Jump to content

NY to SFO the hard way


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I arrived at Miramar Yacht Club, Brooklyn, this morning at 3 am.  Tracker was off for some reason.  Sorry about that.

This is the short version I just posted on facebook.  Hopefully it explains the sequence of events.  Thanks for all of the good energy here on SA.  If I've learned one thing since sailing Jzerro up he

I'll be going again next winter.  Full report coming.thanks for all the positive thoughts everyone.  It definitely helps.

Posted Images

56 minutes ago, unShirley said:

So what caused the hole? UFO or water pressure/wave action?

Unclear.  No evidence of and impact on the panel that popped inside the boat, but I have not gotten under the pod to inspect further.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job on repairing the boat in such difficult conditions.

Do you carry energy bars for these sorts of situation (like Cliff bars)?  Excellent morale booster and keep you going when you don't have time to grab anything else.

I'm going to say it was a wave slam. I know, I know "a wave, chance in a million etc." - but that is pretty light skin, close to the water, and pretty flat in shape.

Find somebody to donate or loan you a 12V low power Spectra or similar watermaker!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan, for a watermaker, you need to watch this video. DIY watermaker, with a specific parts provider. It is still expensive, but the price is about the 1/3 of a brand watermaker, but, it uses more power, and needs to be installed/assembled by you...

https://seawaterpro.com/product/12-vdc17-gph-65-lph-single-membrane-no-remote-control/

For 3k, you have a 12 VDC 17GPH system...

 

Note 1: I have no affiliation with this company.

Note 2: I have not tried their product...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruno said:

2,400 for a hand pumped, just need a towable rotary linear converter.

     I had a PowerSurvivor watermaker that could be disconnected from the electric motor and fitted with a handle for manual pumping when things got grim. Never tried it out but I have heard that the effort to pump that thing would lead to greater water loss from sweating in even a temperate climate. I lusted for one of the tiny hand pump units that they made to carry with me when I thought I was the Aboriginal Windsurfer cruising the Virgins Islands. I had my gear and survival kit for that pretty well worked out with a Bahamian sling up inside the windsurfer mast so could feed myself and thought if I could hand pump drinking water I could be self-sufficient. I even put a proposal into the watermaker people but I guess they figured I was pretty fringe to be doing such a thing. Besides, it was no problem just sailing past the cockpit of the bareboaters and asking if they could top off my liter waterbottles. That usually got me an invitation to lunch in addition to some water. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oysterhead said:

No glass over the original fillet? Light but doesn't look like it was up to the load from a good whack.

Naive thinking IMHO.  

You cannot build a boat that will survive everything that MIGHT happen at sea.  Anymore than you can build a car that will survive a "good whack" from a freight train.

Fillets are not normally glassed over, as, in most cases, they are not engineered as primary structural members, but rather joint enhancements.  A clean, simple way to make a structural joint stronger. Not a load bearing structural joint in and of itself.

We don't know what kind of a "good whack" Jzerro endured, but considering that Jzerro has been sailing  tens of thousands of blue water miles over the last 30 years, or so, without damage to that underwing panel, I'm inclined to believe that she was well designed and built.

Bottom line:  If you're thinking that your boat is going to survive intact  whatever "good whack" the sea can throw at it, you probably shouldn't be out there

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

(aside) Sure like the idea of desal water on demand, but back in the day, had to settle for the low tech collapsible clear plastic 5 gallon  jugs. About $2 or $3 each, IIRC. Low maintenance. Lots of other competition for $5,000 or more then and now. 

Looking forward to see the best solution in this case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the watermaker info guys.  I'm definitely making that a priority for next winter.  Believe me, I prefer the simplicity of carrying water and the zero power demands, but for this trip it's clear that not carrying the weight is a matter of safety.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've occasionally wondered why no one has come up with a simple system for collecting rainwater off their sails to top up their supply on long voyages, but then I live in a coastal rain forest :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Merlin Hawaii said:

Naive thinking IMHO.  

You cannot build a boat that will survive everything that MIGHT happen at sea.  Anymore than you can build a car that will survive a "good whack" from a freight train.

Fillets are not normally glassed over, as, in most cases, they are not engineered as primary structural members, but rather joint enhancements.  A clean, simple way to make a structural joint stronger. Not a load bearing structural joint in and of itself.

We don't know what kind of a "good whack" Jzerro endured, but considering that Jzerro has been sailing  tens of thousands of blue water miles over the last 30 years, or so, without damage to that underwing panel, I'm inclined to believe that she was well designed and built.

Bottom line:  If you're thinking that your boat is going to survive intact  whatever "good whack" the sea can throw at it, you probably shouldn't be out there

Good points Merlin,

     Reminds me of my first TransAtlantic passage on a Epoxy/Ply trimaran that was about the same size and vintage as Jzerro. We were just about mid ocean and had been having wonderful surfs as a big front approached from the NE. The big groundswell was just the right direction and period that we could stay on the crest and zip back and forth much like a surfer doing cutbacks and bottom turns. Fun to drive once you got the rhythm figured out but as we converged on the front the swells got steeper and higher and the cross seas upset the smooth surfs. The skipper who had designed and built the tri in Dick Newick's backyard on the Vineyard rightfully made the call to reef down and sail deeper and slower to stay in step with the wave patterns. Mainly because every now and then the swell and sea would double up and break with little warning. Not so bad during the day when you could see a big breaking section approaching and just steer to avoid it. But in the dark it would have been a real hazard and we were still making excellent daily mileage. 

     I was nearing the end of my morning 3 hour watch and my mate was prepping some rice and veggies for our noon meal at watch change. He had handed out some bowls and spoons to wash out before serving the steaming potluck meal. I put the autohelm on and bent to my task and didn't see a particularly 'rouge' wave sneaking up on our windward sternquarter. I felt the boat try and accelerate as the wave broke and the weirdest thing was the shadow of the breaking lip falling across the cockpit! Just like getting caught unawares sitting in the surf lineup BS'ing with a buddy while a clean up set nails you. I could hear the break and turn lifted my gaze from the cockpit floor and the dishes just in time to see the bright sun shining through the falling lip! It smacked the cockpit coaming and aft beam hard and the boat heeled alarmingly far. The wave filled the cockpit and washed everything in it out over the low side, including me. My legs and feet got pretty tangled up in the 'spaghetti' pile of running rigging on the sole of the cockpit and was left hanging head down looking at the leeward ama struggle to rise back to the surface. We came about a close to tripping over the bow but the boat got back on its feet and I scrambled back into the cockpit fearing our tableware had been washed out. 

    The dropboards were not in the companionway as the little swinging stove was about to yield our big meal of the day but it was now steaming with a good soaking of seawater that had gone below taking my missing bowls with it. The skipper was pretty cool about the whole thing but asked why I hadn't seen that sneak attack coming. He told me to roll the rest of the jib in as he pumped the cabin out and then dished out what was left of our rice and veggies. He seemed more upset and the oversalted gruel than anything else. It was my first encounter with the dreaded and legendary Rouge Wave but he had been through a similar situation years earlier on a much larger trimaran that flipped and they waited a couple of days upside down before getting picked up and rescued. I hadn't heard of that misadventure of his and asked why he hadn't shared that with me until then and he said it wasn't that big a deal and didn't want me getting anymore freaked out that I was on my first oceanic passage on a small light fast multihull. 

    The still warm meal helped calm me down and he came out in full kit ready for his watch and I was thrilled to get below and get dried off and jump in the bunk for a couple hour 'power nap' and get warmed up. He made the call to bear off towards the Azores instead of our rhumbline route from the Caribbean to Plymouth England which eased the motion and loads on the boat. The single bunk was really the seat to a long chart table and laying down in my sleeping bag I happened to look up at the 1"x2" sheerclamp on opposite me and noticed the spacing on the puttied over screwhead that the hull skim was fastened and filleted to. The screws appeared to be about 16" apart and I asked the builder why he hadn't been a bit more generous with the fastenings in that sheerclamp. He just mumbled something about the screws were just there to hold the parts in place until the epoxy adhesive set up and the spacing was fine. I said something about secondary bonds and shock loading and more screws would have helped me sleep better about them and he then sort of grinned and said that the screws were only cheap steel sheet rock screws to begin with and that he always took them out once the epoxy was cured! Now there was no way I was going to get to sleep and actually leaned across and put my fingers on the joint only to discover that the wave shock on that big relatively flat panel had cracked the bond and it looked much like the photos that Ryan shows above. 

    I gave my skip the dread news and he said he was aware of the fact just by the much slower response of the boat to shocks and that it got worse. I asked how it could possibly worse that the whole side of the main hull being nearly stove in and he calmly told me that he was pretty sure that the main beam had been similarly compromised as well and the main reason we were headed toward Horta at 6 knots instead of flying towards the English Channel at 10 knots. The main beam was forward of the bulkhead at the front on the main cabin and the whole forepeak was a separate watertight compartment accessible only from a hatch on the tiny foredeck. I could feel the crippled motion of the boat in the seas now and knew that neither of us had been up there to inspect. I offered to go take a look and he said it was pretty positive that the splice on the bottom of the tension member of the main beam had let go which was pretty alarming news, to me anyway. I asked how he could tell just what the damage was without looking and he said it had failed at that spot early on and he had fixed it, for a while at least! I was pretty chuffed by this attitude and acceptance and said something once more about leaving nice SS screws and through bolts as backup for the epoxy bond especially for sudden high shock loads as we had just experienced. 

     Which brings me to  Merlin's 'bottom line' from above which prompted this little sea story

Bottom line:  If you're thinking that your boat is going to survive intact  whatever "good whack" the sea can throw at it, you probably shouldn't be out there

     My skipper and builder of that sweet little 35' tri said at the time,

     "If you don't have faith in the integrity of the epoxy bond, you shouldn't be on the boat in the middle of a stormy N. Atlantic..."

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Good points Merlin,

     Reminds me of my first TransAtlantic passage on a Epoxy/Ply trimaran that was about the same size and vintage as Jzerro. We were just about mid ocean and had been having wonderful surfs as a big front approached from the NE. The big groundswell was just the right direction and period that we could stay on the crest and zip back and forth much like a surfer doing cutbacks and bottom turns. Fun to drive once you got the rhythm figured out but as we converged on the front the swells got steeper and higher and the cross seas upset the smooth surfs. The skipper who had designed and built the tri in Dick Newick's backyard on the Vineyard rightfully made the call to reef down and sail deeper and slower to stay in step with the wave patterns. Mainly because every now and then the swell and sea would double up and break with little warning. Not so bad during the day when you could see a big breaking section approaching and just steer to avoid it. But in the dark it would have been a real hazard and we were still making excellent daily mileage. 

     I was nearing the end of my morning 3 hour watch and my mate was prepping some rice and veggies for our noon meal at watch change. He had handed out some bowls and spoons to wash out before serving the steaming potluck meal. I put the autohelm on and bent to my task and didn't see a particularly 'rouge' wave sneaking up on our windward sternquarter. I felt the boat try and accelerate as the wave broke and the weirdest thing was the shadow of the breaking lip falling across the cockpit! Just like getting caught unawares sitting in the surf lineup BS'ing with a buddy while a clean up set nails you. I could hear the break and turn lifted my gaze from the cockpit floor and the dishes just in time to see the bright sun shining through the falling lip! It smacked the cockpit coaming and aft beam hard and the boat heeled alarmingly far. The wave filled the cockpit and washed everything in it out over the low side, including me. My legs and feet got pretty tangled up in the 'spaghetti' pile of running rigging on the sole of the cockpit and was left hanging head down looking at the leeward ama struggle to rise back to the surface. We came about a close to tripping over the bow but the boat got back on its feet and I scrambled back into the cockpit fearing our tableware had been washed out. 

    The dropboards were not in the companionway as the little swinging stove was about to yield our big meal of the day but it was now steaming with a good soaking of seawater that had gone below taking my missing bowls with it. The skipper was pretty cool about the whole thing but asked why I hadn't seen that sneak attack coming. He told me to roll the rest of the jib in as he pumped the cabin out and then dished out what was left of our rice and veggies. He seemed more upset and the oversalted gruel than anything else. It was my first encounter with the dreaded and legendary Rouge Wave but he had been through a similar situation years earlier on a much larger trimaran that flipped and they waited a couple of days upside down before getting picked up and rescued. I hadn't heard of that misadventure of his and asked why he hadn't shared that with me until then and he said it wasn't that big a deal and didn't want me getting anymore freaked out that I was on my first oceanic passage on a small light fast multihull. 

    The still warm meal helped calm me down and he came out in full kit ready for his watch and I was thrilled to get below and get dried off and jump in the bunk for a couple hour 'power nap' and get warmed up. He made the call to bear off towards the Azores instead of our rhumbline route from the Caribbean to Plymouth England which eased the motion and loads on the boat. The single bunk was really the seat to a long chart table and laying down in my sleeping bag I happened to look up at the 1"x2" sheerclamp on opposite me and noticed the spacing on the puttied over screwhead that the hull skim was fastened and filleted to. The screws appeared to be about 16" apart and I asked the builder why he hadn't been a bit more generous with the fastenings in that sheerclamp. He just mumbled something about the screws were just there to hold the parts in place until the epoxy adhesive set up and the spacing was fine. I said something about secondary bonds and shock loading and more screws would have helped me sleep better about them and he then sort of grinned and said that the screws were only cheap steel sheet rock screws to begin with and that he always took them out once the epoxy was cured! Now there was no way I was going to get to sleep and actually leaned across and put my fingers on the joint only to discover that the wave shock on that big relatively flat panel had cracked the bond and it looked much like the photos that Ryan shows above. 

    I gave my skip the dread news and he said he was aware of the fact just by the much slower response of the boat to shocks and that it got worse. I asked how it could possibly worse that the whole side of the main hull being nearly stove in and he calmly told me that he was pretty sure that the main beam had been similarly compromised as well and the main reason we were headed toward Horta at 6 knots instead of flying towards the English Channel at 10 knots. The main beam was forward of the bulkhead at the front on the main cabin and the whole forepeak was a separate watertight compartment accessible only from a hatch on the tiny foredeck. I could feel the crippled motion of the boat in the seas now and knew that neither of us had been up there to inspect. I offered to go take a look and he said it was pretty positive that the splice on the bottom of the tension member of the main beam had let go which was pretty alarming news, to me anyway. I asked how he could tell just what the damage was without looking and he said it had failed at that spot early on and he had fixed it, for a while at least! I was pretty chuffed by this attitude and acceptance and said something once more about leaving nice SS screws and through bolts as backup for the epoxy bond especially for sudden high shock loads as we had just experienced. 

     Which brings me to  Merlin's 'bottom line' from above which prompted this little sea story

Bottom line:  If you're thinking that your boat is going to survive intact  whatever "good whack" the sea can throw at it, you probably shouldn't be out there

     My skipper and builder of that sweet little 35' tri said at the time,

     "If you don't have faith in the integrity of the epoxy bond, you shouldn't be on the boat in the middle of a stormy N. Atlantic..."

Fuck, I'll say it again: Rasputin you could write a great book just with what you have posted in SA over the years. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoBirds said:

I've occasionally wondered why no one has come up with a simple system for collecting rainwater off their sails to top up their supply on long voyages, but then I live in a coastal rain forest :)

 

Jim Brown designed and configured just such a system TwoBirds.  Beautifully elegant in it's simplicity and efficiency. (in typical Jim Brown fashion).

Rainwater came off the sails onto the cabin top and into two gutters which then directed into into hoses that led through a couple valves into Gerry Cans below deck.

I don't have a link, but I bet you can find it on a google search

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

nice, never even occurred to me to build right into the structure, but then I'm no Jim Brown :)

I was thinking something like a piece of PVC pipe with a lengthwise slot a couple inches wide that slides over the boom from the end and hangs from the edges of the slot, cut out a couple caps to hug the boom and put them on each end, a small fitting on the bottom of the pipe to drain the water to storage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sail(plane) said:

Fuck, I'll say it again: Rasputin you could write a great book just with what you have posted in SA over the years. 

Agreed and judging from your surfing references, how bout some "Tales From the Tube" too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did most of my Ocean Crossings and Blue Water cruising in the 70s and 80s, before water makers were commercially available (or financially viable) for small boats. So, if you're looking at a long passage, you carried as much freshwater as possible with you and treated it as THE MOST VALUABLE POSSESION THAT YOU HAD!!

Meaning that you NEVER, EVER WASTED FRESH WATER - meaning that you never ever took fresh water showers - meaning that you never ever washed dishes with fresh water - you used sea water for cooking, cleaning, showering, and everything else. FRESH WATER WAS ONLY FOR DRINKING.

Everyone caught rainwater whenever they could, but you could not count on that. So the cardinal rule was NEVER EVER WASTE FRESH WATER!! Because it was 

THE MOST VALUABLE POSSESSION THAT YOU HAD!!

You get used to being salty, and it becomes comfortable for you.

Just a part of living on the Sea

 

And, yes, it was on a trimaran.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Merlin Hawaii said:

 

THE MOST VALUABLE POSSESSION THAT YOU HAD!!

You get used to being salty, and it becomes comfortable for you.

Just a part of living on the Sea

 

And, yes, it was on a trimaran.

 

Merlin,      

     I think the minimum recommendation at the time was 1/2 gallon per person per day so we took 15 gallons of fresh bottled drinking water for what we figured would be a three week race on the TwoStar doublehanded race in 1986. We had a lot of those small cans of fruit cocktail as well but 15 gallons didn't seem like much to be shoving off with at the time. Being held in early June the temps were still a bit chilly so we didn't have to worry about sweating out our body water as much as if it had been a tropical route and I think we arrived at Martha's Vineyard with two gallons which we took 'whore baths' on the last reach into Newport for the finish. Wanted to look and smell good for the race reporters at Goat Island!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

 I think the minimum recommendation at the time was 1/2 gallon per person per day so we took 15 gallons of fresh bottled drinking water for what we figured would be a three week race on the TwoStar doublehanded race in 1986.

Planned: 0.5 * 21 * 2 = 21 gallons. (not 15)

Actual: (15 - 2) / 2 = 6.5 gallons each (enough for 13 days)

Your elapsed time was 20 days 03 hours 13 minutes?  That's 0.325 gallons per day per person?  Marginal!

P.S.  Using the same 1/2 gallon per day per person guideline, Ryan would need 30 gallons (250 pounds) for a sixty day trip, with no safety margin.

Subtract the weight of a watermaker and the power equipment needed to keep it running to find how much weight would be saved.  Carrying jugs could be more reliable without a heavy weight penalty, considering half the water would be gone half way through the trip.  Two people might require a bigger boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 1:55 PM, Laurent said:

For 3k, you have a 12 VDC 17GPH system...

The beauty of Spectra (and Schenker too I think) is their energy recovery ability with their Clark pump

1 Ah = ~1 gallon of water.

But for a single person I had forgot the little Powersurvivor.  4A = 1.5 gallons.  That's 2 days water for 2 Ah.hr / day which you can easily make up with some solar panels. I think Rasp has a good suggestion.

On our Pacific crossing from Mexico to Marquesas we started with about 60 gallons of water. One tank was only filled 1/2 way. I had a lot of confidence in the watermaker and it allowed us daily showers in the cockpit. If it had crapped out on day 2 we would have kept going though; just a lot less bathing.

We also had a water catcher area on top of the bridgedeck cabin. An area about 15' x 6' catches a LOT of rain in the tropics. Faster than two x 5/8" hoses can flow with gravity. In other words even with the hoses pouring out water, the rain would overtop the gutters. Gutters were made from wood 1/4" round, epoxy coated and painted.

On 1/30/2021 at 2:09 PM, oysterhead said:

No glass over the original fillet? Light but doesn't look like it was up to the load from a good whack.

.A large radius fillet can be stronger than the plywood it is joining. However in this case with the boat being more loaded than typical (lower) and it just happened to catch a bad wave. Don't forget this boat has crossed oceans before and was built decades ago WITHOUT this sort of failure before. So I'd say it performed pretty good up until this point.

Look at the free Gougeon Bros. book - they did testing to destruction of fillet joints. However I think they were all T joints not right angle joints. They give required radius with high and low density fillets.

18 hours ago, Merlin Hawaii said:

Fillets are not normally glassed over, as, in most cases, they are not engineered as primary structural members, but rather joint enhancements.  A clean, simple way to make a structural joint stronger. Not a load bearing structural joint in and of itself.

Um, yes they often are, because it's good practice with composite right angle joints to not ask the glass to turn 90 degrees.  If big enough they are indeed structural; they just get too big if the ply gets about 1/2" or thicker. At that point it becomes lighter to glass + smaller fillet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

The beauty of Spectra (and Schenker too I think) is their energy recovery ability with their Clark pump

1 Ah = ~1 gallon of water.

But for a single person I had forgot the little Powersurvivor.  4A = 1.5 gallons.  That's 2 days water for 2 Ah.hr / day which you can easily make up with some solar panels. I think Rasp has a good suggestion.

On our Pacific crossing from Mexico to Marquesas we started with about 60 gallons of water. One tank was only filled 1/2 way. I had a lot of confidence in the watermaker and it allowed us daily showers in the cockpit. If it had crapped out on day 2 we would have kept going though; just a lot less bathing.

We also had a water catcher area on top of the bridgedeck cabin. An area about 15' x 6' catches a LOT of rain in the tropics. Faster than two x 5/8" hoses can flow with gravity. In other words even with the hoses pouring out water, the rain would overtop the gutters. Gutters were made from wood 1/4" round, epoxy coated and painted.

.A large radius fillet can be stronger than the plywood it is joining. However in this case with the boat being more loaded than typical (lower) and it just happened to catch a bad wave. Don't forget this boat has crossed oceans before and was built decades ago WITHOUT this sort of failure before. So I'd say it performed pretty good up until this point.

Look at the free Gougeon Bros. book - they did testing to destruction of fillet joints. However I think they were all T joints not right angle joints. They give required radius with high and low density fillets.

Um, yes they often are, because it's good practice with composite right angle joints to not ask the glass to turn 90 degrees.  If big enough they are indeed structural; they just get too big if the ply gets about 1/2" or thicker. At that point it becomes lighter to glass + smaller fillet.

Not sure that I agree with you completely on this, Zonker

Yes fillets can ease the transition between 90* panels, but you are talking about an application that involves the fiberglass sheathing of the entire area of the adjacent panels (or a large area of them), such as the interior of a composite foam/glass hull.  Which is an entirely different application than a plywood/ frame/stringer construction, which is what we have here in Jzerrro.

In your application, the hull strength comes from the "I Beam"  construction of the core laminated by the two skins.

In Jzerro's case the hull strength comes from the ply/stringer frame construction of the wood itself, and fiberglass sheating on the inside is neither needed, nor desirable.

The outside skin on Jzerro is only there for abrasion resistance (maybe 4 0z), and is not crucial to the strength of the hull.

What is holding the panels (that we are talking about above) in place on Jzerro is most likely some mechanical fastener (nails, screws, wire) and timber backing, which forms the primary structural joint.

The fillets in above said application, provide a slight enhacement to the primary structural joint ( and make for a cleaner interior appearance). But really provide very little overall strength to the joints as the fillets only contact a small area of the panels.

And the panels in contact with the fillets are, after all, only a thin veneer, maybe 1/16" -1/8" thick.

A joint of 1/16" veneer to 1/16" veneer is not going to last long with only a fillet holding it together.

Most certainly not for 30 years and tens of thousands of miles

Apples and Oranges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Merlin Hawaii said:

What is holding the panels (that we are talking about above) in place on Jzerro is most likely some mechanical fastener (nails, screws, wire) and timber backing, which forms the primary structural joint.

I don't think so. That's the old way of building a plywood on frame boat but it hasn't been common for decades. Russell Brown (the builder) or Proasailor (who provided that construction picture) might chime in here. I suspect the panels are connected to frames and stringers with fillets but no mechanical fasteners except the few you can see here..  Look at the red circles - those are all structural fillets. They are holding the boat together, not fasteners.

image.png.3800a241e3c73d83be4728088ff28d35.png

50 minutes ago, Merlin Hawaii said:

And the panels in contact with the fillets are, after all, only a thin veneer, maybe 1/16" -1/8" thick.

A joint of 1/16" veneer to 1/16" veneer is not going to last long with only a fillet holding it together.

Most certainly not for 30 years and tens of thousands of miles

That's not just a cosmetic veneer - it's the skin of the pod. I'd bet 3/8" or so.

But the boat IS 27 years old and has crossed oceans?!?  So I'd say it's a pretty successful design. And has held together in some ugly weather before this.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

That's not just a cosmetic veneer - it's the skin of the pod. I'd bet 3/8" or so. But the boat IS 27 years old and has crossed oceans?!?  So I'd say it's a pretty successful design. And has held together in some ugly weather before this.

Russell built Humdinger the same way. It's 21 years old and is still in perfect condition despite some hard use.

hum2.jpg

hum3.jpg

hum5.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zonker said:

I don't think so. That's the old way of building a plywood on frame boat but it hasn't been common for decades. Russell Brown (the builder) or Proasailor (who provided that construction picture) might chime in here. I suspect the panels are connected to frames and stringers with fillets but no mechanical fasteners except the few you can see here..  Look at the red circles - those are all structural fillets. They are holding the boat together, not fasteners.

image.png.3800a241e3c73d83be4728088ff28d35.png

That's not just a cosmetic veneer - it's the skin of the pod. I'd bet 3/8" or so.

But the boat IS 27 years old and has crossed oceans?!?  So I'd say it's a pretty successful design. And has held together in some ugly weather before this.

I think Merlin is referring to the veneer being one of the several layers of the plywood making up the skin of the pod. I would also agree with Oysterhead that the joint would  have been substantially stronger with a double bias tape over the fillet.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure but to say the fillet is only attached to the top layer is silly. The fillet is attached to the piece of plywood. The veneers are all stuck together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2021 at 6:25 AM, Max Rockatansky said:

Here is IMO the desal solution, and possibly by contacting Defender and asking for deep discount, and donations to make up the difference, can the collective maybe get one of these for our friend Ryan?*

https://www.defender.com/product.jsp?id=86967

 

*if this is of interest to him, of course

Smaller performance than what I posted; it is actually better suited for solo or doublehand sailing. And it is more compact and it draws little power...

But...

It is more expensive, and from what I see, it does not include sea water intake strainer, booster pump, 20 microns filter, 5 microns filter and charcoal filter for membrane "flushing" operation and all asssociated plumbing and check valves...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points about veneer strength, one big difference between cold molded and plywood construction is the strength of the epoxy bond to the thicker veneer, I have much more confidence in that over even a marine ply. Of course it is much more laborious and expensive. But a cold molded boat has completed a Whitbread (Iirc) and I am not aware of a plywood boat having done so.

Ply/glass is a bit different, not sure I agree that there is no role for glass on panel interiors. If only to control checking and water ingress it serves a purpose. Also an additional (even a light) layer does add panel strength. Then when you fillet to that the load is spread over a greater area. Glassing over the fillets of course makes them stronger, it's another layer, and, as noted, proper filleting is essential to proper glassing. Not sure why any of this is in contention.

I am more nervous about inaccessible spaces than perhaps anything else on a boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laurent said:

it does not include sea water intake strainer, booster pump, 20 microns filter, 5 microns filter and charcoal filter for membrane "flushing" operation and all asssociated plumbing and check valves...

I am operating for four years a 12V katadyn 160E with less than you suggest. I have strainer, no booster at all, and flush with only the charcoal and 20micron filter. Especially for the instant case, less is more. All Ryan needs is 20 micron filter unless he can’t install so low that he would need a boost pump

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Rockatansky said:

I am operating for four years a 12V katadyn 160E with less than you suggest. I have strainer, no booster at all, and flush with only the charcoal and 20micron filter. Especially for the instant case, less is more. All Ryan needs is 20 micron filter unless he can’t install so low that he would need a boost pump

For comparison to carrying 30 gallons of water, the Katadyn PowerSurvivor 40E weighs 11.3 Kg (25 lbs., the same as three gallons of water). At 1.5 gallons per hour it will run for 20 hours to produce 30 gallons (12 volts DC @ 4 amps X 20 hours = 80 amp hours for 30 gallons).  Optimum pump frequency in manual operation (a nice feature) is "30 pumps per minute = almost 3 liters in 30 minutes" (900 pumps!) Or ~600 pumps per day (20 minutes?) for 1/2 gallon per day.

$4,100 / 30 gallons = $137 per gallon, though of course it would serve beyond one trip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

For comparison to carrying 30 gallons of water, the Katadyn PowerSurvivor 40E weighs 11.3 Kg (25 lbs., the same as three gallons of water). At 1.5 gallons per hour it will run for 20 hours to produce 30 gallons (12 volts DC @ 4 amps X 20 hours = 80 amp hours for 30 gallons).  Optimum pump frequency in manual operation (a nice feature) is "30 pumps per minute = almost 3 liters in 30 minutes" (900 pumps!) Or ~600 pumps per day (20 minutes?) for 1/2 gallon per day.

$4,100 / 30 gallons = $137 per gallon, though of course it would serve beyond one trip.

At this point I'm considering it an insurance policy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, r.finn said:

At this point I'm considering it an insurance policy.

Not including any weight for generating electric power (~1.33 amp hours per day for 1/2 gallon of water), it saves 225 lbs. compared to 30 gallons of water, though could potentially produce more than 1/2 gallon per day, which would be very nice.  However, it introduces a potential liability, a "SPOF" (single point of failure).  In either case, I would think you want to carry an extra ~5 gallons of drinking water in reserve, for "insurance"? (42 lbs.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Not including any weight for generating electric power (~1.33 amp hours per day for 1/2 gallon of water), it saves 225 lbs. compared to 30 gallons of water, though could potentially produce more than 1/2 gallon per day, which would be very nice.  However, it introduces a potential liability, a "SPOF" (single point of failure).  In either case, I would think you want to carry ~5 gallons of drinking water in reserve, for "insurance"? (42 lbs.)

I'm not sure where the 30 gallon number came from, but I was carrying more than double that for this potentially 70 day trip, so the weight savings would be a lot more than 225 lbs.  A lot of this trip is tropical and I can assure you I drink more than half a gallon a day during that part of the trip including the freeze dried food requirements.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I missed it in the discussion but where is the energy for the RO unit coming from? It looks like the Katadyn needs something like 31 Wh/gallon. It was my impression that manual actuation of the pump was only for emergencies even then the conventional wisdom is that it might kill you from sweating/exertion. It seems like Jzerro has more than enough boat speed to produce a ton of energy with a Watt and Sea but of course that is also alot of additional money. What is the smarter (ie least worries), cheaper, lighter ways to power the desalinator?

Some design choices: 1) Solar 2) Watt and Sea or any other water propelled generator 3) Honda Generator (Gas or Propane) 4) Alternator on Outboard if you chose to keep the outboard on the sled 5) Wind generator

My gut is that a towed generator or Watt and Sea might be the way to go.

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

I am operating for four years a 12V katadyn 160E with less than you suggest. I have strainer, no booster at all, and flush with only the charcoal and 20micron filter. Especially for the instant case, less is more. All Ryan needs is 20 micron filter unless he can’t install so low that he would need a boost pump

Good to know!

Thank you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, r.finn said:

I'm not sure where the 30 gallon number came from

1/2 gallon per day for 60 days.

1 hour ago, r.finn said:

I was carrying more than double that for this potentially 70 day trip

One gallon per day?  70 gallons X 8.33 lbs./gallon = 583+ pounds!?  Yes, that is an entirely different ballgame.

 

1 hour ago, ProaSailor said:

Not including any weight for generating electric power (~1.33 amp hours per day for 1/2 gallon of water)

P.S.  Double that power consumption for one gallon per day: 2.67 amp hours per day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Go solar. No moving parts and 10-20 year warranties....

I have solar, but really don't have the real estate for more and it's not enough.  I have to go hydro generator to keep up with the new power requirements.  At the moment I'm using solar and EFoy fuel cell.  I want a third leg to stand on and it's either wind or water generators.  Wind seems a little precarious on this boat and hydro will require a lot of creativity to be adapted onto a boat without a transom, but obviously it's possible considering Jzerro has been adapted for an outboard engine.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shunt the water generator! 

Watt and Sea seem stupid money though. 

How many watts of solar do you have? Is top of the leeward pod clear real estate?

I agree wind generators would be interesting on a proa. Just stick it on a pipe leaning to windward of the windward ama

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Shunt the water generator! 

Watt and Sea seem stupid money though. 

How many watts of solar do you have? Is top of the leeward pod clear real estate?

I agree wind generators would be interesting on a proa. Just stick it on a pipe leaning to windward of the windward ama

I currently have 205W of reliable solar on the boat.  I had two 100W panels on the lee pod, but they were both ripped off while making 18-23 knots east of Cape Hatteras on my way to NY.  Both hanging by their wires with the hardware pulled through the panels due to water pressure.  I was only able to salvage one panel to be reused and had to dispose of the other one in NY.  So now the pod has one 100W and one 55W panel, both framed in by battens and lots of hardware.  There's also a glass 50W panel on one of the beams that Russell installed very well with custom frame supports many years ago.  I had an extra 200W that could be placed on the trampoline for milder conditions, and they actually both held without any issues during the Hatteras rounding earlier that month.  I only had one on deck for my departure in NY and it did not fare as well as it did during the delivery, so I have completely written off mounting anything to the trampoline for my next attempt.  I cannot nickel and dime my way out of these realities.  If I want to make water I need more power.  None of it's cheap, but it's essential to pull this off without going back to the drawing board a third time.  I hope I'm able to raise money this time around because I think a lot of people can see that I'm serious about this record attempt.  I'm comfortable saying that I'm not all hat, no cattle.  

ProaS, I'm talking to the spectra guys now.  

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

I agree wind generators would be interesting on a proa. Just stick it on a pipe leaning to windward of the windward ama

This. And its weight is in the right place..... 

If you attach a towed hydro generator off a windward outrigger in the middle of the ama, it can shunt itself? And the weight is in the right place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it has to be well clear of the water, so it's another 3 meter pole on the ama.  Jzerro's a bit small for that.  I'm not writing it off totally, but it's less attractive when mounting it is really considered.

4 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

This. And its weight is in the right place.....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I am just brainstorming here and not very knowledgable about these things, so go easy on me if this is a totally stupid idea:  to avoid the complexity of adding another system, i.e. water maker with its need for more electricity, how about adapting the water ballast tank in the ama to hold fresh water at the outset of the trip.  Use that water up first and then go back to sea water when needed for ballast,  before using the jugs taken along.  One would need some sort of pump or something to access the water. But might that not allow Jzerro to maintain the simplicity of no water maker?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of hydro generators .... 

A long shafted trolling motor clamped to the weather side of the cockpit could be adapted to generate power. Mine makes funny noises above 4 knots if I leave it in whilst sailing, suggesting it wants to send power back to the batteries. And it gives you extra in port independence and manoueverability? 

8222F886-A984-40B8-BB31-843E957758E6.jpeg

PS: I have 2 Solbian 145 watt panels on the cabin roof BTW.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

Speaking of hydro generators .... 

A long shafted trolling motor clamped to the weather side of the cockpit could be adapted to generate power. Mine makes funny noises above 4 knots if I leave it in whilst sailing, suggesting it wants to send power back to the batteries. And it gives you extra in port independence and manoueverability? 

8222F886-A984-40B8-BB31-843E957758E6.jpeg

PS: I have 2 Solbian 145 watt panels on the cabin roof BTW.

Interesting for sure.  I discussed something similar with the WindGen guy.  I can't put more solar on the deck.  I have a different sail plan and use it for sail changes, so I need the nonskid area.  A good hydro solution would more than make up for the lack of solar, especially if I am also using the EFOY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, r.finn said:

A good hydro solution would more than make up for the lack of solar, especially if I am also using the EFOY.

Just make sure the shaft is long enough to have enough water over the prop when wave troughs pass along the hull....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 4:55 PM, Laurent said:

Ryan, for a watermaker, you need to watch this video. DIY watermaker, with a specific parts provider. It is still expensive, but the price is about the 1/3 of a brand watermaker, but, it uses more power, and needs to be installed/assembled by you...

https://seawaterpro.com/product/12-vdc17-gph-65-lph-single-membrane-no-remote-control/

For 3k, you have a 12 VDC 17GPH system...

 

Note 1: I have no affiliation with this company.

Note 2: I have not tried their product...

ONly way to go IMHO. The spectra are way too expensive and now after my third boat with the Cape Horn Extreme, I've switched to the Echotech. Mainly because for a grand more I can get the fittings done. Found the Clarke pumps to be less reliable and finnicky than in the past and they don't pump out rated water. After all is said and done the few extra amps is worth the simplicity and reliability.

Good job on getting the boat back in one piece. Well done!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 5:18 PM, r.finn said:

I'm not sure where the 30 gallon number came from, but I was carrying more than double that for this potentially 70 day trip, so the weight savings would be a lot more than 225 lbs.  A lot of this trip is tropical and I can assure you I drink more than half a gallon a day during that part of the trip including the freeze dried food requirements.  

A water maker has to be looked at as an insurance policy that might go tits up. You still have to pack enough water to make land if it does. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2021 at 1:57 PM, TwoBirds said:

nice, never even occurred to me to build right into the structure, but then I'm no Jim Brown :)

I was thinking something like a piece of PVC pipe with a lengthwise slot a couple inches wide that slides over the boom from the end and hangs from the edges of the slot, cut out a couple caps to hug the boom and put them on each end, a small fitting on the bottom of the pipe to drain the water to storage.

 

We had a system with actual plastic rain gutters mounted at the edge of the Bimini with hoses running from the low point to the water tank fill. Let it rain for 10 minutes or so and then into the tank. We found a much simpler method. Let the rain wash the deck and then open the fill with a towel rolled tightly just downhill from the fill (we had high toe rails). It worked surprisingly well in tropical conditions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GH41 said:

A water maker has to be looked at as an insurance policy that might go tits up. You still have to pack enough water to make land if it does. 

I think we all get that.  Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruno said:

http://www.waterlog.co.uk/translation.htm

This failed to launch? Seems like a good thing though hooking up a manual unit via a converter to some kind of rotary unit seems doable.

Can't imagine a Park Ave boom couldn't do double duty, once you got the salt off.

That link is pretty wild.  We'll be rebuilding Jzerro at Jim Brown's property and I'll definitely work with him on some clever rain water catching options.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

Dude. Step away from the keyboard. You have enough boats. 

We're just trying to help you

I am unfamiliar with this "enough boats" phrase. Plz explain? :p Actually, no... don't. I don't want to understand!

I suspect Stephen looked at this and was questioning whether it flies or floats.... those pictures look like a fuselage at first glance. Beautiful.

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

I am unfamiliar with this "enough boats" phrase. Plz explain? :p Actually, no... don't. I don't want to understand!

I suspect Stephen looked at this and was questioning whether it flies or floats.... those pictures look like a fuselage at first glance. Beautiful.

if after paying marina fees, upkeep, and storage fees there's not enough money left over for your alimony payment you have enough boats, otherwise your good :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sidecar said:

Speaking of hydro generators .... 

A long shafted trolling motor clamped to the weather side of the cockpit could be adapted to generate power. Mine makes funny noises above 4 knots if I leave it in whilst sailing, suggesting it wants to send power back to the batteries.

Maybe it "wants" to, but is it able to? I checked up in detail for this capability with my Torqueedo and the final answer was that the return circuits were very firmly locked off by the manufacturer (or seriously prevented within the fancy firmware rather than easily reversible by tinkering) as there would be all sorts of potential bad complications...

Don't know if a more cheapo type trolling motor would have undergone the same levels of (over?) engineering as the Germans put into their motor, but the general logic was that it was more economical to stop charging than deal with battery/controller problems that likely ensue...

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....trying to be quiet - but its hard...Details about water is discussed  - due to payload problems.  This boat is very nice built and designed - but not for the task it was put to do. Oceansailing - nonstop 70 days - where it was loaded up - that is the hardest test. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 300/day minimum was something I only set for the first three days.  Sorry I didn't make that more clear.  It's just to get an early push for the record and likely the only time conditions would allow that for three consecutive days.  As we discussed, the payload can be reduced dramatically and in a way that will make this record a lot safer.  This isn't an insurmountable problem, but of course it's risky voyage.  There will always be a group of people on standby to say "I told you so", and to avoid becoming one of them myself I often think of Mike Birch's 1976 podium OSTAR finish on the Val 31'Third Turtle.  It always lifts my spirits.

25+ans+de+Voiles,+Third+T.jpg

val_trimaran2-1024x745.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to hear you are not giving up @r.finn.  And while I don't have the answer I would echo what others have said about solar.  Highly affordable and we have had it aboard various multis for about 30 years now.  I can honestly say its the only thing/system we have ever had on a boat where not a single component ever failed.  Super reliable if you can mount it securely.  Hope you find a way to do so and to add in a reliable water maker to keep the weight down, the boat floating higher, and the loads lower.  No doubt you are well aware but I just surprised that you seem to be saying there does not seem to be a place to mount enough of them on Jzerro.  Is this unique to or because of the proa design?

I am surprised at all the talk about catchment systems. How does this help?  Doesn't this take things right back to the problem or retaining a lot of extra weight (the fresh water we "caught") which is exactly what is not wanted?  We have not had a water maker on any of our personally owned boats but lots of our cruising friends do and all say the same thing.... highly reliable when used consistently which would seem to be the case here.  Guess I am asking is how reliable are watermakers?

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

Glad to hear you are not giving up @r.finn.  And while I don't have the answer I would echo what others have said about solar.  Highly affordable and we have had it aboard various multis for about 30 years now.  I can honestly say its the only thing/system we have ever had on a boat where not a single component ever failed.  Super reliable if you can mount it securely.  Hope you find a way to do so and to add in a reliable water maker to keep the weight down, the boat floating higher, and the loads lower.  No doubt you are well aware but I just surprised that you seem to be saying there does not seem to be a place to mount enough of them on Jzerro.  Is this unique to or because of the proa design?

I am surprised at all the talk about catchment systems. How does this help?  Doesn't this take things right back to the problem or retaining a lot of extra weight (the fresh water we "caught") which is exactly what is not wanted?  We have not had a water maker on any of our personally owned boats but lots of our cruising friends do and all say the same thing.... highly reliable when used consistently which would seem to be the case here.  Guess I am asking is how reliable are watermakers?

I think the big difference is that, were Jzerro to have a stern, there would be more deck space for solar.  However, in practice both ends are bows and I have to be able to safely do sail handling on either end, so I'm choosing non-skid over solar for that reason.  The catchment system is really a back up.  I don't plan to rely on it for water as the sole provider.  I've used watermakers extensively and have never had them fail during a long  trip, but having a simple backup system is probably a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mightyhartley said:
17 hours ago, Sidecar said:

Speaking of hydro generators .... 

A long shafted trolling motor clamped to the weather side of the cockpit could be adapted to generate power. Mine makes funny noises above 4 knots if I leave it in whilst sailing, suggesting it wants to send power back to the batteries.

Maybe it "wants" to, but is it able to? I checked up in detail for this capability with my Torqueedo and the final answer was that the return circuits were very firmly locked off by the manufacturer (or seriously prevented within the fancy firmware rather than easily reversible by tinkering) as there would be all sorts of potential bad complications...

Don't know if a more cheapo type trolling motor would have undergone the same levels of (over?) engineering as the Germans put into their motor, but the general logic was that it was more economical to stop charging than deal with battery/controller problems that likely ensue

You could be right. Certainly about Torqeedo.

My first “motor” was a one off designed and built by a boffin I know. In the end, it wasn’t powerful enough, and there were other issues. but it definitely had the ability’s to generate power, albeit inefficiently because it was not it’s primary purpose.

The current motor is a 160lb thrust cheepo:

https://www.trollingmotors.com.au/pages/performance

They are so cheap, compared to a Torqeedo, you could easily cannibalise a couple to achieve what you want? And you can have any shaft length you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, r.finn said:

There will always be a group of people on standby to say "I told you so", and to avoid becoming one of them myself I often think of Mike Birch's 1976 podium OSTAR finish on the Val 31'Third Turtle.  It always lifts my spirits.

Cruising World, October 1980, p. 254

Greed for Speed
Concern for safety is hallmark of Multihull Symposium 1980

Quote

The proceedings were kicked off by a solemn-looking Dick Newick shooting an undisguised broadside at some of the 21 multihull OSTAR entrants gathered less than a mile away in Millbay Docks.  "Down there are many men with a greed for speed," he said.  "These men aim for nothing less than ultimate speed, and overuse the potential of multihulled yachts.  The line between greed and enlightened self-interest has been blurred.  Those with a greed for speed will have to take risks and we all know the outcome of those risks."

Implying that it was the spectacular failures of these men and their yachts that were dragging at least the outside appearance of the multihull cause down, Newick went on to express deep concern that people were altering his designs without his approval, that many yachts being launched were not the ones he'd designed, and that there had been more than one boat he'd taken his name from completely.  Newick made no secret of the fact that his reputation was being marred by these boats though he did not mention any by name.

Link to full size image.

greed_for_speed.thumb.png.e331c51e5539600a07530b958655babd.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember OSTAR was only 24 days....  Im not saying I told you so...  I can see you really want a big challenge after sailing many miles on the boat.  The trip itself could be much nicer and easier with pitstops - but than its a different challenge of c - and now - the nonstop thing has an additional advantage... 

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

You could be right. Certainly about Torqeedo.

My first “motor” was a one off designed and built by a boffin I know. In the end, it wasn’t powerful enough, and there were other issues. but it definitely had the ability’s to generate power, albeit inefficiently because it was not it’s primary purpose.

The current motor is a 160lb thrust cheepo:

https://www.trollingmotors.com.au/pages/performance

They are so cheap, compared to a Torqeedo, you could easily cannibalise a couple to achieve what you want? And you can have any shaft length you want.

In advance, sorry for the thread highjack...

Sidecar, can you relate any first hand experience with these  trolling motors? If necessary, please PM me.

I checked their website. The biggest one is what you relate to, with 160 lbs of static thrust. It is a 1430 W system, claimed to be comparable to a 7 HP outboard. The math says it is more like 2 HP... So, yes, I know, I know... High torque at low RPM and all that with electric motor make them perform like much bigger internal combustion engine propulsion systems... but 3 1/2 times more??? The website claims it is good up to 3 ton displacement sailboat.

 

So what is your personal experience???

 

If necessary we can open a new thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Waterlog idea was interesting - but I think it lacked big prefilters which are essential to keep the membrane clean.

Also sharks like to eat long silver fish shaped things (or at least bite at them). I wouldn't want a multi-thousand dollar trolling lure.

 

160 lbs of static thrust is about equal to a well optimized 6 HP motor if true. I know Joe S. who owned "Katie Kat" put a load cell on his Yamaha 9.9 high thrust and measured ~250 lbs.  But trolling motor manufacturers LIE. Practical Sailor did static thrusting of several. Short summary - they overstate by 35-40% or so. So that 160 lbs might be closer to 100 lbs or thereabouts. Which is closer to a 4 HP motor in static thrust. Note that trolling motor props are probably optimized for zero speed, and outboard small outboard props are probably designed for 5-6 knots, which makes trolling motor have higher static thrust but their thrust curve drops off faster than an outboard once you get going. 

https://www.practical-sailor.com/systems-propulsion/diesel-engines/trolling-motor-test

Manufacturer Rating                     Actual Static Thrust

Minn-Kota RT50/SC/S  (50#)         34#

MotorGuide SW46 HT    (46)         32#

Minn Kota RT80/S-3X    (80)         59#

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bruno said:

Jim Conlin made himself a lovely semi circular boom out of cedar strips and carbon, doubles as stack pack. I definitely have boom envy.

Someone have a design? I like it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laurent said:

In advance, sorry for the thread highjack...

Sidecar, can you relate any first hand experience with these  trolling motors? If necessary, please PM me.

I checked their website. The biggest one is what you relate to, with 160 lbs of static thrust. It is a 1430 W system, claimed to be comparable to a 7 HP outboard. The math says it is more like 2 HP... So, yes, I know, I know... High torque at low RPM and all that with electric motor make them perform like much bigger internal combustion engine propulsion systems... but 3 1/2 times more??? The website claims it is good up to 3 ton displacement sailboat.

So what is your personal experience???

If necessary we can open a new thread...

I have PM’d you.

There is also at least one thread on electric motors. My post: No 64

 

Edited by Sidecar
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:

160 lbs of static thrust is about equal to a well optimized 6 HP motor if true. I know Joe S. who owned "Katie Kat" put a load cell on his Yamaha 9.9 high thrust and measured ~250 lbs.  But trolling motor manufacturers LIE. Practical Sailor did static thrusting of several. Short summary - they overstate by 35-40% or so. So that 160 lbs might be closer to 100 lbs or thereabouts. Which is closer to a 4 HP motor in static thrust. Note that trolling motor props are probably optimized for zero speed, and outboard small outboard props are probably designed for 5-6 knots, which makes trolling motor have higher static thrust but their thrust curve drops off faster than an outboard once you get going. 

The manufacturers probably give the thrust rating at the motor end of a propeller, and not the water end?

Most trolling motor props are pretty useless. I am thinking about putting on a Torqeedo (original) prop for more torque. Slightly larger diameter, more prop area and a more streamlined hub.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 300 day non stop solo around the americas trip on an Albin Vega 27’ was done with a manual life raft style water maker. He pumped straight into his mouth. This was mainly due to the prohibitive cost of all the gear that’s being discussed for that budget. It was supposed to be an unassisted attempt but that didn’t happen due to the first water maker failing and having someone throw him a new one from (I think) Nova Scotia before the NW passage. I’d think a bunch of cans of soup that could be discarded as consumed, a manual water pump and rain collection would be a cost effective and weight reduction strategy, but I’m too much of a weenie for any of this so like much of what’s posted this is all armchair speculation. My toddlers little squeezie food bags we sometimes give her are pretty tasty, hydrating and weigh almost nothing when empty. I wouldn’t want to throw the plastic trash over.  Maybe try to maintain a 10 or 15 Gallon reserve by pumping and or rain collection in case you got sick/injured or becalmed with a broken pump.  Does the dry food you carry require cooking? Fuel for that weighs something? I think I recall Rasp talking about consuming cold can beans that he heated by snuggling on his transat. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there are repair issues to attend to but are there initial thoughts about reinforcement of the pod seeing as you are already making repairs?

For example: 1) Strengthen the panel with something. Add kevlar outside and maybe inside on the lower leading edges of the leepod? My guess is kevlar is better than carbon here  but others know this better than I do? 2) Add more wood to the leepod -- laminate on another layer of plywood and fglass or exotic fabric on top of that 3) Add exterior stringers of some sort along length of bottom of the leepod running fore and aft (fore and fore in this case) I think Cimba and Kauri seemed to have these but others know much better than I do.  4) Add more structure like mini bulkheads/framing inside the leading edges of the pod.   It seems to me that with 1) with suitable amounts of kevlar outside and maybe inside if you have easy access to the internal areas combined with 3) could get you a lot of strengthening without too much trouble, weight and expense. Or are there other perhaps even more aggressive thoughts for reinforcement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Kevlar? It has very crappy compressive properties. And it's a bitch to laminate and fair. If you flex a panel with water pressure on the outside the external face of the panel is in compression and inside is in tension.

Kauri is not often found outside of NZ.

Breaking up the panel spans with stringers is clever but he has to work through a tiny access hole. (I would be tempted to enlarge the hole and just reinforce that bulkhead later - stuff in the middle of bulkheads often doesn't need to be there) - but it's the main bulkhead for cross beams so you've got to think about it carefully.

Ryan, if you do need any free engineering or thoughts, PM me or ask for help here.

I'm sure Jim or Russell Brown know more about ply and wood boats that me. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites