Jump to content

Heavier displacement = safer in storms?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

They were designed more as tugs - they would sit with the fishing fleet and tow (rescue) any disabled boats back to port.

Not a "rescue boat" in the modern sense of the word.

RNLI Peterhead Lifeboat Station - Homepage

Yes they were designed specifically to be hove-to for days on station with the fishing fleet. As 50 footers they are good enough hullforms but smaller double enders have a tendency to hobby horse, they are also prone to being pooped in following seas lacking volume aft.

Modern double enders are much fuller aft and have flatter sections aft preventing hobby horsing and preventing pooping ( eg Perry's designs).

A notoriously seaworthy design of yore that made the basis for a lot of successful cruisers was the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter. They were a better boat than the Colin Archer Redingskote double enders faster more weatherly and also never suffered a capsize in their entire history of operation  ( Marchaj Seaworthiness).
 

  • Like 2
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

9 hours 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...

 Keh ?

Boats have a target displacement inherent in their design.

Starting with a weight study, being structure and stores and juggle the ballast/ righting moment with keel/depth constraints. Somewhere in the design spiral you can consider motion comfort and a target D/L ratio.

If you want more stores you will necessarily have a heavier boat. That's not something you should try and do with a light boat that has neither the strength nor the prismatic coefficient to be heavily laden.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Check out catabatic winds. These can be very not nice.

There is a recent book by R.J. Rubadeau titled "Bound for Cape Horn"' with the subtitle "skills for expedition cruising."

It is essentially the tale of a small group of old friends who are experienced sailors making a "bucket list" trip to Cape Horn on a well-equipped Chuck Paine Apogee 50 owned by one of them.

It gives a lot of detail about places and weather you experience voyaging near the bottom end of the world.

Definitely worth a read if that type of sailing appeals to you.

Full disclosure: Bob Rubadeau is a friend of mine. He owns and sails the little Phil Rhodes double-ended ketch named Dog Star: the original one, not one of the numerous copies or the fiberglass production versions.

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

Why do these discussion always go to the extremes?

Most people sail neither something like a Westsail nor something like an Open 30. 

I guess I’m not most people. I plan to cruise this thing for a week or two next summer. You can probably guess which side of your scenario I’m on. 

CFE3985F-DA96-4B1C-BCCA-6AC68957F13C.jpeg

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

There is a recent book by R.J. Rubadeau titled "Bound for Cape Horn"' with the subtitle "skills for expedition cruising."

It is essentially the tale of a small group of old friends who are experienced sailors making a "bucket list" trip to Cape Horn on a well-equipped Chuck Paine Apogee 50 owned by one of them.

It gives a lot of detail about places and weather you experience voyaging near the bottom end of the world.

Definitely worth a read if that type of sailing appeals to you.

Full disclosure: Bob Rubadeau is a friend of mine. He owns and sails the little Phil Rhodes double-ended ketch named Dog Star: the original one, not one of the numerous copies or the fiberglass production versions.

Frank Guernsey (link) had some good solo Cape Horn sailing tales.

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

I guess I’m not most people. I plan to cruise this thing for a week or two next summer. You can probably guess which side of your scenario I’m on. 

CFE3985F-DA96-4B1C-BCCA-6AC68957F13C.jpeg

Nice boat, Monkey.    Should be great fun for some fast cruising in a warm place.

What is she?

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

Nice boat, Monkey.    Should be great fun for some fast cruising in a warm place.

What is she?

It’s a Mount Gay 30 hull, but everything else on it was designed and built to be faster with total disregard for the class rule. It’s primary use will obviously be racing, but it’ll be fun to spend a week or two cruising it every year in an obviously minimalist style. 
 

Edit:  She weighs just under 3700 pounds dryship. 

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

I guess I’m not most people. I plan to cruise this thing for a week or two next summer. You can probably guess which side of your scenario I’m on. 

CFE3985F-DA96-4B1C-BCCA-6AC68957F13C.jpeg

No, I don't think you are most people. Most people who cruise don't have the discipline to keep the weight off for two weeks, much less for what the OP is contemplating.

That's a great ride. I've done one or two+ weeks on similar boats in the tropics and had a great time. 

My comment was more aimed at the manufactured disagreement. 

 

 

 

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

Why?

Maybe read principles of yacht design ? It's well written and would give you a better insight. But for a quick forum post reply:

Displacement is arguably the most important principal design figure. It dictates the shape of the hull, not just the immersed volume but  the distribution of volume for optimal wave making resistance.

Design displacement then directly dictates the sail area and the stability required to carry that sail.

 

Light boats are designed as light boats, additional loads are detrimental both to stability and performance.  The change of immersed hull shape ( changing optimal Cp) can add significant wave making resistance and at the same time there’s a significant loss of stability from the necessarily high location of the additional stores.

With less stability the boat can’t stand up to the larger sail area needed to push the now adverse hull-form through the water. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Panoramix said:
14 hours 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...  ...

PPI

"pounds (weight) per inch" is the measurement to look at. A large waterplane area, and a hull shape that the waterplane area increases as it immerses.  Lots of flare is good for load-carrying, the Grand Banks dory was famous for it.

But it's pretty common to use displacement as a proxy. But it's a bad assumption, it's like claiming that fat people can carry heavier backpacks.

If that's a desired characteristic in the design, any competent boat designer can make a lightweight boat be a super load-carrier. Usually it's secondary (or lower) priority to a lot of other characteristics.

FB- Doug

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

Wow. I guess I should pack some strong ropes then. I thought people were just tying up like that because it was too deep to anchor.

Food for thought;

Cape Horn is the Mt. Everest of sailing.

It would be wise to dial back your ambitions for a considerable period of learning.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Food for thought;

Cape Horn is the Mt. Everest of sailing.

It would be wise to dial back your ambitions for a considerable period of learning.

I need the goal to motivate the learning.

https://www.cruiserswiki.org/wiki/Mar_del_Plata_to_Beagle_Channel

Quote

 But with careful planning of stops and the weather, having the time to wait for the best conditions is certainly possible to reach "the end of the world" and Cape Horn with sufficient security. Giorgio Ardrizzi author of Patagonia & Tierra del Fuego Nautical Guide, a "Bible" which is absolutely necessary on board, says that it is certainly more dangerous to cross the Atlantic Ocean from Caribbean to Azores which dozens of boats face every year, then the navigation described herein. Having path I both, absolutely confirm his statement. The boat must be absolutely equipped for the high latitudes, here I just mention: HF radio and satellite phone, autopilot robust and reliable, insulation, heating, protected area for the guards, proper rigging, mooring ropes very long, rich set of spare parts

So the real trick is going to be waiting in the Falklands for the right weather window. 

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

Maybe read principles of yacht design ? It's well written and would give you a better insight. But for a quick forum post reply:

Displacement is arguably the most important principal design figure. It dictates the shape of the hull, not just the immersed volume but  the distribution of volume for optimal wave making resistance.

Design displacement then directly dictates the sail area and the stability required to carry that sail.

 

Light boats are designed as light boats, additional loads are detrimental both to stability and performance.  The change of immersed hull shape ( changing optimal Cp) can add significant wave making resistance and at the same time there’s a significant loss of stability from the necessarily high location of the additional stores.

With less stability the boat can’t stand up to the larger sail area needed to push the now adverse hull-form through the water. 

 

You didn't reply to the very simple question!

Saying light boats can't carry boats because they are designed not to is not an answer, as you don't show that they can't carry weight. I agree with you that carrying weight high up is silly but you don't have to do this and wise people who sail offshore indeed store weight low whatever the displacement of their boat.

The reason for the lack of answer is that payload is at best loosely related to the boat initial weight. What actually matters is the waterplane area and the ability to store stuff without raising too much the CoG. Whatever the boat displacement you can design to meet these objectives.

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

 But with careful planning of stops and the weather, having the time to wait for the best conditions is certainly possible to reach "the end of the world" and Cape Horn with sufficient security. Giorgio Ardrizzi author of Patagonia & Tierra del Fuego Nautical Guide, a "Bible" which is absolutely necessary on board, says that it is certainly more dangerous to cross the Atlantic Ocean from Caribbean to Azores which dozens of boats face every year, then the navigation described herein. Having path I both, absolutely confirm his statement. The boat must be absolutely equipped for the high latitudes, here I just mention: HF radio and satellite phone, autopilot robust and reliable, insulation, heating, protected area for the guards, proper rigging, mooring ropes very long, rich set of spare parts

So the real trick is going to be waiting in the Falklands for the right weather window. 

This is going to be fun to watch.  I do look forward to reading how ysignal crams all that mountain of gear and insulation into a wee Vega or Nich26 (having purchased it out of a small budget), and manages it all with one summer of sailing experience.

My big question is: what flavour of popcorn to eat while watching?  Is plain salted popcorn too literal a response to this show?

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

This is going to be fun to watch.  I do look forward to reading how ysignal crams all that mountain of gear and insulation into a wee Vega or Nich26 (having purchased it out of a small budget), and manages it all with one summer of sailing experience.

My big question is: what flavour of popcorn to eat while watching?  Is plain salted popcorn too literal a response to this show?

Removing the engine and replacing it with either an outboard or electric moteor is something I'm still considering. So I may have an increased payload. As for insulation, maybe I could just insulate the V birth? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegas are better than some boats, in that the decks are cored with Divinycell foam. But all glassfibre boats are prone to condensation. You will need some form of heater to dry the boat out. Don't rely on tea lights beneath an upside-down flower pot...

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jim in Halifax said:

all glassfibre boats are prone to condensation. You will need some form of heater to dry the boat out

... and you will also fuel to feed the heater.  if you are to stay warm and dry down in Patagonia, non-trivial amounts for fuel will be needed to keep a baby Refleks running 24/7 while you scrape the snow off your tiller.

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

... and you will also fuel to feed the heater.  if you are to stay warm and dry down in Patagonia, non-trivial amounts for fuel will be needed to keep a baby Refleks running 24/7 while you scrape the snow off your tiller.

How about a solid fuel heater? Something like this.

https://www.kuranda.co.uk/product/newport-solid-fuel-heater/

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

Food for thought;

Cape Horn is the Mt. Everest of sailing.

It would be wise to dial back your ambitions for a considerable period of learning.

I was thinking of the same metaphor. Hubris like this can get one killed in the real world. Or quickly lead to needless SAR. He needs to put aside all thoughts of "which boat" and "which heater" and instead get out on the angry seas near home, see how he likes it. Volunteer to crew. 

Still think it's one of you guys trolling the hell out of us.  When I read the posts, I'm reminded of a character in one of John Krakauer's short stories, Adrian the Romanian. He barreled into Denali base camp, full of self-confidence and unaware of what he didn't know. A few days later they encountered him making a rag-doll descent, blinded and likely on the verge of HACE. Miraculously, he did make it down. 

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

You didn't reply to the very simple question!

Saying light boats can't carry boats because they are designed not to is not an answer, as you don't show that they can't carry weight. I agree with you that carrying weight high up is silly but you don't have to do this and wise people who sail offshore indeed store weight low whatever the displacement of their boat.

The reason for the lack of answer is that payload is at best loosely related to the boat initial weight. What actually matters is the waterplane area and the ability to store stuff without raising too much the CoG. Whatever the boat displacement you can design to meet these objectives.

I agree - I never really got the "only heavy boats can carry weight" thing. My boat was considered very light back in the day and having sailed on the same passages as heavier cruising boats and also having sailed heavier cruising boats, I am sure I would have to load absolute metric shit-tons of cargo to slow my boat down THAT much to be slower than the heavy cruisers. *  I think it is more the case the heavy cruisers seem to sail about the same with more weight so people think "I didn't slow down", but they weren't going fast to start with :rolleyes:

* One notable exception is fast multi-hulls, their performance absolutely can be very affected by overloading.

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

Still think it's one of you guys trolling the hell out of us.

If ysignal is someone's sockpuppet created to wind us up, then the puppetmaster has done quite a good job. 

Ysignal is sufficiently naive and foolish to be engaging and a bit annoying, but not quite bonkers enough to be unbelievable.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

PPI

"pounds (weight) per inch" is the measurement to look at. A large waterplane area, and a hull shape that the waterplane area increases as it immerses.  Lots of flare is good for load-carrying, the Grand Banks dory was famous for it.

But it's pretty common to use displacement as a proxy. But it's a bad assumption, it's like claiming that fat people can carry heavier backpacks.

If that's a desired characteristic in the design, any competent boat designer can make a lightweight boat be a super load-carrier. Usually it's secondary (or lower) priority to a lot of other characteristics.

FB- Doug

But surely a boat is designed (and so described) as light medium heavy in terms of it's laden displacement . Immersion (PPI) isn't a major target at the design stage unless overloading tolerance is important.  You juggle the various parameters to get the desired underwater volume after the weights study and that includes all forseeable stores including fuel water ground tackle. At the end of that study you have your D/L ratio.

A light boat to me is a performance and strictly load limited hullform that either has a small sail area or is designed to plane or semi-plane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

How about a solid fuel heater? Something like this.

https://www.kuranda.co.uk/product/newport-solid-fuel-heater/

If this is all a wind-up, then that post was nicely played.

If it was for real, then less well-played.  Are you going to tow a log-shed behind the Vega as you round the Horn?

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

If this is all a wind-up, then that post was nicely played.

If it was for real, then less well-played.  Are you going to tow a log-shed behind the Vega as you round the Horn?

I was more thinking of getting a bag of charcoal...

But an advantage of a multi fuel heater like that is that it can also burn wood, so I could always grab some when ashore to conserve my charcoal supply. I could even make my own charcoal if I needed to. All you need is a fire and a biscuit tin.

And I'm not planning on "rounding the horn". I'm planning on going through the Beagle Channel.

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

I was more thinking of getting a bag of charcoal...

But an advantage of a multi fuel heater like that is that it can also burn wood, so I could always grab some when ashore to conserve my charcoal supply. I could even make my own charcoal if I needed to. All you need is a fire and a biscuit tin.

And I'm not planning on "rounding the horn". I'm planning on going through the Beagle Channel.

Ah, I'm sorry.  Big misunderstanding.

So you are going to use your Vega to tow the log-shed through the Beagle Channel, stopping periodically to make huge quantities of charcoal using a biscuit tin.   #GoodLuckWithThat

If you take this a step further, you could build a greenhouse in top of the towed log shed, heat it with charcoal, and grow your own oats and tropical fruit.

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

My big question is: what flavour of popcorn to eat while watching?  Is plain salted popcorn too literal a response to this show?

I’m thinking perhaps something cold, rocky and with that feeling of terror.9B65DB0F-8EF7-4417-BBA9-1ECEA679358E.png.4385e2520b9b2b693fb5c9c17c83e5dd.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

If ysignal is someone's sockpuppet created to wind us up, then the puppetmaster has done quite a good job. 

Ysignal is sufficiently naive and foolish to be engaging and a bit annoying, but not quite bonkers enough to be unbelievable.

 

Agree.  But there have been many artful puppet masters.

The best I ever saw was almost 20 years ago, on a climbing forum.  A first-time poster with a thread titled something like "Single female, new to Seattle, looking for weekend climbs."  After a week or two of predictable banter, the master posted an endless stream of PMs the sock had received. Better than the 'best of Craigslist.'

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

If this is all a wind-up, then that post was nicely played.

If it was for real, then less well-played.  Are you going to tow a log-shed behind the Vega as you round the Horn?

This is an above average thread. Some threads by page 3 have devolved into politics. This one has only devolved toward the design of a wood fired sailing tugboat. I call this progress.

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

You didn't reply to the very simple question!

Saying light boats can't carry boats because they are designed not to is not an answer, as you don't show that they can't carry weight. I agree with you that carrying weight high up is silly but you don't have to do this and wise people who sail offshore indeed store weight low whatever the displacement of their boat.

The reason for the lack of answer is that payload is at best loosely related to the boat initial weight. What actually matters is the waterplane area and the ability to store stuff without raising too much the CoG. Whatever the boat displacement you can design to meet these objectives.

A simple word, but not a simple question.

You were spruiking planing hullforms earlier and they are seaworthy when the keel's as long as the boat you posted. But light boats like that aren't designed to carry more than their design criteria without significant adverse effects on performance and stability...... surely that's enough. 

But I wonder do you know of any light displacement design in the size of the OP target that would take an expedition cruising load sensibly?

 

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

Ah, I'm sorry.  Big misunderstanding.

So you are going to use your Vega to tow the log-shed through the Beagle Channel, stopping periodically to make huge quantities of charcoal using a biscuit tin.   #GoodLuckWithThat

If you take this a step further, you could build a greenhouse in top of the towed log shed, heat it with charcoal, and grow your own oats and tropical fruit.

Well people do use charcoal heaters in boats. Charcoal is cheap and you can just buy a bag of it a shop. If you're anchored in a remote spot you could burn wood. That type of heater would give me options. From what I read they also produce a nice dry heat. And I've always loved real fires in cottages and the like. It would be so much nicer than an electric heater.

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

A simple word, but not a simple question.

You were spruiking planing hullforms earlier and they are seaworthy when the keel's as long as the boat you posted. But light boats like that aren't designed to carry more than their design criteria without significant adverse effects on performance and stability...... surely that's enough. 

But I wonder do you know of any light displacement design in the size of the OP target that would take an expedition cruising load sensibly?

 

No boat in the size range the OP is talking about is going to be able to carry all the stuff most of us would carry for a trip like this just from lack of volume to store it, never mind the weight. ANY sub-30 foot boat doing high latitude cruising is going to be an exercise in clever planning and doing without.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ysignal said:

It would be so much nicer than an electric heater.

Ach,  I know.  I got well fed-up up with using my mains electric heater at sea.  The 25-mile extension cord was a right pain to handle, yet it wasn't long enough when on passage.

You stick with your towed log shed and biscuit tin.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ysignal said:

Well people do use charcoal heaters in boats. Charcoal is cheap and you can just buy a bag of it a shop. If you're anchored in a remote spot you could burn wood. That type of heater would give me options. From what I read they also produce a nice dry heat. And I've always loved real fires in cottages and the like. It would be so much nicer than an electric heater.

Just on the off chance you are for real:

Charcoal is the worst possible heat source for your trip. It produces tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide, which can kill you. It does not like to get wet and actually can spontaneously combust when wet according to my surveyor who insists no charcoal on boats. Even worse is the space efficiency. You are going to be critically short on space, so everything needs to be at maximum efficiency. I think your only two choices would be diesel driven heat or anthracite coal. The coal stove has the advantage of being able to burn wood if you can find any.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

This one has only devolved toward the design of a wood fired sailing tugboat. I call this progress.

Well, to be fair, it's a while since anyone rounded the horn in a wood fired sailing tugboat.  Maybe it's time that the wood fired sailing tugboat became A Thing again?

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

Well people do use charcoal heaters in boats. Charcoal is cheap and you can just buy a bag of it a shop. If you're anchored in a remote spot you could burn wood. That type of heater would give me options. From what I read they also produce a nice dry heat. And I've always loved real fires in cottages and the like. It would be so much nicer than an electric heater.

It would give you a couple fuel options. You can burn a lot of wood in 24 hours. Include kindling as the smaller the firebox, the trickier it gets to keep anything but a full-out blaze, going. 

 

This firebox is about 7" X 7" and about 10" tall, slightly larger than the Newport.  I'll use up a large canvas tote bag of wood chunks in a weekend of morning and evening fires that last a few hours.

 

Charcoal would extend this a bit, but not a lot. You'll still need ample kindling with charcoal. Those compressed sawdust and parafin type of fire starter sticks are a big help.

You'd want a razor sharp aggressive hand saw if you intend to find firewood. The wood needs to be cut short, into chunks.

That's good though because you'll appreciate the old firewood adage, "It warms you twice". 

IMG_3294.thumb.jpeg.17d131a58b13044cf3fffa546f11ca02.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go:

https://reddotontheocean.com/

Someone has already done this trip and more on one of the boats you want to use. Find out all about what it was like.

IIRC, once Rutherford got back here he tied the boat to the dock, stepped off, and never came back to it, so maybe there are drawbacks to being a long time on a 27 foot boat :rolleyes:

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

Well, to be fair, it's a while since anyone rounded the horn in a wood fired sailing tugboat.  Maybe it's time that the wood fired sailing tugboat became A Thing again?

We should call Don McIntyre. Get Kingsford Charcoal to sponsor a race.

To those still trying to be helpful here and solve the displacement problem, I apologize unreservedly for not taking this quite seriously.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Just on the off chance you are for real:

Charcoal is the worst possible heat source for your trip. It produces tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide, which can kill you. It does not like to get wet and actually can spontaneously combust when wet according to my surveyor who insists no charcoal on boats. Even worse is the space efficiency. You are going to be critically short on space, so everything needs to be at maximum efficiency. I think your only two choices would be diesel driven heat or anthracite coal. The coal stove has the advantage of being able to burn wood if you can find any.

Coal sounds good.

20 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

And the Beagle Channel is just full of shops selling charcoal, innit?

I imagine there's probably a shop selling some in Puerto Williams.

If I were to remove the engine and switch to electric or to an outboard, would it be possible to re purpose the space used by the fuel tank?

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

Well people do use charcoal heaters in boats. Charcoal is cheap and you can just buy a bag of it a shop. If you're anchored in a remote spot you could burn wood. It would be so much nicer than an electric heater.

I’m glad you have raised the issue/option of electric heat.  I do agree that wood heat is much nicer than an electric heat - they create an ambience of seagoing romance and adventure that make you feel like a salty sea captain, though young in years.  Pour yourself a good peaty whiskey and toast yourself - you’ve arrived.
 

However, I’d recommend an electric heater.  That way, you can be sure you’ll have already installed (you’re leaving in a year?) a vast array of solar, wind and towed generator devices on the boat, ready at hand to keep up with demand for that and other onboard devices as well.  This will provide voluminous charging for the electric motor’s massive battery bank too.  Moreover, if you go electric, that will eliminate your need forage for wood ashore in Patagonian katabatic winds (or, less desirable, tow a log barge to feed a wood stove if charcoal is in short supply due to new Chilean environmental regulations to meet greenhouse gas emission targets that phase out coal use in 2022.) And, going electric heat you can install heaters all over the boat instead of just relying on the tiny widdle wood stove.  Go green, go electric heat.

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

Coal sounds good.

I imagine there's probably a shop selling some in Puerto Williams.

If I were to remove the engine and switch to electric or to an outboard, would it be possible to re purpose the space used by the fuel tank?

You are going to need an engine and the engine on those boats doesn't even take up that much space.

Remember what you are doing has vastly more ways to get into trouble than just making a passage past the Horn. You will be close proximity to hard rocks in an area with highly changeable and dangerous weather, not way the hell out to sea with room to heave to or run off.

BTW, you sound kind of like someone who has not yet got their learner's permit asking what kind of tires to buy for their GT40 so they can do well at Le Mans :rolleyes:

PLEASE just go sailing with someone somewhere offshore. People need crew and you need to see what it is like.

You might come to the Bay and see if any Skipjacks need crew. While you are handling an oyster dredge under sail with water coming across the deck and sleet stinging your eyes, just keep saying to yourself "What I want to do will be worse than this".

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

Charcoal is the worst possible heat source for your trip. It produces tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide, which can kill you. It does not like to get wet and actually can spontaneously combust when wet according to my surveyor who insists no charcoal on boats.

Scientific American agrees with @kent_island_sailor.   But Ysignal has seen something on YouTube, which is obviously far more authoritative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could attach a fish smoker to the chimney if my stove were burning wood... I'm planning on doing a lot of fishing. I love fishing.

Cutting my own wood where I can, catching my own fish, maybe even smoking them if I can rig something on my stove chimney. Making for a better experience and lower costs.

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

A simple word, but not a simple question.

You were spruiking planing hullforms earlier and they are seaworthy when the keel's as long as the boat you posted. But light boats like that aren't designed to carry more than their design criteria without significant adverse effects on performance and stability...... surely that's enough. 

But I wonder do you know of any light displacement design in the size of the OP target that would take an expedition cruising load sensibly?

 

This one would carry more than needed :

dd82bcb00c2af3a9aa88cb5d66e1fd5d.jpg

It has been designed to carry a man sailing solo against the wind by the five capes.

If you want an older boat, this one (a light to medium displacement to be fair) would do the job (but with less payload) if well prepared :

armagnac-mk2_6_1550843141.jpg

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

I knew this guy was a troll - good one with the fish smoker.

I see no reason why not. Look at this.

It doesn't have to be as big as that, or made out of wood. Just a metal chamber in the top of the chimney should work. If I'm going to have the chimney anyway why not try it? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure you could do it. All smokers are is wooden boxes attached to chimneys. Given that I'm going to anchored in remote places, being able to eat and keep warm in a semi self sufficient way would surely be worth it? Once I actually get to Patagonia I intend to enjoy being there. Fishing, enjoying the scenery etc.. My multi fuel heater with charcoal/coal and wood fits in much more with that.

Have you guys seen the salmon in Patagonia? They're an invasive species so the more you catch the better. I was already thinking about building a smoker ashore, salt curing etc before I had this idea. If it will work I can't see how it isn't a good idea. Particularly given that I probably wont have an oven.

 

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

So keep charcoal dust away from sparks. When I made charcoal before in a biscuit tin it was to make gunpowder. I know all about how combustible it is. 

Get an aluminum boat and call it ‘Biscuit Tin’.

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

I'm pretty sure you could do it. All smokers are is wooden boxes attached to chimneys. Given that I'm going to anchored in remote places, being able to eat and keep warm in a semi self sufficient way would surely be worth it? Once I actually get to Patagonia I intend to enjoy being there. Fishing, enjoying the scenery etc.. My multi fuel heater with charcoal/coal and wood fits in much more with that.

Have you guys seen the salmon in Patagonia? They're an invasive species so the more you catch the better. I was already thinking about building a smoker ashore, salt curing etc before I had this idea. If it will work I can't see how it isn't a good idea. Particularly given that I probably wont have an oven.

 

Whatever you’re smoking, it ain’t fish.

That’s enough for me, loneshark OUT.

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

You are going to need an engine and the engine on those boats doesn't even take up that much space.

Remember what you are doing has vastly more ways to get into trouble than just making a passage past the Horn. You will be close proximity to hard rocks in an area with highly changeable and dangerous weather, not way the hell out to sea with room to heave to or run off.

BTW, you sound kind of like someone who has not yet got their learner's permit asking what kind of tires to buy for their GT40 so they can do well at Le Mans :rolleyes:

PLEASE just go sailing with someone somewhere offshore. People need crew and you need to see what it is like.

You might come to the Bay and see if any Skipjacks need crew. While you are handling an oyster dredge under sail with water coming across the deck and sleet stinging your eyes, just keep saying to yourself "What I want to do will be worse than this".

The waters in Patagonia are calm. Its just getting into the Beagle Canal that will be tough. I'll have to time it right. Sure the channels might get windy but what special skill am I going to need to learn in order to tie my boat up with strong ropes?

You guys seem to think that I'm rounding the horn, the great challenge in sailing, this notorious and dangerous place. That's not what I'm planning on doing at all. I'm planning of momentarily skirting the edge of Drakes Passage before heading into sheltered waters. It's not so outrageous. Less dangerous than the Caribbean to the Azores according to people who know it well and I bet you wouldn't react if I said I wanted to do that. 

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

"pounds (weight) per inch" is the measurement to look at. A large waterplane area, and a hull shape that the waterplane area increases as it immerses.  Lots of flare is good for load-carrying, the Grand Banks dory was famous for it. ...

But surely a boat is designed (and so described) as light medium heavy in terms of it's laden displacement . Immersion (PPI) isn't a major target at the design stage unless overloading tolerance is important.  You juggle the various parameters to get the desired underwater volume after the weights study and that includes all forseeable stores including fuel water ground tackle. At the end of that study you have your D/L ratio.

A light boat to me is a performance and strictly load limited hullform that either has a small sail area or is designed to plane or semi-plane.

Yes and no... we seem to mostly agree that comparatively large PPI... large variation in loading...  isn't high on the list of design priorities for the vast majority of boats. And that it's common to assume heavy boats can carry more load. This is even true in many cases, simply because a boat that's heavy to start with has more of everything specifically including hull volume. But it's not a good assumption to carry across the board, IMHO.

Not all light boats are designed to be light for the sake of going fast. It's a benefit that they can be driven easily (usually), in many cases this is true when light or when loaded.

It's a good discussion to have when designing a boat from scratch, or choosing one type of hull over another. Not one to be approached with blanket assumptions and proxies for the real factors.

FB- Doug

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

I'm pretty sure you could do it. All smokers are is wooden boxes attached to chimneys. Given that I'm going to anchored in remote places, being able to eat and keep warm in a semi self sufficient way would surely be worth it? Once I actually get to Patagonia I intend to enjoy being there. Fishing, enjoying the scenery etc.. My multi fuel heater with charcoal/coal and wood fits in much more with that.

Have you guys seen the salmon in Patagonia? They're an invasive species so the more you catch the better. I was already thinking about building a smoker ashore, salt curing etc before I had this idea. If it will work I can't see how it isn't a good idea. Particularly given that I probably wont have an oven.

 

Make sure to send pics.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Whatever you’re smoking, it ain’t fish.

That’s enough for me, loneshark OUT.

Come on.  It’s all pretty simple.

Vega 27.  Pull out the engine.  Replace with 3’x3’x3’ of LiFePo4 batteries for long-range electric motor propulsion, cabin heat, and smoking the Patagonian toothfish (“Chilean sea bass”, to those of you who frequent fancy, bourgeois restaurants) and local centolla, all of which you’ll be catching daily to supplement your monthly $200 budget.  Going electric with the smoker means only needing to carry a small bag of hickory chips for smoke flavour instead of needing to forage ashore frequently for gnarled soaking wet branches from small storm-racked bushes and then air-drying them in the cabin so that they’re burnable. .  

The huge battery bank will be installed low down in the boat, improving stability, meeting the original requirement of heavy displacement safer in storms.  The batteries will be frequently restored by the wind generator spun by the sudden rachas sweeping in from off the Argentinian pampas, and, after rounding the corner, frequent powerful, alpine-cold Chilean channel katabatic gusts.

Get a YouTube channel - keep all the comments to positive vibes, and money flows into your coffers from poor landlocked dreamers: good to go.

(There actually was a thread on boatdesign.net forum about the feasibility of an outboard motor for cruising in Antarctica. Good times!) https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/engine-for-antarctica.61029/page-5#post-859695

A32ACB12-7A4C-4446-9D31-A95BFF12C94B.jpeg

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

What actually matters is the waterplane area and the ability to store stuff without raising too much the CoG. Whatever the boat displacement you can design to meet these objectives.

On a max draft Open 60 the ballast is 15 feet below the hull. Forget about the fact that the canting keel provides even more righting moment than just the 15 ft draft.

If you’re proposing to turn this kind of boat into a load carrier, the best you’ll be able to do, if you put stores on the cabin sole(there is not really a cabin sole in the traditional sense), is adding weight maybe 16/17 feet above the main ballast.

Your best bet to turn this into a load carrier is to lose the mast, lose the keel, get a 600 horsepower low torque outboard and turn it into a barge.

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

On a max draft Open 60 the ballast is 15 feet below the hull. Forget about the fact that the canting keel provides even more righting moment than just the 15 ft draft.

If you’re proposing to turn this kind of boat into a load carrier, the best you’ll be able to do, if you put stores on the cabin sole(there is not really a cabin sole in the traditional sense), is adding weight maybe 16/17 feet above the main ballast.

Your best bet to turn this into a load carrier is to lose the mast, lose the keel, get a 600 horsepower low torque outboard and turn it into a barge.

I don't think hat I've ever proposed to use this kind of boat and I can't see how the CoG can be below the keel bulb!

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

I don't think hat I've ever proposed to use this kind of boat and I can't see how the CoG can be below the keel bulb!

I can’t either...but your efforts to keep CoG low, would in this case, start at maybe 16 feet above existing ballast. Similar CoG constraints as they relate to added load carrying would exist on smaller deep drafted pizza wedges.

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

I can’t either...but your efforts to keep CoG low, would in this case, start at maybe 16 feet above existing ballast. Similar CoG constraints as they relate to added load carrying would exist on smaller deep drafted pizza wedges.

Realistically, CoG will be at or slightly above sole level on a very stiff cruising boat, thus you need freeboard and a roof (or watertight mast) for stability at high angles. If you keep weight down, stability won't be affected much.

IMO Pizza wedge is a bad shape for such a boat as you don't want the bow to dig in thus you want lot of volume forward.

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

Come on.  It’s all pretty simple.

Vega 27.  Pull out the engine.  Replace with 3’x3’x3’ of LiFePo4 batteries for long-range electric motor propulsion, cabin heat, and smoking the Patagonian toothfish (“Chilean sea bass”, to those of you who frequent fancy, bourgeois restaurants) and local centolla, all of which you’ll be catching daily to supplement your monthly $200 budget.  Going electric with the smoker means only needing to carry a small bag of hickory chips for smoke flavour instead of needing to forage ashore frequently for gnarled soaking wet branches from small storm-racked bushes and then air-drying them in the cabin so that they’re burnable. .  

The huge battery bank will be installed low down in the boat, improving stability, meeting the original requirement of heavy displacement safer in storms.  The batteries will be frequently restored by the wind generator spun by the sudden rachas sweeping in from off the Argentinian pampas, and, after rounding the corner, frequent powerful, alpine-cold Chilean channel katabatic gusts.

Get a YouTube channel - keep all the comments to positive vibes, and money flows into your coffers from poor landlocked dreamers: good to go.

(There actually was a thread on boatdesign.net forum about the feasibility of an outboard motor for cruising in Antarctica. Good times!) https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/engine-for-antarctica.61029/page-5#post-859695

A32ACB12-7A4C-4446-9D31-A95BFF12C94B.jpeg

Interesting thread. Having looked at it I think I'll stick with an inboard diesel.

I might start a youtube channel. I'll certainly share my experiences in some form.

The thing with a solid fuel stove isn't that I could always get wood. I could buy fuel in some form as easily as diesel. Presumably remote communities are using open fires themselves so must I'd expect to find fuel more my heater. I would sometimes be able to just cut up some fallen branches. I'd be able to take advantage of times when I could. But I'm currently looking at options. Given that I'll have diesel I'm looking at diesel heaters too. Some have ovens but the ones I've found so far don't seem so suited to a Vega. If I could cook with the fuel I was burning anyway for heat that would be economical and could potentially save me having to carry gas bottles.

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

Interesting thread. Having looked at it I think I'll stick with an inboard diesel.

I might start a youtube channel. I'll certainly share my experiences in some form.

The thing with a solid fuel stove isn't that I could always get wood. I could buy fuel in some form as easily as diesel. Presumably remote communities are using open fires themselves so must I'd expect to find fuel more my heater. I would sometimes be able to just cut up some fallen branches. I'd be able to take advantage of times when I could. But I'm currently looking at options. Given that I'll have diesel I'm looking at diesel heaters too. Some have ovens but the ones I've found so far don't seem so suited to a Vega. If I could cook with the fuel I was burning anyway for heat that would be economical and could potentially save me having to carry gas bottles.

If you get a solid fuel stove you should also get a wooden boat.   That way if you run out of fuel you can start burning pieces of the boat.   Just be careful what pieces you burn first so you get to shore before you burn too much.

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

I see no reason why not. Look at this.

It doesn't have to be as big as that, or made out of wood. Just a metal chamber in the top of the chimney should work. If I'm going to have the chimney anyway why not try it? 

Fun thread! But seriously, smoking fish on the stack of your boats solid fuel stove would kill you short order.

It's tricky keeping a good draft going with such a short stack - as it is, throwing a bunch of wet fish in a box over it would be like putting a wet blanket over your charlie noble. 

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

 Caribbean to the Azores according to people who know it well and I bet you wouldn't react if I said I wanted to do that. 

We would react because that is the opposite way everyone else is going :lol:

Yeah, but if you are smoking fish and towing a log shed, a 2000nm beat into the tradewinds is just fine :) 

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

Fun thread! But seriously, smoking fish on the stack of your boats solid fuel stove would kill you short order.

It's tricky keeping a good draft going with such a short stack - as it is, throwing a bunch of wet fish in a box over it would be like putting a wet blanket over your charlie noble. 

What about if you got a steel box with a door on the front and put it directly above the heater and connected it with a shot section of chimney pipe and then had the chimney coming out of that box and up out of the boat? The box section would be wide enough that there'd be enough space for the air to flow even with something inside it. It would be too hot to be a very good smoker but it could maybe work as a sort of half smoker half oven and be good for adding a bit of smoky flavour to fish and meats.

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

..IMO Pizza wedge is a bad shape for such a boat as you don't want the bow to dig in thus you want lot of volume forward.

so... (damn, now were getting somewhere!)

image.png.15528798609e4b4e0da3c046737b7824.png

Link to post
Share on other sites