Jump to content

Heavier displacement = safer in storms?


Recommended Posts

Does anyone here have an electric inboard? Just having a quick look at them. They're much smaller and presumably much lighter than diesels. I imagine you'd need some very heavy lithium batteries to power one though. Though I don't know. On a sailboat it will only be used occasionally so would maybe have time to trickle charge from solar between uses. Maybe there's a thread on here..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 595
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is sad, nay, pathetic, to see the SA nattering nabobs of negativity attempt to quash the adventuring spirit of this young Slocum with their so-called "conventional wisdom."  As the OP has demonstra

I've been following along until now but with the epropulsion and lithium in the bilge turn, I'm out.  You're either a troll or one of those people who ask for advice only to argue about why you s

You guys are getting soft. New guy with zero prior posts starts a thread saying he's boat shopping to sail from the UK to Patagonia. No one thinks this is a troll? 

Posted Images

I've been following along until now but with the epropulsion and lithium in the bilge turn, I'm out. 

You're either a troll or one of those people who ask for advice only to argue about why you shouldn't take it. Either way, a waste of time. If you're real, go buy your boat and go have your adventure. Just kindly refrain from calling the coast guard when you flounder.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Se7en said:

Anyway you look at it, I don't think $10k per year is a stupid amount to budget to keep a 33 ft offshore cruising boat, and I'd be expecting to spend more some years.

You were talking of 2000k per annum and per metre for offshore work, that's $24k for a offshore 33 footer. If you average it over 5 years, the $10k should do it as long as the boat is simple, well designed and only outsource the really technical work...

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

Does anyone here have an electric inboard? Just having a quick look at them. They're much smaller and presumably much lighter than diesels. I imagine you'd need some very heavy lithium batteries to power one though. Though I don't know. On a sailboat it will only be used occasionally so would maybe have time to trickle charge from solar between uses. Maybe there's a thread on here..

Read this : https://sailinguma.com/electric-motor/

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Se7en said:

Yeah.... nah....

Boats cost money to keep. Perhaps $1k per meter per year if you don't use it much and it starts out in great shape. More like double that or more if you are living on it and travelling.

It's a 'joke' that cruising is fixing your boat in exotic places - but only a joke in so far as everyone who has done it knows it's absolutely true.

I've never been vary far off shore - a few hundred miles maybe, so running for shelter is an option - but I've had many occasions where I would have liked to be on a bigger boat. Preferably one with wings at 30 000 ft if I'd had the choice.

I like light and fast rather than heavy. But for a small boat, once you put food and water for a long trip in it, light and fast becomes heavy slow and fragile. For a trip like you are planning, I'd want every metre of waterline I could get. You are talking a multi year plan anyway - there would be a lot of benefit in working for another year to save more money. And get some experience on deliveries etc at the same time.

FWIW I've been sailing since I was 10, including some coastal / offshore racing and living aboard my own boat for 6 months crusing. I wouldn't be brave enough to do what you are planning on anything smaller than ~45 ft with 3 capable crew. My experience is that life gets a lot easier with more hands, conversely it's a lot more stresful when you are the only one on board able to do much.

So good on you for having dreams.

Light and fast can work. You've got Webb Chiles and his moore 24 rounding the planet...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ysignal said:

My point was that once I have the boat I'll be living aboard, wont have to pay rent and so will have more to invest in the boat. The post I was responding to was saying that just keeping the boat would cost 1k and would cost 2k per meter per year if I were living on it and travelling. Clearly untrue. There should be separate forums for people doing or planning on doing real sailing.

 

Check Dame Ellen MacArthur's book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our family of 3 spent ~$35K CAD about 28K USD / year for everything in 2009-2017.

Boat maintenance was actually pretty low on the list. We had a few big capital outlays (1 new mainsail 3.5K, 1 new anchor 0.5K, 1 set of standing rigging 8K) during those years. 40' catamaran.

95% of the work I did. Had an injector shop in S.Africa look at the injector pump but I pulled it and re-installed. Injector shops in Mexico and Sri Lanka cleaned injectors. Rigging as mentioned.

I think ysignal is sincere and not a troll. But he "has done his research" and that settles the matter. Unfortunately he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ysignal said:

I bet its a right barrel of laughs.

Do you know who she is?

Kid out of primary school, wanted to be a professional sailor. Bought a small boat, lived on it, worked in a yard, made friends, ended up solo-sailing around the world a few times in riveting fashion. 

She's a "Dame" due to her amazing achievements. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Raz'r said:

Do you know who she is?

Kid out of primary school, wanted to be a professional sailor. Bought a small boat, lived on it, worked in a yard, made friends, ended up solo-sailing around the world a few times in riveting fashion. 

She's a "Dame" due to her amazing achievements. 

 

She was a TV personality in the UK. Some of her adventures were on TV. Sailing didn't seem to make her happy at all..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Do you know who she is?

Kid out of primary school, wanted to be a professional sailor. Bought a small boat, lived on it, worked in a yard, made friends, ended up solo-sailing around the world a few times in riveting fashion. 

She's a "Dame" due to her amazing achievements. 

 

If you don't like women who've done it, check any of Webb Chiles books on sailing around the world on a small budget. 

Or not. 

You can always use Reid Stowe or the guy who drifted across the pacific as your examples.

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

 

She was a TV personality in the UK. Some of her adventures were on TV. Sailing didn't seem to make her happy at all..

Her book is more about the journey, and I agree, I don't think she's a happy person but that doesn't detract from her accomplishments. She did it on low funds, had amazing accomplishments. What's she's doing now isn't really relevant. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Her book is more about the journey, and I agree, I don't think she's a happy person but that doesn't detract from her accomplishments. She did it on low funds, had amazing accomplishments. What's she's doing now isn't really relevant. 

Well that in the video isn't really her. It's from a comedy sketch show from the same time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

She's a "Dame" due to her amazing achievements.

I suspect most people here don't know what a "Dame" is.

To clarify, it's a female "Sir" or Knight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s one argument in favour of light displacement - although by the time this boat was modded for high lats, it was probably relatively heavy.

Anyone remember Alessandro diBenedetto?  He was the Boss before Alex Thomson/Hugo Boss thought he was...

https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Alessandro-di-Benedetto-solo-round-the-world-in-a-21ft-boat/-65834?source=google.ca

C8492F5A-1B17-47A1-8E80-617E600B2CDD.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening,

Hell, a lot of posts here, mostly from people who have probably never even been to Patagonia.

Go to www.bosunbird.com  An elderly couple who spent a winter in the Channels down there sailing a Vancouver 27. All very civilised and comfortable.

And get the bible for Patagonia, "Patagonia & Tierra del Fuego. Nautical Guide" by Mariolina Rolfo and Giorgio Ardrizzi.

Make sure you have a strong reliable engine. You need it to get into the very tight anchorages when it is breezy out in the Channels.  And your four sets of warps, ready on deck to strap the boat in tight once the pick is down.

Patagonia is not all hell and high water. Getting down there is a tough passage  and you will not be the first sub 30 footer to venture down there. Preparation will be everything. I saw some very ordinary little f/g cruising boats down in Puerto Williams and Ushuaia.

Good luck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ysignal said:

More Vegas were made than the others combined so that may be why. But I think I'll go for the Vega.

My plan after Patagonia is to explore the Pacific. I'll certainly spend a lot of time in Japan as I lived there for a while and loved it and speak Japanese reasonably. I'll also visit New Zealand and Australia.  I'll certainly take advantage of the high latitude sailing opportunities around Scotland, and now I think of it it makes sense for me to relocate to Scotland next summer. But I'm not going to stick around here once I have the experience to go further. 

Will you need to get a Japanese skippers license?   

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

Imagine yourself here 

image.thumb.png.dd6cc4755349dda09b3ff12c5c1d183b.png

 

 

that's the one! 

17 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

That is probably the key issue for this planned trip.   Taking an overloaded small boat down to Patagonia will involve a lot of protracted suffering.

The Vancouver 27 is an interesting suggestion, because it was actually designed for offshore use.  The other boats under consideration were designed as coastal cruisers.

But still, getting all the gear and stores into a boat that size is a bit of a squeeze, and probably rules out making headway upwind.

just get any old boat cheap - perhaps something just rotting away on the hard - and make it work. here is an instruction manual:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/881902.Sailing_Alone_around_the_World

 

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

just get any old boat cheap - perhaps something just rotting away on the hard - and make it work. here is an instruction manual:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/881902.Sailing_Alone_around_the_World

Slocum had a lifetime of experience at sea, so he knew what to do with a boat.   A newbie, less so.

And of course, Slocum was lost at sea.  So not the ideal role model.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, loneshark64 said:
11 hours ago, Panoramix said:

the boat will stinks (at least smell a bit...) of diesel

I love the smell of diesel. Putting energy density and reliabiility aside, I am all for renewable and will perhaps someday have an electric boat but then I will miss the smell that says I am in a happy place

Something is wrong if your boat smells of diesel. Really - either you're leaking it into the bilge or your ventilation of the engine compartment is really poor.

I've lived aboard 2 boats each with inboard diesels for a total of 16 years. About the only time I could smell anything was when I changed a fuel filter and got some on a few rags. 

Think about it - the engine is sucking in air, combusting it with diesel, and spewing it out the transom. If the fuel system isn't leaking, where is the smell coming from?

Or perhaps you object to the smell of the exhaust??

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

Good evening,

Hell, a lot of posts here, mostly from people who have probably never even been to Patagonia.

Go to www.bosunbird.com  An elderly couple who spent a winter in the Channels down there sailing a Vancouver 27. All very civilised and comfortable.

Bob Harris designed that boat specifically to be a minimum offshore boat for one or two.

Quite a different vessel than the others being discussed here.

Probably in a class by itself for someone looking for a sub 30' RTW vessel. They tend to be expensive though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You will need to prep the boat, prior to launch - $500 for anti-fouling paint, wax, varnish, flares, safety supplies.

Try $500 for the haul out and launch....   plus lay days if you DIY which many places don't allow (a yard done basic bottom job for a 30ft boat around here is over $3k), $600-1000 for bottom paint, SOLAS flares will be $300+, safety supplies (???) like a liferaft are $3k++, and the list goes on.     But like others think, he is sounding like a troll.   

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

Bob Harris designed that boat specifically to be a minimum offshore boat for one or two.

Quite a different vessel than the others being discussed here.

Probably in a class by itself for someone looking for a sub 30' RTW vessel. They tend to be expensive though.

Another one designed with a similar mission statement is the Nor'sea 27. Available with aft cabin or aft cockpit.

https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/norsea-27

norsea-27-a-small-cruising-sailboat-lege

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vancouver 27 is an admirable design. But god it was slow.

Our heavy Fortune 30 (which was really 28.5' LOD) easily out-sailed our friends. Both boats were really laden for long distance cruising. We went for a day sail with them. We had to haul down our mainsail so they could keep up.

But yeah, they tend to be highly sought after and costly. Actually same with the Norsea 27. Which is more of a "maxi trailerable cruiser". It's odd.
 

Lots of places in the UK and other places still allow you to paint your own bottom. And a 27' boat is going to take 1 gallon of paint. (well In the UK they often sell it in 2.5L tins so it doesn't sound as expensive but you'll need to buy 2 tins @ $150 each)

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

I'd be surprised if you could do it for $20k/year.

So much depends on your cruising lifestyle. I think you could cruise a Vega for $20k a year as long as you limited your marina stays and avoided some really expensive destinations like the Galapagos and Oz - not that you want to avoid them, but that is a different matter. What (and where) you eat and drink also has an impact of course.

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

So much depends on your cruising lifestyle. I think you could cruise a Vega for $20k a year as long as you limited your marina stays and avoided some really expensive destinations like the Galapagos and Oz - not that you want to avoid them, but that is a different matter. What (and where) you eat and drink also has an impact of course.

BTW, many folks work their way around in the cruising community. If you've got some sort of skill, you can work and replenish the cruising kitty.

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

You were talking of 2000k per annum and per metre for offshore work, that's $24k for a offshore 33 footer. If you average it over 5 years, the $10k should do it as long as the boat is simple, well designed and only outsource the really technical work...

$2k per annum per meter for a 33ft (10m) boat is $20k a year. You are right, that's probably high unless you start with an old boat and are replacing engine, rig and sails in the first 5 years.

However, if you want to see what you might spend, look at Jesse Martin and Jess Watson and what they spent on S&S 34s to do a circumnavigation. Both put $250k plus into what started as a $50k 34 ft yacht. Atlantic in winter and Patagonia sound similar to what you would see on a circumnavigation.

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

Light and fast can work. You've got Webb Chiles and his moore 24 rounding the planet...

Don't think Webb Chiles needs our advice on what boat to pick for his adventures though...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to do research for small sail boats across oceans i would check golden globe race 2018. Only a few completed, must be lots of lessons to learn from all the partisipants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tender said:

If I were to do research for small sail boats across oceans i would check golden globe race 2018. Only a few completed, must be lots of lessons to learn from all the partisipants. 

Slow heavy boats aren't magically immune to big waves... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're talking about small boats the speed difference between fast & slow is going to be about 2 knots.

You ain't going to outrun weather systems in either.

I'd be more concerned about being able to carry enough water and supplies for the months it's gonna take to cross an ocean.

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

When you're talking about small boats the speed difference between fast & slow is going to be about 2 knots.

You ain't going to outrun weather systems in either.

I'd be more concerned about being able to carry enough water and supplies for the months it's gonna take to cross an ocean.

 

I agree that you aren't going to outrun weather systems but in some instances a 150 Nm day instead of a 100 NM one might be the difference between storm and gale winds or being sheltered just in time vs having to deal with really bad weather. With speed, everything is easier, plus a hull that can go in semi-displacement mode will accelerate instead of digging a hole in the sea which can only help with following seas.

If the boat is heavier, you get less payload... To have a big payload, you need a wide boat but wide boats tend to be more stable upside down... so anyway payload is limited and not carrying useless weight is always a plus!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my philosophical take on the OP’s post.  Research and plan and practice as best you can.  Be realistic with yourself, and do not reveal your plans to many, lest the many voices around try to dissuade you.  All of it will take great resolve, especially if your budget is small.  (Example: mine is, so I do 95% of my own work and row out to a mooring half the year to do projects because it is substantially cheaper than keeping a boat in a marina.)  There is never a perfect time or situation.  If you wait for it, you may end up like this dead guy, who I used to know, years ago, whose  once well-outfitted Sadler 34 I stumbled across up the coast here this last summer, recognizing it immediately, but sadly in an increasingly deteriorating state - bought by a young women dreamer, said the guy at the gas dock who’d met her and told me she lived out of town and that he felt she was in over her head with that boat as a first boat) —and whose obituary I literally just came across right now. 
 

Quoting a line in the last paragraph of the obituary, he “had plans to sail across the Pacific with ‘a woman in every port’ (i.e. his wife), a project which he had to abandon for health reasons.”  

Fuck that.  Don’t become  like that.  It’ll take a lot of resolve.  If you want badly, go and get it.

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

I'd be more concerned about being able to carry enough water and supplies for the months it's gonna take to cross an ocean.

This.

Taking the motor out to increase the payload is an interesting tradeoff. There's more time risk when embarking on a long passage without a motor and several days of fuel than with. When crossing a convergence zone or a high a day or two of slow motoring can save a week or more of drifting. Passage times on sailboats are variable but much more so on boats that rely entirely on sail power. For a similar risk of running low on provisions a sail only voyage would need to carry more provisions.

For weather avoidance an engine can be useful, too. Reliable wx info and reliable speed are requisites for that game. I suppose Iridium and a laptop are the most cost effective way to get wx info at sea these days. It doesn't come for free in money, energy or space.

My feeling is that good compromises of payload, cost, handiness and performance for single handed keel yacht voyaging cluster in the mid to upper 30' size.

That or whatever comes to hand. "Perfect is the enemy of good."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, floater said:

that's the one! 

just get any old boat cheap - perhaps something just rotting away on the hard - and make it work. here is an instruction manual:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/881902.Sailing_Alone_around_the_World

 

Copyright has expired on that book. You can read it for free from project gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6317/pg6317-images.html

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

Replacing the ballast with li-ion batteries would be pretty sweet. Same idea as the Tesla. Weighs tons but its in the right place.

This has occurred to me, too. Serviceability will inevitably suffer and there is a lot of potential for exposure to salt water which is bad. But getting a long skinny battery pack down low is still an appealing idea. Definitely not lithium ion, but rather lithium iron phosphate (LFP or LiFePO4).

The problem with all batteries is that they are expensive and heavy compared to fuel. Most of the youtubers who have gone electric are using small motors that cannot drive the boat at hull speed in a headwind, and they also lack range compared to a diesel. I have heard their justifications for this. But the key thing to recognize is that you will be giving up capability if you go electric on a cruising boat.

To be honest, I think electric makes great sense for day sailors that currently have ICE motors. They seldom run the motor for a long time, and recharging from shore power is not a problem. If they go electric they will never have to deal with old fuel  that went bad in the tank or anything like that. Never visit the fuel dock. Etc. But for the long distance cruiser, I think a powerful engine can literally be a lifesaver, and the ability to motor for a couple of days to get through the ITCZ, for example, can really shorten your trip as it can be difficult to sail through the ITCZ.

There are many real world use cases. For example if your boat drags anchor at night due to 40 knot or even higher gusts, you will have to either leave the anchorage under sail at night or re-anchor under sail into 40+ knot winds at night. Most boats and most crew are not up to doing either one of those things safely. So it can be important to have the ability to motor up and reset the anchor. A small electric motor is not going to be able to do that. This is just one example. Their are others.

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

 

......If the boat is heavier, you get less payload... ....

Usually a heavier boat can carry considerably more than a lighter boat. That's part of the reason it's a heavier boat.

 

 

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

Here’s my philosophical take on the OP’s post.  Research and plan and practice as best you can.  Be realistic with yourself, and do not reveal your plans to many, lest the many voices around try to dissuade you.  All of it will take great resolve, especially if your budget is small.  (Example: mine is, so I do 95% of my own work and row out to a mooring half the year to do projects because it is substantially cheaper than keeping a boat in a marina.)  There is never a perfect time or situation.  If you wait for it, you may end up like this dead guy, who I used to know, years ago, whose  once well-outfitted Sadler 34 I stumbled across up the coast here this last summer, recognizing it immediately, but sadly in an increasingly deteriorating state - bought by a young women dreamer, said the guy at the gas dock who’d met her and told me she lived out of town and that he felt she was in over her head with that boat as a first boat) —and whose obituary I literally just came across right now. 
 

Quoting a line in the last paragraph of the obituary, he “had plans to sail across the Pacific with ‘a woman in every port’ (i.e. his wife), a project which he had to abandon for health reasons.”  

Fuck that.  Don’t become  like that.  It’ll take a lot of resolve.  If you want badly, go and get it.

+1

Sail a lot and you will be OK. If you can't afford a cruiser, get a dinghy, that will teach you skills that are really useful on a small boat in breezy conditions. Small boats teach you fast, also try to crew from time to time on a racing boat, you will learn a lot...

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

Usually a heavier boat can carry considerably more than a lighter boat. That's part of the reason it's a heavier boat.

 

 

No, what you can carry is all about displacement which is volume of the immersed hull, for a certain length, the wider the beam, the fuller the ends, the higher the freeboard, the more the boat can carry... If max pay load for a certain length is the aim, you want a light scow hence this design :

177806274_10221425374516737_195824602598

Whatever extra weight you have on board translate into a smaller pay load...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sail around the world in anything, if you are sufficiently determined, disciplined and well organised  with sufficient skills and experience. Try a Django 7.7:

http://www.intothewind.fr/

We got to know them well, when they were isolating in Murdunna at the beginning of Covid. Lovely couple. They met in Puerto Williams BTW…..

Christophe was allowed to help in the build his own boat, so he knows every square inch of it. He is obsessional about weight and having been on board, I wouldn’t want to live like that.…. 

 

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

Here’s my philosophical take on the OP’s post.  Research and plan and practice as best you can.  Be realistic with yourself, and do not reveal your plans to many, lest the many voices around try to dissuade you.  All of it will take great resolve, especially if your budget is small.  (Example: mine is, so I do 95% of my own work and row out to a mooring half the year to do projects because it is substantially cheaper than keeping a boat in a marina.)  There is never a perfect time or situation.  If you wait for it, you may end up like this dead guy, who I used to know, years ago, whose  once well-outfitted Sadler 34 I stumbled across up the coast here this last summer, recognizing it immediately, but sadly in an increasingly deteriorating state - bought by a young women dreamer, said the guy at the gas dock who’d met her and told me she lived out of town and that he felt she was in over her head with that boat as a first boat) —and whose obituary I literally just came across right now. 
 

Quoting a line in the last paragraph of the obituary, he “had plans to sail across the Pacific with ‘a woman in every port’ (i.e. his wife), a project which he had to abandon for health reasons.”  

Fuck that.  Don’t become  like that.  It’ll take a lot of resolve.  If you want badly, go and get it.

I also wonder if this is a case of "the water is always bluer on the other side of the pond."  I daydream about being able to cruise in Scotland/Ireland/Scandinavia.  The OP is already in Scotland/Ireland/Scandinavia, and they're daydreaming about going to Patagonia.  There's great high-latitude sailing right on their doorstep. And if they want to start bluewater passagemaking, they're right at the start of a classic passage across the Atlantic via the Canaries and trade winds.

I suspect that part of realizing your dreams (cruising or otherwise), is to seize the opportunities that are right in front of you right now, and not look past them for some elaborate dream at the other end of the earth.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

No, what you can carry is all about displacement which is volume of the immersed hull, for a certain length, the wider the beam, the fuller the ends, the higher the freeboard, the more the boat can carry... If max pay load for a certain length is the aim, you want a light scow hence this design :

177806274_10221425374516737_195824602598

Whatever extra weight you have on board translate into a smaller pay load...

I'm not sure what you're saying here, @Panoramix.  Volume of the immersed hull is directly proportional to the weight of the vessel.  They're not separate things.

Wider beam, fuller ends, etc. increase the waterplane area which reduces the amount a boat rises or sinks when the load changes... but that's not the same as being able to carry a large load. Barges are shaped this way, but they are not light displacement vessels. Couldn't do their job if they were.

Very few boats can handle being overloaded well, and light boats are usually much much easier to overload.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mckenzie.keith said:

To be honest, I think electric makes great sense for day sailors that currently have ICE motors. They seldom run the motor for a long time, and recharging from shore power is not a problem. If they go electric they will never have to deal with old fuel  that went bad in the tank or anything like that. Never visit the fuel dock. Etc. But for the long distance cruiser, I think a powerful engine can literally be a lifesaver, and the ability to motor for a couple of days to get through the ITCZ, for example, can really shorten your trip as it can be difficult to sail through the ITCZ.

Agreed.  Electric is pretty compelling for day sailors.  It's quiet.  It's clean.  Unlike a diesel, electric motors don't mind idling.  Diesel engines are also heavy enough that electric can be weight competitive if you don't need much range.

  • A 13.5 hp Beta diesel saildrive weighs 131 kg (290 lbs) without fuel, fuel tanks, fuel lines, filters, etc.
  • A Torqueedo Cruise 10FP saildrive and three of their 48x5000 batteries weights 141 kg (310 lbs).  That's 33.5 kg (75 lbs) for the motor and 36kg (80 lbs) for each of the batteries.

Torqueedo are understandably vague about performance, but from their website it seems like that would get you 1.5 hours of power at full throttle.  On their hypothetical boat:

  • 7 knots for 1.5 hours -- a range of 10.5 nautical miles.
  • 3 knots for 15 hours -- a range of 45 nautical miles.

Regardless, it seems like more than enough for an afternoon sail, a day trip, or even an overnight.

I think we're rapidly approaching a point where electric propulsion will be the optimal solution for a lot of day sailors.  I've been following @Bull City's electric conversion, and it's clear that for his use case, a diesel would be a much worse.  Serious cruising boats, though, are a different use case and the math works out pretty different there.

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

I also wonder if this is a case of "the water is always bluer on the other side of the pond."  I daydream about being able to cruise in Scotland/Ireland/Scandinavia.  The OP is already in Scotland/Ireland/Scandinavia, and they're daydreaming about going to Patagonia.  There's great high-latitude sailing right on their doorstep. And if they want to start bluewater passagemaking, they're right at the start of a classic passage across the Atlantic via the Canaries and trade winds.

I suspect that part of realizing your dreams (cruising or otherwise), is to seize the opportunities that are right in front of you right now, and not looking past them for some elaborate dream at the other end of the earth.

Well I'll be sailing around Scotland soon enough hopefully. But I think it's good that I have something I'll be working towards. A reason to fix up the boat and to learn to sail in difficult conditions. Preparation for a real adventure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MFH125 said:

Barges are shaped this way, but they are not light displacement vessels.

When empty, they are light displacement for their size and for a commercial vessel... Obviously they become heavy displacement when loaded but the hulls are as light as possible and as voluminous as possible (ie close to a rectangle!) to carry as much as possible. Whatever extra weight you put in the hull is less stuff you can carry thus less turnover!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panoramix - Have you ever read Gerard Janichon’s “Damien Autour du Monde”?  (That I mentioned upthread. After struggling very slowly through it  in French several winters ago, struggling through technical sailing terms in French, I’ve always wondered if it’s been translated into English - a classic of cruising literature that the Suhaili-inspired Rosbifs should know about! :-) ).   Certainly a radical boat design and voyage for the day (back then).

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mckenzie.keith said:

There are many real world use cases. For example if your boat drags anchor at night due to 40 knot or even higher gusts, you will have to either leave the anchorage under sail at night or re-anchor under sail into 40+ knot winds at night. Most boats and most crew are not up to doing either one of those things safely. So it can be important to have the ability to motor up and reset the anchor. A small electric motor is not going to be able to do that. This is just one example.

My recent upgrade from a 3 HP Torqeedo OB to a 6 HP ePropulsion pod drive has made a world of difference when motoring  into a stiff breeze. It's not uncommon to have to enter our marina into a westerly breeze. When it's strong, say little white caps, the 3 HP Torqeedo would need WOT, and even then it was a strain. I previously had a Honda 2 HP, and there were times when it struggled. The increased power has been very reassuring.

31 minutes ago, MFH125 said:

I think we're rapidly approaching a point where electric propulsion will be the optimal solution for a lot of day sailors. 

I recently chatted with a marina neighbor whose "new" to him boat has a diesel inboard. He's had it for about a year. He got a bargain price, because the diesel cranks, but won't start. He has been going through all the possible fixes, and may be down to bad fuel. I think he enjoys the process, but he has missed a year of sailing. He would like electric, but if your diesel engine is sound, it's hard to justify replacing it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2021 at 1:19 PM, ysignal said:

 

 

Sailing to Patagonia in autumn, having bought the boat in spring and sailed it all summer. I'm planning on going through the Beagle Canal. I could hang around the Falklands indefinitely if I feel I need more experience at high latitude. But my general plans aren't really the topic of the thread. 

Buying something bigger and better isn't really an option. The Contessa 27 is another boat I'm looking at. Here's the full list of boats I'm thinking are suitable and realistically available to me.

Albin Vega
Contessa 26
Invitica 26
Marcon Cutlass
Nicholson 26 
Halycon 27

 

If I had to sail a small boat offshore, I would pick the Contessa 26 in a second. They have good record of offshore passages. That said, my boat is about 10 feet longer and the only time I ever want a shorter one is when I am cleaning the bottom.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2021 at 1:13 PM, Israel Hands said:

You guys are getting soft. New guy with zero prior posts starts a thread saying he's boat shopping to sail from the UK to Patagonia. No one thinks this is a troll? 

We used to scream "Show us your girlfriend's tits!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2021 at 1:33 PM, ysignal said:

The topic of the thread is actually about whether smaller heavier sailboats handle heavy seas better than smaller light sailboats. Please don't derail it.

I would say that the heavier boat will have a more kindly motion and be more comfortable.

Slug has a valid point that a faster boat with a better seaman will be safer than what is essentially a "floating bomb shelter" with an inexperienced person hiding down below. I like the Contessa in your list of choices.  Your intended goal is very ambitious. I dream of Patagonia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've think I've gleaned from more knowledgeable people is that: 

  1. Once wave size reaches a certain proportion of the the size of the boat you can be capsized.
  2. The higher a proportion the crew & equipment weight as a percentage of the dry weight of the boat the more you degrade it's designed RM and capsize resistance.
  3. Comfort is a safety factor. The more worn down you are, the worse decisions you make.
  4. Small changes in position can mean big difference in weather experienced. 
  5. A lot of offshore sailing is sailing around highs 

What this says to me is you want something strong and watertight than has enough displacement to carry the required gear without overly degrading the performance and the more comfort you can afford, the safer it is.  

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

What I've think I've gleaned from more knowledgeable people is that: 

  1. Once wave size reaches a certain proportion of the the size of the boat you can be capsized.
  2. The higher a proportion the crew & equipment weight as a percentage of the dry weight of the boat the more you degrade it's designed RM and capsize resistance.
  3. Comfort is a safety factor. The more worn down you are, the worse decisions you make.
  4. Small changes in position can mean big difference in weather experienced. 
  5. A lot of offshore sailing is sailing around highs 

What this says to me is you want something strong and watertight than has enough displacement to carry the required gear without overly degrading the performance and the more comfort you can afford, the safer it is.  

It's on the bucket list that can only happen if my wife dies before me and I'm still young enough, but I'd just sign on to a week or 2 with Novak. I don't want to be cold for longer than that.

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

What I've gleaned from more knowledgeable people is that: 

  1. Once wave size reaches a certain proportion of the the size of the boat you can be capsized.
  2. The higher a proportion the crew & equipment weight as a percentage of the dry weight of the boat the more you degrade it's designed RM and capsize resistance.
  3. Comfort is a safety factor. The more worn down you are, the worse decisions you make.
  4. Small changes in position can mean big difference in weather experienced. 
  5. A lot of offshore sailing is sailing around highs 

What this says to me is you want something strong and watertight than has enough displacement to carry the required gear without overly degrading the performance and the more comfort you can afford, the safer it is.  

FWIW, and I think we all know to take these formulae with a grain of salt (or a gallon of saltwater), according to the equations, adding weight improves capsize resistance number and motion/comfort number.  Assuming of course that you can find a way to stash all that weight below the waterline.  

I’ve got a master spreadsheet with a listing of all the “stuff” I want to put on board to cruise.  Down at the bottom, the sums plug into the various performance formulae, so I can watch them degrade as I virtually load up the boat.  As SA/D degrades, I naively plug in a bigger sail - et voila! Works great in silico.  TBD in reality.  

I’m not imagining that this is at all accurate - it just points out when “Whoah, that’s too stupid to think about any more.”  It also points out that water, fuel, ground tackle and maybe food are the biggies.  Most everything else is collective burden.  (Don’t have to throw out that thing - just sift out half of that stuff.) Also I could make life a lot easier if I gave up scuba diving.  But I don’t want to.  (The boat was designed for a crew of six, so throwing out four or five of them to start with gives me 800-1000 “free” pounds, right?  Well it sounds good anyway.)

Maybe we’re just going in circles here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It's on the bucket list that can only happen if my wife dies before me and I'm still young enough, but I'd just sign on to a week or 2 with Novak. I don't want to be cold for longer than that.

That would be fun. Especially because you can make it stop.  I'm pushing off next Summer. We'll work-up to more exciting things. If you've made it to ZA from the East Coast US, then possibly you've accumulated enough experience to do Patagonia if you have the right mindset.  

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

FWIW, and I think we all know to take these formulae with a grain of salt (or a gallon of saltwater), according to the equations, adding weight improves capsize resistance number and motion/comfort number.  Assuming of course that you can find a way to stash all that weight below the waterline.  

 

Not necessarily. One big component of capsize resistance is polar moment. This is one reason bigger boats are harder to capsize, they have higher - maybe much higher - polar moment. Hauling a weight up to the masthead INCREASES polar moment while decreasing righting moment.

* for those unfamiliar, imagine a barbell 4 feet long with 100 pounds at each end and another one 4 feet long with 200 pounds in the center. Grab each one in the middle and try and spin it. The one with the weight at the ends has much higher polar moment, it is much more resistant to being accelerated. Also think about a big freighter, their point of vanishing stability is much lower than a sailboat, probably half or less. Their polar moment is vastly higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Elegua said:

What I've think I've gleaned from more knowledgeable people is that: 

  1. Once wave size reaches a certain proportion of the the size of the boat you can be capsized.
  2. The higher a proportion the crew & equipment weight as a percentage of the dry weight of the boat the more you degrade it's designed RM and capsize resistance.
  3. Comfort is a safety factor. The more worn down you are, the worse decisions you make.
  4. Small changes in position can mean big difference in weather experienced. 
  5. A lot of offshore sailing is sailing around highs 

What this says to me is you want something strong and watertight than has enough displacement to carry the required gear without overly degrading the performance and the more comfort you can afford, the safer it is.  

the obvious solution - just throw a stick on it.

 Lifeboat-refit-Stodig-before-clansman-cr

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

the obvious solution - just throw a stick on it.

 Lifeboat-refit-Stodig-before-clansman-cr

Too bad about the performance part. 

  1. Small changes in position can mean big difference in weather experienced. 
  2. A lot of offshore sailing is sailing around highs 
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Elegua said:

What I've think I've gleaned from more knowledgeable people is that: 

  1. Once wave size reaches a certain proportion of the the size of the boat you can be capsized.
  2. The higher a proportion the crew & equipment weight as a percentage of the dry weight of the boat the more you degrade it's designed RM and capsize resistance.
  3. Comfort is a safety factor. The more worn down you are, the worse decisions you make.
  4. Small changes in position can mean big difference in weather experienced. 
  5. A lot of offshore sailing is sailing around highs 

What this says to me is you want something strong and watertight than has enough displacement to carry the required gear without overly degrading the performance and the more comfort you can afford, the safer it is.  

Unfortunately, #3 and #5 are almost at odds with each other, at least in a smaller boat.  For comfort, you want a narrow, deep hull with lots of displacement (at least if you go by Brewer's motion comfort ratio).  For sailing around highs, you want big sails and light displacement (SA/D).  The two metrics seem to have a pretty tight negative correlation (as I discovered when I tried to figure out which boat I would choose for life over in that thread). 

2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

When empty, they are light displacement for their size and for a commercial vessel... Obviously they become heavy displacement when loaded but the hulls are as light as possible and as voluminous as possible (ie close to a rectangle!) to carry as much as possible. Whatever extra weight you put in the hull is less stuff you can carry thus less turnover!

The point, though, is that the barge won't "perform" the same when it's loaded as when it's light (they may even have to load them with ballast when empty, like the old sailing ships).  Barges are designed to tow like bricks when loaded.  A light displacement sailboat is designed to sail well when light.  It will likely also perform like a brick when it's loaded. 

 

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

Not necessarily. One big component of capsize resistance is polar moment. This is one reason bigger boats are harder to capsize, they have higher - maybe much higher - polar moment. Hauling a weight up to the masthead INCREASES polar moment while decreasing righting moment.

* for those unfamiliar, imagine a barbell 4 feet long with 100 pounds at each end and another one 4 feet long with 200 pounds in the center. Grab each one in the middle and try and spin it. The one with the weight at the ends has much higher polar moment, it is much more resistant to being accelerated. Also think about a big freighter, their point of vanishing stability is much lower than a sailboat, probably half or less. Their polar moment is vastly higher.

Sounds like a good rationalization to me.  I've be contemplating with some trepidation, the installation of my "tower of power" solar arch. It's been leaning against the woodshed for months.  Basically gonna be adding a horizontal mizzen :unsure:.  Firmly in the "bolt it on and see what happens" school of engineering.  

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

I'm not sure,  I think I've heard the same of the Tahiti ketch.  Either of which will actually sail, unlike Yrvind's... craft.

Aren't those two pretty much the same thing? I know a Westsail 32 did fine in the Perfect Storm, even after the crew panicked and made the CG come get them despite the captain's wishes. The boat might not have done anything sailing wise, but it kind of bobbed around out there. The skipper did have to go find it after the storm though, so that part sucked.

I think now we are past "bob around in any weather" to "use the SSB and gribs and SAIL away from bad weather".

Link to post
Share on other sites