# Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

There is an article in the June issue of “Cruising World” that I thought was interesting. It’s titled “Second Thoughts on the Ideal Cruising Boat.” Six live aboard crews were interviewed. Their average cruising years ranged from 4-17 years. The article goes into a lot more detail than I can provide here, but below are a few items that they feel would be in an “ideal” cruising boat. It would be interesting to hear the opinions from other members of the cruising community on these items.

•	Comfortable length (in feet) - 35 to 55 

•	Ideal comfortable length (in feet) - 40 to 50

•	Ideal hull material - Five out of six crews chose fiberglass, with one preferring aluminum.

•	Ideal rig - Five in six crews chose cutters, with one choosing a ketch, for the benefit of having a large private aft cabin.

•	Ideal underbody -Five of the six crews preferred full or modified full keels, with one crew choosing a modified fin.

•	Ideal cabin layout - Five crews preferred having an aft cabin, with one crew just stating a two cabin preference.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Stede my brother good to see your shining words again on my screen.. GB... You do mean Ocean crusing not coastal right? For coastal crusing I prefer a much smaller boat one I can single hand. I don''t mind a V berth cabin as long as it is long enough I need over 6 feet.. I also like a comfortable head (One that doesn''t smell on warm days is even better  ) Well I guess we all want something differnt out of our sailing.. Always great see you I''ll end this how I started.. God Bless...


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Hi Jim,

Good to hear from you as well my brother.Yes, the article was referring to ocean cruisiing.What was a little surprising to me is the size of the suggested "ideal" length of a cruising boat.Apparently the average cruiser has a larger cruising "kitty" for associated costs as well.Clearly the advances in gear has changed the size of cruising boats.I''ve been thinking that a 37-38 ft.boat would be ideal for me, a single-handler.Several boats come to mind, but the more I consider long term maintenance costs,I''m starting to think maybe smaller is better.There seems to be two very distinct camps when it comes to hull configurations.Full keel vs.fin. Ocean cruisers seem willing to accept the loss of some speed for the benefits of full keels.As a single-handed sailor, the cutter rig makes sense to me.Or even better yet, a fractional rigged cutter with a removable forestaysail stay.I like you, like a v-berth. I like the airy feel to them. Anyway, the more I read, study, and talk to other sailors, the more defined my views become. Sail on the "true" course my friend. God bless!


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Stede, FWIW I find the views of the ''cruising couples'' reported on by CW to reflect CW''s limited exposure to the real cruising world and their tendency to offer bite-sized chewable articles rather than dig in deep. I also suspect these couples are typical of the Caribbean cruising contigent one finds down in the Eastern Chain (for a while, until they have ''done their thing'' and gone home to swap boat for RV), with relatively high net worth and limited world cruising experience. It doesn''t mean their views are not worth considering...but it does suggest they represent only one view and a limited one at that.

"Comfortable length (in feet) - 35 to 55"
There is nothing comfortable about handling a 40-55 footer in crosswinds in crowded basins or when backing to a quay wall and Med Mooring. Oh, it''s comfortable to slip into a nice captain''s chain in a large main salon or to have room for the washer-dryer (until you have to fix it) but, other than the few percent of use when a boat is off soundings, much more comfort can be found in medium sized boats as e.g. handling the anchor gear on a 35 footer rather than a 45 footer.

"Five in six crews chose cutters, with one choosing a ketch..."
No doubt driven by the fact they are all thinking of fairly large sail areas while sailing short-handed. A simple, easy to maintain, less expensive to operate, perhaps fractional, sloop rig (perhaps with a removeable solent stay for the heavy weather foresail) would be easier to live with and better performing, if only they would halve the displacement of the boat.

"Ideal underbody - Five of the six crews preferred full or modified full keels, with one crew choosing a modified fin..."
Very conventional thinking...for the 80''s. Three things typically drive the desire for these larger volume hull shapes (and their drag, and their weight, and their cost): room for lots of systems, tankage, and load carrying capability. The first is solely a function of the degree to which the crew wants shoreside amenities and toys; it''s not about cruising requirements but lifestyle preferences. The last two are driven by the usually-mythical desire to own a boat that ''I can take anywhere'' - the classic Pacific Crossing - while in reality perhaps 300 boats a year make that run. For North American, Caribbean, Mediteranean, and N European cruising, where far more cruising is actually done, water can be secured almost everywhere (and supplemented with a water maker if one simply must have that system), and food (including fresh food) is easily obtained.

So one wonders...for the 120,000 subscribers to CW, how many of them truly have the requirements described by these 6 couples? Or said differently, how many of these 6 couples actually will find their own expressed preferences ''ideal'' in their own future cruising?

Jack


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Jack,

Thanks for your comments.They are all valid points.I respect your views as someone that is "doing it." The largest boat I''ve ever sailed on was a 45 footer that I chartered out of Athens, years ago.I had to do a Med.moor with her in the small island harbor of Mykonos during an early Meltemi.I was lucky to get her to the quay.Handling a boat that size had been great up until then.However,It has never been my desire to own a boat that big for many reasons.Cost being one of them.

While reading the article in CW, I too wondered how many of the cruising couples are truly doing world voyages? Considering hull shape,of the few world cruisers I have talked with, all of them did have boats with full keels with attached rudders.Granted, I have only talked with a few,but the reasons they gave for having a full keel were the same as the reasons given in the 80''s."Better tracking, able to take a hard grounding,more protection for the rudder,volume,etc." I''ve looked at pictures of your boat...very nice! If I remember correctly, she is a Pearson 42 ft.Ketch.I don''t know the hull shape,but I imagine her to have a fin keel.If so, I would appreciate hearing your views on the pro''s and con''s of the fin keel.

Concerning sail configuration, fractional rigs do seem to be a good alternative. Sailing single-handed most of the time, handling large sails is a major concern for me. One concern I have with the fractional rigs I''ve considered is that they have cored hulls.I''m still undecided about whether I want a cored hull, but that''s just me.Of the older boats I''ve seen with solid hulls, the cutter plan seems to work well, while reducing sail handling size. It is indeed a trade-off though.The PHRF ratings are almost always lower on the cored hull boats.

As I complile as much information as I can before making a choice on my next boat, insight like yours and others is very valuable. Thanks!


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Stede, I didn''t follow your association of cored hulls with fractional rigs and wouldn''t stay away from the rig preference simply because you seek a solid hull. OTOH I''m much less concerned about coring with a closed cell product like Dinylcell (often found in N European products) than in balsa, so don''t be too quick to categorize all coring as similar.

WHOOSH is 13M/42'' x 4M/13'' x 1.7M/5.5'' and is a Pearson 424. She has an extended fin with a large gap aft of the keel followed by a full-length skeg and rudder. Having had 3 full-keel boats before her (all smaller), I enjoy being able to maneuver this larger, heavier boat generally more easily because of that extended fin...and I would be unlikely to prefer a full keel again.

I''m sympathetic with your need to Med Moor in a crowded basin in a crosswind in a big boat; it''s not fun. But again, I think that a huge percentage of even the small extended cruising contingent need less boat than they think...and it''s only in the wide open spaces where all that tankage and load carrying serves a purpose. And it all costs more money - lugging around that stuff, wearing out bigger/heavier gear, and enjoying a bit less spontaneity and trying a few less things if your boat''s big and your crew small.

I''m not an eager follower of the Pardey Mantra and so not trying to sell the notion of a ''minimalist'' boat. The main reason is because I hold the view that the best cruising is that which is shared, which means the woman/women aboard need to find as much pleasure as the men, which usually means more amenities and lighter gear (because women have far more sense in these things than men do, it seems to me). So a ''middle size'' boat seems about right for me, for all but the Coconut Milk Run/Indian Ocean/South Atlantic crowd. 10-11M or thereabouts should provide comfort, adequate load capacity for even long passages (e.g. our run across the Atlantic included stops every week to 2 weeks), and accommodate sufficient systems to make life on board more than camping out.

When you next visit a 40''+ cruising boat, if you have the chance, ask them how large their freezer is. Chances are they''ll go on at some length about how much beef they''ve got stowed in there, or tell you how few hours their generator runs to ''pull ''er down''. That''s what the bigger boats usually seem to be about: systems, volume for ''stuff'' and the (false) sense of security it gives one to haul around a butcher shop rather than eat what the locals find acceptable.

Good luck on the search! It is in fact the very first part of your cruising adventure.

Jack


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Jack,

Thanks for your comments.I guess I was a little vague on the fractional rig/coring item.As I look around for a good blue water boat,part of the criteria I''ve set is for the boat to have a PHRF of ~150.It seems like most of the fractional rigs I''ve seen that share this rating,or lower, have cored hulls.To complicate my search, I''m limited to a boat in the $65K range, which means my selection will be an older boat.I''m not necessarily against having a cored hull, but I do have some concerns about them.Especially in older boats where previous owners possibly have installed thru-hulls improperly.Also, there are many types of coring that I''m unfamiliar with.The Dynacell you mentioned being one of them.Another boat I looked at on "Yachtworld" had something called an "Airex" core.What the heck is that?Anyway, if I find a boat that meets my other criteria, but has a cored hull, I won''t rule it out,but will do more research on what type coring it has so that I know what I''m buying.Also, I know a good surveyor should be able to identify problem areas in a cored deck/hull.

I believe your comments on the needed size of a vessel are right on target.That was an issue that was surprising to me concerning the CW article.Reading your comments on crossing the Atlantic caught my attention as well,and made me re-examine how much room I would really need for stores, and water tankage.

Your viewpoint concerning the cutter rig / full keel is well taken.I know I''ve read some previous posts here about how difficult it can be to tack them at times.In my price range, and for my needs though, I can''t rule them out.Reading your comments concerning a full keel are insightful as well. As mentioned previously, I do respect your opinion highly as someone whom "is doing it."

Thank you my friend. Fair winds to you!


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Stede,

you might check the Bristol 35.5, they rate 150, have solid hulls, and are well built.

As to the subject of cored hulls, you can find a very passionate and through discussion at:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/structuralissues.htm

There are different points of view, that cored hulls can be kept Ok. But when we bounced over a rock last summer, I was glad we had decided to stay with all glass.

good luck.


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Sailingfool,

Aye,my friend.I have taken a look at the Bristol 35.5. She is on my final list.She''s a real beauty.I believe she would be a pleasure to sail.

Thanks for the link on the coring.I''ve run my present boat pretty hard aground twice.I thought I was going to loose a tooth filling during one of them. O.k., maybe that last part is a lie ;^) ... My boat does have a solid bottom though and she came out of both abuses unscathed.Maybe a cored bottom would''ve done the same, I just don''t know.Looking at used older boats in my price range, I just know I have to be very,very careful on what ever I buy.With some of the names manufactures used for their coring process, I find it much harder to find out what''s in it.I''ve not given up though.I just need to learn more. Thanks again!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Hi Stede

I like the direction this discussion is going. As usual I enjoyed Jack''s take on the subject. I hear over and over again how this or that is the ideal type of boat to go cruising and yet I am constantly amazed at what people take cruising. 

I somewhat agree with Jack that distance cruisers in the Atlantic seem to do quite well with comparatively modern designs and comparatively smaller boats. I am beginning to get the impression that for distance cruisers within the central regions of the Pacific there is a greater preference for larger, more robust boats than is popular in the Atlantic.

I don''t think that coring should, in and of itself, be a deal breaker. A well constructed cored hull boat should hold up as well as a well constructed non-cored hull. Pound for pound it is hard to build a non-cored hull with the strength and stiffness of a cored hull, but it can be approximated with a carefully engineered system of transverse and longitudinal framing. That is actually how my boat is constructed. 

Airex is a PVC based expanded foam. The earliest. low density versions have not had a great service record but their higher density and later foams have done quite well.

I would think that with your budget you will probably want to stay below 40 feet (and perhaps below 38 feet) in order to find a reasonable quality boat in your price range. Although a little rare in the States, Farr 11.6''s (Farr 38''s) are a non-cored hull fractionally rigged cruiser that can be bought well within your budget and which have excellent offshore cruising records. Of course they do not represent what a lot of people''s ideas of what an offshore cruiser should look like. 

Nice to see you back.
Jeff


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Hi Jeff_H,

Thanks for your comments.I always enjoy reading your perspectives on different boat issues.While doing more extensive research on boats suitable for my needs,I''ve been very impressed with the selection you made with the Farr.If I remember correctly,she has a PHRF of 88? You truly did your homework! As I''ve looked at many boats in the 37-38 foot range, it dawned on me that you had selected the "ideal" (with the exception of possibly deeper draft) blue-water capable boat.Fast,roomy,well made,and pleasant to the eye.The Farr 11.6 (38) is diffinately on my final list.Unfortunately, I can''t buy quite yet,but it will be in the near future.

On the coring issue, thanks for the information on the Airex core. I had looked around a little to find some information on it, but wasn''t able to.I agree with you about not ruling out a boat because it''s cored.There are many great boats out there that are cored.

I''m finding that boat selection for me is a lot like sailing with no wind. It requires patience,perseverance, and knowledge of the elements to know when the right time is at hand.

Thanks again for your input my friend.


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Stede, let me just add one final thought (well...at least ''final'' for now). If I were shopping for a boat like you say you want, and I had the capacity vs. cost equation you do, I''d look closely at the European market. Fractionals are very, very common, build quality can be excellent and they''ve been doing cored hulls using closed cell foam products for a long time, and the best part is that these boats are used for very short seasons, often stored ashore for the winter (covered or totally inside heated spaces), and fondled with care because it''s the only thing a boater can do for half the year.

The downside is that almost all these boats will have VAT tax paid on them (which raises the equity in the boat), and unless you plan to cruise in Europe, it''s obviously a problem to buy a boat 10,000 miles away! But I mention it in case the purchase is planned shortly before heading this way.

The "U.S. alternative" is to look for similar boats up in the Great Lakes, out in the Pacific NW and of course New England. All these locales have short seasons, the boats seem underutilized and generally in good shape, and the Scandianvian builders are or have been represented in each of these areas.

Did you mention where you plan to be using the boat, and how? I may have missed it but I notice we all are commenting generically on these issues, while your intended use will be specific and steering our comments in that direction would serve you better.

Gotta run; time''s up. Let me know if I can help further and good luck!

Jack
[email protected]


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Jack,

Thanks for the additional information.I''ve kicked around many different scenarios as to where,and when I will buy a boat.The european market idea would work very well for me, and I have seen some of the types of boats you''ve mentioned on-line there. The Dehlers are a boat that really interest me.

Unfortunately, the timing isn''t right for me yet.There are just too many unknowns in my life right now.Sometimes I relate the choices that lie before me like the "Indiana Jones movie...In Search of the Holy Grail." There is one scene where the bad guy, and Indy have to choose amongst drinking goblets in order to find the one that Christ had used.The wrong choice meant certain death.The right one, provided eternal life.An old English Knight stood guard of the goblets.The bad guy forced his hand and chose first.He selected a golden goblet encrusted with jewels.When he drank from it,he disintegrated. The old Knight said,"He chose poorly." Indy chose a plain clay goblet.The drinking cup of a carpenter,if you will.Of course it was the correct choice, and he was rewarded accordingly. The old Knight said," He chose wisely."

Well, I''m sure that''s probably far more information than you care to know ;^) I do struggle with the choices I know I will soon face though.Some of them will directly effect my cruising future.

As far as where I will use the boat I choose.I plan to at least do a Trans-Atlantic,and possibly go further.Mostly though, I imagine I''ll be visiting the tropics.

Fair winds!


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Stede:

I''m familiar with the Dehler line and in fact got well acquainted with a young German couple last fall who''d just wrapped up a 3-year run from the Baltic to the Med and back up to London in their Dehler 31. They felt very good about their boat, altho'' it suffered from less tankage and storage than typically needed for multi-year cruising adventures. Dehler models are quite popular in N Europe. I''d put them on out there on the fringe of the ''cruiser-racer'' category, with only the larger (10M+) models really lending themselves more practically to longer-term cruising. (OTOH we cruised at one point, as a family of 3, on a 20 footer for most of a year...so anything''s possible, and even enjoyable!)

We''re well aware of the Knight''s comments in the Holy Grail movie; the ''choose poorly/choose wisely'' motto has been a long-standing family inside joke. I notice that my son, who''s now a Navy pilot, seems to use it a lot <g>.

"I plan to at least do a Trans-Atlantic,and possibly go further. Mostly though, I imagine I''ll be visiting the tropics."

That general plan would fit together nicely with an initial purchase in European waters, altho'' as you say, the timing needs to be right in the overall scope of things for any boat acquisition and/or cruising plans to qualify as ''wise choices''. FWIW I recently revised/updated an article on buying in Europe you''d be welcome to look at. I try to outline those buyers for whom such a choice fits best, the snags and also benefits of such a plan, the EU and VAT, etc. If interested, contact me at [email protected] and I''d be glad to pass it on to you. The "cost" to you of receiving it is to offer me some feedback on its usefulness and what gaps in content you''ve noticed relative to your needs.

Jack


----------



## Stede (Jun 13, 2002)

Hey Jack,

Thanks for the offer on the European boat article you''ve put together. I believe it might be a very good fit for me,and would be happy to supply you some feed-back.I will be e-mailing you. Thanks again!!


----------



## fenixrises (Oct 6, 2004)

Hi all,
A loaded topic? No doubt.
The mantra.
Go small.
Go simple.
Go now.
Go small? An 11,000 lb, 24'' sailboat is only small in its usable interior space.
Go simple? If one thinks building from scratch an 11,000 lb, 24'' carvel planked wooden boat results in a simple boat one should attempt to duplicate the process.
Go now? Do you have any idea how long it takes to build such a boat. Or the 30'', 18,000 lb one that followed.

When I was in the SoPac in the early 90''s the average boat size for a couple seemed to be around 40'' ~ 42''. Refrigeration, water makers and RIBbies, were the must haves. GPS was just starting to become resonable in price and well worth the ~$1,000. The owners were successful in life and could now afford these vessels.
However I also met many solos and couples in smaller and larger boats. 
Some were happy, some miserable. The boat size had little to do with the atitude of the owners.
So Stede are you a couple? Do you plan to become one? Or are you a dedicated solo? That may go a long way in helping you determine your boat type. Because even if you are or you become a couple you are still in essence a solo.

Another question would be, "How much blue water experience do you have?"
This question is not about your ability to sail, it is about your level of experience. If your amount of blue water experience is very limited or nonexistent then your ideas for your ideal boat will change, sometimes dramatically once you are out for 2 years or so.

You said your budget is $65k. I would suggest that you think about putting $25k away in a safe investment and use the other money to get the least boat that will serve your intended purpose. Today''s used f/g boat market is filled with boats in the 30'' -35'' range that are suitable(usually with some modifications) for getting you out sailing now. Many are available for less than $25k.
Think of it this way. If you put your boat on the rocks or reef and it goes down with everthing you own, how much more upset are you going to be if the boat represents every nickle you have? Vs. knowing you have a sizable nest egg stashed away.

In the early 80''s I was in Hilo repairing a dismasted 45'' slug(not mine). A young man about 23yo came sailing into the harbor one day in a 20'' Flicka. He built in the back yard of his parents house. He sailed the boat from Dana Point, Ca. in 23 days. He was having the time of his life.

Years later when I was in a small atoll in western French Polynesia I met a couple(40ish) aboard a large Mason(53'') designed boat. The owner had made a small fortune in real estate. He cashed out and went sailing. 

The thing is I could not tell you whether he was having more or less fun than the 23yo in the Flicka. The big boat guy was certainly more comfortable.

I built a boat(not a thing to do for the inexperienced or faint of heart). Sailed and lived aboard for 5 years including 2 years in the SoPac. 30'', simple and easy to solo, which I did most of the time. 
Now I am like you in some ways. Considering another boat. My budget is quite a bit less than yours. However I think I can still manage a 36'' boat. Will probably start in the spring 2005.

Take care and good fortune in your decision,
Fred


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

stede,
Fred makes some good points. The cruisers sailing small inexpensive boats are happy as larks. 

You mentioned cores as a concern. After the lastest hurricanes blew through Florida I had a chance to see construction that survives extreme conditions. Cored boat skins fractured easier and the boats took more/larger structural damage than single skin hulls. Single skins flexed/bounced off or had very localized damage compared to cored hulls. Check out the yards in Ft.Pierce
for a look/see verification. Old boats survived better...it isn''t brand specific.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Its funny I had a chance to talk to an insurance adjuster/surveyor today who said he was buried dealing with the damage from the huricanes. It was his opinion that the newer boats really seemed to have come through better than many of the older boats citing internal framing as being a major factor in preventing total losses. That seems to jibe with an earlier insurance institute study of older boats which suggested that the losses on older boats sustaining similar impacts was much greater and that actual testing of panels out of older boats suggested a great diminision in strength on these older laminates. I am really surprised by your observations, which seem so much at odds with the comments of the surveyor.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It''s actually funny you listen to insurance adjusters and their surveyors. Maybe you don''t have the experience dealing with them as we Floridians do...hurricanes and such here make it that way. As with all data, it has to be put into perspective. Insurance companies want to repair newer core boats instead of paying out a total. It''s cheaper for them than replacement of newer boats due to high values. It''s near impossible (or cost effective) to get wet core 100% evacuated or removed for major repair and the problem will/can/may return yrs later. The insurance agents aren''t concerned and aren''t going to authorize repair items that "may" be impacted years later. 

Older single skin boats carry way lower values than modern boats and repair cost easily exceed insured value. Insurance companies total instead of repair. "Damage" in this respect reflects little on which survives castrophic situations better. It reflects on which is cheaper to pay out. 

The above is why I think insurance studies are biased and may embrace distorting of the facts. Please post your source of reference for the "insurance institute study of older boats" so others can read and make their own judgement on it. However, what you say is somewhat true but not so practical in terms of boat survival and rebuilding costs.
Core boat interiors stayed intact while the hull and decks absorbed the damage. The only problem is the exterior skins were easily surface punchured, crushed or sanded away from rubbing on pilings...and cores were so damaged in large sections it didn''t matter how well the internals did. Virtually all the cores I saw were composite. Damage didn''t stay local with cores. Where core skins were intact there was delamination and massive compression of the core. Sure, they survived the deflection test but the hulls/decks were ruined. 

Single skin boats were the opposite. Hulls flexed, portlights popped out and the internals were damaged...if rubbed through or punchured by a piling the damage was generally local and easy to repair. Some hulls defected inward between structure and didn''t do any immediate or visible damage. I looked at a dozen or more standard production sailboats blown up on a sandy beach...cores penetrated and damaged while single skins beat up and still floatable.

Another common denominator seen with multiple boats...fin keels that just fell off their stands on the ground had bent keels at the hull joint and/or bent rudders/skegs. A much bigger problem than I thought would be with fins. Full keels/rudders didn''t suffer major. No contest which takes hard grounding better.

It''s very easy to visit the yards and see how both types of construction were impacted under identical circumstances. Side by side...it takes theory and speculation out of the equation. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It would be safe to say that if you own it and you can cruise it your boat is the best and even if it has short comeings it will still be the best because you will tell yourself it is. You will wish for many other boats a Swan or Hinkley whatever but your old Pearson Catalina or what have you will be the best when you drop the hook in a crystal clear ancorage and after a cold beer and lunch after you have snorkeled around the boat and looked at the bottom from a fish eye view you will say she is the best.Love your boat no matter if she is a bit rough and has some bad habbits so do people yet somehow we manage to love some of them.


----------



## Johnno (Dec 23, 2004)

Hi Stede,

What you put on this board is quite interesting and judging by the responses it has raised quite a bit of comment too.

Hmmmmm.....so what is the ideal cruising yacht? After reading all that and considering my years of sailing in a variety of boats mainly coastal but with the odd passage thrown in, I am not sure that I would necessarily agree with the observations quoted. 

For what it is worth I want to throw in some food for thought too. Understand that my sailing is primarily in Australia so that has quite a bearing on what I have to say. 

The one thing that I have noticed over the years is how the size of boats has increased dramatically. It is like our homes and our cars - everything seems to be getting bigger and so are our expectations. Call it what you like - I see it as the "peter principle" - and charateristic of the rest of our lifestyle that is based on want rather than need. Most of which is artificially created in any event. 

I noticed from the posts that not too many people are enamoured of the "Pardy Principle" of minimalist sailing but the truth is if you are a real cruiser and not just a wannabe or a part timer it is apparent that minimalist sailing is really what it is all about. The more stuff you surround yourself with for whatever reason the more complicated life becomes and the corollary of that is that you become more dependant on others too. The very thing you don''t want.

Having the biggest boat with all the best gear can in fact be a hindrance. That''s why most of us drive modest cars and not Ferraris even if we can afford them.

Some of the posts on this site have rightfully acknowledged that bigger and more complicated boats are harder to manouver, restricted to deeper water and certainly more expensive not only to purchase but also to maintain. We all know those things.


There is therefore good reason for a real cruising sailor to have a modest and simple boat. And yes if you are ever at an anchorage you can be sure that the fellow in the little boat is having just as much fun as the fellow in the fifty footer - possibly even more - because the truth is he doesn''t have half the worries that the skipper of the larger boat has. 

There is a lot of stuff being peddled on the Net which unfortunately is influencing people to buy bigger and more complicated boats and equipment. Not the least the fact that if you want to have a female partner on board you have plenty of room and all the necessary "mod cons". I can think of a number of analogies but I won''t go there. Hi girls!

I guess I am of the old school and more interested in sailing for its own sake. A good comparison is the difference between those who camp (in tents) as opposed to those who take everything including the kitchen sink in a camper or caravan. It''s a personal thing. Maybe Australians are just content to keep it simpler too. 

There are plenty of sites on the Net which extol the virtues of smaller boats so I can avoid going over all that here. Also how important it is to buy the boat that best suits the sailing that you intend to do. The bottom line is that most sailing is coastal and that boats sit in port for significantly more time than they are sailed. On that analysis you really don''t need a fifty footer. Yes the boat should be comfortable but you can get that in a properly designed 25 footer when you realise that in a cruising yacht the most serious sailing is only with a couple of people. A cruising yacht is not a floating dormitory or an entertainers showpiece. It is another case of where size does not always count.

Think about this - if you want to design a yacht that only has a couple of berths and a decent galley then with the added room in the cockpit there is no way that the boat has to be any where near what was proposed by the people you quoted. 

Then comes the real issue - seaworthiness. We have all heard the stories of people who have sailed enormous distances in smaller vessels and the reason they succeeded in most cases is that they made sure that their boats were just that - seaworthy. Clearly we cannot account for the idiot factor - those people will always be there - but we can if we are smart make sure that whatever the size of our boat it is as safe as we can make it for the sailing that we intend.

Interestingly enough I am aware of only one manufacturer, namely Etap, which manufactures an "unsinkable" boat. While there is an agent for them in this country they are not sold in big numbers and I note that is the same in the USA. On their own admission Etap concede that it costs about a third more to build their boats that way and sadly it has not really been much of a selling point if the lack of interest from other manufacturers is anything to go by. Maybe the auto makers have known the answer for years - safety does not sell. Although interestingly enough when I spoke to one eminent yacht designer in the USA recently he did concede that there is much more interest in things like bouyancy today than ever before.

The truth is though that in cruising yachts safety should sell and to get back to small craft it is far easier to make a small boat unsinkable than a larger one unless you adopt the Etap manufacturing technique or have sealing bulkheads. 

Again there is not much on the Net about that and what is there is misleading. It is not just simply a matter of determining a boat''s displacement and then adding the equivalent amount of bouyancy (assuming you have enough room) as some people (who should know better) have suggested. It all has to do with the density of the material that the boat is built of and the weight of the stuff (like the motor and other gear) in and on the boat. It is simpe enough to calculate too.

Those people (primitive or otherwise) who have sailed epic voyages in wooden boats have proved the principle that if you have a boat that will float even when flooded regardless of its weight you are far safer than in a modern steel or fibreglass boat that will sink in the same circumstances. 

Fibreglass, aluminium and steel are all heavier than water as we know. While fibreglass may be less than twice the specific gravity of water, aluminium is about three times and steel is about seven times. Without some consideration to bouancy all those boats will sink like stones. Not a nice thought when you are a long way from port. 

So apart from manufacturers like Etap there is still even a place for wooden boats despite what some "modern" cruising sailors would have us believe. And when you take into account all the advantages of a small boats even a small wooden boat is not such a bad option. So much for all the "tupperware" boats that we see these days. 

Another thing that most people seem to get wrong is their ability to stem the flow of water in the event of a flooding. Few pumps manual or otherwise can do that even with a relatively small hole at least not over an extended period of time. It is often a case of knowing whether to pump or jump and even if you decide to pump just when to jump. It is far better to know that your craft won''t sink and that you will have time to find and fix the problem. Having or adding the necessary bouancy to your boat will give you just that. It is easier to do that on a smaller boat too.

The truth is you are safer staying in the boat not only because of the obvious possibility of being shark bait but also because all your water, food and equipment is there so there is a real chance that you will endure the ordeal and also be seen and get home after fixing the problem.

So my thought is that more modest and simpler boats are still the go for long term cruisers. Since serious cruisers only make up a small proportion of sailors the rest are likely to continue to buy boats and gear more for reasons associated with their ego than the reality of cruising. That''s all good for boat builders and chandlers and if that is what the majority of sailors want then that is fine. To suggest that we need all those things as opposed to just wanting them is another thing. That is so whether you base that on surveys or otherwise. And that is my point.

My advice is if you really want to keep the dream alive "go small, go now" as is often said and give some thought to seaworthiness which covers a lot more territory than the issues that I have raised.

I personally believe (if you are so minded) you''ll have more fun whether you cruise occasionally or long term - coastal or otherwise in a smaller boat. You will also learn a lot on the way. That''s what cruising is really all about.

Me - I am back to a small wooden boat. It does everything I want and gives me more flexibility than a larger boat. With the added advantage of the bouyancy that I have installed I know that I can weather most of what the briney can throw at me. Being wood the boat is easily fixed too. It requires more maintenance than a glass boat but the end result is better. Consider how hard it is to match a patch on a moulded glass boat. 

All things that make for better and certainly cheaper cruising. Notice I said cruising and not posing or racing. 

Like I said it is a personal thing but I certainly would not be putting too much credence in the small survey that you quoted. 

Johnno


----------



## DavidHDennis (Sep 28, 2009)

Johnno, you raise an interesting point in favor of wooden boats that I had not seen before. But aren't wood boats more fragile and thus more likely to break up in rough seas?

I would think a broken up boat would not be safe even if individual planks floated. 

No offense intended to you and your views, it just seems curious.

D


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

DavidHDennis said:


> Johnno, you raise an interesting point in favor of wooden boats that I had not seen before. But aren't wood boats more fragile and thus more likely to break up in rough seas?
> 
> I would think a broken up boat would not be safe even if individual planks floated.
> 
> ...


 In a word, No. 
A well found yacht is well found!!


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

Well, Johhno hasn't posted in 3 1/2 years. Maybe his boat sank?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

To respond to David Dennis, on a pound for pound basis, nothing (except the high tech composites like kevlar and Carbon) are stronger then wood. If you were building a purpose built, one off, small cruiser, colded molded wood construction with a protective barrier of epoxy/kevlar laminate would be a tough, low maintenance and inexpensive way to go. 

On the other hand, with regards to Johno's point of three years ago, while wood itself is buoyant, by the time that you add a ballast keel (even without the weight of an engine) to a wooden sailboat, a wooden boat would not float without additional buoynacy chambers. A good design might include some buoyancy chambers, and they would buy you some time to self rescue. 

But even with fiberglass construction, there are few production boats that are optimized for offshore use, and many of those rely on out dated construction modes that result in unecessarily heavy hull weights, compromising the ability to carry ballast, which in turn compromises stability, which in turn compromises the ability to carry sail, which in turn compromises the overall sailing ability of the boat other than for offshore distance cruising. 

This topic of an appropropriate Fiberglass structure and construction details for offshore work came up in an earlier discussion with Stede and here is the response that I had written on that topic....

_No matter what you do you just about can't put enough conventional fiberglass in the hull of a boat to prevent it from being pierced in a collision with a floating container or other heavy, solid, small contact area object. For that matter, if you are going to end up with a reasonable weight boat, you typically don't end up with enough steel either. For a serious 'go anywhere cruiser', the key to building a safe go anywhere structure consists of a variety of factors. Small panel areas, by that I mean that the boat should have a series of longitudinal frames and athwartship frames. Forward of the main bulkhead these should be quite closely spaced. [I will use my boat as an example (which was after all built for offshore work despite her light weight) the biggest unsupported hull sections below the waterline forward of the main bulkhead are about 4" by about 16" in area.] There should a 'crush block' at the stem at the waterline. [On my boat the crush block extends 6" above the waterline and extends back 16" to the first transverse frame.] _
<O</O
_The area forward of the main bulkhead should be compartmentalized with watertight bulkheads that extend vertically above the waterline that would result if the boat had at least two of the compartments flooded. [On my boat these bulkheads appear to extend over a foot above the flooded waterline.] Ideally the tops of the longitudinal frames and the athwartship frames are on the same plane so that you can screw plywood into the tops of the frames to slow or stop the flooding. Ideally one of these bulkheads are on the centerline of the boat because should the boat ride up on something the sharp ridge at the centerline of the vee'd sections at the forward end of an offshore boat would really have to stand up to a lot of abuse. That whole bulkhead system should be heavily glassed into place. [That pretty much describes the construction of my boat.) _
<O</O
_In the area of the keel there should be massive and closely athwartship 'floor frames' (this applies on fin keel or full keel, encapsulated or bolted on). [On my boat the 'floor frames' are over 8" deep and 4" wide and taper out to 4" deep above the waterline terminating at the waterline longitudinal except on the areas near the two main bulkheads where they extend to the rail.] On a boat with an encapsulated keel, the membrane across the top of the ballast needs to be as heavy as it would be on a boat with a bolt-on keel. _
<O</O
_There should be no liners blocking access to the skin of the boat (at least forward of the main bulkhead and on the leading edges of the keel) up to the height of the flooded waterline mentioned above. All decks and flats in this area should be quickly removable so that access to make repairs can occur. [Here my boat gets a 'B' I can get to everything under the berths and forepeak quite quickly but the deck of the forward cabin is not removable. That is something I plan to change if I ever take the old girl offshore.] _
<O</O
_Seacocks should not rely on backing blocks. Instead the hull should be built up to a thickness that locally reinforces the area under the seacock and distributes this localized stiffness out into the hull. _
<O</O
_Once you have done all of that, coring or non-coring becomes less important. But coring above the waterline tends to produce a better offshore hull. For example, to quote from the Shannon website," The most important feature of <ST1Shannon's fiberglass work is the use of composite core construction techniques. Composite core construction uses a layer of structural foam sandwiched between two thicknesses of laminated fiberglass. A composite hull can be both lighter and stronger than a conventional hull made with only solid fiberglass laminates. Cored hulls can remove unwanted weight above the waterline and have tremendous impact strength to absorb a blow from a piling, another boat or in a grounding. Solid laminate hulls are heavier in the topsides and when hit, tend to fracture and fail along the filament lines of the laminate. <ST1Shannon </ST1hulls use 1/2" to 1" semi-rigid PVC closed-cell linear foam material. Linear foams do not shear internally under impact, as has been found in the less expensive cross-linked PVC foams. Extensive testing has proven that foam core materials have better memory than balsa wood cores, enabling them to spring back into shape after a concussion. Unlike balsa wood, foam cores not allow water migration and rot if water penetrates into the core material from a skin fracture."_
<O</O
_In a composite boat, I believe that a couple layers of Kevlar, ideally in a vinylester or epoxy resin, and located in the outer plies, is critical to approaching the kind of abrasion resistance exemplified by steel but at a tiny fraction of the weight. _
<O</O
_Then there is the main bulkhead. I don't care how a boat is constructed, at the mast and shroud area there needs to be either a massive ring frame or bulkhead to address the kind of loads that come from the rigging and keel loads. Without some kind of athwardships rigidity the boat will flex in a way that will ultimately weaken it through fatigue. _
<O</O
_Similarly, there is the rudder area. Again, I don't care what kind of rudder you have, the area around the rudder post should have sturdy knees or bulkheads extending transversely and fore and aft. In my opinion, the rudder tube should extend well above the waterline and should have support at or near the deck level. In my opinion the rudder tube (and perhaps the shaft log), should be in their own watertight compartments or at least a compartment that is tight against the hull but extends above a partially flooded waterline. (This may require two shaft seals for the prop shaft or a flooded engine compartment neither of which is too easy to achieve.) _
<O</O
_There should be substantial knees or bulkheads at shrouds attachment points and these should be tied into substantial longitudinal framing. _

_<ST1Hull to deck joints are another area of concern. I am a big believer in a belt and suspenders approach. I personally like a large inward facing hull flange with frequently spaced, comparatively small diameter bolts that is backed up by a slightly resilient adhesive caulk. The bolting should pass through an uncored section of the deck. At that point, glassing the interior of the joint becomes extraneous and makes future repairs much harder to perform. _
<O</O
<O</O
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff


----------

