Bridge Deck Clearance ? How Much 40-50ft !

[Factor]

Originally Posted by thorcat

My boat is a Schionning Wilderness 1620 ,

Nice boat - nice video. I notice the forebeam was curved, ala Le Rouge. Was that a Schionning spec or something you developed?

[Teeto]

Originally Posted by dirkdig

Fly bridge's are the best

I'm sure they are on the right day. Personally we aren't too envious of those huddled in their wet weather gear under the tiny Bimini installed over these fly bridges, on a wet windy day.
How do you ease sails quickly without staying up there all the time? If you are up there continuously it raises safety questions re fatigue and thermal loss. Therefore questioning their suitability for longer trips.

[cruiz9]

Originally Posted by Factor

Nice boat - nice video. I notice the forebeam was curved, ala Le Rouge. Was that a Schionning spec or something you developed?

The forebeam is carbon and was designed and built By Andy Jensen in Perth, a one time Schionning builder.I notice schionnings are now going down the same route with forebeams in there new designs ,they are very strong along with the carbon mast.
Cant be as complimentary of the Furling boom though from a certain Gold Coast manufacturer absolute rubbish,give me slab reefing anyday

[dirkdig]

Originally Posted by Teeto

I'm sure they are on the right day. Personally we aren't too envious of those huddled in their wet weather gear under the tiny Bimini installed over these fly bridges, on a wet windy day.
How do you ease sails quickly without staying up there all the time? If you are up there continuously it raises safety questions re fatigue and thermal loss. Therefore questioning their suitability for longer trips.

Well we usually have hot nachos on the wet days under the hard top flybridge with the clears on.
Only had wet weather gear on a few times on our cat.
The main sheet has a release in the rear cockpit which you can release if need be,never have touched it though.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by Teeto

I'm sure they are on the right day. Personally we aren't too envious of those huddled in their wet weather gear under the tiny Bimini installed over these fly bridges, on a wet windy day.
How do you ease sails quickly without staying up there all the time? If you are up there continuously it raises safety questions re fatigue and thermal loss. Therefore questioning their suitability for longer trips.

Think you need to try it, a Bimini at six feet up affords the same weather protection as on the surface HOWEVER it is so much easier to see the crab pot/fish traps, squalls, colour changes in water, fish and ladies sun-baking on foredecks.

Wet and windy? That would be nice for a change :-)

[Teeto]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Think you need to try it, a Bimini at six feet up affords the same weather protection as on the surface HOWEVER it is so much easier to see the crab pot/fish traps, squalls, colour changes in water, fish and ladies sun-baking on foredecks.

Wet and windy? That would be nice for a change :-)

Well I agree indeed, a Bimini is a Bimini at whatever height and obviously ideal for the conditions you are sailing in, and you have just the right vessel for that. Which makes it an ideal fair weather sailer! My point exactly.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by Teeto

Well I agree indeed, a Bimini is a Bimini at whatever height and obviously ideal for the conditions you are sailing in, and you have just the right vessel for that. Which makes it an ideal fair weather sailer! My point exactly.

Apologies i thought that this was your point,
"If you are up there continuously it raises safety questions re fatigue and thermal loss. Therefore questioning their suitability for longer trips."

Fair weather sailing is good for us all for sure it makes the miserable days so much sweeter.

Drop in on Port Clinton (nth or sth arm) on your way North if you haven't passed by already. Magic crabbing. Cheers

[dirkdig]

Ahh another airnchair expert

[Mark Johnson]

Originally Posted by courju

Hello Mark,

I think you are taking shortcuts without taking into account the usage of the boat.
A 20 years old sailer will not look at the same boat than a family with 2-3 children. And for a retired couple it will be a different vision too.
Just keep in mind than most of the production is staying in the marina and will never do more than a 100 miles run...
However, a circumnav family will want a minimum comfort in order to make sure kids enjoy this life: in this case what you call a 'production' boat is a great boat.
But if you are single most probably you will prefer a boat built in India or Thailand: she will have very good performance but will never be a 'friendly' boat for a family.
Comparing a Porsche with a Volvo is a non-sense... A sport car and a motorhome have different usages

Cheers

You missed my point... Since this is not "Daysailor's Forum", or "Racer's Forum", I assumed we were referring to REAL cruising boat requirements, not that of "armchair cruisers"...

I was ONLY referring to what makes a good "cruising" boat, which by definition means covering many thousands of sea miles, continuously or off and on, in relative comfort... (for years), and unfortunately, seeing a LOT of going to windward, and a LOT of REALLY bad weather. Some will be dangerous and terrifying! This is the life of a "true cruising boat", and calls for a cruising boat design.

Most production boats... Cat, Tri, or monohull, are not GOOD cruising designs. The market for "real cruising boats" is too small. A much higher % of "one offs", are built to a good cruising boat design, and make a good choice, IF you can find a really well built one. VERY few people spent years of their life building a racer, OR a "CONDOMARAN"! They are a different sort of people.

90% of the (very different from this requirement) "production" designs out there, were OF COARSE not designed for this use. They were designed for short, occasional cruises, going mostly down wind, REALLY picking your weather, and spending 99% of their life tied to a dock!

On the other end of the spectrum are racing boats, that can't carry a payload, have limited storage, don't offer enough protection or comfort for a middle aged couple as crew, and don't even have necessities like stanchions, a place for a dinghy, or an anchor roller. This also is NOT a cruising boat, nor fits its requirements. Their designers didn't mean for it too either.

The problem becomes when people (out of ignorance)... buy one of the majority of these ill suited boats, mostly in the first group, and set out for serious long distance long term cruising, anyway, in a boat that has no wing clearance, and in many other ways, is utterly unsuited to it.

In all categories of hull preference, but even more so in production cats, The % of designs that fill the cruising boat's requirements, are in the neighborhood of 5 to 10% at best.

One needs to choose from that < 10%, a design & builder that can provide a boat suitable to their needs. Far too many cruisers ignore this common sense rule.

My friend Jeff's self designed, self built cat, for example, filled those requirements well. It had crossed oceans, cruised extensively, and you could buzz the dinghy right through the wing tunnel. Of all of these requirements, #1 is: YOU NEED GOOD WING CLEARANCE! There are boatyards all over the world that have multihulls in them, that ignored this rule, and now have so much structural damage that they could go no further.

M.

[stillbuilding]

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

You missed my point... Since this is not "Daysailor's Forum", or "Racer's Forum", I assumed we were referring to REAL cruising boat requirements, not that of "armchair cruisers"...

I was ONLY referring to what makes a good "cruising" boat, which by definition means covering many thousands of sea miles, continuously or off and on, in relative comfort... (for years), and unfortunately, seeing a LOT of going to windward, and a LOT of REALLY bad weather. Some will be dangerous and terrifying! This is the life of a "true cruising boat", and calls for a cruising boat design.

Most production boats... Cat, Tri, or monohull, are not GOOD cruising designs. The market for "real cruising boats" is too small. A much higher % of "one offs", are built to a good cruising boat design, and make a good choice, IF you can find a really well built one. VERY few people spent years of their life building a racer, OR a "CONDOMARAN"! They are a different sort of people.

90% of the (very different from this requirement) "production" designs out there, were OF COARSE not designed for this use. They were designed for short, occasional cruises, going mostly down wind, REALLY picking your weather, and spending 99% of their life tied to a dock!

On the other end of the spectrum are racing boats, that can't carry a payload, have limited storage, don't offer enough protection or comfort for a middle aged couple as crew, and don't even have necessities like stanchions, a place for a dinghy, or an anchor roller. This also is NOT a cruising boat, nor fits its requirements. Their designers didn't mean for it too either.

The problem becomes when people (out of ignorance)... buy one of the majority of these ill suited boats, mostly in the first group, and set out for serious long distance long term cruising, anyway, in a boat that has no wing clearance, and in many other ways, is utterly unsuited to it.

In all categories of hull preference, but even more so in production cats, The % of designs that fill the cruising boat's requirements, are in the neighborhood of 5 to 10% at best.

One needs to choose from that < 10%, a design & builder that can provide a boat suitable to their needs. Far too many cruisers ignore this common sense rule.

My friend Jeff's self designed, self built cat, for example, filled those requirements well. It had crossed oceans, cruised extensively, and you could buzz the dinghy right through the wing tunnel. Of all of these requirements, #1 is: YOU NEED GOOD WING CLEARANCE! There are boatyards all over the world that have multihulls in them, that ignored this rule, and now have so much structural damage that they could go no further.

M.

Now that was really well stated.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

You missed my point... Since this is not "Daysailor's Forum", or "Racer's Forum", I assumed we were referring to REAL cruising boat requirements, not that of "armchair cruisers"...

I was ONLY referring to what makes a good "cruising" boat, which by definition means covering many thousands of sea miles, continuously or off and on, in relative comfort... (for years), and unfortunately, seeing a LOT of going to windward, and a LOT of REALLY bad weather. Some will be dangerous and terrifying! This is the life of a "true cruising boat", and calls for a cruising boat design.

Most production boats... Cat, Tri, or monohull, are not GOOD cruising designs. The market for "real cruising boats" is too small. A much higher % of "one offs", are built to a good cruising boat design, and make a good choice, IF you can find a really well built one. VERY few people spent years of their life building a racer, OR a "CONDOMARAN"! They are a different sort of people.

90% of the (very different from this requirement) "production" designs out there, were OF COARSE not designed for this use. They were designed for short, occasional cruises, going mostly down wind, REALLY picking your weather, and spending 99% of their life tied to a dock!

On the other end of the spectrum are racing boats, that can't carry a payload, have limited storage, don't offer enough protection or comfort for a middle aged couple as crew, and don't even have necessities like stanchions, a place for a dinghy, or an anchor roller. This also is NOT a cruising boat, nor fits its requirements. Their designers didn't mean for it too either.

The problem becomes when people (out of ignorance)... buy one of the majority of these ill suited boats, mostly in the first group, and set out for serious long distance long term cruising, anyway, in a boat that has no wing clearance, and in many other ways, is utterly unsuited to it.

In all categories of hull preference, but even more so in production cats, The % of designs that fill the cruising boat's requirements, are in the neighborhood of 5 to 10% at best.

One needs to choose from that < 10%, a design & builder that can provide a boat suitable to their needs. Far too many cruisers ignore this common sense rule.

My friend Jeff's self designed, self built cat, for example, filled those requirements well. It had crossed oceans, cruised extensively, and you could buzz the dinghy right through the wing tunnel. Of all of these requirements, #1 is: YOU NEED GOOD WING CLEARANCE! There are boatyards all over the world that have multihulls in them, that ignored this rule, and now have so much structural damage that they could go no further.

M.

There are certainly a lot of us ignorant people out here, as the vast majority of boats cruising and sailing around the world do not fit your definition of a cruising boat.

And somehow most of us have managed to escape without any structural damage. I haven't been to any boatyards with all these structurally damaged boats. I've travelled from New England down the US East Coast, through the Eastern Carib, Venezuela, Columbia and Panama - shouldn't I have run into these yards and boats by now?

The very few boats with structural damage I have seen have been a couple of new catamarans condemned from the factory and several old wood trimarans. The catamarans were build execution flaws and not design flaws. The trimarans were just old boats that someone got cheaply and didn't do any upkeep.

The Pardeys and Leonard/Starzinger often talk about how few storms and really bad weather they encounter and how few times they need to beat ferociously to windward. In fact, these are points they specifically make in their writings and talks to new and potential cruisers.

If you are going to be pedantic about "real cruising boats", you are going to be beat to shreds as soon as the "only a heavy, full-keeled, slack bilge, pirateship-looking" crowd jumps in. And you will only be saved when the "only a double-ender" and "only wood/steel" crowds start beating on them.

Where are you cruising and how do you treat your boat?

Mark

[Southern Star]

I'm in agreement with Colemj and disagree with Mark Johnson's suggestion that all cruisers will be experiencing ' a LOT of really bad weather', and 'a LOT of going to weather.' Cruisers are not merely 'armchair' cruisers because they do not circumnavigate, or cross oceans, or because they prefer to make relatively short passages during appropriate weather windows. There are many cruisers who desire nothing more ambitious than taking their boats from Florida to the Bahamas, or to limit their cruising to one particular cruising ground - for example, the Caribbean outside of hurricane season, or even the Great Lakes.

Is bridgdeck clearance important? Of course. But to attack those who purchase boats with less than ideal clearance, or who insist on more accomodation than performance as 'ignorant,' is to suggest that no one is entitled to have different priorities or opinions. Mark, you obviously don't believe in the notion of 'different horses for different courses', but others who are decidedly not ignorant, do.

Take Colemj's Manta, for example. While their bridgedeck clearance is less than what is considered ideal according to many of the popular formulae, nevertheless they have proven to be excellent 'cruising' boats with a reputation for a relatively comfortable motion. In the case of the Manta, the underwing shape is very hydrodynamic: a fine entry (gradual slope on the leading edge), significant rocker (curvature fore and aft), no shelves or protrusions into the tunnel and indeed, a gentle curve where the bridgedeck meets the hulls. In addition, the BWL (and more significantly, the tunnel width) are much narrower than many of the current cats of the same length and, without question, tunnel width is one of the most significant factors related to the need for bridgedeck clearance.

Cats with greater beam need greater clearance; those with relatively blunt leading edges to the bridgdeck, often used to accomodate athwartship doubles forward, can actually come to stop if the bridgedeck comes into contact with green water. And one must remember, that in certain circumstances all cats will slam (which is when the shape of the tunnel becomes critical). Think of it this way - what shape of hull will pound more going to windward - a flat bottomed scow with a blunt bow, or a gently curving hull with a relatively fine entry and some rocker? Once water comes into contact with the bridgedeck, the shape of that surface becomes just as important as the underbody shape of a sailing dinghy.

While the Manta would porbably not be the best choice for rounding Cape Horn, it is nevertheless an excellent cruising boat for those with more modest passage ambitions. In spite of the relatively low bridgedeck clearance, it is still a good cruising boat due to not only its under-bridgedeck profile, but also because they were solidly constructed (and I, for one, am unaware of any that have ever suffered damage from pounding); they have a well-protected and well layed-out cockpit; they have a sizeable galley with good storage and reasonable bracing in a seaway, they have an easy to use rig (including self-tacking jib on a camber spar), decent accomodation, and decent performance.

While they may not be the choice for those who intend to round the Horn or sail into 'harm's way', they make an excellent choice for sailors like Colemj who, based upon his various posts on this site, is anything but ignorant.

Brad