Habitable boats

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by Richard Woods, Jul 8, 2009.

  1. Richard Woods
    Joined: Jun 2006
    Posts: 2,209
    Likes: 175, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1244
    Location: Back full time in the UK

    Richard Woods Woods Designs

    It appears that there is no real definition of a "habitable" boat. That is, a boat with accommodation that you can "live" in,
    although I'm not even sure what "live in" means. Yet clearly it is something that is needed by the various regulatory bodies (ISO, RCD etc)

    If I am tired I am happy to sleep anywhere, in a sail locker, or on the cabin sole, so to me having a bunk doesn't make the boat habitable (and if it did then how many bunks are needed - for all the crew? half the crew?). More important would be a galley - and maybe a toilet. Meaning a fixed stove, not a removable one, and a sea toilet not a Portapotti

    And then what about headroom? Even a wide bunk is useless if it has less than (say) 400mm headroom over it. Maybe the rules used for slave ships would be suitable??

    In any event, I think its clear that a deck tent does not make a boat "habitable". Nor does just having a cabin. Or is a Melges 24 "habitable"?

    Even the definitions of a "habitable" house seem to vary around the world. In the UK a house is "unfit for habitation" if it doesn't have a bath (a shower doesn't count). Indeed the government will give you a grant to fit one if you don't have one. While I believe in Spain you don't pay property taxes unless your house has windows fitted. In Canada a building isn't a "house" unless it has a fixed cooker and sink (a microwave doesn't count), however it doesn't need an inside toilet.

    Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Best wishes

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com
     
  2. xarax

    xarax Previous Member

    This is a very important, but almost totally neglected, issue of boat design.
    I think that the three most important numbers that can measure the true habitability of a boat are :
    1. The total walking area, the area with sufficient width and headroom through which one can move around ,
    2. The total sitting and sleeping area, the area with sufficient width and headroom on which one can sit or sleep,
    3. The total every-day-storage volume, the volume with sufficient openings width and arms length depth that one can easily have access to from a spot in the walking area.
    (If we can not measure by numbers some quality, it probably belongs to the " de gustibus et coloribus" totally subjective area. }
     
  3. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,774
    Likes: 1,679, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Habitable, for most people who conjure up an image of accommodation/space/luxury that is similar or identical to ones home in terms of function.

    For example, if in your home you had a lavatory of 2.0x1.5m, with pan, basin window and a shelf. Then "the" boat must ahve something very similar. Having a head that is just 1.0x0.8, for example, whilst still being a head, does not "feel" the same, hence does not feel as "habitable" ie as comfortable, as expected.
     
  4. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    Well, that feeling changes dramatically once these people had encountered severe weather, spilling their diposables all over the floor while trying to hold themselves on whatever is in reach (usually nothing).

    Richard
     
  5. Richard Woods
    Joined: Jun 2006
    Posts: 2,209
    Likes: 175, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1244
    Location: Back full time in the UK

    Richard Woods Woods Designs

    Maybe I should clarify the reason for asking the question

    Suppose a government agency, the UK Coastguard, for example, became concerned about the potential for loss of life by those using windsurfers, pedalos etc at sea and suggested to government that only "habitable boats" should be allowed to cross the English Channel (for example).

    Currently there is no official definition of "habitable", so the Coastguard could invent their own.

    But if "we" defined a sensible one then maybe our freedoms won't be curtailed.

    And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical question

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com
     
  6. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,774
    Likes: 1,679, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Richard

    This is more a competency debate then. Since a windsurfer who plays about once a year on his/her holiday is rather different to the world champion windsurfer like Sean O'Brien (I think it is). This comes down to
    1 seamanship
    2) is the "vessel" capable of supporting life in the event of an accident.

    Clinging on a surfboard that is damaged or partially broken is somewhat different to a motor yacht that has engine failure and is drifting!

    So, the two, in my opinion, are mutually exclusive in any attempt to define "habitable".
     
  7. Richard Woods
    Joined: Jun 2006
    Posts: 2,209
    Likes: 175, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1244
    Location: Back full time in the UK

    Richard Woods Woods Designs

    Ad Hoc

    That would open a new can of worms as it would mean everyone in the UK (for example) would need a competency certificate, and at several levels, ie day sailing through to ocean. So far the RYA has succeeded in making the certificates voluntary.

    Clearly I am not explaining myself well, so I will try again

    Habitable multihulls over 12m long built/sold in the EU need escape hatches. If the rule was changed so that ALL habitable multihulls had to have them fitted that would mean that many small multihulls (like Ray's 23ft Slider, for example) would need to fit an escape hatch (obviously at a set distance above the water when either way up and a certain size so that a large man wearing oilskins and lifejacket could get in/out of it).

    Probably that would mean Rays boat would be declared illegal.

    And by implication those who cannot afford, or don't want, a 40ft catamaran won't be able to sail multihulls at all.

    HOWEVER, if the "habitable" definition was worded correctly a boat like Rays could be declared "non habitable" and thus not need an escape hatch.

    Logically the same escape hatch argument can be used to reduce risks in case of fire, not just capsize. Implying that all habitable boats should have an escape hatch in case of fire, so it wouldn't be just multihulls that are affected.

    And of course there are many more dangers than capsize or fire at sea, although by and large the bigger the boat the safer you are.

    Governments are there to make laws, government agencies, like the Coastguard carry them out and regulate them. Without laws they are all out of a job. Thus it is in the Coastguard's interest to have as many regulations as possible.

    But they don't want to make work for themselves un-necessarily. So, as I said earlier, it would be easy for them to say "only habitable boats can cross the Channel".

    That would immediately rule out windsurfers and open dinghies and could thus be seen as an easy answer by many politicians/bureaucrats

    So again, is a Melges 24 habitable?? or a Firebird, an F24 or a Strider???

    And remember I'm talking about the MINIMUM requirements for habitability, not what would be nice to have.

    Still not a perfect post, but does that help understand the question??

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com
     
  8. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,774
    Likes: 1,679, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Richard

    Kind of...

    "..Probably that would mean Rays boat would be declared illegal...", if so, so beit! Safety is the first issue, not if a boat builder will go out of business owing to an "old" design.

    Same arguments were put forward by several countries, mainly the Aussies, when the latest HSC 2000 Code was being debated and revised. The UK (i was on the committee) proposed having a damage length of 55% as a minimum. There was much bleating that it couldn't be done, they would go out of business etc. Reading between the lines, it was just they would have to redesign their hulls and their bottom line would be reduced, that is less profit! Since our company proved that it could be done without too much fuss. Sure profit is less, but the question wasn't about how much money would be lost, the question was can it be done, yes. Safety should in no way be equated with money or saving moeny.

    I'm also on one of the MCA committees. They don't just come up with rules for the sake of it. (I can't believe I'm defending them here.!!). They react to accidents and problems which become more frequent (hence a pattern emerges) or expose loop holes in existing rules. As well as having to keep pace with new legislation which is "forced" down from the EU, such as the EU/98/18...terrible!!

    So, if you are viewing the question from a "will these nice designs still be applicable", your answer will be very different from one that is "ok, what can we do to make these boats safer and comply".
     
  9. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,614
    Likes: 136, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    Hope that one is not coming reality anywhere else than in Japan :) So long there's no common sense and reason what's necisity and what's an overkill in safety the baby could be thrown away with the bath water. Can have only relative safety and mostly boater's are endangered by their own misjudgement not by missing safety regulations.
    The fact however is, that individual country can generally rule how they want their own subjects, not boats officially registered to other countries. Anyway this leaves still full control over "unregistered" ones such as surfboards etc..

    "A comittee.. only lifeform known having multiple heads and no brain" by Lazarus Long
     
  10. bill broome
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 102
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: sydney

    bill broome Senior Member

    it would be easier to regulate politicians, than boats.

    it seems to me that an all-purpose declaration is needed, along the lines of: "i know what i'm doing, on the water. if i get in trouble, i'll get myself out, or die with a smile on my face." lodge this at nearest government agency, or email a central agency.

    then if someone thinks they are entitled to make a living 'saving' me, it would be at their own risk and expense.
     
  11. bill broome
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 102
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: sydney

    bill broome Senior Member

    and by the way, heinlein was a very good writer, but a lousy philosopher.

    committees are our only protection from the active prosecution of politician's plans.
     
  12. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,614
    Likes: 136, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    Having a buroeucrate to cover my as against politicians gives me the creeps:p
     
  13. xarax

    xarax Previous Member

    agreee!!!:) :) :)
     
  14. BWD
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 229
    Likes: 11, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 128
    Location: Virginia, US

    BWD Senior Member

    Isn't it obvious?
    Toss Labour and the commies and nannies out and no one will be left but sailors.
    Problem solved.

    Safety is an elusive mental delusion achieved through competence, dumb luck or stupidity on a rotten log or an aircraft carrier.

    Obviously coracles, viking ships, row boats, beach cats and windsurfers are habitable, as they all have crossed oceans.

    The notion safety can be contained in a physical embodiment such as an escape hatch seems absurd to me.

    In more highly constrained, larger, complex designs, like ships, rules make more sense. But it's idiotic to think one can achieve useful sensible rules that could apply to all small craft from say 10 feet to 50 feet, of all different types of design.

    No matter the rules, bad luck, weather, and stupidity will kill people in small boats offshore or near shore.

    Another problem is a government in which the servants, (coastguard) have more influence with legislature than the masters (voting constituents and marine industry).

    So, as above, toss the nannies, smash the video cameras, have a pint and go sailing.
     

  15. yipster
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 3,486
    Likes: 97, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 1148
    Location: netherlands

    yipster designer

    where there is water there may be live
    would not call a live jacket habitable tho
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.