Poor man’s passagemaker

you're just jealous of me because i'm better at it than you

 

Nahh, I was not precise enough on that.

What we know as trim tanks and ballast tanks today is a bit different.

These old rescue boats were not self righting by design. The Kieptank was empty in normal service, but when the boat capsized they were flooded (I don´t know manual or automatically triggered), this provided the righting force.

Regards
Richard

 

Both hull types look quite interesting, Milan. The upper one looks "sweeter" to my eye, though I am partial to many different hull forms.

I would think - not being an NA but one with plenty of practical - albeit military - experience that Buehler's diesel duck design philosophy as expressed in his book "Troller Yachts" would be of practical benefit to keeping costs down. The Troller Yachts, at that stage of their development, seemed to be coastal in nature, though with mods they could go offshore.

I bought the plans for Bolger's Blackliner (#679B) a few months ago and am just about done pricing out the hull and fittings as well as electronics and so forth (which Bolger had done but which needed to be updated) . It's not a passagemaker either, though I can see how the philosophy could be extended to it: " cheap and easy to build, use and maintain, very fuel efficient."

To extend the idea, I would think I would add "heavy scantlings and able to withstand very heavy weather" when there is no safe haven within reach". To that end, a review of Beebe's first edition of his book "Voyaging Under Power" would be very helpful (not the third edition, the first edition).

 

Forgot to note that Bolger's #679B "Blackliner" was expressly designed as a coastal fishing boat to meet the " cheap and easy to build, use and maintain, very fuel efficient" design spec, though it has not been particularly well-received by its target audience as I understand it.

My point is that such boats can be designed, though "cheap" is a relative term!

 

There seems to be two different mind sets in this thread. Those who think that a new built passagemaker is not a poor man's toy ( I agree with this) and those who think that a poor man's ocean crosser, sails or no also qualified as a passagemaker.

Beebe I believe introduced the term passagemaker and was fairly spacific about what that was and it was not a sailboat or even a boat under 40' (11m) I will use his definition.

Further there are the bulk of the posters who feel that seaworthiness is all about a boat and a few here who believe seaworthiness is about a system including boat/captain/weather. I fall in the later category as I believe that everyone has physical and mental limits to remain capable of handling the boat. It's handle it at sea or jepordize safety in a big way. Weather is all about luck and plans must be contingient upon bad luck. I cannot in all honesty believe that posters who believe seaworthiness is all about the boat have ever been incapacitated or near incapacitated in their adventures.

What is a rough passage for one person is an unmitigated disasterous rescue at sea for another in an equal boat. The bulk of abandon boats do not sink but the ocupants are incapacitated. In my view anyone taking a boat that is capable of trashing them in less than force 10 is taking unecessary risk. The problem come in with either being ingnorant of the fact that personal incapacitation exists or not knowing where your limits are. If limits are unknown then the only pudent bet is to err on the side of easier motion and better handling. Neither easier motion or better handling come particularly cheap.

I think that the so called poor man's boat would have to be cheap to opperate. Probably in the 55' (17m) range and very narrow for her length but not really light on the water plane. I think something like Buehler's Idlewild was too light for most people's comfort level at sea and underpowered. Something like Gerr's Ironheart or Tad's 56 PML are more in line with my thinking. As far as construction, I think it would be hard to beat the ongoing maintenance of an un painted aluminum hull with very modest systems.

 

Well put Pierre.

Trimaran is a boat with three hulls, proa has two, Hobie Cat has a sail, and Passagemaker has none, so easy is colour TV.
Terminology, and the correct use of it, makes life much easier, doesn´t it?

Fully concur on Idlewild also, the PML 56 gives a better picture.

Regards
Richard

 

To be precise Beebe used the term "power passage-making" to state that also motor boats are capable to this task which historically was sailing vessels nature as the original "passagemakers". Today's modern sailboats IMO don't belong under this classification.
What's important is the capability to long passages without compromising comfort.

 

So what is the minimum level of comfort? If we can define and agree on this we'd have a good starting point.

 

A gallon of water for each soul per day.. electric power 24/7 for starters?

 

"A gallon of water for each soul per day.. electric power 24/7 for starters?"

Fine for old Salts , or kids with nothing in their wallets.

But too many folks go to a boat show (instead of an SCAA gathering) and decide on HUGE requirements in space and complexity.

Slocum's Spray in terms of creature comforts would be hard to sell.

Folks today even expect DRY BUNKS!

FF

 

The whole idea of Beebe's book was power passagemaking. He went on to define the work passagemaker to cement that idea vs voyaging or cruising.

In my book a "passagemaker" is an ocean crossing power boat with the possibility of a steadying sail only. Beebe admited later in the book that he wished he had left the rig off or greatly reduced it. The OP also defines it this way for this thread so all the sailing rigs are a mute point.

I will concede that I think a true poor man's ocean crosser is a small sailboat.

 

Get a copy of the plan for the Sea Bird , of Harry Pidgeon's "Islander" fame, some epoxy, good quality exterior grade treated plywood and build it. Cut down used sails. Keep it simple, don't buy unnescessary gadgets, motor, etc.
Doesn't have to be that design, any well designed small, simple, hard chine sailboat will be about the most economical way of getting around. The key things for safety here is good design, and attention to good construction. Also there is no substitute for seamanship. Lack of seamanship compells people to compensate by buying ($$) tons of otherwise unnescesary stuff.

For those who will attack my exterior grade ply comment i will pre-empt bby saying i have built various boats like that with no fiberglass (which is also tremendously expensive) and they have all held up wonderfully. I epoxy together everything and leave in place the screws used to clamp the pieces together. If the treated wood is dry enough the epoxy works fine. I then paint all the outside surfaces in a thin layer of epoxy before painting.
Another very cheap option is something like a wharram or other simple plywood multihull, even i only for the considerable saving of not having to buy lead, which i quite expensive nowadays.

 

My bad for not reading more before posting.
Motorboat not sailboat.
oops.
Usually always more expensive, unfortunately.

 

You would not think so by reading many of the threads in these forums. I see countless proposals where the poster seems to believe that if the boat will stay together and not sink that their boat is quite suitable for ocean crossings without regard to what is likely to happen in a blow to even seasoned crews aboard their boat. They are proposing a floating object, not a boat/crew system.

When proposing a poor man's passagemaker, the obvious thing is cost. Cost cutting has the tendency to reduce weight. Reduced weight has the tendency to increase motion on the crew. Increasing volume and beam has a tendency to increase crew comfort in port but decrease crew comfort at sea. There is a tradefoff in the poor man's passagemaker that makes it much easier to exceed the crew's physical limits in the design. A nice heavy displacement passagemaker is much easier to design within crew limits.

When we are saying "here is the perfect poor man's passagemaker " what are we saying. For how many people does this design exceed those crew limits. If that number is say 30% then you have a boat that is likely to incapacitate one crew member out of three in say a 30-35 knot blow of 12 hours duration. Is that acceptable? I will bet you that is about where Idlewild sits and Idlewild is touted as a great poor man's passagemaker. Idlewild suffered from the design criterion of needing to travel down the highway in transport.

 

Not poor man's.. poor ocean crosser is closer the thruth..