Payload for Small Boat Cruising?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Dyneema rigging is interesting - weight saving and good DIY, but after my various testing I am not sure how I feel about it - I had a dyneema innerstay but I replaced it back with wire for my trip this summer. There was too much 'dyneema surface fuzz' developing for me to be real comfortable with it in a storm, and its something I did not want to worry about at all.

Originally Posted by funjohnson

Ha! I installed Dyneema for my solent stay as suggested by YOU!!! but replaced with wire for our crossing for the same reason

Matt

Hum you two are confusing me

I have a removable stay mainly for a storm sail. I used it sometimes for a jib but found out the the Dynema stretches a lot under heavy loads and it is difficult, even with a device to have it tight, to maintain the sail with the proper shape. Using that as shrouds seems not a good idea to me due to the difficulty of having them correctly tuned.

It seems to me that there is a reason for no builder using them while they use for instance carbon shrouds. It would be much cheaper and easy to use Dynema and the weight savings would be similar.

[Matt Johnson]

I'm would feel fine with synthetic rigging for anything but sail carrying. Even with soft hanks on our 75% jib, I was getting a enough fuzz on our solent to keep me awake at night. I'm sure the lost strength was minimal, but I keep imagining it sawing through when we really need it for the storm jib. Luckily, the geometry is just right that I can store the removable wire solent without it hitting the mast and making noise.... no reason to use Dyneema for us now.

Are you using Dynex for the removable inner, or plan dyneema? We had stretch issues and a lot of sag when we tried using Amsteel blue, but when I switched to Dynex, the sag was gone.

We also use dyneema (Amsteel Blue) for our lifelines. Now that the honeymoon is over, I think I'll go back to steel on our aluminum boat. I really like the firmness of grabbing a steel lifeline over a soft rope.

Matt

[barnakiel]

We saw a Neel last winter. How much payload can these take?

Their amas seem more buoyant than in a racing tri.

Ooops.

Freshly googled, for a Neel 45 tri:

- light 6.5T (metric)
- full load 9.0T (metric)

That's heaps, gentlemen, that's heaps! No?

Sure, 45 not small, I know.

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

..
Are you using Dynex for the removable inner, or plan dyneema? We had stretch issues and a lot of sag when we tried using Amsteel blue, but when I switched to Dynex, the sag was gone.

We also use dyneema (Amsteel Blue) for our lifelines. Now that the honeymoon is over, I think I'll go back to steel on our aluminum boat. I really like the firmness of grabbing a steel lifeline over a soft rope.

Matt

Don't really understand the question about Dynex. Dynex is just a brand of ropes. It surely look like the ones they have on their catalog but i don't know the brand because it come with the boat when I bought it. There are several quality manufacturers making it (and different qualities) but anyway dynema will stretch about the double of steel wire and even more if we consider rod (that's what I have in my boat). Stretch is of paramount importance in a rigging (mast) and that's why dynema is not the best material for it and probably not also for life lines.

I have steel lifelines but use fixed dynema lines for the jack lines. They are white, the color of the deck, thin and are almost unnoticed...unless you need them.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

We saw a Neel last winter. How much payload can these take?

Their amas seem more buoyant than in a racing tri.

Ooops.

Freshly googled, for a Neel 45 tri:

- light 6.5T (metric)
- full load 9.0T (metric)

That's heaps, gentlemen, that's heaps! No?

Sure, 45 not small, I know.

b.

One thing that many don't know is that normally the carrying ability of a cat is much bigger than in a mono (in terms of percentage of the weight of the vessel). That's because on a mono the extra weigh increases max RM but decrease reserve stability and AVS, while on a cat only increases stability since they don't have practically no reserve stability neither AVS.

Off course that weight will have a dramatic impact on the cat's sailing performance but not on its seaworthiness, contrary to what would happen on a monohull.

[Island Time O25]

I had a bunch of rechargeable elect. stuff such drills, saws, sanders, etc. Was always a hassle to keep them charged as they tended to die out at inconveninet moments. As per advice of a more creative boater went out and looked for similar items at yards sales and flea markets making sure the models had the batteries putting out exactly 12v. Usually as their batteries are shod you can get a pretty decent item for $5-10 or even less. Then I throw away the old battery and wire the thing directly to a 12v plug on a short wire. I was going to attach a long cord for each appliance but figured out a short one for each is better and just to use a decent length 12v extention cord as I would not be using more than one appliance at a time. Now instead of the weight of 5-6 reachargeable batteries I have one 8ft extention cord which is more than enough as my 12v outlets are all over the boat and in the cockpit as well. So now my boxful of those things weighs about 5-10lbs instead of 5 times as much. And with enough solars I never have to worry about running the engine to recharge my boat batteries.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Polux

... Off course that weight will have a dramatic impact on the cat's sailing performance but not on its seaworthiness, contrary to what would happen on a monohull.

Having sailed cats all my life, this statement is not altogether true, particularly if taken too far. Depends on the boat, of course.

• Slamming increases. This can dramatically impact weatherliness. Serious on boats with low bridge decks.
• Bows can be pressed under more easily. More of an issue on performance designs.
• Capsize potential can actually increase; boat is less inclined to slide, and reserve buoyancy reduced. Low volume floats and extreme weather. Not the Chesapeake Bay.

If a sailor is going to overload, he is not a good multi or light mono candidate, IMHO.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Polux

One thing that many don't know is that normally the carrying ability of a cat is much bigger than in a mono (in terms of percentage of the weight of the vessel). That's because on a mono the extra weigh increases max RM but decrease reserve stability and AVS, while on a cat only increases stability since they don't have practically no reserve stability neither AVS.

Off course that weight will have a dramatic impact on the cat's sailing performance but not on its seaworthiness, contrary to what would happen on a monohull.

I worry if a cat is overloaded not about performance, but about strength... the bridgedeck holds a car together, stresses are high at the interface to the hulls, leveraged weight can get real high.
Cats carry weight great. I unloaded my 47 mono from one dock and put everything on my 42 cat across the dock. The Mono came up 5" in the water, they cat maybe went down about 1.25"!

[rognvald]

Would it be unfair to say that most respondents have given little thought to "doing without" vs. "how can I take it along by saving weight?" The transition from big boat to small boat will only be made successfully by those who adopt a small boat mentality of sailing safely, yet simply. It has nothing to do with prior sailing experience but everything to do with a commitment to a simpler, more spartan lifestyle on the water. It has been my personal observation that most cannot do it since it entails giving up items they believe/feel are indispensible. And, if that is the case, you will never be happy on a small boat. Buy an older, larger boat and, as before, take it all. We once met a German couple in the central Berry Islands that sailed a 23 foot home built sailboat across the North Atlantic. He was an artist and she was a surgeon. They had been sailing for years together with a sound boat and a sound relationship. Their vessel was simple, yet well found and certainly proven. The doctor, in order to finance their adventure, occasionally returned to Germany to replenish their cruising kitty. What she missed most when she left the boat was the simplicity of life they shared on their simple little boat. Some music, books, adequate provisions and spares and they sailed on en route to the Pacific. Payload for a small boat crusing? It has more to do with the people than it has to do with the boat. Good luck and good sailing.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Having sailed cats all my life, this statement is not altogether true, particularly if taken too far. Depends on the boat, of course.
"Off course that weight will have a dramatic impact on the cat's sailing performance but not on its seaworthiness, contrary to what would happen on a monohull."

• Slamming increases. This can dramatically impact weatherliness. Serious on boats with low bridge decks.
• Bows can be pressed under more easily. More of an issue on performance designs.
• Capsize potential can actually increase; boat is less inclined to slide, and reserve buoyancy reduced. Low volume floats and extreme weather. Not the Chesapeake Bay.

If a sailor is going to overload, he is not a good multi or light mono candidate, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Cheechako

I worry if a cat is overloaded not about performance, but about strength... the bridgedeck holds a car together, stresses are high at the interface to the hulls, leveraged weight can get real high.
Cats carry weight great. I unloaded my 47 mono from one dock and put everything on my 42 cat across the dock. The Mono came up 5" in the water, they cat maybe went down about 1.25"!

It seems you two thought that what I said meant that a multihull would be more seaworthy loaded in a way that brings it close to sinking

That's the boat designer that establishes on a monohull or multihull the max safe load that a given boat can carry. My comment regards a previous post regarding a Neel 45 trimaran (a relatively light and fast boat) that has a max load that corresponds to about 38% of its weight. The correspondent percentage on a light fast monohull is about 20% or less, about half the percentage on a multihull. The weight that I was talking about regards the difference in load ability (about 2x) between a monohull and a multihull.

That was about the reasons that lay behind that very significant difference that I was talking about, not saying that there are no limits for a load on a multihull. The idea is so absurd that I did not thought that someone would give that meaning to my words.

[Matt Johnson]

In Chris White's book, The Cruising Multihull, he suggest that 30% of the "all-up" displacement for a multihull is the general number for designed payload. He also says "For a rule of thumb, a very weight-continence couple going off for a spell of extended cruising will need to allow about 1,500 pounds for personal gear, food and water"

Matt

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Polux

It seems you two thought that what I said meant that a multihull would be more seaworthy loaded in a way that brings it close to sinking

That's the boat designer that establishes on a monohull or multihull the max safe load that a given boat can carry. My comment regards a previous post regarding a Neel 45 trimaran (a relatively light and fast boat) that has a max load that corresponds to about 38% of its weight. The correspondent percentage on a light fast monohull is about 20% or less, about half the percentage on a multihull. The weight that I was talking about regards the difference in load ability (about 2x) between a monohull and a multihull.

That was about the reasons that lay behind that very significant difference that I was talking about, not saying that there are no limits for a load on a multihull. The idea is so absurd that I did not thought that someone would give that meaning to my words.

actually I was more or less agreeing with your weight carrying comment.... with an additional caveat if the structure was up to carrying the weight in dynamic conditions vs just sitting in the water.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

actually I was more or less agreeing with your weight carrying comment.... with an additional caveat if the structure was up to carrying the weight in dynamic conditions vs just sitting in the water.

Sorry about that

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

-30% of the "all-up" displacement for a multihull is the general number for designed payload.
-"For a rule of thumb, a very weight-continence couple going off for a spell of extended cruising will need to allow about 1,500 pounds for personal gear, food and water"

So a 5000lb minimum 'all up displacement', if I understand those two points together?

For the F36, Ferrier has a 5500lb empty weight, and a 9400lb 'loaded displacement', so a payload of 3900lbs, which is 41% of the loaded displacement.

The Corsair 31 has a dry/empty weight of 3850lbs, so with a payload of 1650lbs, just meets 30% of loaded displacement rule of thumb. so would seem to be the minimum platform. Which nicely does conform to general empirical experience - always nice when that happens.

I will note that several people have successfully gone across oceans (both the Atlantic and the pacific) on essentially 'beach cats', but I don't think you can call that "cruising".

[Polux]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...
I will note that several people have successfully gone across oceans (both the Atlantic and the pacific) on essentially 'beach cats', but I don't think you can call that "cruising".

And one beach cat narrowly missed a circumnavigation but a Corsair 27? circumnavigated, I remember seeing the boat in Dusseldorf boat show some years ago. As you say, that obviously don't mean that a beach cat or a Corsair 27 is an adequated boat to circumnavigate or even to cross the Atlantic, no matter the load.

There is a crazy guy that is doing right now a circumnavigation on a 22ft monohull boat designed for sheltered waters (category C). If by any chance he succeeds that would not made the boat more appropriated for it. It just will tell us that the guy was very lucky