Head Location

[Willallison]

Alas, I fear, time waits for no man, so whilst we wait with baited breath for Polarity's (and others....) model, it's time we got things moving again.

From all the various sketches - and the debate (can you call dart-chucking 'debate'? ) it seems obvious that one basic decision needs to be made. Location of the head. And that (so far) has brought up 3 basic alternatives.

1. Head Up (ala "Liz", with the head located on the same level as the living spaces, helm etc). This lowers the overall profile of the boat, but restricts visibilty and compartmentalises the living spaces somewhat)

2. Head Down (located at a lower level so that the living and helm areas look over the top) Better visibilty, less compartmentalisation, but higher profile.

3. Raised Pilothouse. Somewhat of a combination of 1 and 2. Improved sightlines, more compartmentalisation, probably somewhat higher profile.


The poll is set for 7 days, so will finish on the 2nd of Sept.And don't just vote - speak up and tell us why....

[duluthboats]

Hi guys and gals, I'm back.

The more I look at it I think behind the helm on the back wall. Or do like Devlin did and use both sides and have interlocking doors to make a large head.

Gary

[Willallison]

Welcome back Gary!
For a while there I thought I was on my own......
I've gone head down. I have some concerns about the resulting increase in the boats overall height (weight), but feel that the benefits - way better sightlines, larger living spaces, less compartmentalisation of those spaces, improved privacy as the head isn't located in the living room - outweigh the negatives.

[Portager]

I voted for head up because I think to have standing head room in the head with the head forward would require the raised pilothouse. I don't have anything against the raised pilothouse except I think it would make the boat too unstable due to the narrow beam. That would necessitate adding ballast and the intent of O-1 was light weight for efficient powering and the ability to plain at low speed.

Here is a design that I recently found that has many similarities to O-1. The Logan 33 http://www.igrin.co.nz/catam/index.html and also the pilothouse version http://www.igrin.co.nz/catam/pilothouse.htm . Note that the head if forward and they claim standing head room everywhere except the forward cabin and head.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Willallison]

Nice looking boat that Logan 33 - though I'm not too sure where you see the similarity to 0-1. The Logan is an inboard powered displacement boat - but I see where your coming from in reagards to the general layout.

I would disagree that in order to go head down and still enjoy standing headroom requires a rasied pilothouse - my own boat proves it to be possible - and all the suggestions I posted in the previous thread had at a minimum 1.75m in the head, but I will concede that it will definitely raise the overall profile somewhat.

[Portager]

Granted the inboard engine and displacement hull are big dissimilarities, but I was looking at the 8' beam, long length and trailerability. The Logan 33 meets most of the O-1 design objectives with the exception of speed. According to the description at trawlerworld.com the Logan 33 is about $60K US not bad for a production boat.

I find it amazing that the Logan 33 puts the main engine under the V berth. The shaft length must be 28' to 30'. I guess you can get by with this on a low power displacement boat.

OK, we can agree that the profile will be a little higher with the head forward. I don't know of any hard-top boats that meet our beam restriction and have the head forward, do you?

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[tom28571]

The Logan 33 is a very handsome craft and would suit me fine for a non trailerable economical displacement cruiser. That is, except for the engine under the berth thing. In cold weather, that might be fine, but I can't see going to those berths after a day's cruise in warm weather with that hot engine under you.

To call it trailerable is stretching the imagination beyond my limits. I estimate its displacement at over 9000 lbs although I have no idea what it really is. It may be transportable, but it's certainly not trailerable in the normal sense of the word.

The cost is very attractive.

[Portager]

What do you mean not trailerable? 9,000 lbs is less than half the fully loaded weight of Portager (the boat, not me! ) and well within the tow limit of consumer pickup trucks. Since I plan to spend more time on the water than on the highway, I'd much rather have a heavy boat that is comfortable on the water than a light boat that makes me hide from the weather or beats me to &@%$.

To deal with the engine room heat, I'd install a thermostatically controlled blower to vent the engine room. On hot days I'd set the thermostat a few degrees above ambient temperature.

My issues with the Logan 33 are the arrangements. The head is crouching room only and the "Pilothouse" version doesn't have a dinette. I think the Logan 33 could be improved by applying some of our O-1 arrangement features.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Willallison]

Whilst searching for head-down hard tops I came across this site - haven't had a good look at it yet, but there are some interesting ideas here:

http://wwnet.fi/corebros/MotorB2/Motorpl2.html

I don't know of any hard-top boats that meet our beam restriction and have the head forward, do you?

A well know and respected Australian manufacturer of just such a boat is Whittley. Their 700 cruisemaster features a hardtop and stand up head.

http://www.whittley.com.au/


One boat that I've looked at before which successfully employs the head up approach is the NZ built Cresta 900. At 2.8m beam it is trailerable in NZ but not here in Oz.

[Willallison]

more Cresta 900

[Willallison]

And another

[tom28571]

I once had a boat that weighed 4500 lbs that I trailed sometimes. It was way more than I ever want to trail regularly again. It is obvious that we have far different views of what is meant by trailering for a weekender boat. 9000 lbs and especially your boat at 18000 lbs takes careful planing to make a cruise and a spur of the moment run is out of the question.

This is what sent me to trailerables in the first place. A big comfortable (and slow) boat that was just too much trouble to take off and go when the mood, weather and free time were in conjunction.

.

[Portager]

You have a point to a point. If trailering or launch & recovery is a big ordeal you won't want to do it very often.

I think it is important to properly size the tow vehicle and have very good brakes. Towing gets old very fast if the tow vehicle is overloaded or it won't stop. I've driven some big rigs that were as easy to drive as a car and I driven light trucks that were dangerous even without a load. I'll use a Freightliner to tow Portager and the triple axel trailer will have air over hydraulic brakes. I believe that the rig should stop better with the boat and the trailer than the truck by itself.

The other thing is launch preparation and recovery workload. There shouldn't be too much to do to launch/recover and if there are more than three things then you should have a check list. With O-1 and the Logan 33 this shouldn't be much of a problem, but Portager will have either a get home sail or paravane outriggers, so I have set my launch & transit preparation limit at 30 minutes.

I don't see Portager as a day trip boat. After all, I live 45 miles from the nearest launch ramp. I get 5 weeks of vacation per year and I hope to spend 3 or 4 weeks per year cruising on Portager. I have to schedule my vacation several weeks in advance, so I can't wait for perfect weather so I want a boat that can handle a little sloppy stuff. I'll also take Portager out locally about once per month. These trips will mostly be on long weekends.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Willallison]

Well, looks like we've ended up with the head up.
Now I guess we need to go back at the posts from the previous thread and come up with a preliminary profile and arrangement.

If you take a look at the pics I posted earlier of the Cresta 900, you will see that they have located the head in the port aft corner of the cabin. This seems, at least to some extent, address my concerns about visibilty aft as it gives the helmsman a reasonably good view of the cockpit and allows unrestricted viewing directly behind. As we've chosen to go head-up, I think this is the best loo location.....

As far as this whole weight of a trailerboat goes, it really depends on your own definition. I regularly haul over 4000kgs of boat and trailer about so I don't automatically dismiss heavy as not being trailerable.
I'd regard "Portager" as erring towards the transportable end of the spectrum - you can put it on a trailer, but you need a very special tow vehicle and it exceeds the regulatory limits which apply to 'normal' towing. Our own boat (at 4 tons) I would call trailerable - it lies just within the maximum size limits, can be towed without special permit, but still needs a substantial (large 4wd type) tow vehicle. O-1, however must be a trailerboat - you don't need a huge tow vehicle, you can easily and legally tow it anywhere, anytime without special permit.