More Option One

[duluthboats]

So this is where we are at. Where are we going from here?

Power cruiser

1 Coastal hopping for a week:
2 Trailerable
3 Range 300 miles
4 Crew, 2 minimum
5 Price range, under 50K US, for home built.
6 Must be able to carry on a normal conversation at 3/4 throttle

Constructed easily by a smallish yard and at the same time the yard could sell bare hulls and kits for home completion

More Speedy...

1. Max speed 45 + knots
2. Cruise 30 - 40 knots
3. Economical at cruise as well as displacement speeds.

1. We have a minimum crew of 2, so we need at least 2 (preferably permanent) berths and possibly two more convertible. The only time I'm prepared to crawl into bed is when I've had too much to drink, so I want at least near standing headroom at the foot of the bed.
2. Full standing headroom is an absolute necessity in all "living" areas - particularly if you're going to spend up to a week on board. A hardtop is not the be all and end all to me - well designed canopies, with lots of 'clears' work very well. Of more importance is to be able to see out when both sitting or standing.
3. Cooking and eating facilities should reflect the boats expected crew - nothing seems more absurd to me than all those "med-style" boats with huge galley's, four staterooms - but nowhere to sit and eat. I want to be able have 4 sit for dinner and a galley big enough to prepare the meal on. Stowage / refrigeration should be comensurate with our 1 week cruise.
4. Show me a woman who doesn't want an enclosed wc with shower and I'll show you one who's never spent a week away on a small boat with a couple of other people......
In many places now, that necessitates the use of a holding tank.
5. 12 volt power for everything. Generators have no place on a boat this small which has light weight as one of its primary requirements.
6. I cruise with two dogs (dalmations) - I need a dinghy! We use an 8 foot inflatable on my 27 ft Searay. It sits on the boarding platform (another absolute necessity) and is both light and easily managed.

Gary

[Nomad]

You have some very strong points Gary. But that 50k does that include power and install?

[Nomad]

My mistake I guess 50k was the price voted for earlier. Sorry :(

[duluthboats]

If we just throw money at it, what fun would that be? But your right it might not be realistic for this speed range. Thats why I'm voting for the longer hull we might have a chance. But it will be a bitch to trailer.
Gary

[Willallison]

I'm not convinced it can't be done to budget yet.
Here in Oz USD 50K amounts to AUD 100K. A pair of new Mercury Optimax 225's, fully fitted with all controls, hydraulic sterring etc amounts to well under 50K. That leaves another 50K for the boat - sufficient I would have thought - time will tell......
But does our USD 50K have to include the trailer?

The wish list of inclusions in Gary's post above is mine - surely I'm not the only one with an opinion on what should/shouldn't, could/couldn't be included/excluded........

As far as making the boat longer - how will that make it cheaper to build and easier to achieve our performance goals?:confused:

[Nomad]

Hey it's all good!

[Nomad]

I don't think the 50k should include the trailer...............

[Nomad]

Sorry for the skittish posts I just leave the computer on a post some times and wander off well from there it is pretty much self explanitory...................................

[trouty]

I have priced quite a few new boats in the 25 ft range of late and I'm always runing around the 100K Oz (50K US) range with virtually all of em, wiith only twin 150's so....

bearing in mind theres no heads and macerators or any fruit like radar etc in my pricings - I think a 35ft trailerable that does 40 knots and sleeps/feeds a few etc for under 100K Oz id just a pipedream...

Now at 25 ft bearbones you'r getting close IMHO..

Course with what we save if we add our own MEGS and do away with the Twin 225 yams fully rigged we might just manage it!:p

Can I have the job beating the drum to keep the oarsemen in time?:D

Cheers!

[Ralph]

On the assumption that the 50k does not include any $ for labor, benefits, insurance, financing/interest, dealers, construction facilities/space, or hired help, but materials and hardware will cost more becuase of buying retail/semi-retail vs. in volume, can any money be saved with a home built boat vs. a production boat of the same design?

[tom28571]

Hey guys,

Unless we are willing to stick to the cumulative results and implications of our polls, this project is going nowhere. To the guy who is counting pennies, the cost of the boat includes everything needed to get on the water. $50K is the figure agreed on. It has to include boat, engine, trailer, steering gear, etc., etc.

We voted for a trailerable. How does 33 to 36 feet fit in with that?

If anyone wants to suggest a 45kt top end and a 35kt cruise, then they should be ready to explain how that fits into the cost limit. We also said quiet and economical to run. Show at least one example of a 45kt boat that has the fixed shower, four bunks, fixed dining and galley facilities and other amenities mentioned and comes anywhere near meeting the cost and economy combination.

Another implication of the high speed is a hull that will produce that and not tear itself and the occupants to pieces. In a monohull, that means a deep V, unless there is some radical new hull design lurking in someones mind. Following up on the deep V means high displacement in order to make the boat safe and handle without chinewalking all over the water. Now we've lost the trailerable aspect again.

Maybe Trouty's MEGGS drive will be able to spit out legal specie as a side effect.

[duluthboats]

trouty:
“bearing in mind there’s no heads and macerators or any fruit like radar etc in my pricings - I think a 35ft trailerable that does 40 knots and sleeps/feeds a few etc for under 100K Oz id just a pipedream...”
Tom:
“If anyone wants to suggest a 45kt top end and a 35kt cruise, then they should be ready to explain how that fits into the cost limit. We also said quiet and economical to run. Show at least one example of a 45kt boat that has the fixed shower, four bunks, fixed dining and galley facilities and other amenities mentioned and comes anywhere near meeting the cost and economy combination.”

Ok, give trouty the drum. When these two guys agree with each other maybe we should take notice. :D I’ll have to admit we may have over shot on the wish list a little. I,m not afraid of a challenge but as I get older I choose my battles carefully. So what do we change the speed or the budget. Myself I would like to keep it something I could afford.

Gary

Ralph, I'll open your question topic in boatbuilding.

[Nomad]

Originally posted by tom28571
Hey guys,

Unless we are willing to stick to the cumulative results and implications of our polls, this project is going nowhere. To the guy who is counting pennies, the cost of the boat includes everything needed to get on the water. $50K is the figure agreed on. It has to include boat, engine, trailer, steering gear, etc., etc.

We voted for a trailerable. How does 33 to 36 feet fit in with that?

If anyone wants to suggest a 45kt top end and a 35kt cruise, then they should be ready to explain how that fits into the cost limit. We also said quiet and economical to run. Show at least one example of a 45kt boat that has the fixed shower, four bunks, fixed dining and galley facilities and other amenities mentioned and comes anywhere near meeting the cost and economy combination.

Another implication of the high speed is a hull that will produce that and not tear itself and the occupants to pieces. In a monohull, that means a deep V, unless there is some radical new hull design lurking in someones mind. Following up on the deep V means high displacement in order to make the boat safe and handle without chinewalking all over the water. Now we've lost the trailerable aspect again.
I agree with all of your points with the execption of one, Tom that is the trailerabilty. I'm not sure about you but here in the south eastern US there are alot of Kingfish Tournaments. With lots of fast narrow boats about 36' with 8' 6'' to 9' beams that are trailered form allaround the US. So this to me does not seem to be a big deal.

[Nomad]

Sorry for the messed up Quote I've never done a Quote before.

[Jeff]

Fixed

-- needed a closing tag [ quote ] text [ /quote ] (without the spaces). Also for anyone who hasn't used vBulletin much, there's an edit button on the lower right in case you see something that you just have to fix. Not that anyone has to worry about it.

One thing regarding the 25 vs 35 towing debate - at least we don't have to include the cost of a new towing vehicle in the budget ;)

[tom28571]

Nomad,

Yeah, we have fishing tournaments here too that have boats trailed in. I haven't checked but don't think any of them are as big as 36 feet. Could be wrong though. The guys who bring them and the trucks used to tow the big ones are not like the average guy and his vehicle who is probably our target. I'm like the later group and have a great aversion to having a huge rig following along behind me. I've done it but don't like it.

I got a little wound up in my rant but still think that the simple approach is the best. My towing test model for study in designing "Liz" was named "Ocham's Razor", which kind of describes my view of most things.

I think it may be possible to push the concept I used to 27 or 28 feet but am not certain. I am perfectly happy with not having full headroom in the sleeping cabin as long as the bunks ar large and comfortable with full sitting headroom over. For me, there needs to be plenty of headroom in the main cabin though.

[Nomad]

Tom I can see you point but what would look better a 28' boat with 6' 3'' head room or a 33'-36' boat w/6' 3'' headroom?

[Willallison]

As always, I agree with much that Tom has said, but it is worth considering a few things before we consign the boat in its current form to the too hard to achieve scrap heap.
1st of all I don't believe that a deep V has to be heavy in order to handle well. For instance, Cigarette build a 36 footer with an 8' beam which tips the scales at 3900kg - heavier than we are aiming for, but this is a boat capable of belting through 6 footers at 90+ mph. Lower down the performance spectrum, R C Hunt & Assoc. (the "inventors" of the deep V) produce a 33 footer which manages over 30 knots with a single 315hp diesel. It does this by weighing in at 4500kg. Many 20+ foot ski-racing boats running in this country have deep V's - they're so light you can pick them up! Now all these boats are different to the one that we are proposing, but all are "light" compared to their competition - you get my point.
Further, I agree that nobody seems to have produced a 35 knotter capable of comfortably cruising 2 - 4 people at a reasonable cost. That doesn't mean it can't be done - and all the more reason for us to give it a shot. It may well require us to revisit some of our design parameters and adjust or scrap them as necessary - that's the whole principal behind the 'design spiral' - so long as we wind up with something which is true basic orginal idea at the end of it.

I like the idea of a 33 footer which I could keep on a trailer, but, like Tom I think that the practicalities of towing it around make it impractical - and expensive. There are indeed plenty of 36 footers which are regularly towed about, but most require a small truck to safely move them.

There is going to be a cost penalty involved in being capable of cruising at 35K. It's as simple as that, but I do believe it can still be done for far less than is generally the case in the production boat market. As I've said before, 450hp worth of the latest digitally controlled outboards, completey fitted up, including the very best of hydraulic steering amounted to under 50k AUD (25K USD). We've previously estimated that 300hp would serve our purposes. Now, I've owned a number of boats, but I've never built one - allow 10K for the trailer and incidentals. That leaves 40K (USD) for the hull - can it be done?

[Willallison]

Nomad - here's what a 28 footer with over 6' headroom could look like.
It's only a "napkin sketch" so I hope it's not too scruffy for you guys!:D
3 permanent berths, separate head with shwr - full dining and cooking facilities. Length of hull 8m, 9m LOA. 2.5m beam, 2x 175 hp DFI o/b's.:cool:

[Portager]

I guess I missed the post where you guys decided to go 45 knots.

When it comes to power boats you can go very fast or you can very far, but you can't go very fast very far. I'm more interested in going far and I don't have flat as glass water that will allow me to go fast without getting beat to #&@%.

The design compromised required to go 45 kts are quite severe. Since a trailerable boat can go 55 mph on the trailer I don't think it really needs to go 45 kts on the water.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Willallison]

When it comes to power boats you can go very fast or you can very far, but you can't go very fast very far.


Tell that to Fabio Buzzi

[trouty]

Since a trailerable boat can go 55 mph on the trailer I don't think it really needs to go 45 kts on the water.

When you think about it in probably 99% of situations - a trailerable boat could be towed via roads at 90 km/hr to a better launch point more cost / fuel efficiently - than running extra distance there, bye water so - the need for speed is a debateable point.

For broad mass market appeal - maybe such speed over water isn't crucial.

I tend to think in terms of my own operational needs - and these two bays with mostly protected water are over 150 nm long each and 20 - 30 nm wide with no road to speak of (certainly not one you'd tow even a dingy on a trailer over let alone a large boat) - so speed over water does spell the difference between viable "daytrip fishing" to the extremitys of the area, or such voyages becomming "overnight" only propositions.

In that situation, speed over water counts as far as market appeal for fishing trips to distant spots with the biggest / best fish, but for someone out for a leisurely family cruise - thats not a consideration.

Now -as for the "build it yourself savings on labour..trust me from the excercise I've done wit my fiorst boat which was a build it yourself - you don't save much!

Now - news - both Merc and Yam are bringing out new midrange 4 stroke models - Yam in Aug 2002 - and Merc early 2003 - soooo...maybe we could save a few $ onn those factory rigged 225's bye downsizing a little?

Just thinkin out loud! :)

Cheers!

[Portager]

I know Fabio Buzzi and nobody can tell him anything!:D

Lets take an FB design as an example. The 34 Superhawk http://www.sunseekerny.com/sh34.htm has; "Cruising speed 23 to 41 knots*", "Fuel capacity 700 Liters 185 US gals" and "Range up to 220 miles*". I don't consider this very far. That is 1.2 nm/gal. Of course this is probably based on the smallest engine option. Engine options go from two 230 HP engines to two 445 HP engines. At the high end the range and mileage will be about half.

Portager will be 36' and have a single engine <100 HP. At a cruise speed of 6.8 knots and 350 gallons of fuel, range is 3,500 nm. That is 10 nm/gal. I consider this very far. At my max speed of 9.7 knots, I'll have a range of 1,200 nm or 3.4 nm/gal.

If you assume that engine cost is proportional to HP, the engine for Portager will cost between 44% and 22% of the cost of each 34 Superhawk engine. I've budgeted $15K for the engine for portager. I'd say the 34 Superhawk is paying a very steep price to be able to go fast.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[tom28571]

I think we get off on tangents that will not get us to the original goal which definitely did not include a 45kt speed. I have no quarrel whatsoever with anyone that wants to travel at this speed or cruise at 35kts, but....I am not personally interested in having a boat that does that WITH THE COMPROMISES THAT IT DEMANDS. Even if I wanted a boat like that, I simply cannot afford it, either in first cost, fuel use, maintenance or the attention that such a boat would require.

In just about every place we have cruised, if we go 100 miles in one day we will have passed by several places that are interesting enough to stop and experience. We usually cruise at about 13 to 15mph or so and get where we are going fast enough and enjoy the trip besides. I used to fly across the water at whatever top speed my boat would take me but I only enjoyed the thrill of the action and not the place. Today, the PWC fills that need and, as much as I dislike the things, I probably would have been attracted to them then. In a cruiser, I simply cannot see the need or attraction for that much speed.

Many of the cruisers that I know (living where I do, there a whole lot of them, power and sail) spend too much time, money and mental anguish in maintaining their toys. I'd much rather think, design, build and use the boats I have than be married to one of theirs.

I do tend to run astray between what I want in a boat and what the market wants. It seems certain that the market wants more speed than I do in a planing boat. On the other hand there are an awful lot of slow displacement "trawlers" sold.

Of course, Nomad, it's true that a 28' boat with standing headroom is easier to make good looking than a 24' one. No argument about that.

What I said about deep V's and displacement is based on the following: In order for a V hull boat to handle well, the aft chines MUST remain immersed at all times. In order for this to happen, the weight must be sufficient to immerse the chines at the dock and at speed. Based on that truism, a deep V simply cannot be designed as light as a boat with a shallower V aft hull. I'm not talking about any specific boat, just a rule of design. "Liz", at her displacement can only have a deadrise of 10 degrees and no more. More deadrise would undoubtedly make her ride smoother in waves but would be detrimental to her lateral stability which is a safety and comfort issue.

Every design parameter is tied to the others. Emphasizing one will always affect the others. This is easy to say, but also easy to forget when you are coming up with your wish list.

[Polarity]

and suggestions...

1) who said it had to be a monohull ?

2) Trailerable - do we have to consider this as living on a trailer and always on the move,.. or can we consider this as "can be moved by trailer" that way when we want to move to a new cruising ground we could put it on the trailer, borrow a truck and take it - for people that dont plan to always live in the same place - or people that move with the seasons... Length would be less important - but would still have to be legal to trailer

2) 50K could be the price for the base 28 knt model with a good level of finish. The same hull could be rated up to the required HP to make it pull the 45knt bit. - wider market - after all look at the car (and boat) manufacturers

Option 1 SB - 50K

Option1 GSXi - 80K


Just an idea
:)
Paul

[Nomad]

Wow Paul!! I like both ideas the boat never was said to be a mono, and I especally like the model idea. Good thinking.

[Nomad]

This is some good stuff guys!! And whoever siad eariler in another post the best is yet to come is right!

[Willallison]

There is a place for boats with cruise speeds from anywhere from 3 knots to 73. If I cruise at 35k I too will pass by any number of nice anchorages in an hour or two's running. But they are places that I've been visiting for 30 years in boats that operate in the 8 to 20k region. A high cruise speed allows me to travel to those locations which are further afield - places that other boaters rarely get to. In Tassie there are no roads to allow me to travel "at 55 on the highway" till I'm nearly where I want to go - besides, if I wanted to do that I'd buy a camper!
Option One - to me at least - started out as an experiment in "design by committee" - with no hard and fast rules as to what sort of boat we are supposed to be creating. That has evolved as we have all voted, into a 35k, trailerable cruiser. I'm not likely to build such a boat - It won't offer me enough to make it worth changing from my current boat. I would suggest that few of us are likely to - That's not to say that I wouldn't like the concept - and certainly that it isn't a worthwhile design exercise. If we are each going to give up as the boat evolves into something that doesn't fit our own requirements then we may as well scrap the idea right now.
However, if we come to the conclusion that any one design parameter is unachievable, then surely the sensible thing to do is re-visit that particular poll and re-assess. I'm not sure that we've reached that point yet - though it's bound to happen a number of times before we're done.

[Portager]

I second the two speed approach. With high and low power options you can broaden the market appeal. It does however mean that the design needs to accommodate the weight range of the engine choices. This is easy to do with an inboard where the engine(s) is(are) located at the center of mass, but it will require a balancing act with outboards. Won't the mass difference affect trim?

Personally, I'd like to see the low speed option be a displacement "Trawler" and the high speed option be a semi-displacement boat. If you good with a true planing design you need to make sure the low power option has sufficient power to remain on step going against wind and waves. There is nothing worse than an under powered planing boat.

The problem with multi-hulls is they tend to want a lot of beam which would be a problem to trailer unless you provide folding structures, ... In addition multi-hulls tend to provide a harsh or jerky ride in beam and quartering seas. They are fine on flat water, but the Pacific Ocean is rarely very flat and we don't have an inter-costal waterway on the left coast. Just my ¢¢.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Willallison]

I know, I know - getting way ahead of myself again - but you can't blame a guy for being enthusiastic.......

[Willallison]

As far as the two speed thing is concerned, it might just be possible with a 10 or 20 knot cruise - not with a 35 knotter. As Tom has said previously, a deep V is the only obvious monohull option for that - and they don't tend to be too good at 10 to 15 knots - at 6 maybe but not much faster. Which brings us to the catamaran option and here lies the great advantage of the cat - you can power a given catamaran to achieve virtually any speed you desire without huge penalty, particularly the displacement type hulls like those developed by Malcom Tennant.


In order for a V hull boat to handle well, the aft chines MUST remain immersed at all times. In order for this to happen, the weight must be sufficient to immerse the chines at the dock and at speed. Tom, I'm a little confused here. At rest a deepV with its chines clear of the water is a bugger of a thing - rocking and rolling at the slightest movement. At this point it does indeed need to be heavy enough so that the chines are immersed. But as it goes faster, the dynamic forces acting on the hull will make it rise upwards. The faster it goes, the higher it rises until it gets to the point where the forces pushing it up cease to exceed the forces of weight which are pushing it down. There are many good handling Deep V's which run quickly with their chines well clear of the water - they may well have running strakes to aid with both lift and lateral stability, but their chines are out of the water. I used to do a bit of ski racing. The boat I skied behind was a 20foot DeepV. Running at about 65mph there was onlya few inches of the bottom in contact with the water, but the boat was as steady as a rock.
I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, so I must be missing something - can you expalin a little further?
I had trouble finding a good pic of a boat going quickly to demonstarte my point - everybody loves to show off their boat either bashing thru a wave or flying off the top of one!:D This pic shows a Deep V running in calm water - there is plenty of spray coming into contact with the chines, but they are well clear of the surface

[duluthboats]

Can it be done he asks? If you built the hull of glass over foam, it would be two things low cost and low weight. I’m sure we could find a proper layup that would hold together at these speeds. The skill level would be moderate, but the man hours would be high. So a home builder could do it with our budget, allowing 25K for the drive. That is of course not allowing for Paul’s communication system. :) The interior would be a little spartan, but you could add things as you go.

The rendering you have posted Will, looks to be developable. If it is, the construction should not be too hard. Can 300hp push that baby to 45 knots?

I would think the narrow beam would rule out a cat.

I ask my self what I am doing here. I’m just a builder of canoes and row boats. Way out of my league this time. I’ll be back on Monday with more questions I’m sure. :D

Gary

[Willallison]

Gary,
You are right - the entire boat is made up of developable surfaces. As far as construction goes, I had the same sort of thing in mind as you. Bearing in mind the I haven't done a proper weight estimate, the displacement I have based my calculations on is 2000kg. That would require 165hp to do 35k, 275 to do 45k.

[tom28571]

Will,

We can all learn new things and I am certainly no exception. I don't doubt your deep V running with only a few inches of bottom in the water but that has not been my experience, so I will defer to your judgement on that case.

In watching many racing deep V's at speed, several things come to mind. The hulls do have lots of horizontal surfaces in the form of lifting strakes. The boats are designed and built with the weights centered and low in the hull to gain stability. They are driven by a one throttle man and another who only steers. They are anything but stable at speed and dance all around under the influence of assymetrical wave action even with the 100% attention of two pilots. In addition to the above, the system greatly compromises efficiency for speed in rough water and pays a stiff price in reliability, power, cost and fuel.

In a cruising boat, only a little attention will be paid to weight placement after it has been built. When underway, people will want to move about and not upset the balance. No one wants to be steering a boat for hours on end that requires the kind of attention that a race boat needs.

I have nothing against deep V's in the areas where they excell. That is, waves and high speed. In protected water and at moderate speed I think they charge too high a price for a cruising boat. I would consider using a deep V for a cruising boat in the water that I am likely to choose to be in a bit like driving a Surburban or Expedition to the market down the block for a carton of milk. And yes, I also see that every day.

Gotta go out of state for mother's day. She was 94 last week and still expects me to drag my old bones down for a visit. Carry on without my sniping from the sidelines for a spell.

[Portager]

Another problem with trailerable catamarans is the hulls and the trailer wheels tend to compete for the same area. For maximum stability they both want to be as far outboard as possible. A monohull can nest nicely between the wheels, which allows it to sit lower on the trailer. This helps at the launch ramp, improves stability on the trailer and bridge clearance.

I have found that the key parameter for wet launching is the waterline height off the ground when the boat is on the trailer. This tends to drive the required water depth for launch. Of course this is more of an issue on deep draft vessels than on shallow draft boats.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Nomad]

Tom, Will, Gary some very impressive points and I side with just about all of them. Mike yours is a good point but this just like your Trawler would not be toted around like a dingy. It would just be avabile if it was desired.

[Portager]

I don't disagree with your point, but I think the issue is still relevant. Although it depends on the planned usage and distances you plan to haul the boat.

My Trawler will live on it's trailer. I figure the savings in slip fees and bottom paint will cover more than half the truck payment. In addition the boat will get more attention parked next to my house than in a marina 45 miles away.

I plan to launch and use it one weekend a month locally and 3 to 4 weeks of vacation per year. The vacation trips will generally be thousands of miles from home and sine I live on the West coast I'll need to traverse mountain passes with steep grades and strong winds. In my case trailer-ability is quite important.

I'll be traveling for the next two weeks (unfortunately not by boat:-), so my participation will be limited. I'll support what ever the committee decides.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley