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. cthippo
    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 736
    Likes: 35, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 465
    Location: Bellingham WA

    cthippo Senior Member

    Are we still fighting over what the definition of a passagemaker is?
     
  2. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,576
    Likes: 120, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    No no, no fight! There might be some disagreement what's the desired range should be. In this regard Richard suggests something around 6000nm and others down to 5000nm. Anything less is just ridiculous. More than the range issue is how to consider motorsailers and alike. In my opinion they and (some of larger ones) are the original "passagemakers", but they however are known as motorsailors allready and no need to call them with other names, as cruising cats are cruising cats and that tells much more about them than calling them "passagemakers".

    Teddy
     
  3. Steve W
    Joined: Jul 2004
    Posts: 1,815
    Likes: 57, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 608
    Location: Duluth, Minnesota

    Steve W Senior Member

    Teddy,as i recall this thread started as a "minimum passagemaker thread" not a "passagemaker if i win the lottery" thread, a minnimum passagemaker is simply not going to have or need a 5000 or 6000nm range. You are probably right re the motorsailers, i believe that Bebbe got inspiration from a passage on a Marco Polo. On the other hand, cruising cats generally refers to sailing boats, so where do the power cats fit in? My feeling is that if they carry enough fuel in proper tankage (not gerry cans on deck) to do the same passages as monohull passagemakers then to refuse to acknowlege them as such is just the same old bigotry thats been around for years.We have a powercat in Bayfield,WI that was built in NZ and was delivered to the Great Lakes on its own bottom through the Pacific islands, Alaska,down the coast,and through the Panama Canal etc (not a minimum passagemaker though at 59ft)
    Steve.
     
  4. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    Exactly right Steve

    Which is why Beebe's comment is relevant

    And comment from apex and his fanboy's are probably not as they are referring to the "passagemaker if i win the lottery" type of vessel.
     
  5. FAST FRED
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 4,519
    Likes: 109, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1009
    Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big d

    FAST FRED Senior Member

    """And this at a speed that would allow us still more range if we traveled even more slowly."""

    This is probably the most important point made so far.

    Speed costs money and even a really minor reduction in speed can create huge range extensions.

    The difference between SL 1.15 (a common ocean cruise target ) and SL .9 may come close to extending the range by 25-50%!

    FF
     
  6. Steve W
    Joined: Jul 2004
    Posts: 1,815
    Likes: 57, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 608
    Location: Duluth, Minnesota

    Steve W Senior Member

    Yeah Fred, this is what interests me about economical powerboats, even, at what most powerboaters i know would find unacceptably slow speeds you can still put in respectable 24hr runs realative to even fast sailboats of a comparable size or larger and be realativly economical doing it. Guys i know look at me like im crazy when i talk enthusiasticly about displacement powerboats with small diesels that cruise at 7 knots while sipping fuel while, having owned sailboats all my life, im thinking,thats nearly 170mpd,thats awesome.Different perspectives i guess.
    Steve
     
  7. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    This is all great on paper but the problem is that boats just don't follow the rules in real life. Minimal passagemakers mean that the boat is probably on the light side to increase ecomomy. Boats that slow down suffer more range degradation in increasing sea state than boats at a higher S/L. This means that you can count on saving some fuel by slowing down in good weather but you probably should not count on more range unless you are doing the motor sailor route. That is what Bebee actually did. I think its okay to play the low S/L games with a sail auxilary but not with only power. At an S/L of 0.9 in a light passagemaker I would be looking in the range of 40% or better in reserves. You could push this once underway but is it smart.

    Bebee made it a point to calculate everything between an S/L of 1.1 and 1.2 for range purposes for a reason. I think most boats do well at these S/L ranges for the purposes of range planing, handling and comfort. Planing gets much dicier when you slow down.

    The other problem with low S/L numbers is that power boats roll more at lower S/L numbers. Speeding up a bit can make a huge difference in comfort and in handling.
     
  8. Steve W
    Joined: Jul 2004
    Posts: 1,815
    Likes: 57, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 608
    Location: Duluth, Minnesota

    Steve W Senior Member

    Your right of course Pierre, you are not going to be using 0.9 S/L for planning purposes and i dont think anyone is inferring that, but the ability to gain some range by slowing down, weather permitting, is certainly valid. The roll issue at low S/L ratios is less of an issue of course with more than one hull although they can have an uncomfortable jerky motion fore and aft, at least on some sailing cats. Im not so sure with power Cats.
    Steve.
     
  9. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    Correct

    Also correct, though backing off the speed does help a lot I have found
    I would still rather this jerkiness on occasion than continual roll or heeled over
     
  10. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    I prefer to have enough fuel to keep the speed up and run stabilizers.
     
  11. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    or stabilisers
     
  12. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    Look Sabacat, no matter what you say a catamaran is more expensive than a monohull when we get into passagemakers and the market bears this out in price. So much for your arguments.

    A monohull passagemaker is GOING to have stabilizers and they WILL be used during the voyage.
     
  13. sabahcat
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 792
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 273
    Location: australia

    sabahcat Senior Member

    Yawn

    I demonstrated here http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/minimum-passagemaker-cruiser-34861-23.html#post423452 that my Home Built Catamaran build would be similar in price (with more redundancy built in) to your home built monohull build.

    So much for your arguments

    Stabilisers?

    [​IMG]

    Really?

    [​IMG]

    They must be invisible.
     
  14. Steve W
    Joined: Jul 2004
    Posts: 1,815
    Likes: 57, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 608
    Location: Duluth, Minnesota

    Steve W Senior Member

    Unfortunatly anything you put in the water to reduce rolling such as active stabilizers or flopperstoppers is going to create drag and detract from your range. A small sailing rig could help and possibly pay its way and as long as it is used at every opportunity such as jibing downwind etc may enhance range. If it just sits there and is used just for lifting the dinghy aboard it will probably be a net loss also due to drag although the flopperstopper rig also has significant air drag.
    Pierre, you are somewhat correct in that most seagoing cats would not fit into the original minimum passagemaker description as far as purchasing price goes mainly because any out there are newer, however building one IS a viable option for some people just the same as many do build their own minimum monos such as the diesel ducks, in fact it may be the only way as even "minimum" size production built boats are hardly minimum bucks.
    Sabah, my multi experience is in sailing cats and I never really experienced the jerky motion on my 36ft net and tube cat or on a number of tris i sailed on but was rather suprised when i did a trip on a Catana and found myself always looking for a handhold going foreward, im assuming that it is related to rigidity of the structure so a bridgedeck powercat may be the same,but i would think that coming from a sailing background if one were to adjust your course realative to the wave pattern rather than just sailing a rhumb line course it could be minimized,this should be easier than on a sailing cat,but of course may add to distance and reduce range too.Probably the smoothest ride ive had was an old Classic Wharram Tangaroa with the rubber shock absorbing washers,it was only a short trip but was a freaking majic carpet ride.
    Steve.
     

  15. Pierre R
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 461
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 458
    Location: ohio, USA

    Pierre R Senior Member

    Sabacat as usual you are showing a lack of knowledge. You are showing an active fin stabilizer and Ildewild is equiped with flopper stopper stabilizers, not shown in that photo. Flopper stoppers are very good and cheap. The drag on them is less than the drag of two hulls vs one.

    The cats real advantage is in the semi displacement speed range where wavemaking is the primary drag component. In the passagemaker speeds there is no advantage due to increased wetted surface on the multi. You just don't seem to get that. A multi does make a good passagemaker in my opinion but not is the size and price range of a minimal passagemaker. They excell when you can carry enough fuel for semi displacement speeds, 60 ft +.

    I don't see any way to build a multi of the same capability as a mono for equal price with the purpose of a minimal passagemaker, no matter how much you try. Now I quoted what I thought the price of a homebuilt might be and it was nearly the same as your boat. What you might not have understood was what I had in mind as a homebuilt boat. I was quoting the design price along with all materials as 100% new, nothing used and all hull and interior components NC cut. This results in about 1/4 to 1/3 the hours you are investing. I realize you don't value your own labor but I do.
     
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.