around a little course in L'Aber W'rach marina. Properly motivated those little boats were leaving a nice wake, and I think the women's race was quicker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ScotDomergue said:

Yes, quite interesting.  I hadn't seen it before.  For me the 17mk3 sounds even better - http://bandbyachtdesigns.com/cs17mk3/.  I wonder how it would do self-righting . . .Very good information and interesting video.  Along with many interesting details, the video shows a wind-vane self-steering system.

Of course I can design a boat to meet my unusual desires even better and build it for much less.  I'm beginning to think that this type boat/concept could be viable.  I'm playing with a 16-foot LOA, 4-foot beam design that might weigh as little as 200 lbs, that I could row for extended periods at almost 4 knots, that would be a fun and reasonably fast sailing boat (for its size/type), and would easily self-right (with sail rig stowed and weight distributed properly) - significantly smaller than the Core Sound 17, plenty of space and storage capacity for my minimalist solo cruising needs (lots more space, carrying capacity and stability than my Marsh Duck).  I'll share the design here if/when I get it adequately developed.

yeah - I think I get it.  don't be fooled by craigslist prices on GOB (good old boats).   A 4k boat is a 15k - 20k investment to do what you want to do.  I've been down this road once and will never do it again. If you're not OD racing, I am now of the opinion that it's easier and more cost effective to build or have someone else build the hull of the exact boat you want.  Sure, you can do some fine bay sailing for less money on a GOB but it's not going to be in a condition that you could trust your life with it in adverse conditions.  Once you've rehabilitated the mast, replaced all the rigging (and I mean *all* of the rigging), refastened and/or beefed up the chainplates, fixed the soft spots in the deck, and rebedded and/or replaced all the deck hardware - congratulations.  you've just built a new boat.  EPIRBs, exposure suits, AIS, SSB, and other necessary equipment for offshore passage making doesn't give a shit about what boat it's on. All that stuff adds up. 

back to boats - certainly I'm not of the opinion that safety or seaworthiness is a function of waterline length, but speed is. At some point you need to go upwind, and sometimes you need waterline to make speed against both current and wind alike.  Historically speaking, ~20ft seems to be a practical limit for WLL on an engineless boat, with much more from the overhangs when stretched out on her beam.  The old square meter designs, J-boats, 5.5 class, Folkboat (already mentioned), and lots of other traditional boats with a full keel, fine entry and narrow beams really excel beating to windward without beating the shit out of the crew. You can semi-sail a cork with a spinnaker around the globe if you time your legs with trades and currents - everything depends on what kind of passages you want to make and where. A lot of lightweight boats are built to go fast downhill and that's fine sailing inside of established cruising areas with a modicum of common sense.  For big crossings, a lot of those small boat guys are selling their boats after arriving some weeks to a new destination (esp. the E-W Hawaii runs) because they can't handle the local conditions when they get there. When coastal sailing in high latitudes, or island hopping the wrong direction at the edge of the wrong time of the year, your life is going to be in the hands of upwind ability while being reefed and under shortened sail. If there's nowhere to run, you could just as easily die of fatigue trying to beat up wind.  So pay attention to waterline and the ability to get off a lee shore, coral heads, and whatever else might be waiting for you out there with it's claws out in the dark.

closing thought - I truly believe the newer design features that incorporate sealed flotation compartments, water ballast in combination with leaded drop keels, and crush boxes in the bow are all inherently safer than anything found on a GOB, including the ones I speak fondly of.  Don't fool yourself. A turtled Cal 20 is going to the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skol, thanks for lots of good thoughts - lots to consider and take seriously.  I'm feeling very good about backing away from the Ariel, and the more I think about it, from the GOB idea.

I seem to have recovered my obsession with designing . . .  while I appreciate your thoughts on WLL, the design I'm working on right now is only 16 feet.  The hull is essentially a narrow racing dinghy shape (4-foot beam).  I'm currently thinking lee-boards, perhaps canted.  The topsides are a bit like a small ocean rowing boat.  The cabin and aft storage compartment cross sections are close to half circles, which should make her very unstable upside down, particularly with all weight stowed in the bottom 10 inches of the hull - including me if I'm on the cabin floor with restraints to keep me from falling to the cabin roof if she goes over.  I think she'd easily self-right, at least with the sail rig stowed below decks, which would be the case when battened down and riding to a sea anchor or drogue in extreme conditions.  I suspect she'd also self-right pretty easily with minimal rig (only half the mast up and a small storm sail.  Initially she'll have no ballast other than gear and supplies, and maybe water in containers low in the center.  At some point I can imagine attaching a small heavy (lead) keel to the bottom, probably very shallow, only for stability, not to replace the lee-boards.  I can imagine vane self-steering like that shown on the CS17mk3 video, and perhaps GPS-electronic self-steering similar to what Colin Angus used during the R2AK last year.  It's fun to play with the design, and I can easily imagine building her this summer.  We'll see.

I don't know that I would want to cross oceans in such a boat, though many have done so in far less seaworthy craft.  My thinking, if I build it or something similar, is to cruise my home waters for at least a few months (Sailish Sea and beyond, inland waters of the Pacific NW).  There are plenty of opportunities for reasonably severe conditions here, so I'd be able to gradually test her capabilities.  IF I continued to have fun and found the boat adequate, I'd probably head south down the Pacific coast in late summer or early fall, perhaps winter in the Gulf of California, and continue on . . .

A note on length:  in a boat of this sort (not a racing scull) the primary speed limitation with human power is friction from wetted surface (not hull speed/wave making).  I believe that my current design at 16-foot length and 4-foot beam is a good compromise.  Software analysis suggests that I'd be able to row her at 3.5 to 4 knots for hours at a time in calm conditions.  I haven't done a longer comparable design, but from previous experience believe it would be slower at the same level of thrust.  If there's wind, of course, I'll sail.  In the right conditions a racing dinghy style hull can be pretty fast, though admittedly rather athletic, particularly if narrow.  In more severe conditions . . .  I don't really know but think it could be fun to find out.  On my Marsh Duck, 18 feet LOA by 42 inch beam (and somewhat more rounded bottom than current design) I found I could make progress against 30 knot winds with 3-4 foot breaking waves - admittedly exhausting and on the edge of capsize.  I tried it for 15 minutes, happily noted that I was actually making progress over the ground, and quickly headed back to a protected cove to wait for better conditions.  I think the new design would perform better, but it would still be challenging, and I suspect exhausting.

If I build this design I know I'll enjoy cruising the Salish Sea on her.  If I decide she isn't the right boat for going farther, it will still be a good exercise and learning experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holder 20, do I get anything for getting close enough to the target weight at least?

 

Turbo it and it'll get here fast... Hardly bluewater capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your thinkin', and I've had the same path of thought, roughly.  I've had a GOB, classic wood boats, and now want to build a modern boat in wood. I know your waters (Seattleite for 15 yrs), and I think you'll be fine with the vessel you describe.  the big deal there of course is keeping out of the way of the ferries, and having enough power to keep ch16 open and the ability to burn good navigation lights. Going down the coast on her bottom could be feasible, but you'll trailer it back home. You know the best way from San Diego or SF back to Seattle is through Hawaii.  For a good idea of a southward coastal journey, lookup the blog for "Cruising Lealea", a retired couple that cruise an intrepid Albin Vega 27 GOB. They have a good log too of the voyage from Hawaii -> PNW, and are posting regularly about a years long refit of the AV 27.    

The waters around here seem no less epic.  The Iroise on an angry day is something to behold. Celtic sea to the north, bay of Biscay to the south. There are a lot of fair weather days for light and moderate wind sailing, and wx is fairly predictable so small craft can be deployed with common sense. I like the woods designed tris and will probably go that route to try something new (and fast). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother moved to NZ a few month ago I was eager to buy a boat. That's what he has now. He found it at http://www.macboats.co.nz/ it's MAC 600 FISHERMAN. He says it's very light and it's easier tow.  He seems to be very delighted and my husband now is very excited about his new purchase and is looking for smth like this to buy for us. We need a light boat but with much room

boat.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beelost said:

My brother moved to NZ a few month ago I was eager to buy a boat. That's what he has now. He found it at http://www.macboats.co.nz/ it's MAC 600 FISHERMAN. He says it's very light and it's easier tow.  He seems to be very delighted and my husband now is very excited about his new purchase and is looking for smth like this to buy for us. We need a light boat but with much room

boat.JPG

Look.. They got BLUE, and designed for water!  Oh and light.  They win... I'm just a hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last July I bought an old San Juan 21 as an experiment - to see how I'd like it for a summer of cruising and to see what I'd learn.  I enjoyed the summer, over 3 months aboard.  I've realized that she's more boat than I want.  While the swing keel allows pulling into a beach, at 1250 lbs I can't get her far up on a beach (unless sailing her in at high tide and letting the tide go out.  And she's a bit of a pig to row - I manage about 2 to 2 1/2 knots, but not FUN to row.  I'm selling her and designing a boat that I may build next spring/early summer - in the 16 to 18-foot range, probably 4-foot beam, light enough to tow behind my bicycle on gentle terrain, self-righting if properly loaded.  I think she'll be a great little solo cruiser that I'll be able to row at up to 4 knots and that will probably be able to go anywhere I'd want to take her, including blue water.  I'll share some sketches once I'm farther along with the design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScotDomergue said:

Last July I bought an old San Juan 21 as an experiment - to see how I'd like it for a summer of cruising and to see what I'd learn.  I enjoyed the summer, over 3 months aboard.  I've realized that she's more boat than I want.  While the swing keel allows pulling into a beach, at 1250 lbs I can't get her far up on a beach (unless sailing her in at high tide and letting the tide go out.  And she's a bit of a pig to row - I manage about 2 to 2 1/2 knots, but not FUN to row.  I'm selling her and designing a boat that I may build next spring/early summer - in the 16 to 18-foot range, probably 4-foot beam, light enough to tow behind my bicycle on gentle terrain, self-righting if properly loaded.  I think she'll be a great little solo cruiser that I'll be able to row at up to 4 knots and that will probably be able to go anywhere I'd want to take her, including blue water.  I'll share some sketches once I'm farther along with the design.

Check out the designs of Phil Bolger for inspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. Ok then. Maybe a cape cutter 19 it is one of my personal favs. Or a Paradox microcruiser made about 20 feet.

If you don't know about paradox and little cruiser, Google them. I've met the guy who ones one. 14 feet. Routinly went to the Bahamas with two people and a parrot. 14 was a bit too small. 18 ft would be nice. 

Ix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScotDomergue said:

Last July I bought an old San Juan 21 as an experiment - to see how I'd like it for a summer of cruising and to see what I'd learn.  I enjoyed the summer, over 3 months aboard.  I've realized that she's more boat than I want.  While the swing keel allows pulling into a beach, at 1250 lbs I can't get her far up on a beach (unless sailing her in at high tide and letting the tide go out.  And she's a bit of a pig to row - I manage about 2 to 2 1/2 knots, but not FUN to row.  I'm selling her and designing a boat that I may build next spring/early summer - in the 16 to 18-foot range, probably 4-foot beam, light enough to tow behind my bicycle on gentle terrain, self-righting if properly loaded.  I think she'll be a great little solo cruiser that I'll be able to row at up to 4 knots and that will probably be able to go anywhere I'd want to take her, including blue water.  I'll share some sketches once I'm farther along with the design.

Glad you came back to relate your experience.

One thing to keep in mind about rowing, it's not all about weight. It's somewhat about shape, it's a lot about surface area, and it's REALLY about having the right oar geometry and rigging ("rigging" for shells & sculls are the seats, foot braces, and oarlocks/frames); the San Juan is a good light air boat with a decent sail area/wetted surface area, but it's also got a lot of sailing shit sticking down into the water (pure drag when rowing) and I 'm having a hard time picturing a half decent rowing rig on one.

The EC-22 is a good starting point for a boat like you're envisioning, but take a look also at the same designer/builders Core Sound 20

http://bandbyachtdesigns.com/20mk3/

Another approach to the problem is to take a pure rowing vessel for expedition style adventure, how about one like this

https://angusrowboats.com/pages/rowcruiser

Trying to reinvent the wheel yourself, when you don't have that much experience either rowing or sailing, you're very unlikely IMHO to come up with something better than these; in fact it's almost  dead certainty that you'll spend a lot more money and time on something a lot worse. Now, if you're in it for the long haul, try one of these (or both!) and use them as a starting point for your own improvements.

I'm actually thinking of something about halfway between a the Angus Rowing Cruiser and Phil Bolger's Dovekie, minimalist but with enough room for my wife to come along for at least an overnight (Mrs Steam is very unlikely to be game for longer adventures, forgiveable at our age). Maybe putting one of the pedal drive legs in it, I'm not utterly dedicated to rowing but not needing an engine to get around is a great concept.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for ideas.  I'm glad to see that the subject of this thread continues to be of interest.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the rowing geometry issues.  I never expected the SJ21 to be great rowing.  But before last summer's experience I wasn't clear on how important that would be to me.  It's accommodations were ample, significantly more than I need.

All the boats suggested in these last few posts are interesting, but neither these nor others I've seen are what I want - so I'm back to creating my own design.  I have experience with that as well as lots of small boat sailing and a reasonable amount sliding-seat rowing.  My Marsh Duck was rather successful at 18 feet length and 42 inch beam, weighing about 185 lbs including all sailing and rowing gear and a 20 watt solar power system for electronics.  It was fun to row at 3.5 to 4 knots.  It was VERY minimalist in accommodations - similar to the Angus row-cruiser - but fun and fast sailing, without needing to turn it into a tri as Colin did with his boat.  Duckworks continues to sell the plans.  Note that I still have the top-of-the-line Concept 2 big blade sculls, sliding seat, oarlocks, etc. that I used on the Marsh Duck and will use these with the same standard solo sculling geometry on the new boat.

The design I'm working on should come in at under 300 lbs, with MUCH more spacious, comfortable and functional inside accommodations, similar rowing, and be extremely seaworthy.  She'll be completely watertight with fast-self-draining cockpit, will be self righting (similar to ocean rowboats), and will have good sailing performance as well.  Depending on cabin configuration she could be suitable for overnight or weekend cruising for 2, though I'm primarily focused on longer term solo cruising and will configure my cabin for that use.  As noted, I'll share drawings once I've taken it farther.

Other than the Angus Cruiser, the boats suggested above are at least twice the weight and I think would be slower rowing.  I seriously doubt that any of those without significant ballast (and therefore greater weight) would be self-righting, and I wouldn't want to take any of them blue-water cruising.

PS: I've included a picture of the rowing rig I created for the SJ21.  The main problem is height off the water.  Given the inherent limitations, it worked pretty well.  Note that with the swing keel all the way up the only significant projection into the water is the rudder - which seemed to help in managing direction.  

rowing set-up.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS:  The folks that created the Core Sound boats have done a very nice little wind-vane self-steering set up.  Hopefully they will have plans and kits available by later this winter.  I have this in mind for my new design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This CLC design fits much of your brief. The self-righting, tow behind a bike, bluewater capable, and 350# goals are nice, but in steep competition with each other.

I've seen the work bikes that can tow a relatively large load, but they are specialized bikes and trailers and very slow. What would you do with the bike and trailer after you launch the boat? And a strong cross wind with an ultralight boat being towed could be a disaster. You could tow this CLC behind any car however, or walk it a good distance on a beach dolly.

image.png.25148909315a0b65f4c4630e45fb7333.png

 

image.png.bbd8ee629d27e97b4ec54c6e9f96a1cd.png

http://www.clcboats.com/life-of-boats-blog/two-faerings-for-sail-and-oar-chesapeake-light-craft-faering.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lasal said:

This CLC design fits much of your brief. The self-righting, tow behind a bike, bluewater capable, and 350# goals are nice, but in steep competition with each other.

I've seen the work bikes that can tow a relatively large load, but they are specialized bikes and trailers and very slow. What would you do with the bike and trailer after you launch the boat? And a strong cross wind with an ultralight boat being towed could be a disaster. You could tow this CLC behind any car however, or walk it a good distance on a beach dolly.

image.png.25148909315a0b65f4c4630e45fb7333.png

 

image.png.bbd8ee629d27e97b4ec54c6e9f96a1cd.png

http://www.clcboats.com/life-of-boats-blog/two-faerings-for-sail-and-oar-chesapeake-light-craft-faering.html

Funny, after reading the new requirements last night what I was thinking was a Morrison ocean rowboat with a sail. Looks like CLC has one already....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of the development from Norwegian faerings is interesting. It looks like ScotDomergue is sailing in the PNW from the photo. One of these would be a lot of fun there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attached a picture of me towing my Marsh Duck behind my Bike Friday Pocket Llama, a folding bike that fit inside the boat's forward storage compartment and would easIily fit in a place designed for it in the new boat.  I have a smaller, lighter Bike Friday Pakit on order that I imagine using with the new boat.  I'm quite confident that I'll be able to build the boat at under 300 lbs.  It's hull is 5 inches wider than the hull of the Marsh Duck, but a foot narrower than the Duck's wings.  Length, 18 feet, will probably be the same.  The height from bottom of boat to top of cabin is only 4 inches more.  I've towed up to 600 lbs behind the Pocket Llama.  I anticipate the new boat will actually weigh under 250 lbs, perhaps 225, depending on what I decide to do inside the cabin.  So I really don't anticipate a problem towing it behind my bicycle on reasonably gentle terrain; over mountain passes is a different issue, though  I've towed 160 lbs from Port Townsend to Twisp (where I live), over Washington and Rainy Passes.  The trailer parts are also easy to stow inside the boat.

I've also attached pictures of me sailing and rowing the Duck in the Canadian Gulf Islands - yes, Pacific Northwest.  You might recognize the sailing picture if you subscribe to Small Craft Advisor.  It was the cover photo once a few years back.

I don't expect the boat to be self-righting with mast and sails up, but she will be with all that gear stowed below and weight stowed properly - riding to a drogue or sea anchor while holed up in the cabin in extreme conditions.  If we go over while sailing she'll be easy for me to right.  The one time I capsized unintentionally during a 3 month cruise on the Marsh Duck it took me no more than 2 minutes from going over to sailing again.

Generally more is possible than we imagine . . .

towing.jpg

by Klaas, sailing, cropped.jpg

by Klaas, Montague Harbor, rowing.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already have a lightweight row/sail boat. Looks pretty good. So what's the general arrangement of the new design?

The bike portage thing is a unique use case. Good luck with the new boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Santana 20 has been known to sink after a broach. As reported by the owner to PHRF when they were looking for input on the subject. I wrote about my US Yacht 21 which floated upside down above a cool broach. It probably would have righted without the spinnaker holding too much water. I later added some more lead to the keel. Of the Shark 24, the SJ 24 Cal 20 I would prefer the Tanzer 22. Have sailed on all of them and against them. The T22 needs a new better shaped and balanced rudder. It will self steer with main and jib in a good breeze. It also needs mods to the aft cockpit to slow down the water coming in when heeled hard on the wind. There is a bulkhead about mid length of the cockpit that prevents the water going down below. Should be no problem with self righting with the hatch boards in. They built about 2500 of them and none have had major problems to my knowledge. The ones built in Dorion Quebec are better built than the US built boats, IMO. I have a US built T22 named Grolsch. The T22 is probably the best boat to use if you hit a rock.

The sweetest 22 foot boat is the newer Catalina 22 with a fin keel. Again in my opinion. From memory it has a fractional rig. A bit quicker would be the Santana 22 and the Moore 24.

Shackleton used a mostly open 22 foot long keel boot to affect the rescue of his crew. I think the T22 would be more seaworthy. I am just as comfortable in my T22 on a rough day as I am in a lot of bigger boats. But that just might be a personal preference. The US 21 has a cored hull and will not sink. It has a dagger board and a fractional rig. It is 21.5 feet long and weighs around 1500 to 1750 pounds. It surfs easily and  will plane. It lifts off at around 8 knots. Does 5.25 to windward about the same as the others. A T22 will bash thru waves better going to windward.

I did not bother to check the location of the OP. But you can sail my T22 if you like. I am on Gabriola Island.

Unkle Crusty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Blackadder said:

IIRC a slightly modified Cal 20 went around the world a few years back,even ended up being a family liveaboard.

Cal 25,  if it's the one I knew about.  Dave & JaJa ...... someone, was working in Maine last I heard and with a larger boat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We broached our Santana 20 a few times. Once we filled the cockpit to the brim with the companionway open and no problem. Still in no way is that an offshore boat. Although the S20 heaves-to really, really well, they just stick. At least in a two or three foot chop.

The CLC faering isn't any sort of offshore boat either. And the Marsh Hen is even less so. It's a Marsh Hen, emphasis on Marsh and Hen. On the other hand, if by blue water Scot is talking about some open water stretches up the west coast to Alaska, that sounds reasonable for the little boats he's talking about. Port Townsend to Hawaii? No. Horses for courses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blackadder said:

IIRC a slightly modified Cal 20 went around the world a few years back,even ended up being a family liveaboard.

If you're talking about Dave Martin, that was a Cal 25...... still, it was quite a statement!

 

1 hour ago, lasal said:

We broached our Santana 20 a few times. Once we filled the cockpit to the brim with the companionway open and no problem. Still in no way is that an offshore boat. Although the S20 heaves-to really, really well, they just stick. At least in a two or three foot chop.

The CLC faering isn't any sort of offshore boat either. And the Marsh Hen is even less so. It's a Marsh Hen, emphasis on Marsh and Hen. On the other hand, if by blue water Scot is talking about some open water stretches up the west coast to Alaska, that sounds reasonable for the little boats he's talking about. Port Townsend to Hawaii? No. Horses for courses.

 

Zackly. Offshore is a whole different can o'worms. I admire the Marsh Hen quite a lot, it's a good design to work up from. More minimalist and in some ways more practical than the Dovekie (although I have to say I like the looks of the Dovekie much more).

I've actually been working on a design myself, which I call a "swamp sportboat," somewhat similar although not intended for ocean passage-making (a much better term IMHO that "blue-water" sailing which always makes me think of Ti-D-Bowl ads). The intent is to take two people for five days cruising, spending nights beached or at anchor, and capable of good sailing performance and not-terrible rowing performance.

596a427b8a6db_Sp-RwBoat4raid04-1d_Linesplan.jpg.ffefc19cacdac37e682fe9d7a5352ea3.jpg

The sleeping quarters are air mats in a tented-in cockpit. With a modestly ballasted foil (my current plan uses a centerboard, but different configurations I've looked at include twin bilgeboards and a ballast bulb / daggerboard). The desing shown is 22' but this basic shape works well down to 19' or it could be stretched for more speed & stowage.

The more I think about it, the more I think an aft cabin is a good idea for very small cruisers, or an arrangement where the aft cabin expands to encompass the cockpit. That's where all the volume is. But any boat that is going to be in any serious weather needs to have a seriously self-bailing cockpit.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2017 at 10:04 PM, ScotDomergue said:

I've attached a picture of me towing my Marsh Duck behind my Bike Friday Pocket Llama, a folding bike that fit inside the boat's forward storage compartment and would easIily fit in a place designed for it in the new boat.  I have a smaller, lighter Bike Friday Pakit on order that I imagine using with the new boat.  I'm quite confident that I'll be able to build the boat at under 300 lbs.  It's hull is 5 inches wider than the hull of the Marsh Duck, but a foot narrower than the Duck's wings.  Length, 18 feet, will probably be the same.  The height from bottom of boat to top of cabin is only 4 inches more.  I've towed up to 600 lbs behind the Pocket Llama.  I anticipate the new boat will actually weigh under 250 lbs, perhaps 225, depending on what I decide to do inside the cabin.  So I really don't anticipate a problem towing it behind my bicycle on reasonably gentle terrain; over mountain passes is a different issue, though  I've towed 160 lbs from Port Townsend to Twisp (where I live), over Washington and Rainy Passes.  The trailer parts are also easy to stow inside the boat.

I've also attached pictures of me sailing and rowing the Duck in the Canadian Gulf Islands - yes, Pacific Northwest.  You might recognize the sailing picture if you subscribe to Small Craft Advisor.  It was the cover photo once a few years back.

I don't expect the boat to be self-righting with mast and sails up, but she will be with all that gear stowed below and weight stowed properly - riding to a drogue or sea anchor while holed up in the cabin in extreme conditions.  If we go over while sailing she'll be easy for me to right.  The one time I capsized unintentionally during a 3 month cruise on the Marsh Duck it took me no more than 2 minutes from going over to sailing again.

Generally more is possible than we imagine . . .

towing.jpg

by Klaas, sailing, cropped.jpg

by Klaas, Montague Harbor, rowing.jpg

I love your style!

From what I understand, you just need a longer version of the boat you already have to gain in comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comfort and function inside the cabin are primary goals, along with managing weight balance and improved stability and seaworthiness.  The new design should plane more easily, so faster sailing in some conditions.  She'll weigh a little more and may lose around 5% rowing speed (maybe 2 nm over 10 hours, NOT significant for cruising!).

She'll be the same length or a little shorter.  The shape is quite different: 10 foot long forward cabin rather than 6'4" aft cabin, a little greater beam and particularly wider bottom between the low chines, etc.  She'll have canted lee-boards rather than dagger-board.  A dodger or possibly raised cabin top hatch will provide sit-up headroom and views from inside.

As noted, I'll share drawings once I've settled on details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ScotDomergue said:

Comfort and function inside the cabin are primary goals, along with managing weight balance and improved stability and seaworthiness.  The new design should plane more easily, so faster sailing in some conditions.  She'll weigh a little more and may lose around 5% rowing speed (maybe 2 nm over 10 hours, NOT significant for cruising!).

She'll be the same length or a little shorter.  The shape is quite different: 10 foot long forward cabin rather than 6'4" aft cabin, a little greater beam and particularly wider bottom between the low chines, etc.  She'll have canted lee-boards rather than dagger-board.  A dodger or possibly raised cabin top hatch will provide sit-up headroom and views from inside.

As noted, I'll share drawings once I've settled on details.

Yep, the Angus cruisers are already above the threshold for losing speed as rowing vessels and their accomodations are tiny.

But the problem with a cabin in a small boat is, any space you add on to the cabin you either take away from the cockpit, or add on to the boat's total cubic. In the Swamp Sportboat design above, which I built a 1/12 cardboard frame model of last year, the solid part of the cuddy and interior is just barely big enough to use a porta-potty, and the space under the seats/side decks -could- be used as sleeping cubbies in cool weather (a bit coffin-like for my taste though); the main living area would be the cockpit under a boom tent.

This one here

5a3c121f29296_SkullIsleRAID15ft-erDSKv203up.thumb.jpg.cad16f07e812a22c157842a8df763d01.jpg

is also a raid-style camp-cruiser although with the constraint that it be 15' LOA, ply stitch-n-tape, and designed to use an old Snipe rig. It's supposed to be a wave-piercing bow but it would need coamings to funnel water out of the cockpit a little better. It's basically a board boat with a raised bubble for stowage and a big part of that stowage is a boom tent.

5a3c1317072c3_SkullIsleRAID15ft-erDSKv201prof.thumb.jpg.ec4fec47e1d95cce76218f4d09d0bf39.jpg

The clever part is extending the flares (it started out as a stitch-n-tape copy of a Whilly boat) and putting the foils in the flares so they are totally above the water plane. No slot to drag thru the water. The oars shown are minimalist, the spread at the oarlocks and the low freeboard could give you some really good sweeps.

Super shallow-water capable. Of course this is the last thing you'd want for open-water passages, there is no place to sleep underway.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My interest is primarily cruising.  There is no advantage to a large cockpit, rather the smaller the better for seriously rough conditions, especially off-shore.

Enclosed volume (cabin) is good unless you add too much weight or wind resistance.  These are related more to shape and to areas (frontal and of materials).  By keeping the shape very simple - a smooth slope and smooth tapers from bow to max cabin cross section, these are kept to a minimum.  The area of materials of cabin need not be greater than the area of materials for the same length of cockpit (side decks, inside walls and floor compared to sidewalls and top of cabin), and they may be of lighter construction.

For me the biggest problem with a long forward cabin is that it pushes the sliding-seat rowing position aft.  I'm designing seat tracks right to the cabin bulkhead and a large enough hatch that my body can be into the cabin space at the end of each stroke.  Since I row only in calm conditions, this isn't a problem.  Even so, my center of mass will be aft of the boat's longitudinal center of buoyancy - so I'll compensate with weight stowed forward.  The hatch will be in sections so that the lower part will prevent water entering the cabin even it the cockpit is swamped when sailing with the upper part open for cabin access.  Of course hatches will be completely sealed in severe conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that you should constrain length too much. A long boat will be more seaworthy, slippery and you will gain in comfort. Obviously at some point it becomes too much extra weight but adding say 2 feet so that the loads are well balanced and you have enough space under isn't going to be the end of the world weightwise  as long as you resist the tentation to fill the extra volume with extra stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've completed drafts and analysis of 16-foot and 18-foot designs.  These have the same beam and identical cabins running 10 back from the bow, so the length difference is all in the cockpit.  The hull shapes are VERY similar.  As noted in my last post, there is no advantage to longer cockpit for my purposes, and perhaps a disadvantage, nor would there be any advantage to more cabin for me.  The longer boat has more wetted surface which appears to slow it a little more than it gains from reduced wave making with greater waterline length.  According to KAPER analysis, the longer boat is 1 to 3% slower with the same loads at the thrust I can maintain rowing (at about 4 knots).  I think it would be a little easier to achieve weight balance while rowing in the longer version, but this shouldn't be problematic for the shorter, so it's not significant.  The shorter version would be a little lighter and slightly easier to build.  The longer might be a little faster sailing at speeds between the rate at which I can row and the point at which they would plane.  I doubt this would be significant.

I'm leaning toward the shorter version at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to comment on the Santana 20. Great small boat for the right conditions. Lousy boat for the wrong conditions.

The RORC and PHRF concluded flying saucer shapes were not good. They had good form stability up to a certain degree of tippy. After that is was all over, literally, and when they went keel up, they stayed that way for far too long.

The RORC did their research after the Fastnet mess. PHRF did so in the early eighties. I have their info, but it is stored in boxes and will not see the light of day for at least a year.

Unkle Krusty. I still favor the T22 over the Cal 20, mostly because of the extra room. And the T22 does not have a lot of room, but would do the ob IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Unkle Crusty said:

I would like to comment on the Santana 20. Great small boat for the right conditions. Lousy boat for the wrong conditions.

The RORC and PHRF concluded flying saucer shapes were not good. They had good form stability up to a certain degree of tippy. After that is was all over, literally, and when they went keel up, they stayed that way for far too long.

The RORC did their research after the Fastnet mess. PHRF did so in the early eighties. I have their info, but it is stored in boxes and will not see the light of day for at least a year.

Unkle Krusty. I still favor the T22 over the Cal 20, mostly because of the extra room. And the T22 does not have a lot of room, but would do the ob IMO.

My friends with a Tanzer 22 envied the space in my Shark, for some reason. I did sail circles around them but I'm not going to blame that on the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the flame bombers, its what gives them purpose in life.

Like what was previously mentioned, its hard to find a boat that is light, offshore capable (without a silly amount of investment to do it) and fast.   You have to decide on the compromises or, as others have stated, find a design close to what you want and build it yourself.

I would look at what were older MORC (Midget Ocean Racing Conference) race boats, which the rule required accommodation space.   They will be heavier, but you have realistic accommodations and decent performance.   All of them are pretty easily driven, so a long sweep could get them moving.   These would be racer/cruiser boats of the 1970s-80s.  RKoch has the photographic memory of all of them.   I grew up racing and cruising on the West Coast of FL sailing a Morgan 24.   Was way over the weight requirements, but could be made to go off shore very easily and are relatively inexpensive.    That would be a palace after living on your sailing canoe.

Going down in size to the 20-22 foot range, I am not as familiar.   Maybe IOR mini-ton'ers?   Both small, relatively light and most likely cheap.   You still need some carrying load for offshore equipment that you would not normally have on a coastal expedition like you did with the Marsh Duck.  There were both keel and centerboard designs, although I would chose to go offshore with a keel, for interior room.   Lindenberg 22 or an Irwin Mini Ton would be examples of ones with a centerboard.   Mirage 5.5 is swing keel and a Ranger 22 is a fixed keel.  You would be hard pressed to jump up on a plane with these boats, but you would get where you wanted to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ScotDomergue said:

Here are a few concept drawings.

16 src sailplan.jpg

16 src sections.jpg

16 src sect 6.jpg

Scott,

I think it's completely cool what you're doing! I really appreciate you sharing your design of the new boat. Please keep 'em coming.

I followed along the design and build of  Marsh Duck on your blog. I'm impressed on how you kept the weight down. The new boat also looks like a winner. 

What's the thinking on going from an aft cabin to a forward cabin?

Are you thinking of a similar kind of construction?

Will you have oarlock 'wings' like Marsh Duck?

Why another monohull instead of , say, your 5.5 meter narrow trimaran?

Thanks!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stumblingthunder said:

Ignore the flame bombers, its what gives them purpose in life.

Like what was previously mentioned, its hard to find a boat that is light, offshore capable (without a silly amount of investment to do it) and fast.   You have to decide on the compromises or, as others have stated, find a design close to what you want and build it yourself.

I would look at what were older MORC (Midget Ocean Racing Conference) race boats, which the rule required accommodation space.   They will be heavier, but you have realistic accommodations and decent performance.   All of them are pretty easily driven, so a long sweep could get them moving.   These would be racer/cruiser boats of the 1970s-80s.  RKoch has the photographic memory of all of them.   I grew up racing and cruising on the West Coast of FL sailing a Morgan 24.   Was way over the weight requirements, but could be made to go off shore very easily and are relatively inexpensive.    That would be a palace after living on your sailing canoe.

...      ...     ...

I get the impression that Scot is very much a minimalist, the Marsh Duck is a very cool and is a "maxi" in terms of it's flexibility and man-portability. A boat modeled on a Mini-MORC could be great too but is not going to ever be man-portable. It's a conceptual hurdle I am having a hard time with too. But IMHO a boat that is intended for making open-water passages (and including a high chance of getting caught in bad weather) should be self-rescuing to a large degree. For a small monohull, I'd say that means positive flotation plus being ballasted for self-righting.

Multihull? A different approach, worth looking into.

1 hour ago, chickenlips said:

Scott,

I think it's completely cool what you're doing! I really appreciate you sharing your design of the new boat. Please keep 'em coming.

I followed along the design and build of  Marsh Duck on your blog. I'm impressed on how you kept the weight down. The new boat also looks like a winner. 

What's the thinking on going from an aft cabin to a forward cabin?

Are you thinking of a similar kind of construction?

Will you have oarlock 'wings' like Marsh Duck?

Why another monohull instead of , say, your 5.5 meter narrow trimaran?

Thanks!! 

Also interested in these same questions.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I get the impression that Scot is very much a minimalist, the Marsh Duck is a very cool and is a "maxi" in terms of it's flexibility and man-portability. A boat modeled on a Mini-MORC could be great too but is not going to ever be man-portable. It's a conceptual hurdle I am having a hard time with too. But IMHO a boat that is intended for making open-water passages (and including a high chance of getting caught in bad weather) should be self-rescuing to a large degree. For a small monohull, I'd say that means positive flotation plus being ballasted for self-righting.

Multihull? A different approach, worth looking into.

Also interested in these same questions.

FB- Doug

I understand.    I am narrowing down from larger boats to smaller ones, whereas Scott wants to expand upward from his boats to 'Just enough' to do ocean crossing.

Stumbling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites