Containerable Motorsailers

[Guillermo]

Container Yachts, LLC, in Middletown, Rhode Island, USA, is building a 39 ft. Robert Perry designed pilothouse motorsailer that can be shipped in a standard high cube container. The prototype boat "InBox" is schedule to be launched in August on the west coast of the US. The series production boats are being built in Croatia with the first boats to be delivered in early 2007.

More info on this new approach to worldwide hopping with your own boat, at:
www.containeryachts.com (http://www.containeryachts.com)

I want you to note displacement and other data stated at their web pages are in lightship condition.

Your opinions, ladies and gents.

[Vega]

This is a very interesting boat and a very interesting concept, but after looking at the boat data I have my doubts:

From the boat’s web page:

“What are the pros and cons of the 7.5 ft beam?
In a properly designed boat, there are no cons. Narrow boats are fast (think Six-Meters and Eight-Meters). Other pros are efficient sailing and motoring, plus a secure below decks in a seaway. Dennis Conner’s new pride and joy is his restored classic Q-Boat Cotton Blossom II. Her LOA is 49 ft; her beam is 9.4 ft. Both boats have an identical length-to-beam ratio of 5.2.”

Yes, but I bet they don’t have the same D/L neither the same B/D.

Fact is that it is a light boat (5,6T) and that they don’t tell you the ballast. But this one can not be substantial, given the boat’s weight.
This boat has very little form stability and relies, almost exclusively, in a low center of gravity, given by ballast.
Therefore, it looks to me that the draft of the boat (1,7M) is insufficient to provide a really good overall stability without substantial ballast. This seems to be confirmed by its small rig and small sail area (51m2) (a modern boat with this weight carries about 65 m2).

I would like to take a look at its stability curve.

But one thing is certain, it is a very interesting and unusual boat… and that container possibility, has put me dreaming.;)

[Guillermo]

Here you have her main parameters. Take them with care, as displacement is in lightship condition

LOA = 11,9 m
Lwl = 11,6 m
Bmax = 2,6 m
Bwl = 2.05 m
HD = 0,32 m (body draught)
Draught = 1,68 m
Disp = 5600 kg
Ballast = 2266 kg
Sail area = 51 m2
Power = 40 HP


D/L = 100.07 (Very, very light. Even at loaded condition shouldn't go higher than 135)
SA/D = 16.43 (wait to know LCD)
6*HP/D = 19.42 (idem)
HSPD = 8.27 Kn
CSF = 1.48 (nice. very in the safety zone)
MCR = 28.44 (somewhat low for size. Uncomfortable?)
AVS = 121.44 º (good)

[Vega]

Where do you found these data?

Ballast = 2266 kg
AVS = 121,44 º

That means that the boat without ballast, but with rig and sails weight only 3334kg. That's very light for a 39ft, even a narrow one.

[Guillermo]

Where do you found these data?

Ballast = 2266 kg
AVS = 121,44 º

That means that the boat without ballast, but with rig and sails weight only 3334kg. That's very light for a 39ft, even a narrow one.
Ballast was kindly provided by Will Rogers, President of Container Yachts. AVS calculated. Prototype lightship disp of 12500 lbs will be around 13000 lbs for production boats. I'm wainting to know full load data, the ones we really need to compare the boat.

At FAQ's pages they provide also:
SA/D = 17.5
AVS = 147º
I think these values have to be double checked.

More info
Tankage:
Fuel 75 gal.
Water 75 gal
Holding 25 gal

Electrical:
Batteries (4 ea) AGM Group 31
Eng. Mtd. Alter. 60 amp
Inverter 2000 Watt Xantrex
Battery Meter Xantrex MS2000

Steering Hydraulic

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

similar containerable solution from Thailand:
Built using quality materials this boat is designed to fit inside a 40' shipping container, not quite "in a suitcase" but wherever your work takes you the Dubloon can travel as well allowing you continuous sailing in your own boat.
PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS:
Length Overall: 36 feet 1 in [11 m].

Length Waterline: 26.24 feet [8 m].
Beam: 7 feet 8 in [2.35 m].
Draft: 4.9 feet or 5.8 feet [1.5 m or 1.78 m].
Displacement: 12,965 lbs [5,881 Kgs].
Lead Ballast : 2,721 Kgs. 49%
Hull Surface Area: 35.79 sq.m
Deck Surface Area: 22.95 sq.m
Engine: 1 x 24HP Yanmar sail drive (or 24 HP Mitsubishi)
Fuel: 80 litres (21 gals US)
Fresh water: 200 litres (53 gals US)
Gross Tonnage: 12 GRT. Net Tonnage: 11 NTR.

[Guillermo]

A very nice boat, indeed, Luigi! I love it!
May you post Bwl, body draught and sail area? I'd appreciate that, thanks in advance.

Also:
Why dont' you post more info on your Lobster Boat at thread: http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11670 ?
I would like very much to discuss it there.

All the best.

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

To be precise (because may be I started a misunderstanding with my post!) this is not our boat, we do not build this boat, it is a boatbuilder from Thailand; I do not know their actual financial situation and if they are still open, as this project take a lot of time in the past to become reality.
So I do not have more specs.
Anyway You can try: http://www.concordiayacht.com/

I will post some info about our Lobster for sure.

[Guillermo]

I've written designer Andy Pitt for more info on Doubloon 36. Let's wait...

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

I heard that they are momentarily closed, I employed some staff from them...but...
Too many big uncompleted projects. But the 36 ft it is available (around 5 million Thai Baht, for what I know)

[FAST FRED]

This is a GRAND concept, most folks are coastal sailors , and not many boats are constructed for the rigors of an ocean passage.

BOXES are really CHEAP to move from place to place , compared with deck cargo and the special handeling that requires.

Would seem a Box Boat could easily meet all the Euro Canal size restraints for a fun cruising season or two , then be moved on to the next "adventure", at little cost.

Although special light weight boat construction would no be a shipping advantage ,
in a Box you pay for the volume , not weight .

FAST FRED

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

This is a GRAND concept, most folks are coastal sailors , and not many boats are constructed for the rigors of an ocean passage.

BOXES are really CHEAP to move from place to place , compared with deck cargo and the special handeling that requires.
.

FAST FRED

Yes guys, But You have to consider this as well: cheap to ship a container from US or Europe to Asia/Oceania, expensive to ship from Asia/Oceania to other western countries. Quite three time cost!!

[Wellydeckhand]

Would this design by Tad be consider as containerable?

[Guillermo]

Will Rogers of Container Yachts kindly sent to me more data about this boat.
As web 'gremlims' made me post an incorrect number for Motion Comfort Factor (MCR), and also with this new and more accurate data, here you have my calculated parameters again:

D/L = 101,25
SA/D = 16,48
6*HP/D = 19,2
HSPD = 8,27 Kn
CSF = 1,3 (Even nicer than before)
MCR = 33,88 (Now it looks nicer)
AVS = 136,7º (Also nicer)

6*HP/D = 19,2 means 3.2 HP per ton. Somewhat high, it should be better something like 2.5, for better fuel efficiency, in my opinion, so the engine having 32 HP instead of 40. But I do not know the meaning of this 40 HP. Continuous, Intermittent....? If real usable power is something like 85% of those 40 HP, then top propulsion power is something like 34 HP, nicer than the 40. Anyhow, due to the lightness of the boat, power needings are very low compared to heavier motorsailers (We'd go up to almost 100 HP for a 350 heavyweighter, to get the same HP/D ratio), so the difference between 32 and 40 is not so relevant.

Here data from Will (Imperial units). Comentaries inside () are mine:

Main 362
Jib 220
Sail Area (RSAT) 582
Displacement, 1/2 stores 12500 (Bob Perry ratifies this as 1/2 load displacement)
Ballast 5000
Ballast Ratio 40%
LOA 38.9
LWL 38.0
Beam 7.4
Draft 5.5
Body Draught Ft. 1.54

Calculations
SLR-Knots 1.30 8.0
SLR-Knots 1.35 8.3
SLR-Knots 1.40 8.6
Prismatic Coefficient 0.65 (good for SLR of 1.4+)

Sq Ft
Lateral Plane-Keel 15.8
Lateral Plane-Rudder 5.6
Lateral Plane-Hull 42.4
Lateral Plane-Total 64.4
Lateral Plane/RSAT 11.1%

Wetted Surface-sq. ft 245
SA/Wetted Surface 2.2
SA/Displacement (RSAT) 17
Disp/Length 102 (Very light, indeed)
Water Plane-sq ft 210
Heave Index-Lbs/ft2 60
Righting Moment-One Deg. 720
Righting Moment-Thirty Deg. 15650
Immersion-lbs/inch 1120
Center of Buoyancy 55.9%

[Guillermo]

Would this design by Tad be consider as containerable?
I don't think so. If I remember well this boat is over 65' length and beam is higher than the 8 feet rquired.

[Wellydeckhand]

I think the present boat can be split into 3 container and shipped, still consider containerable yes?

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

may be not containerable..... but for sure road able

[frank marsden]

I designed a similar boat as an entry in the BMIF (British Marine Industry Federation) Concept Boat competition three years ago, the advantage being that international transport is cheap.

The judges did not like the idea.

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

Post some pictures of Your boat Frank, I will like to see.

[frank marsden]

Mine was only a design, never built.

When I saw some designs submitted which were 'Highly recommended', nothing more than some burr walnut applied to a typical high speed power boat, I lost interest in the competition and threw the drawings way.

It was designed to fit inside the largest container , 42 foot??
On measuring a container it became clear that the full internal width could not always be used, and a lifting keel was also necessary.

A transportation issue was that a purpose designed cradle is necessary, which could easily get separated from the boat location.

[frank marsden]

I have asked BMIF to see if they have retained a copy

[FAST FRED]

"On measuring a container it became clear that the full internal width could not always be used, and a lifting keel was also necessary.

A transportation issue was that a purpose designed cradle is necessary, which could easily get separated from the boat location."

It would seem that if the boat had a long steel shoe , simply greasing some lumber and pushing would get it in or out of the container.

If the size / beam were done with hefty rub rails , only some fenders blown up on place should stabelize her while in the Box.

A lightweight cruiser such as this will skid easily on greased lumber.

FAST FRED

[frank marsden]

Yes, agree,

I was concerned that handling in ports may not be all that is desired.

The necessary baulks would also reduce the beam of the boat, and that is already very narrow.

I was somewhat surprised that there are no double width containers, there must be wider loads that would benefit.

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

Yes, right, handling in ports it is expensive and has to be very easy. Anyway if the width do not exceed 1 ft per part an open container or flat track could be used and cost isn't a lot more than normal container.

[frank marsden]

Does that mean that 8ft beam is acceptable?

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

it is more costly but it is acceptable.

[Raggi_Thor]

Is 8 feet much more costly than 7.5?

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

This link could give a sample of shipping cost calculation as it is one with container option (normal, flat track, open top, etc.) that usually other companies do not show on website:
http://www.newmen.com.ua/pages/services_en/services_reloading_en.php

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

forgot: the 45 ft high cube 9 ft tall are available on some companies, not all.

[Wellydeckhand]

They call it super 40 ft and normal 40ft, the super 40ft for International line and would be transfer to normal 20 ft for inter-island transport. It is advise to use the normal 40 ft container..... accepted everywhere.

WDH

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

They call it super 40 ft and normal 40ft, the super 40ft for International line and would be transfer to normal 20 ft for inter-island transport. It is advise to use the normal 40 ft container..... accepted everywhere.

WDH

I use 45 ft HC (High Cube) container between Asia and Netherland, what do You mean with .."would be transfer to normal 20 ft for inter-island transport"..?

[Guillermo]

In spanish, but I think containers dimensions are understandable:
http://www.dif.com.do/contmar.htm

[Wellydeckhand]

I use 45 ft HC (High Cube) container between Asia and Netherland, what do You mean with .."would be transfer to normal 20 ft for inter-island transport"..?

International port Like Jakarta and Surabaya would take in any size.... Once you need to retransport the container to other island, the vessel still old design that accept mostly 20 ft, rarely you can see 40 ft but only 40ft normal type......

So, if you intented the goods to send right to your door step if out transfer the goods to a smaller or other size container, use the 40 ft normal... for International transport, it is transport proof.

I know this as I have Chinese people sending container full of ceramic vases and later need to transfer to 20 ft boxes....... turn out they need 2.5 approx container from 40 ft extra big container and things get lost in the process.

But with a 40 ft normal it was send from China straight to Jakarta and later to Kalimantan without even need to change anything. If I need a boat to reach my home I would need 40ft normal fit boat, unless I want it in Jakarta and sail her back home manually.


WDH

Hope you understand, or I have to call you :)

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

Welly, this never happen to me. Our freight with HC 45 ft is a little more costing of 40 ft and pass trought many ports before the arrival to a small city in Holland. Suggest to You to change shipping company.
No need to call me, but if You want an help You are welcome.:cool:

[Wellydeckhand]

I am refering to most Indonesia national shipping....... That is the local trouble. I dont think in the western countries will have the same problem.:) We are neighbour in SE Asia anyway.

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

But.... I will like to thinking to a boat that could be containerable, may be to be used/shipped between US/European countries to Caribean or Oceania to pleasure purpose and easy shipped back to home by Container.
Actually we are thinking to design a power catamaran (with Alik/Albert Nazarov) that could be easily disassembled in three parts, the two hulls and the center cockpit/deck, may be just an open day sailer catamaran but with a day/night uses possibility. A 40 ft hull catamaran could be a very nice solution. You know, a boat that could be disassembled and reassembled by the owner with the help of some, may be just three or four people, as actually to ship a boat like the Concordia 36 ft
You need a shipping company and a big stand to fit in the container.
Anyone have any idea about?

[frank marsden]

to ******* boats,

Three part boat may be better as a trimaran, perhaps.

My old containerable design is no longer available, however, I have decided to commence a design for a containerable/ road trailable/aircraft droppable all weather, ocean going, motorsailer, unsinkable, self righting two or four berth lifeboat, constructed in either steel or aluminium.

I think that there could be a significant market for such a boat.

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

You were not able to get back the plan? I will like to see it , or a new idea even in some sketches.

[frank marsden]

No, could not get the plan back.

New design will be a similar design but a shorter version.
The container constrains the design.

Can you tell me if you have any cad system?

It is then easy to email drawings.

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

we use Autocad, Rhino and 3dworks.
info@*******boatyard.com
Thanks

[frank marsden]

I have Maxsurf. Rhino and Turbocad,

Turbocad can output in Autocad format.

I have just been checking, and explain my concept to a narrowboat expert.

English canals have narrowboats 7foot maximum beam, and a very strong market for leisure boating.

A number of narrowboat owners would like to be able to cross the Engish Channel and go as far as the south of France.

This would require a 40 foot or longer version.

I will send some sketches in a week or two.

[Wellydeckhand]

Can A Trimaran be transported in 3 parts?:confused: in 3 container?

Maybe the centre is McGregor 26?

WDH

[frank marsden]

I would think that it would go in two containers, one for the central hull and two sponsons in a second.

This would need a careful design study to determine.

[sharpii2]

Will Rogers of Container Yachts kindly sent to me more data about this boat.
As web 'gremlims' made me post an incorrect number for Motion Comfort Factor (MCR), and also with this new and more accurate data, here you have my calculated parameters again:

D/L = 101,25
SA/D = 16,48
6*HP/D = 19,2
HSPD = 8,27 Kn
CSF = 1,3 (Even nicer than before)
MCR = 33,88 (Now it looks nicer)
AVS = 136,7º (Also nicer)

6*HP/D = 19,2 means 3.2 HP per ton. Somewhat high, it should be better something like 2.5, for better fuel efficiency, in my opinion, so the engine having 32 HP instead of 40. But I do not know the meaning of this 40 HP. Continuous, Intermittent....? If real usable power is something like 85% of those 40 HP, then top propulsion power is something like 34 HP, nicer than the 40. Anyhow, due to the lightness of the boat, power needings are very low compared to heavier motorsailers (We'd go up to almost 100 HP for a 350 heavyweighter, to get the same HP/D ratio), so the difference between 32 and 40 is not so relevant.

Here data from Will (Imperial units). Comentaries inside () are mine:

Main 362
Jib 220
Sail Area (RSAT) 582
Displacement, 1/2 stores 12500 (Bob Perry ratifies this as 1/2 load displacement)
Ballast 5000
Ballast Ratio 40%
LOA 38.9
LWL 38.0
Beam 7.4
Draft 5.5
Body Draught Ft. 1.54

Calculations
SLR-Knots 1.30 8.0
SLR-Knots 1.35 8.3
SLR-Knots 1.40 8.6
Prismatic Coefficient 0.65 (good for SLR of 1.4+)

Sq Ft
Lateral Plane-Keel 15.8
Lateral Plane-Rudder 5.6
Lateral Plane-Hull 42.4
Lateral Plane-Total 64.4
Lateral Plane/RSAT 11.1%

Wetted Surface-sq. ft 245
SA/Wetted Surface 2.2
SA/Displacement (RSAT) 17
Disp/Length 102 (Very light, indeed)
Water Plane-sq ft 210
Heave Index-Lbs/ft2 60
Righting Moment-One Deg. 720
Righting Moment-Thirty Deg. 15650
Immersion-lbs/inch 1120
Center of Buoyancy 55.9%

Guillermo:

Just got done running this design through my spread sheat. But after adding 2,000 pounds for stores and gear. The numbers still came out pretty respctable. This looks like a good all around boat. It is somewhat remenisant of the old IOR boats, but without the wide beam and pinched ends. The S/D is about the same as was typical back then, about 14.6.

For a modern boat, this one looks like one I wouldn't mind owning. It looks reasonably rugged and the draft is shallow.

The only question I have is how do they get the keel off and on quickly. And how do they handle it while its off the boat? Does it have a special flange for HiLo forks to get under it?

Bob

[Guillermo]

Thanks, Bob.
I do not know how do they handle the keel, but we may ask Will Rogers of Container Yachts. I'm away from Galicia these days, using a borrowed computer, so I'll only have time to do this next week. You may ask him by yourself. I do not have here his personal e-mail address, but the company's one is: info@containeryachts.com
Cheers.

[FAST FRED]

I really like the idea of a boat that can cross oceans cheaply in a box.

The Perry design looks fine , but I think even better could be done.

First I think construction in hard chine aluminum would be less costly and as the vessel might be shipped via truck or really hard on the box contents rail , the aluminum would merly dent , rather than overflex and perhaps fail later.

Aluminum would also allow 2nd or 3rd world construction of the vessel to lower the cost.

Perrys unbolting keel could be replaced with a centerboard , so the boat could simply be slid into the container on greased lumber, and unloaded with a stout pull .
Comfort aboard for bumpy conditions would be easy to handle with a gyro,as well as the sail rigs dstabilizing effect.


"MHI's (Mitshubishi ) first ARG, the MSM-500, was developed and marketed in 1995 for small boats with displacements below 5 tons. It features angular momentum of 500 Nms (Newton meter second), weighs 130kg, and measures 710mm in width, 516mm in height, and 470mm in length. Subsequently, in response to customer needs MHI has developed higher-power models: the MSM-2000/4000/12000.

By installing ARG systems in multiple units, it is possible to accommodate vessels with displacements above 5 tons all the way up to 500 tons. In Japan, MHI has already sold 220 ARG systems for public-sector, commercial and private use, including cruise ships, sightseeing boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft and patrol boats."

I would envision the vessel to be mostly a motorboat , with the sail portion for "get home" , nice reaching days , or to extend the range at favorable times.
Fully battened main and a window shade roller forestaysails set up as a Cutter.

The roller jibs would be sewn to chain , rather than to wire (as was done in the 1860's) so would be easy to bag , so a variety could be carried aboard.

The mainmast would be 28% foward of the stern , so flopper stoppers could be used , if the electric roll stuff is to pri$y.Not ideal , but with a longish keel and centerboard board , she should sail fine.

An intereior similar to the Perry design would be fine , but the stove would be moved athawartships , rather than against the hull.
If a hot pot gets tossed with the hull mount 50% chance it scalds the hull, 50% chance it scalds the COOK! No thanks.

As a more motory boat the deck could be closer to the "Express" or "Sedan" style .

No distant offshore adventures would be planned , why bother , the Big Box Maru would go faster & cheaper, but a quickie, like a trip to Bermuda or the Carribean from the US East Coast should be in the scantlings .

Any thoughts ?

FAST FRED

[Guillermo]

Interesting thoughts, Fred. For sure there are probably many improvements to be done once the basic idea is accepted by the market.

From Yachting World magazine's pages:
"The yacht looks well done but the acid test will be her debut at shows this autumm. We're wondering wether the modern 'boater' can live that 'narrow' these days...."

[Tad]

We started exploring the containerable yacht concept over a year ago, focusing on a purely power boat. The containerable trawler or "Volkstrawler" designed to fit in a standard 40' container. She is designed to be built in sheet material, ideally aluminum. With a square "pod" bottom of thick (1" or 25mm) aluminum she would sit up straight anyplace and skid in and out of the box without falling over. The pilothouse comes apart for shipping, similar to what the European canal barges use. Two or three windshield styles would be offered, and there are big windows in the topsides forward.

7866

7867

7868

[yipster]

following the thread some questions come up
is 265 cm a max roadworthy container beam ?
shipping a 15x3.5 meter boat as normal freight
acros an ocean really cost bout €/$ 30.000 ?
anyone has container sizes and shipping prices ?

[Guillermo]

Yipster,
On your last question, I've posted this link at post # 63 in this thread: http://www.dif.com.do/contmar.htm
It's in spanish, but I think easily understandable.


Tad,
Interesting boat. Some more specs and layout....?

[FAST FRED]

With lightweight aluminum constriuction the fuel economy of many of the newer boats in the 34 ft (but beamier ) range should be avilable.

Claims of 30K at 10gph with single Volvo and outdrive are seemingly accurate.

3 Nmpg is a good deal at that speed. Wonder if it would get even better at say 20K ?

Steyer has an outdrive setup , that weighs even less but there is little info on these engines here in US.

Do the hold up as well as the marinized lightweight engines ( no cont or work ratings) Volvo uses?

5+nmpg would be a dream in a boxable boat.

FAST FRED

[Arthur W. Kelly]

Does anyone have an e-mail address or number to reach Andy Pitt?

Thanks

[FAST FRED]

While not a MS it would seem the skinny hull style required to fit in a box was done over a century ago.

A more modern style can be seen ,

Take a look at this from Vosper Thornycroft
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indrad_033.html

Scaled down to 39 ft X 7ft it might be a 5+mpg cruiser , if built light .

FAST FRED

[Guillermo]

Could be a nice idea, Fred.
Containerable truly semidisplacement motor boats maybe another nice option for worlwide extensive cruising.
Tad Roberts posted on June 26 his ideas about this, the most ineteresting "Volkstrawler", but provided no more data after that. A pity.
A 39.5 ft length having a 8 ft beam would do the trick, the B/L would be in 0.2 which seems to be low. Stability may not be satisfactory. Tad?

Here an interesting Tad's article on his Passagemaker Lite concept:
http://www.tadroberts.ca/about/pdf/passagemaker-lite-pb-article.pdf

[FAST FRED]

"Stability may not be satisfactory."

The envisioned use for this class vesssel would not include offshore passagemaking .

If the pilot house were robust , with commercial grade ports and doors righting from inverted should be possible, although seldome needed..

ON another thread I am trying to figure if a centerline roll controll would be practical.

ALL my cruising has been done in sail boats and displacement trawlers, that did roll.

IS roll controll even needed after the boat starts to run at 15K to 20K?

If NOT all that is needed is a good design that will get 5mpg! at those speeds .

Is this realistic in a 39 x 7.7 under 10,000 lb boat?

FAST FRED

[Raggi_Thor]

[QUOTE=FAST FRED.... run at 15K to 20K?
Is this realistic in a 39 x 7.7 under 10,000 lb boat?
FAST FRED[/QUOTE]

Estimate: 5 tons, 16 to 20 HP per ton ( 16^0.5 * 3.5 to 4 = 14 to 16 knots),
-> 80 to 100HP -> 20 to 25 liters per hour

[Guillermo]

From Container Yachts pages:
"InBox, the Container Yachts prototype Far Harbour 39, launched on August 29th at Schooner Creek Boat Works in Portland (OR). Highlights of the launch were a Champagne, beer and pizza party for the yard crew who had been working around the clock in order to complete the boat in time to make the Newport, Rhode Island boat show.
The boat worked out of the box, meeting her design parameters. A power sea trial on August 30th confirmed the top end speed of 8.3 knots and an 800 NM under power range at cruising speed.
The next day's sail trial conducted with the Robert Perry Staff validated InBox as a performance cruiser. With ten knots apparent wind, the beat to weather numbers were 4.7 knots and 6.7 knots reaching with the furling code zero.The cockpit's tiller steering helped in optimizing her sailing performance.Tacking to weather and gybing down wind went smoothly."
http://www.containeryachts.com

[FAST FRED]

Happily we are only a couple of hours away from Newport and will be there Sept 14 ,really early to view the Box Boat.

Our prime concern is to see if the interior volume would be acceptable for 2 or 3 month vacations.

I think it would be fine ,
but "She Who Must be Obeyed" has to feel comfortable .

To afford to step up to a custom boat ( even with the build in a low cost area ) would require selling the present boat , and a year or more ashore.

FAST FRED

[Guillermo]

Excellent, Fred.
Let's know about your opinion on the boat.
Chhers.

[FAST FRED]

Went to the Newport show , and found the Boxboat .

The "look" from the dock was OK but a bit unique as the foward freeboard was high , and of course at 7.7beam she looked really strange.
\Not "bad" but certainly different.

The boat function was superb , Perry is a good designer , and the use of space was fine.
Below she was not cramped , and it was EZ to not remember how slim the hull actually is
.As a MS as built she would do great ,.
The builders claim the actual performance beats the polar predictions.
Most amazing was the LACK of roll or movement on boarding from the side.
I guess the deck lever is so low the boat seems really stiff.
The sellers claim she heels over in a modest breeze , but in a puff , just accelerates , similar to what a good multy hull would do.

We definitely feel that a similar sized power boat would fit our needs as a 3 or 4 months a year brown water cruiser.
The key for us is there seems to be sufficent volume to cruise , and not go BESERK when it rains for a week!

Am very open to sugestions for the basic "look" or other ideas..

We enjoy the "classic Commuter" look , but are open to sugestions.

FAST FRED

[Guillermo]

...Am very open to sugestions for the basic "look" or other ideas.. FAST FRED

What about this one?
http://www.mapcorp.com/index_files/page0002.html
(Very rough sketch, but it may worth wile to find if they have already refined it)

P.S. Thanks for the nice info on Perry's MS.

[yipster]

thanks for the good info, i was too sceptical

wait till Doug Lord checkes the rest of MAPCORP :P

[FAST FRED]

In looking for a "nicer" hull design I got a copy of Yachts in a Hurry from the library.

A herrishoff design "Stroller 2" seems to my eyes the nicest of dozens and dozens if really fast narrow boats.

Today our engines dont require 2300lbs for only 200hp , so a fast boat with minor furl consumption seems doable.

Many of the boats in a Hurry were 6-1 tp 10-1 LB ratio!

FAST FRED

[Vega]

I have received some more information about the "Far Harbour 39":

"We had brief sea trials in Portland and Rhode Island. You’ll see the
data in the attachment. We just finished our first open water sea trial
going from Rhode Island to New York City.

Total distance was about 180 NM with wind always forward and AWS from 10 to 25. Despite being pressed for time, we had about 40 miles of no-engine sailing.

Bottom line- the boat handled beautifully, power beating into 20+ knots with accompanying short chop in Block Island Sound. Living aboard was comfortable with crew hot showers at the mooring in Block Island and on arrival in New York City.

For those who inquired how she handles in heavy seas, the answer is “great.” Going to windward there’s no pounding: she knifes through, but with her high freeboard, she stays dry. Beam seas, with a minimum amount of steadying sail, are no problem.

Down wind, the broad stern gives her ample stability.

We couldn’t say these things until she was in the water and sailing."

I have to say that I still doubt about the boat's real performance downwind. I guess that I have to wait till sail magazines test the boat.

In my opinion it is a pity that the boat has so much concessions regarding fitting in a container. If not so compromised, I think this could be a better sailing boat.

The sail away price: USD$ 225 000

[Crag Cay]

"......In my opinion it is a pity that the boat has so much concessions regarding fitting in a container......"

Ummm........ But if the design brief was for it to fit into a container, that's what Mr Perry had to design.

Can you imagine the conversation when the client phones up and says "Oi ! Smarty Pants Designer! We've been heaving and a shoving this boat every which way for 4 hours and there's no way it will go in this container" only to be told "Well it won't will it, I made it a bit wider to optimise its downwind performance. You can't have everything". "I didn't want every fu*@ing thing, I just wanted a boat that would fit in a fu*@ing container!"

There would then follow a one sided diatribe where even the parentage of the designer would be called into question and the clients rage would in no way be placated by improved downwind performance.

[Vega]

......In my opinion it is a pity that the boat has so much concessions regarding fitting in a container......"

Ummm........ But if the design brief was for it to fit into a container, that's what Mr Perry had to design.

.

Sure . What I am saying is that I like the boat, even if I don’t have any use for that "container fitting performance".

The boat has some interesting characteristics (for instance motoring speed, consumption and autonomy) no matter what it is designed for. What I am saying is that I would like to see what it could be done, maintaining those characteristics and without the narrow limits of the container.

I am not saying that Mr. Perry has done a bad job, quite the opposite.

[FAST FRED]

"In my opinion it is a pity that the boat has so much concessions regarding fitting in a container."

The only two consessions I could find was the smaller interior volume, and the desire for lightweight to improve performance.

No washer- drier , 500 lb frozen food locker , even air cond and the required gen set might be a weight/space conflict.

However the Aphrodite was 74 X 14 , so in half scale a grand looking boat should be possible . If the weight can be kept to 4 tons or less a cruise at 16K on 4gph seems reasonable , with a modern engine.

Lister and Gardner are out but a 125 hp Yanmar or Styer seem OK.

Just wonder if the "advances" in modern outboards would make a gas engine usefull . Anyone know what 2500lbs of thrust costs in fuel with a new 4 stroke OB?

Figuring a 100hp diesel can make 25lbs of thrust per hp @ 20 hp a gal an hour.
A diesel would need 5gph (by my primitave rule of thumb)to get that 2500lbs of push.

The price difference between a new inboard diesel and a 4OB stroke might? take a few decades to recoupe at 300 hours a year cruising.Sure would be easier when running aground!

FAST FRED

[skyl4rk]

Do you have to pay customs duty on a boat shipped in to another country?

[yipster]

in europe boats older than 8 years dont have to pay customs, younger boats pay fractions up to full tax for new boats
and -at least was- various papers are required for different areas
quik search result for usa canada http://boating.ncf.ca/usborder.html

[FAST FRED]

I have no idea weather the arrival of a cruising boat in a box would be different in terms of cruising permits.

Most times visiting other lands , stopping at customs and obtaining a cruising permit was almost painless.

The old Brit places (like Bermuda) are beserk to sieze any small arms , perhaps they fear an invasion.
French islands (St Barts) when told of a shotgun aboard , "Bon" was the reply.

It might take a customs agent to , or a bond , to assure the hungry tax extractors that the vessel was visiting , AND leaving.

FAST FRED

[yipster]

not saying that i'm going to ship a boat in the near furure but it would be interesting to know container shipping cost
versus deckload, same for container road transport against boat deeploader

[Guillermo]

Do you have to pay customs duty on a boat shipped in to another country?
Very interesting question, when thinking of a boat carried inside a container. I have no idea, but I suspect it is quite posssible to have big problems with many countries' customs authorities....

[FAST FRED]

While we havent checked on a specific , shipping my 50x15 ex Navy Utility was quoted at $15,000 US on a stand by basis.
If the spot wasnt sold to a big buck , and I could get there with 3 days notice , I would get the $15,000 rate.Reserved space was more.

I have been told that a std box leaving the States for Euroland is $1200 to $1500 .

A 90% savings, although a smaller boat is required

Special boat friendly trailers will ship a not oversized( Doesn't need leading and following Wide Load cars 7 drivers, and special permits) for about $3.00 per mile.This limits the beam to 12 ft in western states , and 8 ft in the older eastern states.

In a std box its a $1.10 -$1.25 a mile.

FAST FRED

[FAST FRED]

This is "Stroller" the Herreshoff contract #388 from 1929. She is 46x10 so with a bit of cockpit trimmed and some slimming might still be good looking when reduced to 39x7.7.

FAST FRED

[yipster]

love those navigation light holders, still, somehow that boat looks timeless

[Guillermo]

Love it also. After trimming and slimming, just a dismountable wheelhouse top and, voila!

[Vega]

in europe boats older than 8 years dont have to pay customs, younger boats pay fractions up to full tax for new boats
..

Hello,

I am interested...but I don't know anything about it.

If you buy a boat outside of Europe, it is considered an export, and you don't pay taxes there and pay the VAT (taxes) in Europe. On top of the VAT you have to pay something more?:(

[yipster]

hey Paulo, i thought seriously you know more about that than i did. no, exect shipping etc i dont know of any extra cost
buying outside bringing something into one of the the country's is import and one has to pay VAT taxes in one's EU country. if not new you pay only a part of the new VAT. and ive heard of more variaty's and possibility's i forgot the details about right now. strassbourg or bruxelles should have the latest EU laws witch doesnt mean they necceairely apply to your or my country since all EU country's still are independent souverign nations. for example on new cars here in holland you have to pay -besides the VAT- an extra 20% or so luxery tax. that tax was condemned by the european court, but last time i checked it was still there for reasons named above. the stars in our EU flag have another strange story, ya see, i've heard of a bell but lost track of where to ring it :D

[Guillermo]

In Spain, if you import a new boat from outside the EU, you have to pay VAT and custom duties. On top of that you have to pay registration taxes (At the Boats Property Public Registry) which can be as high as 13% of the purchase price, and there are also other minor duties to be paid to the Maritime Authorities for the boat's inspection and the getting of the mandatory registration number to be exhibited at bow sides.

[Vega]

But you can have the boat registered in another EC country. Lots of boats in Spain with other EC banners.

I guess that if the boat is new you still have to pay that special tax that you have in Spain for boats (like the luxury tax Joop was talking about regarding cars in Holland. - we have also one of those for cars) but you can gain in the VAT.

There are several boats in Spain registered in Madeira (Portugal). I know personally the Spanish owner of one. That’s because in Madeira and Azores the VAT was only of 13%, (15% now) and if you register the boat there you only pay that, as VAT.

If you buy a used boat out of EC, and choose to register and pay VAT in Azores, you can declare a reasonably low value for the boat. They will accept it without discussion (they don’t know much about boats and don't really care, because this is good income revenue for them) and you will pay the VAT over the declared price.

A friend of mine that has lived for some time in Canada, returned home in a boat bought there. He paid VAT in Azores. I am not going to tell you for how much he declared the boat, but it was just a fraction of its real value.

[Guillermo]

Paulo
As far as I know (And I have some experience on this, as my office takes care of recreational crafts legalizations), an spanish resident owning a foreign flagged vessel (And this applies even for EU flags) cannot legally command such a boat in Spanish waters. Probably an stupid thing, you may say, but the problem is that there is still no harmonization in this matters among EU countries.

This happened to a friend of mine (spanish) a short time ago, who owned a portuguese flagged motor cruiser: Customs stopped him at sea and told him he couldn't be the captain of such vessel when in spanish waters. After discussing very much with authorities for several weeks, he finally had to change flag to spanish, to not be fined. And, to put it in better perspective, let's say he was in close relation with maritime authorities....

Those people you know with Madeira flagged boats (Some even came to my office) are risking quite a lot if they are spanish residents and command the boat: If Customs or the Guardia Civil board them at sea for papers, they will probably be fined right on, and maybe even boat captured and retained. On the other hand, there will be no problem if captain is portuguese at the moment of the boarding.

And I have to tell you I have been boarded twice in the last three years: Once by Customs and the second time by the Guardia Civil. And I do not sail that much...

Cheers.

[Vega]

On the other hand, there will be no problem if captain is portuguese at the moment of the boarding.
Cheers.

Crazy stuff:p and I had thought that the Portuguese were the worst bureaucrats.:p

Do you mean that the huge number of German flaged yachts, belonging to Germans that reside in Mallorca (retired people) are illegal? And that their boats can be confiscated?:P

I guess that here, there and everywhere there are a lot of abuses regarding the EC law. I think that is not a question of harmonization, but a question of an exception to the general rule, as it is the case with cars (that one is allowed for a transitory period).

Are you sure that EC law permits such an exception?

Of course, if a National government choose not to follow the rules, there is no other option to the european citizens than to complain to the european court, and that will take years...and in between you have your boat confiscated:(

[Guillermo]

Do you mean that the huge number of German flaged yachts, belonging to Germans that reside in Mallorca (retired people) are illegal? And that their boats can be confiscated?
One of the problems with statistics in Spain is that there are several millions of people living here, but keeping residence in their countries of origin, like those german retirees you mention. And this is one of the reasons why economy in Spain, in spite of the severe structural deficiencies, continues on growing: Internal demand, due to this people and also the huge amount of illegal inmigrants, rises every year. And that's also the reason for the incredible rate of residential building in Spain: Around 800.000 new ones a year,the biggest in the EU by a difference.

So, coming back to your question, most probably those germans you mention keep their german residency, and so they may command their german flagged boats here with no problem.

Cheers.

[Willallison]

It's taken me some time to get to this thread - it's a ripper!
Just to clarify, what are the internal dimensions for a shipping container?

Fred - your 4-stroke outboard idea has some merit. I've argued elsewhere around here that the extra cost of a diesel means that the additional fuel costs inherent in running an outboard are somewhat mute - though of course it does effect the vessels range. There are other considerations too - like battery recharging and hot water, but these can be addressed in other ways. There is a great deal of discussion on the subject in the Option One thread. I don't know, but I would imagine that you can't ship a containerised vessel with any flammable materials inside..?

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

Container size:

http://www.export911.com/e911/ship/dimen.htm#xDimension

[FAST FRED]

Fred - your 4-stroke outboard idea has some merit. I've argued elsewhere around here that the extra cost of a diesel means that the additional fuel costs inherent in running an outboard are somewhat mute - though of course it does effect the vessels range.



The trade off would not be too bad if the outboard had the counter rotating props , which is a claimed 30% efficency booster at cruise.

A Mercruiser out drive , if coupled with a shaft , comes off in a few bolts and weighs far less than a 150 to 300hp outboard .

To maximise boat liveability , the drive or outboard would need removal, to make it in Da Box.

Comparing the prices , a 300hp outboard IS cheaper than a diesel , but the service life of 1000 hours would be gone in 4 to 5 years of vacation use.

The diesel would be just broken in.

FAST FRED

[Willallison]

Do you really need that kind of hp Fred? You were talking semi-displacement type speeds before - without running numbers, I would have thought something in the 120 to 150hp range ought to do it.
A sterndrive need not be removed if the leg is under a platform, or the cockpit. Though, as you say, with space at a premium it may become necessary...

[FAST FRED]

I would have thought something in the 120 to 150hp range ought to do it.

I understand your thinking however , with a lightweight boat (under 10,000) lbs and the really skinny hull speed is expensive ,but not as expensive as you might think ,,within reason.

My numbers show a 120hp instalation would cruise at 16K on under 4 gph.

4 gph cruise 80-85hp = 2000 lbs thrust (std 4 blade)

But 30K would be avilable with a 300 hp engine that dosn't weigh much more

250 hp cruise = 10 gph . 30K / 10gph = 3nm gal

If the math is right a 1 gph increase in fuel flow doubbles the speed, sounds OK to me.

Comparing 125 hp John Deere , with 300 Yannmar.

FAST FRED

[Willallison]

4 1/2 tons is probably doable, without getting too carried away with the weight. But remember that a 30 knot boat needs substantially greater scantlings than a 20 knot boat
A quick look at the power curves for the Yanmar 6LP STP (300 / 315hp) shows 250hp at 3800 rpm. This in turn shows 14 gph - so if my maths is right, you will need to increase your consumption expectations considerably. The same engine pulling 120hp is using 6 pgh @ 2600 rpm.

[FAST FRED]

An engine will burn about a gal an hour for every 20 hp at cruise speed.

The lower fuel burn for the extra speed is because the small engine would have a std conventional prop, the high speed (30K ) version would need the complexity of the stern drive with counter-rotating props to get the claimed 30% improvement.

A diesel outdrive setup would be at least 1,500lbs , the outboard much less.

With a good cruising range (400+miles minimum 700 prefered) the weight of needed fuel should offset some of the diesel weight.

Of course 50 to 100hp and a 16K cruise could mean a much lighter diesel OR outboard.

The price of speed is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FAST FRED

[Guest-3-21-09-10-33]

another interesting containerable:
http://www.boxyacht.com/

[Guillermo]

The angled position inside the container is clever, as it is the general concept.
I think we'll see several containerable yachts coming to the market in the near future, as the concept opens many posssibilities.
Cheers.

[Greenseas2]

Hi folks, back again. We've been looking at the 23.5 foot Colvic watson motorsailers in the UK with the idea of shipping one back by container. With the twin fin keels, it will fit even though an internal cradle and bracing against the container wall would be needed to keep it from moving. By shipping it in a container, theft of onboard gear would be eliminated once the container is sealed.

[wblakewsx]

I wan to turn the container into a boat. Easy for a house boat, but for a sailer?

[FAST FRED]

Containers are rented for use , the Owners would probably be upset at major modification.

Box shaped sail boats are not common , the vessel would do nothing very well.

With the thousands of reallycheap boats in FL, why would one bother NOT to just by one. Florida Mariner has them by the hundreds.

FF

[Pericles]

With 1900 NM under her keel InBox is coming to Europe. http://www.containeryachts.com/pdf/Winter_07.pdf

She will be a container shipment to the Netherlands, arriving in May in readiness for a cruise through Holland, Germany, Scandinavia, then to the UK. The yacht will be available for inspection and demonstration sails at key yachting venues on its itinerary.


Pericles

[FAST FRED]

We were aboard her in Newport RI and the boat was fine.

Any idea how many have been sold ?

FF

[Pericles]

Hull#1 is to be shipped to Annapolis and will be available for inspection in late March, according to the Winter '07 report. InBox, the prototype, was built in Oregon, however the series production boats are to be built in Croatia.

Pericles

[gjw0920]

Not to sound commercial; but if anyone is interested in the D36 made in Thailand as mentioned in this thread there are two of them located in Portsmouth, RI and for sale; I have sailed one of them in winds gusting to 30 knots and they are surprisingly easy to handle, dry and fast. Call Glenn at 401 855 4355

[Guillermo]

Not a motorsailer, but a racing boat with containerable limitations/advantages in mind: Radical 40
http://www.radicalyachts.com/index.php?index

[Guillermo]

Another one: Enigma 37
http://www.enigmayachts.com/tasarim2.php?sayfa=3

[Guillermo]

More....Russell Coutt's RC 44
http://rc44.iodev.ch/en/boat/index.php?idContent=70

[Raggi_Thor]

Container Yachts, LLC, in Middletown, Rhode Island, USA, is building a 39 ft. Robert Perry designed pilothouse motorsailer that can be shipped in a standard high cube container. ....

See more details in the last edition of Professional Boatbuilder,
http://www.proboat-digital.com/proboat/20070809/
See Content / Design Brief (on page 28).

[Guillermo]

Thanks, Raggi. :)

[Guillermo]

Just received this in the e-mail:

"InBox, the prototype for the Bob Perry–designed Far Harbour 39, will return to the United States Sailboat Show in Annapolis (Maryland) after a year of cruising in Caribbean and European waters. Many of you learned about the boat when it debuted in the U.S. at the Newport and Annapolis shows last fall—and many of you were intrigued with the concept of "container-cruising." By the time InBox returns to Annapolis this fall, the concept of a boat that can be container-shipped across oceans economically has been thoroughly tested: since launching in September '06, InBox has sailed some 4,000 nautical miles on her own keel, taken three offshore passages on container ships, visited 90 ports, and taken its crew to cruising grounds that U.S.-flag vessels rarely reach.

Maintenance-wise, the year has been trouble-free: the boat was designed to be simple, including what is necessary for a couple’s cruiser and excluding features that are not essential. Over the past 12 months, this prototype has demonstrated that the Far Harbour 39 is a boat that puts faraway destinations within reach for today's cruiser.

Cruising Route since Fall '06: After departing from the Annapolis show last fall, InBox sailed on its own bottom to southern Florida. From there, the boat made its inaugural container-passage to Trinidad. Bernie Blum, who first went to Bob Perry with the concept of a container-cruiser, and his wife Bette sailed the boat from Trinidad to Sint Maarten, where the boat was shipped transatlantic to Rotterdam.

In Europe, the Blums continued cruising—leaving the Caribbean sun behind and following a North Sea route past Holland; across Sweden via the Gota Kanal, banked by idyllic countryside and pine forests; to harbors rimmed by medieval cities; through Sweden's rocky skargards; and across the Baltic. InBox's crew continued to be pleased with the boat's performance: on a 26-nautical-mile passage from Aero (Denmark) to the Kiel entrance, the boat averaged 6.6 knots over the bottom flying the Code Zero alone.

The Blums had a particular interest in visiting places that were twelfth-century merchant powers in the Hanseatic Trade, and as they toured walled cities of the 1200s and docked in the shadow of towering medieval structures and threaded their way through places that were once powers of Middle Age commerce they realized what a unique opportunity InBox had afforded them: they were able to keep their lives going back at home, fly to meet the boat as it was shipped from continent to continent, and cruise the places they always dreamed of visiting. On their European cruise, they saw only three U.S.-flagged vessels, realizing that few American cruisers were getting their boats to these waters. The Blums documented their trip thoroughly and have many photos, for editors interested in a story on this region.

InBox was then trucked from Kiel to Southampton (U.K.) for some sailing off England's south coast before being shipped transatlantic to the U.S. for the Annapolis show.

Container Loading-Unloading: After three ocean passages on a container ship, the container loading and unloading procedure has proven to be easily managed with standard boatyard equipment. The procedure and time needed to do the operation have now been carefully documented: less than 10 hours are needed (the InBox record so far for container-loading from dockside and into the container is 6.5 hours). That loading time includes unstepping the rig, stripping and unpacking the mast, hauling the boat and loading it in the container, and removing the keel, rudder, and sail drive lower unit and packing them in the container. Container Yachts developed a design for pneumatic rollers that can be inflated with a dinghy pump and used to cradle the boat while rolling it into the container. The rollers support and cushion the boat while in transit; after unloading, they are deflated and readily stowed in the lazarette until it's time to reload. In the May 2007 issue, Cruising World magazine published a boat review that includes a step-by-step photographic sidebar on the container-loading process (to find the piece follow this link: www.containeryachts.com/pdf/Article-CW-5-07.pdf).

Future Travels: Several destinations are being considered for spring/summer 2008— including Alaska, the San Blas Islands/Cartagena, or Belize/Rio Dulce. And if you have any suggestions for prime cruising destinations, send along your suggestions!

Our website has more information (www.containeryachts.com), or feel free to contact Bernie Blum or Cynthia Goss at the contacts below if you'd like more background for a story."

[Freenacin]

Here's a containerable motorsailor tri hull in aluminium: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f48/beau-boat-9093.html

[Squidly-Diddly]

The stretched Macgregor will be much like a the M26...but to the max trailering length of under 40'.

Except that the 'perment ballast' will be a big bank of easily accessible 12 volt batteries and the water ballast will be two separtate tanks (actually more like 4 to have bow/stern trimming as well as more options for fuel, fresh, blackwater, diesel AND gas, etc.

The Macgregor 26M is a nice design, but with just a minor mod to the interior floor mold Mr. Macgregor could have 6-8 batteries and 100 gallons of fresh water. The batteries would be a nice alternative to firing up the 50 horse outboard; they make 2 hp electrics for pushing pontoon boats and you could fit two on an 26M outside the twin rudders.

I'm almost tempted to do some serious mods to a 26M. I'd have the shower be outside in the cockpit with a self coiling hose and electical 'on demand' pump and water heater. The 'fresh water' ballast wouldn't need to be drinking water, just for lots of hosing off before entering the cabin. I'd rather take a shower outside rather than try to keep clean using some problematic 'in boat' shower.

An outside in the cockpit shower wouldn't need a grey water tank as you would be just rinsing 'the great outdoors' of people and things before entering the cabin.

Water ballast in a great idea for a trailerable boat, plus water wont pull you to the bottom like lead will. But to be a decent sailor I think you would want to be able to transfer the bulk of it from side to side.

The Cat in the Box would be a 40' cat with 40' x 4' hulls connected by poles decked with either a tramp or some sort of solid removeable decking.

I'm thinking of a aft wishbone mast cutter rig with a third windsurfer type sail aft. I'd use spare sails to construct a 3 sided tent on deck.

In either boat I'd consider using the trailer frame as a aft wish bone mast. I'd even have provision for detaching the wheels and tires and mounting them on the flat on the deck as fenders so nothing would need to be left on shore.

I think it would be possible to carry the tow vehicle itself on the deck of a Cat in the Box, including ramps for on-off loading. The 'killer app' would be to tow the boat to the beach, lauch the boat, expand the scissors (poles) to separtate the hulls, use the trailer as the mast, drive the tow vehicle up ramp (or pull up with winch) and sail away. Reverse at next land fall.

[Guillermo]

Here's a containerable motorsailor tri hull in aluminium: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f48/beau-boat-9093.html

I'm asking myself what that "triflection principle" is. What I see is a non-streamlined hull and amas....:confused:

[Guillermo]

Not a pilothouse motorsailer, but a new 40' trailerable and containerable sailing boat just coming from our fellowmember Eric Sponberg. Congs, Eric! :)

http://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/SC40News.htm

[Tad]

I'm asking myself what that "triflection principle" is. What I see is a non-streamlined hull and amas....:confused:

Another classic example of a fellow claiming a breakthrough in performance which does not appear once the boat has been launched. By all means he deserves credit for following through and actually building the boat, but the result of his "home cooked" design work is not entirely happy. The original claim was a top speed of 20 knots with 60 HP, in reality he mentions achieving 10 knots. He theorizes about needing double the 60HP installed to achieve 15 knots. This is about what would be expected from any narrow flat-bottomed 40' boat.

At her designed weight and speed this "flat sectioned" hull may have had less wetted surface and created smaller waves, but in her real life condition (low speed and over weight) the square sectioned tri has very high wetted surface. Thus she requires more power than a round bottom vessel of similar dimensions.

[Tad]

Container Yachts, LLC, in Middletown, Rhode Island, USA, is building a 39 ft. Robert Perry designed pilothouse motorsailer that can be shipped in a standard high cube container. The prototype boat "InBox" is schedule to be launched in August on the west coast of the US. The series production boats are being built in Croatia with the first boats to be delivered in early 2007.

More info on this new approach to worldwide hopping with your own boat, at:
www.containeryachts.com (http://www.containeryachts.com)

I want you to note displacement and other data stated at their web pages are in lightship condition.

Your opinions, ladies and gents.

Well, after three years it seems no one has taken up this concept. I don't see any further boats having been built beyond the prototype. Also no evidence of competition at all.

Why is this?

It's always difficult to figure out why a particular product does not succeed. I often suspect poor salesmanship/marketing and under capitalization rather than failings in the product itself.

But some speculation is always fun. On the concept itself I see a few big pitfalls. First is that fewer Americans (and this boat is totally aimed at America) are traveling outside their own country. Those that do go overseas want (must have) to take their expansive lifestyle with them. Thus they see 45-60' motoryachts as the minimum for long-term cruising and living aboard. This requires a different demographic. People that can afford to purchase the InBox at $500k can not afford to travel. The folks that can afford to travel (retired) have no problem with the capital cost of a much larger vessel and the shipping via Dockwise or similar.

Next I see a huge concern with unknown boatyards assembling critical components. Are you going to trust joe in outer Mongolia to bolt your keel on properly? If he doesn't you may die! We read about keels falling off all the time! It would seem the lifting keel and rudder would be a much better bet if undertaking such a vessel.

Finally the arrangement of the boat is really not too good from my point of view. A pilothouse with seating for one, and everyone else (your partner) relegated to living in the tunnel with no view of anything. Also sitting in the cockpit staring forward at a white box is none too appealing.

[FAST FRED]

"Finally the arrangement of the boat is really not too good from my point of view. A pilothouse with seating for one, and everyone else (your partner) relegated to living in the tunnel with no view of anything. Also sitting in the cockpit staring forward at a white box is none too appealing."

We went aboard INBOX in Newport RI , and spent an hour or so aboard.

The accomidations were reasonable , in terms of sheer volume,if not layout.
One could live aboard for a few months , esp. in inland cruising where large stores are not required..

We decided to use the concept of a boxable boat , but the Perry setup was a disaster for shipping.
Keel, rudder , sail drive and mast and rigging all had to be removed, UGH.

We decided a pure power boat could be far easier to ship.Remove nothing!

Therefore the interest in the Atkin setup of box keel and reverse deadrise.

A BKRD could simply be boxed with pipe rollers .
The pilot house would have to lower , but this is common on many Euro inland canal boats .

The biggest hassle is weather the BKRD would prove effcicient at semi displacement speeds, of course Atkin made many spectacular claims , but there seems a lack of real world experience,.

The other question of course is sea worthyness of a hull with Loa of 39 and a beam of 7ft 6 inches..

It should run fine in smooth water and the stern lifting with speed might make it economical , but what happens when crossing between islands and the breeze gets to 35K?

In other words when would the boat become unmanagable and a danger to operate?


Many folks that wish to "cruise" desire a home afloat , with all the goodies of suburban living.
This is indeed really expensive, just shipping it could run $50K per movement.

We envision a boat similar to a an old Thunderbird sail boat. Simple ply interior , painted .

The only lifestyle requirement would be a 2 burner range with oven , and a propane fridge freezer, and a hyd windlass.

No air cond , gen set , washer drier , flat screen TV , water maker , stabelizers and all the rest.

The difficulty of understanding the prerformance has had us look at a building concept .
Build the hull and deck , probably welded aluminum , but just the bare basics.

Power it with a gas engine to find out performance and seaworthyness , then if it works well, dump the gas engine , install a mechanical injected diesel and spend the big bucks for ports pilot house and interior.

If it doesn't perform ,as hoped, there would still be a use for the bare boat for shallow water fishing.

The low cost of shipping a container should allow the hull to be created in a low wage area , and shipped home to outfit.

I don't wish to hijack the MS thread , but the concept of cruising distant places without the time , hassle or vessel scantlings for real ocean crossing IS probably more realistic for folks with a MS mindset , than the pure power go fasts , or the monster trawler condo folks.

Comments?

FF

FF

[lacage]

If you go to my web site and click on my Blog Spot you will see the progress of my 19 foot container boat, using the Bourne Method of Boat Building.
www.bourneboats.com.au Cheers from down under Peter

[rwatson]

Why are you using rusty re-inforcing again, Do you get it cheap or something?
And using radiata pine panelling by the look of it too. Thats not very good for wet work.

Also, who designed the hull and did the bouyancy and stability calcs?

[rwatson]

Hmmm ... Not much progress on Peters 19ft container boat at his web-site.

Maybe he is getting some calculations done - they take a while. My NA had a hard enough problems with optimising my container width trailer/sailer in light weight materials, let along a nineteen footer with a steel re-inforcing.

[Guillermo]

Just to gather the information on containerable motorsailers here, let me do a cross-link to Brian Eiland's post in his thread 'New Age Trawler/Motorsailer; Kite assisted PowerYacht' about an interesting design:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/new-age-trawler-motorsailer-kite-assisted-poweryacht-20319.html#post296662

Cheers.

P.S. Tad informs info on this boat had been posted before in this thread and he's right. See post #106 and further discussion. I'm getting old....:(

[brian eiland]

P.S. Tad informs info on this boat had been posted before in this thread and

he's right. See post #106 and further discussion. I'm getting old....:(
A photo makes all the difference though Guillermo in drawing attention to an item.

Beau wrote to me via an email
The original "double wedge" design concept came from a patent put out by Alberto Calderon USA patent number 6158369 Dec 12 2000.
You can get an extract from www.delphion.com which is free but the full patent may cost a couple of dollars to download.
Alberto Calderon is a mathematician and worked for the America's cup team.
The patent is a bit heavy going, and essentially deals with large ships.

I built a number of 15 ft plywood prototypes to test his concepts, and it does work. However the problem is (and I think he has found the same thing) how do you put those principles into a practical boating solution.

Interesting Beau. It turns out the Peter Payne who developed the SeaKnife concept was also a very accomplished mathematician.

And he experienced those same problems in marketing an 'unusual idea' to the boating public. Fortunately he worked with some defense contractors here in the Wash DC area, and pitched a lot of these ideas to the Navy...got some monies for prototypes as well.

I knew of some of his original work here on the Chesapeake Bay while I was involved at the time with Navy submarines. My interest was rekindled recently when I began to look for new RIB ideas. I've developed a few concepts, but the market is not ready.

Beau's use of the word 'wedge' caught my attention. Have a look at another wedge shaped hull design that I discuss here:
Sea Knife
YachtForums.Com - View Single Post - Trimarans and the BladeRunner... (http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/16028-post47.html)
and look at the two other postings #46, #48

[FAST FRED]

Don't know how the commercial success of INBOX is measured , but there is an add in Cruising world , this month , that probably cost $4K for the space.

Either its a REALLY! expensive hobby /tax dodge or some sales must be generating revenue for the add.

FF

[dskira]

For God sake, why you have to put a boat in a container?
It is by concept ridiculous. It is against the nature of a BOAT.
I don't get anyone taking this assignment, but this is just my two cents:D
Cheers
Daniel

[rwatson]

Hmm - no, I think it makes a lot of sense. eg

1) How many people would like to spend 6 months in geographically diverse parts of the world, without having to spend the other half of the year getting there. Also, the cost of long distance sailing in fuel, gear food and maintenance should also take into account the lost wages. In six months you can earn enough to get you and your boat to some exotic locations in safety and comfort. Thats important if you have a young family and dont want to risk their lives to cross seriously dangerous waters. I would rather work for 6 months, to pay to ship the boat to Turkey, and fly the family to join the boat than risk pirates, cyclones, reefs and beauracratic nightmares thrashing my way across the Indian ocean and through the dangerous Suez canal.

2) Boats like the Macgregor 26 cost 1/4 as much to ship to Australia as the non containerable Hunter 28. If you want to sell a boat overseas, shipping it in non-container form is an administrative and insurance nightmare.

3) Off season storage in stacks of 4 containers is 1/4 of the cost of trailer parks, and do away with cleaning and security problems.

No-one argues the case for the trailerable yacht, especially given marina charges etc. Being containerable adds a new dimension to the business.

[Tad]

I'm with Daniel......perhaps for slightly different reasons....

First....owning a fancy/expensive boat makes no sense whatever for the "young family", where it even possible. Inbox was about $450k USD, more than the cost of two houses for joe pedestrian.

Even if he could make the payments, doing so means he can't take the time off to travel. It makes far more sense to fly to Europe and charter a boat, there are thousands to choose from. And next year he can vacation in some other part of the world, and with no cost to move or store a boat.

The thing is that being "containerable" imposes so much restriction on the vessel's arrangement that she becomes undesirable (In my eyes). It is far more comfortable (for most folk) to charter a big fat Beneteau than to live in this skinny tube. Financially it is light years better.

[dskira]

I'm with Daniel......perhaps for slightly different reasons....

First....owning a fancy/expensive boat makes no sense whatever for the "young family", where it even possible. Inbox was about $450k USD, more than the cost of two houses for joe pedestrian.

Even if he could make the payments, doing so means he can't take the time off to travel. It makes far more sense to fly to Europe and charter a boat, there are thousands to choose from. And next year he can vacation in some other part of the world, and with no cost to move or store a boat.

The thing is that being "containerable" imposes so much restriction on the vessel's arrangement that she becomes undesirable (In my eyes). It is far more comfortable (for most folk) to charter a big fat Beneteau than to live in this skinny tube. Financially it is light years better.


It is always a pleasure to read your post, you elaborate and explain far better than me. You are dead right.
Cheers
Daniel

[rwatson]

I'm with Daniel......perhaps for slightly different reasons....

First....owning a fancy/expensive boat makes no sense whatever for the "young family", where it even possible. Inbox was about $450k USD, more than the cost of two houses for joe pedestrian.

Even if he could make the payments, doing so means he can't take the time off to travel. It makes far more sense to fly to Europe and charter a boat, there are thousands to choose from. And next year he can vacation in some other part of the world, and with no cost to move or store a boat.


Yes - good points. The old "charter it, dont own it" philosophy. You can argue *that* philosophy for all boats, not just containerable ones. Also, some people dont have to make *payments*. Its hard to imagine - but true, especially if you want to move every six months to not incur taxation liabilities.

Chartering in some situations makes sense, like, say if you only get 6 weeks a year holiday, but not for extended cruising.

And with charter boats, you are often limited to one area, (you cant go to other foreign countries, often some waters in the same country). And try getting a decent boat in the popular areas during peak season without booking and committing 12 months in advance.

If you paid $1500 a day for 6 months (a typical charter rate on the cheapest season), you have paid for half the boat already.($250,000)
Sure, any boat costs a lot to build - but in the end you get to keep it, and I believe there are some people out there who still buy secondhand boats !!

Do you hire your car, or own it ?


The thing is that being "containerable" imposes so much restriction on the vessel's arrangement that she becomes undesirable (In my eyes). It is far more comfortable (for most folk) to charter a big fat Beneteau than to live in this skinny tube. Financially it is light years better.

As far as "living in a tube" - in inclement weather, a fat Beneteau, or any boat under 70 foot for that matter, is just as bad as a skinny boat if you are pounding you ass off in a cyclone off the Maldives. (mind you, I would rather be outrunning a Dhow in the Gulf Of Aden in a narrow boat with a decent motor than in a fat Beneteau) on the way to the Mediterranean.

The idea of a boat is to sail it in "nice" places - and if you can get there cheaper, and stay longer for less, its a great idea. In a 'nice place', you will spend most of the time loungin on deck, snorkelling in the water, or exploring interesting places - not down inside "the tube"

The *other* thing that I forgot to mention, is the use of "backfill" routes. A container back to Asia from Australia and the USA and a lot of other "net import countires" is damn cheap. You can cover a lot of the globe sailing the expensive container routes, and piggybacking on the cheap "infill" routes.

======================================================

I notice you didnt attempt to argue the cheaper transport and storage points - whats it cost for the average "fat Beneteau" at a marina or dry storage for 6 months compared to a container farm? And you dont have to run down every weekend and wash the bird poo off the decks.

===================================================

Now, I am not pressing my points to be argumentative (well, maybe a little), but I have just been through this exercise with my NA. For nigh on two years he has wanted to make my 28ft trailer sailer another two foot wider so that it wont fit in a container.

By making my trailer sailer containerable, I can have it shipped to the Whitsundays (where my partners kids and grandkids live) in Australia for less than two or three days charter costs, during winter. I can then have it shipped to Tasmania for summer (where my family and grandkids live)

Take into account the wear and tear on the towing vehicle, fuel costs, 2 weeks off work and motel bills twice a year, it makes even more sense.

Living on the boat at holiday destinations saves a fortune on accomodation, and means you can get to quiet, picturesque places that the average tourist will never see.

[Willallison]

A very interesting perspective Tad has introduced, I think. And for most people a valid one. I suspect that 90% or more of the population would be financially better off chartering a boat once or twice a year, regardless of their crusing grounds. Of course owning (or should that be owing;) ) a boat is an emotional decision... if it were purely a rational one, we'd all stay ashore!
For those who spend extended time aboard, then the ability to ship starts to make more sense. Though of course one could equally argue that the longer you spend aboard the more you would appreciate those extra couple of feet of beam.
RW, yours is a case that I'd consider not so cut & dry. The cost of transporting boats up and down the East coast of Oz is not exactly expensive - I've done it a number of times. I live in Tassie and we operate a trailerable boat out of Pt Stephens (just N of Sydney for those of you on the other side of the planet). I've towed and transported boats as far north as Bundaberg. In my experience, if you plan on towing (or shipping) your boat every 2nd weekend, then sacrificing additional beam for ease of transport is a sensible compromise. If, however, you only plan on doing it once or twice a year, then I don't think it is.
My latest boat, Graphite ( http://imaginocean.net/index1.html ) is a case in point. She's designed to be trailerable with a boat / trailer weight of under 3500 kg. The beam, however, is 2.8m, so requires the display of an "overwidth" sign and a flashing light on the tow vehicle. Having cruised extensively aboard similar sized boats with a 2.4m beam I can assure you that that extra 400mm makes ALL the difference.
For most people, a boat this big isn't a trailerboat - but it is trailerable.
For short-haul transportation - like you are referring to - I think this makes far more sense than containerising a boat.

[welder/fitter]

I was planning to sail to the southern Philippines when I re-locate, but just don't have the time. As a result, I bought a little Macgregor 26S, which I am shipping there. Though I am planning to build a boat when in the Philippines, The Mac will serve it's purpose, in the interim, and will be far more convenient for day-sailing than a large steel sailboat, after the build. It can be beached in most tides, is easily moved to secure storage & will day-sail six, overnight four. There are no charters, to my knowledge, in the southern Philippines. Doesn't seem like a foolish endeavour from my perspective.

[Ad Hoc]

"..There are no charters, to my knowledge, in the southern Philippines..."

Off topic, but, that's because of the Abu Sayyaf. Too many problems to be classed as 100% safe sailing in that region. Not saying it can't be done...but just not as safe as middle and northern Philippines.

[rwatson]

RW, yours is a case that I'd consider not so cut & dry. The cost of transporting boats up and down the East coast of Oz is not exactly expensive - I've done it a number of times. I live in Tassie and we operate a trailerable boat out of Pt Stephens (just N of Sydney for those of you on the other side of the planet). I've towed and transported boats as far north as Bundaberg..

I dont feel that way myself. I have done Darwin to Hobart four times without a boat, so I have a bit of an insight into the process.

Trailering long ways *is* expensive. Say two weeks off work, $3000. $400 for fuel (say Melbourne to Queensland), add $800 for extra expenses (food, overnight accomodation in the boat) - thats $4000 for the privilege of a week of road rage tankers, idiot drivers and truck stop food. Do that with two teenage kids and a patient partner, and getting the boat shipped up is a way better method, even if you spend half a day in a cramped Jetstar seat.

If you charged someone for towing their boat on those trips you did, you know they spent several thousand dollars.

In my experience, if you plan on towing (or shipping) your boat every 2nd weekend, then sacrificing additional beam for ease of transport is a sensible compromise. .

Yes - and with a trailerable boat, of course you would be moving it say once a month at least in boating season.

a) from the driveway to the water rather than paying Marina fees.

b) I would not consider two days in Bass Strait getting from Melbourne to the Lakes, (with the potentially rough conditions and the Lakes Entrance bar) when I can be there in 4 hours in the comfort of a vehicle.

I have towed the rather narrow Macgregor, and I am *not* keen on doing anything wider. Sure, the wider boats are "legal", but oncoming roadtrains on a narrow bridge make "legal" look downright silly. I have had to back the boat across a fairly busy suburban street in peak hour traffic, and I blessed every missing inch of the boat.

Now, did I mention the possibility of spending 6 months cruising New Zealands Bay of Islands and environs? Want to sail a 28ft yacht across the Tasman Sea ? Of course not, but its a doddle in a container.

Containerisation to the West coast of the US is really cheap. Maybe I can cruise the Baja Peninsula, or some of the great waterways further north.

When I sold the MacGregor, I had a guy from Perth interested in buying it. It was way cheaper to tow the boat to Perth than using a container ($4000), but only $500 if he had wanted to container from Perth to Melbourne. So, when I "do" Western Australia, I will tow the boat over, and container it back to Melbourne. That's cheaper than the petrol and wear and tear on the towing vehicle.

There are so many ways a narrow boat and a container make sense.

[wardd]

i had a thought today about trailerable boats and the max width of 8' 6"

how about a trailer that tilts the boat to 8' 6"?

then the boat could be wider

[Willallison]

i had a thought today about trailerable boats and the max width of 8' 6"

how about a trailer that tilts the boat to 8' 6"?

then the boat could be wider

Only in the case of a multihull - unless you have a very odd shaped boat!

RW - I'm not suggesting that the only way to do is to tow the boat yourself. There are a number of good carriers that specialise in moving boats up and down the East Coast. They are a little more expensive than doing it yourself, of course... (I wouldn't suggest using one to come across Bass Strait, however - the cost of doing that is frightening!)
My longest single haul was to pull 4.5 tons of boat / trailer from Hobart to the Gold Coast. Took 4 days (with wife and 6 mnth old baby!) and cost around 2K, including the Ferry trip across the strait. I'm not suggesting you'd want to do it regularly. From memmory the cost of having someone truck the boat and trailer from Melbourne to QLD was about the same.
The real question, in regards to this topic though, is whether the sacrifices necessary in order to containerise a boat are enough compensation for additional cost that might be incurred by having a beamier boat transported....
As I said before - it really depends on -
a) how often you are going to move it considerable distance and
b) how much time you are likely to spend aboard.

[Willallison]

One other thing that just occured to me....
You've just shipped your boat to Tassie. It's sitting in the shippers yard. How will you get it from there into the water? Ok, obviously a truck takes the container from the yard to the......??
Are you going to have it on a trailer so it can be launched at a boat ramp?
If so, what do you tow it with?
Do you have to take it to somewhere with a boat lift?
What do you do with the container (assuming you own it) or the cradle (if you don't) once the boat's in the water? I guess you could pay to store it...
What if you want to go somewhere without a lift?

Lastly, I've had a fair bit to do with shipping in my proffessional career and my experience is that it's NEVER on time. I've seen importers and exporters quite literally in tears as they look through a mesh fence at their perishable cargo, sitting in a container on the wharf, unable to access it. Clearly your boat won't perish... but holidays are precious and always too short....

I'm sure you've considered all these things... I'll be interested to hear your solutions

[rwatson]

i had a thought today about trailerable boats and the max width of 8' 6"

how about a trailer that tilts the boat to 8' 6"?

then the boat could be wider

In my case, wanting it to be containerable, I specified the following.

"as wide as poossible, with tilt option"

All it requires is a trailer that has the facility to slide the keel about a foot either side of the centreline. That is as easy as providing a two foot wide central "bed", and the means to crank the boat over.

Of course, you may not want to ship the traler with the boat. In which case a temporary "packing platform" will do the trick.

See the next answer for "no trailer" options

[rwatson]

Excellent points there - discussions like these are a great way to sort out potential snags.

One other thing that just occured to me....
You've just shipped your boat to Tassie. It's sitting in the shippers yard. How will you get it from there into the water? Ok, obviously a truck takes the container from the yard to the......??

Are you going to have it on a trailer so it can be launched at a boat ramp?
If so, what do you tow it with?

Well, if you have shipped the trailer (like all Macgregors do), you either hire a ute for the day and tow it to the water yourself. Or most marinas will provide a tow to their site for a reasonable fee.

If you havn't shipped the trailer, the size and shape of the boat mean you can cart it around on a large car trailer quite easily, packed with old tyres for safety.

What do you do with the container (assuming you own it) or the cradle (if you don't) once the boat's in the water? I guess you could pay to store it...


If you have hired the container, it just stays in the shippers yard waiting for re-assignment like all good containers do.

If you have purchased the container, you can either store it till the return journey (pretty cheap these days), or sell it (if you are going to be in the area for a while)


Lastly, I've had a fair bit to do with shipping in my proffessional career and my experience is that it's NEVER on time. I've seen importers and exporters quite literally in tears as they look through a mesh fence at their perishable cargo, sitting in a container on the wharf, unable to access it. Clearly your boat won't perish... but holidays are precious and always too short....


Yes - very true. Its on par with 3 weeks of really bad weather in a tropical paradise you booked 12 months ago, your Boeing 747 breaking down for two days from London to Sydney, or you falling ill the day before you start the trip. (been there, done them all)

Certainly, you would want to allow a margin of delivery, based on Murphys law, but assuming you intend to stay quite a while at the place since you have containered the boat there, a week or so delay wont be a reall killer. You may even get a freight discount if the shipper offers insurance, to help defray alternate accomodation costs.

I would lie around the beach thinking "At least I am not being pummelled to Jelly by a savage Sou-Easter on the way up the Australian east Coast, or being overtaken by B-Double Fuel tankers on the Hume in the two lane section at 100 kl/h"

one to come across Bass Strait, however - the cost of doing that is frightening!)

Yes, containers across to tasmania from Melbourne are ridiculously priced. Much easier to tow it on the Car Ferry.

But from Tassie to the mainland, the "infill" rates can kick in at times through the year. If I wanted to container it to Sydney and meet it with the 4wd to finish the tow up to Queenslans, that could be viable.

As you quite rightly point out, towing V containers is a balancing act, but at least the option will be there, unlike the permanently "fat" yachts, that can only be towed, and then only with big annoyance factors.

[wardd]

build the boat in the shape of a shipping container, problem solved

[rwatson]

build the boat in the shape of a shipping container, problem solved

Hmmm - slight hydro performance issue there. I refer you to the discussion on Prismatic Coefficients :-)

[Willallison]

build the boat in the shape of a shipping container, problem solved

LOL
Oh... now that's thinking outside the box!.... or is it inside the box....:D

[RHP]

LOL
Oh... now that's thinking outside the box!.... or is it inside the box....:D

The boat IS the box... or is it the box IS the boat!

Sadly there are already many examples floating round our coastlines.

[Squidly-Diddly]

http://www.containeryachts.com/

Says something about "normal boatyard procedures". I'd imagine the hourly rate at boatyards at prime seasonal locations(pretty much the whole point of this boat) might vary tremendously and you could easily find yourself waiting behind those with "real money".

Also looks like a fair amount of reasonably skilled labor involved in setting up the rigging, prop, and keel. I imagine competent labor would also be in short supply during "the season".

I'd want something that could be launched and setup by any able bodied "one man team"(owner) without any "normal boatyard equipment" other than a tow vehicle to back it down the ramp, and a ramp.

[rwatson]

From the FAQ for the ContainerSailer
======================================================

What is required to unpack the FH 39 from her container and get her ready to sail?
The procedure of unpacking the FH 39 from her container and getting her ready to cruise is a standard boatyard operation. The basic steps of the process are:

-Pull the FH 39 out of the container.
-Lift the yacht out with a standard yard hoist.
-Use a fork lift to position the keel under the FH 39 and bolt it on.
-Position and insert the rudder.
-Bolt the saildrive on and add oil.
-Step the mast and tighten the rigging.

How long does it take to prep and load the container?
Our record for container loading is six and a half hours from dock side to loaded into the container.* That time included unstepping, stripping and packing the mast, as well as keel, sail drive lower unit, and rudder removal.*
What are the costs involved in transferring the boat?
The use of a hoist and fork lift with manning* typically runs from $300 to $500.* The labor involved in dismantling or assembling if performed by the yard rather than the owner will typically run from $40 to $60.00 per hour.* Less than ten hours are required.

=====================================================

So, assuming all the guys and gear are available, you would need to budget about $1,000 on each end.

Add $7,000 for the actual freight trip (USA to Europe),

Total say $10,000 allowing for contingencies

Versus -

Having a boat professionally delivered from the US to Europe .......

"The total cost for a professional delivery skipper and crew for a 10 day delivery can be $4,500-$5,500, for a 20 day delivery $8,000-$10,000."

So, basically, to deliver to Europe from the US, you would have to allow up to 40 days, or $20,000 plus factor in extra insurance, repairs, wear and tear etc etc.

================================================
If the owner earned $2000 per week for the 40 days it would have taken to sail to Europe, (say 5 weeks), its paid for.

Seems like a winning idea to me .

[RHP]

So, assuming all the guys and gear are available, you would need to budget about $1,000 on each end.

Add $7,000 for the actual freight trip (USA to Europe),

Total say $10,000 allowing for contingencies.

Wow, where does the $7 grand come from? :eek:

I'm shipping 40' containers from Santos to Shanghai for $700 usd, Busan, Kakarta, bangkok for $1,000, to Antwerp/Genoa for $1300, Mersin is probably the most expensive at $2,200.

[rwatson]

Wow, where does the $7 grand come from? :eek:

I'm shipping 40' containers from Santos to Shanghai for $700 usd, Busan, Kakarta, bangkok for $1,000, to Antwerp/Genoa for $1300, Mersin is probably the most expensive at $2,200.

It comes from the TrailerBoat site as a typical charge from USA to Europe, which isnt exactly on "off peak" route.

If thats too expensive, then I guess it makes the whole process even better. Like I said before, if you can container on "backfill" routes, you do even better

[Guillermo]

I'm shipping 40' containers from Santos to Shanghai for $700 usd, Busan, Kakarta, bangkok for $1,000, to Antwerp/Genoa for $1300, Mersin is probably the most expensive at $2,200.
Are those normal prices, or they reflect the present crash in containers traffic?

[Willallison]

Also, the cost is likely to be more for a one-off customer

[Raggi_Thor]

A company here designing steel structures for the AEC indusrty paid around 2000USD per container from China to Norway. That was a couple of years ago.

[FAST FRED]

"paid around 2000USD per container from China to Norway."

Add on a couple of bucks for air fare , and you have world cruising , any season , anywhere at a very modest cost.

FF

[Raggi_Thor]

Make the container your cabin :)
Like private rail coaches..

[apex1]

Are those normal prices, or they reflect the present crash in containers traffic?

Those are normal tariff, if you need a actual quotation let me know (it´s a tricky market).

Today: port to port, 40' GENERAL PURPOSE CONTAINER, CHARLESTON, SC
Via
Zielhafen ROTTERDAM
Warenart FREIGHT ALL KIND

1.400 USD



Regards
Richard