Tampilkan postingan dengan label two. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label two. Tampilkan semua postingan

Whimbrel Yet Again Two Comments

| 0 komentar |

Robert has followed-up on the previous couple of comments: -
Ross, since you see the utility inherent in the slot-top option and go so far as to state you would thus modify Whimbrel for your own use, would it be feasible to offer an additional sheet in the plans to make this an option?

Then there is that magic number I was waiting to see... the hull weight. I know more than one person is eyeing Whimbrel as a possible Everglades Challenge option. I do hope the actual number is "significantly reduced" as you believe. The Core Sound 20 finishes out at between 500 and 600 pounds sans gear, no cabin of course. Time will tell...

Well, I have to admit that I havent done a full "weights and moments" calculation on Whimbrel. What I did in the previous post (with full disclosure at the time) was to take the total volume of plywood in the boat, multiply the volume by 600 to determine the weight of the ply in kilograms, and then I simply doubled it to account for timber components, glass, epoxy, fasteners, rig etc. This is totally unscientific, but I believed it to be conservative. What is more the selection of 600 kg/cu.m was also conservative, as we are able to obtain good quality marine plywood here which has an actual density of 420 kg/cu.m. The reason that I used 600 kg/cu.m as the figure was to account for the variability in the actual weight density of plywood supplied by the retailers. There is a retailer in this country selling BS1088 plywood which is advertised as being 430kg/cu.m - but when tests were conducted locally on actual samples, the density proved to be around 600 kg/cu.m!!!
If one was sure of having 420kg/cu.m ply, and even using the conservative doubling system that I described, the weight of the boat (including decks and cabin) could be as low as 220kg/484lbs.
Im sure that the Core Sound 20 is an excellent boat, but she is a different vessel from Whimbrel. Firstly, Whimbrel has a full cabin, lots of built-in compartments, a self-draining cockpit, and a tabernacle. In addition, I designed Whimbrel to comply with the scantlings rules as laid down by Dave Gerr N.A. who is currently the Principal of Westlawn. as far as I can make out from my own study and from discussions Ive had with a well credentialed Westlawn graduate, Dave Gerrs scanting rules are conservative in comparison with ABS standards - in other words, if you build to Daves rules, the boat will be stronger and slightly heavier than required. I am very happy with that!
One of the things I had in mind when I drew Whimbrel was that I wanted a solid little ship which would last a lifetime. As you are probably aware, I hold the work of Phil Bolger in very high regard, but I was mildly concerned to discover that a Micro built to specification was somewhat flimsy. For example, you can push the side panels in and out, and when walking around on the cabin top it is necessary to place feet near frames, bulkheads or other supported areas, because the 6mm/1/4" plywood (from which the entire hull is made) flexes alarmingly.

Whimbrel has 12mm/1/2" panels on the bottom, 9mm/3/8" ply on the topsides, 12mm/1/2" on the cockpit floor, cockpit seats and cabin sole, and the cabin top is made of 6mm/1/4" on 50mm x 20mm (2" x 3/4") longitudinal stringers on 200mm spacings or less. This is a rugged "tugboat-tough" boat and not a light-weight daysailer.

Yes, I will do a sheet covering the simple option of a "slot-top". One could easily stand against the forward end of the cabin and reach down into the anchor locker and deck hatch.

Rick Hayhoe has written back: -

<> <><>
I went back over images I have and could access of scows among American watercraft, where they were used in the Gulf of Mexico fishery and for transport of timber, coal and other bulk cargo along the US west coast. I find, contrary to the opinion I expressed earlier regarding Whimbrel, that most or all of them have the bow transom terminating at or near the waterline. They were, of course, coastal and inshore craft, but they still would have met severe conditions at times. However, all of those were much larger vessels than Whimbrel, with displacement in the tens and hundreds of tons, with vastly more inertia in meeting chop or steep waves, able to punch through any but the biggest waves but hopefully able, while plying their trade of coasting, river transport or inshore fishing, to make shelter before such severe conditions arose. Their hullforms, like Whimbrel, were determined by their function, with priority over seakeeping, often for the benefit of operating in shallow water, taking the ground at low tide and carrying large volumes of deck cargo. In a boat the size of Whimbrel I would still find it safer to follow the design habits of one of the peoples with a long tradition of scow bowed small craft, either the Scandinavians, who invariably got their open water round bottomed prams profile and buttock lines well up out of the water before they terminated them in bow boards, or the Asians, who on smaller craft either rolled the bow boards back to a very low angle of attack, like a garvey but much narrower, or built them with narrow stems flaring into transoms well above the waterline, or some of each. Still, I want to make it clear that I admire Rosss Whimbrel design, have since I first saw it, and I understand how the original clients parameters resulted in the outcome. The boat is meant to be used as a camp cruiser, not a passagemaker, so the design is defensible as Ross puts it. That said, Id still make what I consider better use of scarphed whole and half-sheet lengths of marine ply and make its shout a bit longer, thus narrowing and raising it, while keeping all else the same. His rig, accommodation and use of leeboards are a winning combination on such a small craft, and the accommodation and applicability of leeboards are both facilitated by the scow bowed hullform. Its a very neat solution to a nettlesome set of design parameters, which I like a whole hell of a lot better than solutions to similar parameters by some others who shall remain unnamed.
Rick Hayhoe
I thank Rick for his comments, and given that I have already responded to his initial comment, and because Rick has written so well in his second piece, I dont feel the need to reply further. However, I hold Ricks opinion in high regard, and I have therefore been moved to continue with hull modelling experiments with longer hulls which carry their transoms higher and less wide. Unfortunately, my time is so limited (it is the old One-Man Band thing again - Im trying to be a boatbuilder, a designer, a blogger, an email respondent, a magazine writer, and a retailer of components all by myself - I just cant get it all done, Im afraid), that the initial modelling attempts need more time devoted to the detail.
Read More..

Fleet Videos of performance with Two Different Motors

| 0 komentar |
As some of you already know, Fleet is a planing-hull derivative of my very successful Flint design. For some background you can look at this post and at this post.

Fleet awaiting more trial runs
Fleet was designed from the outset to perform well in the very speed/length ratio spectrum in which normal planing hulls are at their worst. By that I mean the so-called "semi-displacement" or "semi-planing" range - widely thought to be in the S/L ratio range of 1.5 to 2.5.

Speed/Length ratio is basically the speed of a boat (expressed in knots), divided by the square root of the waterline-length (expressed in feet) of the boat. So let us take Fleet as an example: -

  • LWL (length on the waterline) equals 14 feet
  • Assume S/L ratio of 2.5
  • Speed divided by 2.5 equals 3.74 (i.e. square root of 14 ft LWL)
  • Therefore, Speed in knots equals 2.5 times 3.74
  • Speed equals 9.35 knots (10.8 mph, or 17.3kph)
Now those speeds sound modest, but for a small boat like Fleet it represents a very satisfying speed indeed. More importantly, because this hull has been proportioned to operate within this S/L ratio, the boat trims well, instead of pointing her bow in the air like the standard planing hulls, which chew fuel at a high rate just to pull a large wake.

So far Ive been able to carry out several test runs in Fleet using both a 9.8hp Tohatsu two-stroke and a 2hp Honda four-stroke. The 9.8hp Tohatsu is based on the powerhead from the 6hp and 8hp models, so is suitable for this light-weight boat. My next test will be using a 4hp motor, which I think is about the optimum size from an efficiency perspective. In my part of Australia, 4hp (2.9kW) is the largest motor allowed without boat registration.

Here are two Youtube clips - firstly using the 2hp Honda, with which I achieved a consistent 7.9 knots measured by GPS with my weight aboard, and 7.1 knots with my wife joining me (she only weighs 60kg/132lbs. The 9.8 Tohatsu gave 15.5 knots (17.8 mph or 28.6 kph) with two heavy men aboard plus gear.




Read More..

Whimbrel Two More Questions

| 0 komentar |
Two comments have just come in regarding Whimbrel - one via the comments function and one by email.

First came from Robert: -

Ross- Im following Whimbrel developments with keen interest. I have long considered Jim Michalaks Frolic2 based on Gary Bs Everglades Challenge success with the design. I live 30 minutes from the start of the EC and hope to enter in the near future.

My only concern thus far is the length of the cockpit and cabin floor. Your drawings show the opportunity for one to stretch out in each spot, but I am 6 4" tall. Can you share approximate lengths of those spaces?


The cabin and cockpit arrangement on Whimbrel owes much to the brilliant design concept that Phil Bolger employed in his Micro. By that I refer to the cabin space and the cockpit "overlapping" longitudinally so that a person sitting or lying down at the forward end of the cockpit is actually positioned above the legs of a reclining person in the cuddy-cabin - in much the same way as happens with quarter berths in larger cruisers.

You can see here how the accommodation spaces overlap
The cockpit and cabin space is unusually large for such a short boat, due to the 6 8" beam which is carried well forward because of the pram bow. In fact, there is space aft for a substantial aft deck and associated buoyancy/storage compartment. This aft deck will also allow for the use of a self-draining outboard well similar to the ones Ive used on a number of my other designs.

Periwinkle on launching day showing the self-draining outboard well. The camera had a wide-angle lens making the well look a bit larger than it is in the flesh

Back to Roberts question...

The longitudinal space available in the cockpit, measured between the main bulkhead and the forward bulkhead of the aft deck i.e. the total length of uninterrupted sleeping/sitting space is 6ft 8-9/16". In the cabin, there is 6 6-5/8" of bunk-space with an additional 11-1/8" of clear space between the forward end of the bunk and the forward bulkhead of the cabin giving 7 5-3/4" total. There are compartments leading forward from the end of the cabin for stowage - two accessible from in the cabin, and two from on the deck which drain overboard - used for anchors etc.

Another comment came from Wayne Jorgensen: -

Ross
another quick question re Whimbrels pram bow. Ive spent some time watching Sabots trying to punch into a chop- to the detriment of their speed and handling. Wont there be the same issues with Whimbrels near vertical pram bow? Scandinavian prams lift their bows much higher so this is not really an issue with them but then they are not live aboard cruisers either.

Regards
Wayne


I agonised over this very matter when I was doing the initial hull modelling. The competing factors were;
  • maximum volume and reserve buoyancy on a given LOA;
  • maximum speed (in smooth water) from a given LOA;
  • lack of annoying wavelet noise under the bow while at anchor;
  • a chine-line (in body-plan view i.e. viewed from bow and stern) which would produce the minimum cross-flow and eddy-making.
I like the Scandinavian-style pram designs with their bow transom carried high and narrow - you see the same thing on some sampan designs. The problem is that the length of the boat would have to be increased significantly if one was to retain the required shape and buoyancy, just as would be the case with a sharp bow.

It was Phil Bolger who pointed out that a vertical transom gives the maximum waterline length for a given length on deck. He also said that a vertical transom can dig into waves and throw spray - but he then went on to say that by raking the stem forward it would reduce the spray and the digging tendency, but would make the boat longer. So why not pull the waterline length out to match the new length on deck with a vertical transom and get even better performance? Here is one of his several comments on the subject: -

"Raked transoms make a faster boat less badly stopped by waves if they are raked out from the given bottom length, but in that case the boat would be better still if the waterline were carried out to plumb transoms at the new overall length...." (Boats with an Open Mind, International Marine 1994)

What I could say to make myself feel justified is to say that Whimbrel was a 17 boat with a nicely raked bow transom, but I pulled out the bottom length to produce more volume and speed...... But no, I drew what I thought was a good compromise for a fellow who wanted a maximum LOA of 17. The customer went overseas and had to cancel the design, but I was so taken with it by that time that I decided to finish her off as a stock plan. That is why it has taken so long for me to finish, as I only work on the drawings occasionally.
Read More..

Two Three Boats

| 0 komentar |
It was getting close to 5pm as two small sailing boats luffed up into the easterly breeze which although moderating a bit, was still fresh and blustery. As the sails snapped and flogged, one person from each boat dropped over the side into knee-deep water and each grabbed hold of a boat by the bow.

In the bigger of the two vessels, Mike Rowe quickly released the main throat and peak halyards and the mainsail dropped neatly into its lazyjacks. Already the small jib was rolled up around the wire-reinforced luff which also served as the forestay, leaving the boat with a single sail standing on the mizzen mast which pierced the aft deck adjacent to the stern transom. This mizzen sail was undoubtedly a complication to the rig, but Mike knew it was superbly practical, and paid its way handsomely. Right now, the mizzen sail was sheeted in tightly, and was holding the little yawl securely head-to-wind.

Having come to a halt a short distance away, the 15-foot sailing dinghy which formed the second boat in the fleet, was also being stripped of sail by her young skipper, although he did not have to trouble with a mizzen. He conducted his sail lowering operation one-handed by leaning over the deck of the boat while keeping hold of her bow with his remaining hand.

Mike and his two sons were feeling the effects of a long day exposed to the elements. They had started early from a roadside camping area, arriving at the launching ramp mid-morning. As usual for people with busy lives, it had taken some time for them to sort their belongings and the ships stores, so that by the time both boats were afloat, loaded, and tow vehicles safely parked, the sun had passed its zenith. However, although the travelling and loading arrangements took a while, the operation of the two boats was efficient and neat. This was due to a combination of design, development, and experience. Not one of the three was a slave to fashion.

So, at the risk of boring some readers, but hopefully passing on some useful information to others, here are some details.


The larger of the two boats was a V-bottomed plywood yawl of 17-1/2ft length-on-deck, sporting a transom bow (i.e. a praam or scow hull - blunt at both ends), and a small cabin whose sides extended to the gunwales. She had a large cockpit with wide side seats and a small, watertight and self-draining foot-well. Down below the cuddy-cabin was unusually voluminous and airy for a boat of such modest overall dimensions (17ft 6ins by 6ft 10ins), due to the cabin sides extending to the gunwale, and most importantly, because of the transom bow. This made her usable space comparable with that of a conventional boat four or five feet longer.

In terms of volume, the shape of the boat was a really important factor, but what made her interior particularly open and uncluttered was the total absence of a centreboard and centreboard-case. Instead of a centreboard the small yawl carried a pair of leeboards slung externally on each side. Many people understand that leeboards are very effective and efficient as a means of providing lateral plane for getting to windward and for reaching, but it is less well understood that certain hull shapes are better suited to leeboards than others. This little cruisers hull was close to ideal for leeboard use, and in many ways was similar to that of the wide, shallow craft of the Netherlands and Germany where leeboards are so common.

The other boat was a light sailing dinghy of 15ft by 5ft, sporting a short, free-standing mast which supported a sprit rig of generous proportions and a smaller flying jib. The boat was set up specifically for cruising, with a useful galley box wedged under the main thwart, and substantial ground tackle (i.e. anchor, chain and rode) well located between the forward bulkhead and a purpose-built semi-bulkhead.


Large emergency buoyancy tanks were built-in under the fore and aft decks and also under the large stern sheets (rear seat). The emergency buoyancy, combined with the light-weight hollow wooden mast, meant that this boat was fully capable of self-rescue. So far on this boisterous trip, the young skipper had kept the jib stowed, and had a reef tied in the mainsail.

Having done a temporary stow of the sails and setting light anchors in the shallows, the three headed up the beach to stretch their legs and to have a snack at the tree line. That idea lasted about two minutes before the cloud of mosquitoes and midges sent then on a hasty retreat to the relative safety of the water. Piling into the larger boat, Mike and Geoff upped anchor and allowed the breeze to blow them back into deeper water. Mike then lowered the small outboard (a two horsepower air-cooled Honda four-stroke which weighed only 12.5kg) and motored to a spot where they could ride out the night regardless of the state of the tide, and the strength of the wind, as long as it stayed anywhere from a north-westerly around to a southerly. Mike felt confident they would have a safe night.

With the anchor set and the anchor rode safely wrapped with padding where it ran through the bow chocks, Mike and Geoff looked up to see Dave rowing towards them in the sailing dinghy. Knowing just how important it is to reduce windage when rowing, he had lowered the mast, which lay to one side in a bundle with the sail and sprit. Because the mast was free-standing, lowering had taken him no more than thirty seconds, and he was enjoying the sensation of rowing a boat which had been designed with the rowing thwart in the correct place and height. Dave had made the oars with his own hands, just as he had the boat and spars, so the whole operation was filled with pleasure and satisfaction.

Mike and Dave leathering home-made oars

Leaning over the stern transom of the yawl, Geoff made the sailing dinghys painter fast to a cleat on one side of the aft deck, while Dave grabbed the gear required for a night aboard the mother ship. The two boys worked together to set a boom-tent under the bundle of sail and spars, all well supported by a topping lift and lazy-jacks. The boom tent was a very simple affair, being a four-sided piece of fabric with a series of ties sewn along the centreline. These were passed over the sail and spar bundle and tied off with reef knots. Once the outer edges had been laced onto the line of hooks under the gunwale moulding, there was a large tent over the cockpit seats, allowing all three to sit protected, and giving Dave his own bedroom as he slept on the cockpit seat for the night.



 A key to the success of the boom tent was the fact that the forward end extended well past the aft end of the cabin. This meant that even during periods of rain, the cockpit remained fairly dry, while lots of air was able to come in to ventilate the living space. Mike really enjoyed the sensation of being under the boom tent, or inside the cabin, while rain drummed down at the end of a hot summer.

All three were ready for sleep, even though it was still only evening. An early start, salt-air, exercise, and sun had all combined to produce a feeling of healthy exhaustion. Mike was aware that food was important in this circumstance, and he also encouraged everybody to use fresh water and towelling to wipe encrusted salt from their faces. It is amazing what a morale-booster it is to get the salt off, even if it is just the face.

Food was simple to prepare. Mike sat on the end of one of the bunks in the cabin, and passed out some large cans of beef and vegetables. He was very careful to select high-quality canned food for these trips, and had discovered that many of the better companies were offering the option of low-fat and low-salt menus. Normally, he removed the paper labels and wrote the name of the contents directly on the can using a felt-tip pen. They all drank a good amount of water, and Mike also downed a couple of glasses of red wine in a contented fashion.

The plan was to meet up with a friend and Mikes third son prior to lunch the following day. They were following in a long, slim powerboat that Mike had designed for his friend, but they had been delayed by transportation issues. However, the speed of the powerboat meant that their trip from the boat ramp would only take an hour-and-a-half, so all would be well.

Meanwhile, our three adventurers were settling down for the night - Mike and Geoff comfortably arranged on their individual bunks below, and Dave, already asleep, on a sleeping mat on the port cockpit seat.

The occupants of the boat slept soundly, and elements of the design of the boat aided in the sleeping process. Firstly, the bunks in the cabin were a full 24 inches or 610mm wide for their entire length of 6ft 6ins or 1981mm. It is usually said that a bunk should be at least 22 inches wide, so for such a small boat, the bunks were exceptionally well proportioned. This was made possible because of the transom-bowed shape of the boat. Secondly, the boat design incorporated a large vent in the forward cabin bulkhead, and this vent was baffled so as to allow a full flow of air, but keeping rain and spray out. Mike was astonished at the large number of boats which had stuffy cabins because of poor ventilation.

Lastly, although the boat had a very shallow vee-shape amidships, the bottom panels twisted significantly to produce a vee of 32 degrees deadrise in the forward sections. This meant that the drumming of wavelets under the hull was reduced to a pleasant lapping sound, which seemed to help true sailors descend into a deep and healthy sleep.

Next day promised to be exciting, with a convoy of three boats and the likelihood of some serious exploration.


Morning sunlight was flickering and reflecting off the paint inside the cabin as Geoff woke the next day. He could see his father quietly reading as he lay on the bunk opposite, and it was only then that Geoff started to take notice of the stowage arrangements in the boat. The previous day had been too busy for him to be aware of such details.

Behind Mikes head as he lay on the bunk (i.e. forward in the boat) was a low bin formed by a semi-bulkhead at the head of the bunks, and the main cabin bulkhead 11ins (278mm) further forward. This bin was 7ins (176mm) deep and 4ft 10ins (1474mm) wide. The bottom was formed by the vee-shaped bottom of the boat. Geoff noted that it currently held things such as a hand-held GPS, a couple of rolled up charts, two PFDs  and a dry-bag which he assumed contained things like his fathers car keys, wallet, and camera.

Moving his glance further forward, Geoff noted two cut-out openings in the lower part of the cabin bulkhead which lead into more stowage spaces. It turned out that big storage bin behind the openings was 9-1/2ins (246mm) high by 4ft 10ins (1474mm) wide, and 11ins (278mm) deep. Plenty of handy space for loose items that would be needed in the cabin.

Just then his old mans smiling turned towards him, and he knew it was time to start having some fun on the water!




Geoff clambered out of the cabin of the small boat and sat under the boom-tent in the roomy cockpit. On the cockpit seat opposite, his brother lay asleep in his bedding, squinting each time a small patch of sun passed across is closed eyes. Looking aft from under the boom-tent, Geoff could see that low tide was once again approaching,  and a fringe of mud lay between the blue water and the green of the hillside. Being an impulsive sort of a person, Geoff was tempted to dive over the side for a morning swim, but the combination of an unknown water depth and the possibility of lurking crocodiles made him think better of it. Reaching over the transom, he swept a handful of salt water over his face and flicked the remainder at his sleeping brother.

Down below in the cabin, Mike Rowe was attending to far more important matters. His home-made galley box was open and a dual fuel stove was already beginning to boil water for his morning coffee. While the water was heating, Mike had been perusing the chart covering the days proposed trip. The idea was that Mikes third son, Steven, would join them that morning along with their family friend, Ian, both of whom should already be on their way to the anchorage aboard Ians powerboat. The convoy of boats would then head north-east and east for about 35 km (19 nautical miles) to their final camping destination. Because Ians boat would be so much faster than the two sailing vessels, Ian, with Steven and Geoff aboard, intended to detour about 10 km offshore to investigate a rocky island which he hoped to climb in the coming days.

For the next hour and a half, Mike attended to housekeeping jobs aboard the boat while Geoff and Dave explored the nearby coastline, having rowed ashore in Daves boat after a hasty breakfast. He left the boom tent erected so as to protect himself from the tropical sun which was already making itself felt despite the early hour. Just as the others returned to the boat and Mike placed himself against the main bulkhead to drink his second cup of coffee of the day, they all heard the sound of a distant outboard motor. It appeared that for one of the few times in his entire life, Ian was on time.



Mike dived below and quickly returned with a set of binoculars and rapidly trained them on the approaching boat. Although he had been out on the boat himself several times, this was the first opportunity he had had to observe her action in open waters. There was a moderate sea running in from the north-east and he was interested to see how the boat would handle a quartering wave pattern. Although she was fully 26 feet long, her 66" beam made her a much smaller boat than most people would have imagined. Mike had designed her at Ians request, and both men were very keen to gather information about her performance. The pair shared the opinion that the majority of planing powerboats are overpowered, overweight, and designed to operate at speeds which are rarely practical on open water. The boat which Mike had designed for Ian represented a strenuous attempt to produce a boat which was both economical to operate, and economical to build.

Three Brothers as the boat was known, had been proportioned to operate most effectively at a speed length ratio of 2.2, which in this case is a speed of 10.5 knots or 19.5 km/h. As part of the design process, Mike had produced the following performance estimates for Ian to think about: -

·         Displacement 0.82 tonne including 288kg of passenger weight
·         LWL 22.6 ft
·         Power to achieve 10kts                                                                 -              13.9hp
·         Power to achieve optimum SL ratio 2.2                                 -              15.6hp
·         Speed with 30hp (Crouch’s Planing Speed Formula)       -              19.3kts
·         Speed with 40hp (Crouch’s Planing Speed Formula)       -              22.3kts
·         Speed with 50hp (Crouch’s Planing Speed Formula)       -              25kts     
Ians boat was being powered by a 30 hp two-stroke Yamaha outboard with three cylinders in-line, for the simple reason that this was the engine he already had. It had originally been his plan to purchase a four-stroke motor of about the same power, but the current one was performing so well that he no longer saw the need to change. Although the boat could achieve the 19 knots predicted, Ian normally throttled back to cruise at about 12 knots, a speed at which both the engine and boat felt comfortable, with the lean and sharp hull cutting through waves without pounding.

After meeting up and swapping gear, crew members, and stories, the flotilla set off for their destination. The skippers of the two sailing craft were both avid sailors who enjoyed the technical side of the sailing and never became bored along the way. The remaining three in the powerboat were made of different stuff, and relished the thought of a run out to the off-shore island prior to heading into the camping spot for the night.

Now, there will be some among you who say that ten or twelve knots is not very fast, but let me tell you it is a lot faster than any sailing most of us will ever experience. Yes, I know that weve all had rides on catamarans or skiffs which have travelled fast on a particular point of sail, but taken over over a number of trips, not many people can truthfully claim an average of more than four knots. This takes into account calms, tacking, adverse tides and other things. There is no doubt that if you are on a schedule, a powerboat is what you need, and twelve knots  (22km/hr) will get you over a lot of water in a day. The high-speed planing boats with huge, fuel-guzzling motors might get you there faster if the weather is kind, but will you be able to enjoy the scenery and ride? Not in my experience.

The path our powerboat crew took ended up being about 42km, so excluding exploration  their journey time was 115minutes. On the other hand, Mike and Dave, would probably have averaged 3 knots given tacking and an adverse current, so their 35km would have taken 380 minutes or nearly six and a half hours! In fact, for about half of the distance they both ran their outboards and then sailed when the wind increased and the point-of-sail improved to give them an average speed of 5.5 knots  - so 3.4 hours for the entire trip.

Both crews claimed to have enjoyed the day - the powerboat people having explored the island for a few hours and done some fishing, while the two sailors relaxed at their sport, enjoyed the challenges, and ended up getting to the destination first. Had the sailing boats not had auxiliary motors, matters would have been different.




Later that evening, Mike and Ian sat on the beach in comfortable directors chairs which had cost $26 each at a local hardware in Mikes town. In years gone by they would both have shunned such luxury, but nowadays they enjoyed the indulgence. The pair were drinking strong coffee laced with a liberal shot of brandy, and were feeling philosophical given the bottle of shiraz they had shared at dinner. The current subject was power-boating in a cruising context, and the data gathered from the last twenty-four hours was fresh in their minds.

"I used to think," said Mike, " That powerboats were nautical appliances - something used to get a particular job done in a certain time. But now Im not so certain. That boat of yours is quiet, smooth, economical, and relatively speedy - and there can be no doubting the fact that the ergonomics are better than my sailing boat and Daves." After thinking for a minute or so Mike continued, "But then again, there is a lot to be said for motor-sailing the way Dave and I did today. We avoided being bounced around in the left-over slop when the wind dropped out, but we were able to sail in a satisfying manner when it breezed up about eleven oclock. We had a good sail, while you had to put up with being a powerboat all day long."

on hard work smart sailing and how the two dont belong in the same sentence

| 0 komentar |
How mystery meat just became a whole lot more mysterious, a quick primer on inequality, and nope no problem here...

Theres an opinion held by a great many that sailing is really hard work and judging by the way some people talk and outfit their boats you might even begin to believe it.

I dont.

The thing is, Im the first to admit that Im a pretty lazy guy. Its not so much that Im against hard work in a good cause but hard work for the sake of hard work when its not needful just isnt smart. Or to be a little bit clearer... Seriously dumb.

A well-designed boat should not involve a lot of hard work to sail it and, if youre having a hard time, there is a goodly chance that you have simply set the boat up badly, not sailing the boat correctly, or just doing something stupid.

By all means call me opinionated...

There is an excellent little video over at Off Center Harbor (you really do need to subscribe) showing a guy single handing his schooner in a no-muss-no-fuss-trauma-free fashion that shows just how easy sailing could be when you let the boat do most of the donkey work and keep things simple.

Listening to some Americana raga

So it goes...
Read More..