Habitable boats

[Richard Woods]

It appears that there is no real definition of a "habitable" boat. That is, a boat with accommodation that you can "live" in,
although I'm not even sure what "live in" means. Yet clearly it is something that is needed by the various regulatory bodies (ISO, RCD etc)

If I am tired I am happy to sleep anywhere, in a sail locker, or on the cabin sole, so to me having a bunk doesn't make the boat habitable (and if it did then how many bunks are needed - for all the crew? half the crew?). More important would be a galley - and maybe a toilet. Meaning a fixed stove, not a removable one, and a sea toilet not a Portapotti

And then what about headroom? Even a wide bunk is useless if it has less than (say) 400mm headroom over it. Maybe the rules used for slave ships would be suitable??

In any event, I think its clear that a deck tent does not make a boat "habitable". Nor does just having a cabin. Or is a Melges 24 "habitable"?

Even the definitions of a "habitable" house seem to vary around the world. In the UK a house is "unfit for habitation" if it doesn't have a bath (a shower doesn't count). Indeed the government will give you a grant to fit one if you don't have one. While I believe in Spain you don't pay property taxes unless your house has windows fitted. In Canada a building isn't a "house" unless it has a fixed cooker and sink (a microwave doesn't count), however it doesn't need an inside toilet.

Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best wishes

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

[xarax]

This is a very important, but almost totally neglected, issue of boat design.
I think that the three most important numbers that can measure the true habitability of a boat are :
1. The total walking area, the area with sufficient width and headroom through which one can move around ,
2. The total sitting and sleeping area, the area with sufficient width and headroom on which one can sit or sleep,
3. The total every-day-storage volume, the volume with sufficient openings width and arms length depth that one can easily have access to from a spot in the walking area.
(If we can not measure by numbers some quality, it probably belongs to the " de gustibus et coloribus" totally subjective area. }

[Ad Hoc]

Habitable, for most people who conjure up an image of accommodation/space/luxury that is similar or identical to ones home in terms of function.

For example, if in your home you had a lavatory of 2.0x1.5m, with pan, basin window and a shelf. Then "the" boat must ahve something very similar. Having a head that is just 1.0x0.8, for example, whilst still being a head, does not "feel" the same, hence does not feel as "habitable" ie as comfortable, as expected.

[apex1]

Habitable, for most people who conjure up an image of accommodation/space/luxury that is similar or identical to ones home in terms of function.
For example, if in your home you had a lavatory of 2.0x1.5m, with pan, basin window and a shelf. Then "the" boat must ahve something very similar. Having a head that is just 1.0x0.8, for example, whilst still being a head, does not "feel" the same, hence does not feel as "habitable" ie as comfortable, as expected.

Well, that feeling changes dramatically once these people had encountered severe weather, spilling their diposables all over the floor while trying to hold themselves on whatever is in reach (usually nothing).

Richard

[Richard Woods]

Maybe I should clarify the reason for asking the question

Suppose a government agency, the UK Coastguard, for example, became concerned about the potential for loss of life by those using windsurfers, pedalos etc at sea and suggested to government that only "habitable boats" should be allowed to cross the English Channel (for example).

Currently there is no official definition of "habitable", so the Coastguard could invent their own.

But if "we" defined a sensible one then maybe our freedoms won't be curtailed.

And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical question

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

[Ad Hoc]

Richard

This is more a competency debate then. Since a windsurfer who plays about once a year on his/her holiday is rather different to the world champion windsurfer like Sean O'Brien (I think it is). This comes down to
1 seamanship
2) is the "vessel" capable of supporting life in the event of an accident.

Clinging on a surfboard that is damaged or partially broken is somewhat different to a motor yacht that has engine failure and is drifting!

So, the two, in my opinion, are mutually exclusive in any attempt to define "habitable".

[Richard Woods]

Ad Hoc

That would open a new can of worms as it would mean everyone in the UK (for example) would need a competency certificate, and at several levels, ie day sailing through to ocean. So far the RYA has succeeded in making the certificates voluntary.

Clearly I am not explaining myself well, so I will try again

Habitable multihulls over 12m long built/sold in the EU need escape hatches. If the rule was changed so that ALL habitable multihulls had to have them fitted that would mean that many small multihulls (like Ray's 23ft Slider, for example) would need to fit an escape hatch (obviously at a set distance above the water when either way up and a certain size so that a large man wearing oilskins and lifejacket could get in/out of it).

Probably that would mean Rays boat would be declared illegal.

And by implication those who cannot afford, or don't want, a 40ft catamaran won't be able to sail multihulls at all.

HOWEVER, if the "habitable" definition was worded correctly a boat like Rays could be declared "non habitable" and thus not need an escape hatch.

Logically the same escape hatch argument can be used to reduce risks in case of fire, not just capsize. Implying that all habitable boats should have an escape hatch in case of fire, so it wouldn't be just multihulls that are affected.

And of course there are many more dangers than capsize or fire at sea, although by and large the bigger the boat the safer you are.

Governments are there to make laws, government agencies, like the Coastguard carry them out and regulate them. Without laws they are all out of a job. Thus it is in the Coastguard's interest to have as many regulations as possible.

But they don't want to make work for themselves un-necessarily. So, as I said earlier, it would be easy for them to say "only habitable boats can cross the Channel".

That would immediately rule out windsurfers and open dinghies and could thus be seen as an easy answer by many politicians/bureaucrats

So again, is a Melges 24 habitable?? or a Firebird, an F24 or a Strider???

And remember I'm talking about the MINIMUM requirements for habitability, not what would be nice to have.

Still not a perfect post, but does that help understand the question??

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

[Ad Hoc]

Richard

Kind of...

"..Probably that would mean Rays boat would be declared illegal...", if so, so beit! Safety is the first issue, not if a boat builder will go out of business owing to an "old" design.

Same arguments were put forward by several countries, mainly the Aussies, when the latest HSC 2000 Code was being debated and revised. The UK (i was on the committee) proposed having a damage length of 55% as a minimum. There was much bleating that it couldn't be done, they would go out of business etc. Reading between the lines, it was just they would have to redesign their hulls and their bottom line would be reduced, that is less profit! Since our company proved that it could be done without too much fuss. Sure profit is less, but the question wasn't about how much money would be lost, the question was can it be done, yes. Safety should in no way be equated with money or saving moeny.

I'm also on one of the MCA committees. They don't just come up with rules for the sake of it. (I can't believe I'm defending them here.!!). They react to accidents and problems which become more frequent (hence a pattern emerges) or expose loop holes in existing rules. As well as having to keep pace with new legislation which is "forced" down from the EU, such as the EU/98/18...terrible!!

So, if you are viewing the question from a "will these nice designs still be applicable", your answer will be very different from one that is "ok, what can we do to make these boats safer and comply".

[TeddyDiver]

Safety should in no way be equated with money or saving moeny.
Hope that one is not coming reality anywhere else than in Japan :) So long there's no common sense and reason what's necisity and what's an overkill in safety the baby could be thrown away with the bath water. Can have only relative safety and mostly boater's are endangered by their own misjudgement not by missing safety regulations.
The fact however is, that individual country can generally rule how they want their own subjects, not boats officially registered to other countries. Anyway this leaves still full control over "unregistered" ones such as surfboards etc..

"A comittee.. only lifeform known having multiple heads and no brain" by Lazarus Long

[bill broome]

it would be easier to regulate politicians, than boats.

it seems to me that an all-purpose declaration is needed, along the lines of: "i know what i'm doing, on the water. if i get in trouble, i'll get myself out, or die with a smile on my face." lodge this at nearest government agency, or email a central agency.

then if someone thinks they are entitled to make a living 'saving' me, it would be at their own risk and expense.

[bill broome]

and by the way, heinlein was a very good writer, but a lousy philosopher.

committees are our only protection from the active prosecution of politician's plans.

[TeddyDiver]

committees are our only protection from the active prosecution of politician's plans.
Having a buroeucrate to cover my as against politicians gives me the creeps:P

[xarax]

Having a buroeucrate to cover my as against politicians gives me the creeps:P
agreee!!!:) :) :)

[BWD]

Isn't it obvious?
Toss Labour and the commies and nannies out and no one will be left but sailors.
Problem solved.

Safety is an elusive mental delusion achieved through competence, dumb luck or stupidity on a rotten log or an aircraft carrier.

Obviously coracles, viking ships, row boats, beach cats and windsurfers are habitable, as they all have crossed oceans.

The notion safety can be contained in a physical embodiment such as an escape hatch seems absurd to me.

In more highly constrained, larger, complex designs, like ships, rules make more sense. But it's idiotic to think one can achieve useful sensible rules that could apply to all small craft from say 10 feet to 50 feet, of all different types of design.

No matter the rules, bad luck, weather, and stupidity will kill people in small boats offshore or near shore.

Another problem is a government in which the servants, (coastguard) have more influence with legislature than the masters (voting constituents and marine industry).

So, as above, toss the nannies, smash the video cameras, have a pint and go sailing.

[yipster]

where there is water there may be live
would not call a live jacket habitable tho

[xarax]

Are we talking about habitability or safety ? Because they are very different issues of boat design. One can cross the pacific ocean into a small metal capsule like the Gemini spacecraft with complete safety, I suppose, may be even into the Gemini space suit, but this does not mean that the capsule or the floating spacesuit are considered as habitable boats, does it?
I suggest we better leave "safety" to the bureaucrats, and concentrate on habitability, which is a real sailor’s issue
.

[Little Otter]

habitability is different for everyone while some people may consider a 28' boat to be habitabal a millionaire might not be happy until they have a 500' motor yacht, it also depends on the type of boat as a catamaran will have more space than a mono of the same size.

[TeddyDiver]

a catamaran will have more space than a mono of the same size.
How can same sizes have different amounts of space :confused: If they haven't the other one is smaller and so the claim is absurd :p

[Richard Woods]

I suggest we better leave "safety" to the bureaucrats, and concentrate on habitability, which is a real sailor’s issue
.

About 15 years ago I was at the meeting when the UK's position on the RCD was finalised. The room was pretty full and I counted 33 people.

At question time I said I had some questions but first I would like a show of hands.

First I asked how many in the room were boatbuilders or designers.

3 people put their hands up

Then I asked how many owned a boat of any sort

5 people put their hands up

So the vast majority of people who decided on the RCD (and thus decided on the safety, build quality and all other aspects of boat design and building) did not even OWN a boat!!!

So are you SURE you want to leave everything to bureaucrats???

Remember I started this discussion by asking what people thought were the minimum requirements for "habitabilty", not what they would like to have themselves on a cruising boat.

So a couple of simple questions:

Should a Melges 24 be considered "habitable" - yes or no.

Should a Farrier 750 be considered "habitable" - yes or no.

Maybe it would be helpful if you were to justify your answer.

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

PS I suspect Little Otter meant length not size. I doubt if any coracle has crossed an ocean. A river maybe. People should read BWD's post in conjunction with my comments above. The RCD is now law and cannot be repealed.

[fcfc]

In IMS rules, www.orc.org , read APPENDIX 1 ACCOMODATION REGULATIONS.

It describe the "minimum" "habitability" requirements for racing boats.

They are very crude.

For instance a GP26, 7.9m, crewed by 5, should only have 2 bunks of minimum 1.83m * 0.55m. and a cabin headroom of 1.22m minimum.

[Crag Cay.]

About 15 years ago I was at the meeting when the UK's position on the RCD was finalised. The room was pretty full and I counted 33 people.

At question time I said I had some questions but first I would like a show of hands.

First I asked how many in the room were boatbuilders or designers.

3 people put their hands up

Then I asked how many owned a boat of any sort

5 people put their hands up

So the vast majority of people who decided on the RCD (and thus decided on the safety, build quality and all other aspects of boat design and building) did not even OWN a boat!!!
I agree, but let's not forget who some of the other baddies were in the establishment of the RCD nightmare. There were also lots of (predominantly) ship Naval Architects at those meetings (as they could afford RINA conference fees on their expenses) who also thought that there was money to be made from the bureaucracy and the Notified Bodies, etc.

Then there was the BMF in favour and even the RYA who should at least have been defending consumers to the hilt.

Now, 15 years on, there is no evidence that boats are safer only more expensive and with less choice. And we have the ludicrous spectacle of the Moody 45DS being Cat A because it can contrive to jump through all the hoops, whilst proven designs such as the Contessa 26 are deemed to be 'non ocean going'.

[rayaldridge]

"habitability" is such a slippery concept to define. It would be hard to think of a more subjective concept. What someone from Sudan might see as the lap of luxury might be regarded as horrific hardship by someone from the 1st world. And even granting citizenship in, say, an EU country, viewpoints vary enormously.

One element not yet addressed is time. If a boat is habitable for a weekend, is it habitable?

Folks will put up with almost anything for a short time. An illustrative non-nautical example is backpacking. There are lots of backpackers who believe they can carry habitability on their backs for a week or two. There are very few who actually can do it for 6 months, which is why so few hikers complete the Appalachian Trail from end to end.

So how long must a boat be endurable to qualify as habitable?

[xarax]

Should a Melges 24 be considered "habitable" - yes or no.

Should a Farrier 750 be considered "habitable" - yes or no.

Maybe it would be helpful if you were to justify your answer.
.

I have not measured these boats according to my specific quantitative definition of habitability, but I believe that two of the three numbers I propose are actually zero...So, their total habitability is severely restricted, and this is also the case for smaller, safer, truly ocean going vessels, like the mini 6.5s, for example. Any boat that has some " sitting or sleeping area with sufficient width and headroom on which one can sit or sleep", is habitable, but if it has no standing room space its total habitability is necessary very low. Personally, I wouldn’t even think of crossing the ocean with a Bavaria 33, but its habitability, and this only, is necessary much higher. So we must not confuse the safety, the ocean going abilities or the quality of the construction of a sailboat with its habitability. For me, habitability has to do with space and space only. If one has a hull that provides a high score of habitability according to my definition, then he could proceed and improve safety, quality of construction, etc.
Dayboats and weekend keelboats in general, that do not have a standing room space, smaller than, say, 27 feet LOA, sporting or not, fast or not, well constructed or not, ocean going or not, are habitable boats, provided they are not open dinghies, but their habitability, if measured according the formula I proposed, is of a very low number compared to cruising boats.
As I have said, if we do not distant ourselves with vague qualitative definitions and focus on numbers that one can really measure, even if he is a bereaucrat or politician, we can not define habitability in a objective, functional, useful way.

[GTO]

LIfe rafts are apparently habitable, since several people have spent months at sea on them. Some people have also traveled the worlds oceans in small open boats.

Maybe, just maybe, the argument should be made that (given thousands of years of maritime history where people have traveled the oceans in everything from skinned canoes to today's super cruise ships) the premise of "habitable" vessels needing extra safety measures is based upon a very poor understanding of boats/ships and their use so therefore the entire debate is pointless and should be abandoned.

[apex1]

Well, I´ll try to add my two cents.
Assuming we distinguish CE class A and B I would call this a habitable boat:

Seating:
Class A..........all crew at the same time below deck (sheltered)
Class B..........all crew at the same time
both..............headroom seated min. 68 cm

Bunks:
Class A...........for 50% of crew + 1 bed
Class B...........for 50% of crew
both...............headroom min 50 cm

Cabin:
Class A............standing headroom at min 1/3 of the cabin length 160 cm
Class B......................... " not necessary

Class A ..............daylight / windows min 0,33 m² per 10m³ cabin volume
Class B..................... " not necessary

Class A.................ventilation sufficient to change cabin volume 10 times
...........................per hr at 2kn wind
Class B..................hand fan (Japan model)

Cooker:
Class A...................1 fixed cooker of sufficient size to prepare at least one
.............................warm meal for all crew within 24 hrs. easily accessable
Class B................... none

Toilet:
Class A................. min 1 Wc per 10 crew (seawater, marine type, holding
............................tank)
Class B...................Porta potty (1 per 6 crew)

Water:
Class A.................min 3ltr. of potable water per day/crew, below 30° lat 4ltr
and B....................in case of watermaker installed, half of that


Just a few points, but we will add some more I guess.

Regards
Richard

[yipster]

for a prolonged period i like headroom etc, was looking at your flika early'r how livable it was

[apex1]

for a prolonged period i like headroom etc, was looking at your flika early'r how livable it was

Of course more is better, and I would´nt like to go just for a weekend trip in the vessel described above, but we are talking minima here.

[xarax]

Very interesting numbers, apex1. I think you should add some numbers for minimum storage volume, and increase headroom minima. People are taller nowadays... Headroom for sitting and sleeping could be the same ( it would be great if one could be seated on his bed, because it helps wives agree for the purchase of the new boat...:)

[apex1]

These figures are just what is my personal opinion of the absolute minima. Nothing is good, comfortable or sells easily. But that was not the question. If we put our personal requirements in here, we end up with unaffordable boats. Or as bad, outlawed ones. When I set my personal minima as a standard, and that becomes a written law, I have the blue water anchorages for me exclusively at 99% of the year.
Headroom for seating and bed should not be the same, you narrow the possibility of additional bunks too much.
When a boat fits into these minima (many do today) it makes it possible for a young couple to make extended journeys with a minimum in comfort. If we increase the numbers noticeable half of the boats are out of race.

[Chris Ostlind]

I would consider these habitable for trans-oceanic travel


http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/ostlind/stasis7/index.cfm

http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/ostlind/pencil/index.cfm

[Rick Willoughby]

I would consider these habitable for trans-oceanic travel


http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/ostlind/stasis7/index.cfm

http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/ostlind/pencil/index.cfm

Chris
It is amazing what one can survive in but to me habitable has broader meaning.

This is a snippet from the documentary Solo - Lost at Sea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvCt3AVWr2s
If you get a chance to watch the full documentary you can see how Andrew's condition deteriorates. The kayak is simply not large enough to allow normal human function for the required period.

The boat actually survived enabling them to recover some of the videos and photos he took. It is difficult to understand the circumstances where he got separated from the boat. He may have been hallucinating. One of the problems with hypothermia I believe. So the ability to get dry and warm are critical to survival in colder climates. In hotter climates the sun and heat take their toll.

So I guess "habitable" ranges from survival through comfortable to luxurious. I lean more to the survival end because I view boats as disposable. None are a good investment in my experience and my disposable income does not go far beyond survival with regard to bad investments on boats. I certainly do not share my wife's liking for ocean liners - far too stable and crowded for my liking.

Rick W

[xarax]

Headroom for seating and bed should not be the same, you narrow the possibility of additional bunks too much.
...makes it possible for a young couple to make extended journeys with a minimum in comfort. If we increase the numbers noticeable half of the boats are out of race.
Unfortunately perhaps, the young couples of today are not like the young couples, triplets, etc, of my generation...:) Young people nowadays are seeking what people of my age would characterize as excessive comfort and unnecessary luxury. I think that if we increase minimum headroom, space in general, the number of young people that will come into sailing would also increase. I prefer half of the today boats to be out of the race, if the number of tomorrow boats would have doubled. There are hordes of modern young people out there who could more easily seduced into sailing, should this activity distance itself from the strange feeling of sleeping into claustrophobic low cabins.
But the most important things are,
1., to narrow the number of essential qualities that should characterize the "habitability" of a boat, and,
2., to put some quantitative specific numbers on them that would permit us to measure what we are talking about.

[Ad Hoc]

apex/Richard

One of the problems of "defining" "habilitable" is that is does become 1) subjective and 2) even if a level of consensus is reached, apply legislation renders the well intended philosophy behind it, meaningless.

The current ISO 12217 rules for example...what utter rubbish. The rules and reg's for compliance are far more complex than any HSC boat...for what?..small air pipes and others etc. The ISO is ostensibly a "surveyor's guide for compliance" which has been made into a set of prescriptive rules. It requires a desk jockey to explain the reasons for said and why...but don't expect any sensible answer.

The further towards the ends of any spectrum one approaches, normal "laws" break down. Small boats as such, fall into these categories. Some require legislation for very good reasons, many others do not.

Incompency and accidents by those that shouldn't be out at sea where deaths have occurred, are ultimately responsible for such "rules and reg's". It has become all part of the mitigation process for insurance and ass-covering....wasn't me, i told them so!

[Ad Hoc]

Rick has actually raised an interesting point. What is considered "habitable" in a very cold climate, is very different from a warm/hot climate. Will this ever be factored in...doubt it..or if it is, poorly!

[apex1]

Ad Hoc, Xarax,
well, I thought just to start a "list" of what could be named habitable, and by no means I claim that to be cast in iron, nor even sensible in every case.
Just my thoughts of what would be the absolute minimum I could think of. Of course, the bigger the better, but we have been asked of the min.
And I agree that one could (should) make a difference according to climates the vessel is designed for. My recommendation for water storage refers to that point.

Richard

[Richard Woods]

apex/Richard


The current ISO 12217 rules for example...what utter rubbish. The rules and reg's for compliance are far more complex than any HSC boat...for what?..small air pipes and others etc. The ISO is ostensibly a "surveyor's guide for compliance" which has been made into a set of prescriptive rules. It requires a desk jockey to explain the reasons for said and why...but don't expect any sensible answer.


I guess you contributed in the public consultation when these were first drafted.

But if not now is the time to send in your comments (or post them here) because the RCD and ISO standards are currently up for review.

I have been on the ISO stability working group that developed ISO12217 for about 15 years as a "multihull specialist" so know the problems we faced.

One of those was that, despite the fact that the WG comprised "stability experts" there were some even more "expert" people who form the "powers that be".

For example, after much discussion our WG proposed that recreational craft should be divided into 6, or possibly 7 different categories. So we were very surprised to find our proposals were thrown out and instead all boats would have to fit in only 4 categories, ie Cat A ocean, B offshore, C coastal, D lakes and rivers.

Thus the Cambridge river punt is lumped in with boats that navigate the river Rhine or Lake Superior, while most dinghies are in Cat C (ie coastal sailers). As most cabin boats are considered more stable than a dinghy it means most are in Cat B or A, so in effect there are only two categories that cover small cruisers right up to those designed to sail round Cape Horn in winter.

So I would agree that although there is much scope for improvement, our hands are tied by the "powers that be" - I call them that as I have no idea who they are

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

[Ad Hoc]

Richard

I'm on one of the MCA committees and also on LRs Technical Committee. The only way to move these "powers that be", are with well documented evidence that counters their proposals. If you can't the rule stands....like it or not.

Since everyone is a critic, but one needs to quantify the criticisms.