Power cruising for...

[Polarity]

Moving swiftly on with our collective boat design (see http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=439 for details) - what should she be capable of?

I expect that each one of these options has it's own challenges in design, engineering,construction and material choice - and there is no shortage of ideas around here!

In response to the fast response to the last poll this one will run until Wed - 4 days from now (it's 2am Sunday morning here in the Med ... I should get out more!)

New members (and old of course) and guests don't hesitate to post your thoughts on the ideal yacht...

Cheers


Paul

[Polarity]

...a coastal cruiser..

- still needs to be able to handle the weather, tides etc, needs decent accomodation, reasonable range, must be manueverable, handsome, possibly shoal draft. - and.. after all... it still might need sails ;)

Of course it also depends on which coast...

Cheers

Paul

[8knots]

Im voting for coastal crusing for a week! (a wider base of customers) 8Kts;)

[Tad]

:) Okay...okay :)

A week it is. But a week on Great Slave Lake is different than a week on the Cote D'Azur. Both will be different than a week on Chesapeake Bay or the Baltic Sea. And a week in the Red Sea or Amazon or Coral Sea would create a whole different set of requirements.

Will the next question be speed, or range, or climate, or operational sea-state? We could start thinking about crew size and experience, or budget, or..... Will she be owner built, or a production boat, or a high-end custom project?

There are some puzzles ahead!

Best to all, Tad.

[8knots]

great point Tad! The readers or paticipants in this are all over the world! Puzzles.... you bet. just adds to the fun. 8Kts;)

[tom28571]

Tad,

I agree with the direction you suggest. That we should make some objectives that the boat should satisfy before looking at any specific designs. One major one is whether the boat should be displacement, semi displacement or a planing hull.

Setting the objective of being suitable for a one week cruise is fine although that will mean different things to different people. At least it should set some range on comfort and facilities.

I suggest a limit of two crew for this one week cruise. As for the cruising area, I suggest that we settle on protected inshore and coastal areas in moderate conditions to make the boat satisfy the conditions most people are going to want to take a small powerboat in. Not ruling out a trip to someplace like the Bahamas, Tortugas or Channel Islands in carefully chosen conditions.

If we really intend to do a boat that most salaried people can do other than local gunkholing in, the boat needs to be trailerable. Getting to windward at 55mph has appealed to me greatly since we discovered it by necessity over 20 years ago. If it's not to be readily trailerable, then the size, crew limitations and crusing range aren't so rigid but we are limited to weekends and vacations running over the same local area all the time.

[duluthboats]

Adding trailerability to coastal hopping narrows it down some. This is what My list looks like as of now.
1 Coastal hopping
2 Trailerable
3 Range 300 miles
4 Crew, 2 minamum
5 Price range, under 50K US, for home built.
6 Must be able to carry on a normal conversation at 3/4 throttle.
I have more but this is enough to chew on for a while.

Gary

[Polarity]

It looks it's a landslide vote for a weeks cruising, and if I may, I would like to suggest that Tom and Garys list of 6 make a teriffic ....

Option 1 Trailerable, couple, home build $

If between us we can come up with 3 or more versions -6 points each, then we can put them out to vote...

Here's mine which is probably based more on interest than size of market!

Option 2 Tough, family+friends, pro build $$$

1.Capable of handling a wind against tide/current situation (say the Gulf stream at 2.5knts, against a solid f4) -which I seem to remember is medium nasty.
2. Not trailerable, lives at the marina for long season use (see 1.)
3. Range of 600 miles minimum - spending time at anchor rather than on the dock.
4. Sleep 4 in comfort, with space for a couple of kids in the bilges if needed.
5. Designed for Semi-custom production with a set number of options by a relatively small yard.
6. protected prop(s?) in case of umm.. "operator error".

Re: setting a price I would suggest that we can vote for a budget once the winner is decided (now that should be interesting!).

What do you all think?

Cheers
Paul

[tom28571]

Paul,

Why not do both? Maybe sequentially. It's difficult to predict how far we can go with a design (how much detail) anyway. My boat that I have posted on this forum satisfies every one of Gary's ideas. Maybe it could be used as a baseline to see what the rest of us might do to it. One advantage is that I know all the design in detail, both advantages and disadvantages from personal experience. I will not be upset if others want to change things. Just a suggestion of a possible direction for a start. After doing this for a first project, we might have a better idea of how much is possible in this format.

Either that or we will never speak to each other again.

Whatever course we take, I think we should elect you as the group leader and moderator of all issues since this was your idea. Do we need a vote on that too?

[tom28571]

I forgot to add that the cost of my boat was MUCH less than $50K. My itemized list comes to less than $6000 for the finished hull W/O engine and trailer. Some materials were gotten at discounts but in no way could cost have approached $50K. Materials are mostly first class or near equivalent. Plywood was biggest item. Epoxy was next and paint (Awlgrip) next. The engine cost me more than the boat. Are those US dollars?

Hey, if there is enough interest in this kind of effort. several projects could be done. Stephen could lead his if the rest of us could keep up.

I second Paul as moderator. There thats done before he even has a chance to say no. :D

Tom, you say you have such a boat posted? What thread would I find it in? What can I say. You got my attention. :)

Gary

[Jeff]

Tom's is a really nice boat and a very well done project: http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1233#post1233 and http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1250#post1250 (and an interesting thread from start to finish).

[Willallison]

Time I entered the fray!
I must say I like Pauls set of guidelines. A boat that is capable of reasonably extended cruising, without the need to stop every day or two at the dock is a far more interesting design challenge. One of the most important considerations that has (possibly) slipped through the cracks so far is that of operating speeds. To my mind, the boat should be capable of cruising in the mid twenties when conditions suit. This isn't always the case, so it should also be practical and economical to use at displacement speeds.

[8knots]

Hello all;
I third the motion for Paul as moderator (the father of the project) Tom I really like your boat and the drawing that go with her! Excellent work!!! I am glad to see you in on the project; your expertise will help us all. (Thanks to Jeff for posting the links) I agree that the boat should be of a little larger size. And a semi-production model in cored fiberglass the plans could be modified for one-off construction (home builder) after the project was done if the interest were there. In my mind I see a Consolidated Commuter style boat maybe 36’-42’ round bilge, semi-disp capable of say 20 Kts max.cruise at 14-16 Twin screws of course Gas or Diesel? My gut tells me that the average client for this style of boat would put the throttles in the oil pan if things get nasty. More than likely he will have children aboard and “boat skeptical wives” I would imagine rolling around in big rollers has equaled a lot of for sale signs. So a small sacrifice in sea keeping for speed would mean a more marketable boat. This is just me thinking out loud here so chime in if you think I am all washed up. 8Kts

[duluthboats]

Well Paul, I think it's time we considered budget, or target sale price. The drive on 8knots' pictured boat would equal 5 or 6 of Tom's (Liz) complete boat. Most boats that I noodle with have a target market of myself.

Tom I don't no why I didn't think of Liz. I think I have read most everything that is in print about her. She would be a good place to start. It would be a little like having a group prodding a loved one. Do you have a thick skin. With 8knots' budget we could gold plate the works.
Gary

[tom28571]

Gary,

I think that if we can establish a list of requirements and objectives for the boat, things will move along. Some of these will be sacred and some wishes and some objectives to be met, if possible. I love the boat 8Knots posted. I love Tad's large raised deck cruiser as well as Sam Devlin's Top Knot, and some others. My problem with these boats is that they satisfy a completely different set of desires. For one thing, I can't afford the fuel for 8Knot's boat running at 20 knots even if it should suddenly appear at my dock. Thing is, These boats have almost nothing in common with Liz and would be a different design project entirely.

We have to decide where we want to go or we are not likely to get there.

I'm not sure that there is a commercial market for classic style boats although a few builders are trying to test that market. My boat draws lots of attention everywhere it goes on the highway as well as the water but, does that translate to cash orders for similar boats? We have been followed and flagged down by people who want a closer look and never fail to draw comments when stopping for gas. I know that C-Dory sells all that they build easily and there is often a waiting list. They are a small builder, well known and just about alone in the market with the possible exception of Rosborough.

I am not sure how thick my skin is. If comments from other participants are a good indication, I suspect that the project will fairly quickly diverge from my design and you will be spared my pouting or ranting.

BUT FIRST, THE LIST OF SACRED GOALS MUST BE ESTABLISHED. After that, no major diversions from these can be tolerated or the thing will never get done. I have enjoyed everything that has been offered so far, so all is not lost in any case.:D

[Willallison]

What if we combined both ideas - we could use Toms fantastic "mini-cruiser" as a starting point and expand on it to make something a little bigger, capable of our "one week coastal cruise" and of housing a few more people.
With todays new generation 4-stroke and dfi 2-strokes, there is a strong case to be made for abandoning the more traditional powerplants (inboard petrol / diesel) that are found in cruising boats. They are light, economical and (relatively) inexpensive to buy.

90%+ agreement so far on this poll. But we need to add to the list of SACRED GOALS for the next poll. I'll stay off the key board for awhile. :D
Gary

[Jeff]

Great minds must think alike :)

List Of Sacred Goals.... (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=483)

[Portager]

I just happened across this design project. Since it is close to my design project, I thought I'd post a note.

My wife, the admirable, and I have been working on our design project for 1.5 years now. Our goal is a trailerable, power boat primarily for coastal cruising, but with the ability to make ocean crossings in good weather. We want a very sea worthy boat that can withstand any weather we are dumb enough to get caught in, so our boat meet IMO offshore stability requirements and it will be equipped with outriggers for paravanes stabilizers.

ACCOMMODATIONS: Accommodations are two adults and occasionally two adult guests or our two giant (Great Pyrenees) dogs.

USAGE: Our usage will be weekend cruises in Southern California, and vacation cruises (3 to 4 weeks) on the Sea of Cortez, the Pacific Northwest, Lake Powel, Lake Tahoe and parts of the great loop.

REQUIREMENTS: Since the admirable only tolerates my boating fantasies, I need to keep her comfortable and happy. If cursing is a hardship she won't go more than once, so our boat will have all the comforts of home, (washer/dryer, dishwasher, microwave, ...). It will also need to provide a very gentle ride. You can read our complete list of design requirements on our web page at www.portager.info.

DESIGNS: We looked at many designs and the one that came closest to our objectives was a design by Michael Kasten http://www.kastenmarine.com/ called GreatHeart 36 http://www.kastenmarine.com/greatheart36.htm. Another
Michael Kasten design, the Boojum 25, http://www.kastenmarine.com/boojum25.htm has recently completed construction in New Zealand. The Boojum 25 is a trailerable design (well maybe transportable is a better description) with a beam of 8' and capable of making ocean passages. We had selected the GreatHeart 36 when Michael
designed the Wave Runner 36 http://www.kastenmarine.com/wave_runner.htm.

PERFORMANCE: The Wave Runner 36 is a semi-displacement design and since it has a longer LWL and slightly lower draft than the GreatHeart 36 it has a "displacement" speed of 1.6*SQRT(LWL) or 9.6 knots (for light displacement
to length ratios you can go up to 1.6). The Wave Runner 36 will be the initial point of departure for our design, which we have decided to name "Portager".

PROPULSION: Portager will have a single 100 HP diesel engine for economy and a "Junk" rig will provide a get home sail, roll stabilization and not to mention looking good for photo opportunities (the sail also classifies the vessel as a motor sailor, which reduces insurance rate).

STRUCTURE: Portager will be welded aluminum to keep weight down and to eliminate thermal gradients when on the trailer.

ELECTRICAL: To maximize usable space and keep cost down, Portager will forego a generator. Instead it will have a bank of AGM batteries mounted low in the bilge. Electrical power will be 24 volt DC with alternators for AC
only systems like microwaves, ...

ARRANGEMENTS: Portager will have a raised pilothouse and an aft owners state room (the most comfortable area on most boats). Forward will be the galley, salon and a stand-up head.

BEAM: We choose to give up on the 8' or 8'6" beam to be "legally" trailerable. To meet the IMO stability requirement with an narrow beam required a lot of ballast. Note at 25' by 8' Boojum weighs 18,000, while Portager at 36' by 10' will weigh 19,000. The difference is Boojum required 2,400 lbs of ballast and Portager will require almost none.

HEIGHT: Even though Portager will be an over width load it is be legal height. In fact we are limiting our height to 13' 6" so we will be legal in all states. We decided to stay within the legal height limits to avoid hassles of route planning and the higher liability and comprehensive insurance cost.

PERMITS: At 10' wide Portager will require a wide load permit, but by staying under 10' 1" it will never require a pilot car (which adds a lot of cost since the pilot cars have to be licensed in that state, ...). An annual wide load permit in California is $90. For other states I'll get temporary permits as needed.

TRANSPORT: From what I have read you should have the ability to transport your boat fully loaded. You always try and tow it light if possible, but... Portager will weight 19,000 lbs fully loaded. With the trailer it will be <22,000. It takes a big truck to haul this class of load safety. So I did some research into medium duty trucks. The MDT, such as a Freightliner
FL-60, can tow up to 28,000 lbs. I found that many fifth wheel RVs are switching to MDT because of the safety and cost of ownership advantages. If you take a consumer grade pick-up at $35K and start pulling loads at close to its rates maximum rated load, it will last 100,000 to maybe 150,000 miles, but the MDT are designed to tow at their maximum load for 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles. It turns out that the MDT are much lower cost per mile. In addition, since a MDT lasts so long they are available with up to 15 year financing, so the payments would be lower also.

LAUNCHING: I did a comparison of crane launch versus wet launch. In my area the crane launch is $307 versus free $7 for using the launch ramp. I calculate that over the life of the boat I would pay $75K in launch fees for the crane launch. Therefore I'll baseline wet launch but I'll design the trailer to accommodate a crane launch just incase.

TRAILER: The main choices are a "tag alone" or a "gooseneck" trailer. The tag alone trailer has a tongue weight of 10% of the trailer gross weight, while the gooseneck is 25%. The difference is 2,200 lbs versus 5,500 lbs which has a very significant effect of the traction of the truck on the launch ramp. In addition, the axial weight is 6,600 versus 5,500. The difference allows the trailer to use much lower cost axels and tires. The gooseneck trailer also tracks better and allows a tighter turning radius. The trailer will be make of aluminum to reduce weight and to eliminate differential thermal distortion.

PARKING: The Portager truck and trailer will almost 60' long. This is longer than the parking spaces are most boat ramps. Fortunately, with the trailer and truck disconnected, they will independently fit within normal 45' parking spaces.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[duluthboats]

Hi Mike,
This is where we have gone with Option One so far.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=585

Welcome aboard
Gary

[Jeff]

Welcome to our forums Mike,

I am always happy to see a new person with a great project join our forums.

As Gary pointed out, your post was perfectly timed as we were just talking about the implications of length/weight on trailering ease and expense. As far as depending on a crane launch, it’s not only the cost but also the convenience of not having to rely on someone else’s schedule and availability.

I actually got sidetracked reading your summary of marine internet services - I was just talking with a local dealer about KVH and other semi-broadband mobile options today... too bad none of the options yet offers a better upload speed without being connected to a phone line (2.4, 4.8, 9.6 must make it very laggy ), but I suppose even land-based vsat options don't have much of an upload right now so we'll have to wait a little longer for a new wireless solution.

Again, I’m very glad that you discovered our forums. Welcome!

[Portager]

I agree on the cranes sometimes not being convenient.

OTOH ramps for large trailerable boats can cramp your schedule. Since the ramp below normal sea level tends to get slimy and slippery, you probably don't want to launch below mean tide. In addition you might need deeper water to launch which means launching at high tide.

On the 33' argument. 33' is well within the legal limit, so the main issue is maneuvering and parking. My boat will be 36'. Come on in, the water is fine :D .

On cell phones: Most digital service is 9.6 kbps to 14.4 kbps, but the coverage is limited. Analog service is 9.6 at best and drops off to 4.8 kbps. I am about add a slide on web acceleration, such as Net Sonic. Net Sonic uses smart catching, which loads recently visited pages from cache and then looks for updates. It then only downloads the new content. If you are paying a flat rate for connection time (as opposed to paying by the Kbytes) you can use the preload feature, which gives the impression of a much faster connection.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Polarity]

I think this may be what you are looking for Fleet 77 - Inmarsat

http://www.inmarsat.com

Its "always on" and operates either sending small chunks of data (eg for remote monitoring) or at ISDN speeds, up and down for surfing.

It's very new - official Launch at METS in October 2001, the 77 refers to the 77' dia of the dome. I just did some research for one of our clients and the installed cost will probably run to approx 30-35,000 Euros. - let me know if you want one!

Cheers

Paul

[Polarity]

the Thrane & Thrane version is available retail 23,500 Eur to you guv. :D