Long term survival boat ideas

Maybe a useful ability when currencies have no value left...
Remember the thread title... .
On the other hand you seem to be happy to get dollars (judging from your depreciation of a more economic life style at least in people who visit your country) but not happy with the people known to spend the said currency - maybe you should post your bank account number somewhere with the note: "If you want to spend money in "warm and wet", just use bank transfer to my account, this safes you, the environment and the local population from the trouble of getting here and the trouble of your being here, respectively - your not welcome anyway!"
Seems like a useful business plan... .

 

I have a better proposition based on "crowd finance" - Help me capitalise my plantation recovery & community development project and have access to 'homestay facilities' on the plantation foreshore or up in the hills of the hinterland on a secluded and peaceful tropical island...

Charges may vary...

 

Wharrams are not that 'tough'. Built of ply, they require more maintenance than full FG or possibly aluminum, and the maintenance on the hull requires regular quality (expensive) paints.

I have visited a number of older Wharrams over the years, and the hulls often show lack of maintenance by the casual users.

As far as 'spare parts', engines and electronics are the same for Wharrams as they are for any other boat. The only thing Wharrams have going for them is the lower number of shiny metal fittings, replaced with ropes and pulleys. Since these are some of the easiest fittings to make, its hardly a big bonus.

The lack of accommodation means that you are out in the elements a lot more. In sunny conditions, this may be pleasant for an hour or so, but sunburn and heat soon becomes unpleasant with salt spray. As far as comfort in cooler climates, they fall far short of more common designs.

They are a romantic echo of the Polynesians who did great things with scarce resources, but they are not something I would consider with so many better designs around.

 

Any home builder can build badly, just as any home builder can turn out a work of art.
Most fall somewhere in between.
To blame Wharram for the quality of boats built isn't fair.

 

You need to read what I said more carefully.

What I said was "ply and epoxy requires maintenance"

And "hulls often show lack of maintenance by the casual users."

Nothing about quality of build.

Basically, the cost of maintenance is higher than FG craft, so budget conscious builders and owners often forego the required maintenance.

 

Catamarans as survival boats are far less than optimal anyway, and power cats even worse. In fact I doubt if one could come up with a worse choice. OK, maybe a trimaran or a racing monohull. Otherwise....

Let's see, difficult to build, difficult to repair, don't go anywhere without burning money, poor load carrying ability and react very badly to being overloaded. What a wonderful survival vessel.....

Something like Bataan's BERTIE is far, far more useful in all respects. Not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper.

PDW

 

Well, boats are built from the beginning with wood, not easy to maintain, but easy to replace. I think a thoroughly build epoxy and glass coated ply boat has a good start in longevity over the traditional "pure wood" builds. The full FG or any metal is fine as long as you have no need to repair it. In the scenario discussed in this thread, the availability of sophisticated welding gear or anti-osmosis paint, epoxy and woven glass in case of the FG may be very limited.
On a wooden base like ply, probably the old methods of tarring are applicable.
By the way, the Ontong Java (some other thread in this forum) is a Wharram design (at least it is shown on his web site as one of his designs) and, if I recall correctly, build only with real wood... .

As for accommodation and shelter from the elements, I agree - most modern designs in similar length are much more comfortable.
Judging from his gallery, at least the builders (if not the designer himself) of his designs have made some provisions to keep their head cool, especially in steering position and on mooring. Nevertheless not the design I would choose for the Northwest Passage... .
On the other hand: on the very long run, even "simple" metal fittings could get irreplaceable, so every design omitting these parts and providing other functional methods to replace them, could prove worthwhile.

To simplify the further discussion, maybe we should narrow down the parameters of the scenario. Just for the available materials for replacements: Waterworld, Middle Age or modern land fill?
And means "long term" self sustainable for ever, for one, for two generations or just for a few years?

 

@PDWILEY
Come on, the spare parts and maintenance are the problem in the scenario, no need to fall back into the dark Middle Ages in terms of boat design.
Hopefully all the bad guys are thinking the same way like you and will only see the sails of multihulls vanishing on the horizon when they pursue them on their lead, iron, stone transporters.
IMHO, it is utterly nonsense (or tradition) to build boats with a good part of their displacement used for staying upright and not for payload.

 

No, PDW is right about that.

The old British navy could do a major rebuild from the forests of any nearby land after an accident. It was done many times.

The 'displacement for staying upright' also translates into 'displacement for carrying lots of supplies'

catamarans carry a lot less than displacement hulls, and when tipped over, stay over, unless they are small enough for the crew to manhandle back to the right side.

We are talking survival here on this thread, so 'vanishing over the horizon' is only usefull for Kevin Costner and all that other Waterworld rubbish.

 

Epoxy, as used on Wharrams, is also part of the structure - so you cannot just nail any old wood to the hull.

Also, like a Wharram - epoxy on ply. You have to have the Epoxy. Osmosis is not a 'repairable event' - its a major structural problem like delaminating plywood. Vynilester hulls dont have the Osmosis problems,

Yes, like PDW said in the previous post - wood is the only universal, likely obtainable material. The number of purely wooden cats is very low.

What I said

Yes, but any fittings on multihulls can be used on traditional wooden hulls, its not only done by Wharram.

Its all up for discussion. In any event, its hard to see a multihull being the answer in any scenario.

 

I have found ply to be a major pain in the A. Even when given up to 4 coats of West system resin, with particular care on the edges, over time, delamination and rot can occur, mainly because despite the manufacturer's assurances, the quality is rarely what it is supposed to be.

GRP has the same problems of course. Where do you find glass cloth and resin in the middle of nowhere? Watson is correct that wood is arguably the best all round medium for a boat, for the reasons he stated, but yes, for a multihull is is not very practical. I have found strip planking to be highly reliable over time, but the need for epoxy bonding and sheathing virtually eliminates this method for "long time survival" because inevitably it will need repairing at some point, probably due to some accidental ding.

I have too many bad experiences with rust, galvanic action and the need for constant painting to ever consider steel and again, it would be impractical for a multi. Aluminium has a lot going for it, so long as appropriate care is taken against galvanic action. It can easily be cut and patched with rivets and sealant (easier to carry on board than epoxy) as a low-tech repair.

Ultimately, this thread begs as many questions as it answers, because everything will depend on available materials, tools, skills, but above all on the conditions. What will work in the South Pacific in summer would be a far cry from the North Atlantic in winter! However, look at the famous examples of survival in small boats at sea to provide a fair idea of the complications.

Please yell at me for being a heretic, but I'm seriously considering selling my current trimaran and buying a 38' 1960's traditional Kauri cutter. No, one leg has not grown shorter than the other for sailing at an angle, nor do I fancy the work of maintaining the spruce mast and boom but I could see myself cruising this boat for half the year and for "long term survival" there could be a lot poorer choices.

Dream on

 

Your monohull/multihull bias is showing.

The key element here is survival.
The ancient Polynesians proved that survival in elementary catamarans was the answer to their amazing Pacific ocean migrations over a thousand years ago.

Why should it be any different today. :?:

 

I think you are right about Watson's probable bias, but in my case it is not bias - it is about money.

The tri cost $22k in materials (without including labour) and is indeed a good boat for its 22' size and with a really comprehensive interior, including a reasonable berth, galley, fridge, nav table and enclosed head. So the interior is fairly livable but try spending more than a couple of days and nights on board with a large German Shepherd filling the cockpit and you will appreciate the restrictions. No way is this boat for long term cruising, let alone survival.

Ask my ex-wife what happened to the 30' cruising cat I spent 10 years building and sailing to know that mulitihulls are by far my preference. However, I am past the age of building again and try buying a decent cat for under $40K, whereas the cutter in question is that price and has just about everything needed for comfortable and safe cruising and/or livaboard.

 

Maybe the example was a little bit to much Hollywood... . Given the same navigational abilities, on larger distances speed is IMHO a safety feature. Not just the more theoretical ability to outrun the weather, double the speed equals half the time for a passage. Not to escape from pirates, to be able to reach shore with a limited amount of provisions.
The navigational merits of the old european sailors in their nut shells are undisputed but as they have recorded and transmitted their successes there are also much records of disaster. The Polynesian sailors have neither records of their successes (apart from their obvious colonization of the pacific) nor of their losses, so it is not possible to make a quantitative judgement of the more successful strategy in travelling, however, considering their lack of transmission (those who failed could not report and there was no written report of the ones who started), their most simple technology and the fact, that they travelled those distances way earlier, makes me come to the opinion that they had the "better way" of travelling... .

 

My bias is based on experience. As an old Tornado and Jarcat enthusiast, even in sizes below 30 foot, monohulls are a lot roomier and bigger load carrying for camping/diving/fishing/food - and lets not forget - water.

Polynesians survived on islands, not their boats, and that was in tropic and semi-tropic conditions. Their load carrying boats,where they could lock up the women and pigs in safe conditions across oceans, were tree trunks lashed close together to almost form a raft

"The flashing speed of modern catamarans results from their wide beam and rigidity of construction, made possible by steel fastenings. The vaka taurua is a slower sailer. Assembled with cordage, it lacks the rigidity of modern multihulls, and the hulls must be closer together to reduce stress on the cross-beams. Assembly by lashings seems to offer one advantage. As noted on the replica Hokule'a, the cross-beam lashings absorb much of the shock of waves that beat against the hulls, a pounding that is transmitted throughout a modern vessel."

http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/ike/kalai_waa/kane_search_voyaging_canoe.html