# Ok, NOW I'm asking about doing the ICW motorless



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

...


----------



## john1066 (Feb 4, 2006)

There are about 130 bridges on the ICW, some 85 of which are opening bridges. There is also a lock at Great Bridge.

It is impossible to sail the ICW, but I realize this will not deter you. You could possibly row or skull. Or you could hip tow with dinghy and outboard. But with sail as you're only means of propulsion I fear your effort would be doomed to failure.

Currents can be fast in some locations; there are areas where you can't deviate from the channel due to depth. There are sections that run between ranges and they switch back and forth in direction - you'll need some very accomodating wind shifts to help on those sections!

There will be Colregs issues that you'll need to check.

You'll be travelling at night because you wont be able to keep up the required speed to get you from one suitable anchorage to another in daylight hours. Take a good spotlight.

As I said - impossible. But don't let that deter you!


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

As i person who grew up spending summers at grandmas house in lower slower deleware in the Rehoboth Beach area which is a small sailboat /windsurfing meca we surely never had a motor 

In later life when i had the aparment on the Patchogue River we spent a good amount of time as in everyday after work doing motor free dingy sailing in and out of the river without issue 

When my wife wanted a bit more and we went to are first 18' keel boat and later are first J24 doing the same thing once in while you could do motor free but in general people cut us a LOT less slack as the boat size increased


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> Ok, NOW I'm asking about doing the ICW motorless
> 
> Help a nut out, will ya?


Dear Nutz: 

I am sure you can, but not with your current boat. If I have time, I think I can do it with a Capri 14.2 or a laser.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Once you do the ICW motorless, I would try to do the Northwest Passage Motorless. It has been done in a sailboat- now that is a real challenge.


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

Nice Dawg! I'm a catamaran guy, so I think I'd try it in a hobie cat. 

Chris, I don't think anyone here with practical experience of the icw has supported your idea of transiting the icw without a motor. It is simply impossible in a boat your size for a myriad of reasons. If you start at mile 0, you will not make it through the Great Bridge Lock at Mile 11, and I suspect you would give up long before you even made it there. 

Others have given practical suggestions like sailing to Bermuda and turning right. Or, if you want to visit the sounds in NC or some other specific area on the Eastern Seaboard, you should research that specific area and figure out how you might access it from the ocean. Because if you insist on going engineless, ocean sailing is your best bet. Or maybe you could just tool around the Chesapeake. Although, even in the Chesapeake there will be some nice places you will not be able to reach without a motor.

Good luck, 
Scott
Gemini Catamaran Split Decision


----------



## rayncyn51 (Aug 8, 2008)

Get an inexpensive PC based chart plotting software, download the free charts, and spend some hours planning your route. Tide and current information easily available on the web. There is enough information at Active Captain and Cruisersnet to give you a pretty realistic idea of where to anchor and what you can and cannot do on any given day at any given mile stick.

For your situation, off the top of my head, my concerns would be:

•	Making the multiple bridge schedules on the Elizabeth River against the current.
• Locking in and out of the Dismal Swamp. OK, I could do the eastern route, but I’d miss Elizabeth City.
• The ever-changing dogleg shoal entering the Alligator River.
• The Alligator River Bridge. I understand they won’t open until you are parked and waiting, and the current can be pretty swift. There have been a few boats – with engines - dismasted there. 
• Pungo Canal, straight, narrow, and full of old posts broken off at water level. Not a good place to meet an oncoming barge.
• Oriental, NC – bumping my 5’3” keel on the mud in a 6’ channel at mid tide. Saved by a quick turn and the Iron Wind.

OK, so that’s 20% of the trip. We’re nowhere near South Carolina with it’s rives that go east one minute and west the next, or Georgia, with it’s 9 foot tides and 5 knot currents. 

This is maybe not impossible, but it’s way, way harder than it has to be. And it exposes my boat and my crew to far more danger than is prudent for a good skipper to incur. 

My biggest fear, I think (And shoot me for straying from political correctness) would be that, by sailing a commercial waterway where it is not customary to do so, I would inadvertently challenge a local captain to take it upon himself to demonstrate to me the folly of my ways by purposely maneuvering me into a difficult situation. Chances are you'll be calling his cousin to tow you off. Life is hard enough without wearing a “Kick Me” sign on your back.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

If you make it post the "how to". We are curious how you will go upstream against a headwind in a narrow channel with no room to tack, and oncoming barges.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

rayncyn51 said:


> My biggest fear, I think (And shoot me for straying from political correctness) would be that, by sailing a commercial waterway where it is not customary to do so, I would inadvertently challenge a local captain to take it upon himself to demonstrate to me the folly of my ways by purposely maneuvering me into a difficult situation. Chances are you'll be calling his cousin to tow you off. Life is hard enough without wearing a "Kick Me" sign on your back.


I'm not sure anyone would purposefully screw soemone over like that, but they sure could do it unintentinally thinking you'd motor out of the way like 99.9999999% of the boats the guy has ever experienced.

Besides the areas you pointed out, I really can't see how the ICW from the NC line to at least as far as Winyah Bay could be sailed safely. I have family along the SC coast and have spent summers there since I was old enough to remember. Even if you could afford to wait until you got the ideal wind that would let you stay in a narrow straight channel, I don't think you could count on them long enough to get to the next anchorage. The section through Myrtle Beach is like the start, just a narrow ditch. The section below Georgetown is not much wider and it has some twists and turns before you reach Charleston.

The only semi reasonable way I could see to do a coastal trip motorless would be go out side at Norfolk and in at Charleston, and from there I don't really know what would be the next port that you could safely sail into (Savannah?) since I've never been there and haven't thought about such an (mis)-adventure. I mean there's a reason some of the earliest settlements in the country are along the Chesapeake and Charleston and that's because you could sail ship there without putting it in danger. Remember even Joshua Slocum was towed in a few times and we're way past the time that you'd be such a novelty/celebrity that tow boat captains would rush out to offer you a free tow to the local anchorage.

Anyway, I think the fact that in this day and age it would be nearly universally expected that a 30 something foot sailboat would be able to manuver on its own to comply with navigation requirements regardless of wind conditions. That being the case, I do think other boaters would be likely to inadvertently put you in dire straits. Consider being washed aground by a parade of passing trawlers while the sails flap listlessly for example.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

As I said in your other thread, there are many places where you could sail, it's the getting in and out of them that is the problem. Also, south of Ft Pierce, you're not just dealing with opening bridges, most are scheduled openings.


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

How about a list of areas where there is potential to sail in the intracostal? These are possibilities:
1. From Elizabeth City or Currituck Sound to the Alligator-Pungo Canal
2. From the Pungo River east of Belhaven to Adams Creek north of Beaufort, NC
(#3 -#11 with favorable current)
3. The Waccamaw River
4. Charleston Habor
5. The Vernon River
6. Coosaw Sound
7. Port Royal Sound
8. Calibougue Sound
9. Sounds at North & South sides of Cumberland Island
10. Tolomato River
11. Halifax River
12. Indian River (Titusville to Grant Farm Island) 
13. Indian River (Vero Beach to St. Lucie inlet) w/favorable current and caution at Ft. Pierce North Bridge & Inlet
14. Biscayne Bay, Card sounds, Barnes Sound & Bayside Key Largo to Channel 5 or Hawk's Channel to Key West
Take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## SailKing1 (Feb 20, 2002)

Go for it, post daily and let us know how it all works out.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I fail to see why so many folks with good intentions promote the sucess of a foolhardy concept.

If the draw bridges in the USA alow for people to sail through them it would make the USA pretty well unique in the world.

Basically no one any more allows sailing boats through movable bridges.

To the OP: Not only is your idea unsafe but I'll bet my bottom dollar its illegal.

If you do decide you are right and the world is aginst you please fly a large *red flag *because my boat is doing the ICW in the next year or 2 and I wanna know when the cuckoo bird flies.

With best intentions....

Mark


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

I think chris started this thread to just piss people off! LOL


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

LandLocked66c said:


> I think chris started this thread to just piss people off! LOL


I'm thinking Chris just likes to post when he should either be working on his boat or sleeping because he is tired from working on his boat. He's got a lot of work to do.


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

casey1999 said:


> I'm thinking Chris just likes to post when he should either be working on his boat or sleeping because he is tired from working on his boat. He's got a lot of work to do.


Nice! Chris get to work and do some sailing. The icw aint for you.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

The rules state that a sail boat cannot impede other vessels in a narrow fairway. One reason is that there isn't any way a sailboat can fight the stern suction of a larger power driven vessels.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Thanks for the list Capt. Force. I've been looking for that info.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

It should be noted that on #2 you'll be pretty much on all points of the compass (5 almost 90% turns).


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

And on 1 it will turn you right round baby. Like a record right round, right round.


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

I just did Oriental, NC to Norfolk. I would say it will be very very difficult to sail from mile zero in Norfolk through to the Ablemarle Sound. I sailed from oriental thru the Pamlico to Manteo then from Manteo thru the Ablemarle Sound to the ICW Virgina cut. motored after that. While all bridge tenders were nice, they were in a hurry, they made me come right up to bridge and wait for scheduled opening...no room for playing around with sails or sculling...., the brigde started down almost immediately. no room for error. I can tell you that i was nervous with every bridge. The Virginia cut is plenty deep, i never saw less than 8 ft but a few time i drifted out of the channel and it was getting shallow in hurry. the lock people were nice but they wanted me in that lock in short order. Its only a 1/4 mile from great bridge lock to great bridge dock/bridge. Could it be sailed, yes I am sure it could. Would I do it.....NO WAY! there is alot of barge traffic. But a small kicker on your alberg and you'll be fine. 5hp is all you need. I saw a small triton that has a 6hp that made it from Norfolk to Oriental and clamed to use less than 3 gallons per day. these same people said the used a british seagull to go thru the Cape Cod canal 

This is what snuck up on me in a very narrow section of virginia cut. and followed me right up to the locks...i was praying the engine did not die..but my A4 ran flawlessly! I did also stay in contact with the tug captain to find out his speed and let him know mine. I let him by at the locks.

I admire your willingness to engineless, and i believe it could be done...I just dont think I could do it.

Good luck. I highly recommend Manteo Waterfront Marina, excellent anchorage right in front and a great small town. I would do the ICW again had a great trip and sailed about 90 mile i estimate on my trip


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

CaptainForce said:


> How about a list of areas where there is potential to sail in the intracostal? These are possibilities:
> 1. From Elizabeth City or Currituck Sound to the Alligator-Pungo Canal
> 2. From the Pungo River east of Belhaven to Adams Creek north of Beaufort, NC
> (#3 -#11 with favorable current)
> ...


That's a pretty good start, but there are actually many more sections where sailing is possible, given conditions very much in your favor&#8230; However, the overwhelming percentage of sections you name are still only "sail-able" by a boat with auxiliary power, there's no other way to get to a place like Elizabeth City, for example, to begin with, without an engine&#8230;

Chris has committed himself to going around Hatteras, that's a given&#8230; His first likely stop could be the anchorage in the bight of Cape Lookout&#8230; From there, he could stage his entry into Beaufort Inlet on a favorable tide, and try to make it into Beaufort or Morehead City if conditions permitted it&#8230;

Next stop is likely Charleston, by far the best entrance along the SE coast to be entering under sail&#8230; But, there are two other possibilities&#8230;.

One could go back in at Wrightsville, and sail down the ditch to Southport&#8230; This would only work in a good breeze out of the N-E, but there is the obstacle presented by Snow's Cut over to the Cape Fear River&#8230; Very unlikely you could sail through there, I wouldn't want to try it, but I suppose you could scull through at slack tide or with a bit of flood&#8230; VERY tricky operation, however, little margin for error through there, with rock ledges on either side&#8230; IMHO, the far wiser option is to stay outside around Frying Pan, and on to Charleston&#8230;

But, in a good breeze out of the N-ESE, one might consider going back in at Winyah Bay, and down the ditch to Charleston Harbor&#8230; That's definitely do-able under sail - in absolutely perfect conditions, of course&#8230; Dealing with the Ben Sawyer bridge would be the big problem on that stretch, however&#8230; That bridge sees a ton of road traffic, its operation is highly restricted and generally quite unfavorable to vessel traffic, and I could easily picture those guys insisting on being towed thru by Sea-Tow, or similar&#8230; Also, it's a LONG way back up Winyah Bay to the point you'd pick up the ICW, by that time you'd be past Cape Romain, and well on your way to Charleston...

The main risk to sailing thru either of these two sections mentioned so far, would be that of encountering a tug and tow&#8230; The chances are quite good you'd have to deliberately run yourself aground outside the channel to ensure a safe passage. I dread encountering any big commercial traffic through there, even in a twin screw powerboat&#8230;

He'll be back outside again from Charleston, but could possibly go back in again at South Edisto River, and down inside to Hilton Head&#8230; Hardly see the point, however, as by the time you'd rejoined the ICW, you could be halfway to the Savannah River on the outside&#8230;

But, this part of the coast down to the Florida line represents the best chances to duck in and out, and possibly do some sailing on the ditch&#8230; Again, you'd need a breeze from the N thru E, and it's a real snakepath with the highest potential for going aground of any stretch of the trip, but it could be done&#8230; No way I'd try inside past Savannah and Thunderbolt, however - I'd go out at Calibogue, and back in at Sapelo, and down to St. Mary's from there&#8230; I rarely run through Georgia inside, and only do it when conditions outside force me back in, but I always enjoy the ride, it's some beautiful country, and ripe for exploration&#8230; But, given the tidal range and strength of the currents, it could certainly prove exasperating under sail alone&#8230;

From Fernandina south, the rest is gonna be all outside, and St. Augustine and Ft Pierce are the only inlets I'd care to sail into&#8230; Still, both would require extreme caution and ideal conditions&#8230;

I suppose it's possible to go in at Ponce Inlet, and down the Indian River to Ft. Pierce. Again, you'd need a lot of breeze out of the N-E to get you out into Mosquito Lagoon&#8230; I've done a lot of sailing on the Indian River, along the with sounds of NC it affords some of the nicest bits of sailing on the ICW... But this is where you'd start to encounter some real problems with bridges, especially at New Smyrna at the start, and the North Ft. Pierce bridge at the end&#8230; Both can have pretty strong currents running, loots of traffic, and limited room to maneuver&#8230; Not to mention, going in at Ponce Inlet for the first time, under sail alone, is not something I would recommend, so it looks like you're gonna do all of Florida outside&#8230; South of Ft. Pierce, there is absolutely no possibility of sailing in protected waters until you reach Biscayne Bay&#8230;

First things first, however&#8230; the biggest hurdle Chris will face is the leg out around Hatteras, it will likely be all downhill from there&#8230; He will have to choose his time of departure from the Bay VERY carefully, for placing yourself between the Stream and the Outer Banks in an a boat without an engine is an extremely risky proposition, indeed&#8230; A guy like Don Street would probably say it was insane, he would definitely opt for going east of the Stream&#8230; I've always gone right around Diamond Shoals with one foot on the beach, but that's always been in favourable conditions, and sometimes by taking advantage of the opportunity to motor down there in a calm before things started to deterioriate&#8230; without an engine, going around Hatteras in the fall will usually involve some beating into a SW-ly prior to a frontal passage, or riding the NW breeze down the beach on the heels of a front&#8230; But, it can be a VERY close call, you'd better be around Hatteras before the breeze moves around to the NE, or you will have placed yourself off one of the most treacherous lee shores on the planet&#8230;

That's one of the really nice things about engines, IMHO&#8230; Sometimes, they can give you just that little bit of a head start, that can wind up making all the difference&#8230; (grin)


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris,
If you decide to do the ICW on sail alone, I hope you also do away with your GPS, depth finder, electric nav lights, am/fm stereo, ipod, cell phones, smart phone, internet cam, ipad, tv, x box, playstation, cd and dvd's, internet connection, and laptops. 

I hope you do use a lead line, sextant, compass, whale oil lamps for nav lights, and interior lamps, a banjo for entertainment (for use only while heading south), and a baromerter (water filled) to predict weather. 

Let's go old style all the way.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> That's a pretty good start, but there are actually many more sections where sailing is possible, given conditions very much in your favor&#8230; However, the overwhelming percentage of sections you name are still only "sail-able" by a boat with auxiliary power, there's no other way to get to a place like Elizabeth City, for example, to begin with, without an engine&#8230;
> 
> Chris has committed himself to going around Hatteras, that's a given&#8230; His first likely stop could be the anchorage in the bight of Cape Lookout&#8230; From there, he could stage his entry into Beaufort Inlet on a favorable tide, and try to make it into Beaufort or Morehead City if conditions permitted it&#8230;
> 
> ...


Better load a case of aspirin on board Heron before departure because with all those worries, the Captain will have one big headache.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Chris...just curious....what experience sailing do you have in the ocean? Not that experience is everything, but Hatterass can be a tough ole gal. . I admire your will to sail all the time


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Chris...just curious....what experience sailing do you have in the ocean? Not that experience is everything, but Hatterass can be a tough ole gal. . I admire your will to sail all the time


Chris answered that already in post #45 located:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ostal-en-route-south-what-i-am-reading-6.html

"Well, to be fair I do have blue water experience, just not on sailing vessels. I grew up in FL on the water, and while I have no passage making experience I have spent plenty of time in the ocean on boats in all conditions, and as an avid surfer"


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Good stuff, and a good thread read - thanks to everyone contributing (obviously I can't respond to every post since we're three pages in at this point). I would add to what casey1999 posted above - in addition to growing up in and around the water in FL, I do also have the last decade + a couple of years of my Chesapeake Bay experience, so there you go experience wise. Maybe I should also add to that my sailing style has typically been to chase crappy weather, squalls and waves when at all possible. I don't know if that matters or not to this topic, but at least it might provide some insight as to how I like to sail and the kind of sailor I am/experiences I have had to date. I like to "practice" my sailing maneuvers, all the usual stuff - heaving to in order to practice creating "the slick" under different wind and wave conditions, sailing the anchor on and off, sailing in and out of the slip, throwing the Jim Buoy overboard when it's windy and sailing back to pick it up, stuff like that. I like to sail like I am surfing when it all possible. I am a novice boat builder to be sure, but I don't believe I am a novice on the tiller. Fwiw for the insight I guess.

Oh, and casey? We _do_ plan on ditching every bit of electronics and the like that we can. We do plan on using oil lamps, celestial nav, etc whenever and wherever possible.. 

Ok, anyway - it looks like the major issues and/or hurdles would be the locks, ornery bridge tenders, and sections of the route where it's too narrow to tack, and adverse currents. I am reasonable, and like I said earlier I am not trying to be hardcore or make a statement here. If it just cannot be done I am not one to force something for the sake of forcing it. I will say, I cannot help but come back to the question though - in all of the above situations, what _does_ actually happen when you lose your motor, for whatever reason, in the above listed situations.. ? Suppose you are heading into the lock, and a speck of dirt stops your diesel with that big barge behind you. What happens then, realistically? Same goes for the bridge tender who insists on hustling you through - are they really so aggressive that they would shut the bridge on top of you? Would you be completely shunned and disregarded by the lock and bridge tenders if you radioed them ahead of time to let them know you are a sail only vessel? I ask these questions not to be difficult at all, but I am genuinely wondering after reading all this. I clearly have not done the ICW, and the more I get into this topic, the more it appears that if you lose your motor at certain points along the way, you are in a _very_ dangerous situation. Much more so than is typically noted in books, cruising guides, etc.

Let me also ask - let's say I do decide on a small o/b on a bracket, what is the smallest hp I could get away with to use in the above mentioned situations that can be encountered along the ICW? The bare minimum in your opinions would be... ?


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Hi Chris,
I did some poking around Sailboat Data to get the specs of your boat, and applied that info the the Boat Diesel calculator page. It infers that it would take 5 hp to move your boat, and 16 hp to chug it along at hullspeed (6 kts).
Btw, I don't know anything so don't take this as Gospel.
Looking forward to see how you get on. Good luck.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

4 hp moved the cal 29 (8000#) at 4.5 knots in flat clam water 16 miles when i rescued it

We have to carry two anchors in A CAT A race under the rules


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

chrisncate said:


> Ok, anyway - it looks like the major issues and/or hurdles would be the locks, ornery bridge tenders, and sections of the route where it's too narrow to tack, and adverse currents. I am reasonable, and like I said earlier I am not trying to be hardcore or make a statement here. If it just cannot be done I am not one to force something for the sake of forcing it. I will say, I cannot help but come back to the question though - in all of the above situations, what _does_ actually happen when you lose your motor, for whatever reason, in the above listed situations.. ? Suppose you are heading into the lock, and a speck of dirt stops your diesel with that big barge behind you. What happens then, realistically? Same goes for the bridge tender who insists on hustling you through - are they really so aggressive that they would shut the bridge on top of you? Would you be completely shunned and disregarded by the lock and bridge tenders if you radioed them ahead of time to let them know you are a sail only vessel? I ask these questions not to be difficult at all, but I am genuinely wondering after reading all this. I clearly have not done the ICW, and the more I get into this topic, the more it appears that if you lose your motor at certain points along the way, you are in a _very_ dangerous situation. Much more so than is typically noted in books, cruising guides, etc.


You should sign up with a towing service: Tow Boat US or SeaTow. It will be very expensive to get a tow otherwise. You should also be fairly familiar with your engine and carry spare parts so that you can fix it yourself, should there be a problem.

I did lose my engine once right AFTER passing through a bridge in the Virginia Cut. I got in my dinghy and pushed my boat out of the channel, where I anchored. In my case, the carb just needed a good cleaning. While I was cleaning the carb, I heard the bridge tender over the radio instructing other boaters NOT to stop and assist me, but to keep moving through the cut to the next bridge.

Good luck,
Scott
Gemini Catamaran Split Decision


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> .................. I will say, I cannot help but come back to the question though - in all of the above situations, what _does_ actually happen when you lose your motor, for whatever reason, in the above listed situations.. ? Suppose you are heading into the lock, and a speck of dirt stops your diesel with that big barge behind you. What happens then, realistically? Same goes for the bridge tender who insists on hustling you through - are they really so aggressive that they would shut the bridge on top of you? Would you be completely shunned and disregarded by the lock and bridge tenders if you radioed them ahead of time to let them know you are a sail only vessel?......................


Since we've been cruising and using sections of the ICW since 1971 we have had such experiences. I have called ahead to a bridge that I was tacking toward and spoke to them about my engine failure. As I shared with them information about which future tack would bring me through their spans they timed an opening for me that was no more time consuming than a regular opening with me under power. I would not have attempted or expected the opening if I were sculling or not making good headway. On two ocassions we lost power in the ICW and put up sails for a short time to gain a favorable position for anchoring, but still in the ICW channel. While I changed an impellor or belt my wife kept to the radio where she was giving securite calls to approaching vessels and telling them that we were temporarily disabled in the channel,- no problems. I have never had the event occur where I lost power while being approached by large commercial traffic, but I know my response if that were to occur. I would immediately use the inertia of my headway to steer off the channel and likely aground. Except for the "rock pile" at the cut by Myrtle Beach and three or four other brief locations all the banks of the ICW are mud or sand. Take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> ........what is the smallest hp I could get away with to use in the above mentioned situations that can be encountered along the ICW? The bare minimum in your opinions would be... ?


You should probably define what bare minimum actually means to you. To me, it would mean the minimum to get the boat to hull speed, so that I had the best opportunity to fight an oncoming current or manage an emergency.

The bare minimum to maintain steerage could literally have you in negative SOG in a strong oncoming current. Even only being able to maintain 1kt forward speed can make the passage difficult for others around you. I'm not aware of any minimum speed requirements in the ICW, but some waterways do have them.

As another random thought, should you have a motor, it would be best served to run somewhat routinely to keep out moisture, lube seals, etc. Without any authority, I'm going to say that once per week to full operating temperature would do it. With limited use and therefore marginal fuel usage, I don't see any reason to skimp on the motor, other than its initial cost, I suppose.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> If it just cannot be done I am not one to force something for the sake of forcing it.
> 
> Let me also ask - let's say I do decide on a small o/b on a bracket, what is the smallest hp I could get away with


You really need to ring one of the bridges and one of the locks. Not that I know the USA at all (isn't it a small country near Mexico, populated by Canadians?) but in any other country I've sailed in (ok thats only a few as I have only done 1 circumnavigation) its agaist the law to sail into locks etc. So they would stop you, arrest you, smack your bum, confiscate your boat or whatever.

And many have minimum speeds to transit a canal so you dont block them big barges in that cool photo above.

Now if thats the rest of the world, and you are in the USA - arguable the most law filled country on EARTH - *don't cha think theres gunna be some regulations that a quick phone call is going to sort out for you*?

Then when they say you must be able to go at 5 knots or 4, or whatever then you can buy one of those hated outboards thats going to push your boat at the required speed.
in the Panama Canal if you lied or your boat broke down they would force you to use one of _their_ tugs to tow you through. Price over $2,000 and thats after the $1,000 canal fee anyway. So in good old Swampville Inner Carolina the bridge dude (You're not from 'round here are ya stranger??) may only allow you to get a tow from his brother's tug: Billy-Joe-Bob's Red Neck Pullers.

It would just be such a waste to have your boat impounded (or blocked between 2 bridges) and have to race around buying an outboard quickly instead of gettiong one in the fullness of time at a discount because you are not pressed to purchase.

:laugher

I enjoyed that 

Mark


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> .................... Not that I know the USA at all................. but in any other country I've sailed in............and you are in the USA - arguable the most law filled country on EARTH ...........Then when they say you must be able to go at 5 knots or 4, or whatever ......... So in good old Swampville Inner Carolina the bridge dude (You're not from 'round here are ya stranger??) may only allow you to get a tow from his brother's tug: Billy-Joe-Bob's Red Neck Pullers................I enjoyed that
> Mark


I think that you had best stopped with the comment that you do not know the USA at all before offending all of us and particularly those in the Carolinas. We are free to sail slowly in the ICW though you will be politely advised of policies for transiting locks and bridges. Take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris,
I would be the first to get rid of my diesel if I could still do all the things I do now under sail only. Even if I wait for proper wind or tide at times that would not work. For example during the Tsunami that just hit Japan and Hawaii I had 1 hour to get my boat out of the slip and 5 miles off shore before the wave hit (and this was at 2am). The wind was not favorable to sail out of the harbor. I was contimplating the best thing to do, risk being tied in the harbor and get sunk or damaged or risk my engine failing trying to get out of the harbor. In the end I went with getting out of the harbor and everthing went ok. When I got back to the harbor, half of all the floating dock slips were gone. No boats at my harbor sunk, but in Honolulu over 200 were sunk or damaged because they did not leave the pier. Also, because of the sea state off shore, and outboard would not work for me, it would get swamped and stall. I have considered and outboard (a lot cheaper than an inboard diesel) but I think it is even more unreliable. Outboards are spark ignited and salt wate can short them, a diesel could actually run under water (with a snorkel for air).

Probably in the next 10 years batteries will be advanced enough along with solar panels that I will get rid of the diesel and install an all electric system. Here in Hawaii my house is completely solar powered (solar hot water and a 2 kw photovoltic system) and this is for 4 people. My utility bills (except for water at $100/year) are 0.

So on the engine (30 year old Yanmar 3gmd) I have gone through it and replaced all wear items and starter and lift pump. I will carry spares on all wear items and a spare starter, water pump, lift pump, hoses, belts, filters, and I have a repair manual. I think I could fix anything even at sea except for major internal damage. I have many tools on board for the job and enough junk to maybe jury rig somthing if I had to. So with that I feel somewhat confident of the engine, however I try not to put myself in a situation where if the engine fails, I put the boat, crew, or someone else's property of safety in danger (I can always sail away from hazard or drop anchor and fix the engine.

Your engine looks a lot better than mine (mine is covered with rust- a future job to take care of) and definetly hold on to it along with all it's systems- go try to price a similar new Yanmar and you will be shocked at the cost.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris, here is the answer from your hero Yves Gélinas and his Alberg 30

Re-powering Jean-du-Sud

Before he set out around the world, Yves Gélinas took the engine out of his Alberg 30 Jean-du-Sud. When time came to re-power his boat after coming back home, the designer of the Cape Horn Integrated Self-Steering System adopted an original solution.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris,
Thinking about all this what it comes down to is Risk Management. Risk Management is what the pros do from NASA, the Navy, Boeing, Coast Guard and even Water Rescue on public beaches on Oahu (they use jet skis (internal combustion engine) to rescue people in surf faces up to 70 feet- the engine must be reliable. 

If you feel more safe without an engine, go for it. But then as a part of Risk Management you must consider that choice with where you can now safely go. If you choose and engine, then you must reduce the risk it will break down- that is done through constant inspection of systems and replacement of parts and inspecting the fuel as needed, and knowledge of how to fix a broken down engine. This may be why so many pleasure boat engines fail as opposed to commercial operators. Many pleasure boaters no little about how to keep a diesel engine running reliably (I guess that is what sailnet is for) Look at all the charter companies around the world. You know the charter sailors are probably, for the most part, not the best sailors in the world and they are using the engine to get into and out of slip and to anchor and probably motoring when they do not want to take time to hoist sails- yet these boats do not get wrecked very often for engine failure because the engines are maintained. If they did wreck and damage things the companies could not stay in business.

I lived in Baltimore and my wife took night classes downtown. I always worried her car would break down in a bad section of town (where the school was located) late at night (same sections of town I am sure you drive). So what I did was inspected her car weekly, got her a cell phone to call for help in case it did break down and got her some pepper spray. The car never broke down but again it is all about Risk Management.

A lot of people have commented on this post that they use and like their engines- and their boats have never gotten damaged because of engine failure- it is because of good Risk Management.

You need to develop a Risk Management plan as to how you will sail and where you will go safely. There are times where a diesel engine ads to the safety of a Risk Management plan- look at the coast guard- all there rescue boats are diesel powered (or maybe turbine JP5).


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Skulling seems the way to go, unless you can work out a set of giant oars. Problems....don't worry. Who needs a stinky engine? They are overrated.

From a guy who managed, inspite of a fine working diesel, to have problems docking in a crosswind last time out. Didn't bounce off other people's boats, but I'm sure they wouldn't have minded.

Sorry, but sailing today on a boat the size of yours without an engine seems silly. Not optimum, but a 10-15 hp outboard is not really that expensive. My guess is that it would solve many more headaches than it creates.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

NCC320 said:


> Skulling seems the way to go, unless you can work out a set of giant oars. Problems....don't worry. Who needs a stinky engine? They are overrated.
> 
> From a guy who managed, inspite of a fine working diesel, to have problems docking in a crosswind last time out. Didn't bounce off other people's boats, but I'm sure they wouldn't have minded.
> 
> Sorry, but sailing today on a boat the size of yours without an engine seems silly. Not optimum, but a 10-15 hp outboard is not really that expensive. My guess is that it would solve many more headaches than it creates.


Or maybe trade it in for a Contessa 26. Might be easier to row and it is a circumnavigator.

1976 JJ Taylor Contessa 26 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

You could not install the engine of the above boat (sell for $3000) and then out of pocket for boat is $6000- I might even consider that.

Does anyone know what Tania Aebi used the long oar she had strapped on the deck of her Contessa 26 as she came in to NY after her once around? I have not had a chance to read her book.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

CaptainForce said:


> I think that you had best stopped with the comment that you do not know the USA at all before offending all of us.....


A little harsh as it may have been and technically inaccurate in parts, I think Mark's larger observations or warnings were spot on. You don't want to learn that no motor is a problem enroute and you don't want to be subject to the mercy of the locals when you do.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

> =casey1999;723033
> 
> Does anyone know what Tania Aebi used the long oar she had strapped on the deck of her Contessa 26 as she came in to NY after her once around? I have not had a chance to read her book.


Tania had an engine in VARUNA, both the Panama and Suez canals would have been a bit problematic without one...

I believe she was plagued with mechanical problems with it, however, not sure if it was still running by the time she returned to NY...


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

casey1999 said:


> Or maybe trade it in for a Contessa 26. Might be easier to row and it is a circumnavigator.
> 
> 1976 JJ Taylor Contessa 26 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com


I was thinking some kind of trailer sailor would be the most likely boat to make it engine-less through the icw. You could just take the mast down and wave to the bridge tender as you rowed under the bridge.

You wouldn't have all that lead weight in the keel to haul around while rowing, and you could just raise the centerboard when you ran aground. And you'd have a little cabin where you could at least get out of the weather when it rained.

It would still be interesting going through locks, but I think you might be allowed through. Maybe tie up to a yacht and try to convince the lock keeper that your boat is the big boat's dinghy.

Scott
Gemini Catamaran Split Decision


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> Tania had an engine in VARUNA, both the Panama and Suez canals would have been a bit problematic without one...
> 
> I believe she was plagued with mechanical problems with it, however, not sure if it was still running by the time she returned to NY...


Yes concerning the engine problems she had. I read an article she wrote and she said she had an engine manual on board and kept reading it until she understood it. I am not sure if the engine was running or not at end of trip.


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> A little harsh as it may have been and technically inaccurate in parts, I think Mark's larger observations or warnings were spot on. You don't want to learn that no motor is a problem enroute and you don't want to be subject to the mercy of the locals when you do.


 I agree that his "larger" observations were spot on except for the belief that there is a minimal speed limit. I was just disturbed by the "small-minded" ones. Laughing emoticons doesn't excuse bigotry.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

ChrisnCate,
Are you two ok? Coming up on 24 hours and no post form you. I hope you have a chance over the weekend to make a post. 

Maybe you have been working on the boat and or sleeping. Or Maybe re-installing that diesel. Hey you can always run bio fuel in her if you want to eliminate the hydro carbon use. 

Have a good weekend and stay safe.
Aloha


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

Unless you are Paul Cayard, and know your vewssel to the extremes. Motorless will be a dangerous move on the ICW*...........i2f*


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Let's just assume for a minute that it is possible. My question would be, why bother? 

Why go through the trouble of removing the engine, then attempt to travel on the busiest boat highway in the country. The amount of effort, stress and anxiety that you'd experience and the potential calamities that you'd have to avoid would far outweigh any benefit imho. 

You have a blue water boat..I'd head for blue water.

I transit two bridges to get in and out of my slip with swift currents. My engine stalled in the Rock lined inlet once in all the years, I've been doing it. 

The wind was perfect , I was able to quickly unfurl the genoa and sail through both bridges..( rare that they're both up at the same time) and I managed to sail into my slip.. 

All the stars and planets aligned for me on that day.. the potential for disaster was enormous...The conditions that allowed me to sail into my slip might happen once in a blue moon. ( east wind, both bridges open) 

I think you'd need to be that lucky every-day...all day long... to pull off that trip..or spend a lot of time at anchor waiting for the right wind and current.

Good luck, with whatever you decide.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 16, 2006)

Pay up your towing insurance before you go. If it were me I would just sink the boat now and take a bus.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

I believe that many of the bascule, etc. bridges along the AICW require the use of 'engine driven' vessels and prohibit sailing through 'engineless'. Many of these bridges are on strict opening (and closing time limits once opened) schedules ... such as on the hour or every 30 minutes - 'exactly'. If you are permitted to sail through you will not be very 'popular' as you interfere with sometimes LOTS of boats that are 'in line' and patiently waiting to pass through. 

I sometimes sail through many, but my engine is usually 'idling', just in case.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

badsanta said:


> Pay up your towing insurance before you go. If it were me I would just sink the boat now and take a bus.


Thanks for the tip Captain Piddlemarks.

*Tempest wrote:*


> Let's just assume for a minute that it is possible. My question would be, why bother?


Why? Because I might like to try it perhaps.

Everyone has a different take on what they find enjoyment out of. Within the sailing realm, I happen to find enjoyment out of challenging sailing situations that force me to exercise seamanship. The last thing on the water that I personally find pleasure in is unrolling a roller furled sail from the cockpit, setting the auto pilot, and kicking back with a beer as I do absolutely nothing while the scenery passes by. I understand that most find the ultimate enjoyment out of the aforementioned, and I can even understand why they do, but I personally do not.

The more I discuss going motorless (I'm speaking in general now, not just about the ICW thing), both here and "in the real world" with everyone, the more I realize how few people venture outside of the accepted sailing norm.

Tell me I at least _recognize_ what's "normal" sailing doctrine so I know I am not completely insane (yet)....:

1- You really ought to have a furler, they are easier and more convenient - and don't forget safer. Being on deck on a sailing vessel can be very dangerous. Best to lead all lines aft and stay in the cockpit for safety and convenience sake.
2- Propane, regardless of it's dangers of explosion and complicated system installation requirements, is the most accepted cooking fuel and really the only smart option. Plus, It boils a quart of water 3 minutes faster than non pressurized alcohol, which of course makes it the far better choice. 
3- You really ought to navigate with as many complicated, installed electronics as possible. Sight a channel, a nun or can visually? How safe is _that_.. not very. The computer is a much better navigator than you will ever be.
4- A real sailboat always has a motor. Only the naive novice would consider giving up this valuable piece of safety equipment. "Sail only" vessels are better left to boats under 15' loa. Anything bigger might get away from you and you might get hurt, or worse yet - hurt someone else. A motor guarantees this will not happen to you, as motors are excellent substitutes for seamanship and sailing ability. Plus, they always work.

Why can't I just be normal and sail a damn boat on weekends and be happy like everyone else... why...:laugher


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> ...........
> 1- .....have a furler
> 2- .....Propane
> 3- .....electronics
> ...


I just don't see the conflict. Sure, I have a motor, electronics, propane and a furler, but I'm not threatened by someone who does not. I don't recommend the ICW without an engine, but I see areas where it's possible,-maybe 25% of the route if one is patient. No wise mariner is out on the ICW telling people that they are going to slow. I probably open 100 bridges in a calendar year and pass by 50 barges. I don't see much confusion, conflict or risk from slow or under-powered vessels; if anything, it's those with the big horsepower that are the risky ones, but they are not a problem as a rule. Take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

CaptainForce said:


> I just don't see the conflict. Sure, I have a motor, electronics, propane and a furler, but I'm not threatened by someone who does not. I don't recommend the ICW without an engine, but I see areas where it's possible,-maybe 25% of the route if one is patient. No wise mariner is out on the ICW telling people that they are going to slow. I probably open 100 bridges in a calendar year and pass by 50 barges. I don't see much confusion, conflict or risk from slow or under-powered vessels; if anything, it's those with the big horsepower that are the risky ones, but they are not a problem as a rule. Take care and joy, Aythya crew


I can recognize pretty well those who are threatened from those who are not, by the "purist" (or _whatever_ label I am assigned this week).

I do know that you personally are not threatened by others goals and sailing beliefs, and that you have always been one of the more open minded posters I have read on the forums over the years. And I am grateful for that.

To note, my personal view is "do what works for you". If you like furlers, propane, etc - I say go for it. But you must see, the same as I do, that the sailor who decides to step _outside of those norms_ typically is the ostracized one, not the other way around. Correct?


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Candc, it's not your choice to go engineless that is causing the some of the responses you get, some of mine included- it is your attitude about it.

Look, if you want to go against the grain, great- I admire true individuals and characters. But part and parcel of being different is that you are gonna get some flack. If you cannot handle the flack you get, then the problem isn't everybody else- it's you. It's like the Great Goth Conundrum- "I don't want to look like everybody else... hey, what are you lookin' at?!"

When you ask for advice, you are sometimes going to get advice you don't want to hear, or don't like- that doesn't mean it's wrong, and if you aren't prepared to hear from viewpoints opposed to your own, why are you asking for advice anyway?


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

bljones said:


> Candc, it's not your choice to go engineless that is causing the some of the responses you get, some of mine included- it is your attitude about it.
> 
> Look, if you want to go against the grain, great- I admire true individuals and characters. But part and parcel of being different is that you are gonna get some flack. If you cannot handle the flack you get, then the problem isn't everybody else- it's you. It's like the Great Goth Conundrum- "I don't want to look like everybody else... hey, what are you lookin' at?!"
> 
> When you ask for advice, you are sometimes going to get advice you don't want to hear, or don't like- that doesn't mean it's wrong, and if you aren't prepared to hear from viewpoints opposed to your own, why are you asking for advice anyway?


Na, not at all BJ, you have it totally incorrect, my attitude is fine. You cannot locate one instance where I get snippy or pissy first with another poster. I just don't do that to people. When I am "giving grief", it's in response.

Since you want to talk about it, here is how I see it: More than a few posters who fancy themselves quite knowledgeable seem to take contrary sailing ideologies as a personal attack on what _they_ believe in, sailing wise. And that is a personality flaw that is on _them_, not me - because it's not accurate.

What I mean is, it often appears that if a poster says something like "I don't like furlers", that many posters read that as "I don't like furlers and I think you're wrong for having one". And again, that's _their_ hangup, not mine. Take you for example, you are still holding on to the "allegedly frightened" thing from how long ago? _Who_ has the _real_ attitude BJ? come on now, be honest for petes sakes...

I love the insight I get here, whether or not I agree. It's a fun place to post with lots of interesting people (and a few A holes). A bit tight in the anal region occasionally, but a fun forum nonetheless.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> More than a few posters who fancy themselves quite knowledgeable seem to take contrary sailing ideologies as a personal attack on what _they_ believe in, sailing wise. .


Or are you just too lazy, or gutless, to make a quick phone call and find out the legalities?

I just think you are grandstanding.

If you ever go do it drop me a line (as in complete it). I would be interested to hear how you go.

Mark <---- my bits about me 'go's' are on my website


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> *Or are you just too lazy, or gutless*, to make a quick phone call and find out the legalities?
> 
> I just think you are grandstanding.
> 
> ...


See BJ? It's _this_ ^ kind of personally directed garbage I respond _back_ at, not hand out first. Would _you_ not respond to morons like this in kind BJ? I believe you would, no doubt.


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Or are you just too lazy, or gutless, to make a quick phone call and find out the legalities?


Give it up,- these laws you refer to just don't exist! It is perfectly legal to sail in the ICW. There is no minimum speed required in the ICW. Although, there are bridges in some states that will not permit sailing through their spans, this is not a uniform code.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

CaptainForce said:


> Give it up,- these laws you refer to just don't exist! It is perfectly legal to sail in the ICW. There is no minimum speed required in the ICW. Although, there are bridges in some states that will not permit sailing through their spans, this is not a uniform code.


Na, I'm just lazy and gutless CF...

I should have simply called the ICW up and asked it. Mark had the simple answer all along. Just make a quick call...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

chrisncate said:


> I love the insight I get here, whether or not I agree. It's a fun place to post with lots of interesting people (*and a few A holes*). *A bit tight in the anal region occasionally*, but a fun forum nonetheless.


Priceless...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Cnc, are you sure that gaining a tad of notoriety for the motorless effort isn't part of the attraction? That doesn't make it bad or wrong. People that climb Everest are often attracted partly to the attention they will get during the attempt and success. They also take an enormous amount of snipes for risking their lives, etc, just as you are. I'm thinking you could have posted some of these discussions as generic questions, rather than claiming the effort yourself and declaring that you were taking the motor out of your boat. Again, nothing wrong with it, but it does draw attention and attention comes in two forms: for and against.

By the way, the guy that I know that successfully climbed Everest, would never ever do it again. There might be a lesson in there.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Why can't I just be normal and sail a damn boat on weekends and be happy like everyone else... why...
__________________


There's no normal here. There are as many types of sailors as there are sailboats on this forum. I use CNG for cooking, not propane, I never drink alcohol when I'm underway, but I do enjoy doing nothing and watching the scenery go by.. . .;-)

Traveling the ICW is more piloting than navigation ....Captain Force has been living aboard and running the ICW since 1971, If I read his post correctly He suggests that 25% of it is sailable and that some states won't allow you to sail through their span. I've only done the trip once, but that sounds about right.

So I'm wondering what your plan would be for the other 75%. 

The ICW is not a sailing challenge nor a navigational challenge, it's a piloting and logistical challenge. Without an engine..the challenges become magnified exponentially. This is not a criticism of your choice to go engineless, I have no opinion on that either way. Other than, why not head for blue water, where your choice to go engineless, makes a little more sense; rather than insert yourself into a situation where you may sit at anchor for many hours at a time waiting for wind, and when you get it will have to tack back and forth in a channel that could be less than 50 feet wide in front of an armada of motor boats looking to move north or south. I'm not seeing the happiness in that.
Not everyone travelling the ICW will be as nice as Captain Force. 

I do think you will need to think through many different variables and have a reasonble plan to deploy, if the two of you do attempt this. 

How will you enter and leave a lock, hold yourself against a current waiting for a bridge and then get underway quickly enough to make its' opening in light winds, no wind, or opposing wind? 

Some challenges are worthy of the amount of energy and risk it takes to achieve them. I think many of us, are not seeing the upside here. 
I realize that probably makes you want to do this even more...lol

Now, a kayak and a tent might be fun..hmmm ;-)


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

I have done from Jax to Ft. Lauderdale several times, and believe me some advice is spot on. How will you hold against a 4 knot down current, and be exactly on time for some timed bridges? What will you do with the aggressive large, sometimes huge power boats wanting the same space in the bridge? Just north of Titusville there is a bridge surrounded by trees, and blocking all wind, what will you do with current there? If you want to go engineless take the outside. You will be much safer, and besides a good sailor won't mind being outside. You can actually sail. I believe the 25% sailing area is about right.........*i2f*


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

I'm sure the ICW is cool and all, but overall it sounds monotonous and boring if you have to motor the "whole" thing? I'd prefer the blue water adventure to the ICW, so long as the sea's aren't ridiculous. That's when the ICW looks much better!


----------



## badsanta (Oct 16, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> Thanks for the tip Captain Piddlemarks.
> 
> I was trying to be funny, not an insult. I did the ICW in a sailboat and only sailed the Chesapeake bay. I did not feel comfortable or have the skill to sail any of the rest south. Depending on the tides I would be doing 7-8 knots then cross a small inlet and the current reverses and then I am doing 1.5 at full throttle, if I was sailing I could only imagine the problems. Going with out an engine is fine, But I would really reconcider the ICW.


----------



## RXBOT (Sep 7, 2007)

The poster can do whatever he wants to do as long as he carries 3 million $'s in liability insurance.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

CnC

Have you actually tried skulling or rowing your boat? How far, in what kind of wind or current? 

How much experience do you have docking, undocking, moving about in crowded harbors, down narrow fairways, in current, and in adverse winds in your own home port area without an engine?

You've attracted lots of comments from people who say they have actually traveled the ICW, some many times over. What is the ratio of those who say you need an engine or you will have problems vs. those who say do it without an engine?

Will you even make the ICW trip with or without engine? 

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you've made some rather nasty replies to some of those who feel just as passionate about needing an engine as you are idealistic about not using an engine. 

Also, maybe I missed it, but in the two threads, I don't recall exactly why you don't want an engine. I believe that your boat, and it's sister ships routinely came with engines. 

I, for one, would be very interested in your response to the above and it would bring your situation into clearer focus. Thanks.


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

To me doing the ICW motorless is inconsiderate to your fellow boaters. There are parts that can be sailed but for the most part it's a ditch and unsailable. Because it's a restricted waterway sailbaots do not have the right of way.
Sailboats are not loved anyway and a motorless sailboat will only further the dislike.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Cnc, are you sure that gaining a tad of notoriety for the motorless effort isn't part of the attraction? That doesn't make it bad or wrong. People that climb Everest are often attracted partly to the attention they will get during the attempt and success. They also take an enormous amount of snipes for risking their lives, etc, just as you are. I'm thinking you could have posted some of these discussions as generic questions, rather than claiming the effort yourself and declaring that you were taking the motor out of your boat. Again, nothing wrong with it, but it does draw attention and attention comes in two forms: for and against.
> 
> By the way, the guy that I know that successfully climbed Everest, would never ever do it again. There might be a lesson in there.


Meh, things evolve. I didn't start out this way (just putting it out there, regardless of the flack generated), at first I did just what you suggest - over the past year I have posted lots of fairly benign generic questions, and took a lot more stock in what others had to say about various matters - which sadly, when posing questions outside of the status quo usually resulted in what I mentioned earlier - the "pound down the nail that sticks up" syndrome so often encountered when benignly asking about things outside of the sailing "norm" around here.

What sort of "built the confidence up" so to speak was the various realizations since that time acquired along the way (many of those in real life, many of those here). Mostly advice given out freely that didn't/doesn't really pertain to our situation or how we plan to sail, by folks regarding the various projects on Heron we have done to date. I began to realize that had I listened to a lot of what I was told I _should_ do so far, things would not have turned out as desired, and as they have. It's not to say everyone is full of it, as a lot of folks, both here and in real life have given some great tips, help and insight, but a lot of people have decided they are experts on motorless sailing when it's not at all what they do themselves. Again, I cannot stress enough that a boat with a motor in distress is NOT the same as a dedicated sail only vessel. It just isn't. I take the good advice, help and insight given, and I question the rest. That's pretty normal, right?

A good example of this btw, are some of the comments people hand out freely regarding composting heads _when they have never even seen one in real life, and certainly never used one. _ Good advice imo, is advice given from experience - not regurgitating the status quo for regurgitation's sake. As we progress I find this more and more prevalent regarding motorless sailing. There are many experts on the subject who have never done it themselves, except when the engine conks out for some reason. Like I said, a sailboat with a motor in distress is not the same as a dedicated sail only vessel - in sail plan, equipment, and handling. The differences are many in fact.

Notoriety- I do see the notoriety building up somewhat, like you mentioned. I am just taking that aspect as it comes. I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I don't hold a negative view towards others who choose the things I do not. Like I said in an earlier post - I say do what you like, whatever works for you. How can I not get noticed with what we are doing? If people want to question my motives, I say feel free. Like me or not, I think it's obvious that we are sincere in what we are doing and our sailing philosophy.

Lastly, to the argument you are making regarding where lessons might be learned - sailing a 5 ton displacement with a narrow beam and a cutaway full keel motorless is hardly akin to climbing Everest. Yes, perhaps considering the ICW without a motor may be an "extreme" challenge in certain areas of the ditch, however having sails ready to be hoisted, oars ready to row, and/or a quick stern anchor ready to be deployed in a pinch can stop most situations from becoming disasters. Add to that a pinch of patience (aka being willing to wait for current changes, tide changes, etc) and I think the disaster factor goes down dramatically.

What I don't think people are seeing in this thread is that I was simply _asking_ about what the specific "hardship" points of trying the ICW motorless would be. Nowhere did I proclaim that we were going to give it a go. I'd think about it, I'd consider doing "some outside, some inside", and heck - we are still even considering a small o/b on a bracket if/when we even _do_ decide to go down the ICW.

Anyway, fwiw, happy Easter everyone..


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

> Have you actually tried skulling or rowing your boat? How far, in what kind of wind or current?


Yes, in the Bay and on the Magothy in various (typical) conditions. I have never had a proper sculling oar though, I look forward to building one.



> How much experience do you have docking, undocking, moving about in crowded harbors, down narrow fairways, in current, and in adverse winds in your own home port area without an engine?


A fair amount imo, motorless has pretty much always been our default for docking, departing, setting the hook, etc. It's something we have (mostly) always done even with the motor available.



> You've attracted lots of comments from people who say they have actually traveled the ICW, some many times over. What is the ratio of those who say you need an engine or you will have problems vs. those who say do it without an engine?


I don't know, high. Most.



> Will you even make the ICW trip with or without engine?


Don't know, we might. It's definitely a possibility.



> I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you've made some rather nasty replies to some of those who feel just as passionate about needing an engine as you are idealistic about not using an engine.


I give nastiness back to those who give it me first. Find me an example where I get nasty with someone without being insulted in some way first, and I will happily apologize.



> Also, maybe I missed it, but in the two threads, I don't recall exactly why you don't want an engine. I believe that your boat, and it's sister ships routinely came with engines.
> 
> I, for one, would be very interested in your response to the above and it would bring your situation into clearer focus. Thanks.


We don't want an engine because:

1- We are very interested in the challenge and satisfaction gained of sailing a "sail only" vessel to the many places we wish to visit. For us, the journey is as important, and as fun, as the destination. People sailed for thousands of years without motors, and now it's a huge stigma to do so. We just want to try it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. It's something that fascinates both of us very much though. We have to give it a go so we know for sure.

2- This will be our home, and as such a small vessel - we just don't have the room for, or want, a big stinking motor in our living room.

4- Cost, simplicity. The percentage of costs associated with this one system is huge part of the cruising budget. The simpler the boat, the less time spent working on it/working for it. We ultimately want to sail off to far flung locales, we don't want to spend a lot of time on systems we don't want to begin with.

3- This will generate heat I'm sure, but we want to be environmentally low impact, as much so as we can possibly be. We are trying to minimize as much as possible, our toxic footprint on this planet. At the end of the day our only direct fossil fuel consumption (hopefully anyway) will be the lamp oil.

Hope that helps. 

EDIT: And storage, we gain a ton of storage..


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Can you explain the difference between a sailboat with an engine that doesn't work and an engineless sailboat ? I must be missing something? 

Are suggesting that because you don't have an engine you can sail places that those of us that have engines can't?


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Just remember your full keel boat doesn't turn particularly fast. You should PM kevlarpirate and keelhauling... I'm sure you'll find the support you need for your theorhetical adventure. Goo'luck!

_(there is a Triton in Seattle that I've seen out with oars... looks to have a nice set up for engineless... though he can't go through the locks or ship canal here without a motored tow.)_


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Tempest said:


> Can you explain the difference between a sailboat with an engine that doesn't work and an engineless sailboat ? I must be missing something?


1- Sailplan. We will carry more sail area, and different types of sails, than the typical motored Alberg 30 cruising boat. Large, ultralight nylon sails make a huge difference in catching the lightest puffs of air. Not many people have a suit of truly light air sails. I am thinking about making a nylon mainsail as well...

2- Fair bottom. I'm sure you are aware of the high amount of drag created by a prop and aperture, as well as an external transducer. Eliminate those, and you gain a lot when under sail in very light airs (and otherwise). Add to _that_ no thru hulls and a very slick and faired bottom (and the larger lighter sails), and you can begin to see that in very light air (and otherwise) the difference in sailing ability of our boat compared to the motored A-30 will be noticable.

3- Equipment. The motored sailing vessel typically does not have a stern anchor on a roller, ready to deploy instantly. Nor does the typical motored sailor carry oars. All very useful stuff when needed.

4- lower center of gravity. Without a heavy motor "up high", she will right herself better and sail better.



> Are suggesting that because you don't have an engine you can sail places that those of us that have engines can't?


No. And I don't know where or how you could have taken that from anything I have said.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

Tempest said:


> Can you explain the difference between a sailboat with an engine that doesn't work and an engineless sailboat ? I must be missing something?
> 
> Are suggesting that because you don't have an engine you can sail places that those of us that have engines can't?


Having sailed a lot without an engine (lack of funding ) I'd say that many boats rely on the engine in scenarios such as docking, and in light winds.
But a lot of people also lack the training and mindset it requires - On the onehand You have to sail like a racer because you eg want to be at point A before the tide sets in, and on the other You have to be extremely patient because You'll have to wait for the right conditions before entering a harbour/marina/anchorage.
What I don't get is the attitude against engineless sailors, it is often negative on different forums including this?
Having said that I think that CnC should listen to the Force (as in Captain Force) as his advice seems based on vast experience of the ICW, of which I have none..


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Well, that's it folks. I'm out of here for awhile (or maybe good if this post earns me a ban). 

I have been reported by other poster(s) for my opinions, and defending myself when insulted by others. 

Have a great holiday everyone, and best of luck.

Chris


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

I started my sailing career 40 years ago sailing through 2 drawbridges to get to open water from my mooring. I got to be pretty good at this, but did it one time too many and got a wake-up call. The message: auxiliary propulsion is SAFETY equipment.

If you can't equip the sailboat with a motor, you at least need to have a serviceable motorized dinghy that can move your sailboat. You will need it sooner or later.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

C&C, 

I also have never been on the Intercoastal, never plan to.
From the other posts it sounds like there is a lot of commercial
traffic there. If you loose your wind you are not only endangering
yourself but also others as you have just created another hazard
to navigation. For liability pirposes a large vessel may try going
into full reverse just before they run you down, but maybe not.
Being on the water is more serious than playing a "motorless" game.

Dabnis


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> 1- Sailplan. We will carry more sail area, and different types of sails, than the typical motored Alberg 30 cruising boat. Large, ultralight nylon sails make a huge difference in catching the lightest puffs of air. Not many people have a suit of truly light air sails. I am thinking about making a nylon mainsail as well...
> 
> 2- Fair bottom. I'm sure you are aware of the high amount of drag created by a prop and aperture, as well as an external transducer. Eliminate those, and you gain a lot when under sail in very light airs (and otherwise). Add to _that_ no thru hulls and a very slick and faired bottom (and the larger lighter sails), and you can begin to see that in very light air (and otherwise) the difference in sailing ability of our boat compared to the motored A-30 will be noticable.
> 
> ...


oh my... C&C, it's really clear that you don't have a lot of experience. That's fine. It's the challenges to our own skill sets, even if others have been there and done it all, that will make us better sailors. I haven't been in the ICW at. May never.

Just a note, but you're making many assumptions. Many folks have the sails they need to effectively sail in their chosen venue. The only light nylon sail you own is a 1/4oz spinnaker or maybe an old drifter. If you wanted really light, all your other sails would be kevlar, but that's quibbling. Do you have a extra large roached (which can be hard to get through the backstay in light air) main? Is it loose footed? A large 150%-160 light genoa? And have you done headsail changes in constricted waters in adverse conditions like close tacking? How does your boat sail with just a main, or just a headsail? I like your boat, so these are questions that I'd ask myself if I were doing your trip, not a critique of you at all.

Bottoms. A modern transducer really has no drag. Neither does the speedo paddle. No doubt a nicely prepped bottom, a folding prop, etc... make a lot of difference, but you're still dealing with a good deal more wetted surface that takes more F to drive (a la F=MA). A well prepped boat always sails better.

A stern anchor ready to deploy is pretty normal for most cruisers around here, but again, you prep your boat appropriate for your trip and venue. I'm curious, have you rowed your boat? How long can you row effectively? How fast? Are you a phenominally fit rower or cross country skier ?(thinking both leg/upper body strength + aerobic fitness) Again, if I were doing the trip you describe, I'd be working my rear end off rowing my alberg 30 getting in shape. It'll probably both save the boat, and my life in a condition I can't really anticipate until I've been there.

Engines... are mounted just about as low as can be accommodated in a give design. It's more likely that your water tankage, holding tank, etc... are in much less optimal locations than the weight of your engine. Just curious, but what are you plans for generating electricity for nav lights, battery charging, etc.. you going solar? (I'ts probably already been discussed... sorry)

It sounds like you want to do this trip in a particular style. No trouble with that, but if so, then you really need to talk about your sail handling systems/experience/efficiency, your rowing technique and strength, etc... Anything can be done, and to do what you're planning will take some very specific and serious training on top of the normal sailing boat prep, etc...

Good luck..really.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

chrisncate said:


> Na, not at all BJ, you have it totally incorrect, my attitude is fine. You cannot locate one instance where I get snippy or pissy first with another poster. I just don't do that to people. When I am "giving grief", it's in response.
> 
> Since you want to talk about it, here is how I see it: More than a few posters who fancy themselves quite knowledgeable seem to take contrary sailing ideologies as a personal attack on what _they_ believe in, sailing wise. And that is a personality flaw that is on _them_, not me - because it's not accurate.
> 
> ...


I tried.


----------



## RXBOT (Sep 7, 2007)

*To the OP*

Hate to tell you this but nylon, dacron, and kevlar are not very green products. You had best get sails made out of cotton or hemp and see if you can find a sailmaker with a tredle machine. Whale oil is good for lamps but people frown on hunting them these days. Solar panels are cool but a lot of non green energy went into them also. If your hull is fiberglass and your mast aluminum you will have to replace them also. Hemp ropes, wooden blocks and sheaves, rocks for anchors are the green way to go, clay or wooden casks for food storage and water. A sculling oar is better than rowing for a 30 footer. There is a way to use a line with the oar that makes it easier,Chinese sampans use it I think. Somekind of replica (dugout Polynesian style) with an ama or 2 with a plant fibre sail would probably be quite green.Good luck on your adventure.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

chrisncate said:


> ...I give nastiness back to those who give it me first. Find me an example where I get nasty with someone without being insulted in some way first, and I will happily apologize....


All,

I personally don't care one way or the other whether or where Chrisncate go engineless.

But speaking as a Sailnet moderator, we are getting tired of the lack of civility in these posts. "Nastiness" is not tolerated here. This is a FINAL WARNING:



> Sailnet Rule #1: Above all, maintain civility towards each other. Personal attacks and harassment are forbidden and RESPONDING to personal attacks with another personal attack is also forbidden. If you have been attacked, simply press the report post button and let the moderators handle the offender. If you become an offender&#8230;do not expect to be treated any differently than the original offender. This rule applies to on line postings and to PM's and "Rep" comments as well.
> We encourage strong debates within the forums&#8230;but attack ideas and opinions and facts&#8230;not the person posting them!


 (emphasis in original)


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

why can't we all just get (sail?) along ?

I thought sailors were supposed to b more laid back !


----------



## willyd (Feb 22, 2008)

Here's a log by a gentleman that sailed a Cape Dory engineless up and down the East Coast using inland waterways a couple of times. Mind, he did use an engine on the C&D canal and perhaps a few other places, but it gives you a good idea of the kind of sailing that can be done like this. Lefty.


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

c&c,

I think the comment that *maybe I can make it happen *is suggesting you will over come the obstacles you mentioned? Asking for advice, and then becoming upset when you read what is contrary to your thinking accomplishes nothing. I have always enjoyed your posts. It's a shame you feel you need to leave, even for awhile. BEST WISHES in what ever you decide........*i2f*


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

*A true gentleman*



imagine2frolic said:


> c&c,
> 
> I think the comment that *maybe I can make it happen *is suggesting you will over come the obstacles you mentioned? Asking for advice, and then becoming upset when you read what is contrary to your thinking accomplishes nothing. I have always enjoyed your posts. It's a shame you feel you need to leave, even for awhile. BEST WISHES in what ever you decide........*i2f*


Said like a true gentleman! RESPECT.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

imagine2frolic said:


> Asking for advice, and then becoming upset when you read what is contrary to your thinking accomplishes nothing. I have always enjoyed your posts. It's a shame you feel you need to leave, even for awhile. BEST WISHES in what ever you decide........*i2f*


Let me clarify a little for some folks! This is a quote from post #1, evidently people still couldn't stand the idea and lashed out at Chris.


> Without going into the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not, can I ask for some practical information on specifically where on the ICW it would be the hardest (impossible as some have put it) to traverse without a motor? Where and what would the biggest challenges actually be in reality?


If a man can't be sarcastic and defend himself against the other members that can't seem to control there attacks, well that's ridiculous!

Shame on the mods and I certainly hope that other warnings were sent out as well.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

LandLocked66c said:


> ...Shame on the mods and I certainly hope that other warnings were sent out as well.


There is no shame in asking members to adhere to the Sailnet Rules which they agreed to when they became members. The rules are very clear and were posted above as a reminder to everyone.

There are other websites that play by different rules. Some of you use those sites and seem to have difficulty transitioning back to Sailnet.

As for other warnings, we rarely resort to public warnings, except when private ones have been disregarded.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

willyd said:


> Here's a log by a gentleman that sailed a Cape Dory engineless up and down the East Coast using inland waterways a couple of times. Mind, he did use an engine on the C&D canal and perhaps a few other places, but it gives you a good idea of the kind of sailing that can be done like this. Lefty.


Interesting read, but the problem with those sorts of accounts is that they really do NOT give a particularly accurate idea what sort of sailing can be accomplished without an engine&#8230;

There is no way he could have run the length of the route through NJ from Manasquan to Cape May inside, without an engine&#8230; There is still a world of difference between going engineless, and only resorting to the use of an engine to even a miniscule degree&#8230; For example, the former means having to sail out around Hatteras, the latter gives one the option to go this way&#8230;










chrisncate said:


> 1- Sailplan. We will carry more sail area, and different types of sails, than the typical motored Alberg 30 cruising boat. Large, ultralight nylon sails make a huge difference in catching the lightest puffs of air. Not many people have a suit of truly light air sails. *I am thinking about making a nylon mainsail as well...*


Sorry, but that sounds like a poor idea, to me&#8230;

Your main is called a *Main*sail for good reason, it's the ultimate backup in any and all situations/windstrengths, and as such should be bulletproof&#8230; Free flying sails need to be lightweight due largely to the fact that they are unsupported, there is no such need for a sail that is supported by both the mast, and a boom&#8230; Not to mention, in many light air situations, the main is often not even part of the sailplan, anyway&#8230;








Chris, throughout these threads, you have pointed out that many who are critical of your approach have no prior experience with sailing engineless, and their opinions are largely formed by anecdotal things they've heard, or read&#8230; Fair enough, but I also get the impression that some of your perceptions re engines have been informed in a similar manner&#8230;

To me, you appear to be overly concerned with what happens in the event of engine _failure_&#8230; It's prudent to think that way, of course, and good seamanship is largely comprised of the constant awareness of the worst-case "what if?" scenario in any conceivable situation&#8230; But really, diesel engine failure is a remarkably rare event, and can almost always be traced to poor seamanship to begin with, in the form of lax maintenance, or a poorly configured installation, or attempting to run an inlet on a nearly empty fuel tank resulting in sucking air, and so on&#8230;

Again, I respect what you're trying to do, there is much to be admired about such a pure approach&#8230; But, I think you're in error attempting to justify it in part on the perceived unreliability of a diesel engine&#8230; Trust me, if there is one thing I have learned in this life, is that there a precious few things on this earth as dependable as a properly installed and maintained normally-aspirated diesel engine&#8230;

Start slapping on turbochargers and such, however... well, then, not so much&#8230; (grin)


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> I hope your engine does not die going down that tree lined ditch, I'll bet the skeeters would eat you alive.


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

LandLocked66c,

I did go back, and reread his first post, but when he typed in *maybe I can make it happen*. That put a different spin on it. As I typed to C&C BEST WISHES in whatever they decide. My experience of 20k ocean miles, and the S.F.Bay for 17 yrs weekly, and sometimes several times a week. Again my several trips on the ICW while living in Jax Florida do amount to the advice that he bettter be a better sailor than Paul Cayard, and I hold to it.. ...........*i2f*


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris,
Here is my idea. You seem like a computer savy person so write a program on sailing engineless. NOAA has a wealth of data from marine bouys and stations (wind strength, direction, wave hts, time of year, etc.). Take this information along with the sailing and rowing characteristics of your yacht. Then with this information write a program where you enter where you want to sail, dates etc. The program would then spit out the estimated time you trip should take based on total time including anchoring while waiting for wind and tide. The efforts to do this would probably be a lot more fruitful than posting here. Perhaps you could even sell this program to other potential enginless "sailors".
Good Luck and Aloha,
Casey


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Honestly, I need to close this whole lousy thread out and take a break from s/n for awhile. I had a wordy post, but all I need to say is I don't want to be the guy who sticks out around here anymore.

That, and the nylon main would be in addition _to_, not _as_ my "main" main for pete's sakes. I figured that went without saying, as it was clearly in the context of light air sails. Any and all nylon would be in addition to my normal suit.  Also, I do have a lot of motorless experience already, that is and has been our typical default (to never use the motor, whether docking/departing, anchoring, etc). Fwiw.

See ya, I'm going low profile for awhile.

Chris


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

WANKERS ABOUND!

The worst of SN right here! One person leaves because of a bunch of ****-tards!


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

LandLocked66c said:


> WANKERS ABOUND!
> 
> The worst of SN right here! One person leaves because of a bunch of ****-tards!


There were a few criticisms, but for the most part, I think people gave the question some serious thought and offered their best advice. As with anything, you learn to take the good with the bad, and not take it personally.

It seemed like " No" was not going to be an acceptable answer here. It really had little to do with the overall philosophy of engineless sailing. Clearly, it's possible to sail around the world engineless. It seemed like CnC was taking the " No" to the ICW as a "No" to his choice to go engineless. Not the case.


----------



## CaptFoolhardy (Sep 5, 2009)

Tempest said:


> It seemed like CnC was taking the " No" to the ICW as a "No" to his choice to go engineless. Not the case.


I second that Tempest. I for one fully support your decision to go without an engine CnC (hope you're still reading). There is a lot to be admired in the purity of your approach and your motivations and I say go for it. However, I would question the wisdom of entering the ICW that way. I'm sure that many parts of the ICW would not be off limits to you but most of it is not really designed for sail-only vessels.

You have stated that for thousands of years people have sailed without engines. That is certainly true, but in those thousands of years whatever commercial traffic you encountered was ALSO engineless and subject to the same whims of Mother Nature as yourself. That's not the case today. For thousands of years before the invention of the engine people on land traveled by horse drawn wagon. You could build one today and take it out on a country road or across a field without any problem, but if you tried to take it on the interstate you would be a hazard and put yourself and those who encountered you in danger.

You have also drawn a comparison between yourself and someone who has had a engine failure. If I may continue with my highway analogy, if I were to pass someone pulled over on the side of the road with a flat tire I, as a fellow motorist, would feel nothing but sympathy for them. I would even stop to help if it looked like they needed it (or if she were cute  ). But I would feel anger and frustration if I got stuck behind some yahoo with four flat tires going 10 mph because he thought it would be a challenge.

It's a big ocean out there and I'm sure you can find plenty of suitable places to sail as many others have and I wish you the best.

Bob


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Doing the ICW engineless is difficult, at best, and hazardous, at worst. Basically, it was not designed for engineless travel (except for oared vessels), and that pretty well sums it up in a nutshell.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Having met both Chris and Cate, they are both very nice, young people who seem to be willing to work hard to meet their goals. As for cruising the ICW without even having an auxiliary engine--I think this could be very foolhardy at best. I've never sailed the ICW, however, I have explored a significant portion of it in power boats. There are places where narrow channels and heavy commercial and recreational boating traffic makes sailing hazardous to both yourself and others. Additionally, when tidal currents are screaming near bridges and the bottom is the consistency of pea soup, deploying an anchor in hopes of stopping a 16,000-pound object from slamming into the bridge is out of the question. 

I sincerely hope that as they get closer to making their boat livable they change their minds and install a suitable auxiliary power plant--if for no other reason, safety's sake. 

Good luck to you both, and I hope to see you on the Chesapeake sometime in the very near future.

Gary


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

C&c,

I don't mean to be "nasty' here, just trying to introduce some
reality to what you are considering. Commercial traffic "may" try
to avoid you if they have a reasonable chance. We travel a 
northern California coastal road quite often, Highway 20. Quite twisty
and narrow with lots of big trucks. When going through a blind
right hand corner I always worry about coming up on a bicycle rider,
similar to what you would be with no wind. Decision making time,
do I swerve over the line with a logging truck coming at us head on
or do I take out the bicycle rider? Goodby, bicycle rider. The commercial
vessel skipper may be faced with a similar decision because you
wanted to go "motorless" on the Intercoastal. Suggest you consider
others before doing it.

Dabnis


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

LandLocked66c said:


> WANKERS ABOUND!
> 
> The worst of SN right here! One person leaves because of a bunch of ****-tards!


Real mature comment. When my 6 year old boy uses such language I scold him.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

casey1999 said:


> Real mature comment. When my 6 year old boy uses such language I scold him.


Yah, well I got scolded from my wife as well for the comment. 

We all have our moments, it certainly won't be my last! 

Nonetheless, I think what transpired here is really sad and pathetic. I could quote some mod comments but will not. I run and administer my own forums and have modded more than a few forums in the past. I would not have approached or handled this situation anywhere close to how this board has!

There is no excuse for what was said to Chris in this thread or in others. There is certainly a lot of gang mentality and group think that takes place and it looks like the gang has gotten what they wanted. A real shame in the end for all of us.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

chrisncate said:


> Honestly, I need to close this whole lousy thread out and take a break from s/n for awhile. I had a wordy post, but all I need to say is I don't want to be the guy who sticks out around here anymore.
> 
> That, and the nylon main would be in addition _to_, not _as_ my "main" main for pete's sakes. I figured that went without saying, as it was clearly in the context of light air sails. Any and all nylon would be in addition to my normal suit.  Also, I do have a lot of motorless experience already, that is and has been our typical default (to never use the motor, whether docking/departing, anchoring, etc). Fwiw.
> 
> ...


Just went back and saw this. "Lousy thread", I find it interesting that
in so many cases people ask for information and, or, advice on a subject,
then lash out at those who offer both, but not what the OP wants to hear.
I guess we are all wrong and C&C are right. Best of luck to both
of you, hope you make it.

Dabnis


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

LandLocked66c said:


> Yah, well I got scolded from my wife as well for the comment.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I hope you both had a good time during the scolding session.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

casey1999 said:


> LandLocked66c said:
> 
> 
> > Yah, well I got scolded from my wife as well for the comment.
> ...


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

I'd like to clear up some confusion some posters have regarding me, this thread, and some of my responses:

My op:


> The other thread that got dredged up where I inquired about whether or not to do the ICW (the one I wrote awhile back, before we decided to go motorless) has got me thinking...
> 
> Without going into the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not, can I ask for some practical information on specifically _where_ on the ICW it would be the hardest (impossible as some have put it) to traverse without a motor? Where and what would the biggest challenges actually be in reality?
> 
> ...


Perhaps my writing style facilitates reading comprehension problems with my intent, perhaps some posters did not read the op thoroughly - I don't know. All I do know is that I have been accused more than once of soliciting advice and help, and then not liking what I hear when posters respond to the advice and help I was seeking. Let's explore this together, and clear everything up once and for all.

The opening, the part where I spell out in words and sentences the advice and inssight I am soliciting:



> Without going into the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not, can I ask for some practical information on specifically _where_ on the ICW it would be the hardest (impossible as some have put it) to traverse without a motor? Where and what would the biggest challenges actually be in reality?


Note the words written in the post. Note the sentences they create and the intent behind them. Take extra care to note the meaning and intent of my words specifically. Let's begin here:



> Without going into the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should


This part clearly spells out in words written in sentences, that I am not looking for information, personal opinions, advice or help with the philosophy of sailing the ICW southward without my motor. What that means is I am not asking for any information, personal opinions, advice or help with the philosophy of sailing the ICW southward without my motor.

Please take a moment to let that absorb, and really try to understand the true meaning behind what I wrote (again, remember - I asked for no one to provide information, personal opinions, advice or help with the philosophy of sailing the ICW southward without my motor), then please go ahead and go back and re read the the posts in which I respond in the manner many of you find rude or out of line in some way.

You will clearly note that when I was responding negatively to a poster in some form or another, it is only to posters either providing me with information, personal opinions, advice or help with the philosophy of sailing the ICW southward without my motor, or just posters just randomly insulting me. You will further note, that when I respond an acceptable manner, it is to posts where posters are addressing the actual op question (which we will get to in a moment, hang tight).

To recap and summarize this part - We can clearly see that I specifically asked *not* to be provided with information regarding the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not. With that understanding, we can now see that any post providing this information is NOT a post providing the advice and insight sought , *therefore*.. I am _not_ being provided with information that I asked for but do not want to hear the answer to, but in fact I am being provided with superfluous and unsolicited information that I specifically asked not to be provided with. I hope this clears that accusation up. Please contact me directly if further explanation is needed, I'm happy to expound further on that point if necessary.

The next part of my op:


> can I ask for some practical information on specifically _where_ on the ICW it would be the hardest (impossible as some have put it) to traverse without a motor? Where and what would the biggest challenges actually be in reality?
> 
> Anyone know exactly how many opening bridges there are starting from the beginning, and going to Ft. Lauderdale or where I could find that info? I'd like to try to put a list together of all of them and their contact info.


Some posters provided this information as requested, and to those posters you will note (if you re read the thread) that I respond without negativity and with normal forum dialogue. Other posters however, reverted back to going into the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not (and we have established that this was not advice or info I was requesting). With some of these posters, especially the ones who decided to go beyond going into the philosophy of the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not, and began to get either rude or personal with me, I did indeed break the sailnet rules and respond in kind. That was an error on my part.

This, however clearly does not mean that I was asking for that type of opinion and/or advice, and therefore that also means I was not receiving info and advice ask solicited, and just not liking what I was hearing. This part is key: I was receiving info, advice and opinion I specifically did not ask for. Please commit that to memory. I was receiving info, advice and opinion I specifically did not ask for.

The next part of my op:


> Maybe I can make it happen, and I'd like to begin the research on the reality of actually making the attempt. Not saying one way or the other whether or not we will actually try it, but when I'm told I can't do something... well, you get the idea..


I said:


> Maybe I can make it happen


Define: Maybe


> may·be
> [mey-bee]
> -adverb
> 1.
> perhaps; possibly: Maybe I'll go t


Maybe.

Not... _will_, not ..._intend to_, not ...I_ am definitely going to_, but simply "maybe". Maybe.



> and I'd like to begin the research on the reality of actually making the attempt. Not saying one way or the other whether or not we will actually try it


"I'd like to begin the research on the reality of making the attempt".. Here I believe I should have said "an" instead of "the", and I see how that one little mistake in my choice of wording might completely negate the preceding intent clearly spelled out with all the prior words written before that fatal mistake in verbiage. I can see that.



> Not saying one way or the other whether or not we will actually try it


Luckily though, I quickly redeem myself here from my prior faux pas by adding the qualifier to the overall intent of the content of my op.

As you can see and as I said, I didn't state anywhere that this was a forgone conclusion or that it was set in stone to attempt the ICW motorless.

Next in my op:


> Any help in researching this, and any insight on any particular stretches that you are intimately knowledgeable of would be appreciated.


This reinforces and restates the advice and opinion I was soliciting in my op. Again, if you go back and re read the thread, you will clearly note that to all posters who provided the info I was asking for, I was quite congenial, appreciative and happy to receive responses. To all other posts though, I should not and can not be expected to be happy to receive opinion and advice that I specifically asked not to receive.

So there you have it, and I sincerely hope this clears up the confusion I caused certain posters regarding this thread, my intent, and what I was asking for help and insight with originally. In closing, I'd like to make sure this puts to bed the notion expressed by some posters that I was asking for advice, and simply receiving advice regarding what I was actually asking about, and that I didn't want to hear it because it was negative to a pre determined outcome set by me beforehand. Clearly that was not the case.

Hopefully we can all see now that I sincerely responded with the appropriate amount of forethought and open-mindedness to the posts that provided the requested advice and opinion, and that I responded differently to the posts providing me with philosophy's on the topic of motorless sailing on the ICW, and the personal opinions on whether we should or not.

Please feel free to contact me either here or via p/m if any further confusion lingers, or if you have any questions.

Chris


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Chrisncate-Hopefully we can all see now that I sincerely responded with the appropriate amount of forethought and open-mindedness to the posts that provided the requested advice and opinion


,

I have read your previous posts here and in other threads and the one thing that has become apparent to me is that you seemed to be genuine and a nice guy and have a mission with your new boat and I hope you will not let anyone deter you from your mission. Unfortunately also apparent to me, from reading this last condesceding diatribe you posted is your need to CONTROL your environment. I do not find you open minded at all.

I agree with the moderators who chastized you for your inappropriate negative personal comments to others. You are the first poster on Sailnet I will now automatically ignore their posts.



> Chrisncate-I'd like to clear up some confusion some posters have regarding me, this thread, and some of my responses:


Heres what you have cleared up for me, these are some definitions and benefits of being open minded according to sources brighter than me:

Aristotle- "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Listening to others' ideas may not be easy, but it could be an valuable way to learn something new or change your perspective on life

Websters- receptive to arguments or ideas

Dictionary,com-1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments. 2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.

Urban Dictionary-Open mindedness is when even if you think you are right, you know that you can be wrong and are always willing to listen to and hear an opposing or contradictory view.
Open minded people have views but know that their views do not have to be held by everyone. Open minded people also know that their views can be wrong.

The 7 Benefits of Being Open-Minded

•Letting go of control. When you open your mind, you free yourself from having to be in complete control of your thoughts. You allow yourself to experience new ideas and thoughts and you challenge the beliefs you currently have. It can be very liberating to look at the world through an open mind.

•Experiencing changes. Opening up your mind to new ideas allows you to the opportunity to change what you think and how you view the world. Now, this doesn't mean you necessarily will change your beliefs, but you have the option to when you think with an open mind.

•Making yourself vulnerable. One of the scariest (and greatest) things about seeing the world through an open mind is making yourself vulnerable. In agreeing to have an open-minded view of the world, you're admitting you don't know everything and that there are possibilities you may not have considered. This vulnerability can be both terrifying and exhilarating.

•Making mistakes. Making mistakes doesn't seem like it would be much of a benefit, but it truly is. When you open your mind and allow yourself to see things from others' perspectives, you allow yourself not only to recognize potential mistakes you've made, but also to make new mistakes. Doesn't sound like much fun, but it's a great thing to fall and get back up again.

•Strengthening yourself. Open-mindedness provides a platform on which you can build, piling one idea on top of another. With an open mind you can learn about new things and you can use the new ideas to build on the old ideas. Everything you experience can add up, strengthening who you are and what you believe in. It's very hard to build on experiences without an open mind.

•Gaining confidence. When you live with an open mind, you have a strong sense of self. You are not confined by your own beliefs, nor are you confined by the beliefs of others. For that reason, you are able to have and gain confidence as you learn more and more about the world around you. Open-mindedness helps you to learn and grow, strengthening your belief in yourself.

•Being honest. There is an honesty that comes with an open mind because being open-minded means admitting that you aren't all-knowing. It means believing that whatever truth you find might always have more to it than you realize. This understanding creates an underlying sense of honesty that permeates the character of anyone who lives with an open mind.

Sorry to do this, but your last post was unneccesary and I care to not waste my time reading anymore of your views as you show a lack of respect and civility to others

Dave


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Chris, I think my contributions to this thread were a suggestion to get a motor large enough to reach hull speed and asking about notoriety. The first was an exact reply to your question, but the second was beyond your OP because you engaged in that discussion in post 50. Once you replied to those expanded points, the scope of the thread expanded. Still, I hope and am not one of the posters you consider to have fallen subject to:

"Perhaps my writing style facilitates reading comprehension problems......."

It was hard to read the rest of the manifesto after that condescending start. I have zero doubt this thread is going to be locked down now.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

One thing i can comment on as a racer who sails on boats with full sail inventory's is We generally have to live around the sail inventory on a distance race and get it off the boat ASAP when we go back to are more normal short events


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> This, however clearly does not mean that I was asking for that type of opinion and/or advice, and therefore that also means I was not receiving info and advice ask solicited, and just not liking what I was hearing. This part is key: I was receiving info, advice and opinion I specifically did not ask for. Please commit that to memory. I was receiving info, advice and opinion I specifically did not ask for.


Well, any attempt to limit the scope of a discussion on an internet forum - especially as a follow-up to a recent discussion already demonstrated to be contentious - will always prove to be a losing proposition&#8230; No different than trying to herd cats&#8230; Just my _opinion_, of course, formed after having participated on a variety of sailing forums going on about 15 years, now&#8230;

The information you initially requested re ICW bridges is easily obtainable from scores of sources&#8230; A quick Google search, or a walk into any West Marine to thumb through a Waterway Guide, Skipper Bob's, a Maptech Chartbook, or a number of other publications, that information would be at your fingertips&#8230; Just as one should be able to select a potential anchorage from simply looking at a chart, a bit of time spent browsing through an ICW chartbook should give one a pretty fair idea which portions of the trip would likely be difficult to navigate under sail or sculling oar alone&#8230; So, expecting those here to provide such information, _but nothing more_, strikes me as a bit unreasonable&#8230;

Seems to me it's pretty tough to honestly answer your original query without at some point ranging off into the realm of _opinion_&#8230; I've stated that going without auxiliary power commits you to going out around Hatteras, for example&#8230; However, that doesn't mean going down the Ditch without an engine is by definition _impossible_, I'm sure it could be done, somehow&#8230; Hang around Norfolk/Portsmouth long enough, you could probably strike up a deal with someone willing to tow you though the first 20 miles to North Landing Bridge, then you'd be good to go at least to Adams Creek/Core Creek via Pamlico Sound, where you could probably score another tow&#8230;

However, it remains my _opinion_ that such an exercise - especially for one who professes to love sailing in its purest form - would ultimately prove extremely frustrating, and pose an unacceptable risk, and going down outside is the much preferred option&#8230; Sorry, if that strays too far into the realm of _opinion_ that you did not wish to solicit initially, well&#8230; then you probably shouldn't be posing such a query to begin with&#8230;


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

If, after you have announced your departure because everyone else doesn't get it, you return less than two days later, produce a multiple paragraph post in which you repeatedly quote yourself to show everyone else how they don't get it, maybe it's not everyone else who doesn't get it.

Let it go, chris. Continuing to demean those whose opinions and input you have solicited is a no-win game.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

From the very beginning, all of this is probably not going to change
anybody's mind about anything, including Chris, but it has been fun
reading about it. Chris, let us know how it went after it is all over.

Dabnis


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

The re quoting of my original op and the repetition of the point was necessary in light of the comments made regarding how I am unappreciative of advice and insight sought, and my agenda to only hear responses that agree with my pov being incorrectly stated many times over.

I am surprised at some of the comments made after my last post, as it was certainly not meant to be condescending. I truly do believe that it's either my writing style, or posters not actually reading the entire op (in so many threads, not just this one).

BJ - You will note that I will not be posting in other threads or starting topics (at least for awhile anyway), however due to the responses in this thread, and how it's going overall, I will be responding when I feel it necessary here. 

As I stated in my prior post, I'd like to, and am happy to clear any and all questions up about my motivations, intent, appreciation of advice, etc.

To the recent comment about my need to control everything (boy, that's certainly way off base), I'd like to say this: Me providing an explanation as to why many posters were incorrect in the assessment that I solicit advice and help with only a desire to hear a pre determined outcome does not indicate a need to control my environment. It indicates a desire on my part to show that that is wholly incorrect.

Please let me know if (anyone) has any further questions or concerns, I'm happy to have the discussion.
Chris


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Wow!!, as an old retired guy I thought I had a lot of time on my hands.

Dabnis


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris & Cate,
I think anyone that posted comments to you did so in the best interest of your safety, even if the replies might seem harsh to you. I am sure (even the negative posters) would give you a tow if you needed one. If you ever plan to come to Oahu, I would be happy to tow you into a boat harbor if you would like. The ocean is really a small place amongst small yacht sailors. What goes around will come around.
Aloha


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Yep


----------



## mdbee (May 2, 2007)

*Tow*

I have a feeling, you would find that an interesting tow. 



casey1999 said:


> Chris & Cate,
> I think anyone that posted comments to you did so in the best interest of your safety, even if the replies might seem harsh to you. I am sure (even the negative posters) would give you a tow if you needed one. If you ever plan to come to Oahu, I would be happy to tow you into a boat harbor if you would like. The ocean is really a small place amongst small yacht sailors. What goes around will come around.
> Aloha


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

mdbee said:


> I have a feeling, you would find that an interesting tow.


Not to rub salt water into open wounds, but if Chris would like, in the true spirit of sailing, I will perform the tow under sail. However, I shall not be held responsible for damages to any boats, docks, or coral reefs in the process.

I did find this site on the ICW from Corps of Engineers

Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway


----------



## MarioG (Sep 6, 2009)

Because of engine failure we were forced to sail our Chrysler C-26 from Norfolk to Oriental including manovering thru the lock. We did sail most of the way to the Keys in our E-32 so I can't say its impossible if your not in a hurry.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

CnC, and others who intentionaly sail heavy boats without an engine:

All this idealistic junk about being purists and sailing without an engine is for the most part, in my opinon, a bunch of risky nonsense. If you were purists, you wouldn't be using fiberglass boats, nor Dacron sails, nor winches. Why is it that you never see a new boat in the 30+ ft. range without an engine. In almost every case, it comes down to someone with a ancient piece of junk that isn't worth anything, and whose owner is too cheap or poor to buy even a second hand outboard. "Well the Pardeys did it". So what. Just because they did it, doesn't make it a good idea.

A boat like mine, is currently worth about $70K, a new one is about $140K, and that's really on the low side of boats in the 30+ ft. range. You can hit $400K+ quickly as you go up in size and quality. Your 1969 blue water sailer is worth what...$15K maybe, many that age are worth much less. So what does this have to do with anything? Your boat already has a lifetime of dings and dents. A few more scrapes are insignificant. But when you try to dock or undock without an engine, being a puriest of course, you can leave a nasty scrape or other damage on the nicer boats that costs thousands to repair. And most likely, when the owner finds this damage, the owner of the engineless boat is long gone, or if he is known, he doesn't have insurance or the means to fix anything, so he just thumbs his nose at the owner of the more expensive boat. And of course, before and after you bang off this boat, you will likely make nasty remarks about those poorly built production boats, after all, your boat is a blue water boat,

As for crusing the ICW without an engine, I would submit that you aren't going to do it. Never were. And of course you'll get angry at this post. But I think I and others have told you the truth, which you don't want to hear. Some have been nice to you and basically said it might be possible, but difficult, and you could try if you want. But overwhelmingly, the advice is not to do it without the engine. An emergency is different.

Why am I posting this now. Well two incidents come to mind. Yesterday, the winds were modest and favorable for docking under sail at our marina. In the 100 or so boats at our marina, there is one very experienced sailer, who single hands with great success, when no one else will go out. He uses his engine, like the rest of us in this marina, to dock. We always have a cross wind, but not much yesterday. This guy handles the boat really well. But yesterday, his engine failed, and in the late afternoon, I saw him being pushed in by a power boat. I immediately thought of CnC. Here's a guy who could absolutely dock under sail, but he chose to accept assistance in getting back to the dock. Why? Because, on the out side chance that things would go wrong, he didn't want to bang up his own boat or his neighbors' boats.

The last time I was out, when I came in (under power of course), backing into the slip, the line pick-up was missed, and the crosswind quickly began to sweep the boat down the fairway. Without an engine, I would have dragged across my neighbors bow and damaged his and my boat. But I had power and was able to maneuver without contact between the boats. But the fairway is deadended downwind and quickly, I was running out of room. Time for a quick turn. You know, the one where, you put the rudder hard to stbd., use the prop walk to port, and alternate between ahead and astern to turn the boat in it's own length. Works well, if you don't have too much wind or current in a confined place. My boat and most want to take a beam to wind attitude if left to their own devices (without sails up). So quickly, the wind put me into a position that the turn couldn't be completed There were a couple of empty slips at that end of the pier, and using engine power, I quickly made a bow first docking in one of those slips without incident. Now, if I had not had an engine (or if it had failed, which most seldom do), the wind would have carried me to the dead end of the fairway and for the next 24 hours, I would have been banging up and down against those nasty sharp ends of the pier timbers would have been working on my sides, lifelines and stanchions, and running rigging. But naturally, I expect you are more capable than me, and such a thing would never happen to you.

You didn't ask for it, but here it is, from an old guy who has been messing with boats for 40 years. Get an engine, and use it.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

NCC320 said:


> CnC, and others who intentionaly sail heavy boats without an engine:


While I agree that those old boats are not ideal for Bluewater sailing, nor singlehanding, they're still capable



> Why am I posting this now. Well two incidents come to mind. Yesterday, the winds were modest and favorable for docking under sail at our marina. In the 100 or so boats at our marina, there is one very experienced sailer, who single hands with great success, when no one else will go out. He uses his engine, like the rest of us in this marina, to dock. We always have a cross wind, but not much yesterday. This guy handles the boat really well. But yesterday, his engine failed, and in the late afternoon, I saw him being pushed in by a power boat. I immediately thought of CnC. Here's a guy who could absolutely dock under sail, but he chose to accept assistance in getting back to the dock. Why? Because, on the out side chance that things would go wrong, he didn't want to bang up his own boat or his neighbors' boats.


You said it Yourself - He uses the engine to dock, meaning he does NOT have the routine to do it under sail. I do that at least twice a week with students while learning them to sail, albeit in smaller cheaper boats than yours (and I use the engine in my own boat most of the time - Which kinda proves Your point on bigger boats, however I can and have done it under sail)



> The last time I was out, when I came in (under power of course), backing into the slip, the line pick-up was missed, and the crosswind quickly began to sweep the boat down the fairway. Without an engine, I would have dragged across my neighbors bow and damaged his and my boat. But I had power and was able to maneuver without contact between the boats. But the fairway is deadended downwind and quickly, I was running out of room. Time for a quick turn. You know, the one where, you put the rudder hard to stbd., use the prop walk to port, and alternate between ahead and astern to turn the boat in it's own length. Works well, if you don't have too much wind or current in a confined place. My boat and most want to take a beam to wind attitude if left to their own devices (without sails up). So quickly, the wind put me into a position that the turn couldn't be completed There were a couple of empty slips at that end of the pier, and using engine power, I quickly made a bow first docking in one of those slips without incident. Now, if I had not had an engine (or if it had failed, which most seldom do), the wind would have carried me to the dead end of the fairway and for the next 24 hours, I would have been banging up and down against those nasty sharp ends of the pier timbers would have been working on my sides, lifelines and stanchions, and running rigging. But naturally, I expect you are more capable than me, and such a thing would never happen to you.
> 
> You didn't ask for it, but here it is, from an old guy who has been messing with boats for 40 years. Get an engine, and use it.


The difference is (and should be) You wouldn't even be trying if you did not have an engine, that's what I was referring to earlier in this thread - _mindset_
Getting an engine for the ICW still sounds like great advice to me - finding a more modern boat that is easier to manage under sail might be a great idea too?


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

This thread is the herpes of the internet.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BubbleheadMd said:


> This thread is the herpes of the internet.


+1 :laugher


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

The gift that keeps on giving?


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

This thread LIVES!!!


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

Did a search for "rowing the ICW" nada came up


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

deniseO30 said:


> Did a search for "rowing the ICW" nada came up


That because CNC hasn't done it yet!


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

I hate this.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

chrisncate said:


> I hate this.


It's a sailnet classic though! It must LIVE! :laugher


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Casey, The Army Corps of Engineers ICW link is a dud. I searched the home page of the corps site and couldn't find anything at all on the ICW.

As for traversing the ICW engineless, I, personally, wouldn't consider it at all. I've only traveled the ICW in a 50-foot powerboat and it was difficult at best to navigate in dozens if not hundreds of locations when the tide was ripping, especially near bridge abutments. At some locations there seemed to be a difference in tidal height from one side of a bridge to the other, almost as if the bridge pilings acted somewhat like a dam. I experienced the same thing at Ocean City, Maryland's U.S. Route 50 Bridge over the bay, and the Knapps Narrows Bridge at Tilghman Island. At Knapps Narrows the tide was flowing toward the Choptank River at an incredible speed and because I was traveling with the tide I had to run the engine hard to maintain steerage while passing between the draw spans. The worst part about it was the bridge attendant, who said he would open the bridge when I came in sight, didn't respond to my radio calls until I was just a few hundred yards from the bridge. I had to put the engine in reverse and throttle up to slow my speed enough to allow him to get the bridge open, but the current was such that I was still headed toward the bridge. Sure created a pucker factor that night. I couldn't imagine what would happen without the aid of the iron jenny.

I've met Chris and Cate, they're a very nice young couple, and I'm relatively sure they would not do anything that would place themselves or others in harms way. I suspect they're make a decision sometime this summer as to whether or not they should add some form of auxiliary power as a safety feature. The decision is theirs and theirs alone.

Someone posted above that they teach their students how to dock a boat under sail. All of that is fine and dandy if it's an emergency situation and the boat is relatively small and lightweight. I would not, however, recommend doing this on a routine basis--especially in a crowded marina. Picking up a mooring ball is another matter--it can easily be done under sail. But jockeying a 12,000-pound boat down a narrow fairway filled to capacity with sail-power only is, IMHO, something that should only be done in an emergency situation. Most marinas in Chesapeake Bay have little or no room to maneuver, even with auxiliary power. Fairways are narrow, shallow, and designed to pack as many boats as possible into the smallest possible area.

I hope to make a trip down the ICW this coming October, and because I'll likely be traveling entirely alone I've added additional features such as a quick-deploying stern anchor and free-fall electric windlass on the bow. If I'm approaching a bridge with the tidal currents I want to be able to stop that boat from slamming into the bridge if the engine were to fail. Some of the openings between the pilings are very narrow and barely wide enough for two boats to pass each other. I have been in similar situations where my boat is docked and I have to pass beneath the Susquehanna River Railroad Bridge in order to head for the open waters of the Chesapeake. If the engine were to tail, the boat would quickly be swept into the structure0--not a good thought.

Good Luck,

Gary


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree with everything Gary said. And I also beleive that Chris and Kate will conclude to have some kind of auxilllary power when they see this situation as many who have traveleed the ICW as I have seen. However it is their choice to try it

Just a note The C&D Canal as well as Cape May Canal which are wider than some of the ICW and certainly do not have the vegetation underwater the ICW has, you are prohibited from transiting under sail only. 

dave


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

Well, there's this option in lieu of rowing yourself....


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

travlineasy said:


> Casey, The Army Corps of Engineers ICW link is a dud. I searched the home page of the corps site and couldn't find anything at all on the ICW.
> 
> Gary


The site must have been victim of budget cuts- that post was nearly a year ago. If you do a search of "Corps of Engineers Atlantic Intercostal Waterway" You will get hits for each corps branch offices that handles different sections of the waterway. These sites should have a chart of the area. This is another site to use:
Intracoastal Waterway: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris,
Your vessel looks to be a true sailing vessel- she does not belong in the ICW, she belongs on the sea.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"That, and the nylon main would be in addition to, not as my "main" main for pete's sakes."
Chris, if you're still with us...I'd say that's a good idea. Usually it is a big asymmetric foresail, a light air 150, a "drifter" or something similar used for power in 1-3 knot conditions. And along with that, a set of the lightest genoa sheets you can get, chosen to be thick enough to grasp as well as light and water-resisting, so even if wet they don't pull down that big light air sail.
A light air main makes sense--but is less commonly used, and more problematic if the winds rises and you need a heavier air sail "now now now".

Considering how much of the ICW has problems with a 6' channel, you might invest in an 18' or 20' pushpole, either good bamboo or aluminum, put a bit of a foot on the end and when all else fails...canal boats were propelled that way for many years. It's certainly cheap and easy to stow alongside the rail.

Personally I hate engines on sailboats. Noise, stink, noise, that's not why I'm sailing. But there are times when I want to be someplace, or NOT be someplace, and I want that to happen "now". And at those times, I really do like engines--but only the ones that work without complaint or protest, every damn time I say so.

Extra food and water, extra book or tunes, and my friends know they're really in trouble when my Evil Twin Brother shows up. He's the one that's got an old LED wristwatch. Need _both _hands to tell the time, and that's usually just too much effort for him. (VBG)

Sooner or later, the wind will come up again. Usually at least twice a day in coastal places.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

I reckon this thread has done its dash. Just keeps going round in circles so I think its time we shut it down.

cheers

Andrew


----------

