Minimum Passagemaker/Cruiser

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by mydauphin, Sep 29, 2010.

?

What is minimum that you can handle?

Poll closed Oct 29, 2010.
  1. I can only live in a proper yacht

    2 vote(s)
    6.1%
  2. Need: Size between 40 and 50 feet

    8 vote(s)
    24.2%
  3. Need: Size between 30 and 40 feet

    15 vote(s)
    45.5%
  4. Need: Size smaller than 30 feet ok

    8 vote(s)
    24.2%
  5. Need: Power

    22 vote(s)
    66.7%
  6. Need: Sail

    19 vote(s)
    57.6%
  7. Need: Single Engine

    24 vote(s)
    72.7%
  8. Need: Twin Engine

    5 vote(s)
    15.2%
  9. Need: Head and holding tank

    26 vote(s)
    78.8%
  10. Need: Air conditioner and Generator

    7 vote(s)
    21.2%
  11. Need: Watermaker

    15 vote(s)
    45.5%
  12. I don't care if interior looks like my garage

    8 vote(s)
    24.2%
  13. Need: DC Power Only

    15 vote(s)
    45.5%
  14. Need: Carpeting

    4 vote(s)
    12.1%
  15. Need: Wood floors

    9 vote(s)
    27.3%
  16. Need: Satellite TV

    3 vote(s)
    9.1%
  17. Need: Internet

    13 vote(s)
    39.4%
  18. Need: Hot Water Shower

    18 vote(s)
    54.5%
  19. Need: Manual Bilge pumps

    17 vote(s)
    51.5%
  20. Need: Propane Stove

    16 vote(s)
    48.5%
  21. Need: Freezer

    12 vote(s)
    36.4%
  22. Need: A boat that won't shame me at the marina.

    12 vote(s)
    36.4%
  23. Need: Windlass

    18 vote(s)
    54.5%
  24. Need: Dingy

    26 vote(s)
    78.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Steve W
    Joined: Jul 2004
    Posts: 1,815
    Likes: 57, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 608
    Location: Duluth, Minnesota

    Steve W Senior Member

    Pierre, You just dismissed the Leopard 37 powercat as not being a passagemaker after previously accepting it would be when you didnt know the hypothetical boat was a cat.You also dismissed it as a company sponsored publicity stunt. With all due respect, you dont know what you are talking about, most of the South African cats, sail or power are DELIVERED on their own bottoms as a matter of course, in fact the entire moorings fleet of 37ft powercats have done the trip,more than a dozen boats,they refuel twice. It is NOT,i repeat, NOT a publicity stunt. Despite this i am sure that the builders do not pretend it is a Passagemaker, its not. From reading your continued pissing contest with Sabah it seems that you and some others simply cant accept a cat as a passagemaker. I for one would be willing to accept Bebbes definition of a Passagemaker over anyone elses on this thread, after all, he has way more credibility than any of us on this subject. If it fits Robert Bebbes definition, its a passagemaker regardless of how many hulls or what its built of or what the know it alls think.
    Steve.
     
  2. wardd
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 897
    Likes: 37, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 442
    Location: usa

    wardd Senior Member

    What is it that Beebe pronounced more than a quarter-century ago that has had such lasting impact? He believed a boat capable of voyaging under power should have these features:

    A reliable and consistent means of reducing rolling, because crew comfort is a must.
    Ability to operate under autopilot, one of the great advantages of an engine-running-all-the-time vessel.
    Still-water range of 2,400 nautical miles.
    Capability of single-handed operation, necessary for a proper passagemaker to be operated by a husband-wife crew.
    An ideal LOA of around 50 feet.
    A secure place for the single watch-stander to go outside the pilothouse to observe surroundings.
    A balance of good in-port living space and the necessary seaworthiness for ocean voyaging.
    Lifeline stanchions 40 inches high in exposed areas.
    Beebe's light shone brightest when he delved into the technicalities of ocean-going motorboats. Among his conclusions:

    A satisfactory ocean-crossing vessel cannot have a displacement/length ratio (D/L) less than 270 in the 50-foot overall size. The shorter the vessel, the larger the D/L should be.
    Speed-length is the most important ratio. Hull speed is only of academic interest, as S/L ratios between 1.1 and 1.2 encompass the practical speeds for power voyaging.
    The ratio of the vessel above water to that below water should be in the range of 2.1 to 2.6 for safe passagemaking.
    A prismatic coefficient (PC) between .50 and .60 makes the most sense.
     
  3. Steve W
    Joined: Jul 2004
    Posts: 1,815
    Likes: 57, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 608
    Location: Duluth, Minnesota

    Steve W Senior Member

    Thanks for that Wardd, the powercat looks great except for the D/L ratio and possibly the under/over although im not sure how relative that is with the cat.
    Steve.
     
  4. wardd
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 897
    Likes: 37, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 442
    Location: usa

    wardd Senior Member

    it seems to me beebe was giving guidelines mostly with the exception of the following range, min crew, stanchions, auto pilot

    the rest is subjective

    but also boats have advanced some since when this was promulgated
     
  5. Tad
    Joined: Mar 2002
    Posts: 2,303
    Likes: 185, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 2281
    Location: Flattop Islands

    Tad Boat Designer

    Making arbitrary statements about what is or is not a Passagemaker is silly.....Beebe was selling a certain style/type just as we all are....more or less.....Take his Passagemaker and build her with plumb stem and stern, no other changes.....this will not change her weight one bit.....but D/L drops to 230.....oh no....she's no longer a Passagemaker?....actually she will be a better boat, not better looking, but better operating.

    Also Passagemaker (Beebe's design) has a published displacement of 27 long tons and fuel capacity of 1200 usg......that's 3.8 long tons of fuel, so were is the D/L figured? Full Load, half load, empty? The D/L changes a lot there.......

    My own PL56 design has a full load D/L ratio of 146, and the PL46plus (47'5" LWL) has a full load D/L of 137. I am confidant I can design and build a 50' passagemaker with a D/L of 60-80......but she won't have much accommodation.......

    The so called A/B ratio (above water/below water profile) is also utterly meaningless......Seakeeping and stability are derived from beam, two boats of completely different beams can have an identical A/B ratio......pointless. It had some (very little) relevance prior to personal computers being available (Beebe was writing in the 1970's), but has no relevance today.

    And we know that "hull speed" is a moving target as well, it changes (according to some) with D/L, longer and lighter boats have a higher "hull speed".......so stating that a passagemaker must travel at a S/L of 1.1-1.2 doesn't work either......

    Beebe was more social philosopher than scientist or naval architect, thus his technical statements should be studied in light of the boats he was selling.
     
  6. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    So you cant actually come up with anything finite so revert to some lame sniping :rolleyes:

    Beside the point
    Getting back to the car analogy I used previously, people drive Land Cruisers, Pajero's, Range Rovers, Jeep Cherokees's etc etc on the bitumen year in, year out and probably use them only once a year as an actual 4x4

    But just because they dont use it continually as a 4x4 does not mean that it is not one.

    And this is the crux of the matter , as I have stated before.
    This is the MINIMUM passagemaker thread
    It is not the TRUE, ULTIMATE or BEST passagemaker thread

    Again, using a car analogy

    This is probably a TRUE, ULTIMATE or BEST 4X4
    [​IMG]

    But that does not mean that this is not one

    [​IMG]

    Of course you have some evidence to support this allegation?

    I do wonder if I had put up a 50 ft aluminium Mono, with a 55hp single whether you would be objecting as vehemently as you now after you found out that it was a cat that did the trip.
    After all, you had no interest in what the vessel was when you supported it as a passagmaker as you clearly made the assumption that it had to be a mono-hulled vessel.

    Oh well, sorry to shatter your illusion. :rolleyes:

    Irrelevant
    It does not need to do 5700 miles
    It need only cross an ocean safely and comfortably on its own bottom and have a range of around 1850 miles (according to Beebe)

    It did that just fine
    It is a minimum passagmaker
    But it is not the ultimate or best passagemaker

    Got it in one Steve
     
  7. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    Steve try as you may I am not being suckered into this one. I think cats can make fine passagemakers IF designed properly. The problem is that most are not. The Cat's real advantage is speed in the semi displacement range with good fuel burns and better accomodations. When you get to a size of cat that can take advantage of those atributes and deliver the safety and range you are no long even close to a poor man's passagemaker. This thread is about minimal and CAT's have no advantage in the minimal market if there is a market there.


    Tad is right on the money as usual.
     
  8. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    Why didn't you finish the paragraph on page 52

    That is specialized vessel is exactly what I am proposing.
     
  9. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    Sabahcat I am not going after your last post. Its all meaningless drivel. After post 358 I know its hopeless. If you don't have it now you are not going to get it except by experience.

    What makes you bull headed and stubborn also makes you the type of person who has what it takes to complete a home build in spite of the nah sayers. At least that is a plus.
     
  10. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    Pierre
    again you have come out with nothing to show why my vessel cannot be called a MINIMUM passagemaker

    All I see is fist shaking and foot stomping and glaring at the sky and cries of "it cant be one because we say it cant"

    Originally it couldn't be one becauseyou said it didn't have the range DEBUNKED
    Then it couldn't be one because you said could not carry a load DEBUNKED
    Then you said it couldnt be one because it was to expensive to build even in the backyard DEBUNKED


    So come on Pierre, instead of saying it can't because it can't, repeated ad nauseum, try coming out and actually showing WHY it cant.
    Can you do that?
     
  11. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    And could not a long thin composite hull do the same?
    That is also a specialized vessel is exactly what I am proposing.
     
  12. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    sabahcat when you want to play the old bait and switch, straw man arguments to bolster a position that I clearly don't agree with and bog down with question after question to to wear me down with endless searches I have to draw the line. I ain't in the business to educate you.

    I would very much like to do all of that but this thread is not the place and quite frankly I have to use a great deal of my time to make enough money to afford a real passagemaker of my own for retirement. That is also the reason I backed out of my own thread on designing a boat.

    I am quite secure in what I have learned and find this exercise just uterly useless regardless of your taunts to box me in.

    Have a good day, for reasons of making money I have to back out of this drivel as Apex1 would put it.
     
  13. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    Yeah, OK Pierre
    So you choose not to address the issue and instead choose to make up excuses as to why you choose not to
    Thats fine, but it makes any argument you may have had lack credibility in my opinion.

    And what makes a passagemaker again?
    Define it for us please
    That was what this thread is about wasnt it?

    Once we have a definitive answer as to what a passagmaker is, ONLY THEN can one say what is and what isn't one.

    With the current definition it would seem mine is, as is yours but at no stage have I claimed that mine is THE ULTIMATE PASSAGEMAKER, all I have done is say that is a vessel that is capable of passages as per the current definition.
    Therefore, it would be fair to say, that it is.

    And you, apex and any of the other naysayers have as yet come out with anything definitive to say it isn't, apart from, it isn't.

    I'm sorry, but I find that argument somewhat "lacking".
     
  14. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    Get fuked. After your post 358 I give up on you. I have no ego to protect, you win *******, I have no boat in this argument that I am trying to justify to everyone. All I offered was my opinion on how to do this economically and engaging here for entertainment purposes to find a viable option. For you its an egotistical justification on your boat. I understand that, HAVE A GOOD DAY! Get it!
     

  15. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    Charming

    I am not trying to justify anything
    I am not selling them
    I have no vested interests, unlike some
    Are you really?
    It seems you refuse to acknowledge anything apart from 50 ft metal mono single screw

    No, you are wrong
    For me its a justification of any vessel that fits the bill.

    I acknowledge your vessel can be classed as a passagmaker
    I acknowledge TAD's vessels can be classed as passagmakers
    In fact I acknowledge that any vessel that can do a lengthy passage, and be self sufficient for a few weeks realisticaly could be classed as a passagemaker

    Why cant you?


    I always have a good day Pierre, Thanks ;)
     
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.