Jud - s/v Sputnik

Low tech ocean cruisers

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

For $40K I would expect *3* Alberg 30s and sticking an outboard on it automatically moves it to the sub $5K range. That is the neon sign of desperate low budget maintenance if the boat is not supposed to have one.

Did you even look at the boat?  A turnkey round the marble boat with new sails and built better than new.  $40k seems almost a bargain.

The builder tore out a working Atomic Bomb to put in an outboard, that's his philosophy on cruising boats.  It's built for long distance cruising, not weekend getaways in the Chesapeake.  If you're never going to use an engine except when you absolutely have to around a harbour or anchorage, all of that space is just wasted.  Not to mention it's much easier & cheaper running an outboard, and you can get them serviced anywhere in the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I've never understood the reverence for the Alberg 30. Sure they are good looking and well built but they have all the interior volume of a 24' and the one I sailed had the worst weather helm I have ever experienced. Your hands would get blistered after a few hours in strong wind.

Yeah you pretty much gave your opinions on them the first time this boat was posted.

There are some unique benefits, you can one design race all summer in the Chesapeake or Great Lakes, then tow it down to Florida and cruise the Keys or sail over to the Bahamas for a few weeks or months.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dilligaf0220 said:

Did you even look at the boat?  A turnkey round the marble boat with new sails and built better than new.  $40k seems almost a bargain.

The builder tore out a working Atomic Bomb to put in an outboard, that's his philosophy on cruising boats.  It's built for long distance cruising, not weekend getaways in the Chesapeake.  If you're never going to use an engine except when you absolutely have to around a harbour or anchorage, all of that space is just wasted.  Not to mention it's much easier & cheaper running an outboard, and you can get them serviced anywhere in the world.

Doesn't matter. If you take a $5-10K Alberg 30 and do $50K worth of improvements you get a $15K Alberg 30 at best and the outboard is a deal killer for 99% of the buyers out there. I would drill a hole in my head before I went back to outboard powered sailboats. waaaWAAAAAwaaaaWAAAAAwaaaaWAAAAAAwaaaa  been there - done that - never again.

I have three outboard engines right now, but not for sailboats and if the electronic ignition module goes out you have scrap metal until you can get another one. BTDT and rowed home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I've never understood the reverence for the Alberg 30. Sure they are good looking and well built but they have all the interior volume of a 24' and the one I sailed had the worst weather helm I have ever experienced. Your hands would get blistered after a few hours in strong wind.

If there is a reverence (and I’m not sure there is now, but maybe there was by an earlier generation of sailors?), it was probably helped by this:

 


And that you can buy one in apparently good shape for Can$15k?  Probably not ready to cross oceans, but all in all, a reasonable way to start if you keep the gear simple? https://www.usednanaimo.com/classified-ad/Sailboat---Alberg-30-For-Sale_34428997.lite?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dilligaf0220 said:

Yeah you pretty much gave your opinions on them the first time this boat was posted.

There are some unique benefits, you can one design race all summer in the Chesapeake or Great Lakes, then tow it down to Florida and cruise the Keys or sail over to the Bahamas for a few weeks or months.

I think some work with a little bowsprit might cure the weather helm. I have mixed feelings about them, their construction is both sound and basic, so they are one of the cheapest ways into an offshore boat. They, like all those narrow boats with overhangs, are quite small for the LOA. My main reservation is that they are slow. On the same passage from Bermuda to Cape May we caught up to one and actually got in a few hours earlier and they had left *5 days* earlier. Granted the weather was horrendous, but while we suffered and put the hammer down, they suffered doing storm tactics not going much of anywhere. But they did get in safe and sound, so if you aren't in hurry maybe it doesn't matter. Also we had 5 young guys vs. their two old guys.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

If there is a reverence (and I’m not sure there is now, but maybe there was by an earlier generation of sailors?), it was probably helped by this:

 


And that you can buy one in apparently good shape for Can$15k?  Probably not ready to cross oceans, but all in all, a reasonable way to start if you keep the gear simple?

The whole plan makes no financial sense if you aren't taking the boat more or less as-is. If you are going to buy new rigging, new sails, new lines, new engine, new batteries, and 50 other things for 2020 style dual watermaker cruising, the original purchase price fades into the noise.

Now if you are grabbing some sails from Bacons and fixing suspect rigging with a roll of wire and some DIY Stayloks and maybe a Craigslist engine if yours is beat THEN it makes sense. Otherwise start with a better boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Doesn't matter. If you take a $5-10K Alberg 30 and do $50K worth of improvements you get a $15K Alberg 30 at best and the outboard is a deal killer for 99% of the buyers out there. I would drill a hole in my head before I went back to outboard powered sailboats. waaaWAAAAAwaaaaWAAAAAwaaaaWAAAAAAwaaaa  been there - done that - never again.

I have three outboard engines right now, but not for sailboats and if the electronic ignition module goes out you have scrap metal until you can get another one. BTDT and rowed home.

But this whole thread is about low-tech ocean cruisers.

Outboard engine = low-tech.

Sculling oar/yuloh = low-tech, like Kevin Boothby’s Aouthern Cross 30 (?): https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCTmJcC_Yw3IL7Bvtf_7nTLw/videos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

But this whole thread is about low-tech ocean cruisers.

Outboard engine = low-tech.

Sculling oar/yuloh = low-tech, like Kevin Boothby’s Aouthern Cross 30 (?): https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCTmJcC_Yw3IL7Bvtf_7nTLw/videos

Unless the outboard is pretty old it is high-tech compared to a points-ignition A4 or simple 1-2 cylinder diesel. Putting an outboard on a boat with long overhangs that was not designed to have one usually results in a really bad experience in anything but flat calm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

But this whole thread is about low-tech ocean cruisers.

Outboard engine = low-tech.

Sculling oar/yuloh = low-tech, like Kevin Boothby’s Aouthern Cross 30 (?): https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCTmJcC_Yw3IL7Bvtf_7nTLw/videos

I would argue that an outboard is considerably less effective at it's basic task, and is equivalent or at a higher (more out-of-reach to the average person) technology than a good diesel. Higher capital outlay for the diesel but considerably greater capability, dead simple maintenance and easier to work on (given a sensible installation, which many cheap old boats don't have).

The prejudice against diesels is one of money and quirks of the mass-produced boats poor installation of them; plus the caveman unwillingness to clean anything properly. If you're going to have an engine, an outboard is expensive and unreliable and ineffective in a wide range of conditions, plus having to stow explosive fuel.

Easy for me to say, as a working man I saved up money and had the option to choose. But it seems like oars (or a yuloh, especially if it could be disassembled for stowage) would be as good an answer as an outboard ESPECIALLY for "low-tech."

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Unless the outboard is pretty old it is high-tech compared to a points-ignition A4 or simple 1-2 cylinder diesel. Putting an outboard on a boat with long overhangs that was not designed to have one usually results in a really bad experience in anything but flat calm.

Hmm a lot less maintenance than anything with points though. 
 

I admit, like you I just don't see the appeal of a the Alberg 30, its considerably slower with less interior room than my 27'er (or almost any semi modern 27'er) arguably no more seaworthy. But then again if we all sailed the same boats it would be a bit boring. 

I actually quite like James youtube videos & logs of the boats he's fixed up, and while we can laugh at the price, its obvious people are willing to pay it as he's made a business of it, having owned a couple of boats with outboards, at least its in the correct place, a well. My enduring memory is hanging off the backstay of a pitching 1/4 tonner trying to manoeuvre the outboard so we could strap it down over the keel. 

Share this post


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

 My main reservation is that they are slow.

Yup - PHRF says a San Juan 24 owes them 10 sec/mile.

So basically Rimas will get there before you. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MiddayGun said:

Hmm a lot less maintenance than anything with points though. 
 

I admit, like you I just don't see the appeal of a the Alberg 30, its considerably slower with less interior room than my 27'er (or almost any semi modern 27'er) arguably no more seaworthy. But then again if we all sailed the same boats it would be a bit boring. 

I actually quite like James youtube videos & logs of the boats he's fixed up, and while we can laugh at the price, its obvious people are willing to pay it as he's made a business of it, having owned a couple of boats with outboards, at least its in the correct place, a well. My enduring memory is hanging off the backstay of a pitching 1/4 tonner trying to manoeuvre the outboard so we could strap it down over the keel. 

I don't know, my points ignition is pretty low maintenance. I installed a new set of points, a new rotor, cap and a condenser a few months ago, that was the first time I messed with them in a few years, probably 400 engine hours since I last touched the distributor. That was preventative too, the engine still ran fine. I used to have electronic ignition, but it crapped out one day years ago so I swapped back while my wife made lunch and haven't got up the energy to put a new EI in yet. Maybe January I'll get around to it. The nice thing about points is they usually fail gradually. EI works or it doesn't. When my dinghy outboard ignition died it was 100% good and then dead no warning. There was no field repair possible unless you has another EI module with you.

Simple diesels that would go in an A30 sized boat should probably run longer than the skipper unless abused.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here on my A-30 w/diesel, docked next to my o/b powered Ariel-in-refit. Shaking my head while smiling ruefully at only just now learning of how poor my choice in boats really is, apparently, some 15+ years too late...


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Ariel have an outboard well? If so, it will at least work as well as outboard powered boats work as opposed to grafted on engines on boats not designed for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Does the Ariel have an outboard well? If so, it will at least work as well as outboard powered boats work as opposed to grafted on engines on boats not designed for them.

The $40k Alberg has a well too. Seems like it would work just fine for the intended mission. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For a serious cruising boat, of ANY budget, the point to me seems to be to make miles, as reliably and safely as practical.

From my POV, that's the definition of a bus.

Anyone whose priority is making miles should take a bus, or car, or train, or plane ... or even a bicycle,.  All of them are way faster than a cruising boat.

For me the whole point of a cruising boat is to spend pleasurable time on the water.  I enjoy sailing and hate engines, so I don't sail under skippers who just want to make miles.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

For a serious cruising boat, of ANY budget, the point to me seems to be to make miles, as reliably and safely as practical.

From my POV, that's the definition of a bus.

Anyone whose priority is making miles should take a bus, or car, or train, or plane ... or even a bicycle,.  All of them are way faster than a cruising boat.

For me the whole point of a cruising boat is to spend pleasurable time on the water.  I enjoy sailing and hate engines, so I don't sail under skippers who just want to make miles.

For me, that defines "recreational sailing" ... being on the boat -IS- the destination, so it doesn't matter when you actually get somewhere. As long as you don't miss dinner. Maybe that's the definition of cruising, when you've taken dinner along with you and so have no worries about missing it?

I've always found "cruising" to be better defined as "fixing your boat in exotic and inconvenient locations."

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Maybe that's the definition of cruising, when you've taken dinner along with you and so have no worries about missing it?

I can go with that part of the definition.  To my mind, you're not cruising unless you eat on board and sleep on board (or, for camp cruisers, eat and sleep shore with gear you brought with you).

But eat+sleep onboard is insufficient for me.  "Making miles" isn't cruising. That's boat delivery.  The whole point of cruising is to enjoy the journey.

Share this post


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

I would argue that an outboard is considerably less effective at it's basic task, and is equivalent or at a higher (more out-of-reach to the average person) technology than a good diesel. Higher capital outlay for the diesel but considerably greater capability, dead simple maintenance and easier to work on (given a sensible installation, which many cheap old boats don't have).

The prejudice against diesels is one of money and quirks of the mass-produced boats poor installation of them; plus the caveman unwillingness to clean anything properly. If you're going to have an engine, an outboard is expensive and unreliable and ineffective in a wide range of conditions, plus having to stow explosive fuel.

Easy for me to say, as a working man I saved up money and had the option to choose. But it seems like oars (or a yuloh, especially if it could be disassembled for stowage) would be as good an answer as an outboard ESPECIALLY for "low-tech."

FB- Doug

Hi Doug,

I’m neither pro-diesel or pro-outboard (or sculling oar) - I sorta intended this thread just to be a paean of sorts to low-tech ocean cruising boats in general - from the Pardey’s stout engineless 24’ Seraffyn (which went around the world, eventually returning to N. America via Japan), to unlikely candidates like the Tiki 21 (he made regular 160-mile days across the Atlantic!) and Cal 20s.  Hell, throw in relatively expensive non-electronic nav equipment more traditional boats like the Golden Globe Race boats too.  No electronics is low-tech!  I’m neither pro nor anti-engine.  In fact, though, having followed Race to Alaska for a few years (and done stage one a few years back on a Cal 20 with my teenage daughter), I’m more and more interested in engineless sailing.  Approaching a big-ish harbour like Victoria, BC, sans engine and with oars only (in R2AK), thinking through wind, tide, how many daylight hours were left —and bail out options in case we couldn’t make it in to the harbour (it was a bit of a struggle)— made the whole experience almost “profound” to me, anyway it made a strong impression on me - much more akin to cruising under sail than marine RVing, which is what a lot of cruising can resemble when engines are involved.  But they are certainly useful.

From my point of view, even an old-school simple diesel (like my Volvo Penta 2003: nothing electronic on it) is decidedly much more high-tech than an outboard - just the installation alone.  In my view, the ability to very easily remove an engine to service or replace it is decidedly very low-tech (even though modern outboard technology is complex).  (We had the Cal 20 outboard disassembled on our cockpit seats once after clearing into the US, the serious flak-jacketed border guy suspiciously eyeing us sunburned, wild-haired, bib pants-wearing barefoot sailors :-), tools spread everywhere.)  It was a godsend to be able to just remove the engine to tear it apart.). From that perspective, the outboard engine approach of Baluchon, the little red boat up thread currently in New Caledonia, or James Baldwin’s Atom, or Robert Crawford’s Bakckfeathers is quite low-tech, I think.  Pull out engine and drop in a well when needed, entering a harbour (clearly hanging one off the back isn’t a good option for a sea boat).  

But, perhaps predictably, the thread has devolved into two heated camps, passionate defenders of diesels vs. outboards :-) :-) .  I’m totally impressed with Kevin Boothby’s (How To Sail Oceans YouTube channel) engineless sailing.  He has a sculling oar and a dinghy with outboard to help him manoeuvre where needed.  He’s also a very good sailor.

So - low-tech sailing rigs for low-tech ocean cruisers: do we dare go down that road? :-) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 23feet said:

 

Another ocean going boat that has actually crossed oceans with an outboard... May be @kent_island_sailor could make a $5000 offer and see if they take it!

Share this post


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

Another ocean going boat that has actually crossed oceans with an outboard... May be @kent_island_sailor could make a $5000 offer and see if they take it!

I have briefly sailed a Condor 40 and we got it up over 20 knots and they crossed the Atlantic more than once. They were all outboard powered when new, some have since got a saildrive. They frequently had as built one or two outboards and a diesel DC generator, so you had a gas tank AND a diesel tank. You had to keep track of which one you were filling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 23feet said:

 

Up thread, @jdazey said “Almost any Wharram”.

Any idea which of the smaller Wharrams are generally considered ocean cruisers?  (Rory McDougall’s Tiki 21, about which there is a much on the web, clearly was never intended as an ocean cruiser.  But he circumnavigated, and then crossed the Atlantic twice. An unusual sailor.  The average person isn’t going to choose that as a low-tech ocean cruiser.)

I’ve only very cursorily poked around some sites about Wharrams - I know little about them and would like to learn more, and some say that of the smaller (under 38’, like Pilgrim here) Wharrams, some models are more suited than others towards ocean cruising.  (For example, I think I’ve read that the Tiki 30, a popular home build, isn’t considered oceangoing, it’s a good coastal cruiser, whereas other similar size and smaller ones are.  Any idea what makes some of the smaller Wharrams better suited than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

So - low-tech sailing rigs for low-tech ocean cruisers: do we dare go down that road? :-) 

That one is simple, isn't it?

A low tech rig starts with low compression.  Once you start down the path of highly-stressed stays, you are in a whole world of complexity which needs hi-tech solutions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Anyone whose priority is making miles should take a bus, or car, or train, or plane ... or even a bicycle,.  All of them are way faster than a cruising boat.

For me the whole point of a cruising boat is to spend pleasurable time on the water.  I enjoy sailing and hate engines, so I don't sail under skippers who just want to make miles.

 

For a whole week cruising around Desolation Sound in a luxurious 50', we were tailed by a family in a Cal 25. We'd be anchored by early afternoon, then 3-4 hours later they'd come sailing in, using the motor only to set the anchor. They'd start  making dinner around the same time we did. They enjoyed all the same anchorages, scenery, swimming holes, hiking trails, etc. 

If it took us a couple of days to get up there from Vancouver, it might have taken them 3 or 4. So what? There are great places to stop, that we speed demons missed.

Also, in the PNW, the cove next door can be as nice as the "must visit" one 50 miles away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

But this whole thread is about low-tech ocean cruisers.

Outboard engine = low-tech.

Disagree. A Yanmar 2QM diesel is low tech. A Honda outboard is high tech.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ariel was originally offered in 2 versions, with an A4 gas inboard, or otherwise an outboard well in the lazarette. Mine is an outboard version. Besides the well, the ob models also had/have no prop aperture in the rudder, and to keep things even for Class Racing, additional ballast in the keel.

Those are the same modifications that James makes on his ob well refits, minus the extra ballast. I don't think The Swede would object, at all.

James is obviously a perfectionist, you can see it in his work. He has 2 circumnavigations with his Triton 'Atom' under his belt, one engine-less, along with many other sea miles in a wide variety of craft, mono and multi, and it is on this personal experience that he predicates his refit choices. He takes the boat down to bare glass inside and out, and improves on everything he modifies or replaces, and his work does not detract at all from the capabilities of the vessel - quite the contrary, in fact. Given all this, $40K is a damned reasonable price, IMO. Experts don't work cheap, and I don't expect them to. Priced an Alerion 28, or Morse Cutter lately? Phew...

In response to some of what I've seen declaimed about Albergs prior in this thread:

On my Ariel, I've sailed multiple circles around a Catalina 22 in light air - conditions when it should've spanked me. Another day, I've outrun for the entire first 7 mile leg, then caught again and outrun on the way home (by a mile), a Scanmar 33, in 12-15 kts. That boat has a longer LWL than I have LOA, on the Ariel. I should by all rights have only seen the stern of that boat - not the opposite.

Point being - a boat doesn't sail well, or not well, on it's own - it's the skipper that makes the difference. If a boat has crazy weather helm or some other undesirable characteristic, it is more than likely that, *given you know what to do* to/with the boat/rigging/gear, you ought to be able to make it sail how it should.
If you can't, then there are obviously some things you need to learn yet.
That is not the fault of the boat.
Don't shoot the messenger.

Old classic Albergs are not the fastest boats out there. Neither are they the slowest. I submit that beyond being capable and well-behaved under the guidance of an even somewhat experienced helmsperson, they are also an absolute blast to sail, and to top that off, look far, far better whether afloat, underway, or at the dock, than do most of their more recent clorox-bottle kin. Ha!

Biased? Yup, totally. But tempered with a healthy dose of realism. :)

41 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

So - low-tech sailing rigs for low-tech ocean cruisers: do we dare go down that road? :-) 

Part of the Ariel refit, is implementing a junk rig w/cambered sail. I'm sourcing the spar right now, and will be sewing the sail myself.

Share this post


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

a boat doesn't sail well, or not well, on it's own - it's the skipper that makes the difference. If a boat has crazy weather helm or some other undesirable characteristic, it is more than likely that, *given you know what to do* to/with the boat/rigging/gear, you ought to be able to make it sail how it should.
If you can't, then there are obviously some things you need to learn yet.
That is not the fault of the boat.

Sure, a good skipper can work around the vices.  But a well-designed boat doesn't require the skipper to constantly compensate for its vices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

So - low-tech sailing rigs for low-tech ocean cruisers: do we dare go down that road? :-) 

I have a junk rigged schooner with steel tube masts and galvanised wire rigging. Made all the spars and did all the sewing for the sails myself.

And a 36HP diesel engine with 22" feathering propellor.

I'm quite comfortable with appropriate low tech.

All you guys pushing outboards on boats not originally designed for them must have a lot better luck with your weather than I do. Couple days ago it was forecast as westerly. We sailed out of the bay on a westerly all right, pity it was southerly and a lot stronger in the Channel. Fast crossing then a run to the north while the wind in the next big bay up was N-W so fire up the diesel to punch through a half metre chop that would have had an outboard on my transom cavitating at least 50% of the time.

WRT Wharram cats I have the catalog he put out a long time back with the basic specs of the various hulls. Hannah Taylor and her BF sailed a 38' one from South Australia to Darwin and made some decent vids along the way - Sailing Tangaroa. Worth watching some at least. They put a deck pod on as many people do because as designed, those boats bring a whole new meaning to 'cramped'.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Disagree. A Yanmar 2QM diesel is low tech. A Honda outboard is high tech.

FKT

Well, I meant from the overall, “total package” point of view.  You can simply remove fuel tank and engine if it’s an outboard set up - a diesel is certainly more complex to install and deal with than small outboard.  But, yeah, old school diesel technology is definitely “low tech” compared to modern outboards. (Which is why I love my old diesel.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Well, I meant from the overall, “total package” point of view.  You can simply remove fuel tank and engine if it’s an outboard set up - a diesel is certainly more complex to install and deal with than small outboard. 

We thought that at one point so we had a 30' workboat designed/built with twin 200HP outboards.

When we needed a second one we had the naval architect re-design the hull for twin diesels with Hamilton jets.

OK special case, we were operating in the Antarctic & sub-Antarctic. The thinking was we could take the o/bs off and service them in a relatively warm workshop. Problem was, they needed a lot more servicing and sucked fuel at an unbelievable rate. The diesel boat was a lot more forgiving in all respects.

Annie & Pete Hill were proponents of the no engine/low tech engine theory - they had a Seagull (God help them) on a sliding bracket.

Until they spent a season sailing in the Falklands - and fitted a diesel.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
6 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Well, I meant from the overall, “total package” point of view.  You can simply remove fuel tank and engine if it’s an outboard set up - a diesel is certainly more complex to install and deal with than small outboard. 

We thought that at one point so we had a 30' workboat designed/built with twin 200HP outboards.

When we needed a second one we had the naval architect re-design the hull for twin diesels with Hamilton jets.

OK special case, we were operating in the Antarctic & sub-Antarctic. The thinking was we could take the o/bs off and service them in a relatively warm workshop. Problem was, they needed a lot more servicing and sucked fuel at an unbelievable rate. The diesel boat was a lot more forgiving in all respects.

Annie & Pete Hill were proponents of the no engine/low tech engine theory - they had a Seagull (God help them) on a sliding bracket.

Until they spent a season sailing in the Falklands - and fitted a diesel.

IMHO from the viewpoint of user servicability, and factoring utility as a propulsion unit, a small-ish diesel is WAY more effective and appropriate than an outboard. Unless you happen to already be a skilled outboard mechanic, and know little about any other form of engine, which is possible.

However, if you view the outboard as a "magic paddle" that you just stick in the water and push the boat around in calm conditions, for short distances, and either get somebody else to do the fix-it-up or run it until it dies then get a new one; in that case I can see the low-tech advantage of the outboard.

I've owned big (41 ft ~12 tons) sailboat with no engine (actually we took the diesel engine out of it, and sold it) and used an outboard-powered dink for auxiliary propulsion. As long as you only wanted to motor in calm conditions, that worked fairly well. Of course, that boat was originally designed as a racer and it sailed quite well.

I think a lot of people arrive at their conclusions based on inboards that were already abused to the point of needing replacement, installations that were problematic & difficult to work on, and generalized that there must not be any such thing as a reliable and easy-to-maintain diesel inboard. No point in arguing with peoples' tastes, but I can't resist pointing out when their axioms "ain't necessarily so."

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Until they spent a season sailing in the Falklands - and fitted a diesel.

FKT

That’s hilarious - I can’t imagine cruising in any high latitude places with an outboard.

There’s a thread on boatdesign.net’s forum by a guy asking about the suitability of an outboard for cruising the Antarctic Peninsula.  He seems earnest enough, trying to understand why not, but all kinds of people with good info try to explain why it’s maybe not such  a great idea and I’m not sure he’s convinced.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Well, I meant from the overall, “total package” point of view.  You can simply remove fuel tank and engine if it’s an outboard set up - a diesel is certainly more complex to install and deal with than small outboard.  But, yeah, old school diesel technology is definitely “low tech” compared to modern outboards. (Which is why I love my old diesel.)

I'd argue against that, too, were I a bit more bored.

Don't like your chances of finding a copy but UNESCO put out a pamphlet on what was called the BOB drive, short for Bay of Bengal drive. Basically a sort-of version of a longtail but without the long tail - motor and prop assy with rudder swiveled up out of the water. Fitted to 20' and up open fishing boats. Single cylinder diesel, maybe a dog clutch, V belt drive to the shaft.

Now that's way lower tech than an outboard.

Bit more realistic for a yacht, something like a Yanmar YSE8 or 12. I have a Chinese copy sitting under one of my benches. Integral fuel tank, hopper cooled.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

That one is simple, isn't it?

A low tech rig starts with low compression.  Once you start down the path of highly-stressed stays, you are in a whole world of complexity which needs hi-tech solutions.

Ok, I actually don’t know the basics of “rig theory” —but re: compression, that makes sense. I just got ahold of master rigger Brion Toss’s (RIP - obit at link) classic book on rigging for more basic background.  High compression, then, leads to more complex (and more expensive) structures to support the loads.

Here’s a “review” of the Tiki 30, which I found interesting.  “The real genius in this boat comes more from what’s not present than whats found on board. No lead, no liners, and no inboard engine adds up to, or more specifically diminishes down to, a displacement that is so light that a low-tech, no-boom small sail plan can provide enough drive to make way, even when the sea surface is mirror smooth.” https://www.practical-sailor.com/sailboat-reviews/used_sailboats/tiki-30-catamaran-a-practical-sailor-boat-test

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Don't like your chances of finding a copy but UNESCO put out a pamphlet...

The plot thickens!! LOL!  Ok, we’ll leave it at that :-)

Well, on to low-tech navigation: sextant for distance off and height calcs for coastal cruising?  Cisco? :-).  Nope - were talking ocean cruising here :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

The plot thickens!! LOL!  Ok, we’ll leave it at that :-)

Well, on to low-tech navigation: sextant for distance off and height calcs for coastal cruising?  Cisco? :-).  Nope - were talking ocean cruising here :-)

Fuck that. Low tech is a hand-held GPS.

I have a sextant. I once knew how to use it.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
13 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Well, on to low-tech navigation: sextant for distance off and height calcs for coastal cruising?  Cisco? :-).  Nope - were talking ocean cruising here :-)

Fuck that. Low tech is a hand-held GPS.

I have a sextant. I once knew how to use it.

Celestial navigation is only "low-tech" given the assumption of a very accurate clock and large number of professional astronomers compiling and publishing an almanac for you. There are ways around this but they are considerably more complex and tedious.

I learned celestial and used it for fun but never used it "for real" decades ago. Buffed up a little to teach our Navy cadets how to reduce sun sights and get a decent result, but even that was 6~7 years ago. Will probably end up throwing my sextant away or asking a local seafood restaurant if they want it for a wall decoration.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoLegged said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Maybe that's the definition of cruising, when you've taken dinner along with you and so have no worries about missing it?

I can go with that part of the definition.  To my mind, you're not cruising unless you eat on board and sleep on board (or, for camp cruisers, eat and sleep shore with gear you brought with you).

But eat+sleep onboard is insufficient for me.  "Making miles" isn't cruising. That's boat delivery.  The whole point of cruising is to enjoy the journey.

Right, but you do want to actually get there. "Making miles" was a poor choice of words on my part, sorry. It implied more of a hurry than I really meant.

Eating and sleeping on board, check... let's assume fairly long-term residence on board. But what other axioms are we building our framework on? Sole residence and depository for all worldly goods? I knew a lot of long-term cruisers that had a storage unit somewhere, or left significant piles of belongings with a family member, or in my case (I'm disqualified, my longest term cruising was on a motorboat and crossed no oceans) a 2-bedroom apartment near our "home" marina.

Deliveries are no fun, agreed. And cruising to a schedule can be unpleasant or even dangerous

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Celestial navigation is only "low-tech" given the assumption of a very accurate clock and large number of professional astronomers compiling and publishing an almanac for you. There are ways around this but they are considerably more complex and tedious.

I learned celestial and used it for fun but never used it "for real" decades ago. Buffed up a little to teach our Navy cadets how to reduce sun sights and get a decent result, but even that was 6~7 years ago. Will probably end up throwing my sextant away or asking a local seafood restaurant if they want it for a wall decoration.

FB- Doug

If it's a decent metal one, send it to me. I love old type precision measuring gear, got a 3/4 size Wild field theodolite in my collection of stuff.

My sextant is one of the Davis plastic ones. Good enough to find New Zealand in my hands...

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Right, but you do want to actually get there.

Not necessarily.  When I cruise, the destination is usually flexible.  For me it's about he journey, not the destination.

 

22 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Eating and sleeping on board, check... let's assume fairly long-term residence on board

I don't see the reason for that assumption.  You can go cruising for a weekend, a fortnight, a month, a year or a lifetime.

Share this post


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

Celestial navigation is only "low-tech" given the assumption of a very accurate clock and large number of professional astronomers compiling and publishing an almanac for you. There are ways around this but they are considerably more complex and tedious.

I learned celestial and used it for fun but never used it "for real" decades ago. Buffed up a little to teach our Navy cadets how to reduce sun sights and get a decent result, but even that was 6~7 years ago. Will probably end up throwing my sextant away or asking a local seafood restaurant if they want it for a wall decoration.

FB- Doug

Well, a clock is easy to arrange with a cheapo quartz watch (or three :-) ), or basic clock and cheap shortwave receiver time signals. And it’s not like the Nautical Almanac won’t continue to be compiled by astronomers.  Indeed, not “low tech”, per se, but compared to the “magic” of sat comms and instantaneous position triangulation... 

I think celestial nav is one of the coolest things.  It’s pleasing.  As a sailor, it connects you to your environment, instead of through the (even more removed) interface of a GPS/computer.  (A sextant is still an interface between you and the environment - to get any closer to it, you need to have a very good understanding of natural navigation —a worthy goal! :-) )  It all started with reading The Wayfinders a few years ago...  I’m not saying I don’t use GPS, or don’t love it, but...

Celestial nav hopefully won’t disappear, if for no other reason than this.  It’s one of the reasons I sail - to connect more closely with the world around me.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 years or so ago I was staring into old age and wondering if my crazy, wild assed adventures were all behind me. When I was younger I flew fighter planes off aircraft carriers, went backpacking alone in the Sierras with just a tarp and a sleeping bag, rode my sport touring motorcycle around the Southwest, surfed those 8-10 footers off the OB pier in winter, lived on a 33’ racer cruiser with my wife and managed a career in commercial real estate and the rearing of two active and successful children with reasonable results. I was also flying small airplanes but the cost and regulated atmosphere was reaching the point of diminishing returns and one day I started going through boat ads on Craigslist and there was a Columbia 26 for $1500 listed, no outboard. That was never “my” boat but I always considered them rugged and purposeful and I grabbed my HP12C and started working on a budget with the objective of seeing how far I could get on $10,000 US. By the time I had it ready to shove off, it was up to $20,000 and I decided that was more than I could justify considering my wife gets seasick and would only fly to meet me in Bora Bora or the Marquesas or wherever I made landfall. Now, if I’m reading the consensus correctly, the bill is probably more like $60-70,000 and old age is here. I probably have no rights to any regrets but I still want to believe it could have been a blast. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Up thread, @jdazey said “Almost any Wharram”.

Any idea which of the smaller Wharrams are generally considered ocean cruisers?  (Rory McDougall’s Tiki 21, about which there is a much on the web, clearly was never intended as an ocean cruiser.  But he circumnavigated, and then crossed the Atlantic twice. An unusual sailor.  The average person isn’t going to choose that as a low-tech ocean cruiser.)

I’ve only very cursorily poked around some sites about Wharrams - I know little about them and would like to learn more, and some say that of the smaller (under 38’, like Pilgrim here) Wharrams, some models are more suited than others towards ocean cruising.  (For example, I think I’ve read that the Tiki 30, a popular home build, isn’t considered oceangoing, it’s a good coastal cruiser, whereas other similar size and smaller ones are.  Any idea what makes some of the smaller Wharrams better suited than others?

I have a Tiki 21 and do lots of coastal open water sailing. The design characteristics make it feel very safe and reassuring in a seaway (as Rory McDougal has demonstrated). I am sure that a Tiki 26 and 30 can circumnavigate. It is not which of these boats can do it, rather what is your preferred level of comfort? The Tiki 21 through 30 have camping-like amenities. The Tiki 38 is the smallest with standing headroom and room for a sizable galley and separate head/stand up shower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 23feet said:

I have a Tiki 21 and do lots of coastal open water sailing. The design characteristics make it feel very safe and reassuring in a seaway (as Rory McDougal has demonstrated). I am sure that a Tiki 26 and 30 can circumnavigate. It is not which of these boats can do it, rather what is your preferred level of comfort? The Tiki 21 through 30 have camping-like amenities. The Tiki 38 is the smallest with standing headroom and room for a sizable galley and separate head/stand up shower.

Interesting —thanks for the info.  Yeah, I was kinda wondering why I’d read that some of the smaller Wharrams were apparently better suited than others (I’m not familiar with the various models) for open water passages.  Gotta read more about them.  In my very limited understanding, they’re all *basically* the same, 21, 26, 30, just differing *mostly* in size.

I’d love to do the Singlehanded Transpac Race one day.  One of those bucket list things, hence my diving into getting an old beater Cal 20 years back...and then realizing later how much I’d have to spend on upgrading it to make it ready for that.  More than I was willing to for an old boat like that. Wasn’t ready to commit to that - I already own a 33’ ocean-going boat I want to focus on.  Thinking about it now, it almost —maybe, I haven’t crunched any numbers,  I’m nowhere close to that yet!— but it almost seems like a Tiki 21 build would be a reasonably cheap way to do this.  (And it would scratch my multihull itch.)  In my mind, it’s the only way I could financially justify being a two-boat owner - having something small like this that can easily be pulled out of the water, shipped or trailered anywhere, stored.  But also feasibly (?) raced downwind to Hawaii...crazy idea :-).  The best kind...

Share this post


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

Now, if I’m reading the consensus correctly, the bill is probably more like $60-70,000 and old age is here. I probably have no rights to any regrets but I still want to believe it could have been a blast. 

I reckon I could buy and set up a 35-40' boat for around $50K AUD. But I've a hell of a lot of tools and the ability to do almost everything myself.

However that's trading time for cash and I can't buy any more time.

If I had the life expectancy I'd build at least 2 more boats and one of them would likely be a biggish Wharram cat or similar, just because I'm curious. Sure I could buy one but where's the fun in that?

FKT

Share this post


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

I think a lot of people arrive at their conclusions based on inboards that were already abused to the point of needing replacement, installations that were problematic & difficult to work on, and generalized that there must not be any such thing as a reliable and easy-to-maintain diesel inboard. No point in arguing with peoples' tastes, but I can't resist pointing out when their axioms "ain't necessarily so."

FB- Doug

You see that all the time. Well this engine that is 40 years old, hasn't seen decent maintenance in 10 years, and is 99% of the way to corroding through from raw water cooling SUCKS I HATE IT DAMN YOU TO HELL ATOMIC 4/VOLVO/SAAB/WESTERBEAKE/WHATEVER and now my brand new outboard runs great :rolleyes: Well a brand new inboard would run great too ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You see that all the time. Well this engine that is 40 years old, hasn't seen decent maintenance in 10 years, and is 99% of the way to corroding through from raw water cooling SUCKS I HATE IT DAMN YOU TO HELL ATOMIC 4/VOLVO/SAAB/WESTERBEAKE/WHATEVER and now my brand new outboard runs great :rolleyes: Well a brand new inboard would run great too ;)

A brand new diesel inboard would be great if it was installed great.  But sadly, most sailing yachts have their inboard installed under the cockpit, with access best described as poor to abysmal.  So in many cases a new diesel isn't going to be much better maintained than the abused old diesel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outie versus innie:

  • Weight - though weight is in further from ends, an innie is far heavier, 2-3X or more, especially w/required infrastructure.
  • Costs - innie far more expensive, both in initial outlay and in eventual parts. 4 stroke gas vs diesel fuel costs/usage are very similar.
  • Drag - you can pull an outie up to get all those smooth bottom benefits from your lady by not dragging her wheel thru the water.
  • Access - far, far easier to work on an outie, either on boat or on land, because an outie is easy to remove.
  • Reliability - maintain either in a proper manner, and it's not an issue. An outie may eventually wear away faster than an innie, but at maybe 1/4 or less the cost including installation, you'll be ahead or dead by the time you need a third one.
  • Raw power - innie. Hands down a diesel is going to transfer more engine power into motive effort than what most outie users are going to hang into the water. Sail/plan accordingly.
  • Space in boat - outie. Much smaller in every dimension, and not sharing interior hull space/atmosphere gives more room for hoomans. Some complain of smell with innies, but that's not an issue I have. I do begrudge it the space it takes up, though.
  • Safety - while an outie uses a more volatile fuel, it can be kept outside of the hull completely, and also allow one to have a boat with 0 thru hulls if so desired. Why? No holes, less sinky. If not 0 holes, than less of them, by at least 3. That's safer, and simpler, and cheaper, overall.

    So for people who plan/like to sail more or motor less on their smaller boats, an outie has several clear advantages, and not just because of costs - though that can be a big factor. My aging fw cooled Volvo 2002 in the A-30 I bought 3 years ago currently runs great, but having had experience with an outie in my Ariel, I am not at all opposed to hanging an outie in the laz, and will more than likely do so when/if the Volvo gets ex$pensive or needs replacement.
    For instance, replacement cost alone for 2 copper pipes and the impeller housing on the near 30 year old Volvo total nearly 1/3 the price of an entire, brand new Yamaha 9.9hp, 25" shaft w/high thrust prop. Yowza.
    Also consider that installing an entire new diesel on a boat of this vintage is not a cost that would ever be returned in a sale, certainly not one with a nice feathering prop. An engine and tranny alone would probably be about par with the overall worth of the boat, installed. Or, in the terms the Pardeys used - the money saved going via outie (or not at all) could be worth several years of low cost, low tech, KISS cruising.
    Of course I'd rather an inboard if/when I begin planning to go thru the NW passage or hang out in the Falklands, but until then I'll stay much closer to the equator where some shiny new grey propulsion living in a locker at the back of the boat can and would do the job just fine.
     
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Outie versus innie:

  • Weight - though weight is in further from ends, an innie is far heavier, 2-3X or more, especially w/required infrastructure.
  • Costs - innie far more expensive, both in initial outlay and in eventual parts. 4 stroke gas vs diesel fuel costs/usage are very similar.
  • Drag - you can pull an outie up to get all those smooth bottom benefits from your lady by not dragging her wheel thru the water.
  • Access - far, far easier to work on an outie, either on boat or on land, because an outie is easy to remove.
  • Reliability - maintain either in a proper manner, and it's not an issue. An outie may eventually wear away faster than an innie, but at maybe 1/4 or less the cost including installation, you'll be ahead or dead by the time you need a third one.
  • Raw power - innie. Hands down a diesel is going to transfer more engine power into motive effort than what most outie users are going to hang into the water. Sail/plan accordingly.
  • Space in boat - outie. Much smaller in every dimension, and not sharing interior hull space/atmosphere gives more room for hoomans. Some complain of smell with innies, but that's not an issue I have. I do begrudge it the space it takes up, though.
  • Safety - while an outie uses a more volatile fuel, it can be kept outside of the hull completely, and also allow one to have a boat with 0 thru hulls if so desired. Why? No holes, less sinky. If not 0 holes, than less of them, by at least 3. That's safer, and simpler, and cheaper, overall.

    So for people who plan/like to sail more or motor less on their smaller boats, an outie has several clear advantages, and not just because of costs - though that can be a big factor. My aging fw cooled Volvo 2002 in the A-30 I bought 3 years ago currently runs great, but having had experience with an outie in my Ariel, I am not at all opposed to hanging an outie in the laz, and will more than likely do so when/if the Volvo gets ex$pensive or needs replacement.
    For instance, replacement cost alone for 2 copper pipes and the impeller housing on the near 30 year old Volvo total nearly 1/3 the price of an entire, brand new Yamaha 9.9hp, 25" shaft w/high thrust prop. Yowza.
    Also consider that installing an entire new diesel on a boat of this vintage is not a cost that would ever be returned in a sale, certainly not one with a nice feathering prop. An engine and tranny alone would probably be about par with the overall worth of the boat, installed. Or, in the terms the Pardeys used - the money saved going via outie (or not at all) could be worth several years of low cost, low tech, KISS cruising.
    Of course I'd rather an inboard if/when I begin planning to go thru the NW passage or hang out in the Falklands, but until then I'll stay much closer to the equator where some shiny new grey propulsion living in a locker at the back of the boat can and would do the job just fine.
     

Poetry!  Well written and reasoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 1:03 PM, Panoramix said:

How could that possibly work? How do they power the compressor?

Gasoline engine powered compressor. They wanted to hang out and dive in really remote places and be able to fill their own tanks. IIRC the auxiliary engine needed rebuilding, and they were on a budget, Tom decided he'd rather go engineless and put the compressor where the engine used to be. I thought it was a bit nutty myself, but he was a stubborn guy, and they pulled it off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advantages of an outboard, no holes in hull... you can pull the prop completely out of the water, both to reduce drag and to clear it if necessary.

It's a mistake to invoke the Pardeys, though. Larry thought outboards were an abomination and he also felt no shame in asking for a tow from any passing cruiser, so he loved inboard diesels... other peoples!

To try and build an elaborate logical structure that "outboards are better" is pointless IMHO.

7 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

A brand new diesel inboard would be great if it was installed great.  But sadly, most sailing yachts have their inboard installed under the cockpit, with access best described as poor to abysmal.  So in many cases a new diesel isn't going to be much better maintained than the abused old diesel.

That's true but it also points to choice of boat. There are a lot of boats out there with decent engine installations, and resurrectable if not decently-working engines, that are generally going for prices only very slightly above that of ones with crap engines.

One of my sailing friends and neighbors, a professional mechanic as it happens, bought a nice but very neglected 30' racer-cruiser with a dead inboard diesel. He picked -that- one because it was the cheapest of it's size he could find, it was near by, and he was convinced it was a good deal. It actually could have been a very nice boat (keel/cb Soverel 30).  He got an outboard (from a family member) and built a sliding rack of 2x4s for it on the transom. I helped him refit the boat including replace some seacocks, re-mount some deck hardware, un-freezing the roller furler, and try to rationalize a plan of bringing the boat up to standard for weekending and some shorter cruises. He really wanted to do it on a shoestring, smart enough man but he'd somehow gotten the idea that sailboat stuff should be free.

He did put in some work on getting the diesel running again, taking the heads off (not that big a job once we actually started), but for some reason he stalled on that. I think the boat either was a cover-up for what else was going on in his life though, because he got a divorce along in there somewhere and he sold the boat for a pittance.

This seems to approximate a lot of peoples' experience with older boats & inboard diesels, except for the divorce part.

FB- Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CapnK said:

Outie versus innie:

  • Weight - though weight is in further from ends, an innie is far heavier, 2-3X or more, especially w/required infrastructure.
  • Costs - innie far more expensive, both in initial outlay and in eventual parts. 4 stroke gas vs diesel fuel costs/usage are very similar.
  • Drag - you can pull an outie up to get all those smooth bottom benefits from your lady by not dragging her wheel thru the water.
  • Access - far, far easier to work on an outie, either on boat or on land, because an outie is easy to remove.
  • Reliability - maintain either in a proper manner, and it's not an issue. An outie may eventually wear away faster than an innie, but at maybe 1/4 or less the cost including installation, you'll be ahead or dead by the time you need a third one.
  • Raw power - innie. Hands down a diesel is going to transfer more engine power into motive effort than what most outie users are going to hang into the water. Sail/plan accordingly.
  • Space in boat - outie. Much smaller in every dimension, and not sharing interior hull space/atmosphere gives more room for hoomans. Some complain of smell with innies, but that's not an issue I have. I do begrudge it the space it takes up, though.
  • Safety - while an outie uses a more volatile fuel, it can be kept outside of the hull completely, and also allow one to have a boat with 0 thru hulls if so desired. Why? No holes, less sinky. If not 0 holes, than less of them, by at least 3. That's safer, and simpler, and cheaper, overall.

    So for people who plan/like to sail more or motor less on their smaller boats, an outie has several clear advantages, and not just because of costs - though that can be a big factor. My aging fw cooled Volvo 2002 in the A-30 I bought 3 years ago currently runs great, but having had experience with an outie in my Ariel, I am not at all opposed to hanging an outie in the laz, and will more than likely do so when/if the Volvo gets ex$pensive or needs replacement.
    For instance, replacement cost alone for 2 copper pipes and the impeller housing on the near 30 year old Volvo total nearly 1/3 the price of an entire, brand new Yamaha 9.9hp, 25" shaft w/high thrust prop. Yowza.
    Also consider that installing an entire new diesel on a boat of this vintage is not a cost that would ever be returned in a sale, certainly not one with a nice feathering prop. An engine and tranny alone would probably be about par with the overall worth of the boat, installed. Or, in the terms the Pardeys used - the money saved going via outie (or not at all) could be worth several years of low cost, low tech, KISS cruising.
    Of course I'd rather an inboard if/when I begin planning to go thru the NW passage or hang out in the Falklands, but until then I'll stay much closer to the equator where some shiny new grey propulsion living in a locker at the back of the boat can and would do the job just fine.
     

Nice summary. As far as safety goes, I have seem some pretty dangerous ways to store gasoline, it seems "I don't have a gas inboard engine" seems to short-circuit the idea that gasoline is dangerous. I was once on a boat whose owner was giving me a lecture about how dangerous my gasoline engine was while we were waiting for water to boil on his propane stove and then he opened a cockpit locker and fished out a Clorox bottle full of gasoline to fill his dinghy :o:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I've never understood the reverence for the Alberg 30. Sure they are good looking and well built but they have all the interior volume of a 24' and the one I sailed had the worst weather helm I have ever experienced. Your hands would get blistered after a few hours in strong wind.

My yacht club is across the harbour from the old Whitby Boat Works plant where the Albergs were made. From stories I have heard from former employees the 'renowned' quality of these boat is overstated. Quality control was not very good so some boats were much better than others. Near the end of the run when finances were an issue corners were cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled my inboard diesel and plonked an outboard on the stern for two simple reasons:

- I wanted no holes in the hull below the waterline.  Heck I even got rid of my cockpit drains below the water line and have scuppers out the transom instead.  

- The other reason is that I have to admit I'm not interested in learning about diesels and how to maintain them, nor all the through hulls that go with it. Nor the tanks. Nor all the hoses.  Engines have never been of interest to me, be they be in cars, tractors, boats or whatever.  But that is just me, and a lot of my mates love all that engine stuff and can spend hours on "engine talk".

So far the outboard has worked fine. 
But my boat is only 26 feet.   And it is just me .  

I think diesels are great if you are that way inclined, and are willingly to learn about them and actually do the maintenance.  I'm not willing - so I stay away from them.

What I would really like is for the 'Flux Capacitor' of batteries to be invented one day, whereby going electric (inboard or outboard) makes sense because they finally solve the limited range issue because even the best modern battery set up can still only provide limited range to electric motors.  l can go 3-5 times the distance using two 12 litre petrol tanks, than I can with any  electric outboard. 
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

My yacht club is across the harbour from the old Whitby Boat Works plant where the Albergs were made. From stories I have heard from former employees the 'renowned' quality of these boat is overstated. Quality control was not very good so some boats were much better than others. Near the end of the run when finances were an issue corners were cut.

I don't think anyone confuses them with Swans, more like the design is pretty tolerant of variable build quality. "Well of course the keel fell off, I heard the boat ran aground once and no one spent $456,700 putting the boat through a giant MRI machine and having Bruce Farr and Bob Perry design custom titanium keel bolts" is something said by no Alberg 30 owner ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 10:52 AM, sugarbird said:

I met and got to know Tom and Nancy Zydler many years ago. They yanked the engine out of their 1961 37' Pearson Invicta, installed a scuba compressor and big sweeps, and took off. They crossed some oceans, wrote a lot of articles and published cruising guides. Characters both.

The Panama Guide: A Complete Guide to Cruising Panama and Transiting the Panama Canal: Zydler, Nancy Schwalbe, Zydler, Tom: 9781892399090: Amazon.com: Books

New cruising guides published by voyaging veterans - Ocean Navigator

Below pic is not of their boat Mollymawk, but a sistership

ON / A / BOAT V E S S E L

For anyone interested in this type of boat a friend of mine has one of these that I would guess he would sell as he has bought another boat. PM me if interested and I will put you in touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sugarbird said:

Gasoline engine powered compressor. They wanted to hang out and dive in really remote places and be able to fill their own tanks. IIRC the auxiliary engine needed rebuilding, and they were on a budget, Tom decided he'd rather go engineless and put the compressor where the engine used to be. I thought it was a bit nutty myself, but he was a stubborn guy, and they pulled it off.

At least they had clear priorities!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kinardly said:

12 years or so ago I was staring into old age and wondering if my crazy, wild assed adventures were all behind me. When I was younger I flew fighter planes off aircraft carriers, went backpacking alone in the Sierras with just a tarp and a sleeping bag, rode my sport touring motorcycle around the Southwest, surfed those 8-10 footers off the OB pier in winter, lived on a 33’ racer cruiser with my wife and managed a career in commercial real estate and the rearing of two active and successful children with reasonable results. I was also flying small airplanes but the cost and regulated atmosphere was reaching the point of diminishing returns and one day I started going through boat ads on Craigslist and there was a Columbia 26 for $1500 listed, no outboard. That was never “my” boat but I always considered them rugged and purposeful and I grabbed my HP12C and started working on a budget with the objective of seeing how far I could get on $10,000 US. By the time I had it ready to shove off, it was up to $20,000 and I decided that was more than I could justify considering my wife gets seasick and would only fly to meet me in Bora Bora or the Marquesas or wherever I made landfall. Now, if I’m reading the consensus correctly, the bill is probably more like $60-70,000 and old age is here. I probably have no rights to any regrets but I still want to believe it could have been a blast. 

You've recounted a life very well lived.

Personally, having crossed the North Atlantic in summer and winter on a Cunarder as a small boy, I have never had any desire to spend weeks at sea on a small boat crossing an ocean so I wouldn't say you missed much - or anything.

As the tattoo said - No Regerts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 10:00 AM, SloopJonB said:

I've never understood the reverence for the Alberg 30. Sure they are good looking and well built but they have all the interior volume of a 24' and the one I sailed had the worst weather helm I have ever experienced. Your hands would get blistered after a few hours in strong wind.

At the time they were built, they were the newest thing, more or less, not just the prettier-than-most artifacts from an earlier era. They were also more attractive than most of their contemporaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

weeks at sea on a small boat crossing an ocean so I wouldn't say you missed much - or anything.

Oh, I don’t know about that.  

The vast majority of us will never spend weeks or months at sea on a small boat crossing an ocean —and, reading this story in the link, not having done it, I’d say we’re missing a lot :-).  (Whether it’s something one wants to do or not is another topic :-) :-) )

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You've recounted a life very well lived.

Personally, having crossed the North Atlantic in summer and winter on a Cunarder as a small boy, I have never had any desire to spend weeks at sea on a small boat crossing an ocean so I wouldn't say you missed much - or anything.

As the tattoo said - No Regerts

Comparing the experience of crossing an.ocean on a Cunard Liner to the experience on a small sailboat.
A false equivalency don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JRC026 said:

Comparing the experience of crossing an.ocean on a Cunard Liner to the experience on a small sailboat.
A false equivalency don't you think?

One involves hot showers and cold beer and one involves cold showers and hot beer.

  • Like 10

Share this post


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

One involves hot showers and cold beer and one involves cold showers and hot beer.

I hope you haven’t copyrighted that - if so, I’ll quote you for full credit whenever I use it :-) :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You've recounted a life very well lived.

Personally, having crossed the North Atlantic in summer and winter on a Cunarder as a small boy, I have never had any desire to spend weeks at sea on a small boat crossing an ocean so I wouldn't say you missed much - or anything.

As the tattoo said - No Regerts

There is a certain magic in waking up for your watch with the departure far enough behind you and the destination far enough ahead of you that you are totally in your own world. I remember watching the antenna for the short wave scribing an arc across stars about bright enough to read by and thinking that one thing was the only link to the 20th century, other than that we were utterly disconnected from the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One involves hot showers and cold beer and one involves cold showers and hot beer.

Heh heh, fair enough...

Screen_Shot_2021-01-01_at_8_10.35_AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JRC026 said:

Heh heh, fair enough...

Screen_Shot_2021-01-01_at_8_10.35_AM.png

I had a perfectly dreadful experience - the cabin steward repeatedly under-ginned our G&Ts, despite having it on record when we booked that we always take a double.  
 

We eventually came to the conclusion that he had it in for us - why else would we have been treated so savagely?  From that day forward, I made the bold decision to be master of my own destiny, and have carried my own flask (now non-metallic, to avoid the pesky metal detectors that seem to be sprouting up everywhere when you travel).  As Sterling Hayden so masterfully put it, “Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse, or bankruptcy of life?”  I chose life, and my drinks have been stiff ever since.

:-)

Share this post


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

There is a certain magic in waking up for your watch with the departure far enough behind you and the destination far enough ahead of you that you are totally in your own world. I remember watching the antenna for the short wave scribing an arc across stars about bright enough to read by and thinking that one thing was the only link to the 20th century, other than that we were utterly disconnected from the world.

Every summer, we'd head into the mountains for a couple or three weeks to explore and climb routes -- preferrably new routes, or at least faces no one had ever documented climbing. Some of the places we hiked to were deep in the wilderness, twenty five miles from the neares dirt road, which was forty miles from the nearest paved. 

There's a neat headspace you get into after awhile, where you wake and eat and climb and eat and sleep, and the only thing you think about is the needful thing you are doing right then, and then you do the next needful thing. First few trips, that transition took a week or so to kick in. With practice, I could slip into You-are-here-it-is-now mode after two days. 

It's an old way of being, not really conducive to deep thoughts (not at the time, maybe later) but free from the middle-class anxieties that pummel most of us so long we don't even notice them until they go away. Profounder still when you are in the wilderness alone. Returning to normal life is disorienting as hell, and not very pleasant.Except for hot showers -- those are nice.

If I ever make an ocean crossing, it will be to find that headspace again. Maybe a simple boat is the quicker way to reach a primitive state of being; or maybe a complicated boat with lots of systems means there's more needful things to keep your attention. ("Watermaker fixed. Now unclog electric head.")

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRC026 said:

Comparing the experience of crossing an.ocean on a Cunard Liner to the experience on a small sailboat.
A false equivalency don't you think?

There was no equivalence at all. The experience simply illustrated to me that spending an order of magnitude more time out there - on a little boat - was not something that appealed to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Diarmuid said:

Every summer, we'd head into the mountains for a couple or three weeks to explore and climb routes -- preferrably new routes, or at least faces no one had ever documented climbing. Some of the places we hiked to were deep in the wilderness, twenty five miles from the neares dirt road, which was forty miles from the nearest paved. 

There's a neat headspace you get into after awhile, where you wake and eat and climb and eat and sleep, and the only thing you think about is the needful thing you are doing right then, and then you do the next needful thing. First few trips, that transition took a week or so to kick in. With practice, I could slip into You-are-here-it-is-now mode after two days. 

It's an old way of being, not really conducive to deep thoughts (not at the time, maybe later) but free from the middle-class anxieties that pummel most of us so long we don't even notice them until they go away. Profounder still when you are in the wilderness alone. Returning to normal life is disorienting as hell, and not very pleasant.Except for hot showers -- those are nice.

If I ever make an ocean crossing, it will be to find that headspace again. Maybe a simple boat is the quicker way to reach a primitive state of being; or maybe a complicated boat with lots of systems means there's more needful things to keep your attention. ("Watermaker fixed. Now unclog electric head.")

That's a pretty good description of how I used to feel when heading off into the Southern Ocean on a 2-3 month research voyage. You live in the 'now' and it only starts to go downhill when you're maybe 5 days out of port on the return leg and start thinking of all that shoreside crap just waiting for you.

I've no desire to cross oceans on a small boat, though. I've done my time in the deep ocean. The interesting bits are around the edges.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's an old way of being, not really conducive to deep thoughts (not at the time, maybe later) but free from the middle-class anxieties that pummel most of us so long we don't even notice them until they go away. Profounder still when you are in the wilderness alone. Returning to normal life is disorienting as hell, and not very pleasant.Except for hot showers -- those are nice.

For sure, those who’ve never experienced something like that cannot relate.  And, of course, there are many gradations of a wilderness experience with deep thoughts.  

This is one of the most remarkable wilderness-type sailing stories I’ve ever come across - “At One With The Oceans: Sailing Across the Pacific by Dugout Canoe”: https://www.atomvoyages.com/articles/sailor-interviews/97-albertotorroba-1.html

I read it quite some time ago, and just now randomly googled and found this video interview, interspersed with pics of his boat - all in Spanish, as he’s Argentinian.  My Spanish isn’t good enough to understand, but he has some very interesting stories to tell, no doubt!

”Alberto Torroba: A Great, Unique Sailor” [something like that]

https://adan.org.ar/2020/08/25/alberto-torroba-un-gran-navegante-distinto/

(Maybe @Trovão, or @plenamar can help with translation?!? :-)  Just guessing they’re Spanish-speakers)

46367C85-290D-44CE-B696-7E0CA6633D47.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

A brand new diesel inboard would be great if it was installed great.  But sadly, most sailing yachts have their inboard installed under the cockpit, with access best described as poor to abysmal.  So in many cases a new diesel isn't going to be much better maintained than the abused old diesel.

Just had a conversation with another friend/neighbor... from a safe distance, of course.

He mentioned another negative aspect of a diesel inboard. He has a burly 28-footer that is the equivalent of a 30 or more, so I think this counts.

The heat of the engine makes the cabin uncomfortable on warm days/nights. He has a blower that exhausts air from just above the engine, it was originally wired to the alternator so it ran whenever the engine was running, but of course that heat does not dissipate instantly. He wired in a jumper and switch so he can turn it on and let it run for an additional hour while the engine cools, really helps keep the cabin comfy instead of letting all that heat into your living space.

In many climates, one would have the opposite problem,  of course!

FB- Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is a certain magic in waking up for your watch with the departure far enough behind you and the destination far enough ahead of you that you are totally in your own world. I remember watching the antenna for the short wave scribing an arc across stars about bright enough to read by and thinking that one thing was the only link to the 20th century, other than that we were utterly disconnected from the world.

It's a totally different feeling out in the middle of the ocean on a small boat. Especially when you reach that point between Hawaii and home and realize helicopters can't fly that far. It's all on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The heat of the engine makes the cabin uncomfortable on warm days/nights. He has a blower that exhausts air from just above the engine, it was originally wired to the alternator so it ran whenever the engine was running, but of course that heat does not dissipate instantly. He wired in a jumper and switch so he can turn it on and let it run for an additional hour while the engine cools, really helps keep the cabin comfy instead of letting all that heat into your living space.

In many climates, one would have the opposite problem,  of course!

Yes, it's a very very rare thing for a small boat on the Irish coast to be too hot.  Our idea of a hot day is one where you can contemplate taking off your fleece jacket.

So that diesel engine as a big bock of heat is a welcome friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It's a totally different feeling out in the middle of the ocean on a small boat. Especially when you reach that point between Hawaii and home and realize helicopters can't fly that far. It's all on you.

Funny enough, I had that exact feeling a few days north of Hawaii, first time ever really at sea.  I had another look at the chart and realized, beating into the NE trades, if something went wrong and you lost the rig, you’d be swept downwind a very, very long way past Hawaii...around which island group there is precious little (i.e., none at all) land...fortunately I was on a very well equipped boat, so there was plenty of comms, life raft, etc.  But it really hits home how isolated it is.

Share this post


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

_20201230_152345.thumb.JPG.30514519891f9c5a56c65e51a1b79fec.JPG

_20201231_140344.JPG

Look at that, an outboard hanging off the back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

I had a perfectly dreadful experience - the cabin steward repeatedly under-ginned our G&Ts, despite having it on record when we booked that we always take a double.  
 

We eventually came to the conclusion that he had it in for us - why else would we have been treated so savagely?  From that day forward, I made the bold decision to be master of my own destiny, and have carried my own flask (now non-metallic, to avoid the pesky metal detectors that seem to be sprouting up everywhere when you travel).  As Sterling Hayden so masterfully put it, “Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse, or bankruptcy of life?”  I chose life, and my drinks have been stiff ever since.

:-)

Those old ships were certainly beautiful when compared to the hideous cruise ships of today. I did 3 trips back in the late 60s by ocean liner including the infamous Achille Lauro and a 5 week trip from Sydney to Southampton on the RHMS Ellenis. They were not a cruise, they were transport. I could never afford it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small world. In 1966 sailed from Southampton to Auckland on her sister ship --Angelina Lauro 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rstone said:

Screenshot_2020-12-31-18-06-06.png

In classic forum fashion, we’ve gone from “low-tech ocean cruisers” to ocean cruise ships. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites