Payload for Small Boat Cruising?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"It" is what? I can't see the videos as I am on board without high speed internet.

Waterline length is a bitch -- a rude law of physics.

Except for boats that can go to semi-planing or planing speeds
Also you can have a big waterline length and be slower then a smaller boat, if the bigger one has more difficulty in reaching hull speed.

This year on the passage between Cythera to Crete on my 41ft I won more than half an hour to a brand new Jeanneau 57. I went out of port about 30 minutes later, catch them (and I could see that they were trying hard not to be outsailed by a smaller boat) and arrived to the same cove about 10 to 15 minutes earlier. It was mostly upwind sailing in about 7/9K winds. The Jeanneau 57 is not a slow boat neither an heavy boat. Now imagine how much I would have won to one of those 30 year's old medium or high displacement old designs!!!! Probably it would not even be capable of sailing with those winds, or if able, it would be really slow.

Yes, I know what that is, I mean slow internet on the boat

Have a look at my blog, I made a post about the Mojito 888:

Interesting Sailboats: MOJITO 888, VOILE MAGAZINE BOAT OF THE YEAR 2015

idbmarine, the shipyard of the MALANGO, located in Tregunc, near Concarneau in South Finistere - Brittany

[clockwork orange]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Hey hey hey us stubborn Americans don't need to convert to metric. We like our imperial measurements right where the are Besides we have learned that the rest of the world eventually bends to us as long as you have enough money.

Every foreign country I've traveled to (which isn't a ton but enough) has plenty of people that speak English and can cater to my needs. Air traffic all over the word is regulated in English, every time I've "needed" to spend money in a foreign land people miraculously started to speak English and the few places I've run into where no one speaks English are always (well almost always) willing to play charades with you to figure out what you want as long as money is involved. Offer someone money to give you directions and the language barrier gets much smaller.

Yep, even in America we bow to the English and speak their language

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

(...)

Total Costal 1578
Total Passage 2024

(...)
​Comments - especially from those of you actually cruising on small boats?

In our 26'er that displaces 7300 pounds light:

Passage:

Water 440
Diesel 90 (includes oils, coolants, etc. spare liquids)
Propane 40 (includes bottle weight)
Chain 200
Rode 25
Anchors 85
Tools 35
Spare Parts 25 (includes materials)
Clothing 65
Food 200
Extra sails & Rope 50
Books and stuff 30
dinghy 60 (no outboard, we row)
Misc 100 (pans, bedding, electronics, music instruments, etc)

Total: +/- 1500. Roughly 20% of light displacement.

Our boat is a double ended long keel design with deep bilge. Canoe body is relatively shallow.

Our boat has one sailing mode only: offshore.

I believe we are sailing at close to max acceptable payload for this type of hull.

Cheers,
b.

[Benz]

"Ben,
Can you tell us what exactly you didn't like about the E36 at sea and why you wouldn't "go to sea on a boat like that again"? There is no argument that some LD boats are not very sturdy, but builders like Ericson, Cal, and Pearson built very respectable boats for the money and sail very well. And, with a few upgrades and modifications, can become very respectable "sea" boats as their prolific adventures attest. The E30 Evans mentioned is a beautiful boat that sails well and has good storage for extended time at sea. It was built to sail, not sit in a crowded anchorage with old salts telling tales. When we bought our P 34-2, I was also looking at Ericsons and Cals in the 30-32 foot range. I know I would have been happy with any of them but the Pearson, although slightly longer, was the one that sang the loudest."

Sure. What I didn't like about the E36 at sea was the motion and the handling. I've done that same trip (California to Cabo San Lucas) three times, the two others being in full-keeled HD boats. Funny, for all three, 31' 36' and 44', our average speed remained around a sturdy five knots, but the one that logged the fastest day was the smallest. The Ericson, though, got bounced around a lot more, to where in an anchorage (not a great one), the owners were getting seasick and had to go outside and gulp air. But it also did not track in big waves very well (lots of helming), and in a sudden puff it would develop immediate and powerful weather helm, so that we went from getting put on her beam ends to an accidental tack to beam ends on the other side to accidental tack again within the space of a minute, while no one could get at the sheets for being tossed about so. I admit that this was likelier due to poor seamanship than anything else, but I feel safer on a boat that is more forgiving of such lapses in the wet and dark. I don't say it's necessarily dangerous to put to sea in boats with spade rudders and tiny keels, but I am certainly not a good enough seaman to do so. I have, also, a horror of wheel steering with cables; of triangular-shaped mainsails; of roller furling; of inboard engines--so my thoughts ought not to be taken as those of the regular yachting crowd.
Ben

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

(...)

What I was trying to figure was where in the 1000-5000lbs (which various people had mentioned to me as the "necessary") range was practical. 5000lbs will simply not work on any 30'er except a channel cutter type, while 1000lbs would be ideal for the pogo types.

IMHO

A typical offshore displacement will be anything between a S&S30 and a Southern Cross 31. Say things between 9000 and 13500 pounds, give or take

Let's keep Pogos out of the image for a moment.

We know (I hope) that lighter boats tend to genarally accept less (%) payload than boats with more designed-in displacement.

Some sources claim 20 to 25% is still OK.

20% @ 9k = 1800 pounds of payload
25% @13.5 = 3380 pounds of payload.

Hence, I believe, 2k to 3k pounds of payload can be seen as a rough "average" we would expect to see in and "average" 30'er.

Now Pogo.

Displacement light 6000 pounds; and if she is to remain a Pogo, you will be sailing her at way less than 20% payload. At 15% (yes, I know, an overkill) this will result in anything below 1000 pounds of payload.

But we know a Pogo will sail twice as fast off the wind as a Southern Cross. Her passages off the wind will then be 50% less time = 50% less water and food. Water is a huge factor.

So, back to your post, I think the upper figure there is not safe. But I know it happens. The lower figure seems to be fine for any 30'er, even the ULDB one.

It tells heaps about us how much stuff we tend to drag along. This carries thru from our mentality into our material possessions. Good news is there are displacements for (nearly) everybody and the ocean is still large enough.

Cheers,
b.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

BTW, someone asked up thread my motive . . . . It is two fold:

(...)

something much smaller. I would prefer it be at the modern/faster end of the spectrum, as I think I would be bored quite quickly with a channel cutter. But I would like to be able to bop out to Bermuda and Newfoundland and perhaps the Azores if I wanted to. So the personal question is whether something like an erickson 30 is the most fun/interesting thing that will fit this purpose or whether I could use one of the more modern more interesting pogo or presto type style boats. Ability to carry a 'Seaman like" payload is a significant factor in that decision.

(...)

The racing community has already basically gone thru this, moving down from "big boats" to melges 32/24 and j70 sort of boats. And because people ask for my opinion ocasionally, I would like to be better educated and informed on small boat cruising, and payload discussion seemed to be one way to approach that educational task.

Well.

As you swap the boats, you can reduce the load in many ways. And you will want to reduce it, if you want the smaller performer to perform. Otherwise you will be more unhappy in the lighter boat, lighter boats do not like getting loaded.

Andy Urbanczyk sailed an Ericson (30?), I think he did a rtw in one.

How you can reduce the load:

- modern plastic clothing is way lighter than older natural stuff, think Gore, Lifa, forget wool and rubber,
- a watermaker weighs less than tanks full of water,
- a well sailing boat needs less engine (hp, pounds, gall) than a sailing tub,
- alloy pans weigh a fraction of SS pressure cookers,
- plastic LPG tanks are less than half weight of the steel ones,
- a tablet is lighter than a laptop,
- a tablet is lighter than 100 books,
- solar panels are lighter than generators,
- stronger simpler hardware needs less tools and repair materials,
- modern anchors and rode will weigh less than Luke and G30 chain,
- smaller dinghy needs no outboard, it weighs less too,
- a vegetarian may weigh less than a carnivore,
- etc.

You can rent a shed and keep the non-essentials there while you cruise. This works fine if you have some sort of 'home base' port in mind.

Your options are countless and you can save heaps (50% perhaps) in payload. It is all in your choices. Everybody can, only few will.

(...)

Now the racing society. Yes, Optis & J24 but also AC72 and VOR and VG and proto Minis ... I think we see more small racers around because now more people are racing. The top end is as expensive and elitarian as it ever was.

Cheers,
b.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

(...) nothing beats a large mono, which is the only way to make a decent number of miles a day while carrying your whole household with you, including a decent inventory of spares and materials (not in your budget), a decent tender (ditto), decent food reserves (ditto), and the myriad other things needed for normal human life in semi-autonomous circumstances.

Meanwhile, a small mono will:
- anchor closer inshore and row ashore, cancelling need for a heavy rode and a heavy dinghy,
- buy their food ashore, cancelling need for excessive food reserves (and for fridge and for freezer and the associated genset ...)
- be lighter and simpler, requiring fewer and lighter spares and tools,
- etc.

Absolutely not to contradict your point, which I find 100% valid for big boats.

Still, as you go on to a smaller boat, many of the "needs" are no longer there.

There are very few cruising grounds today where we have to be semi-autonomous. Most everywhere you get there is food, water and diesel. There is no need to carry around what is locally available.

After all, the "need" is not an objective material object but only an idea created by the mind. One of those filthy communist philosophers said that our material circumstances create our consciousness. Bang on.

Cheers,
b.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

After all, the "need" is not an objective material object but only an idea created by the mind. One of those filthy communist philosophers said that our material circumstances create our consciousness. Bang on.

Cheers,
b.

Thanks a lot for all that . . . . very helpful.

As to the final quote it is a struggle to determine where the line is between "materialism as a state of mind" vs "seamanship requires some amount of stuff". I am sure (and have argued elsewhere) that that line is way toward less stuff than most think/accept, but I do believe there is an absolute boundary (not primarily driven by the ballpark sort of % boat displacement calculations) there somewhere and to find it was part of my purpose here.

[Matt Johnson]

Evans,

Hawk was already the most minimalist 47' sailboat I've seen in years...I think you'll do fine in an ultralight. But, you'll have to get a normal sized new gen anchor instead of the quadruple sizing you needed with your ancient Bruce

Matt

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

you'll have to get a normal sized new gen anchor instead of the quadruple sizing you needed with your ancient Bruce

I wondered when someone would mention anchors

It's actually an interesting question when trying to go extra light, because as has been pointed out various times in the anchor threads, most of the 'new gen' anchors don't actually downsize their recommendations. I suspect two fortress may be the solution given the intended mission for this concept. But saying that . . . . I do remember a tri I helped up in Newfoundland, which I ended up just tying behind Hawk because his fortresses were not 'good enough' (long fetch, uneven bottom composition). I am not sure what the answer is, but I actually doubt there is all that much weight leverage in the anchor design - more in the chain length.

Regarding weight on Hawk - an interesting question, with more weight leverage, for another thread is how best to minimize/optimize my tools and parts (spare bolts and stuff). On Hawk I have just carry everything, which means I can fix pretty much everything self-reliant/independently, but that's too much weight for this smaller boat concept. Where to draw that line is difficult to figure - do I only bring a leatherman and some chewing gum

[rognvald]

"our material circumstances create our consciousness."
Barnakiel


You don't need to be a "filthy Commie" to understand this gem. Quote of the day! Good luck and good sailing.

[Sailingcouple13]

How much will this beer slow us down?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Matt Johnson]

...even the ultralights come with a fridge standard nowadays!

Tools have been by-far our heaviest category too. We even pulled one of our three water tanks to allow more storage and weight (installed a watermaker to make up for the lost capacity). I've found a few tools are necessary, but most we carry are just to loan in an anchorage to others. If you're looking at a newer boat like a Pogo (you should get an RM instead , the amount of trouble and tools needed drop quite a bit. A set of wrenches, a few screwdrivers, a drill and tap set, saw and some fiberglass are all you'll need to limp home. I think your quoted tool weight seems fair for a newer/simple boat like you're looking at.

[Matt Johnson]

I don't think either of us would sleep well with only a Fortress as our primary. A 25lb Rocna would work with 50' g70 1/4" and Octoplait... I liked the Samson Super Double Braid nylon better.

Don't anchor in front of me with only a Fortress out!

[Polux]

The Fortress is a fantastic anchor but I would not be very confident in situations of changing winds. On those situations the Fortress comes out and set again, or if you are very unlucky, it is possible that will not set and drag.

I would prefer for an overall light anchor an aluminium Spade. It is more difficult to set than a steel Spade (due to less weight), but once set it remains there, no matter the wind rotating.

I consider the Fortress a great anchor and I have one but I use it as a spare anchor, for a back anchor or as a safety implement in situations of very strong wind where two anchors can be eventually necessary.