Poor man’s passagemaker

[Tcubed]

My bad for not reading more before posting.
Motorboat not sailboat.
oops.
Usually always more expensive, unfortunately.

[Pierre R]

Originally Posted by apex1

Of course, seaworthiness includes crew. Incapable crew makes the best boat unsafe.Richard

You would not think so by reading many of the threads in these forums. I see countless proposals where the poster seems to believe that if the boat will stay together and not sink that their boat is quite suitable for ocean crossings without regard to what is likely to happen in a blow to even seasoned crews aboard their boat. They are proposing a floating object, not a boat/crew system.

When proposing a poor man's passagemaker, the obvious thing is cost. Cost cutting has the tendency to reduce weight. Reduced weight has the tendency to increase motion on the crew. Increasing volume and beam has a tendency to increase crew comfort in port but decrease crew comfort at sea. There is a tradefoff in the poor man's passagemaker that makes it much easier to exceed the crew's physical limits in the design. A nice heavy displacement passagemaker is much easier to design within crew limits.

When we are saying "here is the perfect poor man's passagemaker " what are we saying. For how many people does this design exceed those crew limits. If that number is say 30% then you have a boat that is likely to incapacitate one crew member out of three in say a 30-35 knot blow of 12 hours duration. Is that acceptable? I will bet you that is about where Idlewild sits and Idlewild is touted as a great poor man's passagemaker. Idlewild suffered from the design criterion of needing to travel down the highway in transport.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Pierre R

I will concede that I think a true poor man's ocean crosser is a small sailboat.

Not poor man's.. poor ocean crosser is closer the thruth..

Originally Posted by Pierre R

You would not think so by reading many of the threads in these forums. I see countless proposals where the poster seems to believe that if the boat will stay together and not sink that their boat is quite suitable for ocean crossings without regard to what is likely to happen in a blow to even seasoned crews aboard their boat. They are proposing a floating object, not a boat/crew system.

When proposing a poor man's passagemaker, the obvious thing is cost. Cost cutting has the tendency to reduce weight. Reduced weight has the tendency to increase motion on the crew. Increasing volume and beam has a tendency to increase crew comfort in port but decrease crew comfort at sea. There is a tradefoff in the poor man's passagemaker that makes it much easier to exceed the crew's physical limits in the design. A nice heavy displacement passagemaker is much easier to design within crew limits.

When we are saying "here is the perfect poor man's passagemaker " what are we saying. For how many people does this design exceed those crew limits. If that number is say 30% then you have a boat that is likely to incapacitate one crew member out of three in say a 30-35 knot blow of 12 hours duration. Is that acceptable? I will bet you that is about where Idlewild sits and Idlewild is touted as a great poor man's passagemaker. Idlewild suffered from the design criterion of needing to travel down the highway in transport.

Well after reading most of the threads during the past 5 years, I assume I know how the majority here thinks about such boats.

And I am for sure not the advocat of a "poor mans passagemaker" as I quite often have made clear. It is just not possible.
You either have a capable vessel which cannot be cheap, or you don´t.

You must not convince ME, I know what such a vessel must provide, because I did my miles and decades out there.
The results can be seen here:The perfect Passagemaker? (style within this genre)
and in the 3 related threads. Which were the birthplace of this thread btw.

I fully concur that most boaters think the wrong way when focussing on things they believe they would require, but overlook the real important factors.

Regards
Richard

[Pierre R]

I wasn't trying to convince you Richard. I was re-enforcing your statement.

I think the better sense of balance that you possess the more naturally suseptable that you are to motion sickness. I have a very good sense of balance and I don't take motion comfort for granted.

Originally Posted by Pierre R

I wasn't trying to convince you Richard. I was re-enforcing your statement.

I think the better sense of balance that you possess the more naturally suseptable that you are to motion sickness. I have a very good sense of balance and I don't take motion comfort for granted.

Thanks Pierre.

That is a interesting thesis. Though my experience is the opposite. But that is just valid for myself of course. Although having a stiff ankle after a motorbike accident, I am very surefooted and have a good sense of balance on top. But mal de mer is unknown, even when the sampan is standing upright on the prop.
I always thought, and think, that travel sickness has to do with fear, rather than anything else.
Anyway, one has to choose guests and crew carefully when long legs are planned, and these persons are part of the watch.
I once was sitting on a flybridge for 16hrs in the cold rain, peeing in my trousers, because I could not leave the helm. My "crew", all "old salts" of course, was laying around down below somewhere and transforming the interior into a cesspool. Well, we learn............

Regards
Richard

[Pierre R]

Originally Posted by apex1

Thanks Pierre.

I once was sitting on a flybridge for 16hrs in the cold rain, peeing in my trousers, because I could not leave the helm. My "crew", all "old salts" of course, was laying around down below somewhere and transforming the interior into a cesspool. Well, we learn............

Regards
Richard

And therein lay the problems with many so called great passagemakers. Until someone has experienced this up close and personal where there is no way to get away from it, comfort is often and afterthought. That is usually a signal to me on the posters level or experience right or wrong.

[masalai]

As I usually get around to asking, and the answer for this thread seems to be, - going around the world -... It depends on where one is cruising and the sort of passages that will be made...

WHAT WILL YOUR CRUISING REGION BE?.....
My personal choice is what I am building... It suits my experience, aspirations and is basically close to shelter in a cyclonic storm region and capable of finding shelter up a mangrove fringed creek... I will cruise the edges of the Coral Sea, mainly around the myriad islands of that region.... Many options for an overnight or a longer visit demand a shallow draft and an ability to take the ground in the tidal change when at anchor...

Therefore, a passage-maker is design dependant, as others have rightly mentioned, FIRSTLY on crew competence/reliability, then on a design suited to the cruising region by an experienced and competent designer... This is where hull form and loa and weight are considered and how significant a role sails have in meeting this need...

Boating can be pursued on a small budget but the owner/builder must accept and adhere to the limitations of that design consideration... Live-aboard cruising can be done on a limited budget by being "seaworthy-aware" and sailing within their personal as well as the vessel design limits...

My choice is a lightweight sailing cat with twin saildrives (WITHOUT SAILS and associated deck-gear as money is short) and has a cruising range of around 4000NMiles at around 6 knots... (LOA=40ft, BOA=21ft, weight 5000kg approximately)... It will suit my skills, cruising region and present needs... Longest passage is 450nmiles (75 hours = 3days +), between shelter near Cairns, Australia and shelter near Samarai PNG... I should be able to "run" at about 9 knots if weather forecasts are "wrong"... I am not in a hurry, so I can wait for a 'weather-window', quite happily...

It is all a matter of horses for courses and skill/competency/knowledge level of the "jockey"...