Jump to content

Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts


Recommended Posts

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

 dress like a “patriot” if you want to be subversive :-) ) 

My father in law used to be the last link in a draft dodger railroad to canada. He would put them in the trunk and drive  across the border.  He was an ex-navy flyer, crew cut, everything squared away, and senior guy in small local Masonic lodge to boot, so no-one ever gave him even a second glance. He used to be able to make speeding tickets go away by shaking hands with the officers.  Something very Sun Tzu about it all.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That in no way diminishes the validity of their choices. They are buying the boat for themselves, not for you or me. I happen to prefer a deep fin, spade rudder, tall carbon rig, paradoxically on a wo

This has turned into Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Posters.

You know who to get the best advice from? Delivery skippers. It isn't their boat, they aren't in love with her and blind to her flaws. They have to get the boat from A to B despite the weather or

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

My father in law used to be the last link in a draft dodger railroad to canada. He would put them in the trunk and drive  across the border.  He was an ex-navy flyer, crew cut, everything squared away, and senior guy in small local Masonic lodge to boot, so no-one ever gave him even a second glance. He used to be able to make speeding tickets go away by shaking hands with the officers.  Something very Sun Tzu about it all.

What can I say - LOL!  Take it to PA :-). (I had a pony tail then, not messy but very GQ-styled a la Fabio of the early ‘90s.  Learned that lesson - no long hair at the border :-) )

(Unless you’re actually Fabio in your early ‘90s heartthrob prime... [thread drift alert] )

 

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

Definitely a Hobie cat thing.  If your mast isn't watertight, better get that cat flipped back up before it fills with water! It makes the difference between a tip-over and a full inversion.

For sure a thing for vessels with positive inverted stability (is that what’s it’s called?).  But I never would’ve thought for a vessel as large as Estar’s (47’) and such a tall mast.  Interesting concept - obviously designed for SO passages where “all bets are off”.  My boat has a (theoretically) watertight main hatch, so could (theoretically) withstand some immersion.  Mast is well stayed (two backstays and inner forestay), but alas  is deck stepped.

@estarzinger Evans - I recall you also saying somewhere above that Hawk’s mast was designed or set up such that if you did lose the rig in a knockdown, you’d theoretically have a good stump let left over, i.e., to facilitate a reasonable jury rig.  I haven’t thought through jury rigs - seems like a damn good thing to at least think through (which would cover everything from basic lashing strategies (like JL VDH and his [possibly illicit, b/c it was a race rules-prohibited modern material?] use of Spectra as a lashing near/at his spreaders in the last GGR race, through full on jury rig spars and steering strategies.

Fascinating and very practical topic unto itself.  I wonder if anyone has ever written a book on the topic of jury rigs stuff (a la David Burch’s excellent book on jury rig nav solutions (titled “Emergency Navigation”) ?

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

Hawk’s mast was designed or set up such that if you did lose the rig in a knockdown, you’d theoretically have a good stump let left over

 anyone has ever written a book on the topic of jury rigs 

yea, we had a sleeve inside from below the partners up to just above the gooseneck and then tapered for a ways further - hoped it would snap off somewhere above the sleeve. If the boom was still there it was designed so we could hoist the boom vertical and get a reasonably decent mast (Ellen did this when she dismasted her big cat).  If the boom was gone we would need to lash the pole on.

Speaking of Ellen's dismasting, we were in the same ocean as her, going the same way, and after her dismasting I was hoping we could sail up to her and offer help :) but it was then hmmm a bit discouraging to see that they were still doing like 30% faster speed than us with our full mast and sails.

There have certainly been articles on jury rigs - yachting monthly did one for instance (in their quite fun 'crash test dummies' series).  I dont believe I have seen a book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the calcs on my boat if the mast were made airtight. It adds significantly to the AVS, but of course only helps once a lot of the mast is immersed which is like > 140 deg. So the result is likely not preventing an inversion, but limiting the time spent there. 

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

............In Hobart we had another 'we could put you in jail for 10 years' moment - they insisted that when I sailed from one Australian state to another I had to directly go non-stop to an official check in Harbour and check in.......... I never know if it was an actual rule which I violated or if they were mistaken about it.

That's never been a requirement unless you weren't fully cleared in for some reason. It would have been good to know at the time as the department should have been taken to account over that.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Watertight flotation compartment in the mast?  Cool idea. Is that a “thing” on the IMOCAs, etc?  I’ve never heard of this before.

With added RM at the top from a NACA foil windvane float, the Gougeon-32:

g32-incognito-r2ak-2018.thumb.jpg.6614f6f35bae0dddda9e38fd338ed61f.jpg

P.S.  from G-Wiz!  Russell Brown’s New ToyApril 25, 2018
https://www.epoxyworks.com/index.php/g-32-catamaran-g-wiz/

DSCN4339-WEB.jpg.e3b70f46f2553c59a11d321fe965aa49.jpg

DSCN5209-WEB.jpg.2a2ec3be4adb05a8f9befda9784cc3db.jpg

P.P.S.  Great place to mount a camera or two!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MikeJohns said:

That's never been a requirement unless you weren't fully cleared in for some reason. It would have been good to know at the time as the department should have been taken to account over that.

 

 

 

 

Yep, the thing to remember about Tasmanian public servants is that they have all reached their level of incompetence and there is nowhere left to go…

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

I did the calcs on my boat if the mast were made airtight. It adds significantly to the AVS, but of course only helps once a lot of the mast is immersed which is like > 140 deg. So the result is likely not preventing an inversion, but limiting the time spent there. 

Panope's mast is water tight except for 3 bolts (in tight holes) near the partners.

Submerged, the mast would have about 210 lbs. buoyancy. 

Flooded with water, it would have a submerged weight of about 110 lbs.

I have no AVS calcs, but I can sure see how a difference of 320 lbs., 18 feet above deck (mid point of mast) could sure make significant difference.

Her tall wheel house, on the other hand, has the potential of providing an even larger righting force...........as long as the water can be kept out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO mast flotation is of dubious advantage except for quite small boats with low stability and in wind gust knockdown rather than wave knockdown. 

Usually in a wave induced capsize you can count on the rig being lost, and always in anything performance oriented.

  Keel stepped masts often retain the lower section and break at the first spreaders. Deck stepped, unless in a husky well supported tabernacle then the lot usually goes.

Inversion is about dynamics not statics. These are dynamic events that happen quite quickly. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can count on a Marconi rig being lost in a capsize, they are a brittle structure and experience seems to confirm this. Much less experience with free standing rigs, but at least some examples of them not being lost, and the structure is not as brittle. A free standing rig is the ultimate in a keel stepped rig after all. But I'd agree that in a wave induced capsize static stability or AVS may have little influence. The difference may be in how long you stay inverted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that in breaking wave studies  (from memory.  Nomato  expanding on Claughtons work)  :

That when a boat model without the rig was knocked down to 120-130 degrees and recovered, another model with exactly the same roll gyradius and the rig fitted, they reported the total roll angle reduced significantly.

Not to be confused with total roll inertia. He found that case entirely due to the roll damping effect of the rig when it hit the water dissipating the remaining roll energy.

At that point the loads on the rig are not excessive ( rolls slowing down anyway ) and even with sails set most rigs do remain intact after this sort of knockdown unless stay attachments fail.

 

Upside down:  In inverted stability it's also shown that if the vessel inverts and has a lower LPS and if the rig remained intact then it can prevent re-righting completely not because of it’s flooding the mast but because it damps and changes the phase of the inverted roll response so much that the inverted LPS is never exceeded unless the waves get much larger than the wave that inverted the vessel.

I don't know about free standing rigs. The combined shear and bending at deck may well be survivable depending on the margin allowed by the designer for composite lifespan.

 

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

I think you can count on a Marconi rig being lost in a capsize, they are a brittle structure and experience seems to confirm this. Much less experience with free standing rigs, but at least some examples of them not being lost, and the structure is not as brittle. A free standing rig is the ultimate in a keel stepped rig after all. But I'd agree that in a wave induced capsize static stability or AVS may have little influence. The difference may be in how long you stay inverted.

One of the characteristics of free-standing rigs is they don't break at the spreaders.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, olaf hart said:

Yep, the thing to remember about Tasmanian public servants is that they have all reached their level of incompetence and there is nowhere left to go…

They reach it at APS 3-4 for the most part. This place could have been used as a textbook example of the Peter Principle in real life...

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2021 at 2:59 AM, estarzinger said:

The absolute greatest barrier for Chile, is that it is simply a long way away, across several weather zone.  It is a pretty huge commitment just to get there.  If somehow you could sail thru a portal and be immediately in Puerto Williams, it would all probably be viewed as rather less intimidating. 

BTW (and somewhat randomly, but not really b/c I just happened to be reading about Chile), did you pass through the canales W-E (i.e., coming down the Chilean coast), or from the Atlantic?  And what time of year was it?  Apparently winter is said to be calmer?

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

BTW (and somewhat randomly, but not really b/c I just happened to be reading about Chile), did you pass through the canales W-E (i.e., coming down the Chilean coast), or from the Atlantic?  And what time of year was it?  Apparently winter is said to be calmer?

we were in chile 3 times, came at it both ways (from the atlantic and the pacific).

To get to chile, down the atlantic is (arguably) a bit easier than the pacific.  But once there are the first port it is a whole lot easier if you did the pacific, because southbound (downwind) in the chanels is way way easier than northbound (upwind).

We also did both winter and summer.  In the winter the days are pretty short, and the water will freeze around your anchored boat at night.  The weather is much more variable in the winter - you do get calm high pressures (very cold) and you get worse storms and you can get winds from different directions (like easterlies) which make picking safe anchorages more tricky.  Coming south bound I would say summer is the very clear choice.  Going North bound I could understand an argument for winter but I would disagree with it. You can sail/explore year around a bit like the pnw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a bit more regarding the atlantic and pacific approaches . . . 

From the Atlantic there is basically one way to do it.  You get to Uruguay and then go down the coast and turn right at the beagle.  We sailed non-stop from iceland down to uruguay, but probably the easiest is a passage from the canaries/cape verde  you can also do it from the Caribbean, but it is a lonish way around brazil with some contrary winds and current.  It is easier (if you are a competent passage maker) to just get some ocean easting and then act like you are coming from the canaries.

Once in Uruguay, you make your way down the coast in small 2/3/4 night jumps.  It starts off pretty easy -  weather pretty decent with mostly favorable winds and reasonable harbours.  But south of Mar del Plate (agrintine holiday town) - the winds start to get strong - 30 to 40 kts (with clear sunny sky's) blowing off the argentine Pampas is not unusual. You can often sail quite close to the beach so there is little fetch and just power reach in the big winds. Further south you can start to get lows spinning in from the west and the harbours are more tenuous (shifting sand bars and little protection from the wind).   One of my lasting memories is getting into Puerto San Julian - the mouth has shifting pretty much uncharted sandbars and you often have to go in straight into +30kts with a (reversing 4kt current).  I had read about it because Skip Novak had tried to get in a couple times and never made it.  We got the timing right and made it in, just in time to get anchor down for a 50kt breeze.  The officials said we were the first sail boat in their memory (like in 20 years).  Both Cook and Magellan put down mutinies in there and there is a point called hang-mans point where they were hanged. From there, you keep plugging away south.  There is a treat just before you turn right into the beagle if you are willing to bend the rules just a little - On Isla de los Estados there is one of the most marvelous harbors in the world the inner harbour of Port Hoppner - the entrance looks impassable on first glance, but once you get in it is like being anchored in an alpine lake - perfect protection and good hiking all around.  We spent a christmas in there with some swedish friends.  The you have a final trick bit - Estrecho de le Maire - strait with strong currents and big badly shaped waves, and you can turn right into the beagle and you can mostly day hop between decent anchorages

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Pacific - there are two options - down the coast or a big loop out to polynesia and around the big stationary high and back in at Chile.  This later is quite long sea distance, but with favorable conditions and some really nice stops which most cruisers doing the pacific dont get to see. The last leg is the only potentially difficult part, several thousand miles into puerto montt in increasing difficult southern weather.  This is a passage where it is useful to be good at weather routing - We did some nice clever stuff. The down the coast run has some really nasty against the current and wind sections, and the harbours and countries are not the most hospitable.  We much preferred to do long ocean work, so we never did the down the coast and I cant speak to its details much except everyone we know who did it said 'never again'.

The advantage for the pacific entry are two fold.  One is it is downwind down the channels from there, which is a ton easier than north bound. The second is that you start at the easer end of the channels so you can get your feet wet and feel you way into the new learning experience.  When you enter from the atlantic you are thrown immediately right into the very cold deep end. 

We did two south bound trips and one northbound.  Patagonia is a bit of a shock if you think you are an expert experienced cruiser, because it really is a whole different level. It is difficult for most people to fit into their cruise plan, but I always suggest for people to try to make two trips in the chanels because the first one will be stressful as you are learning the ropes and the 2nd one you can relax a bit and enjoy the experience.

 

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

IMO mast flotation is of dubious advantage except for quite small boats with low stability and in wind gust knockdown rather than wave knockdown. 

Usually in a wave induced capsize you can count on the rig being lost, and always in anything performance oriented.

  Keel stepped masts often retain the lower section and break at the first spreaders. Deck stepped, unless in a husky well supported tabernacle then the lot usually goes.

Inversion is about dynamics not statics. These are dynamic events that happen quite quickly. 
 

Keel stepped is the last thing you want offshore as it breaks the cardinal rule of making your best to  keep the water out in all conditions. I would make an exception for a freestanding mast as it becomes a tradeoff between robustness and an extra hole in the roof!

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

 the last thing you want

I think perhaps just a tiny bit of exaggeration. -_-

Honestly either (keel or deck) is perfectly fine if they are done properly. Just some trade-offs and compromises.

You can plug (in various different ways) the inside of a keel stepped mast at the partners.

I personally lean toward keel stepped . . . but would be just fine with properly done deck step.

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

My father in law used to be the last link in a draft dodger railroad to canada. He would put them in the trunk and drive  across the border.  He was an ex-navy flyer, crew cut, everything squared away, and senior guy in small local Masonic lodge to boot, so no-one ever gave him even a second glance. He used to be able to make speeding tickets go away by shaking hands with the officers.  Something very Sun Tzu about it all.

Without my quite understanding it at the time our house – organized by my  brothers with parental support -  was the first stop/stay in Canada for a good number of draft dodgers. There were always just a lot of long haired poorly shaven young men around for a few years. At least at first I was still young enough to believe what my elder brothers explained about draft dodgers – eventually I became increasingly skeptical that American’s couldn’t chink their homes and couldn't find central heating any closer than Montreal...

By the time the next wave of Vietnam relocations arrived I understood what it meant to be boat people – and I was old enough to appreciate the more interesting food that started making to the dinner table. (We had a stupidly big house, and well my parents were just like that).

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

I think perhaps just a tiny bit of exaggeration. -_-

Honestly either (keel or deck) is perfectly fine if they are done properly. Just some trade-offs and compromises.

You can plug (in various different ways) the inside of a keel stepped mast at the partners.

I personally lean toward keel stepped . . . but would be just fine with properly done deck step.

OK, the last thing I would want...

I know that keel stepped makes sense on a racing boat as the first spreaders can be higher up but there is a reason why deck stpped is prohibited on IMOCAs...

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

I've been "randomly" selected for enhanced searches more times than random chance would suggest. In one case right down to squeezing out the toothpaste tube and slitting a jacket seam.  I suspect it mostly had to do with having long hair and wearing sandals.  *sigh* one of which won't be a problem any more...

Initial positioning is everything.

There was no ambiguity about why I had my last prolonged delay in secondary.

The pleasant man from CBP wished us a nice Thanksgiving to which my overly woke eldest explained how genocide and occupation was nothing to be thankful for but rather an unending sign of white privilege and exploitation.

The nice man from CBP and his supervisor kindly gave my daughter and I some extended quiet time together in a windowless room so I could explain to her that she did not need to share her world views with everyone she met.

Payback came a few weeks later early on New Year’s day. My middle one does enjoy a party, whic does not combine well with an early morning car trip the next day as she gets motion sick.  At the same time as I rolled down the window for the nice border lady to question my daughter – the projectile vomiting started. Fortunately the CBP officer was remarkably agile and avoided the incoming. Documents returned without review and waived through with no further dialogue.

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

OK, the last thing I would want...

I know that keel stepped makes sense on a racing boat as the first spreaders can be higher up but there is a reason why deck stpped is prohibited on IMOCAs...

I think the last of your worries when the mast falls is whether it started keel or deck stepped. 

One possible downside of a free standing is if it broke below the partners (or the step broke) you would open the deck like a can opener. I haven't heard of that happening to anyone but it could with an unfortunate set of circumstances. On mine I made sure the step would not fail first, and was assured by the mast engineer that it would break well above the deck, if it broke. The ultimate strength of the spar calculates to about 4x the max righting moment of the hull (on paper) and the step and partners >10x. Also the partners and step are forward of the front crash bulkhead so if that remains intact, I would not sink. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my earlier message, I meant keel stepped prohibited on IMOCAs...

if you get rolled and loose the mast, with a deck stepped mast, the odds of not having a hole in the roof are higher plus you can free the mast quickly to save the hull as there is no need to climb to spreader level to cut stuff. So OK, you've lost your mast but your chances of having a dry boat are higher! Obviously nothing stops you from over engineering a deck stepped mast...

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

I think the last of your worries when the mast falls is whether it started keel or deck stepped. 

One possible downside of a free standing is if it broke below the partners (or the step broke) you would open the deck like a can opener. I haven't heard of that happening to anyone but it could with an unfortunate set of circumstances. On mine I made sure the step would not fail first, and was assured by the mast engineer that it would break well above the deck, if it broke. The ultimate strength of the spar calculates to about 4x the max righting moment of the hull (on paper) and the step and partners >10x. Also the partners and step are forward of the front crash bulkhead so if that remains intact, I would not sink. 

In an earlier life I had a Freedom 22, with a freestanding carbon mast. The base of the mast came loose from its step once in a wind on tide situation.

Even in a small boat this was a nightmare, sold the boat the next month and moved on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ON my deck stepped mast, there was a hardpoint low on the mast and another on the deck. When I quizzed the French at commissioning what it was for, Antoine produced a short dyneema strop, it was the tether to anchor the mast base to the cabintop. 

:(. Embarrassed to admit I hadn't thought of that. 

 

  

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

Keel stepped is the last thing you want offshore as it breaks the cardinal rule of making your best to  keep the water out in all conditions. I would make an exception for a freestanding mast as it becomes a tradeoff between robustness and an extra hole in the roof!

I prefer deck stepped for several reasons, but structurally keel stepped is better, it's a full moment connection rather than pinned at deck level. You can do this with a tabernacle, but it's both heavier and more expensive to implement.

ULDB sailboats particularly are at risk from a collapsed rig over the side in heavy weather and need to get it cleared up ASAP. Keel stepped usually retains the lower part of the mast and it can be hard to clean away the wreckage when the mast has folded over but is still attached and too high to access with nothing to haul up on.

If you look at keel steeped dismasting as a rule there's always a mast stump and often the full lower section to the fist spreaders intact. So you get to keep the boom and halyard winches etc.

You can also seal the mast internally too at assembly if required, internal seals that angle to a drain point.  These are often inserted just above deck level in hollow keel stepped masts.

But wrt sinking it's a thousand times more likely that a boat sinks from a composite spade rudder stock breaking halfway between the two bearings than through what happens to the rig after a capsize.  Just something else for you to worry about ;-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2021 at 7:13 PM, olaf hart said:

Yep, the thing to remember about Tasmanian public servants is that they have all reached their level of incompetence and there is nowhere left to go…

And they all look alike.

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

 

But wrt sinking it's a thousand times more likely that a boat sinks from a composite spade rudder stock breaking halfway between the two bearings than through what happens to the rig after a capsize.  Just something else for you to worry about ;-)

 

You're gonna have to come up with the data to support that. Although I suppose 0/0 could be said to be a thousand times. Properly engineered, a composite rudder post is unlikely to sink the boat. The calculated breaking load on mine is 4x the boat displacement at the tip, it is inside a large tube sealed from the rest of the boat, which itself is inside the aft watertight compartment. So a lot depends on the details. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2021 at 12:05 PM, Autonomous said:

So I just put down a deposit on a boat with free standing, water tight spars. 

Not sure it puts me in the club though.

20200816_153842.jpg

https://www.ghboats.com/our-boats/17-salish-voyager/

That’s a fun-looking little boat - I was actually looking at one of those on the Gig Harbour Boats site the other day - I’d like to have something max 17 ft that sails and rows well - to pop over to local Gulf Islands around here, pull it up on the beach in summer to camp, gear stuffed in a dry bag.  Maybe do a 7048 Race too?  More for the kid than me, but I gotta think about myself too :-) But the cost is making me consider a Wayfarer dinghy instead (and the GH looks hard to sleep in).

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

You're gonna have to come up with the data to support that. Although I suppose 0/0 could be said to be a thousand times. Properly engineered, a composite rudder post is unlikely to sink the boat. The calculated breaking load on mine is 4x the boat displacement at the tip, it is inside a large tube sealed from the rest of the boat, which itself is inside the aft watertight compartment. So a lot depends on the details. 

That sounds good - what I don’t get about my boat (and my similar ones) is why they didn’t put a crash bulkhead forward of the rudder tube?  They put one in the bow!  I think I can add one, but it would have been a zillion times easier to put it in at the factory. 

At the last haul-out, I drilled through it to install a zirk to lube the bottom bearing and that tube is a LOT thinner that I’d hoped it was.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always the old school option of having the rudder post enter the hull above the waterline. A lot of boats are/were designed for precise stern squat under motion where a portion of the rudder (and post) get used when in motion but are above the waterline when at anchor etc.

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

From the Pacific - there are two options - down the coast or a big loop out to polynesia and around the big stationary high and back in at Chile.  This later is quite long sea distance, but with favorable conditions and some really nice stops which most cruisers doing the pacific dont get to see. The last leg is the only potentially difficult part, several thousand miles into puerto montt in increasing difficult southern weather.  This is a passage where it is useful to be good at weather routing - We did some nice clever stuff. The down the coast run has some really nasty against the current and wind sections, and the harbours and countries are not the most hospitable.  We much preferred to do long ocean work, so we never did the down the coast and I cant speak to its details much except everyone we know who did it said 'never again'.

The advantage for the pacific entry are two fold.  One is it is downwind down the channels from there, which is a ton easier than north bound. The second is that you start at the easer end of the channels so you can get your feet wet and feel you way into the new learning experience.  When you enter from the atlantic you are thrown immediately right into the very cold deep end. 

We did two south bound trips and one northbound.  Patagonia is a bit of a shock if you think you are an expert experienced cruiser, because it really is a whole different level. It is difficult for most people to fit into their cruise plan, but I always suggest for people to try to make two trips in the chanels because the first one will be stressful as you are learning the ropes and the 2nd one you can relax a bit and enjoy the experience.

 

Thanks for all your thoughts on Patagonia - much appreciated, Evans!  Yeah, I’m sorta thinking that heading up to the Aleutians in the next couple years would be a sort of “prep” for down there (but mostly I just want to get up there, as it’s actually pretty close to here).
 

Re: down the S. America coast, I  think the only “down the coast” voyage I’ve ever read about is Hal Roth’s, in his “classic” Cape Horn book.  But he’s pretty breezy in his writing in general, never mentions any hardships, and doesn’t seem to make much of the fact that the Peru/Humboldt Current is against you pretty much the whole way down S. America.  Sounds unpleasant.

The account I’m currently reading is via Atlantic/Cape Town - as you say, a bit “rude” as you are sort of suddenly “there”, Le Maire being sort of the gate to the cold south  (vs. working your way down south on the Pac coast side, with favourable wind/current from Montt).

Relating cruising there to this thread, on the third approach option (via southern Polynesia, around the S Pac High, then E to Chile) —which it sounds like you did?— it’s gotta be, what 40  days?  You mentioned in a different thread that your solar panels weren’t mounted (I’m still trying to make a decision on this/sort this out) - what would you do for power generation on a long passage like that to Chile, i.e., in increasingly southern sea/rough conditions?  Since they weren’t fixed/mounted panels, you just brought them out when calm only to charge up?

 

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

That’s a fun-looking little boat - I was actually looking at one of those on the Gig Harbour Boats site the other day - I’d like to have something max 17 ft that sails and rows well - to pop over to local Gulf Islands around here, pull it up on the beach in summer to camp, gear stuffed in a dry bag.  Maybe do a 7048 Race too?  More for the kid than me, but I gotta think about myself too :-) But the cost is making me consider a Wayfarer dinghy instead (and the GH looks hard to sleep in).

The Wayfarer is definitely proven.

https://www.yachtingworld.com/voyages/faeroes-to-norway-in-a-wayfarer-dinghy-frank-dyes-extraordinary-tale-of-sea-survival-108050

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

it is inside a large tube sealed from the rest of the boat, which itself is inside the aft watertight compartment. So a lot depends on the details. 

This. Throw in dual rudders and I think this should be mandatory. You can't hide it/them behind the keel and the cant adds depth and width, dependent upon heel.  

Edit: for offshore that is. Bay cruising is different of course.  

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

There's always the old school option of having the rudder post enter the hull above the waterline. A lot of boats are/were designed for precise stern squat under motion where a portion of the rudder (and post) get used when in motion but are above the waterline when at anchor etc.

Mine enters the hull at the DWL but extends a good 400mm above so can't flood the boat no matter what. It's grease filled as well.

FKT

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

I prefer deck stepped for several reasons, but structurally keel stepped is better, it's a full moment connection rather than pinned at deck level. You can do this with a tabernacle, but it's both heavier and more expensive to implement.

ULDB sailboats particularly are at risk from a collapsed rig over the side in heavy weather and need to get it cleared up ASAP. Keel stepped usually retains the lower part of the mast and it can be hard to clean away the wreckage when the mast has folded over but is still attached and too high to access with nothing to haul up on.

If you look at keel steeped dismasting as a rule there's always a mast stump and often the full lower section to the fist spreaders intact. So you get to keep the boom and halyard winches etc.

You can also seal the mast internally too at assembly if required, internal seals that angle to a drain point.  These are often inserted just above deck level in hollow keel stepped masts.

But wrt sinking it's a thousand times more likely that a boat sinks from a composite spade rudder stock breaking halfway between the two bearings than through what happens to the rig after a capsize.  Just something else for you to worry about ;-)

 

A moment connection isn't inherently structurally better, it just means that the Euler buckling length of your first panel is shorter (which is good and efficient!) but you can get the same effect on a deck stepped mast by lowering your first spreaders (and potentially adding an extra set at the top). Racing boats use decked stepped when allowed but that's because it gives you a bit more righting moment (structurally more efficient design) but the drawback of an extra hole in the roof is a no brainer IMO on an offshore cruising boat for the safety aspect. Plus these seals are hard to maintain, IME it is not uncommon for these to leak.

Clearing a mast that is half standing is very dangerous as it involves working at height in a chaotic environment, it takes time and meanwhile you take the risk of holing the hull with the dangling bits banging against the boat..

As for the ruder stocks, they should be behind a watertight bulkhead, I know that sadly often they aren't but this thread is titled "Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts". Most keelboats can sink, so keeping the water out should be a top priority and if I were to sail offshore in high latitudes, I would really want as few holes as possible.

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

You're gonna have to come up with the data to support that. Although I suppose 0/0 could be said to be a thousand times. Properly engineered, a composite rudder post is unlikely to sink the boat. The calculated breaking load on mine is 4x the boat displacement at the tip, it is inside a large tube sealed from the rest of the boat, which itself is inside the aft watertight compartment. So a lot depends on the details. 

Actually I'm not aware of any boat that's sunk from losing a keel stepped mast. But I am aware of several boats that have sunk from the loss of spade rudders.  They pull out if the stock breaks, and it sinks the boat unless it's designed to prevent this. 
 

 

 

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

Clearing a mast that is half standing is very dangerous as it involves working at height in a chaotic environment, it takes time and meanwhile you take the risk of holing the hull with the dangling bits banging against the boat..

Not if you have a steel boat, you don't.

You can bash on my hull all you like with an aluminium mast and all you'll do is scratch up the epoxy.

And if I really thought it was a risk clearing a broken mast stub I'd just have an 18V battery angle grinder equipped with an aluminium cutting blade. No probs mon.

But I don't care because my masts are in heavy duty welded tabernacles secured by 2 x M20 bolts each and have 8mm galvanised wire standing rigging.

FKT

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

Actually I'm not aware of any boat that's sunk from losing a keel stepped mast.

David Lewis' last (?) ferro boat. IIRC it fell off a wave and the keel stepped mast punched a hole straight through the bottom. Oops, boat sank.

FKT

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

ot if you have a steel boat, you don't.

You can bash on my hull all you like with an aluminium mast and all you'll do is scratch up the epoxy.

And if I really thought it was a risk clearing a broken mast stub I'd just have an 18V battery angle grinder equipped with an aluminium cutting blade. No probs mon.

But I don't care because my masts are in heavy duty welded tabernacles secured by 2 x M20 bolts each and have 8mm galvanised wire standing rigging.

Yes, nevertheless by vastly overdesigning the mast, you gave away the advantage of the moment connection in the tabernacle!

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

Yes, nevertheless by vastly overdesigning the mast, you gave away the advantage of the moment connection in the tabernacle!

You might have a point, *if* I designed the tabernacle.

As a matter of fact it was designed by the boat designer.

Said designer having designed *and* built more boats than you're aware of, and I venture to bet probably 100X the number you've designed and built. There have been more than 700 of a single one of his designs built. More than 200 or the design SV PANOPE and I have.

So you'll have to pardon me for not being impressed by your snarky comments.

FKT

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

.... isn't inherently structurally better, it just means that the Euler buckling length of your first panel is shorter ...

...Clearing a mast that is half standing is very dangerous as it involves working at height in a chaotic environment, it takes time and meanwhile you take the risk of holing the hull with the dangling bits banging against the boat......

.....As for the ruder stocks, they should be behind a watertight bulkhead, I know that sadly often they aren't .....

 

Sure if you design for the minimum weight. But it does give the option of a much stiffer rig for the same weight.   It also survives stay failures that a deck stepped doesn't.

 yes I did say that clearing the mast was easier on the deck stepped, Also some of the CF masts I've seen fail with the lower mast intact were ragged razor edged breaks just to add to the hazard ! 

A 48 foot Beneteau sank here ( off King Island) 4 years ago from it's rudder falling out, it was  in good weather fortunately. The insurance paid out $660k.  It's ironic that a $10 PVC tube half a meter long glassed in would have been better insurance from a SOLAS point of view.

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

 

Sure if you design for the minimum weight. But it does give the option of a much stiffer rig for the same weight.   It also survives stay failures that a deck stepped doesn't.

 yes I did say that clearing the mast was easier on the deck stepped, Also some of the CF masts I've seen fail with the lower mast intact were ragged razor edged breaks just to add to the hazard ! 

A 48 foot Beneteau sank here ( off King Island) 4 years ago from it's rudder falling out, it was  in good weather fortunately. The insurance paid out $660k.  It's ironic that a $10 PVC tube half a meter long glassed in would have been better insurance from a SOLAS point of view.

Good designers always design for minimum weight for a certain safety factor (which might be high if you want a "bullet proof" boat) otherwise it is like splicing a big chain to a small one, you get the inconvenience of the big chain for the resistance of the small one. It is true that a keel-stepped mast might no go down if you loose the headstay but some boats have a set of D1 shrouds anchored slightly forward combined with swept back spreaders which would mitigate this. Best way to mitigate this is the freestanding mast IMHO, a marconi rig is a complicated contraption with many failure points!

Agree with you on the silliness of not sealing out rudder post, a watertight bulkhead is still better as if you hit something really hard (container, whale...) and rip the hull with the rudder it should keep you afloat.

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

edit: sorry this got a bit long and perhaps a bit off topic . . but . . . 

 Aleutians . . . .  pretty close to here

absolutely - you have to get north - it is right there, you can reach out and taste it from your mooring :)

I have long felt that Beth and I are perhaps a bad influence on people like you.  We perhaps contribute to making you feel like the absolutely terrific stuff nearby is not 'enough' and you have to 'go long' to have accomplished anything. And that is not true. You can get huge life benefits and satisfaction and accomplishment for yourselves and even more for your kids by just taking full advantage of what is right there is front of you.  Beth and I would not trade what we did for anything (hmmm perhaps, never comfortable with absolute statements like that), but we did give up a lot to get it done (kids being the super huge one, but also never reaching our full career potentials is a lingering nag).  

I was having a casual conversation about chile with a sailor (who did not know who I was).  He was quoting some from some of Beth's articles. And saying how 'everyone was going to patagonia these days' and 'it is actually really easy'.  And I was thinking to myself - hmmm - we perhaps did the communality a disservice if that's what people are taking away from this writing.

 Polynesia to Chile)... what 40  days?   . . . .  power generation on a long passage like that panels, you just brought them out when calm only to charge up?

would have to dig up log books for exact numbers, but I seem to remember it was like 3200nm (from last good polynesian island to puerto montt).  We might have averaged 175 nm/day.  So round numbers like 18-20 days.  Which was not that long for us.  The only passages we gave any consideration to passage consumption/charging were +50 days at sea - and then it really only meant that we used the windvane more than the autopilot and did not make big long motor sailing if we got becalmed.

So, on that passage specifically . . . I had certain passages which I designated 'max routing' passage procedure. Beth and I had an understanding what that meant - which was that we were going to get to our destination as efficiently as possible with as little weather risk as possible - which meant using the motor when there was real leverage to using it, and in the southern ocean that usually meant like every 3 or 4 days (in-between lows), and that was enough just by itself for our power needs. So, that really probably does not answer your question about panels.  I believe we did have the panels out for much of this passage, just put them away twice for a few days each time for bigger blows . . . but we would have been totally fine electrically without them

For a 'regular' passage, where we were not concerned about weather,  the boat sailed damn well in light air (down to 4kts of true wind if there was some swell, and down to no wind if in flat water - which we did once in unusual conditions across the Tasman sea), and we did occasionally just sit totally becalmed for days on end (I think once for 8 days, and we even knew if we motored 24 hours south there was breeze down there but we just waited for it to come to us)) waiting for wind in no hurry. On those sorts of passages the panels would be out pretty much all the time, back on the helm seat mostly, but moved around if somehow that was shaded or we could not get good sun angle.  I saw solar more as a 'base level charging' and not as a 'charge them up' sort of system.  The honda would have been the 'charge them up' system if the bank somehow got run down - we had a sealed gasoline locker which could store two 5 gal jugs which would last the honda a long time.

Returning to compromises we made and things we gave up . . . I think it is hard for most people to appreciate how nutsy hard core we were.  Minimizing power consumption is job #1 for anyone designing a boat electrical system, and minimizing system complexity for boat reliability, but we really were 'monks' and took this to 11 in a way most people shake their heads at.  We had the best possible autopilot and best possible weather systems and best possible power tools - but for comforts and conveniences - we were out in the most beautiful places in the world experiencing things most people would never ever see and that was really enough for us. We had no refrigeration, no pressure water, no inside shower, no 'on demand' hot water (only from a tea kettle on the stove), most certainly no TV or 'home entertainment center'. When I soloed to greenland I had a cabin heater, but lol I never turned it on - just good clothing was fine for me . . . I dont know what I have left off the list of things we did not have . . . . but we did not have it.  It is like I said in the dinghy davit thread - for us, we simply did not pick conveniences/comforts over seaworthiness. 

Ajax commented recently on another thread on something I told him when he went sailing with me . . . and it really was true . . . . when we went sailing we intended to shed our shore life and all its trappings and become (as much as we could) seamen of the old 'iron men on wooden ships' style. OFC we were too soft to ever truly meet that standard, but damn we gave it a good go. Back when we started sailing, pre gps, this was much more understood and accepted and applauded - today its mostly just considered nuts or stupid. For us it was a life/esthetic choice - a bit like how going free solo has been considered.

-----------------------------------

Just to add my 2cents in on rudders and masts.

I guess we probably all agree on 'desirable' for rudders . . . Job #1 is to make them fucking strong, shit brick house strong, so they dont break in the first place, and this is surprisingly easy and the weight penalty is surprisingly low (in cruising boat terms).  We twice caught/wacked the top of our spade rudder on granite ledges at speed and it did not break.  Job #2 is to get the tube top well above water line, and again, this is not at all hard and not much weight penalty.  And job #3 is a watertight bulkhead in front of the rudder - this is somewhat more difficult, but certainly worthwhile in a custom build.   We did all three of these things.

We had several 'watertight' compartments on Hawk. And I actually tested them. And I was involved in an MCA commercial certification for a 112'er which also had to have 'watertight' bulkheads (although those standards allowed a surprising flow rate to still be called watertight) , and it is harder than one might think to get them actually watertight.  as there are almost certainly penetrations which you need to be able to access and to pull wire thru. There are solutions but they take effort.  And that is assuming that you manage to close any doors, access/ventilation hatches, which in many offshore incidents dont ever seem to actually get closed or sealed.  It is all possible, but is harder than one might thing in actual practice.

Masts - for me personally, the real criteria is that it be well designed, engineered and constructed. For me, either set of the trade-offs and compromises is fine between keel vs deck stepped - if there are well done.  I think deck stepped is perhaps easier to screw up for a shitty production builder, and so on a shitty production boat I would learn rather toward keel stepped. 

 

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

Good designers always design for minimum weight for a certain safety factor (which might be high if you want a "bullet proof" boat) otherwise it is like splicing a big chain to a small one, you get the inconvenience of the big chain for the resistance of the small one. It is true that a keel-stepped mast might no go down if you loose the headstay but some boats have a set of D1 shrouds anchored slightly forward combined with swept back spreaders which would mitigate this. Best way to mitigate this is the freestanding mast IMHO, a marconi rig is a complicated contraption with many failure points!

Agree with you on the silliness of not sealing out rudder post, a watertight bulkhead is still better as if you hit something really hard (container, whale...) and rip the hull with the rudder it should keep you afloat.

A free standing mast will tear a big hole in the cabin top when it fails 

bad idea 

aft watertight bulkheads are indeed a good idea 

bow  waterproof crash bulkheads are a good idea

A water proof engine room and battery storage are good ideas 

difficult for production boats to deploy good ideas   

 

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

A free standing mast will tear a big hole in the cabin top when it fails 

That is indeed a risk and the cabin top needs to be strong enough to break the mast to mitigate it. Nevertheless the reward of this is that you remove many potential failure points (shrouds, stays and their connections).

Choose your evil...

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

That is indeed a risk and the cabin top needs to be strong enough to break the mast to mitigate it. Nevertheless the reward of this is that you remove many potential failure points (shrouds, stays and their connections).

Choose your evil...

On a free stander the mast is forward and the boom is so long that it drags in the water in a seaway

in addition with no standing rigging you feel naked and insecure when working on deck ...with no handholds , tie downs and clip in points 

And you simply  can’t be a serious sailor without sun awnings 

i dont like free standers 

79B81868-A874-4CAE-808F-57C17E304B51.jpeg

31BE8896-A509-4527-9F38-E61D79AAB5AE.jpeg

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

A moment connection isn't inherently structurally better, it just means that the Euler buckling length of your first panel is shorter (which is good and efficient!) but you can get the same effect on a deck stepped mast by lowering your first spreaders (and potentially adding an extra set at the top).

When it fails, a keel stepped mast is structurally better: Something is very likely to be left standing for use as a jury rig. On a deck stepped, it depends a lot on what failed, but usually the whole thing falls down.

13 hours ago, slug zitski said:

A free standing mast will tear a big hole in the cabin top when it fails 

bad idea 

Wrong again. It can happen in theory, in practice I do not know of a single instance, because generally the partners are a lot stronger than the mast, the mast being tapered over its whole length, and the moment is maximum at the partners but the max strength is below the partners. Post the pictures of this having happened. Even if it did once, with proper engineering, it doesn't. A keel stepped marconi can tear a hole in the deck if the rig goes over to but guess what? Almost never happens. 

10 hours ago, slug zitski said:

On a free stander the mast is forward and the boom is so long that it drags in the water in a seaway

in addition with no standing rigging you feel naked and insecure when working on deck ...with no handholds , tie downs and clip in points 

And you simply  can’t be a serious sailor without sun awnings 

Once again wrong on all three points. The boom on my boat does not drag, no more than many sloops. In the worst conditions encountered it will touch momentarily. Obviously depends on the design details, any rig can be designed wrong. 

The only point where shrouds help is near the mast, all other handholds, tie downs, and clip in points exist just as surely on either rig. Against this there is nothing to trip over or have to climb around on the way forward.

Sun awnings are as easily installed on either rig...

Honestly were do you get this stuff?

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

hen it fails, a keel stepped mast is structurally better: Something is very likely to be left standing for use as a jury rig. On a deck stepped, it depends a lot on what failed, but usually the whole thing falls down.

I agree on the likely outcome nevertheless I will let you climb to free the top from the remaining bit still standing.

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

edit: sorry this got a bit long and perhaps a bit off topic . . but . . . 

I wouldn't know about off topic because it's TLTR(Too Long To Read)  Especially the nested blue font...

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

I wouldn't know about off topic because it's TLTR(Too Long To Read)  Especially the nested blue font...

That's ok - it is probably only of interest to Jud and he seems willing to read long sections, even of blue font.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago a Detroit restaurant owner and his wife disappeared while sailing their Freedom cat boat back from the Bahamas.  The conjecture was the spar came loose from it's base and peeled the deck open, sinking the boat quickly.  There were no radio transmissions and nothing was ever found.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

That's ok - it is probably only of interest to Jud and he seems willing to read long sections, even of blue font.

Does Jud have your book?  I'll recommend it if he doesn't.  It's will written and we'll laid out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bryanjb said:

Does Jud have your book?  I'll recommend it if he doesn't.  It's will written and we'll laid out.

Beth's book - I'm just the deck ape. She is the brains.

I think jud has ordered it but dont think he has read yet.

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

The conjecture was .....

That's why I asked for pictures. Boats disappear without a trace periodically, there could be any number of causes. 

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

That's ok - it is probably only of interest to Jud and he seems willing to read long sections, even of blue font.

Not only Jud...

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

Many years ago a Detroit restaurant owner and his wife disappeared while sailing their Freedom cat boat back from the Bahamas.  The conjecture was the spar came loose from it's base and peeled the deck open, sinking the boat quickly.  There were no radio transmissions and nothing was ever found.

 

 

Without evidence,  the explanation doesn't carry any more weight than the opinions expressed here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80s a guy set out to cross the Atlantic in his Nonsuch 30. 

Somewhere out there he had to be rescued. I’m pretty sure he lost his rig...though that could have happened after the rescue...

It floated onto  beach somewhere in the Caribbean basin in Central or South America.

The details are foggy but I think the owner wanted to go reclaim the salvage off the fisherman who found it but eventually scrapped that plan.

Bottom line was the boat floated a long long way on its own after losing the rig.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Back in the 80s a guy set out to cross the Atlantic in his Nonsuch 30. 

Somewhere out there he had to be rescued. I’m pretty sure he lost his rig...though that could have happened after the rescue...

It floated onto  beach somewhere in the Caribbean basin in Central or South America.

The details are foggy but I think the owner wanted to go reclaim the salvage off the fisherman who found it but eventually scrapped that plan.

Bottom line was the boat floated a long long way on its own after losing the rig.

The nonsuch 30 had a two piece mast with sleeve...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KC375 said:

The nonsuch 30 had a two piece mast with sleeve...

The hull showed up on the beach with neither.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 7:46 AM, accnick said:

As a reminder, a lot of people on this forum either own 40-year-old designs, or are looking to buy them. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest design. In that regard, a lot of the info in the book is relevant.

The Swan 44 and Bermuda 40 (and others from that era) that inspired a multi-page spirited discussion here recently? Both of those designs were decades old when this book was published.

It may seem quaint to say it, but while the equipment may change, the ocean doesn't change, nor do the elements of seamanship.

I had the great good fortune to know and sail with many of those who provided input to this book. Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

For what it's worth, the cover photo strongly resembles (and may well be a later model) Bermuda 40...

I have the book and the boat, and enjoyed both.

A few points for "Cruising" use not found on your basic Charter fleet optimized mass produced boat

  • While the B-40 is neither large nor fast for her LOA, she is damn comfortable:
    • with a slow pitch, roll and yaw motion in the cockpit, galley, head and 4 good sea berths plus 2 vee berths for the sporty set.
    • The reduced acceleration reduces nausea, and fatigue and shock loading of gear and sails
  • The divided rig allows for more sail options and smaller individual sails as well as redundancy for possible rig failures.
  • At 4.25 ' water draft and < 60' air draft she can go in many more places at lower tides, and get off of the ocean as needed with fewer concerns of grounding and bridges for inland passages
  • The long sloped external lead to shallow  flat bottomed keel with prop aperture and attached rudder
    • tracks better for most purposes except reversing under power,
    • goes aground safely
    • can be self rescued readily easily if aground.
    • The full bilge turn hull will layover and recover without swamping if grounded on hard, with falling tide
  • The wide side decks are good for working while heeled, and the narrow cabin provides ready handholds under way.
  • Wide shroud base, while slightly  increasing tacking angle, affords a stronger less complex rig
  • Bunking more than 6 people is a feature that is akin to having too many house guests, it can be done, but there's few times that I would want to be trapped with that many people on any practical sized vessel
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2021 at 1:18 PM, slug zitski said:

A few years ago , Off the coast of Maine , on a Swiss flagged 75 footer , we got stopped and the inspector made us take all the bagged sails out of the forepeak and unpack them on deck 

 

it was a bad day 

in general when sailing in US watered with a foreign Flag you will constantly be harassed at both anchor and when underway 

We entered Canada at Lunenberg in July of 2004, relatively vanilla appearance. Even called CBP in advance to notify.

Of course the ebb was stronger than expected, so we were running a bit late, and got a phone call back demanding to know where we were...

Arriving at the landing shortly thereafter the the three large men in matching jumpsuits separated the crew, interviewing us individually and proceeded to search the boat. I think they lost their ardor when I explained that they were welcome to look everywhere, but that the drawer in the forward cabin had both some ceremonial white sage, and some adult novelties, and that I could not recall if they had been sanitized after use.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

We entered Canada at Lunenberg in July of 2004, relatively vanilla appearance. Even called CBP in advance to notify.

Of course the ebb was stronger than expected, so we were running a bit late, and got a phone call back demanding to know where we were...

Arriving at the landing shortly thereafter the the three large men in matching jumpsuits separated the crew, interviewing us individually and proceeded to search the boat. I think they lost their ardor when I explained that they were welcome to look everywhere, but that the drawer in the forward cabin had both some ceremonial white sage, and some adult novelties, and that I could not recall if they had been sanitized after use.

 

You just made me lose my ardor.

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

We entered Canada at Lunenberg in July of 2004, relatively vanilla appearance. Even called CBP in advance to notify.

Of course the ebb was stronger than expected, so we were running a bit late, and got a phone call back demanding to know where we were...

Arriving at the landing shortly thereafter the the three large men in matching jumpsuits separated the crew, interviewing us individually and proceeded to search the boat. I think they lost their ardor when I explained that they were welcome to look everywhere, but that the drawer in the forward cabin had both some ceremonial white sage, and some adult novelties, and that I could not recall if they had been sanitized after use.

 

The US is a difficult place 

In Florida Inspectors went thru the galley and confiscated all spices that were not in store bought bottles 

The boat was in Portland Maine preparing to  sail to Nova Scotia 

The owners nephew , Swiss passport ,  20 something college student flew from London to Boston to join the boat in Maine 

he arrived with a one way ticket and was deported , denied entry,  at Boston

Poor bugger had to fly back to London , then fly to Nova Scotia to join the boat

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't dispute that the US CBP can be difficult but in all fairness, very few countries will allow you to enter with only a one-way ticket. It's considered a failure of the "Proof of sufficient financial means" test. Since turnabout is fair play, here are the current requirements for Switzerland, which include a warning that the individual border guard you deal with has absolute discretion to judge your case:

What Documents do Americans Need to Enter the Schengen Area?

Despite of the fact that US citizens do not need to obtain an EU visa prior to their travel to Schengen, they still need to have some documents with them in order to be allowed to enter Europe visa free zone.

When American travelers show up at the border to enter the Schengen Zone, they will be asked by border guard to present the following documents:

  • A US Passport. It must not be older than 10 years and it should be valid for at least three more months beyond their intended date of departure from the Schengen Area.
  • Evidence on their purpose of entry. Documents that show why the US citizen is traveling to the Schengen Area.
  • Proof of sufficient financial means. Documents which prove that the US traveler has the financial means to support themselves during their whole stay in Europe.

Please keep in mind that the border guard has the final say whether a traveler should be permitted to enter the Schengen Zone or not. If you are rejected from entering any of the EU member states, then you will have to go back to the United States and apply for a regular Schengen Visa.

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

That's ok - it is probably only of interest to Jud and he seems willing to read long sections, even of blue font.

Nope, I'm interested too - blue font and all.

Was talking to someone else who's hauled out ATM working on a refit who've spent extensive time in Patagonia. We're inviting them round for a meal shortly now my boat is back in the water with new hard dodger, powered anchor winch, diesel heater and redesigned/rebuilt shaft seals & thrust bearings.

The other boat owner built hit as well (metal boat lifting keel) so he knew exactly what I meant when I cursed the idiotic original builder for utterly moronic design decisions that in retrospect made no sense at all.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 8:46 AM, accnick said:

As a reminder, a lot of people on this forum either own 40-year-old designs, or are looking to buy them. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest design. In that regard, a lot of the info in the book is relevant.

The Swan 44 and Bermuda 40 (and others from that era) that inspired a multi-page spirited discussion here recently? Both of those designs were decades old when this book was published.

It may seem quaint to say it, but while the equipment may change, the ocean doesn't change, nor do the elements of seamanship.

I had the great good fortune to know and sail with many of those who provided input to this book. Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

These are excellent points

 

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

Back in the 80s a guy set out to cross the Atlantic in his Nonsuch 30. 

Somewhere out there he had to be rescued. I’m pretty sure he lost his rig...though that could have happened after the rescue...

It floated onto  beach somewhere in the Caribbean basin in Central or South America.

The details are foggy but I think the owner wanted to go reclaim the salvage off the fisherman who found it but eventually scrapped that plan.

Bottom line was the boat floated a long long way on its own after losing the rig.

Actually that boat was abandon by the inexperienced single handed crew with rig intact, though the sail track and sail were damaged. He wrote a book about it (which I have). The sail track on the Nonsuch 30 was specified as though it were a 30' boat, but of course it has a 50' sized main. Anyway, the boat was recovered several months later, rig was out and other things missing suggesting it had been stripped, hull was refitted and is still sailing. Another Nonsuch 30 went across the Atlantic and then was being delivered on the return by an inexperienced single hander. Again sail track damage and abandon, again recovered after an extended time and that boat is still sailing. The owner wrote a book about that one (which I have). A 3rd Nonsuch (33) racing to Bermuda encountered very heavy weather, reefed sail bunt filled with water* damaging sail track making boat hard to manage, crew had the opportunity to get off and did. That boat was left with hatches open and was never seen again. One of the crew described the event to me personally. Moral might be refit your sail track with a properly sized one, especially on a UNA rig where it is the only thing going.

The Nonsuch was not intended to be an ocean cruiser and though perhaps capable you would want to do preparations for such work remembering that it was built and equipped for coastal work. 

 

*This is a problem with a wishbone rig, as the reefs get deeper there is a larger and larger uncontrolled bunt of sail in the lazyjacks. The wishbone slopes up at a steep angle so each successive reefed clew is higher above the original foot. One of the reasons my boat has a more or less conventional boom. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 12:00 AM, slug zitski said:

A free standing mast will tear a big hole in the cabin top when it fails 

bad idea 

aft watertight bulkheads are indeed a good idea 

bow  waterproof crash bulkheads are a good idea

A water proof engine room and battery storage are good ideas 

difficult for production boats to deploy good ideas   

 

A free standing mast will tear a big hole in the cabin top when it fails 

bad idea 

Geez Slug, that's a helluva broad generalization. That like saying all deck stepped masts are bad.   

-aft watertight bulkheads are indeed a good idea. 

-bow  waterproof crash bulkheads are a good idea

-A water proof engine room and battery storage are good ideas 

- difficult for production boats to deploy good ideas   

? My boat was a 'production' boat and it had all of these as standard. 

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

A free standing mast will tear a big hole in the cabin top when it fails 

bad idea 

Geez Slug, that's a helluva broad generalization. That like saying all deck stepped masts are bad.   

-aft watertight bulkheads are indeed a good idea. 

-bow  waterproof crash bulkheads are a good idea

-A water proof engine room and battery storage are good ideas 

- difficult for production boats to deploy good ideas   

? My boat was a 'production' boat and it had all of these as standard. 

Mine is a one-off custom build and has none of those. I'm not losing any sleep over it either.

FKT

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

Mine is a one-off custom build and has none of those. I'm not losing any sleep over it either.

FKT

The joys of a steelie? Don't need no stinking additional engineering when the hull is near impenetrable.

Mind you, a rudder post open to the interior sans a rudder could still make for a bad day.    

Link to post
Share on other sites