A bluewater, ocean going water ballasted matorsailer. Why not?

[xarax]

1. There seems to be a consensus that the existing water ballasted motorsailers are not suited for true bluewater, ocean going sailing.
2. But I still do not know the theoretical reasons, if any, that a bluewater, ocean going motor sailer could not exist someday ! The advantages of such a craft, if feasible, would be obvious.
3. I think it would be more useful and productive, instead of pointing the limitations or problems of the existing boats, to try to figure out how a solid build, self righting water ballasted motorsailer would look alike.

[Fanie]

instead of pointing the limitations or problems

Eh Xarax,

I think that is where one should start, pointing out the problems - unless you can find a way around the obvious then there may not be much point in forcing it, or else the advantages must outweigh the drawbacks to justify it.

Imo any boat can be made self righting, but I think for most it is a matter of can you live with the compensations.

[TeddyDiver]

1 There's no such boat
2 It could, but the low density of water creates limitations
3 Fat compared to it's metal ballasted counterpart

I'm building a partly water ballasted motorsailor (1t water, 1.4t lead) :D

[Fanie]

I think the first thing one would attempt to get by is the keel ande weight. This is going to require a lot more energy for propulsion.

Personally if I want to make a motorised boat simply use a displacement cat hull like the sailers and just omit the mast and sails. Light, economic, shallow, spacious, stable, bla bla bla.

[PAR]

Water ballast in a motor sailor is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

Water ballast was a fad, that is now all but past, fortunately. By best description, water ballasting is a marginal advantage to a racer, battling fixed ballast/fin brothers in arms.

Water ballasting has no place on a motorsailor, frankly, because it's a crappy way to add weight. It's only advantage was the ability to pump it from one rail to the other, but with canting keels, the advantage is gone to a much more effective arrangement. No motorsailor will sail well enough to need this level of adjustment.

[xarax]

1 There's no such boat
I agree. But I dont see why there can not be- and will not be - such a boat...

3 Fat compared to it's metal ballasted counterpart

So What ? It could be slower under sail but faster under engine, while motoring without the ballast weight.
[QUOTE=TeddyDiver;288251]
I'm building a partly water ballasted motorsailor (1t water, 1.4t lead) :

That may be a nice solution, too.

[xarax]

Water ballasting has no place on a motorsailor, frankly, because it's a crappy way to add weight.
Lead keel balasting itself is a crappy way to achieve righting momentum to a sailing craft, compared to the floating hull of a cat, a tri or a proa, but the number of multihulls is still greatly smaller than that of the monohull lead mines...

[apex1]

Lead keel balasting itself is a crappy way to achieve righting momentum to a sailing craft, compared to the floating hull of a cat, a tri or a proa, but the number of multihulls is still greatly smaller than that of the monohull lead mines...

It seems you do´nt like to understand?

There is NO WAY to have water ballast in a motorsailor! period

[xarax]

There is NO WAY to have water ballast in a motorsailor! period

When I listen the NO WAY "argument", I remember that it was used on heavier than air vehicles, supersonic speed, man on the moon, etc...:)
I dont say that one can take an existing motorsailer and add water ballast on it ! I say that one could, possibly, design and build a sailing vessel that uses water ballast to right itself only while sailing , so it could be lighter while motoring without it. WHY there is, and will never be, a way to have a craft like this?

[Fanie]

While everything is possible, as I have indicated the compromises may not be worth the effort. I would think that a couple of the guys responding on the matter have some experience to a more or lesser degree on the topic, so if I could make a suggestion, approach very cautiously unless you have a lot of money to dump on something that may turn out a disappointment.

[apex1]

When I listen the NO WAY "argument", I remember that it was used on heavier than air vehicles, supersonic speed, man on the moon, etc...:)

Jaja......................

It is always a pleasure to quote Paul Ricchelli, so:

Water ballast in a motor sailor is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

Water ballast was a fad, that is now all but past, fortunately. By best description, water ballasting is a marginal advantage to a racer, battling fixed ballast/fin brothers in arms.

Water ballasting has no place on a motorsailor, frankly, because it's a crappy way to add weight. It's only advantage was the ability to pump it from one rail to the other, but with canting keels, the advantage is gone to a much more effective arrangement. No motorsailor will sail well enough to need this level of adjustment.

Maybe if you read it slowly, you come after the issue.

[Squidly-Diddly]

pure sail boat with transferable water ballast and somewhat flat bottom like a MacGregor.

It was about 40' and built by a 'home builder'. He had sailed it to South Pacific and back, said it worked very well.

this was not the airplane hulled "Cosmic Muffin" boat with the website.

[TeddyDiver]

A sandbagger style water ballast ain't no bluewater cruiser solution. Fractional water ballast makes sense only using the actual water tank capasity (made floodable) and placed accordingly to increase stability.

[xarax]

A sandbagger style water ballast ain't no bluewater cruiser solution. Fractional water ballast makes sense only using the actual water tank capasity (made floodable) and placed accordingly to increase stability.
But these water tanks could well be made as large as we wish, couldnt they ? And we can always throw the "water bags'' away and put them again on board when wa will need it, which was not possible with the sand bags.
I think that the main advantage of a water ballasted motorsailer would be the increased speed while motoring without the weight of the water ballast, not the increased stability while sailing with the help of it.

[Crag Cay.]

Xarax,

Your ideas do have some merit, although ultimately it would need a lot of work to evaluate whether they are the best way to achieve your aims. Ultimately they may prove to be 'false dawns' but don't give up as this stage.

If I read you right, your primary aim seems to be variable displacement. This does indeed have appeal for being able to maximise efficiency under power versus sea keeping as conditions dictate.

Then, 'stiffness', as in the ability to carry sail, would primarily come form form stability, but could be enhanced by asymmetric filled gunwale ballast tanks.

But it's the ultimate stability that everyone assumes will be the problem with boats like this, but being a 'motor sailor' does hand you a trump card in this regard. A self righting ability may be possible by the design of a high, large volume, structurally sound deck house in the style of the UK RNLI lifeboats. Here's it's the inverted volume of these structures that provides the righting couple, rather than a deep, ballasted fin keel. Such a cabin house could be compatible with the aesthetic style of a 'motor sailor'.

I would start your evaluation with a simple, single chine hull, plenty of flair to the topsides so WL Beam increases markedly with displacement, a full height wheel house above the weather deck, twin engines and rudders, (so it can dry out upright) and a simple dagger board for lateral resistance.

Then get it into HydroMax and see.

[xarax]

Thank you Crag Cay,
You read me very right !
I wonder if the elevated deck house should be of a rounded form to minimize windage, but then one should have to sacrifice usefull deck space...
I have also thought of an computerized automatic control of the engine, the batteries and the pumps, to send the right quantity of water to port/starboard tanks when the boat heels while under sail power.
The single chine hull forces the (many and heavy) pump batteries and the engine(s) to be placed higher than they should be for added stability. ..

[Crag Cay.]

Rounding the coach house, controlling the height of machinery, etc, are all several iterations away as you refine this design.

An idea such as this will require you to go round the 'design spiral' many, many times. At this stage it's essential to focus on the big issues, otherwise you'll go round and round and just get dizzy.

Pick some realistic, ball park figures and start really evaluating what you have.

[apex1]

But these water tanks could well be made as large as we wish, couldnt they ?
NO they could´nt!For many reasons not worth to discuss.

I think that the main advantage of a water ballasted motorsailer would be the increased speed while motoring without the weight of the water ballast, not the increased stability while sailing with the help of it.
You should take into account that there is more than one aspect in the term "stability" , and that there are other factors like stiffness, righting moment etc. to count.


The complexity of a trim tank, pump, electronics system drove many racers nuts! But at least they could afford to play with this (still unmature) idea. The true bluewater sailor (which you are obviously not) goes for a "no nonsense" arrangement on technical systems, never for complicating a boats propulsion.
When you are looking for professional advice, you should accept professional answers, and not only those which fit your prejudice.
I´m glad to quote Par again:

Water ballast in a motor sailor is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

Water ballast was a fad, that is now all but past, fortunately. By best description, water ballasting is a marginal advantage to a racer, battling fixed ballast/fin brothers in arms.

Water ballasting has no place on a motorsailor, frankly, because it's a crappy way to add weight. It's only advantage was the ability to pump it from one rail to the other, but with canting keels, the advantage is gone to a much more effective arrangement. No motorsailor will sail well enough to need this level of adjustment.

Love it or leave it, your idea has no place in bluewater sailing!

Regards
Richard

[xarax]

Thank you again apex1,

Love it or leave it, your idea has no place in bluewater sailing!

You are probably right, and that is the reason why there isn’t any such boat around, but I think that modern materials, electronic equipment AND computers could make a difference here. The operational complexity of systems is getting less and less as time passes by... Technology simplifies things, immature things are getting mature, and the cost comes down. I remember the days when autopilots, GPS, electric winches, generators, etc, were thought to be too complex for bluewater sailing... not any more.

The true bluewater sailor (which you are obviously not)...

I am sure, my dear friend, that, as a true bluewater sailor I believe you are, you can understand the nonsense of this sentence... Obviously, and fortunately, nobody, (professional or not...) can ever monopolize the knowledge and the truth of the ocean. Leaving this unfortunate remark aside, I am glad you offer me your valuable advice, together with your motto: "never forgot, that the valuation of "good" was just founded in MY knowledge only! " Now, my own knowledge is very limited and by no means on a professional level, as of many people in this forum, and that is the purpose of the threads. People like you that know more give advices and we listen! I can assure you that I always listen, and I don’t have any prejudice with anything, especially if it is only an immature vague idea!
For many reasons not worth to discuss.
Now, please give me some reasons why the water tanks can not be as large as we wish :) Reasons are always worth to discuss! In my language "reason" is synonymous to talking, speech, (Logos)

[TeddyDiver]

The concept, as Crag described it, could be a good weekender, or "island hopper" at it's best but a real bluewater cruiser.. never. To be a real blue water cruiser the ballast got to be more or less "rigid", meaning the CG staying in the centerline of the vessel thou some adjustment could be done with the amount of it..

Let's assume we take an avarage 40'er with 10t displacement and 4t ballast. Converting the ballast from iron/laed to water means 4t more displacement which means more wetted surface => more sail area => more righting moment => more water.. etc so we end up with 50'er with 40'er characteristics what comes to interior space and boat speed.. so in theory doable but not a realistic solution however..

[xarax]

Thank you Teddy,
...so we end up with a 50'er with 40'er characteristics what comes to interior space and boat speed.
Yes, but with shallow draft and GREATER motoring speed, as the LOA is longer and the total weight is smaller without the water ballast.

[TeddyDiver]

Yes, but with shallow draft and GREATER motoring speed, as the LOA is longer and the total weight is smaller without the water ballast.
It won't have a shallow draft if you want to have some seekeeping ability (in a lake it would be a much simplier task) Water ballast dumped LWL either degreases or wetted surface remains. Can't gain anything without going XXL in the hull size I'm afraid..

[Stumble]

Xar,

I know Par and Apex can be a bit dismissive of loony ideas like this one, but when they agree on something you can pretty much take it as gospel.

But to fill in a few of their blanks as to why it isn't that good of an idea particularly for a motorsailer... Remember Motorsailers are all designed for long distance cruising and comfort, not for performance. Now keep that in mind...

1) Motorsailers tend to be heavy and under canvased to begin with and stability is rarely their problem

2) The size of a water tank is limited by the amount of internal volume you want to dedicate to the tanks, the amount of righting moment the rig can support, and the additional loads that the hull can be designed to carry efficiently.

3) The water balast systems are incredibly complicated if done properly. You suggest using new computers, or technology but there is a real problem here. The unlimited budget racing programs stopped development on water ballast systems maybe 3 years ago. There has been no tech development since then that would allow a motorsailer where money is being budgeted to do effectively what sailing programs willing to spend 5 million a year on the boat couldn't do recently

4) Canting keels have proven to be more reliable, simpler, faster, safer, require less weight for the same righting moment, and cheaper than water ballast systems.

5) Canting keels take up little interior volume.

6) Canting keels require adding significantly less weight than a water ballast system since the weight they do add generates more righting moment per pund due to longer leaver arms.

7) Water ballast tanks must either be full or empty. Any sloshing is dangerous in this type of installation. This limits the practical number of trims available. And if you go with smaller tanks it adds more complexity, creating a horrible design spiral

8) Either system are prone to breaking, seriously hampering the value of them in non-racing applications. Since at least racers know and accept the risks of gear breaking.

9) If something goes wrong with a water ballast system how do you fix it off shore? Particularly far from a high tech Marina (unless you have a support boat with paid mechanics on board)

10) Any weight savings from a water ballast system is going to be offset by the fact that motorsailers are heavy to begin with

11) in the size of boats where this would even be possible the amount of wetted surface change with full or empty tanks is minimal compared to adding the lead in a keel

12) You are still going to need a keel to provide lateral resistance, so while you can save weight here you still need the wetted surface

13) I am sure there are more, but this is off of the top of my head.


Now do you understand? There is nothing about a water ballast, or canting keel design that belongs on any cruising boat. Maybe in a few years as the complexity, cost, and reliability of canting keels gets better they will start to appear on cruising boats, but I doubt it. Water ballast was an interesting fad as it was the first real try at effective movable ballast systems, but it is a fad that has been suplanted by newer technology and practices.

[Crag Cay.]

There's a little bit of confusion here regarding water ballast. The biggest possible benefit of using water ballast in a motor sailor is to be able to vary the displacement. Lighter displacement would help efficiency under power and increased displacement would benefit both sea keeping and to a degree, sail carrry-ing ability due to an increase in the righting moment.

This is long proven technology in boats as varied as Avon Seariders through to designs for Royal Navy patrol boats we did in the late seventies that were required to be stable radar platforms at rest but be capable of high turns of speed. In both cases the plumbing was very simple and reliable. In fact it's entirely passive in seariders and required only simple pumps in the patrol craft.

This is not the same as water ballast carried asymmetrically on race boats. I'd take more convincing there was any merit in that as I think a motor sailor could achieve sufficient 'stiffness' on hull form alone.

The stumbling block for 'form stable', or lightly ballasted boats (as these would be with their internal water ballast), has traditionally been their lack of ultimate stability. That is, how to make them self righting. But by adopting the solution used by the current generation of RNLI offshore lifeboats, this again is not impossible. The large deck house that is required with this concept is not incompatible with the idea of a motor sailor. So this concept requires the making of a form stable hull in high displacement mode, with a low resistance in light displacement mode with the ultimate sea keeping and self righting ability of the RNLI life boats.

These are all proven concepts. Can they be combined in a workable package that offers real advantages for this use? I don't know. But I do know there is enough potential there for it not to be dismissed out of court.

[xarax]

Thank you Stumble.

...you can pretty much take it as gospel.

I am not afraid to say that I am not a believer... :) , but of course they are right in many points they raised and I appreciate their advice very much.

1) Motorsailers tend to be ... under canvassed... and stability is rarely their problem.
We are not talking about existing motorsailers here...If a sailboat is undercanvassed, stability isn’t her problem by definition...As I have said, I think that the main advantage of the water ballast system on a motorsailer is not greater sailing stability, but greater motoring speed.

Canting keels have proven to be more reliable... safer...
Noooo...:)

Water ballast tanks must either be full or empty. Any sloshing is dangerous in this type of installation. This limits the practical number of trims available.
Good point. The hull should offer a substantial form stability, i.e. it should be quite beamy.

If something goes wrong with a water ballast system how do you fix it off shore?
You don’t. You motor to the nearest harbour. The advantage of the water ballast system is that it is needed only for sailing, and with a motor sailer you can always use your reliable powerful engine. On the contrary, if the canting keel of a sailboat goes wrong...
You first say that :

There is nothing about a water ballast, or canting keel design that belongs on any cruising boat.

And then that ;

Maybe in a few years as the complexity, cost, and reliability of canting keels gets better they will start to appear on cruising boats,...
So it is a matter of time, not engineering. And I have to tell you that canting keels and water ballast were used in a few custom made cruising sailboats already.
In the size of boats where this would even be possible the amount of wetted surface change with full or empty tanks is minimal compared to adding the lead in a keel.
Why minimal ? ? ? Less than the reduction of the total weight, of course, but not minimal.
Canting keel is superior to water ballast due to its greater righting moment, but you can not leave it on the surface of the water if and when you wish, and then take it in board again ...The main advantage of the water ballast system on a motorsailer is that it is a variable displacement system that one can use effectively while sailing or motoring.

[apex1]

.As I have said, I think that the main advantage of the water ballast system on a motorsailer is not greater sailing stability, but greater motoring speed.


That has to be achieved by design first! On a 50´ Passagemaker you wou´nt feel much speed difference having 5 tonnes more or less in your tanks (at average cruising speed). And you do´nt leave that speed sector often while cruising.

Good point. The hull should offer a substantial form stability, i.e. it should be quite beamy.

That is very contradictive when it comes to cruising under motor, and of course it outweighs the advantage of a variable displacement by far!

You don’t. You motor to the nearest harbour.

You do´nt motor anywhere just by turning your ignition key! If your system fails, be sure it fails at 3:30 at night, and with water on just one side of your tanks, or worse, inside the boat. And be sure that happens half way between Pitcairn and Ushuaia.


Why minimal ? ? ? Less than the reduction of the total weight, of course, but not minimal.

It is minimal......



Having trim tanks to get some additional weight in when fuel consumption has drained the tanks can be a very sensible point, but ballast has to be solid and far down.

[Stumble]

Xarax,

if you are seriously trying to reduce the amount of weight a sailboat needs to carry for some amount of righting moment, then for now the only option in my mind for something other than an all out race boat would be a telescoping keel with a big bulb at the end of it. If you really want more righting moment and to save 5K lbs in lead, then give up shallow water cruising and add another couple of feet to the keel. Heck you could even put the bulb on a lifting centerboard to get back some of the draft you gave away.

But if you are thinking that water ballast will let you motor easier... Lets take a very light weight carbon fiber racing bat, the Santa Cruiz 52' with a displacement of 21,000lbs. Lets say you could knock 5,000 off of that so you are now down to 16,000. Sure it will motor at hull speed with a smaller motor than it's 'overweight' brother. So instead of needing a 65hp diesel burning 1/2 a gallon an hour you now need a 50hp burning .45 gallons per hour. Not really a worth while savings in my mind.

So now lets look at a cruising boat, the Irwin 54' with a displacement of 46,000lbs and a ballast of 16,000lbs. Now this is truly a heavy cruising sailboat NOT a motorsailor. With a 70hp engine it motors nicely at 8.5kn sucking down a horrendous 1 gallon an hour. Again you cut the displacement by 5K lbs and you can't even tell the difference. 5Klbs on this boat is about the difference between when the boat has full and empty water tanks (450 gallons at 8.34lbs per gallon=3753lbs).

Now lets take a look at a comperable motorcruiser... The Nordhavn 56' Motorsailer sits at 70,400lbs. Almost twice the weight of the Irwin. 5k lbs off of this boat is truly meaningless at about 7% of the total ships displacement or about 2/3 the weight of a tank of fuel (750 gallons). The motorsailer also carries 17,500lbs and a draft of 6'.


Yes each of these boats goes up a slight step in size, but I couldn't think of any three more radically different boats, in roughly the same size range.

Now on a different note the Irwin normally has a 5'6" draft. To get the same righting moment out of the keel but with 5k lbs less weight you would only need to increase the draft by about two foot (assuming the center of effort for the keel is at 50 of the draft). For the Motorsailer to keep the same righting moment but to drop 5K lbs you would need to increase the draft by about 2.5 foot.

Now through all of this remember that the motor sailer despite being 100% heavier is only carrying about 10% more sail than the Irwin, where the Santa Cruiz while being the smallest, and lightest is carrying about 10% more sail area than the Motorsailor.

[xarax]

Thank you Stumble

But if you are thinking that water ballast will let you motor easier...
Not really a worth while savings in my mind.

You are absolutely right in all your points, IFF we are talking about
1.), very heavy didplacement boats, with
2.), relatively small engines,
3.), relatively undercanvassed, where
4.), the saving of the amount of the total weight is not sunstantial (at least 25-30% on boats with high ballast ratio),
AND, last but not least,
5.), their hull design remains the same it was before !.
But I am thinking of light boats, with modern powerful yet economical engines, with a hull design that will help them go much faster when much lighter !
A quite long lifting or telescopic centerboard with a really small lead bulb, or a long canting keel, would be viable alternative systems, of course. But I think they are far more complicated than water ballast and pose far more problems in reliability and safety on a bluewater cruising boat. Apex1 told it very nicely : " If your system fails, be sure it fails at 3:30 at night, ... And be sure that happens half way between Pitcairn and Ushuaia.":) :)

[TeddyDiver]

a hull design that will help them go much faster when much lighter
And such hull cannot hold much ballast tankage so the only obvious answer is sidetanks with their pros&cons. So it might be ok motorsailer for coastal waters but not a blue water cruiser..

[xarax]

As I read the replies to this thread, it seems that there come two completely different kinds of motorsailers on people s mind, as two different answers to two different questions.
One can ask : How I can take a bluewater, ocean going, self righting cruising sailboat, and increase its motoring speed by reducing its lead ballast weight ( by using some amount of water ballast while sailing and dispensing with it while motoring ) ? The answer to this question varies, but at the end I believe that, either we can come to the conclusion that it is not worth the added complexity of the water ballast system, or we can design a motorsailer that will not be much faster or look much different from traditional motorsailers, ( only a little more expensive :) )
But one can also ask : How I can take a bluewater, ocean going, self righting cruising motorboat, passagemaker, trawler, or else, and make it able to carry sails ( by using some amount of water ballast while sailing and dispensing with it while motoring)? The answer to that question is a different animal altogether, one that we cannot say right from the beginning if it will live or die at the end of the day, but one that will probably look quite different from traditional motorsailers. The main difference would be in the form of its hull, I believe, helping it to motor faster than a traditional motorsailer, while retaining their ocean going qualities, safety, reliability, comfort etc. (It is still going to be a little more expensive though...:))

[Stumble]

Xarax,

The first is the definition of a Motorsailor and no it will never be worth the added complexity since displacement hulls are very efficient movers of heavy cargo, and the reduced weight will never make up for the increased complexity. At the weight of these vessels it just isn't worth the incramental savings in fuel costs and engine size and I can't imagine it ever would

The second is expressely forbidden by every ocean racing organization, insurance carrier, and standards body for safety reasons. A boat carrying sail MUST have a tremendous amount of initial stability in any conditions, and moving balast is limited to around 20-30degrees of heel. The other problem is that moving ballast significantly reduces the ability of a vessel to be self righting in the event of a knockdown. Even more so when the moving ballast makes up a significant part of the total ballast available.
This is a very acceptable trade off for racing boats that are fully crewed, meticulously maintained, and are checking in at 4-6 hour intervals. But for a cruiser it is a system that will cause people to die. Flat out, no question at all in my mind. Just do an internet search for information on the number of Open 60's 70's ect that broach and can't right themselves. Now remember these boats have millions in maintenance budgets, the skippers are the best in the world, and they have the best weather forcasting available. But every Volvo race there is at least one of a fleet of 20 odd boats, they flips and can't right itself. Not really a good option for the long distance cruiser.

Xar the second problem with the second type of boat is that you are doing this to gain what exacally? Take the average motor yacht and put a sail on it, and it might tack through 180 degrees. Remember with no keel it will just slip through the wayer sideways. These boat also have a HUGE amount of drag compared to even a heavy displacement sailboat. The deep flat transoms, combined with normally vertical sheers practically scream inefficient hull design, but maximum internal volume under way. Even moder trawlers are normally nothing more than this design with a slightly throwback look, and little to no effort made to make them efficient underbodies.

[FAST FRED]

Another hassle is most boats are small, to be affordable , so have limited interior volume.

A big water ballast moment would take up a huge amount of room.

On our 33ft we gave up loads of room to be able to have dual tankage of 6 x 35G .

Dual tankage for us means two bladders in a tank space , so we can decide which we will carry fuel, or water.

Most of our ICW Loop, Bahamas and Carib cruising , diesel is far easier to get than great water. So its usually 25Gal in the diesel day tank, and about 200G of water.

As a cruising boat that has a 40% ballast ratio, having one side full (100G) and the other empty of water only makes 2 or 3 deg of heel in a slip, so while it might make a long tack a tiny bit more comfortable , not much.

The best thing one can do for a modern motorsailor is to make the vessel a REALLY GOOD sailor.

This is easy as there are no rating rules (slowest seeming boat wins) so plenty of sail can be carried in a fine efficient rig.

Our 33ft 90/90 would probably rate as a 45 ft "racing boat" , but sail area is what gets the job done.

FF

[xarax]

Thank you again Stumble,

The second is expressly forbidden by every ocean racing organization, insurance carrier, and standards body for safety reasons.

This is the last thing that should be considered right now, isn’t it ?:) Give me first a fast, safe water ballasted motorsailer and I will manage you get all the licenses of the world ! :)

A boat carrying sail MUST have a tremendous amount of initial stability in any conditions...

Even when it is not sailing? Why ?

Remember with no keel it will just slip through the water sideways.

With no keel, but with one or more retractable centreboard, or bilgeboards, or leeboards, etc.
These boats also have a HUGE amount of drag compared to even a heavy displacement sailboat.

I do not say that the hull will remain the same as it is on these motorboats! . We need a specially designed hull, and that is the crux of the matter, I suppose.
All your points are right, but nobody ever said that any birth is an easy, secured phase in the life of any creature...It may well just drive us to the next thread, as it happens more than often ...:)

[xarax]

Nice we meet again Fast Fred ! I am glad you are well and enjoy sailing everywhere.

A big water ballast moment would take up a huge amount of room....
As a cruising boat that has a 40% ballast ratio, having one side full (100G) and the other empty of water only makes 2 or 3 deg of heel in a slip, so while it might make a long tack a tiny bit more comfortable , not much.

I am thinking that it may be feasible to integrate quite big external sidetanks on the main hull, just above the waterline, "with their pros and cons ' , as TeddyDriver tells us, and inside " the plenty of flair to the topsides so hull beam increases markedly with heel ", as Crag Cay tells us.... But the main hull, the sidetanks and the raised deck house should all be intergraded into one round solid shape, posing minimum windage when the boat heels.

[apex1]

I give up, this bloke will never understand!
Lets hope he finds a criminal to build his premature dream.

This is the last thing that should be considered right now, isn’t it ?:) Give me first a fast, safe water ballasted motorsailer and I will manage you get all the licenses of the world !ονείρωξη

Soon he will learn that his boat sails nowhere. And the authorities will shut his bigmouth right in the first port.

And thank you stumble, Teddy, Fred, for all the wasted effort.

[apex1]

Go ahead, you´re on the right way! And good winds.

[Stumble]

Apex,

I am with you. He will never understand why a boat that is designed to flip over isn't a good idea in a bluewater boat.

[apex1]

Apex,

I am with you. He will never understand why a boat that is designed to flip over isn't a good idea in a bluewater boat.

You´re right mate! Let him "design" that (I still wonder how) and find someone to hammer the crap together. If they let him leave the place of launch we are rid of him in the first gale.


Xarax
I agree: >>> a stupid is a stupid is a stupid.<<<
and add: and remains to be...........you have proven that.

[whoosh]

Xarax,

The first is the definition of a Motorsailor and no it will never be worth the added complexity since displacement hulls are very efficient movers of heavy cargo, and the reduced weight will never make up for the increased complexity. At the weight of these vessels it just isn't worth the incramental savings in fuel costs and engine size and I can't imagine it ever would

The second is expressely forbidden by every ocean racing organization, insurance carrier, and standards body for safety reasons. A boat carrying sail MUST have a tremendous amount of initial stability in any conditions, and moving balast is limited to around 20-30degrees of heel. The other problem is that moving ballast significantly reduces the ability of a vessel to be self righting in the event of a knockdown. Even more so when the moving ballast makes up a significant part of the total ballast available.
This is a very acceptable trade off for racing boats that are fully crewed, meticulously maintained, and are checking in at 4-6 hour intervals. But for a cruiser it is a system that will cause people to die. Flat out, no question at all in my mind. Just do an internet search for information on the number of Open 60's 70's ect that broach and can't right themselves. Now remember these boats have millions in maintenance budgets, the skippers are the best in the world, and they have the best weather forcasting available. But every Volvo race there is at least one of a fleet of 20 odd boats, they flips and can't right itself. Not really a good option for the long distance cruiser.

Xar the second problem with the second type of boat is that you are doing this to gain what exacally? Take the average motor yacht and put a sail on it, and it might tack through 180 degrees. Remember with no keel it will just slip through the wayer sideways. These boat also have a HUGE amount of drag compared to even a heavy displacement sailboat. The deep flat transoms, combined with normally vertical sheers practically scream inefficient hull design, but maximum internal volume under way. Even moder trawlers are normally nothing more than this design with a slightly throwback look, and little to no effort made to make them efficient underbodies.

well that WAS the case
but a panel of the experts, and that included all the top sailors like Isa Autissier, who is not only, a contender for the best ocean racer of either gender, but a person with Eng Degree, got together and , discussed how they could get these boats to not stay inverted, , mainly it was the broad flat deck, no shapely houses and or decks etc, It was NOT the righting arm , or the ballast ration, they just flipped and lay on the deck Even waves were not enough to turn them up
Why on earth you are ridiculing Xarex who quite obviously is an extemely intelligent person, is beyond me
You see argument, constructive is helpful Debate, without such then we become entrenched In the rut, tunnel vision
I build big strong heavily and deep[ly ballested monos, which are at same time quite light And am most certainly not oppOsed to the idea of water ballast

[whoosh]

you take my flagship
look at the shape in the house
ok some could call her a mo sailer, but at only 18.5 tonnes and that includes 1500l fuel and 7500 kg lead in scheel keel, she is a true sailing yacht
If an open 60, had a house like this, she would immediately self right
the angle of vanishing stabilty here is 138 at departure, 132 return
I guess with more beam water ballast would work But space down there is needed ---In a race boat it is not So all the wings are taken with fuel and potable water
Xarax, I can sell you one of these for um er, 1 million Euros, for less I wear myself out for Zilch!!:Or I can build you a 2 chine 40 footer, stiff as a board, a real Cape Horn boat for, , dunno

[PAR]

The simple fact is a well designed 50/50 doesn't need water ballasting. It serves no advantage to either propulsion method. The boat will sail, power or both to it's target S/L with a minimum of fuss, if well intended. Making the power configuration lighter by a marginal amount isn't going to be significant enough to warrant the lose of internal volume, complication or contrivance.

Let's face it, the definition of a motorsailor is a craft that doesn't do either particularly well. You can arrange the yacht to advantage one propulsion form more then the other, which is often the case, but now you're paying Peter from Paul's pocket. In the end you have a displacement cruiser that motors efficiently and sails moderately well, considering it's limitations. If you want to improve it further, remove the burden of the multiple propulsion roles it must play.

In other words an efficient auxiliary will easily out sail the well burdened motorsailor, but will have motoring range limitations. Conversely, the well delivered motorsailor will have impressively long range and considerably more creature comforts aboard.

Accept the fact that an ugly, but loving wife if a much better arrangement then the beautiful, but unfaithful alternative.

[whoosh]

The simple fact is a well designed 50/50 doesn't need water ballasting. It serves no advantage to either propulsion method. The boat will sail, power or both to it's target S/L with a minimum of fuss, if well intended. Making the power configuration lighter by a marginal amount isn't going to be significant enough to warrant the lose of internal volume, complication or contrivance.

Let's face it, the definition of a motorsailor is a craft that doesn't do either particularly well. You can arrange the yacht to advantage one propulsion form more then the other, which is often the case, but now you're paying Peter from Paul's pocket. In the end you have a displacement cruiser that motors efficiently and sails moderately well, considering it's limitations. If you want to improve it further, remove the burden of the multiple propulsion roles it must play.

In other words an efficient auxiliary will easily out sail the well burdened motorsailor, but will have motoring range limitations. Conversely, the well delivered motorsailor will have impressively long range and considerably more creature comforts aboard.

Accept the fact that an ugly, but loving wife if a much better arrangement then the beautiful, but unfaithful alternative.

did you mean say 100/100? a 50 fifty is neither fish not fowl(quote some famous schooner builder down in Biloxi, when asked abt the ketch rig)
there are almost no 50/50 built these days No market, you may as well go to power

[TeddyDiver]

So let's take the consept seriously (atleast for moment) to see what's possible.. First, Xarax, what are the design targets etc? Bluewater motorsailor, self rightening when sailing, waterballast only, speed? load? range? else?

[whoosh]

Teddy
I simply get rattled talking to a faceless person, please do paste yourself here
I am dear amigos with ole Vlad Pute, and he says SHOWS YOUR FACE IN FACES TO NAMES THREAD

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/faces-names-22075-15.html

[xarax]

Thank you Woosh,
I was thinking of a beamier hull, to make room for the sidetanks inside a substantial amount of flare, ( and possibly, just possibly, increase the stability of the boat when it heels under sails), but of a higher deck house also, to be able to right this fat lady...So there is a real danger to be trapped into a vicious circle here...a design spiral going straight down the bath tube.:) What is another danger is excessive windage, so I was thinking also of a shorter but quite higher raised deck house aerodynamically (teardrop?) shaped. Will such a shape work ? I have no idea.
Thank you again TeddyDriver,
The question that was posted in this thread, and it was only a question, not a project, was posted after another one about MacGregors, of which I have some experience and which I personally find very limited for a broad range of seas, including the sea I use to sail. So I have thought ; Is it possible that this craft is the end of the line, the best possible water ballasted sailing craft, or there is much more window here to exploit, and we can do better ? As an engineer, I am a one-can-do-better junkie...
So I still believe there is more room there, and a water ballasted motorsailor can be really improved, as a design concept, and may be, just may be, reach the state of development where we can consider it to be a true bluewater cruiser. I have to repeat, because some people are TOO short sighted and conservative, even for the standards of traditional sailors, that the whole idea was a highly hypothetical one, asking for patience and imagination, ( and not the unfortunate, impolite and brutal comments of apex1...)
To have a chance alongside its older cousin, the traditional keel ballasted motorsailer, I think the main ' problem" that such a craft should address, is motoring speed. If the hypothetical lighter vessel doesn’t go at least 30% faster than a same LOA traditional motorsailer, even with 60% higher fuel consumption, It will not be worth the trouble I guess. Of course, these are just numbers...
As for if this craft should be water ballasted only or not, I have also no clue...As I have said, a number of batteries put as low as possible in the hull can support some of the overall stability, while serving the pumps at the push of a button. But would we need some additional lead ballast ? I do not know. I guess that, if we can have some help of much flared topsides, there is no point of "carrying the same load twice", as with water ballasted multihulls. In case of going turtle, I think that a quite high raised deckhouse would suffice to right the vessel.
As for the load and range, even going down 30% for the load and 60% for the range, in comparison with the traditional motorsailer, will not sink the idea, I suppose. just numbers,...
Thank you again PAR,
'Accept the fact that an ugly, but loving wife if a much better arrangement then the beautiful, but unfaithful alternative.''
I have accepted it, and I suffer the consequences, fortunately or not...:)
And my wife will not set a foot in anything I do, wisely perhaps...But sometimes one is just getting tired of any luxury, tired of carrying loads, lead or gold...I guess that, at some point, I am getting tired to drag all this lead ballast, of riding a lead mine. And as I do not want to go to motorboats with all these people from my outer space, I am thinking of water ballasted sailing craft, which, I have to say it again, if feasible, would be MUCH different from the motorsailers you describe. Not better, not worse I hope, but much different. Just like a new wife...:)

[TeddyDiver]

To me it sounds like you are thinking a kind of motorsailor version of MacGregor (not a true bluewatercruiser) with self rightening capability and some more range??

[xarax]

To me it sounds like you are thinking a kind of motorsailor version of MacGregor (not a true bluewatercruiser) with self rightening capability and some more range??
No! If we wil not reach a point where we have a true bluewater cruiser, the whole thing will be only a hole in the water...I simply say that some of the numbers of a heavy ocean going motorsailer should be sacrified a little ( I gave some vague estimations ) if we want to reduce the lead ballast as far as we can, while motoring ( with a greater speed ), and use form stability and water ballast instead, as far as we can, while sailing.
May be I should have used an altogether new name, like sailing motorboat, for example, because I suspect names tend to stick on peoples mind and drive to preexisting, wrong images...

[apex1]

As I said............ he is´nt willing (a necessary prerequisite for being able) to learn...............
But thats not important.

[mydauphin]

Remember water in water does not weight anything. The amount is displaces is what it weights. It offers trimming advantages and adding weight to boat in general but because the weight of water is what it displaces you can't move weight below to act as leverage. On reverse of idea, a deep empty keel would provide positive flotation in the wrong place.

[Stumble]

Bit of an asside,

But no I didn't save up a 100 coke bottles to get my captains license. I spent ten years living on a sailboat in the carribean, then worked on commercial vessels for three. Then took a three week course at Houston Marine before taking and passing my 100 Tonn Masters exam.

For my Law license, I went to one of the best law schools in the country, to get my Juris Docterate, then passed the Louisiana Bar Exam.

If you don't like my responce to your questions, tough. Grow up and accept that you might, just might, be wrong.

[whoosh]

I am always puzzed as to why sailing boat skippers and power boat skippers, call themselves captains, It is , I think a USA thing
IN uk EVEN skippers of 2000 tonne trawlers would not do so neither would the man in charge of a pretty large tug♦boat
Stumble, all you have to do now is post your pic , in the thread faces to names
Lawyer jokes could start from here The world needs em like we need criminals, they are surely wrecking this country with their ambulance chasing, their class actions, their quest for money
However you may be in the minority, I hope so
As for your degree, fine , but I think Xarex has several of them
is multilingual, and that includes methinks Latin, which is so much part of the law still in Europe at least And you probably chased him away

[xarax]

I am probably, most probably, wrong, as I were many times in my grown up life, and I wish I will be wrong many times more ( because that will mean I will live more...:)).
But I think it was obvious from my posts that, although I hope that there is a window there, I am affraid that perhaps it is tightly closed, ( just like so many others...), and I would not be able to open it up...I repeat, this is not a project, this is an invitation to answer a (still open, at least for me ) question.

[mydauphin]

Life and especially engineering is about compromises.
You can make something fast, fuel efficient but then it won't be cheap, etc...
You usually get two out of three, same with women.

You want light, heavy and flexible. Water ballast is not the best ballast, because the density or weight is the same as water. And when you remove it, it make boat lighter but in wrong place...

You don't need a degrees, colleges, societies, lawyers or engineers to understand these facts. The MacGregor 26, which is a great little coastal boat, but it does not rely on water ballast only, it has retractable keels I believe.

So everyone play nice...

[xarax]

Life and especially engineering is about compromises.
You can make something fast... but then it won't be cheap, etc...
You usually get two out of three, same with women.

I agree..,.:)
But I had never say that it will be cheap, had I ? I think that, if it will be about 30%-50% ( only...) more expensive than a traditional motorsailer, the other two main advantages, speed while motoring and shallow draft, will worth the trouble. People are paying ridiculous amount of money for bluewater motorboats, why not for a craft like that?

Water ballast is not the best ballast, because the density or weight is the same as water. And when you remove it, it make boat lighter but in wrong place...

I think that there is a misunderstanding here...We should not confuse the sidetanks, which serve for added stability while sailing, with the self righting system . There are many types of self righting systems, but the simpler is this: When the boat is gone turtle, water ballast from tanks in the lower part of its hull is released, through a systems of valves and pipes, to one of the two sidetanks. With the additional help of the raised deck flotation, the boat rights itself. So there is never any moment when "the boat is lighter in the wrong places..."'Now, one can use the same or other sidetanks as flotation devices and/or additional water filled tanks to increase the righting moment on the rig, but this is on top of the main self righting system, which must always be at hand when the boat is travelling under sails.
Easier said than done ! And I am by no means an expert on self righting systems...or any systems whatsoever...:) . AND there are, of course, the additional problems of rig weight, of sail and centerboard substantial drag in the phase of righting which should be as short as possible, etc...I never said it was going to be an easy, or an assured feasible task after all, did I ?

[M-Sasha]

We should not confuse the sidetanks, which serve for added stability while sailing,

They will not serve that way, just for added weight and complexity! A good hull design serves primarily for what you need in a motorsailor. What you are so stubbornly trying to achieve is to solve a non existing problem!
The experts have told you that in several friendly (and some frank) posts already. Why do´nt you believe their expertise? PAR brought it to the point in his first post.

Sasha

[mydauphin]

Xarax,
I have huge water tanks on bottom for 3/4 of my 72' hull. I used them to trim boat front and back. I also never run out of water. In canals and swallow areas as you say I can raise or lower boat bout 6 inches in front or back or 4" throught out. I can make boat lighter or heavier. I like it. But it is way too slow and not heavy enough to act the way your talking about. I was at one point thinking of using tanks for side to side stabilization. But ones again water is not heavy enough unless you move alot very quickly, and this can be dangerous if it goes the wrong way. By the way, I don't need righting tanks... The boat is design to flip around with or without water.

[xarax]

They will not serve that way, just for added weight and complexity!
If we design them to be functional and serve that way, they will be functional and serve that way! And they will be much much lighter than the lead or iron ball tied at the foot of your old grandmatorsailer.
A good hull design serves primarily for what you need in a motorsailor. What you are so stubbornly trying to achieve is to solve a non existing problem!
Your grandmatorsailer does not have any other problems indeed, because it has one that is big enough! :) It is a slow, old lady with an iron ball tied to her foot, that nobody, (ok, almost nobody), wants any more. How many motorsailers are sold worldwide, and how many bluewater motorboats, passage makers, trawlers, etc? The grandmatorsailer you are talking about is a thing of the past. She was born in the short historic interval when the old, sailing boats were leaving and new, motorboats were coming...Now we are in the next epoch, we could not possibly have preserved your old grandma alive and well even if we would have been the best experts of geriatric medicine. I say that one can return from motorboats to sailing boats again, but this time the young lady will be DIFFERENT.
The experts have told you .... Why don’t you believe their expertise?
Expertise is fine in the bubble boom and not so fine in the recession...Your old grandmatorsailer is a lady born before the1929 recession, do you really think that the experts are going to prolong her life after the 2008 recession? I don’t think so... :)
I am deliberately crude, of course...I love old motorsailers, as I love my old Roleiflex ...but I must confess that I am shooting photos with a Olympus 26x SP-590UZ ultra zoom (26X optical zoom), that is not even a DSRL! It is a '' bridge camera'', like the motor-sailor bridge , the water ballasted sailing motorboatis I stubbornly still think it is not only a figment of my imagination that needs expert/ proffesional help.

[xarax]

Thank you mydauphin,
72 feet ? Veeery big... I don’t know if, and how, self righting systems are scaling up...We only know the smaller British lifeboats and the 47 ft US MLB, they are fast and capable of self righting in less than 30 seconds, usually 15. Your boat is slow because its hull is a classic heavy displacement hull. If you look at the bottom of these lifeboats while they make their self-righting tests, you will see that they have extended flat sections and hard chines. With such a hull, you do need a high raised deck house AND a self righting system (based upon the release of water ballast from high to side tanks). Form stability by itsself is not enough. Nowadays one can have computerized, electronically controlled valves that do not make mistakes...You would not possibly put yourself in a greater danger I guess than the danger of a whale reducing the draft of your keel...
If you had a flatter hull, and you could trim the weight of the boat front and back, you could possibly find the optimum angle of incidence for each loading and sea conditions and reduce drag.

[White Wolf]

I had a look at this boat in New Zealand last year. Visit www.powersail.co.nz.

Essentially a water ballasted( albeit additional ballast) 50ft yacht that will do 18kn under power or sail given the right conditions. It swings a 36 inch prop off 450 hp and retracts the entire drive assembly into the hull to reduce drag under sail. Twin rudders toe out marginally under sail to lift the stern and overcome traditional speed length formulae as it is essentially planing.

Water ballast is pumped from side to side for sailing and ejected for motoring.

Now that's motorsailing!!

[PAR]

Xarax, you really don't get it do you. There are some truly fine motorsailors available, most will exceed you expectations without water ballast. I have a friend with a 65 sailing yacht that powers at 18 knots and can top 20 in the right conditions with just over 100 HP, so frankly you're just typing for entertainment value. There are many well executed customs and semi customs out there. Maybe you'd be better off talking to a local NA and get a clue about what is available, because frankly your arguments thus far have little merit. I would think this more fruitful then attempting to dissuade professionals and semi professionals within the industry, to your little understanding of the dynamics in your concepts.

[apex1]

Xarax, you really don't get it do you. There are some truly fine motorsailors available, most will exceed you expectations without water ballast. I have a friend with a 65 sailing yacht that powers at 18 knots and can top 20 in the right conditions with just over 100 HP, so frankly you're just typing for entertainment value. There are many well executed customs and semi customs out there. Maybe you'd be better off talking to a local NA and get a clue about what is available, because frankly your arguments thus far have little merit. I would think this more fruitful then attempting to dissuade professionals and semi professionals within the industry, to your little understanding of the dynamics in your concepts.

Did I say : I like to quote Paul Ricchelli?

signed
a "semiprofessional"

[xarax]

Xarax, you really don't get it do you. There are some truly fine motorsailors available, most will exceed you expectations without water ballast. I have a friend with a 65 sailing yacht that powers at 18 knots and can top 20 in the right conditions with just over 100 HP, so frankly you're just typing for entertainment value. There are many well executed customs and semi customs out there. Maybe you'd be better off talking to a local NA and get a clue about what is available, because frankly your arguments thus far have little merit. I would think this more fruitful then attempting to dissuade professionals and semi professionals within the industry, to your little understanding of the dynamics in your concepts.

Par, you really don t get it, do you. There are some truly fine motorsailors available, manufactured by respectable companies that are dying every day like the soldiers in the western front, because nobody buys their fine product. ( I have a friend with a 165 sailing yacht that exceed my expectations without water ballast). You obviously have no financial knowledge or stake in the motorsailer market, so frankly you are just typing for entertainment value.( So do I ! ) There are many well executed customs and semi customs out there, that are waiting for clients to buy them, but the clients of the old heavy slow motorsailers are born ages ago, so now they don’t buy them as they themselves are also dead and buried. Maybe you d be better off talking to a local distributor of a motorsailer and get a clue about the past and the future of the motorsailer market, because frankly your arguments ( that the grandmasailers you think are the last and final evolution stage of sailing motorboats, something like the wheel), have little merit. I would think this more fruitful than attempting to persuade starving professionals and semi professionals within the vanishing industry that your little understanding of the shortcomings of the old motorsailers ( and of the possibilities of novel types of sailing motorboats) is going to pay them the rent. You could better start reading about the complex hydrostatics of modern self righting water ballasted lifeboats, starting from your little understandings of the 3000 years old principle of Archimedes in his second book : ''On floating bodies.'" I suggest you first read the relevant article of Chris Rorrer
http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~crorres/
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Floating/rorres_paraboloids_MI.pdf
to try to understand the issue even in the simplest case of a paraboloid, then proceed to the self righting mechanism of the Oakley Class lifeboats, then to 47 ft MLBself righting capabilities
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA247184&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
and then, dear PAR, we can both start trying to get it!
Doubt is unpleasant, but certainty is ridiculous. Have a little, just a little doubt when you are approaching something new. Your extensive knowledge, which I do not question of course, is going to acquire a broader base. No hard feelings ! :) I tried to answer in your style.

[xarax]

Thank you White Wolf,
Yes, this is a young motorsailer ! It could possibly open a new market. Very low ballast ratio, a hybrid keel ballasted/water ballasted craft like the one TeddyDriver is saying he is building in post #3. I find it quite heavy and luxurious for my taste, though. I want MORE speed out from a 50 ft sailing motorboat, because otherwise PAR will tell me to just buy , with less money, his friends 65 ft grandmasailer that goes 18 knots too, and he would be right this time...:)

[xarax]

Let me summarize the issue in a different wording.
Motorsailers are beautiful ships that offer as much as possible of both words, sailboats and motorboats. For some people the whole is more than the sum of the parts. For some other the limitations of each part are doubled in the whole. The truth is that, with the coming of modern materials and powerful engines, the motoring speed of the motorsailors does not satisfy a great number of people, especially the young, because they live in an epoch where speed matters. This is probably the main reason behind the sad fact that very few companies are manufacturing very few motorsailors nowadays, while the motorboat market is booming. The bigger companies, many of which produce sailboats and motorboats, ( like Beneteau, for example ), are left out of the shrinking motorsailer market, which is served by very few small yards, unable to develop the concept further or to reduce the cost.
There is an obvious way to achieve greater speed, that is taken in both the sailing and the motorboat word. Multihulls. Multihulls have many advantages, but two shortcomings which are very serious for a number of people : They are not self righting, and they pay expensive marina fees. If one ignores these two factors, the simpler and cheaper way to go faster is a cruising multihull.
Self righting ? What does this term remind us, except monohull sailboats? Lifeboats, of course. And modern lifeboats achieve self righting in two ways. Either they use a water ballast system ( invented by Richard Oakley ), or they use a high raised deckhouse.
It is a small step from here to ask ourselves the question of this thread : Is a water ballasted motorsailer, lighter and faster than the traditional motorsailer, a bluewater self righting vessel just like the lifeboat, a viable alternative ?
The great majority of people in the sailing world, expert sailors with millions of miles sailed and expert naval engineers with millions of tons designed, are getting angry, some even mad, when they listen of water ballast. They are conservatives, and they are right to be so. Experiments are deadly in sea, and there were deadly experiments with poorly designed water ballasted sailboats.
But the scientific mind is not trapped in the past experiences of the laymen or the present opinions of the experts, it does not obey majorities and authorities, and scientific knowledge is the fruit of the doubt.
A similar issue was raised when a small minority of sailors and designers decided that another way to increase speed, other than the very long multihulls, is by lifting the hull above the surface and the waves, by using foils. The idea took almost a whole century to evolve, and part of the delay was due to the majority of expert sailors and the majotity of experts designers conservatism. But now the older and most prestigious sailing event, the America s cup, is raced by foiled multihulls that combine both ways.
I think that by combining both ways of self righting in the lifeboats world, water ballast and high raised deckhouse, one can achieve self righting even in the more difficult case of a sailboat, where the appendices add harder obstacles. In one hundred years the sailing motorboats would be different from the today’s motorsailers. And who knows ? May be they will be using water ballast and high raised deckhouses. We will not be alive to tell who was right....:)

[ancient kayaker]

Interesting thread. Water ballast has been discussed at length before in this forum, and no doubt will again. It is an alluring concept that seems to make a lot of sense.

Because of water’s tendency to slosh around, only a full or empty tank is stable so using it to actively control heeling or vary displacement requires multiple tanks. That stuff can go wrong at sea, halfway through a water-transfer operation for example. Imagine trying to fix a system that’s open to the water and below the waterline during a major storm, with the boat heeling in the wrong direction, in the dark ... let’s see, that’s one hand for yourself, one for the flashlight, one for the tool and er ...

What happens if you add side tanks? If you add them externally, that’s the same as adding them internally in a beamier hull. The hull is more stable with the tanks empty if they are above the center of gravity, as is likely. Whatever righting moment can be achieved by filling a side tank, more be provided by a chunk of metal at the bottom of the keel, which is always where it’s needed.

Add an external tank under the hull and nothing happens to the stability, it is only neutral mass, all that has happened is the wetted surface has increased. Pump it dry at your peril though, the boat’s stability will go down alarmingly. You could drain it for trailering, other than that or one some special purpose vessel, it doesn’t seem worth the trouble. Trailering seems an unlikely option for a true ocean-going boat, more of a day sailer requirement.

One place where water ballast might be useful would be in a raid boat: use the ballast for sailing, a self-bailer gets it out again ready for rowing - or keep the ballast for rowing if the added inertia helps punch through waves.

I strongly recommend trying the idea out first in a model. Cheaper, quicker, and nobody gets killed. Why not put the into effort designing and building a ballasted keel that can be raised for shoal conditions and maybe motoring too. If it gets jammed, you can still motor with it down or continue with reduced sail.

[Fanie]

Personally I prefer the water to be on the outside of the boat. There was this one time when... :rolleyes:

[Stumble]

LOL I finally get what Xan is trying to do here, and I am going to have to agree with him. What we need to do is get the designers to stop worrying about what they know and design what I want regardless of the conventional wisdom, testing, or experience. I know this will work, because I would like it to, and certainly the laws of nature will bend to my will.

So here is the design spec for our new Motorsailor...

1) Must motor as fast as now available powerboats. Since we want this to be the best, lets use large twin hull ocean going racing boats as the start. So our boat should have a top speed of 100kn or so. But we want it to be self righting, so get rid of the cat design, and get the same speed out of a monohull.

2) Add to this the sailing ability of a foiler 100' Trimaran. So under sail it should have a top speed of say 40kn as a baseline, but lets hope we can get it to go faster than that with practice.

3) Remember this is a motorsailor, so it must also have volumous interior volume ready for long distance cruising. Lets say 2,000 sq foot in the 50' model. We may need it to be 3 stories, buts that's ok since high bridges are good for self righting capability.

4) Lead ballast is heavy, so all ballast must by from internal fluid ballast systems. Water is prefered over something that could actually help only because getting murcury in this large volume is hard.

5) Keep the entire price in the $2,000,000 range since it needs to be affordable.

6) With the foils down we still want to be able to cruise shallow water so it can't be deeper than 24" at 50'.

7) This is a Bluewater boat, so it must be able to roll through 360 degrees with no damage

8) Remember operational costs must be kept low, so under power it must get at least 10km/gallon of diesel.

The only question I have is would it be possible to make this trailerable, preferably towable by a Geo Metro?


So here are the design specs for the boat, now I know people are going to say that it is impossible. But that is just because they are blinded by their knowledge, while I who have no degin experience or scientific knowledge know it must be possible because otherwise I couldn't have what I have always dreamed about. As we all know science must bow to the desires of man, and the refusal to recognize this fact simply proves that the people refusing are blinded by the incomplete knowledge they have, and fail to recognize the potential for advancement by pushing the envelope.

[xarax]

Thank you ancient kayaker,

Because of water’s tendency to slosh around, only a full or empty tank is stable so using it to actively control heeling or vary displacement requires multiple tanks.
Could this tendency be contained to acceptable level through the use of compartments within the same tank?

Add an external tank under the hull and nothing happens to the stability, it is only neutral mass, all that has happened is the wetted surface has increased. Pump it dry at your peril though, the boat’s stability will go down alarmingly.
The water in the tank below the waterline is released to one sidetank through a system of automatic valves only when the boats is laying upside down. The floating of one side tank changes the equilibrium of the boat. Of course, the weight of this tank, always filled with water, increases the wetted area of the hull. But not so much as a lead keel, which was used in the older lifeboats in nineteenth and early twentieth century. This was the system of the Oakley Class lifeboats, a self righting system that saved many more men than the victims of accidents with water ballasted sailboats ! ( me included, if apex1s wish is heard by his highest authority :) ).

[xarax]

Fanie, water is everywhere, because all things are made out of water ( Thales, 2500 years ago. :) Thales is the name of my son, too.)
Stumble, I am glad you have read all my posts so carefully to be able to twist them for your humorous reply. That is a style that I prefer from somebody who needs to expose a negative criticism without cursing, does no harm to anybody, and is in accordance with "typing for entertainment value", as PAR and myself like to do. Keep trying ! :)

[Stumble]

Actually I was being serious (except maybe about the towing ability).

For a moment lets put aside the physics, and everything known about boat design. Now given this unreal world what exacally are you trying to get this boat to do? Initially you wanted a motorsailor, but the design has changes radically from that, so instead of pidgeon holing it, lets put some real parameters to it.

1) Speed desired under sail and power
2) Range under power
3) Ability to handle what type of conditions (lake cruising or open ocean weather)
4) Self righting from a rollover, or just to some % of heel
5) Length
6) Draft maximum
7) Max beam






Living acomodations for X number of people

[Pierre R]

This was a very entertaining thread to say the least. I think what zaraz may not be aware of is what equations really control and how the equations really work and what they mean in a blue water setting.

If we look at the Gerr equations its obvious that comfort and speed are much more achievable with a narrow beam, long waterline and high specific gravity ballasting. Clipper ships were long and skinny.

It does not take much increase in beam to negate substantial weight saving in displacement mode. Instead you are pushing more towards a planing hull that will require more power to achieve the same speed and therefore cut range under power or require more sail. More beam is never the way to go for more speed unless you intend to do most of your cruising coastally on plane at high power.

Yes you could take a planing hull in blue water and it will give a slightly better ride right up to the point in sea conditions where it becomes very much worse than the narrow displacement hull and far more dangerous.

I certainly like the ultra light blue water concepts but they are not practical with wider beams and certainly not practical with sail unless they carry high density ballast down deep. There is just no way around what the math tells you.

[apex1]

Of course, the weight of this tank, always filled with water, increases the wetted area of the hull.

And sits in a suboptimal position.

But not so much as a lead keel, We should not forget that the keel has much more righting moment at relatively low weight, so that might be not true! But depends on design of course.

This was the system of the Oakley Class lifeboats, [B] a self righting system that saved many more men
That system is a poor compromise! The Brit´s would be happy could they afford German boats. The best performing rescue vessels do not use active systems but clever design! And the high superstructure is a valid argument to a certain extend only! It is quite often misunderstood and misused! Too many terribly high condominiums are sold to the public at present as "seagoing trawlers", abusing that argument.

( me included, if apex1s wish is heard by his highest
authority :) ).

The highest authority on earth is the sea. Her rules are not to bend nor to argue. Her forces neither to handle nor to escape. We are silly little creatures when this authority speaks. The only way to survive at sea is to learn avoiding the most furious seastates and to find a valid compromise in the less dangerous situations. A moveable liquid in a ship is the largest danger at sea, far superior to fire. Why for mankinds sake should one just try to make such danger advantageous? For a racer (or the small lifeboat operating some 3hrs from homeport), you may find a reason, on a true bluewater boat it makes as much sense as a open fire for cooking.

To the "wish" mentioned above: I beg your pardon for having said that! By no means I did wish in all seriousness that you should loose your life at sea! But you know it is easily said "I wish you would..." what so ever, in a moment of emotional arousal.

Have a look here to see how the best performers in their business do.
http://www.dgzrs.de/index.php?id=321
http://www.dgzrs.de/index.php?id=94
and look how they do the capsize tests on the new vessel prior to delivery:
http://www.dgzrs.de/index.php?id=400
there is a video link too.

when this is your daily business you do´nt play with systems!

http://www.dgzrs.de/uploads/pics/BD1057.jpg
http://www.dgzrs.de/uploads/pics/HERMANN-HELMS.jpg

Regards
Richard

[xarax]

Thank you Pierre R.,
I think what zaraz may not be aware of is what equations really control and how the equations really work and what they mean in a blue water setting.
If we look at the Gerr equations ...
There is just no way around what the math tells you.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/hull-shape-hull-speed-13929.html
Leo Lazauskas ;
Ship hydrodynamics has advanced very little over the last 40 years so
amateurs shouldn't despair at not understanding the wave-making
problem…( I do not...:) )
…we are still a long way from even a reasonable understanding of the physics involved. CFD is, of course, an enormous advance because we can now display our almost complete ignorance in fullcolour!
When I look at the seething mess of splash, spray and white-water around a fast-moving ship, I think of the great simplifications needed to make the problem mathematically tractable. After all the required simplifications and excisions are made, are we really justified (or sensible) in using sophisticated techniques?
My dear Pierre, I promise you that I will be siting in the front row when you will be honoured by the Fields, Abel, Nobel, e.t.c. prizes after you will have solved the Navier-Stokes equation for the semi-displacement hull of sailing motorboat...and I hope you will offer me some days of free vacances aboard the heavy, slow, beautiful motorsailor you will buy with the one million dollars of the Millenium price.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler

More beam is never the way to go for more speed unless you intend to do most of your cruising coastally on plane at high power.
Yes you could take a planing hull in blue water and it will give a slightly better ride right up to the point in sea conditions where it becomes very much worse than the narrow displacement hull and far more dangerous.

Are you telling me that the beamy 47 ft MLB "is cruising coastly", in "sea conditions" where "it becomes far more dangerous "? Remind me not to motorsail near the US coast, because apex1 wish may still be heard by his highest authority, and I dont want a beamy, dangerous, coastal lifeboat of the US Coast Guard to wait for sea conditions to improve before it tries to save me...:)
"This was a very entertaining thread to say the least", indeed !

I certainly like the ultra light blue water concepts but they are not practical with wider beams and certainly not practical with sail
There is just no way around what the math tells you.

There is a large speed window, and a vast area of ignorance, right above the pure displacement hull speed. Wide beam semi displacement hulls are very difficult to study, and the progress there is really slow, because the physics are very complicated, the mathematics are very complicated, and the computers are still not fast enough to simulate the phenomena.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
P.S. instead of solving the Navier-Stokes equation, you could solve the 1666 340 years old three body problem of Newton, (the complete equation of newtonian gravity for the Earth, Sun and Moon. It is still unsolved, I guess. If we can not solve the three body problem of such a simple equation, how on Earth, Sun and Moon do we hope to solve "the seething mess of splash, spray and white-water around a fast-moving ship''' that involves interactions of millions of water and hull body particles described by a more complex equation?

[apex1]

There is a large speed window, and a vast area of ignorance, right above the pure displacement hull speed. Wide beam semi displacement hulls are very difficult to study,

Well thats not true! The fact that we do´nt have computer models and algorythms to calculate the phenomena in a predictible manner does´nt mean we have a lack of knowledge in that speed range.

This:

http://www.dgzrs.de/uploads/pics/HERMANN-HELMS.jpg

is a semidispl. vessel and we know almost everything about it.

[whoosh]

happy to see the name calling and stuff has stopped and the thread is attracting some great posts
It is a pity that someone with over 800 pts chose to wipe all Xaraxs, points, simply becuse he disagreed
Richard, that pic, looks like a painting, a very good one , but cant open or enlarge it
When I was on tugs North sea , it always felt good to have a ship below one
in the conditions depicted here, it would be rather scary, at sea in a cat, or a flimsy sailing boat

[apex1]

Richard, that pic, looks like a painting, a very good one , but cant open or enlarge it
When I was on tugs North sea , it always felt good to have a ship below one
in the conditions depicted here, it would be rather scary, at sea in a cat, or a flimsy sailing boat


Be sure it is a photo Stu! And if you go one page back you will find more info.

And I do´nt think it was only one high scored member to wipe Xarax´s points, when you have followed the thread you could have seen there have been several completely disagreeing. Me included.

[xarax]

The highest authority on earth...

I was refering to the highest authority on heavens,,,:)

We are silly little creatures...

I agree !
The hull I see is a semi displacement, beamy, flat aft, quite fast type of hull, and the righting moment of the boat, when upside down, comes from the form instability in this position, instability that is due to the raised deck house.
Everybody prefers effective, passive, simple systems when is immersed in an unstable environment, such as the surface of the sea. But I think that in a sailing vessel, where we should not ignore windage, we can not achieve self righting by any other means * except a combination of a raised-as-low- as-possible deck house AND water ballast.
See the righting moment of the 47ft MLB at page 15 of:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA247184&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
* ( If we do not want to use even more complicated and unreliable systems, as automatically inflated air bags, for example.)
Now, if one gives me a self righting system that :
1. manages to flip the upside down hull in less than, say, 1-2 minutes even with the sails on and centreboard down
2. does not load the semi displacement hull as much as a lead keel does. and
3. does not use water ballast,
I will drink every drop of this dirty water ballast and forget all about it, I promise !:)

[ancient kayaker]

[QUOTE=xarax;289614]Thank you ancient kayaker,

Could this tendency be contained to acceptable level through the use of compartments within the same tank?
QUOTE]

Sloshing of fluids in moving tanks is generally controlled by baffles which works for short term sideways acceleration while a vehicle rounds a corner for example. In a boat where the direction of gravity can be off-axis indefinitely while heeling you have a different situation.

The scheme used by fighter aircraft with fuel in externally-pressurized bags ensures fuel reaches the fuel pickup port but doesn't control sloshing too well.

Several tanks of different sizes could be used, say in 1:2:4 ratios, which would allow you to increment water ballast in steps from 1 to 7. Problem is, increasing ballast from say 3 to 4 involves water entering or leaving all 3 tanks at once.

Alternatively you could have 7 tanks of equal capacity and fill/empty them one at a time; involves a bit more plumbing. The same arrangement is needed on both sides. If the tanks' overall length is comparable with the boat's you might have a problem with fore-aft trim, which would involve adding yet more tanks or a return to tank-to-tank pumping.

These are only illustrations not necessarily what you might want to do, but they are unlikely to be a practical solution IMO.

[apex1]

I was refering to the highest authority on heavens,,,:)


There is none!


The hull I see is a semi displacement, beamy, flat aft, quite fast type of hull, and the righting moment of the boat, when upside down, comes from the form instability in this position, instability that is due to the raised deck house.

The hull is by no means beamy! It is the opposite, a slender hull. And it is not a fast type of hull either, its just a semi nothing more. The instability capsized comes mainly from heavy engines, very heavy bottom structure and equipment, the superstructure is not raised too much. And is pretty heavy too! These boats are built to stand a capsize with the structure grounding!
The predecessors have proven that several times when they were cought by a grounding sea on the shallows of the North Sea.

See the righting moment of the 47ft MLB at page
Dunno what that is
Now, if one gives me a self righting system that :
1. manages to flip the upside down hull in less than, say, 1-2 minutes even with the sails on and centreboard down
2. does not load the semi displacement hull as much as a lead keel does. and
3. does not use water ballast,

here you again ask for the impossible


Live with it, nice thoughts no result! And that has nothing to do with being overly conservative or thinking oldfashioned.
(conservative we have to be, we are responsible for the lives at sea, adventureous games have no place in our business)

It is just a tested and proven fact, water ballast is nonsense in a bluewater boat.

And you will definetively not change that, no matter how many attempts, no matter which way round you try to solve a non existing problem. See it so:
Your Porsche is not the best performer, Whooshs Mondeo wins the trophy, when my refrigerator has to be transported.

[xarax]

r does´nt mean we have a lack of knowledge in that speed range.

I was replying to a remark of Pierre R. about mathematical equations. I should have said that we do not have complete, mathematical knowledge, not yet, and this is the meaning of the words of Leo Lauzauskas. Knowledge is a very wide word, a truly planning word on the semantic sea! Most of our knowledge still comes from crude experiments, and past experience. This is not the kind of scientific knowledge Pierre R. suggests that is excluding wide semi displacement water ballasted hulls from been used on blue water boats. I am sure that even in the case of testing very sophisticated vessels, as these lifeboats, when they perform their final tests on them, the chief engineers are holding their breath and their fingers crossed! It needs only a frozen O-ring to kill all people aboard a complex vehicle......

[ancient kayaker]

I was refering to the highest authority on heavens ...


... that would be the moderator in this context :)

happy to see the name calling and stuff has stopped and the thread is attracting some great posts
...

-me too!

...It is a pity that someone with over 800 pts chose to wipe all Xaraxs, points, simply becuse he disagreed ...

I strongly disagree with the entire concept of negative points.

[Pierre R]

Xarax the equations may not be exacting science but they do point you in the right direction. I can come pretty darn close on what to expect at semi displacement speeds out of a boat.

[xarax]

The hull is by no means beamy! It is the opposite, a slender hull. And it is not a fast type of hull either, its just a semi nothing more.

Well, it looks quite beamy to me, compared with the hull of a traditional motorsailer, or of the slender hull of a motorboat like this :
http://www.rangeboat.com/index.php
designed by Nigel Irens. And when I say fast, I mean faster than the pure displacement speed. the 47 ft MLB travels at around 25 knots,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA247184&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ( see also its righting moment / heel on page 15 )
so does the 52 ft "trawler" like Beneteau, but the traditional Nordhavn 57 motorsailer, (that costs a fortune), drags its old lead foot at 9 knots !

[xarax]

1) Speed desired under sail and power
2) Range under power
3) Ability to handle what type of conditions (lake cruising or open ocean weather)
4) Self righting from a rollover, or just to some % of heel
5) Length
6) Draft maximum
7) Max beam
Living accommodations

As I have said earlier, if we want specific numbers we have to look at specific existing boats and figure out the market and engineering window.
The Beneteau Swifttrawler 52, the Nordhavn 56 MS and the 47 ft MLB of the US Coast Guard are completely different vessels, but of similar dimensions of what concerns us here. So :
1a) Speed under power : This is entirely unknown at this phase. We want a semi displacement, quite beamy hull (with large wetted area compared to a sailboat), to be propelled by a rig of low centre of effort, ( because our water ballast system would be less efficient than a lead keel ), so probably a schooner rig , or any other two mast configuration. Speed under sail and windward ability are of less importance than:
1b) speed under power. Now THIS is the fill or kill order of the whole idea. The above mentioned fast boats move their 50 ft and 20 tons at around 25 knots.
2) Range under power : As a motorsailer that can also use its sails, the range under power is of less importance than in the case of a passagemaker, a trawler or any other type of bluewater motorboat. 1000 miles at 9 knots, or 500 at 18 knots would be fine, I guess.
3) Trans Atlantic voyager, needs to handle conditions that can not be predicted by weather forecast and avoided by sailing away.
4) Self righting from a rollover in 1-1,5 minutes maximum.
5) Length : 50-60 ft LOA
6) Draft : 1.5 m
7) Beam : 5 m
Living accommodations for 2 couples,owner + guest, a captain and possibly 1 crew member.

[Stumble]

Xarax,

Buy a Bertram 510 and stick a 30' carbon fiber rig in the boat (Melgeus 24 rig should be about right). Since you don't care about sailing characteristics, then this is just another semi-planing hull power boat with a get home/stabalizing rig onboard. Then add a swing down dagger board and oversized rudder and be done with it.

[xarax]

Xarax,
Buy a Bertram 510 and stick a 30' carbon fiber rig on the boat...

Stumble,
Would you manage to hold it upright with the 'sail"'of your ( water ballasted AND self righting ) Unterseeboot ( and apex1 on helm ), or do I have to install a little nice water ballasted self righting system on board of my Bertam instead ? :)

[whoosh]

Be sure it is a photo Stu! And if you go one page back you will find more info.

And I do´nt think it was only one high scored member to wipe Xarax´s points, when you have followed the thread you could have seen there have been several completely disagreeing. Me included.

yes was ONE, I posted Xarax,(who got under your skin) pos, he was 26, next second he was 2, I know from where that came, and he should be very ashamed
XARAX ranks as one of the most intelligent men I have ever met, he was testing you guys and he won hands down, he was never vulgar or rude as you yourself were
HE may not be the brilliant rocket sci , but he is far better than me or you
he offered me his beach home, for free, and I have known him a long time
i feel humbled in his presence, on the other hand many (high pts people) have yet to earn my respect
Tom Speers, Ric, ancient kyakkerr, Guillermo, Matt, Mike J, all have that respect

[john.G]

water ballast ... motor ... sails ... self righting ... easily modified to class 3A requirements ... and I like it!!!

http://www.dixdesign.com/cargo50.htm

Oh yeah, it can't be done right?!?!

[FAST FRED]

1000 miles at 9 knots, or 500 at 18 knots would be fine,


More likely to be 200 miles at 18K, IF that's acceptable , your task is easy.

FF

[Pierre R]

Xarax what kind of speed are you looking for under sail?

[apex1]

http://www.dixdesign.com/cargo50.htm
Oh yeah, it can't be done right?!?!

Wowwwwww, thats a true performer! Congrats.............you have understood what Xarax means. 6kn........

yes was ONE,

Count again Stu!

, but he is far better than me or you

The former maybe the latter surely not.


And one question besides: do you see any positive sense in the U boot comment above? You call me rude and your friend clever? Your biased my friend.


Well, it looks quite beamy to me, compared with the hull of a traditional motorsailer, or of the slender hull of a motorboat like this :
http://www.rangeboat.com/index.php
designed by Nigel Irens. And when I say fast, I mean faster than the pure displacement speed. the 47 ft MLB travels at around 25 knots,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA247184&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ( see also its righting moment / heel on page 15 )
so does the 52 ft "trawler" like Beneteau, but the traditional Nordhavn 57 motorsailer, (that costs a fortune), drags its old lead foot at 9 knots !

These DGzRS boats are pretty fast (from 24kn up, depending on length), but of course not as slender as the rangeboat (which is less seakeeping). The "Swift Trawler" is´nt a bluewater boat, and is much fatter than the lifeboats.
The Nordhavn is, what it is: a motorsailor, slow but capable.

I am sure that even in the case of testing very sophisticated vessels, as these lifeboats, when they perform their final tests on them, the chief engineers are holding their breath and their fingers crossed! It needs only a frozen O-ring to kill all people aboard a complex vehicle......

There is nobody holding his breath when these boats are tested, the systems are at least double redundant, the hull is double (around the heat exchanger triple) bottom on a web frame (see the reports and pictures two pages back) and they are done at the best yards worldwide, Abeking & Rasmussen, Lührssen and Fassmer. The ultimate test they stand every Winter in the North Sea and never they failed.
But of course they are not what you are looking for.

And no matter how often you try in your really stubborn manner, the Oviparouswoolmilkpig will not appear.

I give up, enjoy your sandbox kids, time for the adults to go to work.

[xarax]

And one question besides: do you see any positive sense in the U boot comment above? You call me rude and y

Apex1, this comment was just a humorous joke reply to the humorous joke reply of Stumble, in my effort to try to release any pointless tensions and forget the bitter words enchanted between us. You haven’t noticed the smilies , just as the other time around. Your pressure could have problems, as an overheated steamer ! You haven’t noticed also that I, from my part, erased my posts that would be thought as offensive to you, after your apology to me for your, always previous to them, similar comments.
Calm down, relax, and I hope we drink a hot chocolate
together some day (not in the White house, I hope, because I don’t drink beer...) :)

[xarax]

Stumble, Apex1 just gave me the crucial idea I was missing ! The Oviparouswoolmilkpig of Apex1...Speaking of chocolates, I finally got it ! (PAR would be delightful too...)
Chop a pointy bow and a stern to a Toblerone shaped hull, stick a mast, a daggerboard and a rudder to each side of it, and here you go ! No water ballast whatsoever, self righting, and fast, if you remember to lower (actually, to pull out higher...) the submerged sail...:)

P.S. No water ballast and no racial case here, too...It is a black chocolate, in a black background. I wonder, is it made in Swiss, or in Germany, like the cuckoo clock ? :)
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/cat-comes-out-bag-28164.html
Xarax, ( typing the famous words by Orson Welles, just for entertainment value...) :
"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Apex1 :
I´m not proud about that (we made a few better inventions), but twrch (the "ch" stands for Suisse, I guess) is right, the darn Cuckoo clock is from the Blackwood forest Germany.
Apex1, after all this I must confess I prefer British humour and German machinery, lifeboats, U boots, chocolates and cars ( I have a small A class...and I finally got my driving license after 40 years of escaping from "authorities") :)

[xarax]

1000 miles at 9 knots, or 500 at 18 knots would be fine,
More likely to be 200 miles at 18K, IF that's acceptable , your task is easy.
FF
I see the 47 ft MLB numbers and they are closer to your value ( Mine are closer to Swift Trawler s...) But an ocean going bluewater boat with only 200 miles ? A boat like this should live in the small window, if it still exists, between bluewater sailboats and bluewater motorboats, and 200 miles sound few to me...I am not a boat market person by any means, of course. I just think that our Imaginative clients would prefer the 3000 miles of Nordhavn 56 MS, even with its 9 knots crawling speed... ( If they have the 1.5-2.0 million of the Nobel/Millenium/Abel price or the Lotto) :)

[xarax]

Xarax what kind of speed are you looking for under sail?
As I have said, this is a great unknown, to me at least, at this point, because I don’t know how fast a (possibly) two mast, low centre of effort rig would propel a 50-60 ft beamy, semi displacement hull (with quite a lot of wetted area compared to a sailing boat s hull), but possibly, just possibly, capable of trimming its angle of incidence , transversally or longitudinally, by using its big water ballast tanks. There have been some efforts to design a so called'dual purpose" sailing/semi planning hull by the use of water ballast in the past, I don’t know what happened at the end.'

[xarax]

These DGzRS boats are pretty fast (from 24kn up, depending on length)

That is about the speed of the Swift 'Trawler" and the 47 ft MLB. I think that is the minimum speed of the sailing motorboat of the future, to be able to make some room and fit in between its classic cousins.

Xarax1:
I am sure that even in the case of testing very sophisticated vessels, as these lifeboats, when they perform their final tests on them, the chief engineers are holding their breath and their fingers crossed! It needs only a frozen O-ring to kill all people aboard a complex vehicle......

There is nobody holding his breath when these boats are tested, the systems are at least double redundant,

I was answering to the dispatch between the necessarily limited and incomplete scientific understanding of a complex system and the actual final product, where many engineers put on their managerial hat instead, and pretend they have calculated everything because of market, or political, pressures. ( Engineers who objected to the launching of the Challenger space shuttle were told: Now put on your managerial hat and take off your engineering hat...) That was the case of the O- ring disaster, where the systems were thought to be something like seven times redundant ! Space shuttles sometimes go down and lifeboats always stay afloat ? Read the Noberl price phycisist R. Feynman report and memories of the Shuttle disaster. He points out just this : that there comes a point where complexity surpass our means of scientific complete control of complex machinery. So my comment was about this, and not at all a negative comment about German engineering, as you probablly got it wrong. :) German engineering is the best in the world ( well, after the Japanese :) ...I had a Toyota and now an A class, and so I can tell the difference. :)

[Stumble]

Xar,

You keep raising the point of comparable boats in the 1-$2,000,000 USD range as being too expensive. What do you think any boat of this size is going to cost? 2 million for a 50' boat is actually pretty cheap, and what you are proposing, assuming for the moment that it is even possible, would be a radical custom boat with all sorts of custom equipment. I would guess the price tag would be at least several million, but may be even more.

Just looking at the parts, you have a couple hundred thousand dollars in engines, god knows how much in electronics ( probably 50K), Hundreds of thousands in designer costs, and we haven't even started building yet. All up this boat could easily be 5 million USD assuming it would even be possible.

[xarax]

Xar,
You keep raising the point of comparable boats in the 1-$2,000,000 USD range as being too expensive.
No, misunderstood, I never said anything about the cost of such a boat, on the contrary I repeatedly said it is going to be expensive, if feasible. Of course not so expensive, if we also take aside the designs cost that I hope you guys will provide me for free...:) I just said that 2 millions, even worthless today US dollars, is too much for 9 knots !I( And this was the cost years ago, when I asked because we all had bubble money to spend...Now, if it is still produced, it could cost much more, and now we have much less money to spend, well, I am speaking for myself here...!)
9 knots ...This is not an acceptable 21 century motoring speed... The speed/cost ratio tends to zero !...

[Stumble]

And here I am looking seriously at buying a DASHEW FPB 64 with a cruising speed of 9 kn simply because the boat is so fuel efficient. It may only do 9kn, but it does it on 2 gallons/hour instead of the 75 gallons/hour of my current boat running at 25kn. Ya it may take me twice as long to get there, but I can do it at a fraction of the fuel cost. Heck the Dashew is actually cheaper to operate per mile than a comparably sized sailboat.

[whoosh]

And here I am looking seriously at buying a DASHEW FPB 64 with a cruising speed of 9 kn simply because the boat is so fuel efficient. It may only do 9kn, but it does it on 2 gallons/hour instead of the 75 gallons/hour of my current boat running at 25kn. Ya it may take me twice as long to get there, but I can do it at a fraction of the fuel cost. Heck the Dashew is actually cheaper to operate per mile than a comparably sized sailboat.

well thats a wise decision indeed, but in rough weahter it,ll arrive BEFORE
Most high powered(planing) boats are so badly configured underwater, lines wise, that anything more than a small wind wave chop, stops em

[Stumble]

But on the Dashew I can comfortably run through rough weather. If you aren't familure with the boat the designer of the prototype boat took it out in 25' waves as part of the final seatrail http://dashewoffshore.com/fpb_first.asp and because of its hull even in those conditions it was still motoring along at 10kn.

The idea of outrunning weather to me has always been a questionable endevor, yes it can be done, but it should always be a loast resort when you have no options, not part of the expected use of the boat. Now route planning to stay away from bad weather however is just part of long distance cruising.

[whoosh]

yes I know the boats, have seen the videos,
I shared a yard in NZ that built one of Dashews Sundeers, in al al
Personally I think, that big s.h.p yachts should be banned, when a 60 footer can empty a 2000l tank in the blink of an eye, then they are using more fuel than your family car does in year
If you look at my website, , that river boat there will do over 4000 miles at canal speed on the 2000l using 16shp at 4.5 knots
Reason for the 114 max was the Rhine, Rhone and Danube can run nine knots at times

[apex1]

Ya it may take me twice as long to get there, but I can do it at a fraction of the fuel cost. Heck the Dashew is actually cheaper to operate per mile than a comparably sized sailboat.

I doubt you´ll need twice the time buddy. Your long range cruiser can do these 9kn even in bad conditions (in good ones he performs better). In fact even in all conditions you feel safe in (because you did not avoid them). A "Swift Trawler" as mentioned by our Greek friend, will fall into pieces when heading into a state 6 sea at 9kn. Read: if that plastic toy would be able to cross oceans, it would be much slower than a FPB, just due to the fact that it cannot go continuously ahead regardless of conditions (within a sensible range). Many unexperienced boaters believe they can hold a given "cruising speed" over ocean passages during the whole trip. They are wiser after the first one!

some comments here on Manie´s thread:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/boat-speeds-28385.html


Space shuttles sometimes go down and lifeboats always stay afloat ? Of course not! But so far we have not lost a single one. And I doubt there are many vessels capable to survive multiple capsizes in a groundsee with the Superstructure bouncing on the ground!? Our boats have proven they do, and went back into service after minor repairs.

German engineering is the best in the world ( well, after the Japanese :) ...I had a Toyota and now an A class, and so I can tell the difference. :)

Well I am sure you can tell. As you probably can tell us why not the Japanese but the Germans have the wealthiest economy in the world (and prove that since 35 years by being the number one export nation).

Do´nt worry about my blood pressure, I´m fine and always was. In fact I was´nt ever ill in all my life (so relaxed are my days).

Regards
Richard

[xarax]

The sad truth is that very few people, especially among the young , prefer to buy a classic motorsailer. How do you guys explain this fact ? Don’t tell me about the high cost. The same people do buy ridiculously expensive cars and motorboats,...My own explanation in this thread was that today, to the eyes of younger people, any motoring speed below, say, 25 knots looks like it is eating one s time out of his life . It is modern fad, I know, life is a marathon, not a 100 metres race, travelling through space with speed has nothing to do with travelling through time, but this fad is a very persistent one, we have to accept it. That is the main point of the water ballasted motorsailer, a light fast motorsailer that is not a slender multihull neither a looong monohull. I thought it would do no harm to investigate the feasibility of a sailing motorboat that uses water ballast, a portion of which we could always dump and then pump again, instead of lead ballast that we be have to carry all time. Time will tell, we can just wait and continue sailing at 6 knots, future will come with the speed of a bullet, as always.

[Pierre R]

The sad truth is that very few people, especially among the young , prefer to buy a classic motorsailer. How do you guys explain this fact ?

My own explanation in this thread was that today, to the eyes of younger people, any motoring speed below, say, 25 knots looks like it is eating one s time out of his life . One word, Ignorance. Same reason they buy the Benny. Wisdom comes in time from bad judgement and enough ingested sea water.

Cheap Boat builder's know this and pluck the pigeons off the roost. I see many of these entry level lightly build boats being promoted as blue water yachts by the builders and media. I think the modern production built items like quality in cars, electronics and better weather reporting contribute to this false god of the sea. We are lucky that a few good boat builders do exist. Buyer beware has never been greater than in the boat market today.

Unfortuanately the sea still takes all ties and sea monsters still exist no matter what gagets you have aboard.

[xarax]

better weather reporting contribute to this false god of the sea.
BUT, you have to admit that far better weather prediction, made possible by the computers and the satellites, permit cheap but fast motorboats to escape the nemesis of the true god of the sea. I have many friends in the fast motorboating world that did t even thought of going out a 6, even at 5 beaufort , and, although they stay many days ashore, at the end of the year they have gone out more times, and they have done much more miles , than most of my sailboat friends. I suspect they enjoy the sea at least as much as we do, and they are not just ignorant in the death row, as we like to see them. These are the clients of the motorboat industry nowadays, and they are getting more and more, while cruising sailboat people, especially motorsailor people, are getting less and less. Greater motoring speed is made possible by modern strong light materials and engines, and greater travelling range is made possible by modern accurate weather prediction. The old slow and heavy classic motorsailor has to be modernized, has to go much faster while motoring, otherwise it will meet my perfectly engineered and machined German :) Roleiflex (and Leica) on the museums and history books.

[whoosh]

Jap is bloody Jap crap!!
full stop
when you climb into a German, or Fr or Brit car, everything falls to your finguretips, with Jap crap car, you search for ever to find things
My landrover disco, with td5 BW eng RAN circles around Toyota, esp in mud andfuel consumption
Jap diesels have never ever caught up
Upon my wanderings through the mts of GR, I came upon this plaque, Greeks slaughtered by the Germans
Xarax is a very tolerant man, and I am never biased:)) so there

[Manie B]

it would help if you would translate what is written on the plaque :idea: :D

[FAST FRED]

Yankee Go Home ?

But leave your CA$H?

FF

[whoosh]

it would help if you would translate what is written on the plaque :idea: :D

well I cried. it is abt slaughter of grrek by nazis, wait til xarax comes translate
this is sacred stuff, Fred so please , do not joke my friend

[apex1]

Yankee Go Home ?
But leave your CA$H?FF

No Fred, it tells us that there were 6 Partisans killed in the village (here called Patriots), thats it.
I do´nt see how this is related to topic, but (non biased) Stu will tell us.

[Pierre R]

9 knots continuous is a fast ocean crosser by todays standards. Will the cheap manufactures jump in with a beamy cheap light ocean crosser that will do 11 knots on the same fuel? I suspect they will as many have design departments that seem to be your ideal designers who answer to the marketing department.

I think where many of us have a large disagreement in the term "Blue Water". "Blue Water" is derived from the concept of managed risk. There is always risk in any crossing of large expanses of water and just about any sailboat is technically capable of crossing. The difference in the definition of managed risk, where the line is drawn for "Blue Water" vs "Coastal" and its not a clear line. The more personal risk you are willing to underwrite, the more options you have in the choice of boats that meet that criterion.

There is also a perceived notion in the general boating community that "Blue Water" equates to rugged quality and dependable boats. This has not been lost on those manufacturer willing to push the limits in their rush to reach the bottom of the price wars. Today I suspect that more price built cheap boats, unsuitable in my opinion to cross the oceans, are now crossing oceans than properly built blue water boats.

I think a signifcant part of our over reaction as perceived by Whoosh and Xarax is a subconcious rebellion against the encroachment of this mindset. For the freelance designer in our litigous world, there is real liability in following the cheapening trend and pushing the limits. The big cheap manufactures can afford a few lawsuits. Reluctance to endorse you ideas comes from the fact that more and more clients are going to designers because they cannot find the impossiblly rediculous things they want in a conventional design and want to push the limits even more than the cheap boys. More and more of them waste your time and once you have educated them, they go out and buy the cheap fast unsafe boat from the cheap boys advertising true blue water boats.

Most of them want:
More speed than they can get for the chosen service
More accomodations or more stuff crammed into less space.
Features that are incompatable with what they want to do with the boat
Far lighter designs and exotic scantlings
To many exotic power systems
Designs that sacrifice resale value and performance for some ill conceived notion.

Basically you see these entire forums consumed with this type of requests and the designers here are gratious enough to try to educate. Being that its free education, many have little patience for the stuborn "One day youz overly conservative designers will learn" responses from forum participants.

Xarax maybe you are not but you seem to come across like one of these combative participants and in the end will go out and buy the Beneteau 52 once they make a few cheap changes and advertise it as a blue water boat.

[xarax]

Jap is bloody Jap crap!!
Full stop

Japs may be bloody, they certainly were bloody during the second war, but not crap in relation to engineering, I am afraid...:)
I respect their engineering skills as much as I hate their ignorance, to say the least, about the value of the individual person, value on which western civilization is founded.
My dear Whoosh, I dont know about Japanese diesel engines, although I suspect most of the ship diesel engines nowadays are Korean made, i.e. copied Japanese.
But if you ask car mechanists about the quality and reliability of a Lexus, compared to a Mercedes, you will see that Toyota is a VERY serious company. I have a very close friend , just much wealthy and little crazy, that has own and driven hundreds of high class cars, Aston Martins, Italians, best Porches, BMW and Mercedes, when he got in to a Lexus, he got out speechless ! He couldn’t believe how civilized, smooth and powerfull was this car. My A class needs oil, my Toyota Verso never burned a drop. I have another friend that was chief engineer in a Japanese steel mill company in Greece. When he went to Japan and saw the production lines and the military organization of the factories, poor workers in military uniforms and boots, running across the yards like ants, he couldn’t believe his eyes, and he is a PhD that have already visited hundreds of factories in US and Europe. He told me that the pureness of the Japanese steel plates was unbelievable, and their machine tools very much ahead even from the German and Scandinavian. A proof about the quality and power of the Japanese engines is the whole motorcycle world. I don’t know why they don’t care about boating, I guess that boating is a pleasure of the individual free man that loves the freedom of the sea, values (still) unknown to the Japanese culture.
Of course, when they are ordered to go to the sea , mainly for economic and warfare purposes, they do it very effectively! Their battleships during the second war were monstrous machines, they carried huge guns with great speed, their contemporary British battleships were far behind in volume and power. We are all lucky they encounter the brave americans and smart european scientists in their way to conqeer Asia....
We do not want to remember the second War in a way that can bring back bad memories and sad facts, do we? I am sure that there are hundreds of such plaques with hundreds of names all over Greece, Serbia, Poland, Russia, etc, not to mention the plaques with Jewish names everywhere in Europe, but I am also sure, and I have to stress that, that we humans we are silly little creatures, as apex1 said, and bloody cannibals too, and with a little twist of history things could have well been just the opposite ! If Greece were a bigger nation, without natural recourses, pushed in the corner by a shortsided treaty like the treaty of Versailles ( that was not ratified even by the US congress ), starving out of war due to disproportional war reparations and determined to revenge, there is the possibility that there would have been many such plaques in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. No excuse for the bloody Nazis, but there would have been criminal animals like these in Greece too. ( Of course, with the well known ineffectiveness of the Greek state, they would have been far less.:) ) And Greeks cities would also have been wiped out just hours before the war would have been ending, like Dresden...

Let us now return to entertaintment subjects, to the question of the feasibility on not of a fast motorsailer, or sailing motorboat, as I started to call this figment of my imagination.

P.S. They were not partisans, they were innocent civilian people, in many other similar cases mostly women and child, chosen randomly and executed in cold blood by the Nazi occupation forces...Some of them were burned alive in furnaces...And we, the civilizes Greeks with thousands of years of humanistic tradition , have acted similar atrocities, in smaller scale of course, on Turkish Cypriots, out of racial and religious discrimination... I am so glad Europe will not follow any such vicious blood circle any more ! ( Well, I hope so !!!)

[apex1]

I am so glad Europe will not follow any such vicious blood circle any more ! ( Well, I hope so !!!)


Well, me too.

[xarax]

9 knots continuous is a fast ocean crosser by todays standards.
How many ocean crossings will a motorsailer do in its life, compared to smaller one-two days trips ? The vessel I propose should be able to travel at an economical 9 knots for a long range crossing, BUT it has to be able to go fast in those numerous shorter trips of modern life.
I suspect they will as many have design departments that seem to be your ideal designers who answer to the marketing department. I doubt it ! I suspect they dont have any departments any more because they went broke, because they did not sell what they built, because they have no clients, because they had never any such departments and lost the marketing war with the cheap fast motorboat manufactors without firing a bullet !

Xarax maybe you are not but you seem to come across like one of these combative participants and in the end will go out and buy the Beneteau 52 once they make a few cheap changes and advertise it as a blue water boat.
I am not ! :) I am not a consumer of things, I love simplicity and the freedom of not having things. " The more we have the less we own..."' I confess that when I was a quite wealthy man I was spoiled a little, as most of us did, and have thought of, just for a very small period of time and just thought of, buying a big Grand Banks, but you see I am sailing even when I sleep, so I dismissed it immediately! Now I couldnt afford it, and that is because, even in money matters and bussinesses, I am a contrarian, and contrarians die under the heels of the horde, sooner or later. I personally dont like mixures, I like pure people, lines, purposes, materials, water, air, feelings, I believe that even the vast complexity of the world is not made out of any infinetely more complex "higher authority" , but out of simple elements, whaterver they are, may be out of pure mathematics, so I am a minimalist, SO no, I will not buy a slow OR a fast motorsailor ever ! And I hate the horde of stupid clients thar want jacusis in their boat OR in their house..
Having said that, I still believe that there exist a real market and engineering window for a, (well, not so much ocean going or so long range if we can not achieve it), fast sailing motorboat. The tasks that I dont want to leave out is of self righting and 25 knots, because otherwise this window will remain closed, Could water ballast be the solution to this problem ? That WAS the case...:)

[apex1]

That WAS the case..

And this was the answer.........NO!

A rugged boat, capable of ocean crossing is not a boat capable of running fast and vice versa. Thats true, proven and well documented, no matter which propulsion. A combined propulsion (again no matter which combination) makes the vessel in question heavier, read: performing worse. Any addition in complexity has which effect???????

So, the answer remains. NO!

Sorry to blow the bubble.

[xarax]

The big cheap manufactures can afford a few lawsuits.
Are there any lawsuits against the manufacturer of this cheap 25 knots canal/lake boat ? :)

[Stumble]

Ha, never ask a lawyer if a major manufacturer was sued:

U.S. District Court in Md.: Ace American Ins. Co. (representing Mathews) v. Grand Banks
Highlights from the case: In November 2005, the Mathews set out on a voyage from Rhode Island to return to Maryland aboard the recently-purchased yacht. Ace American Insurance Co., a subrogee of Mathews, alleged that, during that trip, the yacht suffered severe damage in the form of "catastrophic failure of a major longitudinal stringer, and detachment (detabbing) of the interior structural components...[which] resulted in the helm seat dislodging from under Mathews, the windshields cracking around him, and the window frames separating from the pilot house, and other structural damage."

In fairness Grand Banks won this case, though their victory had to do with technical issues of liability in Admiralty law as opposed to disproving the allegations. In fact GB admitted the new boat fell apart while operating, but in Admiralty law there is no manufacturers warranty against product defects, if the defects ONLY damage iteslf. In other words the boat fell apart but noone was injured so therefor no liability on the part of Grand Banks.

[whoosh]

to Richard,
what has plaque to do with this thread?
peruse thread,
all is calm
be happy All of you
I read
China cost De. 68 billion each year in stolen tech, ideas, manufacturing

Yes Jappo man runs like ant Aussie man is lazy, beyond belief,
De man is Teutonic and always will be, --well maybe

Greek man you must bribe,mon ami tells me so
i would never sell a boat to a Floridian lawyer, I once had an offer, close to finish he wanted title, 10% paid, 90% at completion of sea trials, I ran a mile
Good morning Stuumble
WOT HAS THIS TO DO WIV IT
WELL ZILCH, ITS 0330, i GOT UP TO MAKE TEA, AND SEE THE CRICKET RESULT, WOTS CRICKET? A game that was played once, by civilised people, unforrtunately aussies picked it up:)
It is rather good to have a cultural view of things here, , sure the topic gets muddied and diversifies, one learns, one also learns to temper ones temper,

[Stumble]

LOL ouch, attorneys like that hurt the reputation of us all... Personally I prefer the pay standard rates for a build, then sue for damages when the boat fails sea trial (don't they all :D)

The onlt time I could really understad structuring the contract like that would be if the builder and designer are from the same company, and the boat is being designed to fulfill some particular task, and the design side is warrantying that the design will meet that criteria.

Otherwise... morning Whoosh.

[whoosh]

LOL ouch, attorneys like that hurt the reputation of us all... Personally I prefer the pay standard rates for a build, then sue for damages when the boat fails sea trial (don't they all :D)

The onlt time I could really understad structuring the contract like that would be if the builder and designer are from the same company, and the boat is being designed to fulfill some particular task, and the design side is warrantying that the design will meet that criteria.

Otherwise... morning Whoosh.

when I build I offer, "are you sure you do not want instrument by way security over what you have paid"
WOT!! they say
look, so many people do not even check to see how solvent the builder is
they hand over a pile of cash, the builder then buys the materials, or does he? well oft he pays off what he owes from last build
For myself I was freehold, own home, own building shed etc
I never made a fortune, but made lots lifelong friends
True story
once this guy ordered a boat, he refused to pay the tax, he came out with some really big mates, I never caved, I called my wife, to bring down a shotgun, she was as mad as a cut snake, normally she is calm, anyways she arrived with a rifle, unloaded, she did not present the rifle to them, thjey went away, came back with the cash, later, years later, the guy comes back, "will you build me another boat"!!!!!
I leart, the law does not work, for builders, I will never employ a lawyer again, afer the very first yacht , came to litigation when the creep refused extras. thisguy had stayed with us, ate with us, a real shark Ruined my life 3 years
I will build you a boat Stumble, honestly, worthely, but cheat me, you are in trouble:))

[Stumble]

Personally I always pay my bills, and usually a little something more if the work clearly showed that the people did a particularly good job. For the bottom job on my sailboat I wound up paying about 4K to the yard, and handed the guys who did the actual work an extra $200 each for a job well done. I figure they went the extra mile, and while the yard makes their money on the front end, it is always good policy to make sure the guys on the back are happy too.

[xarax]

I bet there are many more lawyers than motorsailers in Florida ! ( not sure about Grand Banks though...)
In Greece we have discovered an economical way to reduce their number : We bribe the judges instead. Bad for justice, good for economy. Life is a compromise. :)

[whoosh]

I bet there are many more lawyers than motorsailers in Florida ! ( not sure about Grand Banks though...)
In Greece we have discovered an economical way to reduce their number : We bribe the judges instead. Bad for justice, good for economy. Life is a compromise. :)

silly people have let Boas go in glades, now THERE is something Almost as dangerous as a lawyer

god for you stumble, put your dial on faces to names thread

[Stumble]

I keep meaning too, but can't find a picture that doesn't make me look like either a suit or a bum... It seems those are my only two forms of dress... Either ready for court, or ready to dive in the bilge.

[Pierre R]

Having said that, I still believe that there exist a real market and engineering window for a, (well, not so much ocean going or so long range if we can not achieve it), fast sailing motorboat. The tasks that I dont want to leave out is of self righting and 25 knots, because otherwise this window will remain closed, Could water ballast be the solution to this problem ? That WAS the case...:)I would bet there is a healthy market for such a boat just like there is a healthy market for people wanting to go to Mars. There is also and engineering window for both this boat and the trip to Mars.

I would like such a boat.

[whoosh]

I would bet there is a healthy market for such a boat just like there is a healthy market for people wanting to go to Mars. There is also and engineering window for both this boat and the trip to Mars.

I would like such a boat.

tee hee Pierre,

[xarax]

I would bet there is a healthy market for such a boat just like there is a healthy market for people wanting to go to Mars. There is also and engineering window for both this boat and the trip to Mars.

I would like such a boat.

Pierre R, Wolsh, Mars trip is only a few decades away ! Mars is VERY near earth, what are you talking about ? Are you telling me that the whole problem would be solved is a few decades? Sailing boats are around for 5000 years, and your problem guys is a few decades ? I would be very glad if there will be fast semi displacement motorsailers or sailing motorboats in a few decades. Canting keel, foils, staff like that made a century to evolve, and still they are not mainstream, and your problem is a few decades ? Are we in a hurry to meet the 'higher authority " ( well, apex1 and I doubt its existence, this is a rare point we agree !), so we do not care what will be achieved after a few decades ? Or you should better choose another telling example of future space travel, like this to Andromeda ? :)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIObGPR4YRoLbByOKeO6vaEvSwKQD99OCVQ82
"Work isn't as far along on a larger rocket called Ares V, which would lift heavy equipment into orbit for a moon mission and an eventual trip to Mars."

[xarax]

The Oakley self righting mechanism with the use of water ballast ;
http://books.google.com/books?id=V8aNw0C9kgcC&pg=PA2051&lpg=PA2051&dq=oakley+mechanism&source=bl&ots=w8B6avfKhx&sig=qmY60nv3840WOZd_cBPgFx57RJ8&hl=en&ei=2gR0Sv_pKtrMjAe17e2nBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=oakley%20mechanism&f=true

Richard Oakley designed this mechanism 50 years ago. Man was not on Mars at this time, not even on Moon. The Oacley class lifeboats saved 1456 lives. He was a man that any "higher authority" , and we the humble servants, should have been proud of, I believe.
Richard A. Oakley (1906-1988)
http://www.rina.org.uk/c2/uploads/richard%20a%20oakley%20_%20final.pdf
Oakley Class lifeboats were narrow displacement hull boats, but faster than the older lead ballasted self righting lifeboats, because they were lighter. A mechanism like this, combined with a high raised watertight deck house, ( which is the way of the contemporary lifeboats ), should been able to self right even the wider, semi displacement hull with all the appentices of a light fast motorsailer / sailing motorboat.

[xarax]

And this one is travelling with 32 knots, not 25...Well, I would be more than satisfied with 25 guys, after all we are talking about a trip to Mars here, right next (galactic)door, not to Andromeda ! :)

[Pierre R]

Will you settle for 20 knots on an ocean crossing?

A boat can easily be designed to do local waters at 25 knots, carry enough sail to do 5-6 knots and be purpose built to be cheaply shipped on the deck of a Ro-Ro boat across the pond. When I say cheap I mean cheaper than she could do it on her own bottom and at 20 knots aboard another ship.

Such a boat needs to be kept under 14' from keel to the top, 12' wide or less and 45' long.

[xarax]

Will you settle for 20 knots on an ocean crossing?
A boat can easily be designed to do local waters at 25 knots, carry enough sail to do 5-6 knots...
Such a boat needs to be kept under 14' from keel to the top, 12' wide or less and 45' long.
As you also have mentioned some time ago, 8-9 knots is enough IFF by the term "ocean crossing" we mean literally ocean crossing, or crossing a sea at a 6, even 5, or a long range, many hours trip, or a night trip. We should not go faster on such trips, for many reasons, even if we could.
The speed of 25 knots is dictated by the times we live, not by me...If the cheap, or not so cheap, alternative can go 25 knots top speed,( like the Swift"trawler" for example), a fast motorsailer should go also 25 knots top speed. She would be much more expensive, probably much more fuel thirsty, with much fewer living spaces, much lower freeboard, much higher maintenance costs, well, after all these shortcomings she should not be much slower, should she ? :) Of course when we say 25 knots, we mean our 25 knots in sea states where the usual cruising motorboats are achieving their 25 knots, which does not include seas with high winds and choppy waves, even in inland waters. A motorsailer could/should/would go under sails in these conditions.
You numbers seems to be on the low side for a bluewater boat...How are you gong to achieve self righting ? If you DO NOT use any water ballast, and use only a high raised watertight deckhouse, like the lifeboats do, you would suffer from excessive windage, not to mention your looks which would be quite odd, to say the least. I was thinking of a hull having a deep "pad", like that of some Nordhavn hulls, where one can put the heavy machinery end batteries, may be a little amount of lead ballast too, so the CG will be low, so the self righting will be easier and faster. Nordhavn calls it "maintenance strake" (see attachment). But can such a hull be transformed to a semi displacement hull, or the drag of any such "pad', even if is flat bottomed, is not compatible with the complex function of the 25 knots speed semi displacement hull? This is the level of complexity we were talking about the other day that I guess could be not predicted by any theoretical equations, and can only be subject to the primordial try and error method...( I may very well be mistaken here, of course. I do not have access to the best computers, the best programs....)

[Pierre R]

25 knots is in the express range, not the semi displacement range. We are probably talking about a deep V type flat out planing hull.

[xarax]

Even if we go to 60 ft ? What is the max semi displacement speed for 60 ft ?

[Fanie]

If I have to flee from SA to AU at 10kn it is going to take me 17 days as the crow flies.

At 7kn it's going to take 24 days.