Jump to content

Cruising boats that plane


Recommended Posts

Most know I am huge fan of the Pogos... any boat that allows the 2nd crewmember can make a fancy lunch while the other drives at 17 knots has my vote. So I guess what I like is cruisers than can plane. Another example, the First 27.7. Here we are at 11 knots in flat water in 22 knots of breeze. Good times!

 

 

List your favs, viddies as proof helps!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So this thread has established that different people have different definitions of cruising. We've also determine that shouting at people on the internet won't change their minds. We're maki

I always thought of my last boat as a cruiser - I knew I'd regret selling her.  

If they'd headed up a bit and got someone to trim/pump the main she might have climbed up on her bow wave and left the quarter wave behind.  Looked more like forced hull speed to me.

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Let's continue with cruisers that can plane when they're loaded for cruising. 

True, but that really depend on how your personal definition of cruising means being away from re-supply. A month long crossing is different from a month island hopping in the Cyclades. Most of the light displacement boats designed to plane will when outfitted for the latter. Some of them even for the former.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jackdaw said:

True, but that really depend on how your personal definition of cruising means being away from re-supply. A month long crossing is different from a month island hopping in the Cyclades. Most of the light displacement boats designed to plane will when outfitted for the latter. Some of them even for the former.

I had no idea. Old guy, old school. Going fast is definitely fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My previous boat had a planing hull. It was a blast ripping along at 13 to 15 knots in a 17' boat chasing down much bigger boats. Here's a shot of a friend and my wife sailing Grasshopper on Casco Bay several years ago.

 

 

grasshopper.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Whinging Pom said:

If they'd headed up a bit and got someone to trim/pump the main she might have climbed up on her bow wave and left the quarter wave behind.  Looked more like forced hull speed to me.

Good eye. But here's the thing about the First 27.7, the knuckle is WAY submerged at the DLW, by like 6 inches. So the bow does that until you hit the teens. . But that takes 30 knots TW, something we did not have. As it was we had a solid rooster tail going.

 

unnamed.jpg.7a54c50b03dff4142be8fe265a869e0e.jpg

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

Let's continue with cruisers that can plane when they're loaded for cruising. 

This is the issue 

ultra light boats get stuck to the water when overloaded 

they overload very fast 

as soon as the transom knuckle gets submerged you can hear a great sucking sound 

is you want a speedy cruiser go with a modern,  conventional  cruiser racer , medium displacement 

they are plenty fast 

E0B6C182-C481-4ACB-9B80-E0E5FC4DFF2B.jpeg

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

This is the issue 

ultra light boats get stuck to the water when overloaded 

they overload very fast 

as soon as the transom knuckle gets submerged you can hear a great sucking sound 

is you want a speedy cruiser go with a modern,  conventional  cruiser racer , medium displacement 

they are plenty fast 

E0B6C182-C481-4ACB-9B80-E0E5FC4DFF2B.jpeg

 

Normally the term kuckle refers to the turn of the bow. On older boats this was below the DLW. On newer faster boats it's above. Boats like the Pogos etc factor the cruising load into the loadout and the resulting DWL. My personal best in a monohull (17.5 knots) was on a 40 foot cruising Pogo, with a 100M of chain in the bow, and enough greek wine on board to interest the authorities. And we carried that speed for hours.

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

 

Normally the term kuckle refers to the turn of the bow. On older boats this was below the DLW. On newer faster boats it's above. Boats like the Pogos etc factor the cruising load into the loadout and the resulting DWL. My personal best in a monohull (17.5 knots) was on a 40 foot cruising Pogo, with a 100M of chain in the bow, and enough greek wine on board to interest the authorities. And we carried that speed for hours.

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

On US/Canada border "enough wine onboard to interest the authorities" is about 4 bottles.  So that might not be the most useful metric :)

My boat surfs nicely (doesn't really plane), but it's rare that cruising weather and weather that allows for surfing happen to align with a day off of work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 4:49 PM, slug zitski said:

This is the issue 

ultra light boats get stuck to the water when overloaded 

they overload very fast 

as soon as the transom knuckle gets submerged you can hear a great sucking sound 

is you want a speedy cruiser go with a modern,  conventional  cruiser racer , medium displacement 

they are plenty fast 

E0B6C182-C481-4ACB-9B80-E0E5FC4DFF2B.jpeg

 

What kind of boat is this?  Looks real nice :) X-41?

 

Thanks :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how much crap does one need to go cruising?

Pogo 36 info from the manual

Class A - > Force 8 Beaufort, >4 meter waves.  6 people + gear =1020 kg

Class B - Force 8 Beaufort, 4 meter waves.    8 people + gear =11120 kg

Class C - Force 6 Beaufort, 2 meter waves.   10 people + gear =11140 kg

Class D - Force 4 Beaufort, 0.3 meter waves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, svitale said:

Just how much crap does one need to go cruising?

Pogo 36 info from the manual

Class A - > Force 8 Beaufort, >4 meter waves.  6 people + gear =1020 kg

It depends on what is meant by 'cruising', and whether things like fuel and water are included . . . . for bluewater cruising it is typically figured in the 650- 1200kg (1500 - 2500lbs) per person range.  The lowest figure I have seen stated is 350lbs per person for a micro cruiser.  If you have ever emptied a world cruising boat - you would be astonished at the pile of stuff that results and the owners are loath to get rid of any of it.

For a fast week of 'pogo style sailing' . . . . yea 150 kgs per person is feasible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Desired performance traits for cruising have evolved through time for me.  Speed much more important when younger, comfort much more important for me now, being almost 60.  If I really wanted to cruise somewhere fast now, I'd take a plane.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2021 at 8:36 PM, estarzinger said:

It depends on what is meant by 'cruising', and whether things like fuel and water are included . . . . for bluewater cruising it is typically figured in the 650- 1200kg (1500 - 2500lbs) per person range.  The lowest figure I have seen stated is 350lbs per person for a micro cruiser.  If you have ever emptied a world cruising boat - you would be astonished at the pile of stuff that results and the owners are loath to get rid of any of it.

For a fast week of 'pogo style sailing' . . . . yea 150 kgs per person is feasible.

Cruising can be anchoring overnight and enjoying a nice breakfast, a swim, and a nice sail home.
It can also be having everything you own on the boat and being self-sufficient for weeks. The latter is a tough one with a light planing boat until the boat gets pretty big relative to the number of people aboard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Cruising can be anchoring overnight and enjoying a nice breakfast, a swim, and a nice sail home.
It can also be having everything you own on the boat and being self-sufficient for weeks. The latter is a tough one with a light planing boat until the boat gets pretty big relative to the number of people aboard.

Indeed, as you stretch from 30 to 40 feet LOA, the related dimensions grow allow for much more volume and carry.

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

8:35 fight time SFO to Papeete 3,639nm

at 5 kts =

at 15kts = 

Have you flown on an airline lately? Two or three weeks gurgling along to Tahiti compared to the soul destroying airport and airline experience?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Have you flown on an airline lately? Two or three weeks gurgling along to Tahiti compared to the soul destroying airport and airline experience?

Nope, you win. I haven't flown for several years. Last time, I got checked for explosive residue on my hands. Weirder still, on the return, I got pulled out of a long queue and ushered thru the checkpoint. Quite the coincidence, eh? Or facial recognition software? I report you decide. So much for being an anonymous old guy from Podunk.

Maybe it was the Mt Gay hat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Thoughts on the new "cruiser" iteration of the first 27? Not quite the rocket ship that her Seascape/first SE predecessors are but for a camper cruiser, looks to hit the mark. I'm biased since I just put a down payment on one... Hoping to share that stoke.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, J11J said:

Thoughts on the new "cruiser" iteration of the first 27? Not quite the rocket ship that her Seascape/first SE predecessors are but for a camper cruiser, looks to hit the mark. I'm biased since I just put a down payment on one... Hoping to share that stoke.

Why buy the slow version?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 knots? Any Corsair, no chute needed, working sail only, no crew needed. 12-14 knots TW should be enough and it's relaxing. We call sailing at single digit speeds boring, 10-14 knots fun, and some days we go fast. That's what the reacher is for (11 knots in 9-10 knots TW).

At 20 knots TW it would take considerable reefing to hold her down to 11 knots. Even my PDQ would bury that, and I'd still have a glass sitting on the cockpit coaming. Yes, with a cruising load, the whole family, and a dinghy on davits.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Why buy the slow version?

I really wrestled with it. Tried hard for the SE rig on the cruiser hull but Beneteau won't entertain it. I like the inboard engine since I'll be using the boat primarily for day sailing and camper cruising and sail in a venue with lots of current and light air, so I'll be relying on aux power. Having that outboard ringing in everyone's head is painful. There was also the cost, 12k difference. Also like the coach roof windows. Maybe one day I'll be able to afford an upgrade the carbon rig, bigger sprit, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, J11J said:

I really wrestled with it. Tried hard for the SE rig on the cruiser hull but Beneteau won't entertain it. I like the inboard engine since I'll be using the boat primarily for day sailing and camper cruising and sail in a venue with lots of current and light air, so I'll be relying on aux power. Having that outboard ringing in everyone's head is painful. There was also the cost, 12k difference. Also like the coach roof windows. Maybe one day I'll be able to afford an upgrade the carbon rig, bigger sprit, etc...

I went through the same thought processes. But I also like the simplicity of the fixed keel and old school of the aluminium rig. My boat will be exposed to the sun/weather for  365 days a year  and  I do have some concerns in the back of my mind about carbon after maybe a decade.  Mainsail runs to the back of the boom too, leaving more space in the middle of the cockpit I think for people to move about .  I am unlikely do do any racing  and my skillset wont bring out the best of a carbon fibre  racing rig and square top sail . My new First 27 (aluminium rig)should arrive next month. Cant wait to give her a spin...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 2:36 AM, estarzinger said:

It depends on what is meant by 'cruising', and whether things like fuel and water are included . . . . for bluewater cruising it is typically figured in the 650- 1200kg (1500 - 2500lbs) per person range.  The lowest figure I have seen stated is 350lbs per person for a micro cruiser.  If you have ever emptied a world cruising boat - you would be astonished at the pile of stuff that results and the owners are loath to get rid of any of it.

For a fast week of 'pogo style sailing' . . . . yea 150 kgs per person is feasible.

The whole point of hydogenerators and watermakers is to avoid carrying vast quantities of fuel and water! 

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

I went through the same thought processes. But I also like the simplicity of the fixed keel and old school of the aluminium rig. My boat will be exposed to the sun/weather for  365 days a year  and  I do have some concerns in the back of my mind about carbon after maybe a decade.  Mainsail runs to the back of the boom too, leaving more space in the middle of the cockpit I think for people to move about .  I am unlikely do do any racing  and my skillset wont bring out the best of a carbon fibre  racing rig and square top sail . My new First 27 (aluminium rig)should arrive next month. Cant wait to give her a spin...

Congrats! Agreed, I like the cockpit layout with the benches and storage and also appreciate the main sheeting arraignment. I do plan on racing PHRF next season, so will probably slowly build out an improved sail inventory. Might regret the prop, weight, lower SA:D then, but all boats are a compromise to some extent. Hair to compare notes in the future. I'm taking delivery early August.

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

The whole point of hydogenerators and watermakers is to avoid carrying vast quantities of fuel and water! 

yea . . . in theory

in practice - cruising you spend way more of your time at anchor than sailing, and a bunch of time sailing will be light winds/low speed, and the durability/reliability of the hydro-gen units is hmmm spotty (I remember one guy who had 4 [big brand name] and none were working after the first ocean).  I do not know any cruiser whose main power source is hydro-gen.

The same is true of wind gens - rather less successful in the real world than they appear in theory.

Solar is much more 'cruiser real-world friendly' - but even then most cruisers need more ICE time than they expect.

Watermakers have been much more successful.  They add a degree of complication that I personally don't like - but they have worked out well for many many cruisers (and ofc racers).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estarzinger said:

yea . . . in theory

in practice - cruising you spend way more of your time at anchor than sailing, and a bunch of time sailing will be light winds/low speed, and the durability/reliability of the hydro-gen units is hmmm spotty (I remember one guy who had 4 [big brand name] and none were working after the first ocean).  I do not know any cruiser whose main power source is hydro-gen.

The same is true of wind gens - rather less successful in the real world than they appear in theory.

Solar is much more 'cruiser real-world friendly' - but even then most cruisers need more ICE time than they expect.

Watermakers have been much more successful.  They add a degree of complication that I personally don't like - but they have worked out well for many many cruisers (and ofc racers).

There are many type of cruising.

For lot of people with a job, cruising means going somewhere nice spending some time there while doing short hops (1 day, 1 week, a month for the luckiest with lot of free time) and coming back, they don't need to equip their boat like they were to spend 6 months in a remote Pacific island and many of them are sailors who will enjoy a boat that sails well.

For others on a sabbatical, cruising means doing an "Atlantic loop" in a year and they will spend quite a bit of time sailing to stay in synch with the seasons and not carrying unnecessary weight means more speed which in turn means more places to be visited.

These 2 group of people will value a reasonably fast boat and a proportion of these people manage to carry a reasonable amount of diesel and water through various strategies. On a 35 footer that can plane (or te be more precise can sail in semi-displacement mode when the conditions are right) you will be able to carry say 100l of diesel (3 days of motoring at 2000rpm!) and 200l of water (5 days for 4 people who use water with great care for drinking and some washing) without crippling the boat performances.

But yes if you want to spend time somewhere with the air cond on 24/24 7/7, 100l of water per day per person, get a displacement boat!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that many exist since the class never really took off but the Classe 950 was supposed fit into this cruiser/shorthanded corinthian racer niche this thread seems to be heading. The class was suppose to be a in between the mini 6.5's and class 40's, but iirc also required amenities for cruising which obviously the other two classes don't. It's a shame it didn't really take off because I think it was a good mix of performance, affordability and the cruising requirements meant completely stripped down racers theoretically wouldn't happen (although if the class did take off I'm sure we would have see people pushing the 'cruising amenities' requirements to their extreme minimums). 

 

 

Also as others are debating it's tough to really singularly define 'cruising' because nearly everyone has a different definition in their head. Most of the makes and models being discussed seem to fall into 'cruising-capable when set up for it' and also 'planing-capable when set up for it'. You'd be hard pressed to find a boat that does both well at the same time, but there are plenty that can switch between the two roles fairly well with minimal effort. They'll never be the best cruiser or the fastest planing boat out there but they can be pretty good at either one when set up for it. 

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

There are many type of cruising.

Sure. OFC. I fully appreciate that. 'World' cruisers are a small fraction of all 'cruisers' (by the many definitions). Many many more just use their boats on weekends a perhaps a week vacation here or there. Some of you seem a bit defensive lol. No-where have I argued against a 'semi displacement boat' as a perfectly valid approach (for short 'cruises'). It is ofc a perfectly valid choice - the right choice for some people.

For lot of people with a job, cruising means going somewhere nice spending some time there while doing short hops (1 day, 1 week, a month for the luckiest with lot of free time) and coming back,

Sure, I still dont know any of those who use hydro as their primary power source.  There may be some, but they are relatively rare.  As I said it just is problematic, as wind power is, in the 'real world practical situations'. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 11:49 AM, thinwater said:

11 knots? Any Corsair, no chute needed, working sail only, no crew needed. 12-14 knots TW should be enough and it's relaxing. We call sailing at single digit speeds boring, 10-14 knots fun, and some days we go fast. That's what the reacher is for (11 knots in 9-10 knots TW).

At 20 knots TW it would take considerable reefing to hold her down to 11 knots. Even my PDQ would bury that, and I'd still have a glass sitting on the cockpit coaming. Yes, with a cruising load, the whole family, and a dinghy on davits.

If cruising is a few days of extended daysailing, or reaching between islands in the trades, sure. These days, there are plenty of satellite tracked cruising events or even individuals, and finding a large variance in average speeds, day in and day out, is fleeting. There is a very long thread about Gunboats way back on this. If the object is to have some fun moments or even a few hours at higher speeds, sure that happens. Average daily runs in the long term though, seem to change at least as much by how gung ho the crew is, than by vessel type (including mono/multi). And they don't change all that much even then. There are about 15 years of ARC data for example to wade through which will convince you that the pursuit of speed under sail is a very relative thing. In absolute terms, any cruising boat is slow - slower than a bicycle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@estarzinger not sure what your point was about fuel and water then....

If you have a fast boat there are ways to not carry vast quantities of fuel and water, you can do long cruises across oceans with a semi displacement boat, you just need to plan well for energy. It probably means solar panel + hydrogenerator + watermaker + sailing the boat. Some people do it....

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

@estarzinger not sure what your point was about fuel and water then....

If you have a fast boat there are ways to not carry vast quantities of fuel and water, you can do long cruises across oceans with a semi displacement boat, you just need to plan well for energy. It probably means solar panel + hydrogenerator + watermaker + sailing the boat. Some people do it....

You can save a lot of space by carrying dehydrated water.

71TtgTzJ8kL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

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

@estarzinger not sure what your point was about fuel and water then....

 

The topic I was replying to was how much extra 'cruising weight you needed' . . . I said "It depends on what is meant by 'cruising', and whether things like fuel and water are included" . . . There was really nothing for you to 'disagree' with there.  It was just a statement that one needs to be careful in the discussion to ckeck that people are talking apples to apples. There can be big apples to orange comparisons when different people include different things in 'cruising weight' - some people include full fuel and water, some include half tanks and some dont include it. 

And I also said in that same post "For a fast week of 'pogo style sailing' . . . . yea 150 kgs per person is feasible." So, yea, sure I had already pre-agreed with you here - no reason to somehow assume I dont understand that niche. It does require owners with rather ocd weight accumulation control, because otherwise 'stuff' just builds up and sinks the 'light' boat.  But there are most certainly those sort of people/sailors out there.

My only disagreement with you was your sales pitch for hydro generators.  They have niche usage, but are rather less useful in real world cruising than theory might suggest.

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

My only disagreement with you was your sales pitch for hydro generators.  They have niche usage, but are rather less useful in real world cruising than theory might suggest.

The first ones were underdesigned as they had underestimated the loads but they are built by sailors for sailors and each generation is getting better, now they've mostly become "Vendée Globe proof". Not many marine equipment companies have their CEO winning the Vendée Globe!

Now it is quite common to see one on faster cruisers which are actually cruised. When you are close to shore, you can fill up weekly in many countries, when offshore you either need to carry water or make it, thus you need enough energy to keep the autopilot on and to make water hence the hydrogenerator...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 8:49 AM, slug zitski said:

This is the issue 

ultra light boats get stuck to the water when overloaded 

they overload very fast 

as soon as the transom knuckle gets submerged you can hear a great sucking sound 

is you want a speedy cruiser go with a modern,  conventional  cruiser racer , medium displacement 

they are plenty fast 

E0B6C182-C481-4ACB-9B80-E0E5FC4DFF2B.jpeg

This is exactly why we went (had to go, as it turned out) custom to have a cruising boat that would break loose and plane.  It wasn’t difficult or exotic- wood, foam, e glass, epoxy, and good design.  And this was 20 years ago.  Top speeds in the low 20’s.  White sail planing. We plane under main alone.  Granted she’s not as fast as a light multi.  A lot more relaxed though, apparently.  The multi guys like to call us a monomoran.  If we get knocked down, we do come back up.  D/L in the 90’s, not in the 120’s-140’s.  Aside from a softer ride (maybe), I’ve never understood piling on SA to push speed a tenth of a knot beyond 1.3 * square root of the WL in a boat that won’t plane. Things get squirrelly,  Holes get dug. And face it, west coast sleds, Australian, Scandinavian, French & New Zealand boats, among others, have been doing this for almost 1/2 a century.  Sq Meter boats for a century.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty easy to add 1000 kgs of cruising gear to make a boat ready for action ...anchors , chain , tender, batteries ........

1000kg on a 40 ft 5000kg speedster is 20 percent overweight 

on a the typical 8000 kg   40 ft racer cruiser it’s only 13 percent overweight 

this is significant  

Additionaly you can’t keep all this cruising ballast located low and amidships ....it always winds up in the ends of the boat 

maximum waterline length speedsters don’t like heavy ends 

another thing  about lightweight speedsters that bothers me is the extreme shallow bilges 

hard to live with 

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

This is exactly why we went (had to go, as it turned out) custom to have a cruising boat that would break loose and plane.  It wasn’t difficult or exotic- wood, foam, e glass, epoxy, and good design.  And this was 20 years ago.  Top speeds in the low 20’s.

Uffa Fox did that 70 years ago, for Douglas Heard.  Then the sailing world went mad, and spent a generation down a wormhole of IOR perversions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Uffa Fox did that 70 years ago, for Douglas Heard.  Then the sailing world went mad, and spent a generation down a wormhole of IOR perversions.

You really don't like the IOR do you Leggs?:rolleyes:  Spend enough time off shore on IOR's predecessor, a CCA yawl, and some IOR boats, particularly the late 70s/early 80s ones were really pretty good...

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Crash said:

You really don't like the IOR do you Leggs?:rolleyes: 

No, I don't :) 

The IOR era seems to me to be a historical tragedy.  A bunch of economic and social factors saw an explosion in cruiser-racers, made in a new material which meant that most could last for many decades with minimal maintenance.

Unfortunately, a broken rating rule meant that the boats of this era were type formed around a series of undesirable characteristics.  So the golden age of sailing boat production involved churning out distorted boats.

38 minutes ago, Crash said:

Spend enough time off shore on IOR's predecessor, a CCA yawl, and some IOR boats, particularly the late 70s/early 80s ones were really pretty good...

The IOR was not uniformly bad.  Some boats were not too compromised.

But if you look at what came before and what came afterwards, it's a tragic era where designers were driven off on a tangent.  The path from Huff to Amati doesn't go through IOR.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

No, I don't :) 

The IOR era seems to me to be a historical tragedy.  A bunch of economic and social factors saw an explosion in cruiser-racers, made in a new material which meant that most could last for many decades with minimal maintenance.

Unfortunately, a broken rating rule meant that the boats of this era were type formed around a series of undesirable characteristics.  So the golden age of sailing boat production involved churning out distorted boats.

The IOR was not uniformly bad.  Some boats were not too compromised.

But if you look at what came before and what came afterwards, it's a tragic era where designers were driven off on a tangent.  The path from Huff to Amati doesn't go through IOR.

How did Huff get to Amati? Calling Chris 249, calling Chris 249.....:lol:

I’d propose sq meter boats, (chop off the ends), then Uffa’s flying series, German Rennjolle, Flying Dutchman, Solings, Etchells, IMSMk 1, early open 50’s, Amati.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amati said:

I’d propose sq meter boats, (chop off the ends), then Uffa’s flying series, German Rennjolle, Flying Dutchman, Solings, Etchells, IMSMk 1, early open 50’s, Amati.  

I think that the path goes takes a leg through the Californian ULDB scene.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwoLegged said:

I think that the path goes takes a leg through the Californian ULDB scene.  

I was going to add that, since it was a big influence, but I couldn’t find the edit function.B)  We owned a Ron Moore built boat- early U20- and always loved :wub: the Santa Cruz boats.  Sailing in the Salish Sea meant we needed massive meter boat upwind ability, so that was a little different than the Santa Cruz boats.  Off wind though......:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Pretty easy to add 1000 kgs of cruising gear to make a boat ready for action ...anchors , chain , tender, batteries ........

1000kg on a 40 ft 5000kg speedster is 20 percent overweight 

on a the typical 8000 kg   40 ft racer cruiser it’s only 13 percent overweight 

this is significant  

Additionaly you can’t keep all this cruising ballast located low and amidships ....it always winds up in the ends of the boat 

maximum waterline length speedsters don’t like heavy ends 

another thing  about lightweight speedsters that bothers me is the extreme shallow bilges 

hard to live with 

That ^ is the reality. Takes a rare OCD crazy cruiser to keep weight under control. That is one reason I chose the Santa Cruz 50 for short handed cruising. Figured the length would accommodate the bare necessary gear and stores. Still must be always vigilant. I've got the ends empty...air aft and only pillow in the v-berth forward...thanks to the huge forward cargo hold on the SC50 and all the lockers being in that odd raised settee over the keel. Fuel jugs for the 2-3000 nm legs are a problem but moving faster than the chunder beasts saves much time and fuel while being much more sailing fun.

Shallow bilges can make for some wet feet down below on most ULDB boats. But the SC50 has that deep keel stubby to collect the seas... if not on long tacks at least capturing it during a tack or gybe.

Might figure the 50 was sketched out for 6 crew with gear, food and water for the TransPac...so with only one or two...

Fishing while planing is problematic...the only other big issue I discovered is that running off before a storm, if in the wrong direction, can set one back an extraordinary distance...

Hydro generators may be the best option. Slower boats pushing at hull speed have surplus power but the relatively low speed is a disadvantage for efficient generation. Knocking a knot off of boat sailing in the teens may be sad, but that knot contains a great amount of energy in an easily harvested form. Plus, does the higher speed prevent the big fish from chomping on the turbine?

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

This is exactly why we went (had to go, as it turned out) custom to have a cruising boat that would break loose and plane.  It wasn’t difficult or exotic- wood, foam, e glass, epoxy, and good design.  And this was 20 years ago.  Top speeds in the low 20’s.  White sail planing. We plane under main alone.  Granted she’s not as fast as a light multi.  A lot more relaxed though, apparently.  The multi guys like to call us a monomoran.  If we get knocked down, we do come back up.  D/L in the 90’s, not in the 120’s-140’s.  Aside from a softer ride (maybe), I’ve never understood piling on SA to push speed a tenth of a knot beyond 1.3 * square root of the WL in a boat that won’t plane. Things get squirrelly,  Holes get dug. And face it, west coast sleds, Australian, Scandinavian, French & New Zealand boats, among others, have been doing this for almost 1/2 a century.  Sq Meter boats for a century.  

Pictures of your boat and more info, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, rantro said:

Cruisers most often do not leave port in more than 15 knots.  The women get scared.

This is why most cruising boats use the motor for most of the miles they log.  Small hops between safe free anchorages.

The whole concept of this thread is ridiculous.

Don't be ridiculous

 

while that describes some cruisers it certainly doesn't describe all of them. and let be honest here, the overwhelming majority of cruising boats have neither the tankage nor sufficient engine horsepower for the engine to be what logs most of their miles. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, El Borracho said:
21 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Pretty easy to add 1000 kgs of cruising gear to make a boat ready for action ...anchors , chain , tender, batteries ........

1000kg on a 40 ft 5000kg speedster is 20 percent overweight 

on a the typical 8000 kg   40 ft racer cruiser it’s only 13 percent overweight 

this is significant  

Additionaly you can’t keep all this cruising ballast located low and amidships ....it always winds up in the ends of the boat 

maximum waterline length speedsters don’t like heavy ends 

another thing  about lightweight speedsters that bothers me is the extreme shallow bilges 

hard to live with 

Expand  Expand  

That ^ is the reality. Takes a rare OCD crazy cruiser to keep weight under control.

This all assumes that the definition of "cruising" is "crossing the Pacific".  In reality, that's a small minority.

Around my way, the vast majority of cruising is coast-hopping.  The coastal cruiser does not need massive stores of fuel and water and food, and the decision not to carry coffee machine and TV and cut-glass is just a way of making life simple.

Light boats work fine for short-hop cruising, unless you decide that you can go sailing only if you bring the contents of your apartment with you. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rantro said:

Short-hop cruising is what real cruisers do while carrying enough supplies to be hove-to for two weeks waiting for the blow to pass. 

Cruising is live-aboard, not a few nights away.

Food for two weeks doesn't weigh tonnes, and two-week blows are rare in most places.

But why do you want to redefine cruising as liveaboard? 

We already have a word for liveaboard, and it's odd to see this desire to exclude the majority of cruisers.  Rantro's definition would mean that the likes of Roger Taylor and John Gore-Grimes are not cruisers, and nor is Dylan Winter.  Maybe Dylan's short hops in his old slow boats is a form of racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rantro said:

But why do you want to plane on a cruiser?   Go racing instead.

Going fast is fun. Planing is even more fun.  Arriving in a new place is fun. Planing your way to a new place is lots of fun.

Collecting pickle dishes and ending up where you started is not fun.  Unless you like spending your evenings drinking with blazer-wearing onanists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Going fast is fun. Planing is even more fun.  Arriving in a new place is fun. Planing your way to a new place is lots of fun.

Collecting pickle dishes and ending up where you started is not fun.  Unless you like spending your evenings drinking with blazer-wearing onanists.

My first thought was that the dry-cleaning bills would be pretty steep.:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rantro said:

Still say this thread is bullshit.

You want to plane, go racing.  You want to cruise, go hull-speed or less and load it up with beer.

I see you try to keep the best anchoring places to yourself, with your current setup. Now if there is new player with planing boat cruising on your grounds... the race would be on!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rantro said:

If you want to enjoy the journey, the joy of sailing, being on the ocean, get a fat displacement boat, fill it with all the stuff you need to be comfortable and has some fucking fun!

Planing requires constant attention, strapping everything down in case it broaches.  It's incompatible with chilling.

For some the joy of sailing is chilling and that is fun. For others sailing ain't fun if you just hoist the sails and beep the autopilot and grab your book. I wouldn't recommend Colin Archer for the latter people, just like I wouldn't recommend Pogo or JP54 for the first group.

Imho strapping everything down is needed unless you sail catamaran. Stuff starts to fly around way before broach.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rantro said:

Think about the loads.

Planing constantly requires constant trimming, or else someone ready to dump it.   Heavy boat, huge loads on the kite or aso sheet.  You do not have to get too big to need hydraulics, then you need a motor running and then you have defeated to whole idea.

The thread concept is bullshit. 

But what about cruisers who like to sail and to whom sailing means steering and trimming? Put them on a boat and instruct to read a book and chill and they  will be miserable. Yup they won't be chartering the usual houseboat. They will steer to fastsailing.gr or jpdick-yachts.com

Or are you saying that it ain't cruising unless you do it for a year and it includes at least one ocean crossing?

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

You want to plane, go racing.  You want to cruise, go hull-speed or less and load it up with beer.

I learnt the joys of planing cruising as a teenager, when I found that it was possible to stash an awful lot of my finest homebrew beer under the cockpit of a J/24 ... and then plane past all the slow boats.  The beer actually helped with weight distribution.

Those on the slow boats spent their days rolling around, grinding winches to try to make their slugboats move ... while we pulled much lighter strings, had a more comfortable ride, and got to the anchorage first.

Easier sailing, more fun sailing, more drinking.  What's not to like?

44 minutes ago, rantro said:

I do however know how to sail, which is more than I can say for most of the cruisers I have seen attempt to race competitively.  They were used to hoisting a rag to interfere with a nice breeze.  The art of trim was lost on them.

Actually, I came to planing cruising from dinghy racing.  So do many others.

45 minutes ago, rantro said:

So much for planing and cruising.  It's total bullshit.

That sounds like you @rantro are not capable of doing it ... so instead of upping your skills, you prefer denying the experiences of those who do it.  What a wee charmer you are.

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

Think about the loads.

Planing constantly requires constant trimming, or else someone ready to dump it.   Heavy boat, huge loads on the kite or aso sheet.  You do not have to get too big to need hydraulics, then you need a motor running and then you have defeated to whole idea.

The thread concept is bullshit. 

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, on a light cruising boat everything is easy.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rantro said:

The thread concept is bullshit. 

Obvious that you lack the experience of sailing fast outside of racing. Entirely practical. Common to peg the fun meter for only part of a day then dial it back for awhile to relax.

Try it. Lotsa unmentioned benefits. From cleaning slime off the bottom, to eliminating those annoying vomit-inducing following seas, to beating the chill-factor in a foggy following wind, to allow frying the eggs without rolling them outta the pan. You wouldn’t know.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@rantro

And just to be clear: I don't find it stupid to have a cruising boat that doesn't plane whatever you do, with provisions to get over all the seas and apocalypse. Just as I don't find it stupid to charter 30 foot Pogo for a week or two and get the beers from the shore to keep the bow up and speed in double digits while sailing. Horses for courses, whatever floats your boat. 

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

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, on a light cruising boat everything is easy.

Ssshhhhh, Pano.

7 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

Obvious that you lack the experience of sailing fast outside of racing. Entirely practical. Common to peg the fun meter for only part of a day then dial it back for awhile to relax.

And you too, Borracho.

You are of course both right, but @rantro is doing a brilliant egg-on-face job of talking complete nonsense about something he hasn't even tried ... and you two sense-speakers are going to spoil all the fun ;) :D 

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

The coastal cruiser does not need massive stores of fuel and water and food, and the decision not to carry coffee machine and TV and cut-glass is just a way of making life simple.

I would not paint with so broad a brush. Perhaps on a coastal cruiser you have the need (or want - hard to separate) for less spares, stores, etc. But a little further from civilization and you'll be wanting some, and it isn't TVs and cut-glass dinnerware. It is rare for a long distance cruiser to not have 1000 kg or more of stuff that does not fall into the decadence class. estarzinger is correct on that score - there are a few who do it, but it is a small percentage. They do it because they do not want to have the odd bolt or replacement part flown in at great expense and delay to a remote location. Coastal cruising in an area where a civilized port is never more than 20 miles (rather than 10 days) away, sure you can lighten the load, or sail a boat built for the lighter load. Now my boat is home, I've been daysailing mostly, haven't really taken that much stuff off, yet it is floating about 2" higher. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DDW said:

I would not paint with so broad a brush. Perhaps on a coastal cruiser you have the need (or want - hard to separate) for less spares, stores, etc. But a little further from civilization and you'll be wanting some, and it isn't TVs and cut-glass dinnerware. It is rare for a long distance cruiser to not have 1000 kg or more of stuff that does not fall into the decadence class. estarzinger is correct on that score - there are a few who do it, but it is a small percentage. They do it because they do not want to have the odd bolt or replacement part flown in at great expense and delay to a remote location. Coastal cruising in an area where a civilized port is never more than 20 miles (rather than 10 days) away, sure you can lighten the load, or sail a boat built for the lighter load. Now my boat is home, I've been daysailing mostly, haven't really taken that much stuff off, yet it is floating about 2" higher. 

2 inches higher? Have you taken half the keel off?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2021 at 5:50 AM, rantro said:

Cruisers most often do not hoist anchor when there is enough breeze to plane.

bingo! but sailors usually do...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Misbehavin' said:

Pictures of your boat and more info, please.

LOA 40’
LWL 36’

B 10.71’

BWL 8.56’

Draft 8.5’

 

Disp 10,000 lbs (actually it was less, it ranged between 9200 & 10,000)

D/L @ 10,000 lbs =96

SA / Disp  (blade) 22.46

SA / WS 2.27 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DDW said:

I would not paint with so broad a brush. Perhaps on a coastal cruiser you have the need (or want - hard to separate) for less spares, stores, etc. But a little further from civilization and you'll be wanting some, and it isn't TVs and cut-glass dinnerware. It is rare for a long distance cruiser to not have 1000 kg or more of stuff that does not fall into the decadence class. estarzinger is correct on that score - there are a few who do it, but it is a small percentage. They do it because they do not want to have the odd bolt or replacement part flown in at great expense and delay to a remote location. Coastal cruising in an area where a civilized port is never more than 20 miles (rather than 10 days) away, sure you can lighten the load, or sail a boat built for the lighter load. Now my boat is home, I've been daysailing mostly, haven't really taken that much stuff off, yet it is floating about 2" higher. 

One of the best tricks is to have a boat with few systems.  Less stuff to fix. Less parts to carry around.  Another example of the smaller spiral.  Skinnier helps, no sleeping quarters under the cockpit, etc....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Amati said:

One of the best tricks is to have a boat with few systems.  Less stuff to fix. Less parts to carry around.  Another example of the smaller spiral.  Skinnier helps, no sleeping quarters under the cockpit, etc....

E-zactly! The cruiser crap collection affliction is exponential in weight and complexity. Plus, omitted systems never fail.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Misbehavin' said:

2 inches higher? Have you taken half the keel off?

Just start with some liquids. I only keep 1 fuel tank full (of 2). I only keep one water tank full (of 4). That's about 1000 lbs right there. Some spare lines, the mizzen staysail, couple of engine spares - it adds up pretty quick. And the espresso maker is still on board :). That's only about 2 lbs though. 

Those you say you can live without any of this stuff should in their postings also answer a simple question: Have you lived on your boat for 4 months or longer, at least 1000 miles from home. There is a big difference - a step function really - when you are living on board not close to home. Just the tools required for maintenance and repair are significant. Either you hire that work out, or buy the tools in your current port, or carry them with you. Only one example of many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Amati said:

One of the best tricks is to have a boat with few systems.  Less stuff to fix. Less parts to carry around.  Another example of the smaller spiral.  Skinnier helps, no sleeping quarters under the cockpit, etc....

So, have you lived aboard Amati for several months at a time, 1000 miles from home? 

I'm not saying that is the only definition of cruising. Just that there are several types of cruising (and several types of cruisers), and one size (or weight) of boat doesn't fit them all. There are a few cruisers that can live on a light simple boat away from home port, but it is a very small percentage that are willing to do so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites