# Input from Cruisers please.



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

My wife and I are on a 4 year plan to "escape". I''ll be 55 when we do this. We have sailed a 28 Lancer for the last three years and are now looking for that getaway vessel. I have a friend with a 31 Yankee Clipper in very good condition for a 1984. Is this a good cruising boat? Anyone heard of this make before??. We are planning to sail the caribbean for a while and end up in the Dominican Republic where we have a condo. Is 31 feet too small ??? 
Any input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks..


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hi--

I did reply to this, but mistakenly sent it as a private message to you rather than a post on the board. I''ll try to recreate what I said.

Since my husband (who just turned 57) and I cruise aboard a 1980 Baba 30, I of course will say that 31 feet is definitely not too small!!! Actually, it''s a personal choice. Do you and your wife feel comfortable living on that size boat? If so, I see no reason why it wouldn''t work.

One great advantage I have come around to after 20 years of cruising on 3 different boats is that "singlehandleability" is a HUGE safety factor. If something happened to my husband while on a passage that required me to single hand the boat in to port safely, I (as the weakest member of the crew) need to be able to manage her without getting too fatigued. 

I am a firm believer that couples who cruise need to make sure their boat can be single handed by the weakest member---this can be accomplished on larger boats through addition of labor-saving equipment (electric winches, roller furling on main and jib, e.g.), so larger boats aren''t out of the question by any means. But if you have a well-founded smaller boat that you feel comfortable living and traveling on, so much the better. And you will be able to go places bigger boats can''t, and spend less money on maintenance too! What a deal!!!

I hope to hear more about the progress you are making in your cruising plans!

Trish Lambert
S/V Nehalennia (Baba 30)
[email protected]
www.takehersailing.com


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Actually this is a bit more complicated than simply describing a boat by length. Length tells very little about the amount of space on board, capacity to carry the extra weight required by distance cruising or the ease of handling the boat short-handed. 

In many ways displacement is a much better indicator of a boat''s capabilities as a cruiser. Using the Baba 30 example,(since the only data on a Compass 29 is a Bruce Farr designed race boat that is anything but suitable for a transpac crossing) the Baba 30 has a base displacement of 12,500 and is closer to 15,000 lbs ready to go cruising. This is much closer in weight to a 35 or 38 footer. (That is actually heavier than my 38 footer either empty of loaded.)In terms of ease of handling it is the displacement that greatly governs the loads on lines and the amount of sail area required. And all other things being equal, a longer sailing length yields a more comfortable motion, greater stability, better performance, and more stable platform not to mention more space to live in. The longer sailing length vvessel would have a more easily driven hull than an equal weight boat of a shorter length and so can actually get by with less sail area in a blow. Because of all of that, within reason, a longer boat of a similar displacement would actually be easier to handle single-handed by the "weakest member of the crew".

Traditionally the rule of thumb for distance cruisers was roughly 2 1/2 to 5 long tons of displacement per person. So for three people that would suggest a boat of roughly 15000 to 30000 lb displacement. Given the fact that one of the ''crew'' is only 4 that would seem to push the number down toward the bottom number of that rule of thumb, say 15,000 lbs. Jambing that much displacement into a 29 footer would result in a boat that really would have very poor sailing characteristics. 

A 29 footer of any near the displacement required by 3 people is a pretty small and very slow boat for the kind of distance passages that you are considering. Add in the ''full keel'' and you have a boat that by any objective standard will be exceptionally slow. I know that you are not racing but when you make very long distance passages such as are required in a Pacific Crossing and do them in a boat that is at the extremely slow end of the scale your passages can be extremely long, double or even triple the time required by a similar displacement boat of a longer length. As a result you actually need to carry a lot more food, water and fuel than a similar displacement boat of a longer length which of course aggrevates the problem. It can be done but it requires a lot of discipline to not carry too much ''stuff'' and you lose the ability to carry reserves.If something goes wrong you are far less likely to have the spare parts and equipment and consumables to jury rig a repair and stay at sea. And because of your less easily driven hull than a longer boat of the same displacement you will require a larger and more robust jury rig. This is less than ideal but stranger things have been done.

If I had a 4 year old I would try to find another way to do this. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

As usual, Jeff makes some very good points. However, I have a unique perspective in that I have cruised in a 30 foot boat (12k lbs) with 4 (2 children) for three years, and now have a 45 foot boat.

As far as speed, yes it''s true that big boats are faster. But, time and again, I found our little boat keeping up with or even passing 37 foot boats (under sail - under power we were always slower). The reason, I believe, is that due to our smaller sails and easier handling, we usually had the correct amount of sail up, while bigger boats were worried about having to put the reef back in, or striking a big sail and therefore sailed less efficiently. I was a more relaxed sailor since I didn''t worry about sheet loads that were 4 times mine. A broken block on a 30-footer does not have the same damage/personal injury potential as on a 45-footer.

Jeff is right in that longer waterline, more sail area, etc... makes a faster boat, but dosen''t take into consideration the sailors themselves. I found this discrepancy common.

I once sailed from Panama to Honduras in company of 2 boats - a 48 footer and a 37 footer. The conditions were 30 knot winds and 8- 12 foot seas, near close reach. The first day, the big boat turned back because their auto pilot failed and it was too difficult to hand steer. It would have been hard, but I would have kept on - my boat was easier to steer. The 37-foot boat arrived 18 hours (over 600 miles) after we did. They said they reefed way down and had a slog. We got beat up pretty well, but sailed at near hull speed most of the way.

Now that I''ve got a bigger boat, though, I see the many advantages. I carry 3 times the water and food, and more spares. My boat is much faster (assuming I''m willing to push it), but most importantly, more roomy and comfortable. Our final trip in the smaller boat was through a very rough Gulf Stream. The trip soured our cruising for awhile. Wet sails were down below in the way, there was no comfortable place for the 3 off-watches to rest and the motion was unbelievable. I wonder sometimes how the trip would have been with 3 times the weight, 15 feet on length, and 1 or 2 more knots.

What this means is that a 31 foot boat is plenty big enough for 2 adults and 2 kids that will coastal cruise. Off-shore (say transatlantic) is dicey due mostly, in my mind, to the lack of tankage (maybe you can fit a water-maker, but it''s unlikely). Comfort is relative. If you want to cruise, my experience says keep it small and simple. If you want to be comfortable and go fast, and carry every spare (and be more of an object of scorn to the poor locals) get a big boat.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

fourknots--

I always love to read your posts, because you are a small-boat cruiser who has upsized but who hasn''t lost the appreciation for the advantages of smaller boat cruising. I went from large (largest a 43-foot ketch) to small (our current home on a Baba 30), and though I have no regrets, I do still appreciate the advantages we had with the large boat. 

Your point about the equations not taking sailing skill/know-how into account is a good one. Like you, over the two decades I''ve been on the waves, I have seen small boats outsail big ones in the same conditions, the one variable being skill level.

I try hard not to go one way or the other in advising about size...everybody has particular circumstances that make it hard for anyone else to dictate what they should or shouldn''t do.

I do think we can live in smaller spaces than we initially think we can. And, like you said, the planned crusing scenario (coastal vs. offshore, for example) significantly impacts the issue.

Trish Lambert
www.takehersailing.com
[email protected]


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thank you all for your input. The boat we are considering is a Bombay Clipper 31. It has an 11-3 beam, draft 3.5 feet ballast 3,400 lbs. and displaces 11,000 lbs. It has plenty of room inside for Mom and I and the boat is in immaculate condition. The sails are NEW and the Yanmar diesel has 240 hrs. Does any one you know this boat maker. I understand that they sold the mold to C&C or Island Packet.

Thanks Again


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

This would not be a boat that is very high on my list for that kind of offshore cruising. While shoal draft is convenient, when you talk about this kind of extreme shoal draft a very high ballast to weight ratio is required to achieve decent stability. A 30% ballast to weight ratio is in the range that you would expect for a very deep bulb keel boat where a decently low vertical center of gravity can be achieved. 

When you put that much displacement on such a short waterline and with such extreme beam, you end up with a hard driven hull form. In other words, if this weight was spread out on 32 foot waterline, as would be more normal, a perhaps a narrower waterline as well, you would have a much more easily driven hull. In heavy going an easily driven hull can get by with a lot less sail area and still claw its way off a lee shore. The problem with a boat like this is that it needs a lot more sail area to fight its way through a storm BUT it lacks the stability that is required to carry that sail area in a breeze. 

Beyond these sailing issues this is a nearly 20 year old boat. While it sounds like the current owner has taken on some of the bigger ticket long term maintenance items, given the age of the boat you can expect to replace standing and running rigging, upgrade the plumbing and electrical systems, as well as expect to need to beef up the rudder and steering systems. Also in stock form these boats do not have a single seaberth and you will need to work out some kind of seaberth ideally in the main salon. 

I guess if you were looking for a coastal cruiser for an area with predominant winds in the 12 to 15 knot range or a short length live aboard, this would be a pretty fair boat but you are talking about some serious sea miles and this would not be the best choice for that.

BTW I am certain that the Bombay Clipper 31 molds were not sold to C&C and I do not believe that the molds were sold to Island Packet since the Bombay Clipper 31 was a Walter Scott design and the Island Packet 31 was a Bob Johnson design and the Island Packet has very different dimensions (nearly 3 ft longer waterline, 1100 lbs more ballast, and 6 inches greater draft.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

All things being equal, I think consideration must be given to the route to be sailed and the length of each leg between safe harbors. If you can wait for the right wind/weather for each leg, it can work. 

Whether 31'' is large enough depends on your "comfort" requirements. I''ve read posts from couples who have been liveaboards for years on 25 footers. I''ve also read posts from couples who found 40 footers "too confining". 

What do you need that the 28'' Lancer doesn''t provide? As you shop around, you''ll find a boat that fulfills these needs? Then you''ll know whether 31'' is enough.


----------



## jayhop (Oct 13, 2003)

I met a French couple in Vanuatu that had been sailing the world for 17 years aboard a 27'' drop-keel boat (can''t recall the make). They opened the inside up quite abit by cutting away bulkhead that made the forward cabin and removed all the cabinets. Sweet and simple, open and airy...perfect for two. You really wanted to grab a book and settle down in the little thing. Point being, they did it with what they had and continue to have the right attitude.

PS - I''d guess they are in their late forties..


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

I''d suggest that, if we all accept Jeff''s view that ''length'' is not a true measure of boat size but ''displacement'' is, then we should also acknowledge that ''displacement'' says very little about the suitability of a given boat for long term cruising. The Baba 30 e.g. has a very well thought out anchoring system. Some of its displacement is dedicated in that direction, but I''m guessing (dim memory of seeing Jeff''s boat in a pic some time back, perhaps the CW BB) we''d all rather be relying on the Baba 30''s anchoring arrangement, day in/day out, than Jeff''s. The list of similar examples goes on and on IF we''re talking about long-term, long-range cruising (vs. ''weekending'' or ''vacationing'').

I''m growing to appreciate more and more how sailing ability is a highly valued asset in a cruising sailboat...but only for very, very short spans of time. This thread began with the description of a small boat that had been modified as a long-term cruiser while out in the Pacific. I''m guessing, given the length of time these folks have been out, that they make very few multi-thousand mile passages in a given year...yet they rely on a workable galley, comfortable berths, cockpit shade, minimal draft, etc. each and every day.

Somewhere above, the observation is made that one should reflect on the intended cruising grounds before judging what a ''good boat'' might be. Amen. And I''d add to that the advice to reflect carefully on the cruising lifestyle that''s planned. Big/fast boats get beat up all the time heading to the Caribbean from the SE U.S., but because they are in a hurry. I''d wager that small boats get beat up a lot less, only because the crews have learned they can''t fight the conditions and so grow more patient and careful in their passages by comparison.

In summary, there seems far more emphasis placed on the ''right'' size and ''right'' numbers, and far less on the many examples of successful long-term cruising done by vessels of all sizes, including fat/short/heavy ones. The tendency we all suffer from is to firm up a clear, black/white notion of what''s needed if only to bring clarity to the fantasizing, buying and outfitting of a boat...whereas it''s far more to do with the crew, their approach, and the values they bring aboard with them once they shove off.

Jack


----------



## gershel (Feb 4, 2001)

I agree with WHOOSH, but to put it more simply,the most important part of cruising is the "nut" that holds the wheel.
Marc


----------



## mcain (Jun 13, 2003)

I totally agree with Jack on Whoosh. 
We get hung up on the "perfect" boat for "offshore cruising" with the perfect set of "numbers"--displacement and ratios, etc.--and sometimes to the exclusion of common sense. The subjective element and crew knowledge, makeup and attitude make a big difference. There are a lot of very successful boats cruising that may not fit the numbers perfectly. And good offshore boats that are disasters in the hands of careless or ignorant sailors.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I have a 37'' Irwin. Two items. In under 10 knots everyone (34'' or less)can keep up with me. Above 20 I go about 7 to 7.5 knots. Between 10 and 20, it depends on which way we sail. Everyone says to get a bigger jib. I have a cutter, which has a shorter mast, so the main is smaller as is the staysail. However, no matter how many times I tell the others...I cannot go faster than hull speed...so why get a larger sail? As for slogging, its all relative. I have rarely reefed up to 30 knots and she plows nicely through anything. Hairy perhaps because I found others like to heal at 15 with a max at 20 degrees. I go over 30+ which means water coming in through the sinks, unless I close them. I should reef to save wear on the sails as well as having a somewhat safer ride. But its fun to walk on the walls. Lastly, whever I get somewhere, I have a condo, and I love it. Yeah the expenses are more, but not that much, and I can singlehandle her even with the old style winches.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Speedy, sorry to come right under you without an answer to part of your question. Here''s my friend''s homebuilt 24'' that did a circumnavigation during the mid 80''s to early/mid 90''s from what I remember him telling me. Has practically every mod-con incl a diesel ferryman engine. Was able to utilize space by good (and self) design. Thought I''d throw it in as an inspiration to the people with small size s/v''s to go out and get cruising. He put alot of emphasis into the keel to make her seaworthy. http://www.costnet.com/pete.htm
Best, Fitzy


----------

