Minimum Passagemaker/Cruiser

When a vessel is decided on a figure will follow

For me? I have kept my vessel fairly "Minimalistic" to attain good economy, comfort and sea keeping ability and am allowing $130k and a lot of hard work to build it.

More importantly in my opinion is to have the funds to run and maintain said vessel when its in the water and you are doing all these miles visiting far of places.
For most, an apex vessel will guarantee you never leave the dock, which is why the thread is called the Minimum passage maker and not the Perfect passagemaker.
Perfect passagemaker is easy, just add truck loads of cash

 

First of all Sabahcat all figures I toss out are to have the boat built by a yard, not a do it yourself project. Second, all displacements are loaded displacements.

For $200k you might be able to build around a 14,000 lb monohull boat. The PL 39 is above this figure. I would imagine on a DIY project the PL 39 could be built for around the same figure you are at in USD.

The perfect passagemaker is well in excess of 2 million USD. I think a minimal 60' passagemaker could be built in unpainted aluminum at a yard for $400k USD. The Nordhavn 40 is twice that figure. Poor Man's is a misnomer.

 

On large yachts and in the merchant fleet, yes you have to have a backup. Means two of each. But they should be installed at the same position. As you can see in every port, all larger craft have them on on top of the other. In several countries "installed" and " operating" has the same meaning. In Germany, for example, a decorative "kerosene" look lamp is not allowed to be installed permanently. That is seen as a non colreg compliant installation. A temporarely rigged, real kerosene lamp (or electric), as a emergency backup, is allowed though.
Same with a radio for instance. If there is a radio onboard, no matter switched on or not, or even non functional, the skipper must have a radio license.
Rule of thumb, when on board, must be compliant.

Agree on the three colour lights. Though are permitted in most countries.

Regards
Richard

 

Don't forget the minimalists that replace compliant lamps with LED's or install power boat side lights on sailboats.

I wish there was a requirement that these optional lights must be installed such that they cannot operate at the same time. I have done so on my sailboat. It would be a simple thing that gets checked to pass a survey for insurance. But I suppose those boats that offend don't have either insurance or a current survey.

R

 

hmm, a thing just hit me: wouldn't it be smart to have the backup lights somewhere else than the primary lights? In case of a collision or something, both would go...

 

That is what the emergency, self-contained lights are for. You don't know where you might have to mount them. The mounted backups from a separate power source are for electrical failures.

R

 

Well, I am not familiar with your regulations and habits in the US. Here in northern EUrope it is handled rather stringent, and that is good so. Too many halfbaked are already out there. The Michaels are the majority, not just a few.

There are many LED systems on the market meanwhile, and that will be the future anyway. It was a bit a pita installing two of the running lights over each other. On a 35 meter vessel that looks ugly as hell. But for regs we have to do. Now it becomes much easier and can even look stylish.

I am out of here for 2 days. Have to deliver a boat in the Med. and do it myself this time. Not within the GSM range and no Inmarsat installed. Half the distance is already done though.

Sabah, your turn, dish out your cr@p.

When the tanker hits me, the nav lights are my second concern. If they just fail, there are the deck lights, the search light and what not, to replace running lights for a while.

Regards
Richard

 

19 pages... and at last someone with something intelligent to say...

This is my 3rd post on this thread -

In the 1st I suggested that without a more clearly defined SOR, it's impossible to decide upon a 'minimum passagemaker'.

In the 2nd (after 5 pages of 'debate') I suggested that without a more clearly defined SOR, it's impossible to decide upon a 'minimum passagemaker'

So, now, after 19 pages, might I respectfully suggest that without a more clearly defined SOR, it's impossible to decide upon a 'minimum passagemaker'.

It's obvious that there are some widely differing views on this thread... hell... you can't even agree on what a passagemaker is!!
There's some intelligent stuff here (as usual) and there's rather a lot of utter nonsense (as usual)....perhaps with even a little more direction, there could even be some agreement.....

 

Oh... and RH, just 'cause they're LED, doesn't mean they are no good or don't comply. You can buy crap lights regardless of variety...

 

Richard, you accuse me of being here wanting to fight
This is incorrect, I want to discuss a minimal passagemaker
I do not want to listen to you being an offensive ****.

From this thread alone we have

And any time you get a an answer you don't like, the same whinge that you have used on me and countless others

You repeatedly behave like a dick richard. Is it any wonder many posters here despise you?

You need help
I suggest you start here
Grandiose Delusions

Megalomania
Abuser

 

More evidence of your condition?

The crap you suggest I dished out regarding lights was from Colregs, heard of them?
Or dont they apply to "special" people like yourself?

 

True. I never said that all LEDs are not compliant.

I used to sell USCG certified replacement LED's. To get certified the entire lamp with the LED has to meet the same standards as the lamp assembly did for first certification. Sidelights with coloured lenses can be out of compliance using an LED that passes the colour spectrum tests behind a clear or frosted lens. These LED replacements are not cheap.

My comment was aimed that the minimalists that buy cheap, off-colour LEDs that are not certified then tell me I'm trying to rip them off because the certified replacements are 5 times the price.

I have no idea how it works in other parts of the world.

 

You are totally right - this apex guy may have accumulated some technical knowledge, but otherwise he does not have much of a clue, and even less education.

The last such accident I am aware of happend in the Baltic, when Aug 24, 2009 the American SY Mahdi was run over by a ferry off Puttgarden. The official accident report stated specifically the (legally displayed) tricolor masthead light as a cause for the accident, as the yacht was mistaken in a clear night by the ferry bridge crew as a boat far away on the horizon. You can google the official report, I saw it somewhere on the internet, with some very clear grafic explanation.
Legally they had right of way - not much relief though once you are caught by the ferry's bow wave! We had a similar close shave with a small sailboat a few years ago when leaving the Strait of Gibraltar westbound; quite frightening as it also gave zero radar return.
Masthead tricolor lights, if at all, are for offshore use in low traffic areas exclusively (and obviously not to be run together with deck level lights).

 

Small craft have better visibility with a masthead tricolour.. Sailing yachts in particular because deck level position lights are typically bow down on the low side or obscured by sails. Masthead tricolour are also less prone to physical damage on a small yacht ..

Not a bad way to go. I personally don't like them because a bulb change or service requires a trip to the masthead.

As far as the ferry running down the sailing yacht and claiming its tri colour lights were the problem...I wont agree. Bad or misinterpreted reporting. A ferry boat has professional crew, radar to identify, track targets, and local seven day a week experience with small craft in its area of operation. . The ferry was not maintaining a sharp lookout. All vessels must avoid collision.. Likewise, the sailing yacht was not maintaining a sharp look out to avoid collision. Lights , day shapes or any signals are only aids....sharp lookout is your safety.

 

did you actually read the report ?