Minimum Passagemaker/Cruiser

Even though I no longer want a pocket passagemaker for myself I do have some ideas on what doesn't work so well. If it is a problem on a 48 hour run it will be a bigger problem on a passage.

Tied for first place are a galley that can be used in rough weather and secure sea berths.
Galley. Must be provide safety for the cook. Must be able to cook while boat is pitching and or rolling. Must be well lit and well ventilated. The electric cooktops (non gimbaled) with no fiddles are next to worthless. Think sailboat galley. Ventilation is worth a second mention. Fresh air reduces the chance of the cook losing their lunch into the dinner pot. Fresh air keeps the whole boat from smelling like the last meal cooked. The ventilation cannot leak.

Sea Berths are (should be) a given. 2000 miles at 10 knots is 200 hours, you hope to spend 1/3 of that time resting. Not passing out from fatigue, resting. It IS a big deal for me. Again, think sailboat.

Electronics. The best you can afford to buy and learn how to use them. A 4 foot open array radar is about a minimum IMO. VHF (2 is better than 1) and HF radio are basics. Make damn sure the HF set works at cruise speed. I'd consider a printer or a dedicated weather fax machine so I can look at hard copies. I don't like extra through hulls, I dislike failed logs and depth sounders even more. My boat has redundant sensors and easy to swap wiring so I don't have to trouble shoot these basics. I happen to like multi function chart plotters. Bigger screens are better. I use a laptop that serves as a weather fax and does HF Radio Email. I get a new GRIB file every 12 hours. The laptops runs software that allows it to be a data logger for the boats nav system and act as a chart repeater and or a second radar screen. The software overlays the forecasted weather from the GRIB in real time between updates. It also can use the boats polars (even power boats have polars) and the forecast to plot an optimum route as far ahead as the available weather information.

I no longer try to keep a DR plot on paper, but I do keep a log of speed, course, heading, wind (dir and speed), and position that is updated every hour. If the electronics fail, I have a fix no more than one hour old and I can DR from there. (I do have paper charts, I'm not insane). Smallish boats usually don't have the space for a proper chart table anyway.

Inside helm station. Comfort and quiet reduce fatigue. It is the difference between driving a sedan and riding a motorcycle. I've done many rides of 1,000 miles in 24 hours on a bike. Done trips trying to keep a 600 mile per day average. You become exhausted. 600 miles a day in a sedan is a vacation. Boats with no inside helm station are like motorcycle touring. No thanks.

Dinghy. The smaller the boat the bigger hassle this becomes. Foredeck chocks and a crane would be a pretty high priority. I don't want to have the tender on davits hanging off the transom on a smallish boat. I'd consider stowing the tender on a hardtop that extends over the cockpit, since I like inside helm stations and my preferred fordeck location would reduce visibility.

NO back scatter from running lights. NONE. This is a huge deal if you want have the time to brace yourself before you hit something.

I'd pay a large premium for preset instrument illumination that would allow me to set and dim all the displays at the same time. This should include the damn LED's on the autopilot and the engine controls. I find some displays too bright even on the lowest setting. You don't find this out until you have been running for a few hours on a moonless night, it is damn irritating. If you try these settings during daylight you can't read the instruments at all, they need to dim that much.

Water maker. Why worry about water? Why spend money on diesel to haul 10-20 days of water around. My boat can make 25 gallons an hour, I'm thinking of going to 50 gal/hour. Underway it would be nice to have an engine driven HP pump and a 12v low pressure pump. At anchor I don't want to run the mains to make water and I run the genset to charge the housebank anyway. A 220 VAC watermaker makes sense to me. I'd like to make enough water during the time it takes to wash and dry a load of laundry to last until I do laundry again. 25 gal/hr is marginal.

Laundry? Hell yes, do you have clothes sitting unwashed for 10 days at home? I don't. Do you have a pocket full of the local coin when you hit port and know where a reliable laundry is?

Icemaker. Powerboats with big icemakers make friends in anchorages.

AC, yep. 16,000 BTU for the cabin and 24,000 BTU for the helm deck on a 42 foot boat works. I'd want at least that. Diesel fired heat if you plan to cruise high latitudes. The AC on reverse cycle works, but you have to run the genset all night. This ruins the friendships you made with the icemaker.

Even a 42 foot boat is a power hog. All the adapters you can possibly need should be aboard if you ever use shore power.

Sorry to go on so long, but when I think about a minimum passage maker I have to think about a floating home that happens to be seaworthy. If you can't wait to get off "that damn boat" after a few days, the boat is lacking.

I think you could do this in 50 feet, 60 would be better.

 

have done that long ago: makes visiting this forum so much more enjoyable, even at the cost of missing the occasional interesting piece of information

 

Another complaint was the lack of an engine room. I am curious as to why an engine room is an absolute necessity. True you need good engine access. If you have good engine access why the need for an engine room on a 40' boat?

Many reasons why an Engine room is desirable.

They can be made watertight. A watertight engine room is A very good detail. Perhaps on a small boat you might not, because of space, be able to achieve a true watertight engine room, but you certainly could islolate all your critical machinery within sill bulkheads to prevent water damage. On a well designed yacht the only thru hulls in the entire vessel are located inside a waterproof engine room. Even the overboard outlets ..exhaust and whatnot are in the room .

Controlling fire is much simpler in an enclosed engine room..

Controlling heat generated by the powerplant and heating up the inside of your boat is easier with an engine room because of its insulation and abilty to ventilate. .

Controlling sound and vibration is easier when you have an engine room.


Many many advantages to an engine room. On a small yacht with limited, precious space, you might not be able to fully achieve these goals and have an enclosed watertight machinery space, but with thought you can address them.

When I read people mentioning how many pieces of equipment they would like ...watermakers, systems, air cons...on a small boat, I view thier concept as unseamanlike since it would be impossible to pack this equipment into a small craft engine room. When this equipment is spread out thru the bilges of the vessel, serviced by a kilometer of tubing and electrical cables and junction boxes and thru hulls and hose clamps, you have a hundred places were things may go wrong , a service nightmare and a dangerous vessel.



.

 

All the advantages listed for why have an engine room are good.

The best place for the engine room is in the BOW , right behind the chain locker.

Since a fwd cabin sucks at sea , why not stick the stench and noise there? It has been done.

Diesels are really light these days , and with a CPP setup a thrust bearing is included , so barely any extra cost for a truck drive shaft or two.

FF

 

The difficulty is achieving the space required. When you reguest that a Naval architect address these issues, they can always come up with clever ways to get the most out of interior space, while promoting safety. This is why you hire a NA...all the details...and this is why you authorize a NA to put on his thinking cap when concieving a systems layout. Very much work involved with systems latout. this is money well spent during the design phase.

 

You are dishing out the **** here mate! Why do you cheat when quoting me?

That was the whole sentence! http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/minimum-passagemaker-cruiser-34861-2.html#post403500

And you have possibly a boat to make some longer passages, but not what is named a passagemaker by Beebes and our definitions.
Seems you are the one with some mental issues or a e-***** syndrome. I am a well known value here, you are not.
Put me on your ignore list and stop quoting me wrong!


Chuck and Rhough

I´ll reply in deep later, I´m out of range of the GSM signal soon, and until late afternoon.
Richard

 

Here is what I wrote

I made no mention of easy susseptibility like I get quezzy with the slightest blow. I found my threshold is all I said and that was in a full gale. Not quite storm conditions yet but more than many sailors see in a lifetime. What you need to keep in mind is that EVERYONE has a fatigue/sickness/fear threshold. If you have not hit your's yet how do you know where it is? The minute you hit it at sea, the danger factor goes through the roof. The real question is can you afford to take that chance? If the answer is yes, then you idea of a minimal passagemaker could indeed include the PL 39

Tad admits his PL 39 is a coastal boat. It's less than half the weight of the Nordhavn 40. She is light on her waterplane and interior layouts will not change that fact. I would place her in about the 80% will be incapacitated by fatigue and sicknes in gale conditions for 12 hours.

I think Tad's PL 39 would make a very good coastal boat so the layout is okay. You can pick a 3 day window and island hop with her just fine.

The real juggling act with producing a minimal passagemaker is four items.
1.) weight (weight costs money)
2.) range( carry enough fuel to push the weight)
3.)ride (have enough weight on her waterplane to keep heave accelertions down).
4.) Have enough beam for a decent layout.

I have not been able to make that work in a 40' hull in the 20,000 lb range. You have to jump to about 40,000 lbs to put it all in and then its slow and more costly than a longer hull with narrower beam.

 

Good posts above. Two things not really addressed yet.

One is sea berths. Anything near the ends of the boat or along the centerline have greater motions for sleeping. A V berth in the bow is easy for people to understand but a centerline queen near the middle is not so easy to understand. A boat rolls around the centerline. Near the centerline the motions are primarily side to side and you are constantly being nudged and rolled. Bunks near the outside of the boat have a motion that is primarily up and down until rolling angles become great. Up and down motions are far easier to sleep with. That is why you will see a twin bed setup in many master staterooms rather than a centerline queen. Storage in the master is also much more useable with a twin bunk setup than a queen setup in a narrow boat.


The second thing is range. I dont' see why that is a problem. Long and narrow provides much greater range.

Greater range has many advantages.

Buy your fuel at cheaper locations
Take more direct and shorter routes
Avoid new political or tough political situations.
Power more goodies on a long trip.
Faster passage speeds.

Let's take going to the South Pacific. With a range of 3,800 nm and adequate reserve you can go Panama to the Galapagos and then direct to the Marquesas. A distance of 3,680 miles but you can take on fuel in the Galapagos.

With only a 2,400 mile range you must go Panama, LA, Hawaii, Christmas and then the Marquesas. A distance of 7,650 miles.

Coming back with a long range you can go from the Marquesas and proceed to 4-6 degrees north then head for Acapulco

With a 2,400 mile range your choices are circumnavigate which puts you in political situations in the Indian Ocean or you can go Christmas Island-Hawaii-Anchorage AK but that puts you into some possible gales and big seas. You can also go Japan, Dutch Harbor but that is even rougher. Anyway you cut it you probably will not go to the South Pacific in a minimal passagemaker without long range. Its daunting to take that trip. It would not be worth it on the pocket book or the boat.

 

Greetings,

Since the 6-1 ratio is the best for efficiency and comfort, why not just extend your passagemakers to fit that and leave the ends empty.

 

it used to be the typical choice for a lot of west coast working boat.
i agree, i think it is the best place, the head room is good as the elbow room, even in a 40' boat, with good free board which is anyway a good thing at this place.

 

To add one more.. avoid tanking in remote places with poor fuel quality (=sh**)

 

FF,

If putting the engine room in bow, how would watertightness be secured as well as access to drive shaft when dealing with maintence.

 

All of the mechanics I listed fit inside the engine room on my 42 foot boat. If you were to design a 50-60 foot boat as a passagemaker there would be more than enough room for everything on my list. Access is pretty good considering the boat has twin 425HP diesels. The main engine(s) on a 50-60ft PM boat would be smaller since you sure don't need 850HP to drive a 50-60ft displacement boat. All that is under the floorboards are water tank, waste tank, shower sump, bilge pumps and macerating waste pump. It is far from a servicing nightmare. I've earned my living working on autos and boats, I know what a hassle poor service accessibility can be, I sure would not have had this boat built if it was a service headache. The only gripe I have is headroom, but I would not ruin the lines of the boat to raise the helm deck enough to give full headroom. If it was 60 feet LOA instead of 45, the engine room would have full headroom and keep the profile I like.

 

This is possibly one of the most ignorant and retarded statements I've ever heard...

 

Everyone,
Thanks for the positive comments. Let's focus on systems. Let's move away from range and boat size. We should all know the pros and cons of longer boats and more range by now. In the end result we all have to make our own final decisions about this.
I personally would like to see some sketches/drawings of good layouts for powerboats that were designed to cross oceans. Then we can discuss the pros and cons which will provide information needed to make final decisions. Again the focus is on a minimal passagemaker. I will try to come up with a drawing or two of what I think would work and explain my thought process. It may take me a day or two to do that.
Chuck