Small blue water boat?

Which kinda brings up another issue. To say that weather can be avoided by smaller boats I'd think twice about and I'm no experienced off shore type. I probably have more weather experience than most on the site having been through weather observation and sciences as an air traffic controller, which is more than what pilots get. Point is, weather can change and a small boat is probably not fast enough to get out of the way if you're 200+ miles out.

My thinking is that if all you can afford or acquire is a 20'er or that's what you have and you have to make a trip in that boat, is that you will suffer at some point. Also, I'd want a boat that was heavly built, strong, that seals up to stay dry, Which is what I see in Yrvind's Paradox on steriods (but shorter at 14/5'), something comprable. Might try to figure out how to have a hamock inside with lots of bungee cords to tie it off in several directions then strap yourself inside so you don't bash the cabin sides....

Just a thought, I'd just want to know that the boat could survive anything that could be dished out, the rest would be up to me.

Great thread....

 

I find it surprisingly that no one has mentioned the Tom Thumb 24 before designed by Grahaeme Shannon but for the last few years marketed and sold by Bruce Roberts....

This boat has a lot of beam, spacious and with the cabin top stretched a little forward (see pics below) have an opening hatch and also standing room in fwd cabin.
Below are a few pics of my TT24 I had built in 1990 and had the following modifications;
Stretched coach roof and Naca foil fin fitted in lieu of the full Archer type keel it is design with. Went like clappers for its size and really pointed high going to windward

 

Nice boat!

 

Blue water boat, small versus large

Just to make it clear, I never said bad weather could be avoided entirely. I said that the worst of the weather can be avoided. Weather forecasting and communications have come on in leaps and bounds over the last few decades. Even a slow moving sailing boat can get out of the way of the worst of the weather.

The bottom line is that if you venture offshore in any yacht bad weather will find you eventually but what I am saying is that a well found boat (no matter what size), sensible heavy weather preparations, a positive attitude and the use of modern technology where possible will ensure you survive.

In 2005 I crossed the pond west east in a 24 foot boat. A year later I crossed it on a Swan 65. If you asked me which boat I would rather do this crossing in, I would say the 24 footer. I did not find the 65 footer any more comfortable at all, quite the contrary. You have so much further to fall in a big boat and much less stuff to grab hold of. Believe me, when it's crappy even a 65 footer gets thrown around!

When a gale hit 500 miles out in the smaller boat, we simply hove to and stayed battened in down below, wedged in to our bunks by lee-cloths. The motion was surprisingly comfortable despite the large breaking waves that constantly came aboard. It was unnerving at first but as confidence builds in the strength of your boat you soon realise that it's more of a waiting game. I'm talking of bad weather far offshore and away from dangers found near the land.

What I have learned over the years is that everyone has their own idea of what aspects of a boat design are important to them, eg: speed, comfort, size etc. The conclusion that I have come to is that for me comfort is the most important. Personally I am quite happy at sea and in no hurry to get there so comfort is more important to me than speed. In any case we still managed to average 100 miles a day despite being fairly unlucky with our weather on the crossing which as it turned out was a lot faster than many other boats doing the same crossing regardless of their size.

This is a fascinating subject and a great thread. Everyone who has posted has a valid and good point to make. But I would just like to end by saying that if you want to go blue water sailing it is not essential to have a big boat. Rough weather is tough in any boat. I do not agree that a smaller boat is necessarily more tiring than a larger one. Or at least that has not been my experience.

Maybe the big difference is that a small boat doesn't even bother to fight bad weather whereas a big one might keep slogging on. But if you are comfy, you can just stop and ride it out.

What is it they say, go small, go now. I couldn't agree more!

 

We have made some progress over the last while in understanding what happens to a boat at sea. Begining with the '79 Fastnet race and continuing with the '98 Sydney Hobart Race, designers and investigaters have made systematic studies of the action of small vessels and come to some pretty clear conclusions.

Any person planning an offshore voyage in a small vessel would be well advised to assess their boat against some of the coefficients relating to seaworhiness, ie. Comfort Coefficient, Capsize Screening, and Angle of Vanishing Stability. These are not definative calculations, but certainly reasonable guides or indicators.

Some conclusions from analysis of these events:
1 Competance of the crew was often a deciding factor
2 Bigger is better
3 No particular boat style, age, construction or other technical factor showed any clear advantage or absolute resistance to capsizing when in a survival situation.

Stats show most small vessels manage to cross oceans safely. I'd consider a small vessel suitable given the odds. I'd prefer a small vessel with a reasonably comfortable motion, partly because a small boat is less adept at avoiding large weather systems. I'd expect to experience rough weather from time to time. In a really small boat I'd be very interested in roll-over survivability.

Seaworthiness requires.... water tight integrity, adequate stability, (both initial and range) and vessel mechanical fitness (ropes, rigging, shackles, pins ...everything). Then it is up to the crew.

 

I have a sectional outrigger canoe. The main hull can be bolted together as a 16 footer, 20 footer or 24 footer with all else remaining the same. I don't cross oceans in it, but do sail it in relatively rough waters outside of Sandy Hook Bay in New Jersey. I have noticed that the difference between the three versions is NIGHT AND DAY. When put together as a 16 footer I get bounced around and feel like I'm in a sailing dinghy. I ship plenty of water too. The 24 footer is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and has the feel of a boat rather than a dinghy. If that can explain it... It ships hardly any water except in the worst conditions. Despite being only about 60 pounds heavier, the 24' version doesn't get bounced around anywhere near the amount that the 16' version does. And despite being only about 450 pounds, it has a very similar feel to my 4000 pound Hunter 25 monohull.

So, absolutely everything else about the boat remains identical besides the length of the main hull. Same beam, same outrigger, nearly the same weight even, and the longer waterline makes it much, much more seaworthy and even just comfortable. This experience tells me that more than displacement, waterline length, however achieved, is the simplest way to get a seaworthy boat. So I can sympathize with PAR and his comments that a small loa boat is just completely, even dangerously, uncomfortable in any sort of rough conditions.

I guess marina fees go up as the loa goes up, but if you can keep a boat on a mooring is there any reason NOT to build it longer? All the mods needed to make a small boat more seaworthy probably cost nearly as much as simply building longer, no? If kept narrower, the longer loa boat would be faster, more stable, be able to carry more sail, and may not even use more materials in its build. Correct me if I'm wrong here...

 

Not that simple...
You are only correct that longer boats will be naturally be faster since the hull speed is rooted in the waterline. (displacement vessels - not planing hulls)
For the rest, sorry to disappoint you, its not that simple with to many variables influencing stability and here is something for you to ponder about weight (displacement) of floating vessels:

You have a piece of plate - 400mm x 800mm - in size. First, bend it in a tray (hull) of 300mm x 700mm x 50mm and volume is 10.5 liters.
Now take the same plate and bend in tray (hull) of 200mm x 600mm x 100mm and the volume is 12 liters.
Finally take the plate and bend into tray (hull) of 100mm x 500mm x 150mm and the volume is only 7.5 liters....

The displacement (weight) of all three trays (hulls) are exactly the same (same size plate used) but the volume of the hulls differs greatly. The last example - narrow long hull - have the least volume for its displacement and therefore sinks deeper to any given waterline compared to the two others.

Boats costs are directly influenced by its displacement - the heavier the boat, the more expensive it is.

 

here are a couple pics of a little one built for "Blondie Hasler" not many people have heard of it. "LONER" all 14'10". she went to New York eventually and may still be there somewhere.

 

And another j-rig for Bataan, "Kehaar" the daggie sails is after surviving a typhoon off the east coast of Japan This boat is a modification of a popular Aus design.

 

Sorry for digging up old post, I realise that the 36' or 37'6" have the same displacement, water length and even fresh water carrying capacity. Is the 37' much bigger in the interior than the 36'?
The other difference is the rig, which one of the 36' gaff ketch and 37' cutter perform better for cruising in your opinion?

 

The Benford 36 and 37 1/2 dories are the same boat, with the stem and stern posts raked more, offering the extra length. The 37 1/2 is also a raised deck design, so it'll feel bigger down below, though it's still the same as the 36.


. . . 37 1/2 accomidations

. . . the 36 accommodations

Naturally the sloop rig will be much better to windward then the gaff or Bermudian ketch rig on the 36, but there are decided advantages to the ketch rig on a cruiser. Plans for these dories are about $800 per set.

 

The 36' will be in the 11m price for berthing while 37'6" would be counted at 12m.
While it seemed like 36' is the better deal, I do like the appearance of raised deck on the Benford dories.
Such is life, you can't have one thing for another.

 

The raised deck could be easily put on the 36', either on site or with the help of the BDG or qualified designer.

 

One reason the longer version didn't ship as much water is because it had much more hull volume for its weight. You increased its weight by 60 lbs but added 50% more hull volume.

another reason you got bounced around less was the longer hull could span more than one wave or wavelet at a time.

Bigger may well be better, if the crew size is in proportion to the boat size. Bigger boats have bigger sails, which have bigger spars, which require more physical labor to control. A small crew or even a single crew may be able to handle such a boat, but he/she aught to be quite athletic and very skilled.

If bigger isn't necessarily better, longer certainly is.

A longer boat cannot only span more than one wave at times, but is usually faster for its displacement, even with a modest rig.

If one is willing to put up with higher slip fees (almost always based on over-all Length) and more than one mast, a boat that is long for its Beam, but is also heavy for its Beam, but not for its Length, might well be the best sea boat. Its sails are relatively small for its Length, and its end ones are far enough apart to be played against one another to keep the boat on course.

For reasons stated recently in this thread, I believe a small heavy boat will require less skill to be safe at sea, than a larger light one.

As for the Fastnet and Sydney-Hobart disasters, I have a book on each in my collection. I agree that the hull/keel design of the boat made little difference in both these storms. But those weren't ordinary terrible conditions, they were extraordinary terrible ones, caused as much be the topography of the local sea floor, as by the fierce winds by themselves. In both cases, the combination of sea floor topography and fierce winds, which changed directions, causes huge, towering, breaking, confused seas.

In the book FATAL STORM, I read about one yacht that escaped severe damage. Its skipper decided to not only abandon the race, but to abandon the course as well. Instead of pressing forward, or turning back, he struck out eastward, away from the Australian coast, reasoning that buying his crew airline tickets, to get back home, would be cheaper, not to mention safer, than risking his boat.

Also, during that Sydney-Hobart race, the '98 Around-Alone racers were sailing in the same storm. Some suffered significant damage, but nothing like the devastation suffered by the Sydney-Hobart fleet, in which some boats, which even made it to port, were damaged beyond repair.

When it comes to ordinary terrible conditions lighter boats (for their Beam, as well for their Length) may be just as sea worthy as heavier ones, but are harder on their crew.