# the concept of unsinkable yachts



## Johnno (Dec 23, 2004)

If you are in the market to buy a new yacht then think long hard before you part with your hard earned dollars or pounds or whatever before you lay them down for a boat that makes a claim to unsinkability. 

The concept itself is nothing new. Sadlers used it years ago. Etap have legitimised it even more with certification. There are also several ways it can be done and there is plenty of material out there on the Net that discusses the use of foam, floatation bags and even closing compartments. 

Sadlers and ETAPs though use double skin technology with GRP. It is not to be confused with Whipple shield technology in spacecraft either - in that sense it is very low tech!

It is easier to provide unsinkability on glass boats. Remember the Boston Whaler. It is certainly more difficult on a steelie or even a heavy timber or even aluminium boat. Although some of the other methods are more appropriate with those materials. One noted marine architect I spoke to said it was easy enough to do in any boat and I agree with that - his reason for not designing such safety into all boats was the lack of interest. Maybe it is like cars years ago when the manufacturers claimed "safety does not sell" as their excuse for not including it in all vehicles. 

What the boat manufacturers do not tell you if you are buying an "unsinkable yacht" and worst still when you approach them are not prepared to say is what happens when the keel sheers. The truth is it happens and when it does the results can be disasterous in any boat. 

Why it is important to understand the limits of unsinkability in the buying decision is that boats that are being sold as "unsinkable" come at a premium so if you are going to pay the extra you may as well know that the concept of unsinkabilty is limited to just that. 

When the keel sheers an enormous weight is suddenly removed from the boat. When it happens, and recent Sydney-Hobart yacht races show that it does, most boats either sink or just turn turtle. 

It is all very well for marketers like ETAP to say their boats are unsinkable but the reality is that is not much comfort when the boat is upside down and you are trying valiantly (usually in heavy seas) to hold onto what little grip or flat section there is on the bottom. The boat certainly won''t right once the keel is gone and indeed with so much floatation low down in the hull the thing will turn turtle very quickly. Hey even I learnt that in the bathtub!!!!

The reality is that "unsinkability" is just that - there is no guarantee that the boat will stay upright. So do not be seduced by the claims that it can still be sailed when it is flooded. That does not happen in all circumstances. Even though the brochures and deliberate floodings described in them are designed to make you feel warm and fuzzy about such things.

There is a lot of obstacles out there in the ocean, some living, some not, and a keel is not made to take that much impact. You don''t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that any pressure at the bottom of the keel translates into a lot more pressure at the top with fin type keels. It is all to do with leverage. And I am not talking about dingies here - I am talking about craft that weigh or displpace many tons.

Whatever the manufacturers claim the bottom line is and history has shown that fin keels just cannnot take that sort of punishment.

Maybe it is time ETAP too considered longer keels otherwise all cruisers who want that concept will be better off to resort to other boats with inflation bags or closing compartments to stem the flow rather than opt for foam core plastic boats which despite the claims are still delicate in such circumstances. Remember steel has about 27 times more impact strength than fibreglass of the same dimension. 

That does not even take into account that the present foams all take on some water albeit some less than others. There is also the nasties that love to eat that stuff. They too are matters that the manufacturers don''t want you to know. 

At least if you buy an unsinkable boat after reading this you will know that they do in fact have limitations and what to expect. For most of us though I wonder whether all that hype is really worth the extra expense. I for one don''t think so. Probably the reason why ETAPs are not volume sellers either. 

Johnno


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

With all due respect I think that your post is way too much of an over- simplification and in some ways is a bit misleading in some of its apparent implications. 

For example it is a bit of a non-sequitor to say that "You don''t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that any pressure at the bottom of the keel translates into a lot more pressure at the top with fin type keels. It is all to do with leverage"

and then to assume that means:
"Maybe it is time ETAP too considered longer keels"; 

The reason that I say that is that in most long keel boats the ballast keel of the boat is placed at the leading edge of the keel and for any given hull form the ballast keel itself rarely extends any further aft of along the keel than it would in a fin keeler. That happens because in designing two boats of equal design except for the keel, there is only one right place to place the ballast and that is set by the 'statics' of the boat. 

In a frontal impact on a long keel, given the rigidity of the ballast keel, the ballast keel itself tries to rotate up through the bottom of the boat, independent of the ''deadwood'' portion of the keel, with pretty much the same impact force that a fin keel generates as it tries to rotate up through the bottom of the boat. 

In other words, a more accurate conclusion is that you might then argue that deep draft is a bad idea from an impact standpoint, but of course that would be counter to what is ideal from a motion comfort and seaworthiness standpoint. 

And if puncturing of the hull is your primary concern then I would also caution against boats with encapulated keels because they are especially vulnerable to puncturing the watertight envelope in a frontal impact to the keel. 

I also think that your statement "Remember steel has about 27 times more impact strength than fibreglass of the same dimension"; is also very misleading. That is only true if the dimension is thickness. If the dimension is weight, that is totally eroneous. 

To more realistically represent the reality of the situation, the statement should have said something to the effect of "Remember that pound for pound a moderately densely cored, vinylester resin glass hull with a minimum of non-directional material is roughly 8 times more resistant to puncture than a A36 steel hull, and a vinylester resin and glass sheathed cold molded cedar/fir hull is roughly 11 times more resistant to puncture than an equal weigh A36 steel hull." 

It is often neglected in discussions of the relative strength of materials that the density of steel is so high compared to glass (roughly 4 times denser) or typical wood planking species (roughly 17.5 times denser), that steel plating and structure of equal weight is way thinner than either fiberglass or cold-molded construction, and so despite steel's superior cross sectional properties, steel is actually way weaker than the other two materials on an equal weight basis. Of course this last point somewhat complicates the discussion a bit because few glass or modern wooden boats are constructed with hulls of an equal weight to a steel hull. 

Lastly, I also think that the discussion of full floation in a cruising boat is an extremely complex one. In my mind the real issue with trying to get full floatation is the weight and placement of that weight of the floation material, as well as the volume of the boat that is given over to that create that floatation. If sinking is so important to you then it probably makes more sense to look at the puncture issue rather than the floation issue. Using modern materials and careful engineering, it is possible to achieve puncture resistance at any impact speed that a sailboat is likely to sustain in collision at sea. If you really are concerned with seaworthiness then it would make a lot more sense to push towards engineering for a higher impact load resistant design on both the hull and keel. That can be achieved with less of a cost, weight and carrying capacity penalty than trying to achieve full floatation. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Hanging out here all by itself, I´m left to wonder what generated this post in the first place. Having said that, here are a couple of add´l observations in addition to Jeff´s more technical analysis:

I see no correlation between a boat (let´s presume it´s an Etap) with in-built flotation and a lost keel. None. So if we back up to the larger data base, of all boats that are sunk, rolled, dismasted, clobber reefs, go aground and otherwise experience a terminal event, how many keels fall off? Virtually none relative to any kind of longitudinal statistical analysis. So most of this post, which involves follow-on effects from a lost keel, strike me as irrelevant to the topic of unsinkability specifically and design issues, generally.

Sadler´s brand name has been recently resurrected but Sadler has not built boats with in-built flotation for many years now, so I´m not sure how their product is relevant to today´s boating world except where the potential buyer is in N Europe and wants one of the relatively small percentage of Sadlers that were built with flotation. Similarly, bagged floation has been commercially attempted in the past, only to fail at meeting even the simpliest criteron, that of keeping the Mother Ship afloat, and the vendor had to abandon the idea altogether...so this topic also seems essentially irrelevant in today´s market.

To my knowledge, Etap is the only builder of a range of offshore sailboats with in-built floation, and the only builder that then meets certification for the boat to be *sailed* in the totally flooded condition while still retaining acceptable stability. The fact that these boats may also inhibit catastrophic flooding due to a colision, depending on the location of the hull strike and what is hit and what speed, isn´t promoted by Etap but I think it´s worth considering as a potential, additional safety feature.

''Unsinkable'' boats are not UNcatastrophic Event boats, and so a fire may still require the crew to abandon the boat...but that´s a small portion of the issues faced by an owner today. Beyond this, I´m not sure what motivated this post.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Mr. T, you''re going to have learn to distinguish bettween a post and a rant.
______

And, Jack posted:


> So most of this post, which involves follow-on effects from a lost keel, strike me as irrelevant to the topic of unsinkability specifically and design issues, generally. (emphasis mine)


Lost keels from submerged objects. Strike you as irrelevant. Very droll indeed.


----------



## Johnno (Dec 23, 2004)

Jeff,


I would be interested to know what you say the apparent implication of the post was? 

Over simplification is one thing but I am not too sure that we are on the same wave length. 

Johnno

Johnno


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Hi Johnno 

I am not sure that I came to a conclusion about the "apparent implication" of your post. I think that there were several aspects of you post that seemed to suggest an apparent conclusion that perhaps warranted further clarification or discussion. My post pretty much discussed those aspects of your original post that I thought suggested dubious implications or conclusions. Those areas that I was concerned about included the likelihood of a fin keel vs a long keel of breeching the hull in a grounding or collision, the relative strength of steel vs. fiberglass (or wood), and the issues of designing a boat for full floatation, vs designing a boat to resist impact damage in the first place. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

wow
whats this all about .;.;.

lets recap in plain english ....
etaps unsinkability sucks, because they loose the keel ? ( and than you have to climb above and hold on for dear life ...

havent heard to many boats loosing their keel.... forget the canting race wonders for a second, which nobody of us are going to sail anyhow .....

I dont like etap, because they are trying to reinvent the wheel( literally) and come up with all kinds of new ideas... see the funky steering for example. I dont like them cause the foam is so thick, you loose a lot of room inside ... But for some people unsinkable boats have their merits... so let them go ahead and buy them.

if you like unsinkability you can also go with a catamarane .... lol 
a whole new can of worms is about to open ...

lol

Thor


----------



## h20ski (Jun 7, 2003)

sounds like Johnno is a yacht salesman and possibly lost a recent transaction to ETAP and wants to gripe about it here by attacking them. ETAPS are fine boats for real sailors.


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

It''s late but I''ve been away for a bit... I saw this one hanging out there and had to comment...

Losing a keel? Come on... Let''s see, my fiberglass boat has a fin keel, that is attached to a pretty darn massive steel hull matrix (a grid about 7'' long and 7'' wide, 1/4" steel tabbed directly to the hull and bolted into stringers and bulkheads) Figure I could hit a coral head at 15 kts and not break it loose.

The modern interpretation is the matrix used by X-Yachts.

I HAVE been onboard a 47'' Nautor when it hit a submerged granite rock at 6 kts. No damage.

A well designed and built vessel with a fin keel is reinforced for just such occurances. At least all the ones I would want to be out on.

Etaps are just too goofy for me, anyway. I get the whillies whenever I see "Picture Windows" on a salon. Thoughts of sun damage induced failure down the line are not something that would give me the warm and fuzzies on a crossing.

Other types of flotation have been tried. Anyone remember "Yacht Saver". Airbags that would deploy inside the boat. Two problems, 1) where''s the crew going to get out of the elements. 2) better be pretty damned sure the hull/deck join would stand the stress of supporting the hull (not something it was designed to do most of the time)

I guess that''s the lure of video games these days. Gives you the mental challenge without the risk. Well, maybe carpal-tunnel.

Just get out there and sail... Be prepared, and accept the concequences of your decisions.


----------



## eds928gt (Sep 28, 2001)

I doubt all seaworthy sailboats can survive hitting a submerged object. There may be some that can, and maybe you''ve been on a few of them, but most sailboats are not built to withstand catastrophic collisions.

Etap has an interesting design. Perhaps their improved safety will become more popular as more families go cruising. (Keep in mind, automotive safety only became popular after the sixties, as more women started driving and long distant family vacations became easier as a result of new interstate highways.)

~ Happy trails and sails to you ~ _/) ~


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Watertight bulkheads and compartments are probably the best way to guard against catastrophic collision damage. Amels and a few others have them. It would not be very difficult for even production boat builders to design them in.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Whoosh posted:


> ''Unsinkable'' boats are not UNcatastrophic Event boats, and so a fire may still require the crew to abandon the boat...but that´s a small portion of the issues faced by an owner today. Beyond this, I´m not sure what motivated this post. (empahsis added)


What motivated it, indeed? That seems to be the central question.
As they say in Britian, "He''s certainly on about something&#8230;
+++ +++

While I''m here:
Isn''t it just scandalous that Etap is so concerned about safety? That they''ve left the mold (er, fold) to pursue it? That they take it upon themselves to innovate? Why don''t they just follow accepted practice, and quit fiddling with things like buoyancy & steering systems? Things are just fine the way they are. It pumps up the price of boats, and we all know that''s just bad for sailing.

What do they think they are, visionaries, or something?
+++ +++

Good point, Jack, about the skin-foam-skin arrangement protecting against a holing in the first place.


> Ha-ha, you nasty sumberged rock. So you reached out and bit me, and thought you would tear a gaping hole along the underside of my yacht, and laugh to see me founder in your little graveyard, bailing, bailing, but sinking to my death exhausted and defeated? But wait: you think you have punctured my hull, but you have only broken the outer shell. Did you not feel the cushion of my foam against your granite teeth? You have not killed me; you have only scratched me, like an insect. See, I stand in my saloon, and my feet are not wet. My bilge pumps remain asleep. My cans of beans remain dry. My EPIRB remains in its prayerful case. And I sail on.
> 
> You have claimed many ships, you treacherous, slime-covered stone. But things are changing. Go, tell your sinister friends, the logs, and the sleeping metal whales of the world''s seas, the shipping containers. Tell them! We shall no longer be so easily pulled down to the watery death you desire for us. Ha! I no longer worry through the night watch. I no longer eye my liferaft with such loathing love. You do not strike the fear in my heart that you once did, for now I know I will arrive safely in my port despite you!


Distance-voyaging singlehanders get a bit, um, detached.


----------



## splitmind (Dec 15, 2002)

One benefit of the foam often not mentioned is the insulating effect. The hull is quieter, dryer, and more temperate than an uninsulated hull.

For cold climate sailors this is a definate plus that could negate the lost space issue when making a decision.


----------



## GordMay (Dec 19, 2002)

I did NOT write this article, but (unfortunately) I cannot recall where I originally got it. FWIW:

Making a Boat Unsinkable ~ by "Unknown"

Fibreglass does not float, an early objection - but the same was said of the first iron ships. If flooded, few wooden yachts with ballast and an engine will float either. So making a boat unsinkable is a problem to be tackled at the design stage. The structural requirements would make it very difficult to achieve later. There are two fundamental principles:
1) Even the lightest buoyancy material, air, requires space: for one ton of buoyancy you need one cubic metre (roughly 35 cubic feet) of air - the equivalent volume of five big oil drums. For the average 35- to 40-foot ocean cruiser weighing ten tons, there would have to be room for the equivalent of 50 oil drums! Moreover the paper displacement figure is just for the bare boat. To this must be added the two or three tons of stores, equipment and possessions - and for any ocean cruiser we really are talking about tons, and probably underestimating. The more stores and equipment, all absolutely essential, the less room for buoyancy, and conversely the more buoyancy the less room for essentials. There has to be room to work the boat and live in reasonable comfort when in harbour where the boat will spend a lot more time than at sea. Therefore the sheer space required for using trapped air as a buoyancy material rules out anything except emergency air bags, and once those are operated, on purpose or accidentally, the boat becomes unliveable and "unsailable".

2) It is not sufficient just to keep the boat afloat, decks awash. Sheer survival requires a degree of shelter, habitability and perhaps "sailability". The widow maker is exposure and hypothermia. This means the boat must float high enough for the crew to remain reasonably dry, sheltered from wind and water, able to cook, and have electrical power to operate a radio and lights. Perhaps also to run an engine, especially if a power boat, and ideally to sail after a fashion. Morale too is very important. It is far better to stick with the boat, if possible, than take to a "liferaft". However in practical terms this amount of buoyancy is almost impossible to achieve with a ballasted, well-equipped cruising monohull, although feasible with a catamaran.

Sadlers'', for example, have built unsinkable boats by use of double skinned, foam-injected hulls, but even so still have to steal essential storage space. Both skins are fairly light construction and do not allow for the tons of extra weight essential for ocean cruising. Double skinned hulls like this and foam-filled spaces can only be done while the boat is being moulded, and are therefore design features. It is claimed that damage is limited with this type of construction. This may be so with minor damage. But the foam filling must be weak, or it becomes too heavy, and would not prevent a serious impact from damaging the inner skin too. Foamed compartments can become waterlogged and are then almost impossible to dry. Even closed-cell foam will disintegrate when wet, and then flotation is lost.

Aiming at unsinkability, ships have watertight doors and bulkheads. This is not practicable on a yacht. The interference with habitability would be unacceptable on anything but the most dedicated, large, ocean-going racer. The average yacht bulkhead is not strong enough; the sheer pressure of, say, a forecabin full of water would be formidable, even without surging. Most bulkheads, being designed for inward compression only, are secured by weak angles, sometimes none at all, and would be torn adrift. Possibly the hull or deck would burst too. The weight would also affect the stability.

Well meaning bureaucrats specify collision bulkheads. Sadly they know little about boats and their thinking is based on fast, wide-fronted cars on narrow roads where head-on collisions are the rule. With boats, free to move in any direction, head-on collisions between two pointed end shapes are very unusual, rather like two spears meeting in mid-air. Most impacts are glancing blows and if between two boats, the victim is usually hit on the forward topsides or amidships where it is weak. The victim sinks and the attacker, with its strong stem taking the impact, escapes relatively unscathed. Even a hard-sailed dinghy can sink a much larger boat. Because it interferes with the accommodation, a collision bulkhead is usually placed well forward. With the usual overhang this is above the waterline and is therefore just a token, the collision bulkhead commonly being the aft end of the chain locker. Most boats have an overhang forward and fast power boats in particular sail with a pronounced bows-high trim so that any impact with rocks or debris will be well aft of any collision bulkhead. In all my years as a surveyor I remember only one case of a dangerous leak due to impact on the waterline. This was when a Moody hit a heavy mooring buoy, and it was well aft of the mandatory collision bulkhead. I have seen a few crumpled bows from hitting dock walls or lock gates, most often just resulting in bent pulpits. But I have seen plenty of underwater damage from rocks. Because any dangerous impact will be at or below the waterline, it makes more sense to have a double bottom.

The Watertight Lockers Option
One idea seldom mentioned, and more in the way of damage control than unsinkability, is to have numerous small watertight compartments. This is copying ship practice, where each watertight section is small enough that flooding it does not affect the integrity of the ship. However, on a yacht it is not practicable to divide the boat with watertight bulkheads, and even if it was, the spaces would much too large. But almost every cruising boat has dozens of lockers which could be made watertight fairly easily. This is not the same as filling them with buoyancy, as is done with "unsinkable" boats. By making the lockers watertight and fitting watertight lids, such as large dinghy hatches, they would provide some limited buoyancy yet still remain useable, just as a ship cannot afford to lose the payload of a hold.

As well as providing buoyancy, making lockers watertight would have the even more important function of containing a serious leak. With good planning the boat could virtually have a double skin over the entire underwater area. (If a pan moulding was used it would need to be stronger and better attached than usual because, being considered just accommodation, most are lightly moulded and weakly bonded. They generally break away and split if the hull is damaged.) One or more such watertight lockers could flood without unduly affecting stability and, most important, would prevent the rest of the boat filling and sinking. Essential systems like batteries and engines could be in their own watertight compartments so that the boat remains operational.

Another important factor is that having many small, watertight compartments would prevent surging, which alone can cause damage and seriously upset the stability of a flooded boat, even if nominally unsinkable. Moreover, a lot of this work could be retrospective and done in preparation for an ocean cruise.
Buoyancy and unsinkability sound like nice safety features. But do your sums. Work out the weight of the boat - plus everything you have or intend to stuff inside it. To be on the safe side double this at least; it is invariably underestimated. On the first haul-out after an Atlantic crossing every crew finds they have to raise the waterline several inches! On my 31-foot-waterline boat the rate of waterline change is roughly two inches per ton, a fairly typical figure.


----------



## owenmccall (Feb 10, 2004)

Your article is "Fibreglass Boats and Damage Control" by Hugo de Plessis, found in the November 2004 issue of "Caribbean Compass". 

Owen


----------



## Johnrb (Sep 21, 2002)

Gord:

I think the article you are referring to was written by James Baldwin and is called "In Search of the Unsinkable Boat" and was published here in Sailnet a few of years ago. Mr. Baldwin has circumnavigated (twice I believe) and wrote the article on making his Pearson Triton unsinkable. The link is below:

http://www.sailnet.com/collections/articles/index.cfm?articleid=baldwi0014


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

John, if you''d read the article you linked, you could tell it''s not the same text.

The (allegedly) de Plessis article considers the idea of watertight compartments; Baldwin''s article is a practical "How I Did It" explanation detailing the conversion of his Pearson Triton.

Baldwin is fun to read, if only to be amazed at the ingenuity and resoursefulness of someone who has gone his own way: engineless, radical modifications to his boat, etc. Although I don''t think I''ll be following his model, I admire his determination, and without an engine, I''ll bet his seamanship is top notch.


----------



## Johnrb (Sep 21, 2002)

Jeff, I had read the Baldwin article when it was first published a few years ago. I thought it a useful and practical demonstration of how someone, through ingenuity and with a limited budget, thought a problem out and solved it. Beyond that, I have no additional comment about the topic or the de Plessis article.


----------



## h20ski (Jun 7, 2003)

is ETAP the only manufacturer of large "unsinkable" (theoretically), foam filled sailboats?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sorry, John: my post comes off reading kind of harsh, doesn''t it? That wasn''t my intention.

And I certainly wasn''t trying to school you about James Baldwin. I was just talking to the wind. (I''m like a lot of men; I sometimes like to hear my own voice).

Fair Winds,
Jeff


----------



## Johnno (Dec 23, 2004)

*unsinkability*

It was interesting reading the responses to what I posted before my last trip to the Pacific.

Essentially my post was to warn intending buyers that the concept of unsinkability was not all it is cracked up to be. I was concerned about the blind faith that an intending cruiser was putting in the concept. No - I am not a salesman and have no grudge against any particular yacht manufactuer. The post was purely altruistic.

Makes for interesting reading tho. Lets hope this post doesn't suffer from the same malaise.

Where were you all when I was anchored off Vanuatu?

Johnno


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I would take any boat manufacturer's claim of unsinkability with a large grain of salt. The full keel vs. fin keel debate is about as likely to draw blood as the multihull vs. monohull debate.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Mike Plant was lost when Coyote lost her keel in 1992--although the hull remained afloat. Years earlier, Thursday's Child also lost her keel. Both were fixed deep keels built by highly recognized designers--but built scantly for racing. So lost keels are nothing new. And keel damage from rocks is nothing uncommon.

But I've never heard anyone say "I'M GOING TO BUY AN UNSINKABLE BOAT!" much less ever try to look for one. Sounds like something a nervous delicate wifey would insist her browbeaten hubbie buy before she would let the kids go on it.

Sorry, folks, but the thread comes out as a diatribe against ETAP and nothing more. The issues of safety, sinking, floating, don't seem to be the point. ETAP chose to make a boat that is more likely to remain afloat when flooded. OK. So? Just one point among many to consider when buying a boat. If some fool thinks that will make them invulnerable and able to girdle the globe on their first day...well, that's the freedom of sailing.


----------



## Johnno (Dec 23, 2004)

The April article in Boat Owner (the British Mag) relating to the loss of Maquini sadly reignites the issues that I raised previously.

Moquini was a 43 foot South African yacht which was found floating upside down minus her keel and her crew. All six aboard presumed dead. It is devastating to imagine what they went through and what their families are now going through. As a sailing community something like that touches and resonates through all of us. 

My point was that unsinkability in itself based on bouyancy has its limitations. Loss of keel being just one example. And that is so whether the concept is being pushed by Etap or anyone else. Unsinkability has to be seen in context. As far as I can tell even my critics seem (because it is not always apparent from their posts) to agree with that.

My post was not a diatribe on Etap or anyone else for that matter. Although anyone reading the recent post which alleged that would have to wonder about the sensitivity of the author of that post. An employee or stooge of Etap perhaps? 

It is worth noting that Moquini which by all reports had a standard hull floated anyway. 

Doubtless that will incite a further flood of invective from Etap. But that's their problem. My thoughts are with the crew of Maquini. 

Johnno


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The other point to make is that even if the boat is "unsinkable", *that feature does you little if any good, unless you are able to stay on the boat.* _It is very difficult to stay on a boat that is tipped at 70+ degrees, and heaven help you if you're out on the deck of one that rolls through 180+ degrees._

I went with a trimaran, because I feel that the lower angles of heel and greater beam will greatly assist in keeping crew on board. Yes, a multihull will not self-right... but I'd don't intend to put the boat in a position where that is a problem. Most modern multihulls are very resistant to capsize, and have fewer risks of it, if sailed properly.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I bought a new Etap 39s in 2004 in fact the last built. I would think the chances of her burning to the waterline is much more likely than losing a keel. The person posting about losing the keel has obviously never seen how strong the keel installation is on this boat. I have been in 50 knot winds on Lake Erie with no concerns whatsoever. I bought the boat because it looked beautiful to me and the construction quality seemed to justify the price. More than unsinkability the thought of dust in the bilges and no boat smell sold me. Five years later there is not a drop of water in the bilges (only hair from my loyal black lab "Sailor"), the boat smells fresh,sails beautifully and still looks brand new. I could not be happier with the boat, the delivery, performance or overall build quality. The tankage is woefully lacking for long distance cruising but other than that I am extremely happy with my choice and would highly recommend this boat&company to anyone considering it.


----------



## Jace2 (Oct 13, 2009)

It seems to me, that the most valuable asset to a sailor, is a cool head in the face of disaster. I read a book, 66 days adrift, and the man and woman were hit by a whale, knocking a hole in the hull. He said he looked, but couldn't figure out where the water was coming in. So he tossed his raft, inflated it, and they both climbed in. He said they stayed there and watched the boat sink. According to him, it tool a half an hour to go under.

At the risk of sounding haughty, I think I could have kept that boat afloat (not to mention I wouldn't have gone down below with a pod of pilot whales aggressively swimming with me-I would've stopped, turned, reversed, did whatever I had to do until the animals were no longer with me).

As to the breach: First of all, I would have started the bilge pumps working immediately. Then I would have found that that damned hole, if I had to tear out every cabinet in the vessel. Then, I would've stuffed something, cushion, clothing, anything against the hole and then screwed a plywood, or some other material, plate over the hole. At that point, I would've kept the bilges working, having my sailing partner bail if need be, and headed as fast as my motor or sail would carry me.

She might have still gone down, but I would _NOT_ have sat for a full half hour and watch her sink.

By the way, I've been sailing twice in my life.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

It shows.


----------



## Jace2 (Oct 13, 2009)

mitiempo said:


> It shows.


Perhaps. But, from what I've read in different books and articles by experienced sailors, way too often boaters abandon a vessel far too soon. I'm a more 'Take care of the problem' kind of guy. No doubt there are those times when the boat is going down and there's nothing to be done about it. But in the story I related above I think there was something that could've been done to keep that boat from sinking.

And one doesn't need to be a sailor to know that panic and 'fear-prompted' decision making is the overwhelming cause of crisis taking over a situation.


----------



## bill lauro (Nov 13, 2002)

*Unsinkable boats*

Just had to chime in on this because there are a lot of boats and sailors on the bottom that would liked to have had a unsinkable boat. Read up on how much water a minute enters a one inch hole below the water, and how fast that hunk of lead will take you down. Even if it is upside down as long as it is floating its ok with me. As far as designing different ideas into there boats I think it is a great idea to try a new idea now and then. I know you are all in love with what ever boat you are sailing but lets face it if you seen one you have seen them all because over the many years of building boats, most builders are afraid to try something really different, hell in most all small boats the triangle shaped cabin hatch is still there after 60 years being used even though they will fall out if your on your side.As for me and my family give us a boat that will not sink!!
Just my $0.02
Bill


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

It's easy to build an unsinkable boat. Either a double hull with foam in between and/or foam in lockers etc. Either way you give up a lot of space. Storage is an issue on boats of all sizes and I wouldn't want to give up the cubic feet to foam. And do you just want it to float or do you want to sail it. That will complicate things a bit. I believe if the demand was high enough there would be a choice of unsinkable boats but obviously it isn't. In this economy and even when things were better many companies building good boats have gone under. No sense adding thousands for what isn't a huge demand item.


----------



## Jace2 (Oct 13, 2009)

mitiempo said:


> It's easy to build an unsinkable boat. Either a double hull with foam in between and/or foam in lockers etc. Either way you give up a lot of space. Storage is an issue on boats of all sizes and I wouldn't want to give up the cubic feet to foam. And do you just want it to float or do you want to sail it. That will complicate things a bit. I believe if the demand was high enough there would be a choice of unsinkable boats but obviously it isn't. In this economy and even when things were better many companies building good boats have gone under. No sense adding thousands for what isn't a huge demand item.


Good point.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Hi Jack,

I know this is an old post but it's still interesting to me. I have a Kent Ranger 24' sailboat that has several sealed compartments filled with flotation foam. Apparently it was an offering that was designed to double as an offshore boat. My understanding is that it won't turtle-over because of where the foam is distributed. If the keel came off... who knows. Where I sail here in the San Juan Islands you're more likely to gouge a hole in the side of the boat than you are to loose a keel. That said, neither is likely compared to the normal way sailboats sink at night in the middle of the ocean: a through-hull fails and the boat fills and sinks before the captain can find and fix the problem. While I wouldn't be too jazzed about taking my boat across the ocean I do like the added security of knowing I have time to sort things out if my through-hull fails. I don't care if it will sail well that way, if I can anchor and fix the problem eventually I'll bail enough water out to sail again or buy enough time to get help. I've looked at a lot of other boats but it's really hard to turn loose of mine because of this attribute.

YouTube - Inside Beginner's Luck
YouTube - Rich sailing puget sound

A couple quick looks at my girl. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Through hulls are probably the least common failure on a boat. If maintained they should never fail.

Looks like a nice boat.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> Through hulls are probably the least common failure on a boat. If maintained they should never fail.
> 
> Looks like a nice boat.


Thanks, and you're right: they shouldn't fail... but they do. Know of two boats personally that are at the bottom of the Pacific for that reason. If something smacks the prop shaft that can be a pretty big problem too.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Other than a lightning strike, which can blow out through hulls as well as damaging the hull itself, I can't see how a proper through hull that is bolted to a hull (as they should be) could fail catastrophically.

Replacing Thru-Hulls and Seacocks Photo Gallery by Compass Marine at pbase.com


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Interesting; I didn't know that about lightening strikes. Honestly, I don't know how they fail either... just know it happens.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Brian: I've been reading a little since your last post. It seems its even more common than I imagined with no shortage of examples of through hulls failing. One sailor's advice seems fitting: tie a wood plug to each one so you can cork the thing quickly if necessary.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

*That keel is unlikely... to come off...*



Richman7777 said:


> Hi Jack,
> 
> I know this is an old post but it's still interesting to me. I have a Kent Ranger 24' sailboat that has several sealed compartments filled with flotation foam. Apparently it was an offering that was designed to double as an offshore boat. My understanding is that it won't turtle-over because of where the foam is distributed. If the keel came off... who knows. Where I sail here in the San Juan Islands you're more likely to gouge a hole in the side of the boat than you are to loose a keel. That said, neither is likely compared to the normal way sailboats sink at night in the middle of the ocean: a through-hull fails and the boat fills and sinks before the captain can find and fix the problem. While I wouldn't be too jazzed about taking my boat across the ocean I do like the added security of knowing I have time to sort things out if my through-hull fails. I don't care if it will sail well that way, if I can anchor and fix the problem eventually I'll bail enough water out to sail again or buy enough time to get help. I've looked at a lot of other boats but it's really hard to turn loose of mine because of this attribute.
> YouTube - Inside Beginner's Luck
> ...


_______________
As former R-20 owner and R-24 sailor and Ranger Boat dealer, I can assure you all that the keel cannot "come off" of either boat without destroying the hull... both have internal lead ballast.
Ray Richards NA designed both with positive floatation. I have personally seen an R-20 floating, fully flooded/tidal, with the deck level above water. Both have a high bridge deck and it's also quite difficult for any flooding to occur from the cockpit area, either, especially for the fin-keel R-24.
Those are good boats, both fast and easy to sail.
**You DO lose some interior storage due to the foam needed to provide positive buoyancy, though... "every thing's a compromise" as someone once observed.

LB


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The plugs should be tied near each through hull and each through hull should be easily accessible. The commonly seen mushroom with a nut inside is quite vulnerable but that is a minimal installation at best. The hose is a risk and should be double clamped and protected from abuse be items stored nearby.

A proper through hull (as the pic below shows) is pretty solidly attached and is stronger than the hull surrounding it. 3 bolts, a fiberglass or g10 backing plate epoxied to the hull and a thread matching ball valve - not shown - complete a good installation.

Vulnerable? I don't think so. Done right they are not more of a concern than anything else on board.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

LB: That's very interesting. I have only had my KR24 for a year but love it to pieces. I sure would like to know more about them if you have any sources of information. There seems to be so little I have found online. 

Brian: I guess it comes down to this - boats sink from through hull failures so I'm not sure where opinions matter on this one, with all due respect. Yes, they look very strong, especially when new. But when you look at all the reading material that a quick Google search reveals it's not surprising that some boats designed to be trans-oceanic have no through hulls below the waterline. A friend and neighbor here in the marina is a broker and can talk your ear off about personal experiences and friends who have sunk from them. I guess it's why people replace through hulls as a precaution. When I put mine on the hard I'm going to eliminate the only through hull it has; it's just for a non-operation knot meter that seems less and less important each day with what GPS technology can offer nowadays. Like I said: I'm not planning a trip to Hawaii anytime soon but it's nice to beef up security wherever and whenever possible, in my opinion. Interesting topic. Not an expert here, just learning.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Richman7777 said:


> Brian: I guess it comes down to this - boats sink from through hull failures so I'm not sure where opinions matter on this one, with all due respect. Yes, they look very strong, especially when new. But when you look at all the reading material that a quick Google search reveals it's not surprising that *some boats designed to be trans-oceanic have no through hulls below the waterline*. A friend and neighbor here in the marina is a broker and can talk your ear off about personal experiences and friends who have sunk from them. I guess it's why people replace through hulls as a precaution. When I put mine on the hard I'm going to eliminate the only through hull it has; it's just for a non-operation knot meter that seems less and less important each day with what GPS technology can offer nowadays. Like I said: I'm not planning a trip to Hawaii anytime soon but it's nice to beef up security wherever and whenever possible, in my opinion. Interesting topic. Not an expert here, just learning.


Can someone please explain to me how it's possible to build a trans-oceanic boat with *NO* through-hulls below the waterline?!? 

Ignoring water-makers, sea-water taps, marine heads and other such "luxury" items for a sec, an auxilliary engine must get it's cooling water from somewhere...

Thanks.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Allegra 24, 1989, Bellingham, Seattle, Washington, sailboat for sale from Sailing Texas

Here is an example of a boat with no through hulls below the waterline. It's here in Bellingham and owned by the guy I mentioned before. It's designed for crossing an ocean. Axillary power is a small outboard. It's an amazing boat that will embarrass any Pacific Sea Craft in terms of strength and performance with the same amount of room inside; not that I'd say no to a Dana 24 either - another friend has one of those and it's a beautiful craft that I've been out in some hairy conditions in solid comfort and performance.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

On a little boat with an outboard and a bucket and chuck it head you could exist without through hulls. The galley becomes more minimal as well. 
Most want some semblance of civilization though and a real head and a draining sink are the requirements of most.

Often steel or aluminum boats use standpipes instead of seacocks and even on a larger boat only 2 are needed, one intake and one outlet. A pipe integral with the hull is used with plumbing connections branching off of it. A removable cap at its top (above the waterline) allows maintenance while afloat. 

If the through hulls are properly done there are few issues. Knowing your boat and its equipment goes a long way to safety. Proper through hulls maintained regularly don't fall apart, ignored unmaintained ones can.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Brian: I agree completely. I think my boat is okay for a week or so and even then it's pretty small for more than one person. It looks pretty good sized inside until you cook something and have the mess to clean up... then it's like "where did all this stuff come from?" I'd like to venture up your way someday and perhaps down to Seattle but don't have much desire to take her across an ocean... I can get the swells in the Straights if I feel the need for that ever. I'm a pretty new sailor but have been a power-boater all my life. Never thought I'd be interested in sailboats; now I can't imagine going back.

What kind of boat do you have?


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Cs27


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Huh!?! A 24-footer with an outboard is "trans-oceanic"??  Perhaps my definition of "trans-oceanic" (meaning crossing oceans) is different to yours...

Yes, I know plenty of people have successfully crossed oceans in small boats with though-hulls, and correct me if I'm wrong, but am not aware of anyone who has done it with an outboard on the back. I thought everyone knows an outboard on the back is next to useless in rough seas.



Richman7777 said:


> Brian: I agree completely. I think my boat is okay for a week or so and even then it's pretty small for more than one person. It looks pretty good sized inside until you cook something and have the mess to clean up... then it's like "where did all this stuff come from?" I'd like to venture up your way someday and perhaps down to Seattle but don't have much desire to take her across an ocean... I can get the swells in the Straights if I feel the need for that ever.


Doesn't sound like she's very "trans-oceanic" to me.. not many small modern boats are.  

FWIW, our boat (timber) has a beautiful 3" bronze standpipe for the old head outlet.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Since you asked, okay... with respect I hope, I'll correct you...

A motor, any motor, not just an outboard, is useless in rough seas crossing an ocean because you will not have enough fuel to be of any consequence. It's why they call themselves sailors and sailboats. They heave to, use sea anchors and other techniques... but motors? Rarely. Not uncommon to be in a storm for days or even weeks at sea... so much for the fuel supply. If you had a couple hundred gallons of gas or diesel in tanks on the deck and were steady enough to refill the tank, well maybe then it might matter - but you don't see anyone doing that who crosses oceans. Hmm. ;-) Food for thought? BTW, my outboard's prop is below a typical shaft... another thing to consider. the R24 is a pretty well thought out design. Youtube "Single handed kite cam sailing" and you will find a wonderful set of video's of a guy in a Dana 24' who goes to Hawaii with some regularity. And yes, a 24' is a perfectly fine size to cross oceans. Bigger isn't better unless you need the extra space for something. You can also see nice footage on Youtube if you look for "Sailing across the Atlantic"... the adventures of a guy in a 26' boat; again, perfectly adequate. 

The ocean can swallow any boat and it's proved it. That said, I'd pit mine against just about any for the odds; however, I'm not planning to take it across the pond anytime soon. Much to learn here first.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Speaking of Hawaii, a poster on another thread explained that without his inboard he could well have lost his boat when the Tsunami hit a few days ago. To be safe he left the harbour and headed for deep water. No wind and steep seas. An outboard off the stern and it wouldn't have worked very well. An inboard wasn't a problem.
Boats were lost that didn't put to sea and he came through without a problem.

Or you are anchored and the anchor drags - reliable engines are needed in many situations at the push of a button. Outboards are for daysailors and smaller boats - not a real offshore boat.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Again, my outboard, for example, is inside the cockpit and very capable of anything an inboard can provide. It will not cavitate in any seas I can imagine and will sip fuel at a rate similar or less to any diesel. It's a Honda... will probably be more reliable too. ;-) Yeah, that was a jab. 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I mean by "sea anchor", it cannot drag, it's a parachute in the water to slow you down or keep you pointed into the wind without power. A Tsunami and running to sea wouldn't be any different with an outboard than an inboard. It's not rough seas... just one hell-of-a wave coming ashore, or a few.


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

And, Brian: I'd be happy to buy you a beer if you're ever in Bellingham.


----------



## GaryHLucas (Mar 24, 2008)

A short time ago some posted on Sailnet about how to properly install a bilge pump. Everyone offered great suggestions about howto keep it from back flooding, clogging with debris etc. About a week later someone posted on the Etap users forum about how to install a bilge pump on his newly acquired Etap. The answer he got was the same one I got from the previous owner of my Etap 26 before I purchased it. "We have a bucket and a sponge, what's this bilge pump thingy for?" Funny how not worrying about actually sinking changes your point of view.

Now, as to whether an Etap will stand up without a keel, as mine is retractable and mostly certainly COULD fall off, I don't think it would roll over. The reason is simple weight distribution. My boat has a heavy Volvo Sail Drive located very low in the hull. It has two hulls, meaning that the hulls are much heavier than the deck. There is plenty of other heavy equipment mounted low, the head, dual batteries etc. The foam itself weighs about 200 lbs. The mast and rigging weigh only about 100 lbs. I think Weebles Wobble but they Won't Fall Down!

Of course if you guys are betting men how about financing an experiment? I could have the yard launch my boat without putting the keel back on first. We could see just how stable it is. Of course that would cost me an additional haulout and launch. So the losers pay the yard bill!

Gary H. Lucas


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

That Allegra 24 is one nice looking boat!!



Richman7777 said:


> Again, my outboard, for example, is inside the cockpit and very capable of anything an inboard can provide. It will not cavitate in any seas I can imagine and will sip fuel at a rate similar or less to any diesel. It's a Honda... will probably be more reliable too. ;-) Yeah, that was a jab.


You mean it's *through-hull*??   

As Brian said, outboards are for daysailors and smaller boats - not a real offshore boat.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

Hartley18 said:


> That Allegra 24 is one nice looking boat!!
> As Brian said, outboards are for daysailors and smaller boats - not a real offshore boat.


Perhaps you would not choose an outboard aux. for an ocean crossing, but many capable coastal cruisers and racers have outboards. IIRC some multihulls use them and routinely cross oceans.

There are several Ray Richards monohull designs with outboards in secure wells that can go offshore. The Ranger 24 and 26, and Haida come to mind readily. The smaller (and older) Ericson and Columbia boats had wells, also. Heck, Cal 25 Mk1 models have crossed oceans, too.

Sidebar: As we sit and pontificate at our keyboards, there is probably a Flicka somewhere out there _now_ on the ocean with an outboard on a bracket, blissfully unaware of this little digital dust up! 

Anyone's subjective call on what is and is not a "real" offshore boat is 100% valid. For that person.

Apropos of whatever, I also agree that the Allegra is nice looking.

L


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Btw, the Allegra is for sale... $28K - ish. Beautiful boat. When I looked at it the owner told me to keep mine... it would "sail circles around his and go anywhere it would go." Nice to meet an honest guy like that. I still think the Allegra is beautiful, in the same way a Pacific Seacraft Dana 24 is beautiful. I like my boat a lot but it's clearly much more spartan than either of those. I raced the Dana and it's owner accused me of using my motor too... we laughed about it over a glass of wine. No, I didn't use the motor. 

I feel like I should answer the question that so many are bantering about: What is the perfect trans-oceanic sailing machine? In my opinion, a Boeing 777. I'd be scared spit-less in most any boat at sea... just a guess. But know I have one of the better ones for that task is some comfort in the Puget Sound which can also swallow boats of just about any size if you're not careful. Oh, and yes: I still like my outboard. Cheaper, more reliable and just as effective for any task except making you smell bad. Mind you, I love diesel engines... but for a small boat I think an outboard takes the win, even if you take it offshore.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Perfect offshore cruiser? Ask 10 people and get at least 10 answers!

But there are elements in common, such as small cockpit for length, small companionway with near vertical sides, bridgedeck at cockpit seat level to keep water out, good cockpit drainage, smaller rather than larger ports that are solid and not flimsy, solid interior not likely to come adrift after days on rough weather, every item of hardware solidly attached with through bolts and backing plates, proper seacocks, and many others.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

mitiempo said:


> Perfect offshore cruiser? Ask 10 people and get at least 10 answers!
> 
> But there are elements in common, such as small cockpit for length, small companionway with near vertical sides, bridgedeck at cockpit seat level to keep water out, good cockpit drainage, smaller rather than larger ports that are solid and not flimsy, solid interior not likely to come adrift after days on rough weather, every item of hardware solidly attached with through bolts and backing plates, proper seacocks, and many others.


..and more often than not, no outboard on the back. (There... I said it!!   )

From people I've spoken to who have been around Tasmania in small boats, there a school of thought that having *no* engine at all is actually better than relying on an outboard stuck on the transom - and, if fitted with one, they've either left it at home or shoved it down below someplace for fine weather use only.

Reason being that, aside from the dead weight right where you don't want it, being forced to put the sails up if caught on a lee shore is more likely to save your hide than trying to start an outboard motor.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Hartley

I agree

But I was leaving that one alone.

He already knows how I feel.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

I know, but just couldn't resist... 

I'll try harder next time - honest!


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Reason being that, aside from the dead weight right where you don't want it, being forced to put the sails up if caught on a lee shore is more likely to save your hide than trying to start an outboard motor. [/QUOTE]

I'm wondering if those folks have ever heard of modern 4 stroke outboards that as reliable as any diesel, and probably more reliable than most? In terms of "school of thought" it's a little meaningless compared to the facts. 4 stroke outboards run for decades with very little care. Mine starts on the first or second pull even after setting all winter. It was made in the 80's... and it's a Honda, not a Yanmar. Runs like new... and that's no school of thought, just how it is. Oh, speaking of dead weight: my outboard weighs around 75 pounds compared to 175 for a small Yanmar and that doesn't include the transmission and shaft, prop etc.. And mine, again, is inside the cockpit exactly where you want it. ;-)

For what it's worth: the marine shop I have visited said he works on tons of diesel and gas inboards compared to small outboards and considers outboards to be much more reliable. So do most fishermen... but I admit they aren't as cool as a plodding diesel. Though, regardless of opinions... still haven't heard anything that can prove an inboard is any better and with more systems to fail you will have more failures.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Richman7777 said:


> I'm wondering if those folks have ever heard of modern 4 stroke outboards that as reliable as any diesel, and probably more reliable than most? In terms of "school of thought" it's a little meaningless compared to the facts. 4 stroke outboards run for decades with very little care. Mine starts on the first or second pull even after setting all winter. It was made in the 80's... and it's a Honda, not a Yanmar. Runs like new... and that's no school of thought, just how it is. Oh, speaking of dead weight: my outboard weighs around 75 pounds compared to 175 for a small Yanmar and that doesn't include the transmission and shaft, prop etc.. And mine, again, is inside the cockpit exactly where you want it. ;-)


Hi Richman, if you haven't guessed already it has little to do with engine reliability per se (although a wet petrol engine can be fun to start - ask any fisho) and more to do with weight distribution and the way the outboard leg (even a long shaft) comes completely out of the water on every second wave. This doesn't tend to do the prop, engine or the skipper's nerves any good and the boat doesn't go forwards if the prop isn't in the water.

I still have vivid memories of fighting to windward in 35kt winds and a 4' steep chop in our old boat, going forward in the troughs and backward on the crests and the motor poor motor screaming it's heart out on the stern and I would not want to wish that experience on anyone. (BTW, the outboard in question was a 1983 Johnson 7.5hp 2-stroke that never failed to start in it's life, but I know plenty of people who don't have an engine as good as that).

I don't think anyone has any issue with an outboard in the cockpit, except that it gets in the way - but that wasn't what we were commenting on. 

Happy ocean sailing!


----------



## Richman7777 (May 28, 2010)

Hi Hartley,

I understand the weight distribution issue, cavatation issues etc. and have seen many smaller sailboats with motors on the back doing exactly that. However, as I said once before: exactly zero people who are crossing oceans in sailboats are using any motor for anything but entering and leaving port. As for the weight distribution argument: I think they are thinking too hard. Having 40 pounds back there (often kept on the rail when not in use) will affect performance less than having a 5 year old in the cockpit with them. Case in point: A good friend of mine has a San Juan 24' that he races. He has a motor on the back... just about never loses a race - and they race in all conditions, even in the Straight of Juan de Fuca which is basically open ocean - just ask the many large ships at the bottom. Yes, he races against inboards too. Often a full fuel tank weighs more than many small outboards. Cavatation: I'm not saying it's impossible for mine to cavatate, but I haven't been able to make it happen in some pretty aggressive conditions. The downside of my setup is that the motor is in the water all the time producing drag - though a minimal amount. I suppose I could rig something to pull it up once underway but then it really would be in the way. I'm a little too lazy to move it that much anyway. As it is it sets mostly unnoticed under the tiller. As a side-bar: have you noticed that Pacific Seacraft (and many others) who equip their boats with a diesel inboard also put an outboard bracket on the back and on the rail? Smart fellows. ;-)

Of course, as with anything there is a trade-off and any motor can and will break down if not properly maintained. If you have an inboard you never have to worry about it getting wet; although it would be pretty tough for mine to get wet - but it does take up a little potential foot space in the cockpit as you pointed out. It's all electronic ignition anyway and a little water wouldn't be a big deal like on older motors. But the large hole in the cockpit also makes for a pretty big self-bailing port. In literature I have read apparently it was one consideration for an off-shore offering. But space is space and every inboard takes more of it and weighs about triple of a heavier outboard. Maintenance of inboards is considerably more expensive than an outboard as well, especially if you have to pull and replace it. 

So, what's the score-card look like? Propulsion - equal. Reliability - equal. Cost - not equal. Convenience - not equal. ;-)

Sailed yesterday... absolutely beautiful! 
Take care,
Rich


----------

