What is the Smallest Boat That You Would Sail Outside of Coastal Waters?

[pbmaise]

Everything is a matter of comfort level..and I see you may be in Alaska.

Sailing between Hawaii and Canada..I really can't say I was up in Alaskan waters. However, I did see waves big enough enough to make the 55ft steel monohull I was in lean just a little too far when caught broadside.

I met a French couple aboard a big sailboat that had a broken wind indicator after they dipped the top of their mast in the water. Their boat was nearly 70 ft long.

These kind of experiences are not for me...so it is width and beam that I consider.

Phrase the question what is the minimum beam on a boat that I would consider and then I have a pretty easy answer. 25 ft wide. This is the type of width that makes the experience far better and increases the safety factor many fold.

Cheers

[capn_billl]

That is the opposite of what I have heard repeatedly, that broad beams are more suceptable to capsize.

According to several experienced sailers I have read, the most survivable form is a long narrow hull, with a deep full keel.

The bottom line is know how big a waves, and how strong a wind your boat can take, and never subject it to that.

There are times of year, and latitudes that large storms are common, and times of year that they are smaller, and rarer.

Satelite weather can give warning of forming storms while they are just a few puffy clouds.

Having a good solid boat built for a hurricane is still advisable, but for most who will spend most of our time hopping from one island to the next, and maybe one or two passages in the mildest season, not as much of a nessesity as it once was.

The cost differential between a custom new passagemaker, and a classic plastic that could take a moderate storm with no problem has made this more of a question than it once was.

Other than names in a book, few of us were around or know all of the history of the major makes of boats, let alone the one of knockoffs that were built by smaller shipyards, some of which may be undiscovered gems, some may be floating junk.

The book, "20 boats that will take you anywhere", is a good start, unfortunately it seems everyone has read that book, and those boats now carry a premium on the used market.

An easy guidline to follow that ranks the "survivability" of a boat compared to other boats of same size would be great.

It is all relative, as freighters, and 300ft long cruise ships have all gone down in storms. Unless you're the Titanic, no ship can take anything mother nature can dish out.....

From what I have read, not all ships sink in storms, more often something breaks, and you are left drifting with no power, electronics, or means of propulsion.

That is when the 75% seamanship, and 25% boat comes into play.

The other is avoid the worst part of the storm, prepare for the degree of storm expected, have spares, contingency, and flooding plans. Choose to wait a few days if the expected weather looks dicey. And expect to get spanked a few times.

To find the "best" boat takes decades of sailing different boats in different conditions. Most of us don't have that luxery. We depend on the ones who have to give honest opinions of their boats relative strength.

IE, It goes through severe storms smoothly, or it almost fell apart on me keep it inland. As has been said before, "any boat can cross an ocean on a calm sunny day". But not all boats are very comfortable when it gets a little bumpy.

[goboatingnow]

Broad beams are more resistant to capsize, they have a greater moment of inertia. What can be a problem is when they capsize they are too stable upside down. It's a trade off. Long keels and narrow beams are not inherently more seaworthy just different.

Dave

[Andrew Troup]

I think it's important to differentiate two rather different impulses which can cause a vessel to go upside down.

Wind and wave.

A beamy yacht (all other things, such as the amount and depth of ballast being equal) will be less likely to be overturned by wind gusts, but is more constrained to conform to the local waterplane than a narrower yacht.
If the local waterplane tends quickly towards the vertical, the beamy yacht is more likely to invert as a result. Which is a fancy way of saying it's more likely to be flipped by a wave.
This is because increased beam allows a wave to exert more leverage against the portion of the righting moment which derives from ballast interacting with gravity, whereas the part of the righting moment called "Form Stability", which derives from beam, is illusory in this situation because it relies on the waterplane staying level.

And, as pointed out, the beamy vessel remains more prone to conform to the local waterplane when upside down, which can make it difficult to re-right, especially given that the wave which inverted it is, almost by definition, likely to be a very rare event.

[MacG]

The very problem with a beamy yacht - and I experienced that - is that it is not balancing well on following waves.
That can be quite nasty when overtaken at close range by a large vessel, as happens at some of the Dutch waterways where 1200 tonners crouch with their keels over the bottom of the channel. As a result my boat makes the wildest movements.

[mr-canada]

Originally Posted by SeaSloth

That's my philosophy. Everyone says go small and go soon but I would hate not being able to stand up straight. Cruising wouldn't be fun for me that way.

I dunno. I like camping, buying a boat for me was like nautical camping from the outset.

The awkward angles, etc just adds to the fun. I also forego any major entertainment devices like electronics. While I carry the cell and the tablet, they are mostly to check the tides and weather

[builder dan]

i would happily take an sparkmans and stevens 24 offshore or a folk boat both have strong hulls and small hatches having done a few offshore passages in larger boats and having had a few hidings off shore in them as well i think a small well set up strong boat with small windows and small hatches would be fine

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

I think it's important to differentiate two rather different impulses which can cause a vessel to go upside down.

Wind and wave.

A beamy yacht (all other things, such as the amount and depth of ballast being equal) will be less likely to be overturned by wind gusts, but is more constrained to conform to the local waterplane than a narrower yacht.
If the local waterplane tends quickly towards the vertical, the beamy yacht is more likely to invert as a result. Which is a fancy way of saying it's more likely to be flipped by a wave.
This is because increased beam allows a wave to exert more leverage against the portion of the righting moment which derives from ballast interacting with gravity, whereas the part of the righting moment called "Form Stability", which derives from beam, is illusory in this situation because it relies on the waterplane staying level.

And, as pointed out, the beamy vessel remains more prone to conform to the local waterplane when upside down, which can make it difficult to re-right, especially given that the wave which inverted it is, almost by definition, likely to be a very rare event.

AAndrew,

Is this correct? I seem to remember reading Peter Bruce's Heavy Weather sailing, wherein the investigation into the Fastnet RAce of 1979 and the resultant test that were performed thereafter clearly showed that a boat (any boat) will capsize if faced with a wave hitting abeam if:
1- the wave is a breaking wave
2- The height of the wave is greater than the width (beam) of the boat.

The above has, I believe been verified by other independent test. Unless I'm reading your post incorrectly (might be - please correct me), you're saying that the beamy boat will be more prone to capsize than a narrow one.

This link, takes to you the capsize screening formula at USsailing. I have seen the same formula from other sources
Capsize Formula

[Andrew Troup]

Carstenb

The capsize formula you link to gives an inverse relationship between tendency to capsize and beam, not a positive relationship as you seem to infer.
Perhaps it's not sufficiently obvious that the lower the number, the greater the resistance to capsize, although the blurb does state:

"In general, heavy boats with narrow hulls are more stable.
Results less than 2 indicate stability, greater than 2 the boat is relatively vulnerable to capsizing."

Which seems to vindicate my contention and contradict what you are remembering from Bruce.

However I don't feel necessarily vindicated, and I don't necessarily think Bruce was wrong if you take him as saying that for such a wave, capsize becomes a real possibility.

I'm hesitant about feeling vindicated because I am sceptical about the wave tank model tests and the screening formulae in general, the former because the waves are entirely unlike deep sea breakers, and the dynamics do not in any case scale, and the latter because the formulae tend to be very simplistic and neglect multiple dynamic aspects, including the rotational moment of inertia about a longitudinal axis (a dismasted boat will capsize much more readily than a boat with rig intact, but the formulae do not take account of the rig height and weight), the deadrise (which affects the ability to skid sideways) and the tripping effect of appendages.

The challenge for a yacht hull side on to a proper deep-sea breaker (which mercifully are incredibly rare) is that the crest tumbles down the steep face, aerated white water avalanching on top of the green water of the wave. The underbody and appendages are down in that green water, and the topsides are subject to the force of the white water, which is considerable. If the appendages (especially the keel) can be retracted, this is believed (plausibly, to my way of thinking) to largely eliminate the tendency to trip. However few vessels other than purpose built expedition yachts intended for high latitudes offer this possibility. For those which do, the main risk then is that the downhill toerail will dig in.
A yacht with a narrow waterline beam and a wide beam on deck is arguably best equipped to skim sideways under the impact of the white water, but if the uphill toerail rises in the process, the extra beam gives that water extra leverage. It's not a situation which lends itself to simple rules and the best you can say is fairly meaningless statements along the lines of "everything else being equal" such and such implies so and so. Like the statement of mine you quoted.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by builder dan

i would happily take an sparkmans and stevens 24 offshore or a folk boat both have strong hulls and small hatches having done a few offshore passages in larger boats and having had a few hidings off shore in them as well i think a small well set up strong boat with small windows and small hatches would be fine

I agree, but would flesh out the "strong" by suggesting that while most small boats are intended for inshore sailing, a few are designed and built for deep sea work, and this is what you want. Apart from windows and hatches, important major differences between inshore and offshore include the strength and reliability of the rig and rigging, the rudder and steering, and the hull scantlings. There are lots of other things like proper shutoffs or seacocks, but they're easier to remedy.

As a rule, I reckon small boats are easier on themselves, and harder on the crew. The former because of the scale effect. Exaggerating down to the size of a bath toy, a tiny yacht does not have to be strong to survive the worst the weather can do. Just as you can fire a tiny animal from an air cannon without harm, whereas a large animal would not survive.

If you are relatively immune to seasickness and adaptable to cramped, wet conditions and heeling, there's a lot to be said for small boats. It's a much more active and interactive way of sailing, challenging and enjoyable, both to a high degree.

[carstenb]

Andrew

Well, I'll let you stand vindicated

But I'll have to go back and reread Peter BRuce. Perhaps, due to remembering the statement, "a breaking wave higher than the beam of the boat" made me think that (wider beam = must require higher wave = more stabile).

Somewhere, logic (which is not all that logical sometimes in sailing) would indicate that a wider boat would need a bigger wave, and therefore in the "same given sea conditions" wide = more stabile" (all that is assuming no skidding )

Wave tanks do have difficulty accurately simulating the conditions in storms. And somewhere, the talents of the helmsman will play an important role.

[oldragbaggers]

A 20' Flicka, without hesitation.

[boatman61]

Well I've sailed a Hurley 22 non stop from Brixham across the English Channel and the Biscay to Viviero, N.Spain in December and a Corribee 21 from Poole, Uk to Baiona N.W.Spain in June..
Both trips were successful... I'm still alive..

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by virginia boy

I had big offshore plans for my little Westsail 28, but a few people declared my boat to be crap. Most notably the famous boat designer Bob Perry claims my hull shape is crap. His opinion f**ked me up for days, but I resolved it by convincing myself he must have been having a bad day and that my hull is amazing.



But it's the only boat I have and the money is low, so..... I'm going anyway. right after I fix the split rudder and mast compression issues

If you change your mind and decide that you can't bear the idea of sailing away in a crappy boat, you can just give that crappy Westsail to me and I will save you from the misery.

[rtbates]

My Cape Dory 25D...